is a federal program called cobra. you can keep your insurance if you lose your job but you have to pay 100% of it. the proposal that is being made is that you could go to the exchange and if you could not afford it, you could get additional help depending on your income, and you would be guaranteed access to health care insurance. while the state has a policy now, and i am not sure how extensive that policy is, the state as you know is facing very severe economic challenges itself. . . i think that you'd find this plan one that would give your son and daughter more confidence. i do. >> know, we do not. my whole family does not believe

in this bill. we want the government out of our business now. our business now. >> let me make a comment if i can on that last comment. obviously, i am sure all of you know that well over close to 100 million people have some kind of health insurance that is related to the federal government, medicare of course been the largest component medicaid being the second. the federal employee health benefits. you have a government insurance not your on medicare. other people do not have access to it. notwithstanding the fact you have medicare, if you could to a

private doctor and hospital of your choice. that is what we are talking about. >> i am from here in charles county. i want to keep this a very simple and easy for you. if this bill is so good, then went to commit right now at this town hall under a national audience that make every member of congress subject to the conditions of this bill? [big cheers] >> sit down. let him answer that question. >> that was a simple question. every member of congress will have exactly the same choice you are.

>> my name is john from st. mary's city. i have a couple of family members here that are in the medical profession. they are doctors. i see one reason for a lot of increased health costs is related to medical liability. it is a culture that doctors have prescribed this that and the other thing. how is the ama and congress grappling with this particular issue? >> the ama has had substantial discussions about it. so have congress. i believe that this issue is being grey's all-around the country.

although it is not in any the bills at this time, i expect to certainly be considered as we move forward. -- expect it to certainly be considered as we move forward. >> my name is bruce. i'm from california, maryland mr. hoyer, it is a pleasure to see you at work. >> thank you. >> this will set an all-time student meeting where we raise hell until midnight until people leave. nothing has worked better in my life and the medicare system of this country. [applause] -- than the medicare system of this country. i made the appointment for them to take my call over the telephone. it happened at the time it said it would. it took exactly the amount of time they said would. everything comes on time.

no questions, no nothing. everything works well. i happen to be forged a. i have worked for a union for 36 years. my wraparound coverage covers everything. i never pay a dime. i want all my friends and enemies to have the same great system that i have. thank you very much. [applause] >> this is a serious debate. i know you are angry because you think members of congress or the president wants to take over your health care. they do not. that is why i read to you the

five republican candidates for president last year. not to say this bill that bill is important, but to say they recognize as i hope you recognize that the status quo will not work for as long term. that is why they talked about it. that is why obama talked about a. that is what clinton talked about a. [w/ó6i]/>ñ.3iusithe next s. 339. 708. 6. 349. 717.

if you could kindly come up to the front of the stage. thank you. >> well we are waiting, to give you a sense of timing, the three bills in the house have not yet passed -- they are considering the other -- theirs. i would expect the next eight

weeks or 10 weeks will be very involved in focusing on health- care legislation. the reason i say that is the key to not get a question tonight, you have significant opportunity to get those cards to me and we will try to respond to all of them. >> good evening. thank you for holding this forum tonight. i am from southern maryland. i live in london town. as the sea before the opportunity. i have a 21-year old son who graduated from a local college on an associate degree. he got a job in a small business. the employer cannot afford to pay health care. i have an employer that pays a fairly decent health care. he is forced to stay at home and go back to college and continue his education, which i do not

mind, they cannot go out on his own. he has to live at home to be covered under my policy. under the proposed legislation, and i think the kind of covered it, how is that going to help my son as well as the employer that he works for to provide a decent health care coverage for both my son and cost efficient for the employer so they can provide for the rest of the employees as well. >> it is working for a small employer, and it is less than 15, under one of the amendments, the bill is not a final bill at this time -- under one of the bills, he will be eligible to go into the exchange. the exchange will have a op numbera number of options, all

private and public option. your son would be able to have reasonable insurance. if he did not make sufficient funds to afford the insurance, he would get some assistance. the reason he would get assistance is because we deem it more efficient and cost- effective to have everyone in the system. the private insurers to build a 20 million new people who will be covered. if your son is unemployed and does not have insurance, and dr. betty gets in an automobile accident, the people prang p. manzi will be paying for his health care. -- does not have insurance, and god forbid he gets in an automobile accident, the people paying premiums here will pay for his accident. >> we paper co for insurance. that was $1,300 to $1,500 a month. it is cheaper to put my son

through college than paying healthcare $1,500 a month. thank you very much for this proposal and this legislation. >> thank you. let me again just reiterate what we have on -- under current law if you lose your job. [unintelligible] there is a provision some years ago that said for a year you can keep the insurance your employer has given to you, but you must pay 100% of it. obviously, if you lost your job, lost your income, it is very doubtful you'll be able to pay for that insurance. that is the problem. that is what that gentleman was referring to. >> thank you. my name is charlie from hollywood, md.

a want to make a comment. >> welcome to st. mary's county. we have a lot of people from st. mary's county year. >> we also have a son and i have three wonderful grandchildren. my son paid $800 a month and has a $5,000 deductible to be able to buy insurance on a group rate now. this is unacceptable. his children are infants. that is why the high cost. we need a public option without -- public optin. without a public option we will never have insurance reform. >> thank you very much. i support a public option. it is exactly that. it is an option. not a mandate. no one has to take. if we give to the concerns

companies a competitive model and would bring down premiums for all of us, private or not. >> good evening. >you pointed out republican presidents in the past, as well as mr. thompson as stating that all americans should be covered with health coverage. correct? >> yes. >> the underlying thing is that is that all americans. it did not say illegal or undocumented. in this case, there are several issues relevant to verification. you can say there will not be illegal under the coverage, but will they be verified? >> i do not know that this

language on the top of my head deals with verification. however, it does -- it is a very clear -- as a ready -- "no illegal aliens are covered." you also all understand -- hopefully understand -- i think all of our face, i am a christian, take the admonition that when a brother or sister is in real trouble we are going to help. [cheers and boos] as a result of that philosophy, we have in our country a duty to serve so that if somebody is in an autumn of bill and is very bad the injured and taken to the

hospital, the hospital will see them. they will not ask questions. they will try to help them and lifted them up. @@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ $@ @ @ @ jesus told us to walk across the street. he did not ask us to say, who are you, stranger? having said that, let me reiterate, no illegal aliens are covered by this bill. >> before we ask the next question, i would like to call the next five speakers. 103. 301. 301.. 049. 196.

372. thank you. >> i live in chesapeake beach. i want to thank you for holding a town hall. i appreciate your leadership i am never ashamed to say that i represented by steny hoyer. [cheers and boos] >> thank you. >> i am concerned. i am very happy we are moving forward with health care finally in this country. i am deeply concerned about costs, that we are not want to do enough to hold private insurance companies accountable for the deeds they do. the deeds they do are wrong. the rescissions are wrong. the denying care is wrong i am deeply concerned that if there

is not a public option on the exchange that we will not have enough ability to keep insurance companies on this. what additional measures are there in the bill to keep insurance companies accountable for the stuff they do so we get our money's worth out of them? >> as i think you know, the public option is included in all the three bills that came out of the house. it was also in the bill coming out of the senate. i support a public option for the reasons you describe it. we need to keep insurance companies on this. we need to have the competition. there are numerous divisions in the bill that will exercise oversight. having the competition of the

public option will be the best check. >> my name is michael. i am a physician. i live in and water, md. but i'm glad to have you with us. >> as a physician, i know many tests are ordered on a day-to- day basis that more less physicians have order to cover themselves. they ordered them to cover themselves, to prevent lawsuits and so forth. i know it is a drain on the system in regard to time, that patients are running around doing these tests, efforts on the physicians and all the people doing the tests, as well as money and the cost to the system. i know many physicians in texas who have implemented tort

reform and a cut down on the base expenses and time it ever the patient had to utilize to get these tests done. you kind of glossed over this before and one of the other questions. i want to know what specific plans you have to help implement tort reform in this state -- [general crowd noise is] if you do not have any specific plans, why do you not? >> as i said in my previous answer, which you said i've lost over or something like that, this question has been raised not only this year but in years past. as you also know, there are a

number of states including maryland that have adopted a cap, which is what i believe you are referring to. california did the same. the fact is that i think there is concern in congress. there is not a provision in the bill, but as i said earlier, i am concerned about it. i know you are concerned about that. i think we have talked about before, have we not? >> no. >> i thought you were at my meeting. the fact is, it is of concern. it is also a concern that if you cap and on economic damages, somebody that is hurting -- a young mother who does not work. her economic damages may be very slight. yes, you'll get medical bills paid, but she may not get anything substantial of value for it through the years. it is an issue.

it is a controversial issue. there are lawyers on one side and medical professionals on another side. not everybody is simply by definition on the same side. what i said was, doctor, i think you raise a very serious issue and we need to look at it seriously. in answer to your question, i do not have a specific proposal. i guarantee you and will tell you tonight, i intend to look at this seriously and discuss with my colleagues. one thing we do want to prevent, speeches suits. i think we can all agree on that. >> thank you, doctor. >> good evening. thank you for coming. my name is sharon eagle. i am and are in. i work in the local area.

-- and i am an rn. i worked in the local area. as far as illegal immigrants of using our system as we have now, and they are not. whenever i have seen anyone comment, and they have been harmed or their child is very very ill. we deny knowing health care to our emergency room. -- we did night no one health care in our emergency room. we do not have positions in southern maryland. they do not exist. my primary care physician cannot afford the insurance. i have doctors that have retired. there is no one for them to go to. doctors go on vacation. there is no one to cover them.

we have the lowest coverage per 1000 residents in the state. on the issue of the continued coverage,, continuity of coverage, i have a 23-year-old son who has had three back surgery is. he is still on our insurance because he is continuing through school. right now he has no insurance when he walked out of my door. this plan has to be done. it has to be done right. we have been paying for it. >> thank you very much. thank you very much of that observation. i agree with you. your son doesn't need to have an option available. -- your son doesn't need to have an option available.

-- your sons do does need to hae an option available. the shortage of doctors in southern maryland is a critical issue. my neighbor is here in the audience. he talks to me all the time about having to get new doctors and getting people on the system. they are overwhelmed. some of the things in this bill are directed exactly at ensuring that people can go to medical school, and nurses can go to medical school, nurse practitioners can go, and grants for training institutions, so that we can produce more medical personnel so that the shortage we find a more rural areas -- we have a shorter of doctors. you make a point. this bill tries to address that.

absolutely essential. thank you. >> hello. thank you for coming tonight. >> thank you. where you from? >> waldorf, md. i am on social security disability. i cannot afford a secondary insurance. i actually had to drop it with $400 a month. i have had net surgery's. i will have to again. i cannot afford it. the doctor will not even take me now. so, how is this helping going to tell me? >> i think it will help you a lot. first of all, you'll be guaranteed access to a policy. number two, you'll be given

help if you cannot afford it. number three, you'll be capped on your out-of-pocket expenses. you cannot be bankrupt. secondly, you will not be capped in terms of the expenditures that can be made in your lifetime so that somebody was a lot of illness, catastrophic like cancer or need an extensive surgery, will not be capped. this bill will help be very substantially. -- help you and very substantially. >> i want to tell you that in a minute. >> thank you, mr. hoyer. my name is matt stone.

healthcare reform is an important topic. part of me -- pardon me if i distract for a moment -- i cannot understand why health care is such a concern to this administration when there are people who are living in tents and banks are collapsing and our economy is in shambles. timothy geithner just said that there are things of the fed does that should be privy to political review. why does that not in great congress? >> i could not hear you. >> timothy geithner -- secretary treasury -- sorry, i'm nervous -- he said that there are things that the fed does that should

not be privy to political review. a question for you is, ron paul has a bill -- why are you not cosponsoring that bill? but i'm not familiar with the bill. what is the bill say? >> it is to audit the fed. >> to solve the fed? >> to abolish the fed. >> please, let the gentlemen finish his question. >> my presumption is that obviously they deal with information that if -- it is the sort of like public disclosure of when stocks go up or down -- that is illegal. it is illegal because it would skew the trading market and those that did not have the permission would not be dealing in a fair market. unfortunately, that has happened. i assume that is what is

referring to. the information that they have may radically affect the market. on ron paul's bill, i have not looked at it. i will look at it. i think secretary geithner may well be right in terms of information that may have an adverse or impact on the markets fairness and stability if they disclose what they may or may not to do. >> there are 282 other co- sponsors. >> i will look at it. do you know the number? >> i would like to ask the next five question years. your number is 040, 033, 365,

785, and 489. @@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ %r@ @ @ @ @ r >> good evening, my name is deirdre tabler. i live about 3 miles from here. my sister, who is 48 years old, she just had breast cancer and serious surgery. her whole concern was getting back to work because she did not want to lose your health insurance. to not be able to finish her treatment that she needs -- to not be able to finish her treatment that she needs issue lost interest. what is this bill do to protect a person in that type of situation, to relieve the stress that a person should not have to go through as they go through a serious illness?

>> if you lost your interest, she would have immediate access to the exchange to obtain alternative insurance. in the bill, there are minimum coverage is that the insurance company would have to get her and her pre-existing condition would not preclude her from getting insurance. others are the critical aspects. she has such a catastrophic illness and the other thing that would help her would be the cap on an annual basis and the no lifetime cap. she cannot be denied coverage or have it taken away from her because of her illness. >> good evening. >> how are you? what i'm doing fine. -- >> i am doing fine.

collins bailey from waldorf, md. do you see this bill causing a tax increase or an increase to the deficit? >> denied there. [booing] -- neither. as you know, under the policies that were adopted in 1993, we have a balanced budget for the last four years of the administration before that. there is a $2.9 billion surplus. the last administration ran a very substantial deficit as you know.

as you further no, \ / \ know, n president obama was elected president, he inherited the worst economy -- [booing] mr. bailey, i know that people do not like to hear that. >> we have all these fine people here waiting to ask questions. let congressman hoyer into the question. >> it is the truth. it is a fact. you can look it up. as a result, we have taken some

actions in the previous is ministration. we took actions which made the debt go up. in this administration, we have also done that, as you know. very substantially. i'm very concerned about debt load that we put on my three children and four grandchildren and my great granddaughter. as you know, i was a democrat -- i was not the majority of my party who voted for a constitutional amendment to balance the budget, as you know. the fact is though that on this bill, we have said "aa, it wille paid for. if it is not paid for, i'm not one to avote for it. -- i am not going to vote for it.

thank you. >> a good evening. >> lexington park? >> yes, sir. i am pleased to be one of your constituents in many ways do you have done a wonderful job taking care of the navy. i want to thank you for that. i do not completely agree with their social positions. i have never voted for you regretfully. it is clear from the division here tonight and from looking at what is going on that less than half the people in this country what this health care bill. [applause] a base this on polls that i have seen -- i have a base of this on many polls i have seen. in march, you stated that of good democrat[unintelligible]

i understand that to mean they would not override the bill or force it through with only democratic support. i want to know a direct yes or no answer. to stem by year for their statements and override -- do you stand by your earlier statements? >> i do not think that is a yes or no question. the reason it is not a yes or no question -- first of all, i do not accept your premises in terms of ramming it through.

max baucus in the democratic chairman of the finance committee. he has been working for the last 10 months with charles grassley, republican of iowa, to reach an agreement on the health care bill. i hate to reiterate this. i understand the country is divided. you are correct. i accept that. they have a lot of misinformation. these meetings are to try to get better information. we are trying to get as much information as people need and they can disagree, of course. the fact of the matter is that there is a reconciliation process. there is a reconciliation process that provides for a majority of the net state senate to pass the health care bill. -- the united states senate to pass the health care bill. under the rules of the united states senate, they can pass

legislation with the majority. that is not ramming something through. it is doing what democracy calls for. >> next question. >> i am don shaver. i drove 46 miles to be here. thank you for coming. thank you for your 29 years of service. >> thank you. thank you for coming down. >> my question is this, will the public plan premiums be less expensive than the private plan premiums or will the public plan b free or based on one's ability to pay? i have a grandson who is 23 in california.

he works part-time. he goes to school part-time. political science. he does not have health insurance. will the public plan paid for his health insurance? >> the public plan will not pay for his insurance in that sense. the public plan will be like the private sector plan. it will have premium competitiveness. it'll have cost competitiveness. it will operate under the same rules and regulations as the private sector. to that extent, we will try to correct this basis. hopefully, it'll create a level playing field. what your son can do is -- excuse me, your grandson. you and i have been around a long time. i have a great grandson. what you are great-grandson can do is choose a plan from either the private sector or the public option, which ever he deems to

be best for him and his situation and then depending upon his income, he may be able to get help with either plan. >> thank you. >> i am from maryland. i am for health care reform, but i'm not for government run health care reform. [cheers] there was a lady that came up before me that talked about keeping the insurance fee -- insurance co. on this. i am concerned about who is going to keep the government on honest.

but i think this gentleman asked a question. >> can i did make a comment? as ronald reagan said, [unintelligible] >> the question is, with social security and medicare going bankrupt, what makes you think that the government can run a health care program? how were they going to pay for it? . . >> i am one who believes, and i have said, that we need entitlement reform. i would not put it bankrupt. [cheers and boos] however, your point is well

taken. social security and medicare clearly have a funding problem, no doubt about it. why do they have a funding problem? in one respect, they have a funding problem for good news&b. and all of you probably know what that good news is. çwe are living a lot longer. as a result of living a lot longer, when they adopted social security in 1965, the average age expectancy was 65.5. we have changed the age to 67, as you recall in 1983. however, people are living a lot longer and drawing from social security a lot lonthp'd on medicare a lot longer. therefore, it is smaller -- more expensive. the options are to revise that so that we can sustain its because i think all of us want to make sure that our children have security in old age, both

in terms of health and in terms of a basic standard of living. i think we need to look carefully at those programs. i will reiterate, this program is going to be paid for. [yelling] we are going to make medicare more efficient, more effective, and we will put 60% of the savings from medicare back into medicare to make it more solvent. in fact, we will increase its solvency by a number of years. and the other funding source, there are various different sources now being discussed, some of which are very unpopular. probably all of them are very unpopular because paying for things is generally not very popular. but the fact of the matter is to my we have, as you know, one funding suggestion in the house.

really, no funding suggestion get out of the senate. a lot of discussion -- one of the discussions in the senate, of course, is the taxation of benefits, premiums that you pay. i do not think anyone is to what on that. social security and medicare, you're absolutely correct, they need to be addressed. i am a proponent of addressing the funding source of that they will be there because i believe the overwhelming of a -- the overwhelming majority of americans, not all of them, but i believe the overwhelming majority of americans strongly support social security and medicare. [cheers and applause] five numbers. 662.

406. 590. 355. 083. >> my name is ann a and i am from long, maryland. i want to first of all, thank you for standing strong and continuing on with these town hall meetings, even though i know some of them have been very difficult for you. [applause] to the panel, i want to apologize for some of the disrespect that you have had to endure, but i appreciate you being here. [cheers and boos]

i work for the united health care workers. we are labor organization that represents health care workers and home care workers. their wages go from $10.50 on top, not a whole lot of money. if these health care workers to have to pay for medical insurance. it is very difficult for them because they can't afford it at $10.50 an hour. they need help. this public auction will help them -- public option will help them. before friend can have the surgery, they want $600 up front. she does not have a $600, nor can she saved the $600.

that is an outrage. especially for someone that is dealing with taking care of patients, and they themselves can't afford health care. health care, i believe it is our right to and not a privilege. -- a right and not a privelage. i say it again because i mean it. it is a right, and not a privelage. >> ladies and gentlemen. >> i just want to say, i appreciate your support. i hope you can convince as many

as possible to pass this public option. >> thank you very much for observations. i understand the plight -- i understand the plight of the individual you have discussed. whether you are for or against this option, or your for doing nothing, you cannot deny that there are people in this country who are confronting very serious situations. they can't help themselves because they do not have the insurance they need and can't afford it. we are trying to help. >> good afternoon, congressman hoyer.

i am a public-school teacher, an entrepreneur. i am also an advocate of medical awareness -- medical record awareness. i have worked for a company where i was not provided any insurance. i had cobra, a pre-existing condition, and i had to get cobra. i have also been a victim of medical errors. i have no problem with health care reform. as a teacher, i want all my students to have health coverage and their families. what i do have a concern with, whether or not congress or president obama will enforce the health care facility to raise awareness for citizens to

request, review, and revise their medical records. i have visited your office in d.c., and i have asked one of your legislators whether or not she had a copy of her medical records. she said no. i visited your other office, and i got the same answer. are you aware that citizens really don't know that they have a legal right to their medical record, or even how to request their medical records? >> you are absolutely correct. citizens to have a legal right to see their records. if they are not getting their records, it happens one of my staffers -- you may have talked to her, and we will pursue that on their behalf. there are two things about records -- three things, really. one of the provisions of the bill was in the recovery and reinvestment act, dealing with

medical records, medical paperwork and getting into the twenty first century so that we have the information of technology, where we have the ability to transfer records immediately for diagnosis and for history. we can get a better health-care record and results. second, privacy is a very significant concern. while a patient may have our right to their record, nobody else does. i appreciate what you're saying. >> good evening, i am from maryland. i have a couple of questions. is there anyone here who does

not have health care and is against this bill? just curious. next, as i understand, much of the issue is that it is the federal role out of this program. if it were a state program, would it be as much of an issue? also, it seems as though the marketing of this plan was done in a way to antagonize. it seems as though -- there are some many ways to market, -- so many ways to market to get it out in a way that looks favorable to the party. >> i do not of the party

affiliation of any of the panelists. i do not know political affiliation. you do? i do not know the political affiliation. i agree with you. i would hope that we would pass this in a bipartisan way. ladies and gentlemen, i know some of you don't agree with this. that is our system. again, and a bipartisan way, major leaders of our country -- not me -- have said that the health-care system is not accessible to enough of our people. you may not like the way we propose it here. the objective is an important one, and we need to work together to get to where we need to get. >> how are you.

--? i have read all the things that the plan is trying to accomplish. there are a lot of them. each one of them seems to cost money. yet, you keep saying that it is going to pay for itself. i am a businessman. i have won it -- i have run a business for 40 years. i tried to give better service, better products, more amenities, but i also know that every time i try to provide something more, it costs more money. it isn't something that you look at it to just say, this is what i would like to do. as a businessman, i like to find out if i can do it and not go bankrupt. >> i agree with that.

>> i did not see how the government can provide all of these things and still say they're going to save money. it does not make ordinary common sense. >> what i said was that the bill would be paid for it, not that it would pay for itself. we score bills over a shorter term, and over the long term, i think the bill will save us all money. in the long term. understand that we're spending today, $2.50 trillion on health care in america. and we do have the best health

care. the gentleman is absolutely right. everybody doesn't have access to it, but we have the best health care. the fact is, that is going to double, and is going up at four times the rate of inflation. i do not know of your profits go up four times inflation. i doubt it. that means they are getting further and further behind, or they're paying a greater percentage to pay for their premium and there health care. part of it will be paid for by wringing out and making more efficient medicare. we get some dollars from that. that will be a savings that will be applied to the cost of this bill. there will have to be other revenue sources so that we pay for it. it is not for free. you are absolutely right.

we believe -- if you look at one of the graphs, you saw that graph house deeply it is going up? frankly, by 2080 when my great granddaughter is still alive, we will be spending 80% of our gdp on health care. we can't afford that. you know that, i know that. our kids can't afford it. we have to make changes that will save us money and make it a more efficient system. in the short term, let me give you an example. in the short term, you invest. you may borrow to invest to build a restaurant, a garage, an office building, or what ever is. you invest so that you can make a profit in the future. the cost of treating that

facility over a longer term. we're going to pay for this bill, but i think a long-term -- and amortize the cost of that rááfacility over the long term. ñithis bill may pay for itself longer-term, but longer-term we are talkingplú about a system tt is as large as ours changed so that is more cost efficient and effective. but you are right, we need to pay for it. k]ef3é2sh[applause] >> congressman hoyer, before you respond to the next question, it is getting close to 9:00. i would like to pull the next five speakers. 761. 167. 394. >> i know some people are leaving. i want to thank all of you for

coming, whether you agree with me or not. i am glad that you are here, whether you are for or against this proposal, or me. thank you for coming. [applause] >> 044. ç185. sir, you have a question? >> yes, steny, this is john zaleski once again. i'm going to repeat some of the things you have heard from me before. i finished my graduate work in 1960. i studied economics under walter heller. at that time, the nation have the lowest unemployment rate in the world. we have the highest standard of living in the world. we had the longest life expectancy in the world.

today, i think we are number 30. our standard of living is no. 13. our hours of work exceed anyone else in the world and this country has been sliding under an excessive reliance on market forces. part of that has been because of the insurance industry and the health-care area. we are not doing well. i would urge a single payer program. i also feel that the idea of a cooperative that is being sorted out in the senate is not very sound. as i recall, blue cross blue shield started as producer cooperatives. more than standard insurance programs. how do you feel aboutok the co p

ideas being floated in the senate? . . >> i am for the public option, which i believe is a better alternative than the co-op option. you are correct, red cross, blue shield started out as that. we will not pass a co-op in the house. i think we can pass a public option. america is divided, but i don't think it is divided on the fact that the present system simply is not sustainable over the long term. maybe we have to make changes in the bill to make that happen. but we need to make changes. on the single payer option, frankly, americans are very concerned about a single-payer option. option. you heard the concerns about

government-run health insurance, and a single payer is the quintessential government run. medicare works very well, and it is government-run. as you heard george forest indicate, it runs very well. men and women of the armed forces have all of their health care delivered by the government. the federal employee health benefit plan is managed by the office of personnel management. frankly, i don't think that is a legitimate concern. legitimate concerns are how is a structured -- it does have substantial proponents. americans are concerned about losing the insurance they now have, and we're trying to assure them that they will not lose their insurance.

they will have the types -- the choice to keep it, and thank you for your advocacy. >> my name is james mcgregor. congressman, i think you for holding this health care town hall meeting. when i read your article in the "usa today," i trust -- i thought you might not hold a meeting. i trust you know that is american for opposition to be heard. how you plan to make the bill understandable to the public? as you are aware, a news report this morning stated that 2/3 of

americans do not understand this bill. it is posted on the internet. we saw many stats displayed tonight. you said that we want to get as much information is needed to the people, but it appears that the majority of the people cannot get it. they are wary of it. speaker nancy pelosi has a clever pr web site, "daily myth busters." the site posted the following mess. the house bill will force taxpayers to pay for abortions. the fact is, from the web site, the bill clearly spells out that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest, or to save the life of the woman. with such an important issue, i examined the bill h.r. 3200 that

is posted on the website. i saw no language on abortion. i saw no language about maintaining the status quo. with such confusion, what will you do so that the people truly understand all that is in this bill? is it wise to push this bill through congress with some much misunderstanding? >> thank you. thank you very much for questioned. i will answer the second question second, and the first question first. that is a good order. first of all, the comments you refer to, when i said was not consistent with democracy's values is shutting down the opinions of others. we need to listen to one another. our founding fathers thought

that the way for us to succeed was not for one can or one dictator to say that this is what we're going to do. we found out in any event, that government doesn't work. the kind that does work is when we come together, and sometimes you're angry or animated, but we come together and get our opinions. we discussed and disagree. that is very american. what is not consistent is shutting down others when they are having their chance to speak. that is what i was referring to. i can't believe, and certainly hope that there is anybody in the room that disagrees with that sentiment. we ought to be civil to one another. we ought to be courteous to one another and we ought to listen. i think you all for coming. i know there are some of you that don't agree with me and don't agree with a lot of things as well. that is the system.

i have been at it long enough to know that i get people to get up in my face and say they do not agree with me. in terms of the -- in response to the second question, with reference to the bill itself and the understanding of the bill, it is a complicated bill. why is a complicated? because it is dealing with a subject where americans spent $2.40 trillion. the private sector spends about half. you spend all of it. we, as a country, spend all of it in one light or another. -- in one way or another. how can we get people to understand? when you read the bill, it is complicated to read because it references a lot of other existing law.

if you don't have all of them in front of you, it is tough to understand. on the web site, there is the explanation section by section in english. not in references' or statutes, but in english. i will certainly get that out to people. as a matter of fact, that outline that i just spoke of was on your chairs i hope. it is a pretty short document, 37 pages long. a lot shorter than the bill. i think you can understand it and read it. because i want you to understand it. frankly, i think it is a pretty decent bill. it is not perfect, but i think it is decent. but because i think it is a decent bill, i want you to understand it. that way, i to argue why it is

decent bill. if you disagree, that is a great democracy. >> thank you, sir. you asked about abortion. i'm glad you reference that. on the abortion issue, nothing in this bill -- understand this is a base bill that is being worked on by three committees. there is nothing in this bill that changes existing language in the law that says no federal funds will be spent on abortion. that is why you don't read anything in the bill, because it does not do anything to affect the law. >> my name is paula pippen, a

widow of a naval aviator in the vietnam war who flew three out of every nine weeks in the skies of vietnam. my medicare i really like. i really like the government plan. my question, because i obviously have such good and reliable care is, dealing with the cost of the program -- this is my question. the public option seems to offer a mechanism for controlling health-care cost inflation. have you and the congress considered other means of reducing health-care costs that

you feel to be equally powerful? i have discussed some of them this evening -- >> i have discussed some of them this evening. we want more competition and more transparency. in maryland, most of us have one or two policies. we do not have a lot of competition in our state. those of you that are federal employees have 15 or 20 options in that program. the fact of the matter is, transparency is important in the marketplace. we need to know the value. what the exchange will do is bring that together and make the information from the private sector available to you. you can't have all little language here that exempts a

this or exemption that. -- or execs that. the language on that footnote says it wasn't covered. we are also providing for everybody being included. there will be millions of more people participating in paying for the system which means that the cost per person will be less. we now spend two times per capita one of eight -- what any other country in the world spends. we have the best, but it is not accessible to all of us. third, what we're going to do, as you heard me say earlier, the system needs to work better technologically. there are health care dollars spent on administration.

it is a complicated system. we need to simplify it. by the way, the insurance companies agree with that. there is no reason why you have to have different insurance companies having a different form that needs to be filled out by the doctor, you, and the hospital. that means you did those 30 or 40 or 50 options. that is a very inefficient way to do business. those are some of the things that we will try to do to get bring some cost out of the system -- to wring some cost out of the system. another thing important to know, this bill -- a large portion of this bill deals with preventive care. there will be no copays, and no deductibles for preventive care. the problem is, when people did

not have insurance, they did not go until they get really sick. the problem is, it is more expensive. if they are really sick, it is more expensive. colonoscopy i if there are not copays or deductibles and you get that, there are many very serious illnesses that if early the diagnosed, but those methods are very expensive. if i go into a doctor's office and the doctor says i can take an x-ray, or on the other hand if you do an mri i will find out 95% that i want to know. all of us would say i 1 the cat scan. what is the catch? it is 10 times more expensive.

we want to make sure that people get prevention because we believe that will save money not only for them before all of us as well. thank you very much. [applause] >> before we ask the next person to ask a question, she will be the last person for this evening. please feel free to complete the questionnaire card that was at your setting this evening. staff members had it. you can write to the congressman's office. you can call his office. his e-mail address is hoyer.house.gov. >> i am from maryland.

i just want to thank you for coming on behalf of everyone. i really appreciate you have taken the time to do this. i really appreciate obama's efforts to work and a bipartisan manner on this. however, i think it is really clear that republicans are not going to support health reform in any way. i would like to know if you will commit to voting for health-care reform with a public option, even if you don't get republican support. >> if the question was, do i intend to vote for the public option with or without

republicans, the answer is yes? -- is yes. thank you all very much. >> i know people are leaving. i want to thank everybody for coming out this evening and participating in this very important discussion. i would like to recognize and thank panel members this evening. we appreciate it. i am encouraging you to contact the congressman's office if you have additional questions. thank you, and good night. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> don't give up on the public option, will keep the cost down, ok? [inaudible conversations] >> i apologize for some of these folks. >> don't apologize for me. >> not you, some of these folks. >> you have my support. this is not about health care. it is about barack obama.

racism, bigotry, all that stuff as part of the problem. >> the far out left, that is my question. >> write it on there. i thought it was a good meeting. >> i spoke at the memorial service. i want you to think of not changing healthcare, but changing tax law. they are trying to take a different square pegs of different sizes and putting them into a round hole. i want you to change the laws to let the governors -- make it in writing for the insurance companies to change so that everybody can get into a group of some sort.

there is a reason why all the blanks -- all the banks flood in the delaware. -- flood into delaware. they changed i-95 for it. there will be no discussion, hollering down. check that out. i sent you and e-mail, but you did not respond except for an email. >> i get a lot of e-mail. >> think about it. >> you helped me back then. why don't you take and put a cap on these lawyers. --? it will drive down the health care costs. all of these doctors have outrageous prices.

>> the doctors don't have outrageous prices, there are outrageous costs. >> i was drafted in the service. i resent the thing that you stated about us being un- american. >> read it. what i said was, it was unamerican -- you believe our democracy should encourage shouting down? >> why didn't you say we're going to burn the flag in california? i never heard you or anyone up there, including what's-his-name -- >> everybody needs care. >> thank you, i would really appreciate it.

i was born and raised in southern maryland, all the way back to the original colony. >> people want a public option, they are just louder than us. past that public option, and we will put you back in office. >> see ya, bye bye. >> president obama is thinking about a speech to the joint session of congress, do you think it will be useful? >> you'res till m -- you're still mic'd. g

>> we will review the health care debate in congress tonight with analysis by market -- by matthew bond. sunday, a comparison of health care systems from around the world from a former washington post reporter. as the debate over health care continues, c-span's healthcare

hub is a key resource. go online and watch the latest events including town hall meetings and share your thoughts on the issue with your own video, including video from any town hall meetings you have gone too. >> larry will more talks about his book. then, former -- a former lehman brothers executive talks about the collapse of that firm. "book tv" starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> lessons in leadership from the middle east envoy. a retired general on how leaders and organizations can best respond to the trends reshaping the world. he discusses his book with a former fema director.

>> a national book award winner has analyzed and critique the american public education system. sunday, we will take your questions live. >> supreme court week starts october 4 with the debut of hour documentary on the highest court in the land. >> we are doing our final days of shooting hour documentary on the supreme court. we have been there for about two months or so as well as talking with nine of the justices about their jobs. they are giving us an inside window of how the court operates, the processes of the court, and a humanizing and it. >> supreme court week, starting october 4 on c-span. >> u.s. chamber of commerce

officials gathered earlier today for a discussion about the nation's economic recovery and executive compensation. they also talk about legislation before congress on health care and other issues. this is an hour and a half. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. i in the executive director of communications for the chamber of commerce. we are here today for our annual labor day briefing. we had the head of our economic team with us today who is going to do a forecast on the economy. and the senior vice president of the chamber randy johnson who is going to talk about workforce issues.

welcome and we will start off with dr. martin regalia. >> i am going to take a few minutes and talk about what we are seeing specifically in labor markets and then turn it over to randy. as with most economic presentations, there is always some good news and some bad news. the economy is growing again and we are coming out of this economic downturn, one that without hyperbole can be described as the worst economic downturn since the depression. it beats the 1974 downturn, the 1982 downturn, both in derision and dissent and rivals some of the rates of unemployment that we have seen in those instances. it was clearly a very severe economic downturn and a very trying economic times.

i think we are coming out of date for a number of reasons. we saw price declines which have a tendency to boost real incomes and spending. we have seen a march price decline over the last year. secondly, we had a stabilization program put in place by the last administration, which has worked very well. it has stabilized the financial system which is what it was intended to do. it got landing back on track. it has kept the banking system from disappearing into oblivion. all that was needed and i think it has worked. now we are starting to see some of the funds being paid back by the banking system, and they are

doing so with interest and they're buying back warrants so the cost of government is turning out to be considerably less than what the face value of the tarp program was. we are also seeing stimulus programs being put in place. congress passed a $787 billion fiscal plan that i don think was necessarily the best plan that could have been put together, but it was one of the better plans that could have been passed. that is what was needed at the time. the stimulus program has helped to get the economy growing. we will feel the benefits for the next year or so and that is probably a good thing because the economic recovery it is going to be a lack luster. we have seen significant changes in policy, a very aggressive monetary policy that open up

their balance sheet, expanded them to medically to keep the banking system liquid. just this morning, there were more reports on the consumer asset-backed lending program and how successful that has been in re-liquefying those markets. they have addressed other asset- backed market in the consumer and auto area and i think high marks are deserved by those at the fed for those policies. they were precedential. i think we were well served to have the fed to throw out the old playbook and bring in the new one. i think they deserved a lot of credit for what has been a very, very trying time in our financial markets and for getting us through the worst of

those. i was happy to see that the president agreed with me and reappointed chairman ben bernanke. i said i thought he deserved to be reappointed sooner rather than later. i think that was a good thing, a good choice, and i hope congress approves the nomination -- approved the nomination in short order. there still are a number of areas that need his attention. finally, the thing that i really turn the corner on this economy was a bottoming in the housing market. i think it is clear that the housing market has bottomed. where we were hoping with what we were seeing earlier this year as a bottom or a foreman of the bottom is clear at this point that it has bottomed out. you will see in the slides,

pictures of housing prices, sales, starts, all of which have bottomed and turned up modestly. the affordability members, the mortgage interest rate members all of which are providing credit for credit-worthy borrowers. we still have some problems in the subprime area, elevated delinquencies, and foreclosures, and those will remain for quite some time. i don't think we will see significant increases in those categories. they are at high levels but i do not think we will see increases in those categories going forward. even in the commercial mortgage market where there are questions to be answered, i think we are seeing some improvement there as well, and the fed is addressing that with their term asset lending program as well. the reasons i think that what we

are going to see is a subpar recession, something on the order of a u-shape rather than a v-shape recovery, is that the economy is still on balance. consumption has seemed to have picked up but it is still relatively weak. we will not see the bounceback in consumption, the pent-up demand coming forth. we are going to see a consumer that is experiencing high rates of unemployment going forward and high rates of job loss that were greater during this downturn than they had been in prior downturns. it will take more time to turn these job losses are round, generate new jobs, and higher income growth. for all of those reasons, i think we will see consumption to be weaker than expected coming

out of a downturn. investment is virtually non existent at this point. investment is always the second leg in a recovery. you get consumption, new orders, spending, people coming back to work, new jobs being created, and more investment in capital, equipment, and structures. we are not likely to see that transpire in the near term because i think investment is probably a year away from any kind of significant improvement. we will probably stop declining over the remainder of this year but it is going to be hard to envision businesses investing when they have excess capacity and still relatively few customers. the normal course of recovery, i don think, will manifest itself this time around.

the trade deficits have shrunk, we have sold goods abroad into new markets, that is going to continue but it is not going to increase in pace. i think the best we can hope for is more of a neutral contribution to our gdp growth. growth abroad is still relatively weak and for the most part is lacking our improvement. it appears it is going to take longer for them to catch up where we are and that is required before we can start selling abroad in the manner that we have over the last couple of years. one of the major components of this recovery, he will see weaker but positive consumption, very soft investment, and kind of neutral on the trade side. all those things conspire to give you an economic recovery. as we look at our forecast, we

are seeing growth may be as much as 3% in the third quarter and a continued positive growth in the 2.5% or 3% range for next year. unless the economy has reached some balancing and reacquired its footing, there is quite likely to be some black -- there is quite likely to be some backsliding for next year. the reaction that this economy is showing to the economic downturn, as i said, is just different from what we have come to expect. because of that, we will see a slightly different modification in growth rates from what would normally be the case.

i also think that the policies that we are addressing at this time and do raise the uncertainty level and the economy so we are looking at some very fundamental issues that randy will talk about, energy issues that are going to be important for our long term growth, and we are also on the down side of the productivity surge that began in the mid 1990's and continued into this decade but is now starting to slow a little bit. those are the advances that give an economy some lasting power. with those weaker rather than stronger it is hard to be be optimistic about economic growth over the immediate horizon.

the mortgage rates, the financial side, and the fact that the subprime market is still creating a problem, these investment numbers are very, very weak and are likely to continue to be weak because when you look at what drives investment, industrial production, demand is still fairly weak and is not anticipated to snap back stronger as it has in other recoveries. business confidence is picking up in the purchasing managers' index, finally going above 50 for the first time in 17 months but still relatively weak numbers. this is what i want to concentrate on today. when we have an economic downturn in this country, where you feel it is in the labour market. this one was a considerable hit to the american worker. we have lost 6.6 million jobs

since the beginning of the recession. we are looking at an unemployment rate of 9.4% but more than likely one that will rise closer to 10% over the next couple of months. the initial claims numbers that, weakly cannot this morning and did not show much improvement. they were down on a weekly average basis from last week's revised # but if you look at the four-week moving average, it is right on. that is an elevated number. one of the things to watch for on a weekly basis is one that number starts improving. a good number is down in the 200's. we would like to see more sustained improvement in that number going forward. we look at what is happening in

some of the other areas. one of the reasons why we think the unemployment rate will hang out for a while is that growth is not strong enough. unless you have growth well above potential, you are not going to drive the unemployment rate down. that is our forecast rate of growth over the next year. it does not generate enough to push the unemployment rate down. we have a significant number of unemployed individuals who are now working part-time. they are counted as working. when the economy picks up a little bit, the first thing that businesses will do is bring those part-time workers back on to full time before they start creating new jobs so you have to reabsorb those marginal workers. we have a category called discouraged workers, workers that are unemployed but have quit looking for a job because

they feel there are no jobs available. those individuals are not counted in the work force nor are they counted as unemployed. once the economy starts to pick up a bit and there is discouraged workers look for work, they will be unemployed but they will no longer be out of the workforce so they will be counted as unemployed. you have to redeploy the marginal worker and then you have to redeploy the discouraged workers, and there are 800,000 of those held there. we have a ways to go before we generate enough growth to get all these people reemployed. the duration of unemployment during this downturn has been significantly longer than what we have seen before. as you can see from the charts, the last couple of peaks in the duration of unemployment, they peaked at the end of the

recession so we still have some bad news to go on the duration of unemployment. participation rates, they are holding in there at about 66% and i expect they will stay in that range. when we look at the issue of this economic downturn versus prior downturns in so far as the labor market is concerned, you see some fairly drastic differences. we have lost significantly more workers so it is deeper than what we have seen in the past. we are a bigger economy but this is proportionally the deeper. those bars -- the blue bars indicate the length of time it took from the beginning of the recession until enough jobs were created to surpass the prior

peak in unemployment. how long did it take for not only that we got out of the recession but before we created enough jobs to match the prior peak? the red bars is how long a term from the end of the recession. the difference between the two is the length of the recessions. the last couple of recessions took significantly longer to reach the prior peak even though those two were eight months in duration of the relatively mild in terms of gdp drop. yet it took two years in the 1991 recession and it took a little over three years in the 2001 recession before we generated enough jobs. we are going to have to deal with a much steeper decline in unemployment this time around. i have seen projections that is going to be at least five years before we generate enough jobs

could we add about 1 million people to the labour force each year, a little bit more or less in others. roughly 1 million a year. over the next five years, you have to make up 5 million new entrants and you have to make up about 7 million lost jobs. in the best of all possible worlds, to get back to where we were, you are going to have to create 12 and in some cases even more. you are going to have to create up to 15 million net new jobs in the next five years just to get back to where we were. this is a daunting task. you are going to need the economy to grow at significantly greater than its long run potential in order to generate that kind of jobs.

for instance, when the economy is performing just about at its potential rate, you create about 150 to 180,000 new jobs. what you need is something a little bit greater than that to reach your prior peaks. we could go growing at our potential rate and create 180,000 new jobs per month and we would not reach the old peak in five years. this is where the labor markets have changed over the last few downturns. we have seen the duration of unemployment creep up and the time it takes to fully recover and get back to prior peaks. i think that is quite likely to happen again. that to go along with some other ships that we have seen in the labour force. i am going to jump through this

led to look at what we see in terms of some of the distributional impact on the labour force. if you look at the right hand panel, that is a measure of how desperate the income distribution is. as that number comes down, the distribution becomes more even. we have seen some improvement in the coefficient, some improvement in the distribution. there is a very significant upward trend, it's very significant trend in the direction of lesser quality in income distribution in this country. if that is going to be addressed, it is going to have to require long-term fundamental policy changes and they are going to have to be in the

education and skill- accumulation area because the economy is becoming much more technically complicated and complex, and the workers that can address that are rewarded and the ones that are not are not. we are seeing a hollowing out of jobs that paid significantly higher wages for doing me deal tasks. if you were running an assembly line in doing the same job again and again, you still made a pretty good living and you still had a pretty good in come from that activity. with the robotics and the fit -- and the deficiencies over the last couple of decades, those jobs really do not exist anymore and they are not going to exist in the future. trying to reconstitute those jobs in a competitive economy is a fool's errand. what we have to do is get our work force prepared to meet the next challenge and that requires

greater education and greater scale accumulation. that takes time. you do not do that overnight. a tax policy to try to address the income distribution is a fool's errand. if you look at that coefficient, you will see that during the clinton administration when we had significant tax increases, we actually saw the rich get richer. we had a big productivity surge and a big technology surge, and the people that had the education to take advantage of that benefited quite nicely. during the bush and initiation where we see them villified often for having given tax cuts to the rich, we see the coefficient come down. because those tax cuts were not just for the rich. they were tax cuts across the board.

when we look at some of those income groups, we see that over time, if you look at the bottom to, those are your top of the income distribution. those are getting a larger share of total income in the united states. the two lower groups are getting a lower share. the tax shares of the same upper groups have gone up more than their income shares. the fact of the matter is, we have had lower effective tax rates on the lower income groups, higher affected tax rates on the higher group, and it has not done a whole lot to affect the income distribution. it is and more fundamental problem.

we have seen a capping off of late with the bush tax cuts, but the tax increases that were designed in the mid 1990's to achieve balance and a better income distribution were woefully unsuccessful. to sum up, when i look at the economy right now, things are definitely looking better. i think we are out of this economic downturn. when we are told when it officially the recession ended, i bet at this point that it is going to be pretty close to the third quarter of this year. the economic recovery is going to be slower than normal where you really feel the recession in the labor markets, and the unemployed, in which growth, those things are likely to be subpar for quite some period of time and that is going to be the political challenges to create

economic policies that provide significant economic growth because in turn, that economic growth will provide job growth, wage growth, and it will also provide revenue growth for the federal government so that we can address the absolutely huge deficits that have been projected over the next 10 years, that this that are clearly unsustainable and that deficits that will wreak havoc if they manifest themselves over the next 10 years we will see our dollar decline in value, inflation come back and we will see a real tug of war between the fed and the administration whether to end like this economy or not. thank you very much. >> thank you. does that mean i am going to get a raise next year or not? marty has pinpointed are challenges ahead.

i think one of the questions as we go forward is whether or not the unions will work with business groups to create an agenda for capitol hill that helps create jobs or whether or not we will go down the usual path of unions demonizing the employer community and saying that nothing has changed since the 1930's. employers do not take care of their employees so we need more regulations and new burdens on those employers. obviously, more costs on employers, much of that will be passed on to workers or consumers and that is not a recipe for job growth. it is a bit ironic for me at least to look back on some of the pieces of legislation on

capitol hill and seeing that this -- that it is much of the same old that a party was pushing a decade ago without much creativity because of the environment that we are in. the folder in front of you is chock full of good information. i am sorry we were unable to break it down in sound bites. what is pending on capitol hill, i think you will find a lot of that information very valuable. in a recent speech, -- we sometimes criticized the unions fork over the criticizing the employer community. that is not what the employer community is. on labor day, we celebrate the

contributions of workers but i think it is worth noting that what the workplace is is a pact between employers and employees. together, there is an environment created. hopefully a decent wage is received from that and the employee can create a product in which he or she can make a profit. eventually, things are worked out. there are ups and downs but overall there is a satisfaction between employers and employees. sometimes with unions, i think they argued much to their discredit that is not true but it undermines their credibility generally. it does not mean that there are

some bad employers. if you would take a second to look at the benefits sheet in your packet, we point out that employers provide $7.80 trillion worth of compensation to employees, $1.50 trillion in employee benefits. employers provide in a world where we are talking about health care benefits, still providing close to 180 million americans with health care insurance, about 160 million is to private sector employers. over $500 billion for health care insurance. in a world where employers are still struggling with health care costs, they are not just cutting copays but they are experienced -- they are experimenting things -- with

things. despite all of the rhetoric, the level of health care coverage has remained relatively stable although the census bureau will likely come up with new debt next week. private sector employers, close to $200 billion in retirement income. often paid leave is a benefit provided by employers. even in these dire economic straits, the survey data with regard to american workers is quite compelling in terms of job satisfaction. the american enterprise institute came out in august, american still displayed a high degree of satisfaction with their jobs. 50 percent side of employed people said they were completely satisfied with their jobs and another 30% or somewhat satisfied.

for those with jobs, job stress, the amount that they earned, and even health benefits remained remarkably stable 68% were satisfied with the chances for promotion. 71% in 2009 said they were satisfied with the amount of money they earned. 67% in 2009 were satisfied with their health insurance benefits. the obama administration is running up against one of those figures with the health-care issue. before i get to health care, let's talk a little bit about the general labor agenda. the employer free choice act is

back in the press where there could be room for compromise. the three parts of the bill is that they provide if a union rounds of 50% of cards, the employer must recognize the union. the second part is an arbitration on employers when a union and an employer cannot agree on a contract an arbitrator will be appointed to write the terms for the employer. our objections real quickly have traditionally been that these cards are subject to closure and union organizers, this is not the chamber speaking it is the courts that have said this. in fact, the hell is -- i am going to read one quick paragraph from a union organizer because many things -- here is a

former union organizer. i began to realize that the number of signed cards have less to do with support for the union and more to do with how effective and organizer was in doing their job. the vote count is significantly less than the number of cards actually collected. card check campaigns have little to do with giving workers information. we are trying to avoid topics like dues increases or a strike. many employers have been asked to have their burkhart -- to have their cards returned to them. that is one union organizer but if you take the time to go through the hearings on capitol hill, there is testimony in hear from people and they have had the courage to come forward and talk about how that system is manipulated by union organizers.

it is not the chamber that i am talking about. it is actually people who are out there where the rubber meets the road. the second part of the bill is equally unacceptable to the employer community. the idea that a government arbitrator appointed by the government could step in and write a contract for the employer which would govern every term and condition of the workplace has never been accepted and certainly i think is ludicrous on its face and is unacceptable to our members. . .

both of these ideas are bad ideas and should not be accepted by congress. with regard to compromises, we will see where the talk goes. we're not going to compromise easing the employer free choice act as a base of negotiations. if the unions want to start with some objective, balanced hearings with regard to the national labor relations act which has not been updated since 1947, we can buy into that process. we will go from there. we can identify on the management side and in the employment community -- will not negotiate as a base. recently, the unions went after george mcgovern, which many of

you remember, for his opposition to the employment free choice act. i want to read what exactly he did say. i find it is interesting now that the union is a turncoat. as a longtime friend of labor unions, i must raise my voice against pending legislation about management and labour. that legislation is called the employer free choice act. i am sad to see it runs counter to ideas that were once at the court to the labor movement. they would lose the freedom to express their desire to make a decision without anyone over their shoulder without fear of reprisal. and even on arbitration, he said that it is a government dictating to employees with no opportunity to approve the agreement. why should employees' pay union dues to pick get such a contract?

i do not think the employees are there for the employment choice act. i do not believe the votes will be there. it is just a question of time of actually educating policy decision makers so they know what is in the bill. employee free choice act is out there. it appears that the majority it is not moving until the free choice act is done with. there is an expansion of family medical leave to ocean reform, to plant-closing laws. there is a myriad of other issues such as eliminating binding arbitration. the common theme through all these bills is, again, not really how we should help employers learn how to comply with the law, but let's increase damages -- let's make it easier

for the board filed class-action lawsuits. that is why these posters are on the left in case you're wondering how complex our laws are here. that is one page out of federal regulations, and is a typical book. it is one book of 90. when i see the department of labor talking about more enforcement against employers and you see this trend on capitol hill of new laws, new burdens, and it is worth reminding people that employers don't have millions of dollars to hire lawyers to figure out every page in the code of regulations and every sentence in that page. there was a time under some administrations where we recognize that there was a need to perhaps help employers,

particularly small employers, learn how to comply with the law. i am hoping we see some of that in this administration. i am hoping we see that in capitol hill. the common theme is that we have a lot of laws on the books. we can figure out where we catch them on some violation. this is a matter of great concern for the u.s. chamber. we will be revisiting the theme. the reality is that nobody can really comply with all provisions of the law. it is simply too complicated. how about helping small businesses understand the law through some sort of voluntary compliance programs? i do have to note that where the department of labor has increased exponentially, the one area we do see reductions is in

the one program under the labor- management disclosure act which has cut the budget at that enforces the law against union leadership to protect union members. back in the 50's, -- under bobby kennedy, many hearings going in the union corruption and coercion of union members and the needed to create a lot to protect union members from the union leadership. it is a disclosure act. it is enforced by the department of labour. ironically, that is the one budget being cut by the department of labour. in the department is also engaged in rulemaking which is obviously directed at reducing the reporting requirements of unions in this entire area making it more difficult for

union leaders. we have comment on those of course. imagine on health care, and smallish on capitol hill, there is testimony in your packet where i testified in front of the ways and means committee. the president is going to give a speech next week, and we will see if that reshapes where things are or not. our concerns have been fairly clear. we have not hidden this. one is the employer mandate. the house bill says that you, as an employer, except for the smallest employers, must provide a qualified health-care plan defined by the federal government. you have to do that or pay a

fine to the federal government. we have concerns. someone making $40,000 a year is $3,200. that can add up pretty quickly for a small business guy. why shouldn't all employers have to participate? not all employers can do that. small startup businesses can't. we think they are already doing their fair share. many cities have come out on the employer mandate to the cbo. invariably, it concludes that tax session such as this will lead to not just slowing job growth but job elimination. there is really no argument on that basis. with regard to the public auction, -- option, we will see

where the president goes on that. the grassroots has been tremendously -- mostly in opposition, but it depends on which poll you read. our concerns have been that the so-called public auction -- option has an unfair advantage over the private sector and will drive out private-sector insurers. we found that millions of workers will move to the public sector option and under studies have documented the cost shift between public sector plans and medicare, and they will always have an unfair advantage. were we going to go and health care? the path is fairly clear.

the president should come back in and admit that we were trying to do too much too soon. people are scared about what they're hearing. it is not that they necessarily know what is going on, but they are scared. i was on the hill when hillary clinton came up and presented her plan to congress. she was criticized for hiding the ball at the time as you recall. i would say that the process back in '94 was a model of transparency as compared to what we saw on capitol hill over the last six months. it is unfortunate the process has been slow down, the unfortunate for those in power that the bill did not go to the floor in august so that the american public could have time to weigh in. hopefully, the president will come in with a proposal of some sort, and we can come together over a package that is slimmer, more understandable, and move on the other issues.

maybe we shouldn't resolve health-care if it goes to the employee free choice act. it seems to me the public has pretty much made it clear -- they recognize there is a problem. we're fairly help -- happy, don't mess it up. it's hard to believe that message has not gotten through to the white house. we traditionally do work closely with the unions. we're hopeful about a comprehensive package of immigration reform. we do have some disagreements over the temporary worker programs. if you look at the demographics over the long term, there is a greater need for immigration. there is some solution for the undocumented in this country, and we hope congress will take that up and the next couple of years thank you.

>> do have any questions on anything that randy said or anything that i said? we will start over there and work right across. >> [inaudible] in my own situation, as an administrative contractor, [unintelligible] >> anecdotal information isn't bad, it's just hard organized. the anecdotal information we've got is that as the economy has gone into the severe downturn, it has been harder for people to

pay. we have heard stories of loan delinquency, and we have seen the data rise. other business loan delinquencies are also up. loan-loss reserves are up. the hard data we have on that indicates and support to the anecdotal data that is become harder and harder to make ends meet in an economy where there are fewer and fewer customers, and the customers you do have are spending less and less. we're hopeful that with the economy beginning to improve, those stories kind of peaked and received as we go forward. with the slowness of the economic growth, i am afraid we will continue to hear of problems that ongoing businesses have meeting their commitments because of the weak economy.

go over here. >> regarding health care reform, you have said that they will merely adopt a small conference. it would a government auction -- option provide coverage? >> it depends on how it would be structured. 90% of the chamber is comprised of small businesses. generally speaking, our members would rather the devil they know than the devil they don't. they would rather work with the current market and combine the

reforms we are seeing like a guaranteed issuance, no limitation on exclusion for pre- existing conditions. we all agree with a federal website that would help small businesses go one place to shop for the best deal, a characteristic in all these bills combined with some sort of subsidies for small businesses that can't afford insurance. our membership would rather try to get your point then take a chance on the creation of some unknown and the myths -- with some new, unknown that behemoth -- new, on non behemoth. -- new, unknown behemoth.

the other is the employer mandate. we sort of see these as a package. clearly, even with the exception of small businesses -- with the exception, small businesses have been able to resist the employer mandate. >> the jobs are going to lag. the think the administration and members of congress will become more available to your concerns about all of these labor related issues? [unintelligible] from your perspective, is there an educationable, if that is a word, way to lock in-- >> the employer free choice act was slow down for a couple of months because of the economy. we did, with some studies which were criticized about job loss and -- to your point, people

understand this is not a time to create uncertainty with regard to however the new laws are going to impact the bottom line. it does help our argument on capitol hill with the cluster of conservative democrats. those are key votes. there is a lot of stuff back up. the allies of the democratic party -- the answer is no. there are some real sweeping changes to our nation's unemployment laws. >> in a macro economic sense, if you look at the weak economy into superimpose the budget issue and the debt issue, one thing that i have a slide on that did not cover specifically was the projected debt levels

are going from around 40% to 44% in 2008, projected to over 80% in 2019. these are unsustainable debt increases. to the extent that you have to address the deficit, it has to be done -- there has to be spending restraint and economic growth. you cannot balance the budget by raising rates without making sure that you have a base to apply that rate to. we have seen enormous increases in revenues over the 2001-2008. we had at declining rates and stronger growth. congress is going to have to come to grips with -- on the one hand, if we have a health care

policy or an energy policy that does not cut costs, and it has been suggested that the health care system would not, then you're not addressing the spending restraints. to the extent that you have a weak economy and those types of policies, you have a double win the on the budget. -- double-whammy on the budget. it understates the true cost of health care industry is the true cost of the energy policies. in a macro sense, more and more congressmen and congresswomen are seeing the dynamic where we have to have economic growth.

it will have to do things that will control spending. and how much each one focuses on any given idea is virtually impossible to say. the general conception of these twin problems is out there. as we see a bigger deficit numbers, men and as we see some of the negative impacts from the bigger -- bigger deficit numbers come in, and as we see some of the negative impacts, it will come in as well. >> [inaudible] let me ask you a big picture question. help us think about what a normal was going to be. consumption is going to be depressed.

wage growth is going to be suppressed. what is the new normal? those psychological changes, as overstating saying that it is going to be a significantly new normal? >> there is always a new normal. everybody likes to coin the phrase, so they talk about it. i don't think we're going to see an american consumer that tries to more for themselves into the japanese way that we have seen in the past. i think there is going to be an attempt by the american consumer to be more judicious in terms of its spending, and to try to gradually get its balance sheets in order. the consumer balance sheet can be called in order if they curtail their borrowing, not necessarily if they save out of

their current income. i think that we see higher savings rates. we have seen a jump to 5% or 6% from the- negative rates. the new norm is somewhat more saving and a gradual repairing of the balance sheet. what does that mean in terms of gdp growth? i think we're seeing potential rates of growth and better in the two or 2.5 range. it is what we thought it was -- it was a movement to a slower growth economy.

i don't think it is an abrupt move. it is not the new norm. what we saw prior to the recession -- is the best you can do in terms of focusing on an important question that we will be watching to see. we have seen people -- a look at the cash for clunkers deal. he put a little bit of an incentive. it did not apply to all the vehicles, it only applied to vehicles with gas mileage constraints. look what it did. it kicked up the sales rate to 14.1 million units, well above what anybody thought. we will see what it goes back to next month. there were people ready to buy. we saw the same thing in the housing market. it has given rise to sales at

existing and new homes. those people weren't afraid to step back in. i think that where we make the mistake is to look at what is actually happening in the recession and say, that is going to be the new form -- the new norm. we will not see the french credits that people should not be borrowing. the people that do not have the financial wherewithal to buy a new house getting credit at virtually zero rates of interest. >> the federal reserve has indicated on a number of occasions that it tends to keep the current interest rates over an extended period of time. today, the president of the federal reserve bank said that the interest rate should be [unintelligible]

i would like to know how you see that -- >> i was at the board. they gave a speech that had a policy directive that is considerably different from what is coming out of the board. they did an interview. they talked about how they will maintain the interest rate policy for some indefinite. they felt they can control -- through some controls of payment of interest on reserves. it can keep the banks for lending up the reserve and generating inflationary pressures by increasing the interest rate that had on reserves or by unwinding some of

the borrowings they conducted which was done with a repurchase agreement and other short-term borrowing so they had a natural tendency to unwind. i think there is a modest disagreement among some of the members of the fomc. i would like to see some more retch -- more hawkish regression on the part of the fed. this is what is the dynamic to the fed, and it is a good thing. you don't want to the fed in groupthink. this is the group we have been entrusted to conduct monetary policy. they do it in a relatively independent manner. you want there to be a little bit of discussion at these meetings. what you are seeing in the

different, from bill dudley or someone else, that dynamic at work. i see it as a positive. i take the lead from where chairman bernanke is going. he says he has seen the need for continued monetary accommodation to be relatively important. he is moving in that direction, though he is cognizant of the fact that he is going back to pullback. i see a bigger issue, and it is not between what the president of the philadelphia or the pittsburgh saint louis bank says or what the board thinks. it is with the group as a whole thanks and what the administration thinks. the president says he will reappoint him, and i think the congress will confirm the reappointment.

the question is when the fed starts to pull this back. it may be the middle of next year or a little sooner. at that point, the administration will look at the fed slowing down gdp growth the slowing growth will mean that revenue growth does not return to normal path as quickly as it otherwise would. at that point, you will see the traditional sides form between the administration that generally leans to the side of more growth. that is not a partisan statement. the first bush had a great wars over restrictive monetary policy. we will see that natural antagonism grow a little bit over the course of the next year. it will be much more important

than the internal discussions. >> you mentioned earlier the possibility of the economy backsliding in the second half of 2010 as the effects of the stimulus wayne. will that be more of a slowdown or an actual -- >> it will be more of a slowdown, but the problem is, when you're running gdp growth at or below potential, your only a hair's breadth away from another recession. the closer you get to any kind of extraneous shot -- shock, it can to be back in. do we slide back into recession? that is not my forecast, but the possibility is certainly there. the probability is not inconsequential. we have a potential for a double-dip recession. we could see that occur in two

ways. either the fed is overly aggressive in tightening, and about the same time the stimulus is wearing out, we see a high budget deficits and higher interest rates. a fed that is concerned about inflation and pulls back a little too quickly could take you into recession. on the other hand, if you go into the middle of next year and the economy is doing quite well, you still have the economic stimulus coming on line and you start to see the economy hit its stride. the money supply injected into the system starts to create more transactions. most work on a product base. so you have too much money chasing too few goods. the fed does not pull the money back fast enough and you start to get inflation. when that happens, expectations build.

the higher interest rates could trigger an economic decline. your walking a tightrope at this point. as long as the economy is growing at or slightly above its potential, you have a little bit of leeway. you have some wiggle room. when you start to grow at those lower rates, you pull back and expect the economy to run on its own. it gets very temperamental. in those kind of situations, a little over aggression or under aggression can produce an economic downturn. we are not out of the possible double-dip recession. we will not know until the middle of next year. >> you have not talked about financial-services. >> reform? i did not know if you had a

couple hours. it is definitely on the play. our center for capital markets for competitive capital markets -- they are currently working at some of the reform proposals. the ones that sound of the worst us at this point are things that are providing a new consumer protection agency. there is not one government entity out there that thinks that is necessary. i do not know how that plays with you all, whether it is necessary, but it is something that has come out of the administration. every single one of the administration's regulatory agencies have said they do not like it. there is a lot not to like about that policy. elsewhere in the regulatory framework, we're going to have to learn that companies in that

area are going to have the wrong with more rather than less capital. the overall average allowed the situation to get out of hand. others at the treasury will have to control the leverage and have somewhat more capital. it forces you to take into account the risk that is out there. beyond that, over regulation would be a real problem that would stymie the return of credit availability in this country. we will continue to run on credit. you are not going to get the return of a more normal functioning economy. we have seen an administration

outlined in some of the congressional individuals -- we have not seen a comprehensive plan. the way the administration goes to plan has unfolded is a piece at a time. it is clear we have too many bank regulators from an economist's point of view. when i was working at a bank and i was a bank executive, i thought my regulator was good and everybody else was crazy. i did not want the other guys regulating. there was a very proprietary feeling. my regulator was my regulator. he understood my problems. he did not always agree with me, she did not always agree with me, but i had some reports there. there is a real fear of getting away from that. one of the things that you look

at is this hodgepodge of bank regulation. you have that that, the comptroller, the fdic, state regulators, individual regulators at the state level. these institutions all interact and crossover. it is hard to draw a distinct line from where the part of the bank and is and the underwriting part of the bank begins. we do not have an investment banking system. there are distinctions about commercial and -- the commercial entity is not there anymore. with the labor standards act that has not been amended since 1947, it took 10 years to hammer out. it was a less than perfect compromise. now we're going to sit down and toss that out.

it is a little less than 10 years old, i guess. we will toss that out and go down this road again. there is a lot of areas where we saw real problems. the credit rating issue is a real problem. that has to be addressed. there is a lot of hazard because if you pay for the credit rating to save weight pay for your auditor, we have seen that cause problems. a good deal of the issues that set higher on the congressional totem pole, whether they get handled and how much time we have to do this -- a potential for over regulation while at the same time a clear understanding that the current level of regulation did not cut it. >> i understand that this weekend in london, the g-20 meetings and the pittsburgh summit, regulatory reform is

going to come up. there is talk about accepting compensations and regulations. can you elaborate a little more on why you are opposed to it? >> i have not said we are opposed to anything except the consumer protection agency. >> start with that. >> we do not think it is necessary. we don't think that the consumer -- the lack of consumer protections is what caused this economic downturn. many people that got mortgages they could not afford to pay did not get mortgages because they were duped into it. in many cases, these loans got the term "wires on" because the individual lead to the bank -- "liar's loan."

the broker did not do the due diligence. going out and raising a problem and addressing it in a < appropriate way, we don't think it is good public policy. we don't think layering not at the broad brush of the proposed consumer protection agency would virtually allowed them to go and even small businesses that have an accounts receivable and tell them -- the institution has floated you alone. we don't consider ourselves a bank. we send out a bill that says "please pay for your disk -- a for prescriptions. we don't think that is inappropriate function for consumer protection agency is

not, and any sense, making a loan. there is a very short term financial issue. but technically speaking, they would. in terms of the broader discussions, we haven't opposed anything. we have supported consolidations. we have supported some level of agreement among international regulators. that way the regulations that are imposed are consistent in a broader international market. we have not gone out and approved something that is essentially a pig-in-a-poke .

there of a lot of very nebulous proposals. the we have had a broad outline put out there, and it leaves all the details out. in this case, the devil is in the details. at this point, we have not supported or opposed many of these pieces. >> how about executive compensation? >> there is no doubt that there have been some egregious cases of executive compensation. so as someone who represents businesses, that is a decision that should be made by boards of directors. this is a business decision. it is not a government decision. the government doesn't have to like what the bonuses are. it is the system that determines them. as a been determined correctly

in all cases? no. absolutely not. but to suggest that the government oppose the compensation of one size fits all that would be a better approach would be ridiculous. we recognize the failure of some of the private sector compensation mechanisms. at the same time, the suggestion that you impose a government limit on everything is absolutely ridiculous. the minute they start imposing government limits on a-rod's salary, we will hear what the american people really think about this. you can go down a whole lot of areas other than executive compensation and find cases of egregious payments. i don't see any of those guys had their buses back because they struck out four times with runners in scoring position. >> that avoids the point of

executive compensation is. if a-rod fails, there is no risk to the government's structure or the consumer. it is not putting the financial system at risk. that is the rationale between why there is a government action. >> in the cases where the government has taken ownership positions, they have exercised those ownership positions to put certain compensation limits in place. in a few places, they did not put them in place. afterwards, they wanted to retroactively put them in place, aig in particular. so they got it wrong. ok? they got it wrong by their own admission, although they have not made that admission yet the fact is, they put things in place that they would later admitted did not do what they

wanted it to do. in other cases where they have an executive compensation limits and they have run them down into the mid-level, they have found that those companies are now the voice of the financial talent that they need to recover -- are now devoid of the financial talent that they need to recover. if people are compensated for the same activity a greater amount in one area more than another area, there'll be a flow of talent from one area to the other. what is the appropriate policy for compensation? the appropriate policy is to have the private sector said those compensation limits. if the government has to come in and rescue them, you play with the government's money and you get to set the rules. i am talking about things like

banks that are regulated entities that are regulated -- they are different than entities that are, and a sense, owned and operated by the government. the one thing i was interested with the press response was, when the aig bonuses came out, there was a vilification in the press. in the same week, the fannie and freddie bonuses came out and there was not one word in the press. everybody knows fannie and freddie, even before they were taken over, were government sponsored enterprises that traded on the government guarantee. afterwards, there is no question that they are government owned enterprises. bonuses were paid their, and nothing was said. it has to be a concept well thought out and applied in a very consistent basis. in the end, the private sector, while not being free of

mistakes, does a better job of figuring out what people ought to be compensated than does a federal bureaucrat. that is my opinion. i can substantiate enough cases where the federal bureaucracy has made mistakes that you can't make a compelling case that the private sector mistakes were so pervasive that they need a federal pre-emption or federal regulation. i did not think wage and price controls work. we have shown that again and again. this is another form of federal price controls. >> i take your point and i agree with you. i have written that great time -- it is difficult to do this. one is the question of risks, the short term vs. long-term risks. not so much where they are now taken over, but to the extent that we have now seen a

demonstration where if they do things short term but caused massive losses and cause the government to step in, to the extent they believe that payment and bonus structures have affected the balance and short- term risk. he did not think there is any legitimate government role where a structure should be set up? i am not arguing -- >> i honestly do not. when the government gets in on their regulation, it has to regulate the transfer of risk in a sense. you have to maintain these capital standards. you have to maintain these type of loan loss standards. you have to provide this type of protection for the insurance agency.

i send any regulator on a regular basis. monthly, quarterly, semi-annual way, by annually, as required for me, the government, to maintain what is i think the appropriate risk level. beyond that, it is the stockholders that are financing the operation because we're talking about government regulated operations the stockholders that have that stock at risk -- it is something that can help them achieve the proper rate of return and still maintain those government levels of risk. if the government thinks that institution is too risky, then stepped in and do something about the risk profile either through premium adjustments or whatever. if this is to you can hire, and i don't want anybody with a w in

their last name, and not someone who cannot work for less money, this is what i want to do. i think is wrong headed, and i don't think it will work. what is the appropriate level of government supervision and government regulation of entities in our financial system? i have a tendency to err on the side of the appropriate capital standards and appropriate risk standards. there is an ongoing assessment of how that institution is doing so that people in the institution are looking at what they're doing rather than going in and making business decisions for that institution. that i just don't get. >> i have a question about everify. the think you will be able to

halt the contractor rule on tuesday? we talk a bit about your emergency court filing? and can you comment on the enforcement peace of immigration which presumably will have to happen in september or sometime this fall ahead of comprehensive reform because e-verify has to be authorized? >> unfortunately, we did lose that case in district court. it deals with the implementation of an executive order that in poses an e-verify worker system on federal contracts. the challenges that because we did not believe president bush had the authority to impose such an executive order on federal contractors because the undermine the statute. we argued and said it must remain voluntary. the district court, surprisingly to us, and we have filed a stay

of the regulation pending appeal. we should hear about that fairly quickly. if the district court denies it, we will have to evaluate our next steps. we are also pursuing relief on capitol hill. most importantly, to modify the regulation to -- so that it does not apply to acquired verification of existing employees. as you know, the regulation says that we must also not just to verify new employees but those employees working under federal contract. for many companies, is difficult to separate who was working under contract and who is not. many companies will just be forced to verify everybody.

so pending possible success in the courts, which -- we're pursuing legislation in the court very aggressively. it will also pre-empts state laws in regard to e-verify requirements. it is to say that the verification of existing employees will not be required. a think you're referring to the fact that underlying authorization known as the pilot program will expire by the end of september. if congress does not reauthorize that, federal regulation will have no statutory authority. because of that, we don't think congress will allow that to happen. we think it will be reauthorize. if you want more information, i

can certainly give you that. >> we're winding down here. it just another questioner to. -- just another question or two. >> [unintelligible] >> no, it isn't. as of yet, we don't know that there is -- we know there is a bit -- we know there is a potential problem. it if we were to see significant defaults in the real estate market or considerable illiquidity in the ability to refinance many of these contracts that will come up for refinancing, then it would be very problematic and we would have to -- the fed is well aware of that problem. we have spoken to many others closely involved in that issue. the fed is continuing to monitor that issue.

it would be ready to step into the breach if there was a significant lack of liquidity and inabilities to roll over some of these things. i am guardedly optimistic while fully aware that there is a significant size the potential issue about that. if it were to blow up, it could cause a seizure in the financial markets. the big decline as a result in a lot of different factors. the erosion in the value of the housing assets -- the liquidity into the liquidity in the institutions, the lack of capital in the institutions, many have been able to rebuild a bit of their capital. they're more aware of the problem, so i don't think it will catch them by surprise. i did not factor it into the forecast.

i am guardedly optimistic that you will not see a complete meltdown. everybody is watching. >> you touched upon being hopeful for reform for the next two years. were you talking about before or after the midterm election? lee elaborate on the differences between labor [unintelligible] >> a lot of our allies -- we're hopeful that obama will come out with a bill with senator schumer by the end of this year to go forward next year. i always thought and still think, with health care and other issues, the american public -- i do not think the senator schumer or the lenders

-- the administration understands how hard the legalization is and how difficult it would be to pass legislation that would legalize a great many of the undocumented workers here. because of that, politically, the best time would be the first year of the next term of the congress, 2011. a lot of my friends disagree. in regard to our differences, organized labor has always been very opposed and skeptical of the need for temporary worker programs. the congress should create a commission to study that. it should be slanted towards the

conclusions that they feel the commission wants. we need a robust temporary worker program provided that there are mechanisms to make sure that employers recruit from the domestic workforce first. they want a commission, and we don't. that is where the disagreement lies, essentially. we have talked to senator schumer about this. we have encouraged him to try and sort this through. we have tried to come up with a bill that provides better security and pathway utilization providing certain conditions are met. learning english, paying a civil penalty, tougher employment, verification requirements on employers. programs to help the undocumented learn english. to me, that is one of the great

concerns of many of us here. it is sort of a visceral reaction, people cannot speak english in this country. people are mistaken that they do not want to learn english. it is the key to advancement. if we could provide some federal help in that area, -- >> are you pushing for some piecemeal and vision to deal -- envisioned deal? >> is capped at 65,000 because of the economy. it is market-based and is responsive to the economy. the other is capped at 66,000. we're negotiating those bills on separate tracks.

they want to put in more hoops and hurdles that employers must go through before you can recruit any worker. we understand that, but you render the program know if you want a greater numbers because you have to go through some many hoops and hurdles to get to the point -- as you probably know, the hispanic caucus supports not doing things piecemeal. we're trying to pursue relief on separate tracks, but it is going slowly. >> you did not talk at all about trade. there is talk that the president will come out with the long- awaited speech on trade and clarify the position. what is your sense of what is going on? do you have any sense on how

much they are -- >> i would say two things. we have an area that specializes in that, so i defer to them on the trade questions. i am sure john murphy to give you a more thorough answer on that. aren't we doing a major presentation in a couple of weeks? at that point, the chamber's entire policy will be laid out in exemplary fashion. i will not begin to preempt any of that discussion. i will pass on that one. sorry. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [no audio]