primary reason they choose it over attack -- tap water. it costs up to 1900 times more than tap water, using up to two dozen times more energy. over the past several years, a lot of water has been recalled due to contamination by arsenic, cleaning compounds, and bacteria. consumers may not realize that many of the regulations apply to municipalities for tap water, and do not apply to facilities for bottled water. i would like to put up a chart outlining some of these differences. for example, municipal suppliers are required to tell consumers within 24 hours if they find dangerous contaminants that exceed federal levels, but this

requirement does not apply to bottled water. certified laboratories must be used for tap waters, but of all water has no similar requirement. and the contamination found, the local contamination, and potential health defects. all water distributors are required to provide a report. instead, they relied on limited information found on labels and in some cases on company websites. . .

>> another company states the clinical tests at hospitals several cities demonstrate improvements in the health of patients in certain disorders mountain valley water. another expense that the words written on its labels permeate the liquid influence in the taste and beneficial properties of water. the company claims that it uses the design of its little to affect the molecular structure of the water. today, the subcommittee will receive two new reports about why the regulations governing bottled water are weaker than those governing tap water as well as widespread public perception that bottled water --

bottled water is healthier than water from the tap. the first report was originally requested by our former colleagues. in this report, federal and state authorities are examined if they are accurate in their claims regarding its health benefits. the second report is by the environmental working group that conducted an 18-month survey and concluded that just two of the 188 companies surveyed provided consumers with information on the source of their water, the manner in which it is treated, and any contaminants present. the subcommittee is sending to a dozen bottled water companies letters requesting information on the source of their water, their treatment methods, and results of their testing for the

past two years. even when water is treated at facilities and then bottled, there may be questions about contaminants such as pharmaceuticals that may be present. the in barman to working group reports an estimated 25% of bottled water brands that relied on tap water are drawing from supplies that collectively contain 260 pollutants. according to the associated press, drugs have been found in water samples across the country. officials in philadelphia discovered several byproducts in treated bottled water. medications were detected in the treated drinking water for 18.5 million people in southern california. drinking water here in washington d.c. and other areas tested positive for a six pharmaceuticals. i have introduced an act which

will provide for proper disposal through drug take back programs so individuals are not flushing their medications down the toilet into water systems. i am the original cosponsor of another fact which passed under this committee last month. it provides the fda which much needed authority to assess testing records of food and water suppliers. i look forward to this hearing and i ask for unanimous consent that the reports issued today and the other documents prepared by staff be entered into the official record. without objection, they will be entered into the record and used throughout the meeting. >> thank you my home state in the second congressional district is home to a number of water bottlers.

these successful businesses are providing much-needed job opportunities that have been hard hit by today's weak economy. today's hearing raises some valid questions regarding the differences in the regulation between the fda and that epa regarding bottled water. i should note that concern with all of the life-threatening priorities facing the fda including numerous food borne illness outbreaks and the swine flu pandemic, this issue seems to me secondary, in terms of the fda's overwhelming workload on other issues. we should put this hearing in context. the two reports point out a few noteworthy findings but do not assess the safety of the bottled

water itself. neither the government accountability of this nor the environmental working group conducted any testing of the bottled water or the bottles themselves while creating -- while completing their report. the regulations do differ for bottled water and then tap water because bottled water is considered a food product. where is tap water is regulated by the environmental protection agency. the fda does require that the standards of quality for bottled water must be no less protective of public health than that epa standard. under regulation, bottler's must follow good manufacturing practices. fda requires more safeguards for water bottlers that other food processors. bottlers must among other things test their source of water once

a week for microbiological contaminants and test finished bottled water weekly for contaminants. some of the water bottlers follow a practice of testing their water every hour in order to meet requirements of the purchases -- of the purchasers of their product. i do have a few questions of the fda. one discretion is in the case of a chemical substance, added to plastics to change their physical characteristics. the fda has yet to establish a standard for this contaminant and bottled water. an fda task force is supposedly examining the information surrounding the chemical, and i want to ask the commissioner when we can expect a ruling from your agency. the question is about recycled bottles themselves.

i have had some tall made that the use of recycled bottles perhaps produces more leeching that comes out of the plastic than first time used. conducting inspections is one way that the fda is insuring that they are following restrictions. i would be curious to know the legislation passed unanimously out of the full committee that expands fda's inspection process. i would like to hear from the deputy commissioner as well on how the agency can prove the inspection process and if you need additional authorities. congress needs to act and we need to know what the agency needs to comply. bottlers do not need to disclose the sources of their water or

detection of contaminants. the question is, should they? mr. chairman, i would conclude by thanking you for this hearing but i would also like to raise the issue that july 8 has come and gone. a number of us have raised questions regarding bottled up science. we expect that epa to respond to our inquiries regarding a doctor and his report that was not allowed to be considered in the endangerment finding process. if that epa is unwilling to respond in a timely manner, i do hope that our request to this committee to have an oversight hearing on what appears to be the bottling up of science and a debate on the whole car been issue will be granted for an opportunity of a hearing and a full investigation. i thank you for your time. >> thank you. ms. blackburn cannot opening

statement, please? >> thank you, mr. chairman. as you have heard, we all are concerned about bottled water, the product that is there, and we are also concerned about tap water. i will submit a written statement. the want to take my time to say that i prefer that we be spending this time to look at other issues that are important to our constituents that the fda and the epa to deal with. there are other issues that we could be looking at. like looking at how you reduce the cost of health care through consumer-driven patient- centered health care. we should be looking at the medicare trust fund. the ballooning cost of medicaid, if we move to a public auction

as we move into health care reform, or the lessons that should have been learned from the test case for hillary clinton health care back in 1994. my state still has this. it is the greatest public health failure in the country. that would be a great opportunity for us to look at what is affecting us in health care. certainly there are more pressing issues. we are appreciative of your time before us today and while we are all concerned about leaching chemicals from plastics that come into bottled water, we are indeed very concerned with what we see as sequestering evidence from epa employees. we are concerned with what we see with health care issues and a lack of willingness to address those in a patient-centered

consumer-driven manner. i yield back my time. >> thank you. we had a hearing a couple of weeks ago on health insurance decisions or company's recent health care for people that already had it. next week is scheduled for the markup bill so i am sure we will have plenty of opportunities to speak on health care. >> thank you, mr. chairman. maybe i should take a second response to your response. isn't it a shame that we have a subcommittee on health and we are to have no markup on what is going to be the greatest change in the delivery of health care in america since the institution of medicare in 1965? certainly the people in congress could never have foreseen what medicare would have become as far as the price

for that federal program in 1965. perhaps we would be in better shape if more care was taken back in 1965. we need to exercise due caution as restructure this major fundamental change to american health care. we also could have had a hearing on medical devices in this subcommittee that i have asked for some time. there are ways we could have made use of this time today, mr. chairman, but here we are. we are going to talk about bottled water this morning, and that is important. normally i have a bottle of water here when i get parched, but now we are stuck with d.c. water. i am a little reluctant to drink what is before us today. a pretty broad definition of food would be one that includes

bottled water. the average american consumer is unlikely to think that the fda would be the primary regulator of bottled water but it is. the responsibility is split between the epa and the federal food and drug administration overseeing the process of taking public water in its natural forms into the environment into a convenient plastic container for the american consumer. it does seem odd to only have the fda here to answer tough questions and not have the epa to answer questions that would fall into their jurisdiction about the standards for municipal water verses bottled water. a ball of water undergoes a

higher threshold of testing. bottled water is currently one of the few standalone industries with its own code of federal regulations regarding could manufacturing processes. -- regarding good manufacturing processes. the state and local government agencies and helping to ensure the safety and sanitation of the water, this industry has existed in a compliance- oriented system rarely if ever producing bad actors. it would seem this industry is an example of the marketplace to create a product that had an unquenchable need for convenient, transportable water. this good idea has been met with significant market success.

more americans drink bottled water than milk or beer combined so if there is any step in this process to deliver this food products or the trust is misallocated, i look forward to having the signs point to a solution. any deficiencies in bottled water and a potential fraud in the process reducing it and other alleged environmental issues and the birds in some transportation cost of moving the product, we will look forward to seeing what is sure to be voluminous prove. i yield back the balance of my time. >> no problem, i did not want you to get parts. on the health subcommittee, you did hold a hearing on medical devices last month. those hearings are being taken. >> the investigatory part of

that [unintelligible] i believe this subcommittee would have an important place to have that. -- would be an important place to have that. there is stuff we could be doing. >> absolutely. this committee has been very active for the last two years. this really dovetails into what we have been doing over the last several years in food safety. certified labs, test results, although that is contained in this hearing. it is not just strictly bottled water and false advertising. we do have these two reports coming out today so we thought it would be appropriate to have the hearing today. very good. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

let me say how much i personally appreciate you so don't take what i have to say to personally. i think it does say something, given the serious issue which you have traditionally tackled along with the ranking member that today's hearing does not rank at the top of that list. it shows when you look on your side how much support there is. they all may be here but they are disguised as empty chairs. >> we started a little bit late because i was on another subcommittee. >> greg and i will take over. [laughter] today's hearing examines several interesting questions

surrounding the differences between bottled water and tap water. these differences arise in regulatory approaches as well as treatment of public perception. several of the witnesses today will discuss and possibly debate ways in which bottled water regulations should be changed and possibly improved. the environmental working group will discuss ways the industry can be more transparent and responsive to consumer inquiries. i do not have a problem with transparency. i am pushing it in the upcoming health care debate. i am certainly pushing transparency at the epa where we have asked them to release the documents concerning their suppression of the epa report within its own agency, debating whether there is an endangerment finding with regards to co2. those of us in the minority are

concerned whether this particular hearing is the best use of our time. we have confronted the issue of swine flu pandemic, the safety of products like tylenol. as i said a minute ago, this hearing does not seem to be up to that standard of excellence. i hope that after this hearing, he will consider supporting getting information about the pp a's suppression of the document regarding the co2 and in danger meant finding. we hope that you will work with us on the automobile dealer closure issue. we await your response and mr. waxman's response.

mr. chairman, we always appreciate when you hold a hearing and we look forward when you move on to more intense issues. >> thank you. one reason why we are having this hearing is maybe we assume because it is in a bottle like this, it is healthy, clean, pure, and assumption that we are you erroneously making. we are doing a hearing to try to get to issues because i do not think we have to wait for an outbreak of disease and bottled water. we can say there is zero risk. there were 23 recalls of bottled water, one every quarter. most of that stemmed from an elevated level of contaminants. for the past six years, the fda released warning letters about

companies violating safety regulations. in 2007, the fda issued a press release against drinking mineral water imported from armenia because the arsenic level was 50 times greater than the federal standard. last month in southern california, we had girls sit at a high school for buying bottled water out of a vending machine. these are problems that the fda has uncovered. i think just because it comes in a bottle, we assume it is healthier for us. that is what most americans assume. we find that is not the case. we have a lot going on here. >> just two points.

water is an ingredient in many other drinks. i guess the question i would have, just because it is clear in those bottles, how is that treated or monitored versus if it is colored and sugared and perhaps carbonated? the somebody check the water that goes into that as well? the second point i would make -- my understanding is that the fbi may be involved in that high school case investigation. >> they are involved but no one has reached a conclusion whether the water was tampered with. >that is a good segue into our first panel. the director of national resources and environmental accountability office.

the principal deputy commissioner at the fda. the senior vice president for research at the environmental working group. the president of the international bottled water association. it is the policy of this subcommittee to take all testimony under oath. you have the right to be advised by counsel under your testimony. do you wish to be represented by counsel? >> no. >> no. >> no. >> please rise and raise your right hand. [inaudible] let the record reflect that the witnesses have replied in the affirmative. you are now under oath. we will now hear five-minute opening statement. you may submit a longer

statement in the record. mr. stephenson, we'll start with you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i am pleased to be here to talk about bottled water. the cap and consumption of bottled water has more than doubled from [unintelligible] in 1997 to 23 -- more than 23 gallons per person in 2007. with this increase comes several questions and concerns over the quality and safety. my testimony is based on the report that will be publicly released. fda safety in consumer protections are less stringent for bottled water than comparable protections for tap water. while standards generally mirrored the standard for nearly all of the 88 contaminants covered by the p a's

regulations, there is one notable exception. -- by the epa cost regulations, there is one notable exception. it has been regulated since 1992 by the fda deferred action on a final rule published in 1996 and has not published a reason for doing so even though the deadline was 15 years ago. since the contaminant is used in food packaging as well as bottled water, this is a broader issue that the fda is still studying. more broadly, we found that the fda does not have the authority to require bottlers to use certified laboratories for water quality tests even if violations of the standards are found. most tests are done by the

bottlers themselves. several states have problems. in addition, while labelling requirements are similar to requirements for other foods, they provide consumers with far less information about the source and quality of water than what the epa requires in public water systems. for example, public water systems must annually provide consumer confidence reports that summarize information about sources, contaminant, and compliance with national regulations as well as information on the potential health effects of certain contaminant. the fda does not require companies to provide similar information. in a study mandated, the fda concluded it was feasible for the bottled water industry to provide the same type of information to consumers must provide. our agency was not required to

act on those findings and has yet to do so. a survey showed that consumers have misconceptions about bottled water, believing it is safer and healthier than tap water. if permission comparable to what public water systems must provide was only available to a small percentage of the labels we examined. we believe that consumers would benefit from better information on the quality and safety of bottled water. in examining the environmental effects, only about 25% of water bottles were recycled. the remaining% are thrown away in landfills. the represents less than 1% of municipal waste. another issue is the amount of

energy used to manufacture and transport bottled water. at the current rate of consumption, it is the equivalent of the energy used by 4.7 million households for a year. we also found that groundwater extraction for bottled water facilities in selected areas, states have passed laws to minimize the impact to wetlands. some of our findings are indicative of the fda's overall problems that led to the designation of being a high risk. in january 2007 and in 2009 when you called for a re-examination of the safety system. we believe the lack of authority and resources to regulate bottled water should be part of that re-examination. that concludes the summary of my statement and that will be happy

to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. we appreciated the report and i especially appreciated that he finished with less than two seconds left. good morning. i am the principal deputy commissioner of the food and drug administration. i want to thank the committee for your work on a wide range of issues and an opportunity to discuss the regulation of bottled water. fda regulates of bottled water while the epa regulates tap water or public drinking water. the epa has regulations on public drinking water include source water protection,

contaminant levels, and reporting requirements. the fda has authority over food and bottled water. under the act, manufacturers are responsible for producing safe, wholesome, and truthfully labeled food products. it is a violation to enter in misbranded products. the fda has established specific regulations for bottled water in the code of regulations, including standard of identity regulations that define different types of bottled water and standard of quality regulations that establish allowable levels of contaminants. the fda has established good manufacturing process regulations of bottled drinking water could labeling and regulations for food in general also apply to bottled water. a federal law requires standards --

the fda has established such standards for more than 90 contaminant and in some cases such as lead or copper, the limits are stricter for bottled water than they are for tap water. another point to make is that the way that the testing is done is different. for example, any test that is height of lead -- that is high in lead is only a percentage of the samples above a certain level does the municipal water supply fell. they are allowed to have certain failures and not have it as a failure for the municipal water supply, illustrating there is a different approach taken. the ft monitor is bottled water products as a part of the general food safety program. inspections happen once every one to three years.

the agency and specs -- inspects more frequently in the case of the additional violations. as for other types of food, the fda periodically collect samples of bottled water. labs may test the water for chemical contamination. in recent years, the fda has promulgated a number of standards. the fda published a final rule to require that manufacturers test source water and finished products for organisms and prohibit the products containing any e.coli indicators of contamination. the fda requires that before a bottler can use source water that tested positive for e.coli,

the bottler must take appropriate measures to eliminate the cause of the problem, and the bottler must keep records of the transaction. the agency is aware of no major outbreaks of illness or serious safety concerns associate with bottled water over the past decade. the report released today-in number of issues that the agency faces in regulating bottled water. let me address some of the issues that the report has raised. while i do believe the oversight has been generally successful, i believe there is room for improvement. the fda has not set a standard for dehp. the issue was not pursued because of a legal issue.

the report found that labeling regulations for bottled water provided for less information about the sources and quality than municipal systems. it would be feasible for manufacturers to provide such information to consumers. however the act does not provide a mechanism to require bottlers to make that information available so congress would have to take additional action. third, the concern that the fda could not require a submission on the results of the tests on bottled water manufacturers. this is a fair point and a part of the oversight of water and food in general that should be strengthened. it would be strengthened. fourth, the fda does not have the authority to mandate the use of certified laboratories. this is also a reasonable point.

the fda does require the use of methods that is at least as sensitive as the methods. i would also mention that the food safety regulation provides for preventive controls that will complement at the a's good practices for bottled water facilities and generally strengthen the system of oversight of bottled water and food. for foreign produce bottled water, the act would require providers to comply with good practices. we will continue to work with this committee on the legislation that we think is very important and i am pleased to be here and look forward to your questions. >> thank you, doctor. >> i and the senior vice president for research in the

environmental working group. we are an organization in washington d.c. thank you for holding this hearing. we are releasing a survey of labels and web sites for 188 bottled waters. here is what we found pad consumers spend 1900 times more for bottled water than tap water but they often have no way to learn the facts about what is actually in the bottled water. only two of 188 bottled waters make public two basic facts. these are the specific name and location of the source, purification method, and chemical pollutants that remain in the water after treatment. bald water companies are not required to make these basic facts public. here is the reason. they enjoyed the regulatory holiday with near complete latitude on what information to share with consumers.

every one of the nation's 52,000 municipal water suppliers produces an annual water quality report giving its results as required under the safe drinking water act. the epa calls this report is centerpiece of the consumer's right to know about water quality. this double standard is unfair to consumers that have a right to know what is in the water they buy. surveys show that over half of drinkers choose it because they are worried about the safety of their tap water paid they do it for -- of their tap water. they do it for their health. where does the water come from? our survey found that 30% of bottled waters provide no information about their source on the label but 37% fully double the name and location of their water source and the remaining 33% give the label of "spring" or "aquifer."

you will see on one level that the source clearly indicated municipal supply, fort worth, texas. you will also see the treatment method on this label -- reverse osmosis. on this label, you will see that the product is pure, crisp, and has a fresh taste but nowhere on this label will define the source of this water. how is bottled water purified? companies are not required to disclose methods they used to purify their water. municipal water suppliers are not required to do this either but most of them do.

44% of bottled waters provide no information on labels. one-third provides no information on labels or on their website. figure two shows a label for a brand that is doing the right thing. the water comes from the houston municipal water supply but is further treated by reverse osmosis, carbon filtration, and other methods. let me read to you what you will see on a fuji label. -- a fiji label. it is one of the 60% that current marketing claims of purity from among those waters that to not label their treatment methods. consumers have no way to know whether their claims are true.

only 18% of bottled waters produced a report. -- an annual report. consumers are left with marketing claims, and these are expensive. poland springs, mountain valley springs, a remedy for diseases, evian claims it is a symbol of health and general well-being. another resonates with the energy and frequency of well- being. when you pay a premium price for bottled water, you deserve more than just claims. labels and websites disclose the same information that the law requires of municipal water utilities. consumers have a right to know where their bottled water comes from, how or if it is treated,

and the pollutants it contains. >> thank you. >> [inaudible] of water is a safe beverage. [inaudible] in addition, the fta has promulgated several standards of identity, including label requirements that identified

standards of bottled water and good manufacturing practices specific to bottled water. [inaudible] the fda has established standards for quality for more than [inaudible] most standards of the same as the maximum contaminant levels for public water systems. [inaudible] if the container of bottled water, it must by law disclosed it on the label. [inaudible] for bottled water product sources, [inaudible]

it is also important to note that the jurisdiction over food and beverages extends to not the products [inaudible] congress has created [inaudible] energy and commerce committee to update the food safety laws. the requirement for all food

manufacturers to conduct a hazard analysis and establish and maintain preventive controls which all members already do as a condition of membership, and granting the fda of 30 to mandate a recall under the circumstances that a food product -- will support a consumer's right to clear and accurate information about the bottled water products that they purchase. all packaged food and water products must provide a great deal of product quality information. virtually all products including -- include a phone number that consumers can use to contact the company. we petitioned the fda in 2001 to require all labels to include a phone number on the label. we believe that the most feasible way to -- for consumers to obtain information is a request to the bottler. consumers can also go to our

website for contact information or water quality information for all member brands. consumers have many options when it comes to choosing a bottled water brand to drink. it is not the case with tap water. consumers cannot choose which public water system is in their homes, and that is the fundamental issue. unfortunately many people want to make this out to be a of bottled water versus tap water issue. the people are drinking water, that is a good thing, and consumers should be free to choose. we support investments to produce the public water system in order to maintain the highest quality of water for all citizens. with the increase of obesity and heart disease rates in the united states, any actions that would discourage consumers to drink more water would not be in

the public interest. the bottled water industry cannot exist only for disaster response. the vast majority of companies in the united states are primarily family owned and operated small businesses that depend on a viable market to provide the resources necessary to respond in emergency situations. 90% of our members have gross sales of less than $10 million a year. bottled water is a safe and healthy food product that is regulated at the federal and state level. thank you for considering our views. >> we will start with questions, and thank you all for your comments. is it true that 80% of the water

bottlers are a part of your organization? about 80%? >> i would say we probably represent 75% of the actual facilities. >> is coca-cola part of yours? >> dasani is not a part of the organization. >> how about nestle? >> yes. >> are those the largest? >> two of those are, yes. >> your standards that attract many of the things we recommended in the report, those are voluntary standards that you try to have your members comply with? >> we have always tried to have the highest possible safety standards, so we have a mandatory requirement for our standards. if they do not need them, they

cannot be a member. >> do you do anything with advertising? >> no, that is a case by case situation. we don't do anything in that regard. >> ok, so like one of the company's advertising -- you do not condone any of that? >> the association does not deal with advertising issues. >> the company went on to say it consulted with, and i use the word consulted with because that is what was stated by a doctor on the website. the molecular structure of water was changed by zen buddhist monk

thought. they used the design on its labels to affect the molecular structure of water to make it more refreshing and wholesome. is there any water studies that a zen monk can change the molecular structure of water per >> i can't speak to that. i cannot comment on the information what they have on their labels. >> to you think those should be a part of the labeling of bottled water? >the zen buddhist monks thoughts that can change the structure of water per >> i would be highly skeptical. >> we have seen that these are

just like fantastico claims. of a legal proof -- are as a legal? >> in general, misbranding pertains to whether people are claiming to treat disease. that is the big one. that is where we put our priorities. >> so poland springs, a man that had a miraculous recovery -- >> the one historical fable, but the other one that you said it used in clinical studies, that one, i think we would like to see. that strikes me as pretty worth evaluating. i think that would definitely fall under something that we would want to look closely at.

>> how about one that claims they played music and sounds that charged the water with special frequencies? would that be miss advertising? >> i am not a musician, but i would still express skepticism. we have the misbranding -- the misbranding provision is really about things that we focus on that will posed a public health threat. -- that will pose a public health threat. >> we may want to put that chart back up on the board there. the two reports talk about the regulations. you mentioned it a little bit in yours, too.

bottlers do not have to alert the public about discoveries of dangerous contaminant. they do not have to use certified laboratories. take dasani. i grabbed it with me when i was reading my testimony. their claims are not too outrageous. it is enhanced with minerals for a taste that cannot be beat. it says bottled by ccda waters, pennsylvania. underneath it, c.t., 992, then

nv0354, certificate 173. c.t. -- would that be conn? that does not say anything about sources. you do not know really where this bottle came from? >> i could not decipher that for you. >> can you help on that? >> i cannot say for sure because i am not familiar with that brand, but it may be that those states require the water to be registered in the state. >> so you would have to figure it out. you would have to figure out where it came from, nevada, new york, pa., or conn.

the consumer has no way of knowing. this is one of the big bottlers. >> i think that is what that is referring to. >> just like any food product regulated by the fda, if dangerous contaminants are in the bottled water, it is considered adulterated by the fda. it violates the law if sold by consumers. >> people can go to jail if they do it. >> if we are worried about some of these claims on the label, isn't that under the jurisdiction of the federal trade commission on false advertising and labeling? >> i will have to get back to you. i think we do have a certain jurisdiction there. i am not sure about the ftc. >> it is something we ought to

look at. it would be helpful if they were here today and that epa was here today, and maybe coca-cola since we are singling them out. >> in just a couple of months, the fda is going to -- when that happens, we are anticipating september, companies will have to notify the fda if there is a product that is released that could pose a serious risk to public health. some of the gap will be filled by that. we really think the passage of the legislation will be needed to close the gap. >> mr. chairman, has that been scheduled for a house consideration yet? >> not yet. we are still working on the final touches. >> in your testimony, dr., you

discussed new testing requirements for bottled water to include testing source water and established a zero tolerance for e.coli. did that epa do this? >> give me a second. i have some information on that right here. >> i think you made the case that you have zero tolerance for lead in bottled water, but the epa allows a certain -- >> i think this illustrates the point, and little difference in the systems. public water systems are required to collect monthly samples throughout their distribution systems. if they are positive, they must be tested for e.coli. if a system is collecting more than 40 samples a month, that

more than 5% are positive, that triggers a violation. if it is less than 40 samples, one positive sample triggers a violation. for the fda, bottled water, if there is any violation, that kicks in. for a municipal water, a certain number has to be positive to trigger a violation. cracks are they more stringent -- of a more stringent under your regulations or the epa? >> they are just different. >> in the district of columbia, we all went many years drinking the tap water believing it to be saved only to discover that they did not fully disclose the amount of lead coming into the pipes. i am not sure if you ran into that in baltimore when you were

the health commissioner bud from what i recall you advocated that it would be safer for people to drink bottled water. >> not in baltimore. >> for public-school children? >> that is right. i advised a school superintendent to turn all love the drinking fountains because of the problems they were having. >> and to go to bottled water. >> yes. we found out it would be cheaper also. . .

>> of want to know that of water is safe when i drink it. i am not sure i will chase down what spring it came out of or well, as long as i know is say. how many inquiries do get through your association of people who want to know the ingredients? when i take water out of my place here, there is no label on the tack that tells me all the stuff. i would not know where to go in the washington, d.c system to find out, and as long as it is safe, i do not care. how many people are rushing to you and saying i demand to know where this water came from? >> the association has hardly gotten any comments or questions from consumers. i have talked to some of art members reject some of our

members and we get very few requests. >> they should provide them with the information. they want testing results are source integration, whatever they ask for, in our opinion, that is what they should provide. that is our bottom line. if a consumer has a question, we believe the have the right to have that information. the real issue is how to best provide that information. that is the distinction here, these are two different systems. of water is a packaged food products and a very different distribution system than tap water. there are necessarily some differences in the way you might want to provide the information, and as far as the overall safety is concerned, they both have to be saved. they are just different ways that you get to that goal. >> in a soft drink bottle, i do not think they disclose where

the liquids come from. they put water in a cold beverage, right? isn't that the no. 1 in reading, is water in these beverages we all drink? the last time -- the number one ingredient. it is not required to be on the label, is it? so you are being singled out. >> right, bottled water is a food product. rex is a: a food product? >> it is a food product, and it is not subject to the food practices specifically for bottled water. >> is there less oversight on our soda drinks? >> i would not use the word oversight, but i would say there is definitely more regulations on bottled water. >> i am just talking about soft

drinks. there is less oversight in terms of food safety. >> there are -- someone will tell me if i am getting is wrong. i understand that bottled water has a whole set of regulations that are just for bottled water that relates to the fact -- >> regulations that do not exist for soft drinks. >> can i also said that one difference between bottle of water and so is also that people choose bottled water because they think it is healthier and safer in a lot of cases, and that is not the reason they are choosing colors. >> whether they choose and are not, the question i thought you were getting at is, consumers have the right to know the source of the ingredients in the bottle, the labeling and all that. i may think a soda product is better than bottled water.

>> water is very different from other kinds of food products. it makes that more than half of our body, and we are advised to drink it. >> because it helps remove toxins and things. >> people are choosing bottled water because there is a perception that is safer and healthier than tap water. i think that is why it is singled out over other foods because of the special place it holds in people's minds. also because it is almost 2000 times more expensive than tap water. >> how much more expensive is a soda over tap water? >> may be a similar amount, but people are making tough choices because of their budgets. >> i wanted to miss christiansen for questions. >> i just want to go over that contaminant disclosure issue again. according to new reports released today, consumers have

access to more information about contaminants in tap water than they do about contaminants in bottle water. under current law, municipal water authorities have to notify the public within 24 hours when they detect contaminants such as e. coli above prescribed levels in tap water system, is that right customer cracks that is correct. >> and they'd have to send that notice over broadcast media and warnings posted conspicuous locations? >> yes, there are specific occurrence on how you have to report those pre >> if a bottled water -- found a level dangerous to human help, they do not have to tell the fda or the epa or the public? >> some states require it, but not the fda. >> generally, no?

>> generally, they did not. >> there also required to issue annual consumer confidence reports to disclose any contamination, potential health effects of the contamination, and information about susceptibility to future contamination, correct? >> yes. >> but bottle water companies are not required to make similar disclosures to the public. >> that is true. we currently do not have the authority to make that requirement. >> this is a striking disparity in the information available to consumers. we learn about dangerous contaminants in our tap water, but we may never learn about the dangerous contaminants in of water. the deal said he supported a required to have a bottle water companies disclose test results showing contamination of other federal levels?

-- did you say you supported a requirement? is it enough to have the companies -- i have the same question with the food. is it enough to have the companies report their lab reports, or should they be certified labs, and should the labs be required to tell the at the age when a positive result is found -- to tell the fda when a positive result is down? >> that is a very important question. the certified labs, and whether the labs should be required to report. for certified labs, if they would like to have authority, we think it is important for a particular product. because of the broad authority that this new legislation that has been moving through the house would give, we would be able to do that. the question of requiring last

report to the fda is a little more complex, because there are so many tests that are done. >> just the positive ones. >> the concern that is expressed there is whether or not it inhibits private-sector from testing at all. if they have a good testing program in place, where they are identifying and keeping things out of the system, should they be reporting every single positive? which one should be reported? it is a little more complex, because you could be -- not just water but all the different foods and test, you do not want to inhibit companies that are doing their own testing. we don't want to miss the forest for the trees, in terms of all the information coming to us. that question is more complex and issue that we would look at it in a particular industry.

>> earlier this year, the subcommittee held to oversight hearings on salmonella poisoning in piat products that caused multiple deaths and illnesses. we learn that the pia corp. of america received positive test results and was not required to disclose them. the fda did not have access to those results and could not access them until invoking a by a terrorism law. although the municipal water authorities are required to disclose result, the fda cannot require bottle water companies to disclose there's. if a bottled water company tested the water and fines dangerous levels of the coli, it is not required to disclose those results to the public? as far as i understand, that is the case. we found a lot of body water

brands that are posting -- bottled water trendsetter posting for reports on line, and we think 100% of companies should be doing that, and letting people know right away about contamination issues. >> even though i made reference to the peanut butter, i am not in any way suggesting that the water issues are similar, but one important lesson we learned is that sometimes this reptile companies have warning signs long before major problems arise because the systems are faulty. federal or state officials had access to that data, they might be able to flag small problems before they become big ones. your organization represents 75% of the bottled water industry. do you support a requirement that bottled water companies make a test records available to the fda during routine inspections?

>> we do. >> i am out of time right now. i will just hold for a second. >> mr. burgess, for questions? >> i apologize for being on during part of your testimony earlier. can anyone tell me, bottled water has a certain standard, what about our cola drinks? are those bottles held to the same standards as bottled water? >> cola drinks are considered food, and there are food manufacturing practices they are held to. they are not held to the bottled water, which are in addition to the general manufacturing good manufacturing practices. >> there is no way the products

could lead to of the plastic into a liquid days, whether it be water or cola drinks? >> i think the point that is there is from a food safety perspective, water has a whole additional set of regulations compared to cola. it really depends on, compared to what? when you compare bottled water to coal, and has a whole different set of regulations. if you compare it to municipal water, there are certain standards that apply to municipal water. from a food safety perspective, there is a whole additional set of regulations. >> what about the water that is manufactured and sold with caffeine added to the water? this that fall under a foodstuff

or is that a water? >> that is not a water. i am pretty sure it is not a water. it depends. people may be attempting to mark -- market them as dietary supplements and other things. that is a whole separate discussion, but i do not think it is considered a watery put extra caffeine in it. >> it underscores the complexity of the process you have to deal with. let me ask the gao on the report that two people to inspect water industry, and four years ago the fda change the risk assessment from low risk to high-risk for bottled water. how many inspectors should be required, if you are not enough, what is our limit?

-- if two are not enough. we will be doing the bill this afternoon that will have funding for the food and drug administration ended. had we know we have got the right number of inspectors so we can know we have the right appropriation attached to the fda? >> that is a good question. we do not have a precise number just for this segment of fda's overall responsibility. we have set a high risk area that the resources are inadequate to do the job right now. we have pointed out from a broader standpoint that to say the spread over a number of different agencies. of those agencies, fda seems to get the smallest proportion of the budget, yet it has 80% of the responsibility. i do not know if two, four, six are right. we are just dating a fact that that is how many are currently dedicated to inspecting bottled water facilities.

>> and that does not seem to be a sufficient number? >> it does not seem to be sufficient, given the number of bottled water facilities. >> you also know that three- quarters of the water bottles produced in the u.s. in the year 2006 were recycled. do we know about the rates of recycled for other beverages? >> i think it is probably similar for all plastic bottles. bottled water is a growing share of the market, and there are more bottles dedicated to water percentage wise. glaxo numerically -- >> it is less than 1% of what goes into a landfill. nevertheless, they never decompose, and they stay there forever. recycling is a good idea in general. >> i would agree with that. in the gao report it states that the fda currently assigns to

people, and yet four years ago the change the risk assessment from low to high risk. again, i would ask the question, how many inspectors should now be assigned to oversee the federal regulations as relates to bottle water? >> i am not sure that is right that we changed it to high risk. in general, compared to other foods, we consider bottled water on the lower risk side. there are two issues, one is the frequency of inspections and the other is all the things that go with the inspections. one key thing is knowing who is making bottle water. we have a hard time really understanding that, because by law, people can register on paper. everyone is thrown in together. we do not have a very good idea exactly who is making it.

that is the first step to have a solid system. then we would like the ability to require prevented plans and all the key, basic steps there. the new put inspections as part of that strategy, but just thinking of inspections alone, it is probably still going to leave some opportunities. we would like the parts of a lot giving us access to records, giving fda the right to return choir preventive plans, certified labs, and other things like that to surround it. >> it is not fair to ask you this, but i will do it anyway. we are going to vote on the agriculture appropriations bill today or tomorrow. it is the number we have in the bill for that food and drug administration -- we have the right number there? >> it is a historic increase.

there is no question the administration responded very strongly to the gao finding us to be a high-risk. if we get that combined with additional authority, we will be able to strengthen the system considerably. >> for the record, the beautiful campus that they occupy is actually part of the gsa budget, so none of your food safety dollars for going to build that lovely campus which we are also proud of. i will yield back. >> if we do testing and have to report their positive results, after a while if you can see a continued positive results for e coli from a plant, would that not indicate you have a problem and you have to increase inspections? like that peanut butter one with the salmonella, no one received

a report and no one at the fda ever knew what was going on there. >> i agree with you. the fda has to respond to problems very aggressively and has to be able to follow up with manufacturers that are not meeting standards, and if necessary, shut them down. in recent weeks we have taken action against some firms. rex but you would not know unless you receive positive results. somewhere, someone has to receive the results and look at them. >> it could be that we get a complaint and we investigated. it could be testing that the fda does. we can find out, we can have someone call us and say there is a problem with this company, and that leads us to investigate. it is important to really follow up until the problem is to resolve. >> how about for the bottlers that use municipal water as their source? would it make sense to require them to post a link to the

required epa testing results, because they have to do it once a year. 25% of the bottlers use tap water. why don't we just require them to post the website? >> i can totally understand why that would make sense and why consumers might be interested in that. the thing for fda is, the standard we have of putting something on the label is that it would have to be misleading without it. we use that to say that something has to be there or is misleading without it. that is a hard thing to file that in that category. that is not to say we would not support it, but whether we could do it under misleading authority, we think that is questionable and my require a district -- a different look from congress.

if we were to do it, what standard would we have to meet, that it is misleading without it? we do not require it for other types of foods. would it really be misleading consumers not to have that? that is a hard standard to reach. >> on page 22 of your report, you refer to a poll that 56% of bottled water drinkers site safety and health as the primary reason they sought an alternative to tap water. is it fair to say that the number one reason people buy bottled water is because they think it is safer and healthier than tap water? >> there is that poll and several other studies that have concluded that, although convenience is the top reason as well. >> what bothers me is the perception that bald water is healthier than tap water. in many instances, bottled water is nothing more than tap water.

the natural resources defense council -- sometimes it is treated and sometimes not. i think he cited in your report, is that accurate that 25% of all water is just tap water in a bottle? >> those are the numbers that are publicly available, and it is a big question as to whether it is even more than that. in so many cases, we just don't have the information on what the source actually is. we found that almost one-third of all of the waters have no information on the label. >> if they take tap water and do something like reverse osmosis on it, they did not have to declare it is tap water. >> any treatment that is suitable, allows the bottled water manufacturer not to use that label and just call it a

purified water, without giving people on what the treatment process is actually work. >> i got this on the airplane yesterday. does coca-cola use municipal water for its dasani water? >> you cannot tell from the label. >> what about pepsi? they use aquafina. >> we have that in one of the examples, if you can pull that up. on the label, it is labeled as from and municipal supply. it does not name the municipal supply, which is what some of the other bottled waters are choosing to do. >> do we know if they do any further treatment of its? would it have to be on there? >> it does not have to be label

at all. we found 44% of all labels do not provide any information on it. >> would they have to put on their whether they further treated it, or just put down municipal source? >> the issue here is one we may be a misunderstanding. purified bottled water is not just tap water in a bottle. when the water comes in from the municipal source, it goes through reverse osmosis. it goes through uv light, and under sanitary conditions is placed in the bottles. those purified waters must meet the u.s. former copious standard for purified or sterile water. if it does not, that label must disclose on that bottle that comes from a municipal source. in that case, that water,

because it does not list being from a municipal source, meets the u.s. pharmacopia standard. the water is quite different once it gets in that bottle than when it started out. that is the distinction here. >> let's go back to dasani. it says and carbonated, crisp, fresh taste, filtered through a state of the art purification system and hence with minerals for a pure, fresh taste that cannot be beat. if you go on the other side of the label, it says purified water, magnesium sulfate, potassium chloride, sodium.

s a negligible amount of sodium. minerals added for taste, purified by reverse osmosis. to get that clean, crisp taste, are the chemicals they are adding magnesium sulfate, potassium chloride, and salt, or is it other chemicals? >> it is sometimes done -- the water comes in from a municipal source and is purified with reverse osmosis and other treatments, and then minerals are added back for taste. i cannot speak to that specific label, but in general, that is often what happens. >> are those chemicals are minerals? >> i believe that our minerals

added for taste. that is why they disclose it on the label, to meet the labeling requirements. they are making sure they are in forming those who buy it that this is a purified water with minerals added back. it added other things into the water, would they have to disclose that -- if they added other things? >> i believe they would. it then is a question of the standard of identity for the bottled water. >> so there are already rules that say that? >> there will say exactly what you must do if you want to say you are a purified water or spring water. yet something else to the water, for liebling purposes, and this is where fda did for labeling purposes -- in that case, fda would make sure you are saying this is purified water with minerals added back.

>> do your folks know if that is correct? >> the question is what you are allowed to put back in? >> that which you put back in, do you have to disclose it on the label? >> yes, it is required. >> if i am a bottler of water, and i go through reverse osmosis and you feel all that and at things back in, have to put that on the label? >> that is my understanding. >> i want to ask about that dehp issue. you state the fda has decided to

move forward on making the decision on dehp. >> if i hear anything about bottle water, it is about this new discussion about what is in the plastic. >> this is where it gets a little bit confusing. basically, in the mid-1990s when this was originally done, the reason it was deferred is because it had been marketed prior to 1958 and had a special grandfather like provision as a food additive. it was thought that it was in the plastic, and therefore this provision of the law conflicted with another provision of the law. our understanding has changed since that time. we do not believe it is being used in water bottles right now. as a result of that, the concern that existed, the legal conflict

that was of concern in the mid- 1990s is not a concern now, and we can move forward in assessing whether or not there is a reason -- there has to be an affirmative reason not to have the same standard as municipal water. our resumption would be that we will move or if you move forward with the same standard. i think it may not apply anymore, and we can move forward. >> i want to get to the heart of the matter for the people represent. you are telling me that the plastic and the cap do not have the ehb. >> in our communications with the industry, we did not believe this is regularly used.

>> is mike understanding that none of the plastic containers used for bottled water contained dehp at all. none of the bottled water containers used any dehp. >> however, for purposes of parity, several years ago there required in 1999 -- we have a standard in our model code that is exactly the same as the eight -- as the epa. none of the plastic containers containing dehp. >> premier knowledge, does that apply -- from your knowledge, does that apply to the pepsi bottle and other bottles used for sodas? >> they are using pet, or the three primary use is for all

beverage products, there is no dehp. rex is their no. it you use for dehp, like this one has a number one on it. there is usually a symbol. is there a symbol that if you use dehp anaplastic? >> i will have to get back to you on it. >> the food contact notification sent show at least 100 different kinds of plastic additives they could leach into the water. >> a just wanted to get to another point, because we are so focused on bottled water, and where the water comes from and all that. if i buy orange juice in a carton that is made from concentrate, what percent of that is water? it has to be a huge percent, right, because we are adding

water and then the concentrate. if the issue here is the quality of the water and the source of the water, going into what we consume, it seems to me we are kind of myopic. we are just looking at of water because someone does not like bottle water or present it has a higher threshold about purity. i would suggest that a lot of us drink orange juice thinking that is better than bottled water. i think 90% of what i am getting in the carton of orange juice, unless it is fresh squeezed, is probably water. from the fda standpoint, do you look at the water that goes into that? but that is part of what makes food safe is the water. >> that is the same thing applied to the bottled water, right?

>> as i was saying before, a lot of this is compared -- if you compare it bottled water to other foods that contain water, there are additional regulations that apply. compared to municipal water, there is more disclosure. it is just to point of comparison. >> where is that disclosure? at least there's something on this label. in hood river, we have a spring, but i do not get a notice from our tap. what it runs through to come out of my tab is scary. that is why i put a filter on the end and refill for it with another deal and all of that. i am done. >> you do not get notice every year? we get a letter bomb seriously.

-- we get a letter. >> the sooner notice tells me that when it rains they inflate these things to keep -- that is another issue. >> we do not want their releasing untreated sewage in our waters. >> in your report, the surveys were done in the 50 states and the district of columbia. any reason why the territories are not included? >> no particular reason, just the methodology we chose. >> but they are not generally excluded? >> a limited amount time and resources dictated 50 states and the district of columbia.

>> in your testimony, he said that fda has brought authority for food that is introduced into interstate commerce. if it is just within a state or territory, fda does not have any jurisdiction, or do you work with the state's and the territories? >> that is a pretty broad statement, because if the bottle comes from outside the state or the cap comes from outside the state, it counts as interstate, and there's a presumption that it would be interstate. in theory, there might be products that could be challenged, although i am not aware that we have heard about a problem that had not been able to get to directly or through the states.

>> we have talked about whether bottle water is safer or help year, and there is disagreement on that. there is no disagreement on the fact that bottle of water uses more energy to produce and deliver. on page 26 of the report, there is an amazing statistic or you refer to a study by the pacific institute that examines how much energy it takes to bring bald water from different locations throughout the world to l.a.. -- to bring bottled water. it is estimated the total energy required to bring a typical 1 liter bottle of water weighing 38 grams to a consumer in los angeles would range from 1100 tet 2000 times the energy cost of producing tap water. if i drink a single bottle of bottled water, which i may not ever drink again, i could be using up to 2000 times more

energy than by just walk over to my sink and filled up? >> that is true. the imported bottled water accounts for a small percentage, but that is true. >> that is really astonishing. the studies cited in the report also described how transporting these bottles can be disinvest it will cost. transportation energy costs can be as high as 67% of the total energy costs for spring water and brands transported overseas or by rail from the eastern united states to los angeles. you concluded that most plastic water bottles or discarded rather than recycled beer >> we estimate 25% or recycle, so 75% are discarded. >> what the consumers pay so much for bottled water that

takes thousands of times more energy to produce? >> we heard some of the marketing claims used by the industry. a lot of people are under a misperception that bottled water must be safer than tap water. a lot people believe it is free of contaminants. by law, it is not required to be any safer than tap water. when we tested 10 major brands, we found 38 different pollutants, everything from disinfection byproducts to radioactive isotopes, to even traces of tylenol and fertilizer residues. one thing we need in a bottle of water industry is the information on consumers -- for consumers on where the water comes from and how it is treated. >> is important for the information to be there, so the people can make and knowledgeable judgment. if we were going to use them, isn't there a better way, going

into the landfill? this ball of water is -- is bottled water is bottled in virginia and transported just a few miles to the capital. it is biodegradable. how many of the companies are using biodegradable bottles? >> i am not sure, but i will say that as a general statement, bottled water companies like other food industry companies are trying to do whatever they can to reduce their internal footprint. obviously going to bottle such as those are one way of doing it. we have made significant efforts to light weight the bottle water containers. these days they are much lighter weight, which uses less, -- uses much less plastic. bottle water is trying to do what it can to reduce the

environmental footprint. it is important to recognize that bottle of water is just one of thousands of food products on the market in plastic. in fact, we are only one-third of 1% of the entire waste stream of the united states. in the effort to reduce the internal impact has to focus more broadly on all consumer goods. >> thank you for your answers. >> just to follow up, it has been a 15 years in the making. you are now prepared to issue a ruling in september. do understand that correctly, the fda is prepared to go ahead

with a ruling now? >> the question is whether we set a standard for bottled water. our intent is to proceed with setting a standard for bottled water. it is just a matter of preparing the standard and getting it going. come across some reason why does not apply to bottled water, we are permitted to make the statement that it does not apply to bottled water. it is not obvious to us that it is such a compelling reason, so we anticipate going forward and setting a standard. at that point, it is as long as it takes to do. there is a 100 a day standard in the law. fda needs to set a standard at least 180 days before so it can take effect at the same time as the epa standard. with this one where they waited so long, that is out the window and does not really apply. we would just like to do it in a

reasonable timeframe. >> at this point, any previous as to what that standard may be? >> it would be the same standard that epa has. that would be the assumption. just like he had done for almost all the other contaminants, it is the same standard for the epa. i would anticipate that it would be the same, because that is what the law sets up. if there was something unique, but at this point there is apparently not. >> at the issue of the high risk-low risk, who apparently there was a ruling issued in 2005 on risk assessment. with your permission, we will make it available to the community for its consideration of adding to the record. a rhetorical question about recycling, and this is for anyone on the panel, about

compounds leaching out of the plastic in greater amounts in recycled materials than in native materials. is that a real concern for us to have? will there be different standards for the recycled bottles, or should there be different standards? do consumers need to be aware of any difference between a recycled while a first run bottle? >> we looked at fda reviews of additives in plastic and found that there are over 100 different compounds that could lead to of plastic. the question you raised is a very important question. not only to recycle bottles need to be more closely inspected and tested with regard to that, but also new bottles, what is coming out of the plastic? that testing is not required now. >> is there another secondary

use for the recycled plastic water bottle other than recreating and other plastic water bottle? can they be used in building materials or is there any of use for these bottles? but that is a fabulous question. we are creative enough in this country to come up with other uses that do not involve direct contact with water. >> i do not know anything specifically about the issue you just raised, but i know the fda has to clear all food contact packaging materials. if fda clears the, then the manufacturers are able to use it. there has to be a standard of safety, whether recycled or not recycled. there has to be a standard of safety. that is what the fda enforces, and understanding in light of

new evidence that comes out about particular substances and the concerns people have. that is the fda pose a job, to weigh that. at the end of the day, there has to be the standard of safety. >> where are we with the issue of recycling? should consumers be concerned about buying bottled water in a recycled product? are you testing these products currently, or are there any available? >> we test the water, it could be from the recycle bottles or not. i am not aware of any special concerns for recycled plastic, but if there are concerned, people should share them with the agency. >> i do not know enough to know whether these recycled materials are then broken down and reconstituted, or do we simply wash of the bottle and put a new cap on it to wash up

the bottle and put a new cap on it? are we going to see more of these products on our shelves and in our stores? >> your illustrating what the job is so challenging. products change, and the fda has to be up on them. they have to enforce the same basic safety standards. >> the new gao report, you talked about the consumer confidence reports. in 1996, congress directed the fda to assess the feasibility of providing bottled water with the functional equivalent of a consumer confidence report. on august 25, 2000, the fda concluded it would be feasible to provide consumers with some of the information contained in the consumer confidence report directly on the bottle label and

access the remaining information through an address or phone number. is that correct? is there any reason why anyone in your organization would object to that? >> as i think was reported in the study, they did say it was feasible. they did not exactly set what was feasible to put on the label. they were skeptical of putting some of the contaminants on the label because it would just clutter the label. as i said before, the bottom line for us is that consumers ought to be able to get information. we think that a telephone number to call the company and request that information is the best way to do it. almost all bottled waters currently have a phone number so that the consumer can call the company and ask for the information. if the information is not sent, i would say to go and find another product to buy.

we have petitioned the fda to require phone numbers for all bottled water as a way of putting the consumers in touch with the companies beer >> there needs to be specificity in what will be required. when we were checking levels and web sites, it was difficult to get the kind of information we wanted. >> some information should be on it and there should be at least a phone number to back it up. that includes all our questioning. i want to thank you all for coming in for your testimony. rules provide that members have 10 days to submit additional questions for the record. the meeting of the subcommittee is adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> at 8:00 eastern, we will be live with the opening of the netroots nation conference tonight in pittsburgh. >> three days of peace, love, and music. four years ago this weekend, and half million people gathered for would stop. saturday, michael lang takes us behind the scenes at 9:00 p.m. eastern on book tv. radio talk-show executive brian jennings on the new fairness doctrine, why it is a bad idea, and alternatives to censorship. he is interviewed by monica crowley on after words, part of c-span 2's book tv weekend. now, senator chuck grassley

hosts a town hall meeting to discuss proposed health care legislation. during this meeting which took place wednesday, the senator takes questions from constituents on health care and other issues. lawmakers across the country or holding similar meetings this month. from the united methodist church, this is an hour and 10 minutes. [applause] >> will you stand up here with meat and when people raised their hand for questions you can call on them. -- stand up withme. -- stand up here with me. this gentleman is going to ask the first question. i will make a few remarks before he asks the first question, but then he is going to stand up here, because i do not want anybody to think i want to avoid

taking questions from anybody. there will be three times as many people raise their hands as we will have time to answer questions. so if you get mad because you do not due to question asked, it mad at him, did not get mad at me. [laughter] >> that proposition was made only if i got to ask the first question. >> the other thing is, i want to thank the methodist church for opening up their facility for us. [applause] i have been in the city hall before, and it was big enough, but there are issues now that many people are interested in. we want to accommodate as many people as we can.

the last time i was near the pulpit of a methodist church, except as a person sitting in the pews, i used to get a lot of invitations to speak in churches on sunday for the sermon. i suppose they wanted to find out if a person in politics could be a believer in jesus christ. i always used to speak about second corinthians 5:17 on being ambassadors for jesus christ, on being saved to three jesus christ, how it takes the responsibility of spreading the word about jesus christ and those sorts of things. but i have not been asked to do that lately, so maybe i am not much of a preacher. prior to 10 years ago, but -- i bet i did it six or seven times a year.

we are here in the first place, because you know my policy of getting every county, every year, to have a town meeting. you are the 2844th town meeting i have had since i have been in the united states senate. [applause] i have two more scheduled, and i have been in 71 before today, so some of the things i have been doing on health care reform are reflected in what i have learned from iowans over the past few months that have held a 71 town meetings. also, we are here with such a large crowd because people fear for america. [applause] i believe is a culmination of things that the health care

issue has brought to a head, nationalization of factories, banks, things of that nature, debts that are tripling over the next 10 years if we stay on the course we are on. people are concerned about the future of the country. i never thought this would have voted on all these issues in january and february and back in the time when i voted against the stimulus bill and the bailout and the appropriation bill, and the four trillion dollars budget that was adopted that will triple the national debt, but i would be -- 08 to beat holding these town meetings if i had voted that way. before you ask the first question, i would just like to say a little bit -- first of

all, we will take questions on any subject. this does not have to be health care. if you want to bring up other things, bring them up, because i will let you set the agenda. we are having these large turnout because of the health- care issue. there has been a lot of concern expressed about what my views might be and what i am doing in washington, whether i am listening to the people of iowa and those sort of things. first of all, i express to you that i think we have the best healthcare system in the world. it does not mean is perfect. -- it does not mean it is perfect. there are things that could be improved. some people have a hard time getting health insurance, and it is awful expensive, and a lot of other things you can say. my goal, the principles i go by,

and i will not express all the principals in the opening here, but some of them will be expressed in response to your questions or my listening to your comments. i am not going to do anything that is going to nationalize health care in america. [applause] i do not intend to do anything that will allow government bureaucrats to get between you and your doctor. [applause] i am very concerned that we do not do the things that lead to rationing, like what happens in other companies were the government runs things. i am particularly concerned about government as they did in

england putting a dollar amount on life, so that the older you are, the less health care you might get as opposed to somebody younger. i think that every life has value, and i think that we want to make sure that if you like the health insurance that you have, you ought to be able to keep it. i do not want a government-run plan, because i think that is a step in the direction of a canadian-style health care system, based on studies that have been done that people will be crowded out and premiums will go up.

saying you have the government running everything. i believe that is something we can legitimately fear. they'd need -- they use the word that we need competition. i see government not as a competitor but as a predator. from that standpoint, we have to be careful about taking that first step. i am telling you that i am not for that, but i hope most of view -- i have been on television so much this year that you have heard me say that before, so you do not think time pandering to you to say it now. i know you are what all working hard to pay taxes and doing what you have to do to support your family and you probably do not watch as much television as i

think you do. so i want to state that again for you. . . i am a person that believes you are going to be on top of things

if you are in the room and said oxide the room. you have to realize that we study this in government. we have a checks and balance system of government. the congress checks the president. the present checks the congress. one party ought to be making the other party responsible. otherwise they are not doing their job. that is more true in the senate than the house because you have to have the super majority to get anything done. it gives minority some rights. the republican minority is not a very big minority. the democrats have 60 votes that they can do anything they want to do. there are a lot of democrats that have some questions about some of the other democrats want. sometimes by working together you can bring some sensibility to it. if you cannot, you just say what

is not write about it and fight it that way. it seems to me that there is nothing wrong with talking -- and maybe one thing i do not have to worry about. you heard the president on his town meeting yesterday. he was hinting that he is about ready to ask his people to go ahead with a strict bipartisan bill anyway. if that is what he wants to do, he can do that. i am not walking away from the table. i am being pushed away from the table. i figured that you paid me to do your job. these a the principles that i use -- these are the principles that i use when we talk and make a firm agreement. maybe cannot.

the way i do things, there is no agreement until you have a total agreement. that is where we are. i think i am ready to take your first question. i am interrupting you. [laughter] you are going to see me taking notes here. it does not mean i'm not paying attention. if i do not write something down, by the way, if anybody wants to hold me up i have enough wire -- look at all these. i could be a terrorist in baghdad. [laughter] i'm going to take notes on every issue that comes up. >> this is not directed at you personally. you can fix the health care crisis by doing one of two things, eliminate the 11 page 31100 page document that congress will not read or

understand and get everybody in this room the same health care plan that covers congress. [applause] it that is not agreeable, then we will like everyone in congress or all elected officials to be under the same health care plan that we are. if congress cannot do that, you are at the you root of the problem that is distressed, lack of integrity and do what is best that america. do not tell us what is right for our health care plans.

>> my goal was not to have a government plan. this is the first step toward canadian-style government-run health care. if there would be plan, i think congress should be a part of it. it is not based because i am here to look good to you, but i need to give you background where i did something similar 13 years ago. it took five or six years to get it done. congress has passed several laws affecting u.s. business people and employers.

there were and safety laws, management laws. congress exempted themselves from every one of those. i thought, how can i represent the small businesses you are able to take care of themselves. how the represents small business if i do not have to abide by the law and i have a work area that you call an office. ocea never came to my office. we had two sets of laws, one for the rest the country and one for capitol hill. i got what is called the government accountability act passed in 1995 so that all those laws applied to congress and the same principle ought to apply to what you are asking about.

>> i have a question about cap and trade. it you have expressed -- you have expressed the will probably not be voting for cap and trade. are you willing to support that? are you willing to strengthen other standards independent of cap and trade? >> i know the cap and trade. i knew the renewable portfolio standard issued. what is your question? >> if it was independent of cap and trade? >> the answer is renewable portfolio standards would say as a matter of policy.

a certain amount of electricity from renewable sources like wind comics cetera. the answer is it i would support it at a 15% rate. someone -- some people want 20%. i support 15%. the further it out it is like 25% or 20% is more astute. i have voted twice in the past four years for that. i am for a renewable portfolio plan. does that enter your question? -- answer your question? >> i have more of a statement. when 9/11 happened, i was terrified but i'm more terrified now. i thought my government was going to protection. now i'm afraid my government.

banks are taken over. now a i reading now i feel our health care is taken over and we are moving -- now i feel our health care system is taken over and we are moving toward socialism. >> i can listen to more people. how can you and the other conservatives control them? >> what can conservatives in congress do about the things that she fears and she has mentioned, a trend toward socialized medicine that she

used examples of general motors and banks and things of that nature. what can we do? we are in the minority. it makes it very difficult. sometimes people think it is not going exactly right. that is assuming republicans are sticking together. it seems to me we have two responsibilities. one come to see if we can change programs that are way far out so that they are getting bipartisan support and changing them. if he cannot do that or even if

they are changed not enough, then you have to expose what they are and you do that through debate and you do it through your no vote. if you are going to be irresponsible minority, then you have to have today a response walleye more -- if you are going to be a response to a minority, you have to have something to say. i alluded to the president that he alluded that he wants to go to his own way. then we are in a position to think the things that we think can improve our health care system. there are conservative senators as i can work with in regard to that. the chances of getting it adopted a probably not very

good unless turnouts like this changes the mind of members of the majority party. eventually, every two years to have an election and an opportunity to express your views and there are significant times when the elections and make consequences. we are finding that out right now. you can study history and find out that people change their mind from time to time. >> i've heard 40 million uninsured people. 10 million of that is another i have heard. that includes illegal immigrants. that is 30 million. that is only 10%.

but will have to answer of a problem, why do we fix that 10% as some of overhauling -- if we only have 10% of a problem, why do not we fix that 10% and some of overhauling the entire system? >> i think to make a good point. -- you make a good point. it is based on the proposition that more things ought to be done. one of those principles is to make sure that people that do not have insurance have insurance. you are zeroing in on those. depending upon what these town meetings mean to different congressman that if a comprehensive program does not go through or cannot get through, then you will find some incremental changes along the lines of what you are suggesting, more a day rifle

shot approach as opposed to a shotgun approach. i'll tell you why people in congress are already concerned about it. there are others that have come to the conclusion that maybe some of the things of your being proposed and not good. i had one senator that i will not name him i did not expect him to say that. >> who was that? >> i will not give you his name. i think a private conversation should be kept private. he said to me as we were going to vote, he said we need to slow things down. he is not in the negotiation. we need to slow things down. he said we need to do things more incrementally.

that would be, you did not use those words, that is what i would say. in other words, dealing with one problem here as opposed to 100 problems is what you are asking us to do. >> yes. >> what can you do to get the government out of our lives and let this use our god-given abilities and talents to make things better for everyone?

>> outguesses to vote for new programs. that will not satisfy you. there are a lot of things out there that you like to have revealed. i have found it easier to stop -- to cause problems for not getting larger and not establishing new problems and i found it to do with older programs. being a person wants to limit government, i found the best way to do it was through the taxing policy. if you limit the money coming into the federal treasury, you will limit what can be spent to some extent. you are still having overspending. i do not by the principal that

an increase the dollar of taxes is a dollar reduction in expenditures -- in the deficit. a dollar increase in taxes does not result in a dollar decrease in deficits. what it results in is probably a $15 - a $20 more being spent -- a $15 cents to dollar and 20 cents being spent. i think this is the best way to do it. that is part of the because i sit on the committee that has jurisdiction over taxes. my principle is to keep taxes where they have been on the 40 or 50 year average. i do not have charts to show you. this will be easier to explain with charts. whether we have a high marginal tax rates like we had in 1993 --

in 1983 or the lower 6% when reagan was president, but did this president has his way it'll go to 39.6%. i could show you that on the 40 year average, about 15%-18% of gross national product comes through the government for 535 members deciding how to spend it. in the year 2000, when that gets to 22%, i am chairman of the senate finance committee. we have the biggest tax cut in the history of the country, the 2001 tax bill. we are back down into that range of 17%-19%. i think that is the best way to keep government from being

interested. i would like to thank you for your integrity. and for sticking to the principles of the constitution and the bible. i would like to have you know that you are in our thoughts and prayers. i think this country really needs it. i see a parallel between what happened in the early 30's in germany and what is trying to be done by the leadership of this country now. step by step, there is overtaking of the freedoms and the choices and the privileges of this country. we have the health care reform bill, the water bill, one that

limits the freedom of speech by the broadcasters. we have the cap and trade bill. one is being run by the house. white house and said the country. this is outrageous. my question is, in this green water bill act, is the word in navigable water being changed to water so that the federal government will have to go over all water in the united states? >> the answer is yes. i think any to go into this if you let me just a little bit deeper. this is a complicated issue. by the way, i am against that bill. she said she prays for people in government regularly. i pray for president obama every day.

we have a responsibility to pay for people in government. all you have to do is read second timothy 2:1-2 and it tells everyone of us that believe in christ that we need to pray for people in government. i told the president at lunch one time i prayed for him. let's go back to this issue. in 1972, there was a court decision that restricted -- that gave the army corps of engineers almost control over any job on what he -- water that fell any place. in 1970, i was in the house and the changes but not very well. not enough to protect private property. thank god in the last 10 years, we've had two or three supreme

court decisions that have restricted the army corps of engineers to what is termed "navigable waters." navigable is a legal term that says event oceangoing ship warship a certain size -- or a ship of certain size can go up the river, that is army corps of engineers controlled. people that want to control your private property, want to take the word unnavigable out. -- navigable out. yet the pedal of water and bureaucrats can come in and regulate it. -- you have a puddle of water and bureaucrats can come in and regulate it. that was a problem i had with judge sodic my door. i think she made some decisions

-- said judge sonia sotomayor . i think she made some decisions that did not show some respect for private property. that was one of the reasons why i voted against her. [applause] can you come a little closer, please? if you cannot, i will come closer to you. maybe you should hold it for her so she can read. >> obama says people will have a choice and they can keep the insurance they have, but it was mentioned that on page 16 of this bill that it does not give that choice. i am confused. this is under the grandfather health insurance coverage.

the individual's health insurance issuer offer such coverage and does not enroll any individual in such coverage. it is the first effective date of coverage on or after the first day of y1. what is y1? >> y1 would be the first year the bill would take effect. >> insurance companies cannot take on new people after that time? >> i have said the part of that bill. i am not sure i can comment on that. i can answer your question where i am coming from. i think it means what you fear, but i do not know for sure and maybe if my staff wants to chime in on this. but me see what i can answer without my staff helping me.

what the president said during the campaign is in danger, not because he has changed his mind, because people in congress have a different thing that they want to accomplish. it goes to this public option thing. that is only part of it. that is an important part of it, because you heard me say before -- they say 120 million people will opt out for the government- run plan. then you have 170 -- any have about 50 million left. premiums will go up. pretty soon other people drop out. it makes the president's promise actually unworkable. if you are going to have a government-run plan that people

get into. the other one which is in the house bill that you are talking about that, this may be part of what you are reading from, i do not know for sure, in the house bill there was a law passed in 1974 that gives companies that are self insured exemption from state mandates because they operated across the nation and internationally. they are exempt. in the house bill does away with that exemption in five years, which i read -- but i do not want to be taken word for word, because i have not studied it. i'm not a lawyer. john deere, after five years, would not have his plan. that is the way i read it or any other company that is operating under this.

those two things lead me to believe that under -- after a certain time, you are not want people to keep your health insurance if you like it. if i do not hear from my staff, i'm going to want to the next question. if i am wrong -- >> [unintelligible] >> that is the bill. i'm going to vote against that. i'm not in favor of that. go where i can hear you. >> we have not yet heard of the senate bill being place. will that come to pass, first

question? second, what are you looking at for out of pocket caps, a lifetime caps, coming with the bills under been presented to us? >> i can answer that. before our committee, we are still talking. we may not reach an agreement. we are talking about not having any cap at this point. the other bill is the senate kennedy-dodd bill. i'm not sure i can tell you exactly what the duke. if you are asking me what to do not know. they voted out the committee, but they do not want to print it did they do not want you reading between now and labor day. it is not scored either. the congressional budget office has not given them the score.

we think there subterfuge there. if you find out in my cost, it would double the size of this trip. >> my health care cost on a monthly basis over $900,000. my out-of-pocket job requires me to have a part-time job to put food on the table. we are looking at out of pocket caps so we can afford to deal with members of society. >> i think our policy is in the neighborhood of 13%-15%. again, i want to make clear. we are talking and there is no

bill right now. i have been a practicing pediatrician for 55 feet -- 55 years. >> what do you hold for him? he is to talk with his hands and he moved it away. >> i am the lone survivor. i was under blue shield for 10 years. every single blue cross and blue shield was nonprofit. we ran an operation with 15 doctors and 15 highly skilled business people. the director was paid $75,000. $93 of every penny paid in [no audio]

now there is not one single blue cross blue shield organization that is not profit. some of these companies like walmart -- -- welmark [unintelligible] the president got an extra $8 million bonus. the hedda aetna -- the head of aetna his salary is $60 million. a couple of others i have written down and i cannot find red cell. they are making so much money and we are spending twice as much per person than any other civilized country with health insurance. to the best of what figures i see -- if it jumps right out of my mind -- we are ranked 12th in

hair care o -- health care in mortality rates and and in general we rank 12th, not first. it is great for people who have health insurance. there are 45 million people who do not. something has to be done about insurance companies and their rates and their profits. [applause] i had to move to texas . there are hospital delivered 300 babies a month. if they have medicaid they were fine. if they had insurance they were fine. but we have our monthly pediatric meeting, there was always about 35 people who came into the emergency room in labor, never having seen a

doctor. in this country, i think that is just ludicrous. i'm sort of a libertarian. i think it is hard to legislate morality. they tried to do that with alcohol and it was a total failure. even now, alcohol causes more problems than all other drugs the together -- drugs or all legal into 1923. after which they became illegal and now there is a murder and robbery and all kinds of gang wars. drugs are cheape if they were made illegal. harcourt would have 50% less cases. -- our courts would have 50% less cases. all the money could be used to

rehabilitate the people who did over use the drugs. my last statement is afghanistan is a total -- we have tried for tenure to do something with it. -- 10-year to do something with it. [unintelligible] i have a lot of that in a letter that i will pass on. [applause] he di>> he did not have the question, but it did prompt me to use the word medicaid. medicaid is a state and federal program. it is completely government run. it pays so little that we have got just a massive number of

doctors that will not take medicaid patients. we are getting in that boat in the inner cities or rural america with medicare. it ought to give you some judgment about how much more you want the government to get involved in medicare. with medicaid, -- medicare, not medicaid -- one factor about money not being spent wisely in the united states is the statistic that, and you can get this from an annual study by dartmouth university, the upgraded every year. they have been doing this for two or three decades. if medicine costs were like a war from wisconsin over to washington state and from kansas north to canada, we would save

1/3 of our health care dollars. they would be in the medicare fund and make it last longer than it is. some of those are related to just simple things like how doctors practice medicine in iowa and do a good job of it. people in iowa are healthier than number. the doctor does not send it to the hospital at the job of a hat or a dozen specialists. those are things that really add up on the cost of money. getting back to what you said about taking care of the eight or 10 million people that do not have insurance and deer and on that, well, we need to zero in on things where money is not

being spent wisely. why do not you come over and stand by me and you can talk right into this microphone and everyone can hear you? >> this is a follow-up on the issue of the uninsured and people that have pre-existing conditions. i think that is a larger problem in this country than the uninsured. you cannot get coverage because of that. i am curious what your thoughts are about how to solve that problem. >> that is a very good question. i'm sorry i did not touch on that in my opening comments, because it is one of those things that i think there is almost a consensus in washington that when we are

dealing with health care that we ought to do away with the discrimination that comes from pre-existing conditions and then connected with it, we have this wide-ranging of high to low. we are going to narrow that down closer. between the high premium and low premium there will not be a big difference. in this particular instance, where we have been talking at this time is not to set up several insurance departments. we will continue state regulation of insurance, but we will do it through what we call preemption. federal law will preempt state law or override state law in these areas where they would

allow pre-existing conditions. >> to me afford insurance companies to continue [unintelligible] is that not going to increase everyone's premiums? >> the extent to which we deal with this business of the uninsured and having insurance, that brings more revenue into the insurance company. >> i am just trying to figure out what did this. but it is one of the most difficult issues we have to deal with. it is one that is not even settled at this time. it is something that fits in with the american principle of individual responsibility. it is like the state if you decide to drive a car, and you have an individual responsibility to have car insurance.

>> a few moments ago you said this bill, a john deere would not have health care. >> i did say that now. >> a few weeks ago you said you want better health care and you should work toward a john deere or the government. why would you predict them to lose their health care? >> you understand that i would not be for the provision that this lady brought up that i talked about. i do not think the exemption ought to be done away with. then he would keep the john deere insurance. go back one step in that into question. i am not for doing what the house of representatives is doing. >> i work for the electoral corporate jet.

-- a cooperative. [unintelligible] we have a real concern would be hr2452 climate change a bill. our concern is for individuals or members that there of victorville's, you being from iron ore -- electric bills, tubing from iowayou being from a [unintelligible] i want to know if you are for the bill as it is and what this congress doing to make sure that electricity remains affordable and reliable and we can provide it? >> this is a bill that would increase your utility tax very

directly every time you turn on the light switch it increases costs. everything you buy the goods three manufacturing process would be affected when you increase the cost of energy. this puts a real cost and the american family. it might be phased in between the year -- now in the year 2020. it to be major in three years and gradually ramp up to even more. the way it passed the house i would not vote for. that may not be the bill that comes up in the senate. there is not a bill out of the committee yet. i think we have until the end of the year to worry about this and work are members of congress. they are working on me about the issue. it think it is one to be issued a difficult for them to get some sort of a compromise -- i think it is going to be difficult for them to get some sort of a compromise.

i would like to answer your question about where i am coming from and not going to vote for a bill and i do not know what it is it does not tell you much. with the house bill, if you have a problem within the united states was not a level playing field. the midwest and southwest are dependent upon cole and it is going to come out of this very badly. in new york and california, they are going to come out of it relatively well. the may even make a little bit of money. -- they may even make a little bit of money. when you go united states by itself, if the rest of the world is not follow along, we need to go ahead and be the moral authority for the other nations -- suppose we are uncle sucker instead of will stand and where the only ones that and of doing it. then we have a very unlevel playing ball.

how ironic it is that the ones that are outsourcing manufacturing jobs to china over the last 10-years for some the same people promoting cap and trade for calling it cap and tax, because that is really what it is. i do not want to unlevel the people for america, particularly when the director of theuta says if the united states doesn't by itself it will not do much. -- does it by itself it will not do much. i turn my tangent to copenhagen in december. there are international negotiations. i do not know how to get china and india to come along. if they will go along with it and we will not lose all manufacturers to china -- you understand china is in number one emitter of pollution, not

the united states. they do not want to do it. india is even more adamant about doing it. then we lose their jobs. we need to get china under the umbrella and it takes a 2/3 vote in the senate to get it done. i think there is some protection for our consumers and interesindustry. >> glad to see you again today. i am a veteran. i am very proud to be a veteran. [applause] i belong to the american legion. in order for a person to be called a veteran that has to serve in the military, there are

lots of people that are called veterans that cannot belong to the american legion. congress after world war roman one set up the american legion. is the largest veterans' organization in the world. we have a lot of people. in order to belong to the american legion, you had to be in the service during a war. we had a lot of people that after correa, vietnam, world war i, if they are still alive, that not able to belong to the american legion. it is up to an act of congress to change that. we as the american legion can change that. i was just wondering if maybe

you would introduce a bill to have that change. >> i'm going to do this. if you would let my staff have your name and address, and i want them to tell james on a washington staff to call you said you can be in the background. quite frankly when you started out to talk, i was thinking in terms you are going to ask me -- i thought only the american legion made this determination. if you are right about congress doing that, we have done it since i have been in congress, i do not remember that. i want to know what there is about that and in the controversy is connected with it and maybe i will do what you want to say. i do not want to tell you that until i steady. i hope he did not get mad at me i do not do it. -- until i studied it. i hope you will not get mad at me if i do not do it. s>> if people can have

five or 10 minutes and express their concerns without an answer. why do not we open it up for that for about five for 10 minutes? and not know how much more time we have. but my staff says there is one more question. i think what is being fought here is that i take too long to answer a question. i would be glad to just listen. >> [unintelligible] some of them are very highly controversial. they have really radical views. i do not understand what we see in those people.

>> 44 czars that have been appointed to the white house. the lady is opposed to it. >> it is good to see you. thank you for being here. i appreciate folks from union county be here. i came up with eight questions. it is been narrowed down to if you. in your conversation, since the president did single you out as being one of the people willing to talk about various provisions, these something's out by to ask you. in your conversation, is there any provision for a person to purchase their own health insurance? is there any provision for the individual to establish health savings accounts and for a tax

incentive to do so? is there any provision for tort reform would add substantially to health care costs? is there any guarantee that abortion or other life ending procedures will not be paid for by u.s. taxpayers? the other thing that is frustrating me is that why is health care reform getting some attention and the president's attention when the jobless rate is the greatest current threat for our family? >> one of the things that scares me is that when you hear the obama sound bites, his advocacy of the current keep your health insurance, etc. sounds very much like you. it scares me to death that there is so much misinformation

around the we do not really know what is happening because the co-ops of the terms and debate. nobody can argue with what is being said because all they have done is say you'll keep your own insurance and do this or that. when you get to redeem the bills, that is not what it says. >> i realize the senses is part of the executive branch. a portion is done by congress. is there anyway we can get insurance at all the citizens of the united states will have equal representation after its? >> short said. not unless we amend the -- short

answer. not unless we in amended the senses losses to not tell people that are illegally here. >> congress counts only the citizens and not all the people. >> statistics come from beingcensus. -- come from a beingcensthe cen. >> [unintelligible] there has never been made in the comment made about this. it is h.r.45. [unintelligible] this would make us report our

fire arms on our income tax statements. it to make it have to pay taxes, about $50 each on our firearms. there is a top provision clause on page 16. guns must be locked and put away and gives the government a right to come into your home at any time and check things like this outcome. this is an encroachment on their second amendment. this is so sneaky because they will sneak it in on the internal revenue act of 1986. this can be passed by the finance committee without anyone voting on it.

i am opposed to anything that encroaches on their second amendment rights. -- on our second amendment rights. >> i am too. i am, too. >> you pointed out several times that there are states to run the coast that cost a lot more for medical care. >> i am for it to under the thousand dollar cap on it. it as a medical -- $250,000 cap on it. it will save medical companies a lot. >> a clinic a comment about tort reform that will probably not be done.

this is a really good thing. >> i am a farmer. >> this is regard to the inspector general. they are part of each government agency. recently the president fired one without a 30 day wait. -- 30 day wait period. we are going to have no police force along our government agencies? >> the one to answer that. the law that should have applied that if he is going to be fired he had to give a 30 day notice and notify congress. senator obama was the author of the bill along with me. he forgot about it evidently after a got elected.

that person is doing. what we have here is a big problem with inspector general's that we have to watch this administration on. there are bills that have more presidential appointments of inspector general and said it had in the department heads appoint them. i use inspector general's tremendously in my oversight work. i get more fraud and mismanagement sorted out by working with the inspector general's. i'm going to fight hard to make sure they maintain their independence. one more question. >> it seems appropriate since we are the united methodist church to lead to know that the united methodist church [unintelligible] we are in favor of a public option and health care.

we do not believe that health care is a commodity to be purchased by the largest bidder. nor do we believe that the insurance company bureaucracy is any more trustworthy than any other bureaucracy. the united methodist church believes that healthcare is a right of all americans, all people living in the united states. healthcare should not be off oauctioned off to the highest bidder. it goes to salaries, advertisements, and to maintain the health care bureaucracy which seems to be as large as -- as large as the government bureaucracy. the united methodist church voted for a public option for healthcare.

>> thank you for telling me. i think we have to go. >> we would all like to thank the senator. [applause] >> thank you all. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> we are going to give a tax credit to help people.