florida during the break, i couldn't help but like a play lady posed a question to me in a town hall meeting, congressman, what are you going to do to bring about the kind of change you need in washington, d.c.? are you going to be on the fence? are you going to say, i don't necessarily want to say anything, do anything, i'm running the back of the chamber, put my card in and run out the door, i'm not going to fight for the individuals who sent me here to fight for them, those are businesspeople and individuals and people listening to us right now that has a health care crisis or have an imminent health care crisis coming and wondering if they're going to have insurance. i'd much rather go down fighting for them an sitting here trying to be safe and trying to score political points when a -- win a couple more seats in congress because it will help me win political points. we are deal with a real deal that are crippling our multinational companies that are here, based in the united

states to compete with other countries who have health care reform and have a policy to where that it doesn't bankrupt big and small companies. so i'm just asking my colleagues, democrat or republican, be a man. be a woman. be a leader. come here to washington, d.c., and speak fact and not fiction. and make sure we fight because we're as close as we have ever been to doing this right now, and i think it's important that if we're going to go down, we're going to go down fighting and if i have anything to do with it, we're not going down, that's one, and two, people are going to get health care and in the final analysis, they're going to look at the leaders, democrat or republican, and say, i'm glad they fought, they did not retreat. . ms. wasserman schultz: i can't help in listening to you and thinking of this debate through

my eyes as a mom. there's nothing more important to moms than making sure your children stay healthy. and there is nothing that tears out a mother's heart worse than looking at your child knowing they're sick and knowing that you can't do anything to make them well. and you would do anything to make your child well if you could. imagine layering on top of that angst for a mother the fact that she wasn't covered by health insurance nor were her children and couldn't even take her child to the doctor when they first get sick. and she has to wait and wait and wait until her child gets sicker and sicker and sicker until she has to use the emergency room as her primary access point for health care for her child. for me, we are at the point in this country and in our nation's history where you should not be

separated from your ability to provide the health -- for the health and well-being of your child due to the difference in your wealth. when a child turns five years old in this country, mr. meek, mr. ryan and mr. murphy, no parent has to worry about whether they are going to be able to pay for their children's education, because we have education that's universal in america, everyone gets ack equal access. we aren't even going that far. we are saying health care should be a right and not be a privilege. and mr. ryan, one of the things that just galls, which is why i keep going back to it how disingenuous our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. one of our colleagues on the other side of the aisle said

this last week to a conservative organization and this was reported in the newspaper. a colleague of ours in talking about their views on health care reform said, what we have to do today is make a could haven ant, slit our wrists and be blood brothers. this will not pass. we will do whatever it takes to make sure it doesn't pass and she continued, right now, we are looking right down the throat and ripping the guts out of freedom and we may not be able to restore it and that is a direct quote from one of our colleagues, who i won't name, but madam speaker, i would like to enter this into the record -- we don't have toll deal with transparency because it's clear that mistakes are so high for them.

if i hadn't read it myself, i wouldn't have believed it, the stakes are so high here. they know that if we're successful at finally reforming the health care system and covering everyone that politically, next year they won't be able to be too successful in the elections and that's what it is about them. it's about power. mr. ryan: there was an interesting article in "newsweek" and about a book about william f. buckley and the battle between the extreme right wing of the political party and william f. buckley "national review" kind of wing and there was a battle post-new deal. but it's interesting to note that right after roosevelt got in there was an extreme action similar to what we're seeing where every critique of what roosevelt was doing was

socialism, communism and all these fancy names, but there were also these vigilante minutemen showing up carrying their guns and that's what we are dealing with here. there's no solution, there's just these critiques of how the train is moving down the track and the american people want to go in another direction. but i wanted to share this story because this is what we are all talking about. i ran into this woman at the canfield fair, one of the biggest fairs in ohio. i stood there for four hours, four hours just south of youngstown, ohio and i had two people out of all the entire time come up to me and say, what are you doing with this socialist and also against the energy bill, so it was the right-wing talk radio crowd that was inundating them with this

stuff, two people came up against this. but what this one woman said. she's 35 years old, married, kid. husband just lost a job. they made about $58,000 a year when he worked. they now make $32,000 a year. he -- she is working. he, after he lost his job, is going back to school. no income, trying to better their life. the daughter was in the stroller there. this woman is telling me this story. she has a condition. she's got to take medication. it's very expensive. she can't afford it. they are paying out of pocket. she makes $32,000 a year. down from $58,000, because the husband lost his job. and she said do you want me to go on welfare and go on medicaid , because that's what i'm forced

to do? now if there is any value we respect here in america is somebody who wants to work. she wants to work. she wants to provide for her kids, her husband. she wants to have a nice family. she wants to have the dignity of work and the system now is set up that that really may be the best decision for her and her family is to go on medicaid and take welfare benefits. that's not what we want. and what we're saying is why should this woman who is working here rear end off and her husband going back to school to train, that's who we want to help. that's what this whole 1,000 pages -- that's what this is about. it's about helping that woman, her husband and kid. and the stakes are high. the stakes are high. and we need to pass this. i yield to my friend. mr. murphy: if our friends on the other side of the aisle want to have a debate about freedom,

let's have a debate about freedom. we don't legislate on anecdotes, but legislate on data, statistics and evidence but the anecdotes are powerful because they are representative of what the data tells us. and i think about the woman in my district who raised her hand at an event last week and said, listen, i worked for an employer who is downsizing and looking to cut costs wherever they can and i've got a child with very serious illness. she is on this employer's health care plan and i know i'm targeted. i know if they can get rid of me and get rid of the expenses associated with my daughter, they just saved a lot of money. i know if i lose this job, i'm not going to be able to find another one because there is no way someone is go to pick me up to cover the costs of my daughter, through no fault of my own. what kind of freedom is that?

how free are you. a guy raised his hand and told me the fact that he had been working for a new company that just hired him in new britain, connecticut. he had a good, steady income for two years but got diagnosed with gall bladder cancer and couldn't show up for work and they fired him and lost his health insurance. he spent every single dime that he makes to pay for cancer treatment. what kind of freedom is that? we want to talk about freedom, health care reform, giving freedom to people who have insurance and keeping it and people who lose it, get medical care. proponents of freedom are going to win that debate. ms. wasserman schultz: i appreciate being together again and know that on a regular basis over the next several weeks and months we will be getting together to press for health care reform everyone.

mr. meek: madam speaker, with that, from these members that came before the house tonight, we want to definitely let other members know that we will be coming to the floor and sharing accurate information as we have done over the years. and we will continue to do it good or bad. we look forward to the president coming and addressing tomorrow in a joint session. with that, we yield back the balance of our time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas, mr. burgess, for the remaining time until midnight. mr. burgess: i feel like i've got equal time for reply from the last 45-minute seeingment.

i would remind my friends, they are in the majority. this is the house of representatives, the united states. any bill can pass on the floor of this house with 218 votes. i think as i recall the last numbers, we have 177 members on the republican side. you have 258 members on the democratic side. that means you can pass pretty much whatever you want whenever you want as long as you keep only 40 members of your party from straying and you can only lose 40 members from your side and you can pass whatever you want. we read some articles in the paper today that there are 23 democrats who said there is no way they are voting for this health care bill. you still have a comfortable margin of 20 votes to pass whatever bill you want. don't set this up as a straw man republican versus democratic argument. the republican party in the house of representatives in this

congress cannot stop you from passing anything that you want to pass. we do not have the numbers. we do not have the organization. some might argue we don't have the leadership to block anything that you want to pass. so your argument is an internal argument. it is democrat versus democrat. bring the bill to the floor of the house you want to bring. bring it to the rules committee. you have plenty of time. bring it to the floor of the house. we will have our two hours of debate and have the vote and win the vote and send it over to the senate. you've got 60 votes on the senate side. this should not be a challenge for you. send it down to the white house. you have a president who will sign virtually anything you send down to him. this is not an argument you are having with republicans, this is an argument you are having internally within your own caucus. why are you having that argument within your own caucus? because you have not sold this proposal to the american people and you felt that acutely during the august recess.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman should refer his remarks to the chair. mr. burgess: the other side did not make the sale to the american people and did not engage the american people from the grass-roots up. tough legislative proposals, you don't start at the top and work down. that's the soviet style of doing things, madam chair. this is america. we go from the grassroots up. and our friends on the democratic side chose not to do it that way. instead, they would rather villify republicans because that's what helps them raise money and win votes and isn't it about winning votes and maintaining your majority. you're not really held to account by the american account as to whether or not you pass your agenda or not apparently if we are to believe the poll numbers. i don't believe this can be done from the top down. this has to come from the

grassroots up. we saw a member of congress, a democrat in one of the midwestern states ask her constituents during one of the august town halls, don't you trust me? and the response she got back from her awed yns well, apparently not. -- audience, well, apparently not. the question is, the real question for this house, was anyone listening to those voices as they were speaking to us? right now, this congress has historic low credibility ratings. we have some of the lowest credibility ratings in the last 26 years. two years ago, 2 1/2 years ago when the senate tried to pass massive immigration reform, they found because of the low credibility levels they had that no one trusted the united states senate to pass this type of immigration reform. and as a consequence, despite the backing of two powerful senators, one on the republican

side, one on the democratic side, despite that powerful backing, they were unable to pass sweeping immigration reform in 2007. the american people recoiled in horror when they saw what was happening, flooded the switchboard and the senate got the message and went on to other things that might occupy their time for the rest of that summer. this summer has been no different. switchboards have been shut down, servers have been overwhelmed. the american people have weighed in on this issue and it is overwhelmingly opposed to what the speaker of the house has pushed through the three committees here on the house side. . ify d not have the credibility to do -- if we do not have the credibility to do the sweeping reform proposed, if we don't have the credibility to do that, should we do nothing? or should we in fact try to achieve some deliverable results for the american

people. i think every one of us heard the american people are interested us in effecting some reform. we heard some mention on the democratic side, there are things on which we do agree. there are things on which we can work and there are deliverables we can accomplish for the american people. but the fact of the matter is, the american people do not trust us, do not trust us to undertake this type of sweeping reform and transform the way health care is delivered in this country such that many people may not even recognize it. i do take some exception to some of the comments that i heard in the last hour. i was a physician for 25 years. i practiced medicine. there were plenty of times i got up in the middle of the night and i knew that delivery i was going to do and the operation i was going to perform was something i would never be compensated for. that's just part of the job. physicians show up to render

this type of care and don't ask where the payment is coming from. people get taken care of in a timely and respectful manner and it happens every day of the week and i'm tired of hearing the type of rhetoric we just heard where american physicians are seemingly indifferent to the flights of people who happen to be ill and uninsured. patients are taken care of all the time across this country in clinics, in hospitals, in emergency rooms by caring physicians and caring nurses and caring hospital staff without regard for that patient's ability to pay. it happens every day. it happens every day of the week system of frustrate to hear people talk about the only way to pay for health care in this country is either through a private insurance or a government program. there's plenty of care that is just donated by the yen rossity of america's physicians, america's nurses and america's hospitals. well, in fact, the only thing standing away from this

sweeping reform that the president is going to come talk to us about tomorrow night is an internal conflict on the democratic side. if we had done this bill in july as had been proposed, if we'd voted on this bill on july 31, which is what the chairman of the three committees desired, which was was the president and white house desired, had we voted on this bill by the 31st of july, we'd have gone home to face our town halls, but it would have been a different equation. because the bill would have already been passed and would be off to the senate. but we didn't do that a funny thing happened on the way to ramming this thing through and many members on the democratic side began to hear from their constituents and began to hear that this was not perhaps such a good idea after all. but do bear in mind, madam speaker, 218 votes are what is required to pass any vote out of this house. the rules committee is the speaker's committee, the speak

hears a 9-4 advantage, the speaker can get any rule pushed through committee that she wish, bring any bill to the floor she wishes, we've seen it time and time and time again. 218 votes are all that are required. do not tell me and do not continue to per pitch wait the fantasy that somehow 178 republicans are table prevent this bill coming to the floor. i would reiterate, you have the magic 60 votes in the senate you don't need reconciliation or a fancy procedural maneuver. you have the votes to pass in the senate whatever you care to pass and of course you have a president who already committed to signing this bill. one of the things that i heard a lot back home was a concern about the cost and this is something that is going to continue to come up and continue to be problematic for anyone who wants to undertake a bill that's as sweeping as the one we had before our committees last month, the bill itself had very little in the

way of cost containment contained been the -- within the bill. there were some physician cut, we always rely on those. there were some cuts to home health care, cuts for radiologists and imaging. in general, there was little in the way of cost containment in the bill. now we do hear a lot of talk and there's a lot of rhetoric on the issue of preventive care. preventive care, preventive medicine, you bet, i'm for that. the cost savings from preventive care are much less certain and the timeline to achieving those cost savings is also uncertain. and in fact, the congressional budget office in its report to our committee in july delineated the very low rate of return on those savings and the fact that it might be years before those cost containments were achieved. doesn't mean it's not worthwhile. it doesn't mean it's not worth doing. but to go to the american people with the statement that

we're going to do all these things and we're going to be able to pay for all this additional care by not cutting anyone's services but because we're going to do things better, faster, cheaper, smarter does not square with the facts. and the american people have seen through that. many of the studies have shown that in the early year, by increasing the preventive regimen, the cost may increase. you would expect this to be the case, there's going to be more spent on the infrastructure necessary, more spent on the clinics, the exam rooms, professional personnel, nurse practitioners, paramedics, physician extenders necessary to see the increased numbers of patients coming through the clinics as we increase the through put through those clinics. it's going to cost more up front. i think there's recognition of that we did hear concern about the medicare mart d program. i would remind people medicare part d, when it was passed in

this house of representatives back in 2003, medicare part d was a provepks-based strategy. it only made sense, if you were going to cover the doctor's expense, cover the hospitalization, as was covered under medicare part a and b at the time and you did not allow for the coverage of a prescription drug benefit, that it was going to be harder to deliver on the promise of preventive care without the medicines available to prevent the illnesses you wished to prevent. it seemed relatively simple and straightforward in 2003, it seems relatively straightforward now. i think the people who have run written -- written this bill would have done well to look at some things from the medicare part d program that have worked well. there were some problems with medicare part d as it was passed. there were some problems with implementation. i don't think anyone would deny that. but the fact of the matter is that under the medicare part d

program, remember, there was no mandate. there was never a mandate that said a senior had to take a certain type of prescription drug coverage. different levels of coverage were available to every senior. every senior was encouraged to have some type of credible coverage for prescription drugs. there was a cutoff date beyond which there would be an increased cost for buying into the insurance program if someone did not enroll during the open enrollment period. but it did not come to us under the themontle of a mandate. there was no requirement that every senior buy coverage, there was a recommendation that every senior have credible coverage under the plan and there were some benefits for people if they went ahead and established that credible coverage by a certain cutoff date. what that meant was the companies involved in providing the coverage were competitive on the basis of providing programs people actually wanted rather than saying we know you've got to buy this, so we're going to put one or two

programs out there and you can ping or choose from one or two and take it or leave it. dr.mark mcclellan, who was a the head of medicare service, said there are six classes of drugs, within those classes there have to be two different choices and with those parameter the companies were allowed to construct programs and compete in the marketplace. we were told early on when we talked about this type of change in the medicare part d program that in fact you will never, you will never get companies showing up to provide these products. you'll have to main date -- mandate something or people won't have any program at all from which to choose. but dr. mcclellan stuck to plan and as a consequence, in some states we had well over 40 different plans that were there selling -- making available different types of medicare part d coverage. we were criticized a year into the plan that there were too

many choices. people couldn't possibly decide what to die bye because there was too much choice out there. well in fact it was a good problem to have. as a consequence now we have the medicare part d program, where the coverage rate is in excess of 90%. the satisfaction rate is in excess of 09%. it rivals any insurance program with a coverage mandate whether it be an individual or employer mandate by providing coverage that people want, we have been able to provide more coverage to more people at lower cost than anyone ever thought possible back in wee when the legislation was passed. we heard very many compelling anecdotes in the past 45 minutes about people with difficult problems in tough medical situations. no one would argue that those are not compelling stories. i would just remind people that

our -- that are studying this issue that the bill we have before us that came out of the three committees, the bill that will likely come to the floor sometime this month, while it does provide for a public option and does provide for a public option for coverage, those methods of coverage do not become generally available to the general population until 2013. three years after the enactment of the bill. so those are not going to be immediate benefits that are going to be accessible by any of the tough situations you heard described here in the last hour. in fact, those programs are going to lag significantly behind the startup time of that bill. what can we expect in january when the bill start, if the bill is passed and signed as is planned? what can we count on in january? you can count on the tax os curring. those certainly will. the taxes will begin january 1 of 2010. an 8% payroll tax on small business in this country. an 8% payroll tax may well be the largest single employment

tax that's ever been passed in this country. this may be the largest single job killing event to occur in this young century. this is something we need to be very, very careful about as we go about enacting this legislation because we are in the midst of a recession. we are hopeful that the recession is ending, but one of the difficult things about ending a recession, as we found in my early year here's in 2003 and 2004, that as the recession ends, job growth does not necessarily follow immediately. what is the major engine of job growth in this country? it's small business. if we don't do anything to encourage small business and in fact we go so far as to hurt small business, it will be very, very difficult to grow those jobs that are actually going to be what lifts us out of ultimately lifts us out of this recession. none of us likes to look forward to a job less -- jobless recovery yet that seems to be what's in the cards for

us right now. this is a very serious situation and something to which this congress should best pay some heed because the absence of job growth in this economy will lead to that double dip or w-shape red session many economists talk about. the -- i did have several meetings with small business owners in my district. i conducted forums with small business owners just to hear their concerns about what congress was going. -- was doing. yes we heard some on the energy bill and how that would be a job-killing piece of legislation. but a lot of concern over what is happening in health care. and even more to the point, there is so much uncertainty out there in the country right now, no one know what is we're going to do, madam speaker. are we going to pass this bill? are we going to put an 8% payroll tax on top of the taxes that small businesses already pay? many employers that i spoke

with told me that, yeah, the recession may be ending. we see signs, things seem to be easing up a little bit. are you going to expand your business? are you going to be bringing back some of those jobs you outsourced or laid off? i'm not so sure about that because the environment out there is kind of unsettled right now. we don't know what you're going to do with this health care bill. we don't know what you're going to do with that energy bill. as a consequence, we're going to put our expansion plans on hold for right now and i heard this other and over and over again. to be sure, every business that i talked to was perhaps talking about adding one or two or three jobs and that they'd put those plans on hold but small businesses across the country that are putting on plans of adding one, two, or three jobs spread over the entire country and the entire economy, that's a significant number of jobs that are right now, right now being held in limbo because, again, employers are not certain about what congress is

going to do next. . one of the things that came loud and clear to me from my constituents during the month of august is that congress lacks the trust of the american people to do something this large and it is very difficult to do this in a top-down sentalized fashion and we need to recruit and encourage the american people of what we are trying to do, what the value is in it for what we are trying to do rather than superthis large government program on the american people. have you read the people? who can read the bill? it's too big and complex. this is a valid complaint and it's reflecttive of the fact that this legislation is large and sweeping and people do not trust the congress to make those kinds of changes on a portion of

their life that is that important to them. people do not trust the congress to be able to do the right thing. we have heard over and over again from our constituents that hey, if this isn't good enough for members of congress, why should we sign up for it and why should we accept something that you won't take yourselves. during the debates in the committees, there were a number of amendments offered. some suggested that whatever the public option is, whatever it turns out to be should be the type of insurance that members of congress and members of the administration and their staffs are required to take, that is, if it is good enough for the american people, it ought to be good enough for the governing class as well. i don't disagree with that. that was knocked out in our committee and we never had a chance to vote for it. that ruling was appeal and the appeal of the motion of the chair was upheld on a party-line

vote. so every democrat said, hey, we don't want this coverage for ourselves. every republican said, we should at least have the debate and have the amendment and hear out both sides, but we weren't ahollywood to do that and shut down on a party-line vote. i would have had an amendment to have medicaid available to every member of congress. so every member of congress would be covered under the medicaid system and every member of congress would then understand what it is like to try to find a physician for themselves or for a family member in the medicaid system. it can be very difficult to do that. why is that? because reimbursement rates under medicaid are so low, so low that members of the medical profession simply cannot afford to take large members of medicaid patients into their practice for fear they won't be

able to cover their overhead and fear they won't be able to keep their practices open. this was prevent odd a vote of technicality and underscores the huberous when it considers doing things to the american people that it wouldn't consider doing things to member of congress. people can see that and feel that it is not right that a member of congress would vote on a type of bill that would require americans to take a certain type of insurance when that member of congress would have no intention of taking that insurance themselves. we heard it in the town halls that were calkt conducted by the white house. this is insurance that will be good enough for members of the white house and members of their staff? not necessarily. we want something good for members of the white house, but it is that type of thing that has people gotten so upset. we could deal with that by requiring any public option or

even medicaid is something that is just not made available but required of members of congress, but we won't have that discussion. we won't have that debate. it seemed to be beneath us to have that debate, but that's a problem we could fix and fix pronto. as a physician, one of the single largest issues that faces physicians in this country, the constant threat of medical litigation, the expense of medical liability insurance, the cost of defensive medicine that drives the cost of the practice of medicine literally through the roof. study back inno carrier ringconnect 1200 we don't

trust you to have a rational discussion about this. i dare say if liability reform and fairness in the physician' compensation system had been on the table, you might have had some republicans be on board. what i do know is you never tried. never did any of the committee chairmen or the president of the white house seriously try to achieve any type of bipartisan balance in this bill.

it simply was of interest to them because i will go back to my early remarks, they could lose 40 votes in the house and still pass a bill. they have 60 votes in the senate. they can cut off debate at any time and pass the bill and send it down to the white house and get it signed into law. we have heard over and over again in our town halls this summer about the problems with pre-existing conditions, about the problems with insurance. we are talking about insurance reform. that is something we could accomplish. yes, there are some thorny issues to be addressed, but it's no more difficult than anything else we have taken on. and we could have solved that problem. we could have debated that problem. we could have voted on that problem before we went home for the august recess and shown the american people we were serious about taking care of a very serious problem that affects eight to 10 million people in this country and prevents them

from deathing the health care coverage they would like to have. there will be difficult debate on rating bans and whether or not there is a premium cap or whether or not there is a premium to be paid on someone not having insurance before they got the tough diagnose. perhaps there will be new monies made available in state and federal subsidies for people who can't afford the cost of a high-risk pool. nevertheless, we could have those debates and arguments and look at the figures and decide what a correct number would be. and again, that is something that is easily within our level of achievement and this house could have done it before we went home for august, but for some some reason we chose not to. on the issue of port built, we could have dealt with that. one of the biggest problems that people are having right now is because of job loss because of the recession. if someone loses their job, it

becomes tough to continue that insurance. under cobra, government-offered insurance has to be offered but it is extremely expensive and someone who just lost their job to cover their portion and the employer's portion and administrative fee becomes terribly difficult, but we could have dealt with that. but we chose not to. we chose to go home with our work not being done and the american people saw through that. that's why they were frustrated with us. we heard on one of the sunday shows this weekend the president's main adviser said in some states, there is no competition. there is only one insurer. how do you deal with that? if there is only one insurer in some states, do you really make the situation better by adding a second insurer? well, maybe, if that's a government-run program, then maybe that's a good thing, maybe

it's a bad thing. maybe you run up the one insurer and now back to one insurer, which is the public option. but there are 1300 different insurance companies out there if we would simply relax some of the restrictions against selling across state lines, we could open those markets up not to one insurer or 10 other insurers, but to hundreds of other insurers. that's real competition in the marketplace, the same type of competition you see today for car insurance, life insurance and with the power of the internet, those costs have come down significantly for those two products. we could achieve the same type of success in the health insurance market if we were just clever enough to have the discussion and begin to negotiate how we would go about putting the protections in place so that people weren't taken advantage of in that situation and that's well within our power to do that, madam speaker.

i again come back to the concept that members of congress were not willing to take the very insurance that they were requiring the american people to take. when you talk about issues, that's one of the things i heard about over again, the bill's too big, you haven't read the darn thing and if it's so darn good, why won't a member of congress sign up for it. we heard those comments over and over again. it's a big bill. people are frightened of congress's ability to deliver on big bill or promise like this. if it is so darn good, why aren't you willing to step up and take it yourselfs. and that distills the arguments we heard during the arguments we heard. and we heard some of the comments in the last hour when the democrats had the floor. you heard the comment made that it's right-wing talk radio crowd that caused the objections to this health care bill.

i submit to you the right-wing talk radio crowd is my crowd, but only 177 republicans in the house of representatives. you have 258 democrats. the right-wing talk radio crowd doesn't talk to the 258 democrats and you can still lose 39 democrats and pass almost any bill you want out of the house. so, please, it is not a republican that is preventing you from doing this. recognize what's happening here. it is the fact that you have not sold this bill to the american people. that's what's preventing this from being done. now, the other unfortunate thing this summer was the speaker of the house took it upon herself and the majority leader took it upon himself to write a piece for the "usa today" where they villified the american people. if you are trying to build a grass-roots consensus transforming the delivery of

health care in this country, is it a smart idea to villify the very people you are trying to recruit to get this project done? i don't think so. that is politics 101. you don't, you don't irritate the very people that you are going to be asking to help you pass a bill of this magnitude. i do believe that it is possible that it is reasonable for us to get down and work on some of these things that i've outlined tonight. i suspect there are others out there tonight that other side would like to see. these came up during my town halls. i would like to have serious discussions on this. i think the american people do want to see this done in a bipartisan fashion. tomorrow night, we will have a very big speech here in the house. the president will come down. all of our friends from the senate will be here. we may well have members of the

cabinet here as well to hear what the president's going to say. will there be something new brought up tomorrow night? i don't know. will we hear a rehash of the same things and criticisms of republicans not working with democrats on this issue? we might. i might offer, that we don't have the numbers to stop anything. and when i made overtures to the other side earlier this year even during the transition period when the president was sworn in on inauguration day, rebuffed by the chairman of my committee and the president's transition team, no one seemed interested in republican input. we won the election and so we shall. it's august. it was a hot month. things got heated at home. and now that we are back here in the fall, perhaps it is time to rethink this. i saw on one of the web sites the other day, maybe it's time for the president to hit the

reset button. that's not a bad idea. this is a big change in the way americans handle health care. the benefits don't go into effect for three years'. there is no rush. there is time for us to get this right. and the old saying, if you don't have time to do it right, when do you have time to do it over? or one of my sg surgery professors used to say, if is so important, let's go slowly. we don't have time to be in a hurry. i think those are words that might serve us well as we continue to work on this legislation. we will hear from the president tomorrow night. i look forward to what he's going to say. i would welcome the fact that perhaps we could get back together and work on some of these things. my concept would be on let's keep it simpler so we do build trust back with the american people. the president enjoys a much higher poll numbers than any of

us in the united states house of representatives have, but on the other hand, that popularity is wanning as well. it's important that the american people can produce it for the country. with that, i'm going to yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion to adjourn? mr. burgess: i move the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands live coverage of the president's

remarks hear on c-span at 8:00 p.m. eastern. we spoke to a capitol hill reporter on what is expected happen in health care legislation in both chambers. they are back. but lawmakers are back on capitol hill. what are they talking about? who is saying what? >> the main focus is on the ability to conduct a bipartisan agreement. there is a little question on that. bacchuses comport with the proposal. but at this point reaction has been muted from lawmakers. in the act of this community, it had been much more vocal. >> you are talking about senator

max baucus. it does not have a public option in it. >> one of the contentious issues, it is an issue that the key republican lawmakers in finance say that they simply will not support grassley, olympia snowe. you certainly wouldn't get any other republicans, in trying to reach some kind of agreement. >> steny hoyer on the house side talked about the public option. what are they saying there? >> he said that the public option is a wonderful idea that should be in the bill, but essentially he said it is not a deal breaker in a bid is not there. he would like get to be there. there was some equivocation on the part of the house on what it will and will not accept. >> with the congress being back,

is there any sense about a time line as we move forward? >> they are interested in seeing what the senate does. he made a point of saying that they are not waiting for -- waiting to see what the senate does, but they are curious. >> tomorrow night for that obama is on the hill for a joint session in his speech. what effect does he expect this have? >> if this president's beats his -- tells of -- tell them what needs to be in it and what must be in it, that will have a real impact on what lawmakers are willing to do. on issues like the public option, it would be invaluable. it was anything in particular you think he has decided to move reluctant democrats or recalcitrant democrats along? derailleur'>> i think is makingt

that you cannot scuttle the whole bill because of the possible and options. there could be a trigger, where the government gets involved it need be, or some sort of cooperative plan, we read nonprofit cooperative is that provide health care coverage. but he may send a message that it is not do or die with that issue. >> as the days go back, what you watching for most closely? >> i am watching for some indication from the republicans on finance, if they're willing to go along or if they have enough concerns that they want to leave. i have heard of a staring match between a was to leap first and take the blame. -- that is to lead first to take the blame. >> stephen langel from roll-

call, thank you so much for your time. you're watching public affairs programming on c-span, created by america's cable tv companies, offered as a public service. in a few moments, president obama speech today about education to students around the country. in a little more than a half- hour, we'll talk about health care with charles grassley, the ranking republican on the finance committee. after that, supreme court justice sonia sotomayor makes the traditional step -- what -- the treatment -- a traditional walk down the front steps of the court. dollars the supreme court has are rare special session tomorrow. listen to it the same day3 on day, c-span radio, and c- span.org. tomorrow is the first appearance on the bench for sonia sotomayor. here is clarence thomas and what it means to add a new justice. >> as far as the composition of the court, you are bringing in a

family element. and it changes the whole family. it is different today than what it was when i first got here. and i have to admit, you grow very fond of the court that you spend a long time with. there is a period there were chief justice rehnquist and justice o'connor, when we had had a long run together, and you get comfortable with that, and then it changes. and now it is changing again. so the institution -- your reactions are different. you get to learn each other and start all over. the chemistry is different. >> hear from other justices from supreme court week as c-span looks at all home to america's highest court starting october 4. dollars the supreme court hears oral arguments tomorrow in the

campaign finance case, citizens united v. federal election commission. that will decide if laws that allow governments to ban corporations from supporting public candidates should be overturned. you can see here this on our networks. >> president obama on tuesday encourage students to stay in school and not let their past performance in their future. his speech in suburban virginia outside washington d.c. was broadcast to schools around the country. if this is half an hour. -- this is half an hour.  >> wakefield high school and

high schools across the country, please welcome that secretary of education, arnie duncan common and the senior class president, tim spicer. [applause] >> good morning, wakefield. if we can have it quiet please, thank you. i know you've been waiting for a while. thank you so much for your patience. wakefield high school was one of the first high schools i visited as secretary as education and it is fantastic to be back. i love this progress that the skill is making, it is committed high education and a collective sense of urgency. the president is here today to talk about the importance of education for your future and the future of our country. it is my job to introduce one of

iran, timothy spicert -- one of your own, tim spicer. give him a round of applause. and he is way ahead of where i was in high school. many of you already knew timothy purity as a young man committed to his daddy is and just as importantly to his community. is -- to his studies as a -- and to his community purity as a member of the football and swim teams. it is a dedicated student as well, taking three advanced placement courses and i hope he will go to college this fall with a couple of college credits in his back pocket. his senior class project will examine what arlington county offers its youth and jobs and leadership opportunities and volunteering. timothy has taken full advantage of many of those opportunities.

he has been volunteer of the year for the arlington county parks and recreation department. he has won the annual martin luther king jr. essay contest. he is a member of the arlington teen network board. it is my pleasure to introduce to you of remarkable student, athlete, and later, tim spicer -- and leader, tim spicer. [applause] >> thank you, arne duncan. [laughter] the morning. i would like to extend a warm welcome to president barack obama, secretary of education arne duncan, white house staff, school board members, superintendent, senior staff, the principal, wakefield faculty, and of course my fellow classmates. [applause]

i am honored to have been chosen to speak before my classmates as well as the students across america today. over the past years i have taken advantage of every academic and extracurricular, and community opportunity that has been presented to me. as i reflect, i'm challenge to be do better, and it was not an option. i was determined to excel. therefore i managed to succeed within the advanced placement classes by maintaining focus along with using a setback as a constructive energy. i wanted to know that excellent educational opportunities may be handed to us but as students we must take responsibility for our future. we may be taught but we must take ownership of our learning. as senior class by president, i ask you to take advantage of all of the opportunities that

wakefield high school has the offer. i would not be standing here before you to introduce the president of the united states if i had not been here a week of high school in arlington, virginia to a semi education. we're fortunate that president obama has come here to talk to us, but we are fortunate that as we leave, we will continue to have the opportunities and support that wakefield gets to all of us. at this time it is with great honor and pride that i asked everyone to stand to welcome -- [applause] to welcome the man that prove it, yes, we can. ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming the president of the united states of america, barack obama. [applause] ♪ ["hail to the chief" playing]

>> hello, everybody. thank you, thank you. thank you, everybody. all right, everybody, go ahead and have a seat. how's everybody doing today? [cheers and applause] how about tim spicer? [cheering] i am here with students at wakefield high school in arlington, virginia. and we have got students tuning in from all across america, from kindergarten through twelfth grade. kindergarten through 12th grade. i'm just so glad that all could join us today. i want to thank wakefield for being such an outstanding host. give yourselfs a big round of applause. [applause] i know that for many of you,

today is the first day of school. for those of you in kindergarten or starting middle or high school, it's your first day in a new school, it's understandable new school, it's understandable if you're a little nervous. i imagine there are some seniors out there who are feeling pretty good right now, with just one more year to go. and no matter what grade you are in, some of you are probably wishing it were still summer, and you could have stayed in bed just a little longer this morning. i know that feeling. when i was young, my family lived overseas. i lived in indonesia for a few years, and my mother, she didn't have the money to send me where all the american kids went to school. but she thought it was important for me to keep up with an american education. so she decided to teach me extra lessons herself, monday through friday. but because she had to go to work, the only time she could do it was at 4:30 in the morning.

now, as you might imagine, i wasn't too happy about getting up that early. a lot of times, i would fall asleep right there at the kitchen table. but whenever i would complain, my mother would just give me one of those looks and she would say, "this is no picnic for me either, buster." so i know some of you are still adjusting to being back at school. but i am here today because i have something important to discuss with you. i am here because i want to talk with you about your education and what is expected of all of you in this new school year. now i have given a lot of speeches about education. and i have talked about responsibility a lot. . teachers' responsibility for inspiring students and pushing you to learn. i talked about your parents' responsibility for making sure you stay on track and get your homework done and don't spend every waking hour in front of the tv or with the xbox.

aye talked a lot about your government's responsibility for setting high standards and forthing teachers and principals and turning around schools that aren't working, where students aren't getting the opportunities they deserve. but at the end of the day we can but at the end of the day we can have the most teachers, the most supportive parent, the best schools in the world and none of it will make a difference, none of it will matter, unless all of you fulfill your responsibilities. unless you show up to those schools, unless you pay attention to those teachers, unless you listen to your parents and grandparents and other adults, and put in the hard work it takes to succeed. that's what i want to focus on today. the responsibility each of you has for your education. i want to start with the responsibility you have to yourself. every single one of you has

something you're good at. every single one of you has something to offer. you have a responsibility to yourself to discover what that is. that's the opportunity an education can provide. maybe you could be a great writer. maybe even good enough to write a book or articles in a newspaper, but you might not know it until you write that english paper, that english class paper that's assigned to you. maybe you could be an innovator or inventor, maybe good enough to come up with the next iphone or new medicine or vaccine, but you might not know it until you do your project for your science class. maybe you could be a mayor. or a senator, or a supreme court justice. but you might not know that until you join student government or the debate team. no matter what you want to do with your life irk guarantee you'll need an education to do it.

you want to be a doctor or a teacher or a police officer, you want to be a nurse or architect, a lawyer or member of the military, you're going to need a good education for every single one of those careers. you cannot drop out of school and just drop into a good job. you've got to train for it and work for it and learn for it. this isn't just important for your own life and your own future. what you make of your education will decide nothing less than the future of this country. the future of america depends on you. what you're learning in school today will determine we as a nation can meet our greatest challenges in the future. you'll need the knowledge and problem-solving skills you learned in science and math to cure diseases like cancer and aids and to develop new energy technologies and protect our environment. you'll need the insights and critical thinking skills you

gained in history and social studies to fight poverty and homelessness and to make our nation more fair and more free. you need the creativity and ingenuity you develop in classes to create new companies to boost our economy. we need every single one of you to develop your talent, skills, and intellect so you can help us old folks solve our most difficult problems. if you don't do that, if you quit on school, you're not just quitting on yourself, you're quitting on your country. i know it's not always easy to do well in school. i know a lot of you have challenges in your lives right now that can make it hard to focus on your schoolwork. i get it. i know what it's like. my father left my family when i was 2 years old. i was raised by a single mom who had to work and who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn't always able to give us the things other kids had.

there were times when i missed having a father in my life. there were times when i was lonely and felt like i didn't fit in. i wasn't always as focused as i should have been on school. i did some things i'm not proud of. i got in more trouble than i should have. my life could have easily taken a turn for the worse. but i was lucky. i got a loot of second chances. i had the opportunity to go to college and law school and follow my dreams. my wife, our first lady, michelle obama, she has a similar story. neither of her parents had gone to college. they didn't have a lot of money. but they worked hard and she worked hard so that she could go to the best schools in this country. some of you may not have those advantages. maybe you don't have adults in your life who give you the support you need. maybe someone in your family has lost their job and there's not enough money to go around. maybe you live in a neighborhood

where you don't feel safe or have friends who are pressuring you to do things you know aren't right. but at the end of the day, the circumstances of your life, what you look like, where you come from, how much money you have, what you've got going on at home, none of that is an excuse for neglecting your homework or having a bad attitude in school. that's no excuse for talking back to your teacher or cutting class or dropping out of school. there's no excuse for not trying. where you are right now doesn't have to determine where you'll end up. no one has written your destiny for you. here in america, you write your own destiny, you make your own future. that's what young people like you are doing every day, all across america. young people like jasmine perets from roma, texas. she didn't speak english when she first started school, neither of her parents went to

college. she worked hard, got good grades, and got a scholarship to brown university, is now in graduate school studying public health, on her way to becoming dr. jasmine perets. i'm thinking about andony schultz from california who fought brain cancer since he was 3. he had to endure all sorts of treatments and surgery, one of which affected his memory, so it took him much longer, hundreds of extra hours to do his schoolwork. but he never fell behind. he is headed to college this fall. then there's chantelle, from my hometown of illinois. even when bouncing from foster home to foster home in the toughest neighborhoods in the city, she managed to get a job at a local health care center, start a program to keep young people out of gangs and she's on track to graduate from high school with honors and go to

college. they aren't any different from any of you. they faced challenges in their lives just like you do. in some cases, they've got it a lot worse off than many of you. but they refused to give up. they chose to take responsibility for their lives, for their education, and set goals for themselves. i expect all of you to do the same. that's why today i'm calling on each of you to set your own goals for your education and do everything you can to meet them. your goal can be something as simple as doing all your homework. paying attention in class. or spending some time each day reading a book. maybe you'll decide to get involved in an extracurricular activity or volunteer in your community. maybe you'll decide to stand up for kids who are being teased or bullied because of who they are or how they look. because you believe like i do that all young people deserve a

safe environment to study and learn. maybe you'll decide to take better care of yourself so you can be more ready to learn and along those lines, by the way, i hope all of you are washing your hands a lot and stay home from school when you don't feel well so we can keep people from getting the flu this fall and winter. but whatever you resolve to do, i want you to commit to it. i want you to work at it. i know sometimes you get that sense from tv that you can be rich and successful without any hard work. that your ticket to success is through rapping or basketball or being a reality tv star. chances are, you're not going to be any of those things. the truth is, being successful is hard. you won't love every subject you study. you won't click with every teacher that you have. not every homework assignment

will seem completely relevant to your life right at this minute. and you won't necessarily succeed at everything the first time you try. that's ok. some of the most successful people in the world are the ones who have had the most failures. j.k. rowlings, who wrote harry potter, her first harry potter book was rejected 12 times before it was finally published. michael jordan was cut from his high school basketball team. he lost hundreds of games and missed thousands of shots during his career. but he once said, i have failed over and over and other again in my life, and that's why i succeed. suppose people -- these people succeeded because they understood that you can't let your failure december fine you, you have to let your failures teach you. you have to let them show you

what to do differently the next time. so if you get into trouble that doesn't mean you're a troublemaker. it means you need to try harder to act right. if you get a bad grade, that doesn't mean you're stupid. it just means you need to spend more time studying. no one's born being good at all things. you become good at things through hard work. you're not a varsity athlete the first time you play a new sport. you don't hit every note the first time you sing a song. you've got to practice. the same principal -- principle alives to your -- applies to your schoolwork. you might have to reed something a few tame d -- read something a few times before you understand it. you have to do a few drafts of a paper before it's good enough to hand in. don't be afraid to ask questions. don't be afraid to ask for help when you need it.

i do that every day. that's not a siphon weakness, it's a sign of strength. it shows you have the courage to admit when you don't know something and that allows you to learn something new. find an adult you trust a parent, grandparent or teacher, a coach or counselor, and ask them to help you stay on track to meet your goals. even when you're struggling, even when you're discouraged and you feel like other people have given up on you, don't ever give up on yourself. because when you give up on yourself, you give up on your country. the story of america isn't about people who quit when things got tough. it's about people who kept going, who tried harder, who loved their country to do anything less than their best. the story of students who sat where you sit 250 years ago and went on to wage a revolution and they founded this nation. young people. students who sat where you spit

75 years ago who over-- where you sit 75 years ago who overcame a depression, won a world war, overoppression and -- overcame oppression. students who sat where your sit 20 years ago and developed twitter and facebook. what problems are you going to solve? what discoveries will you make? what will a president who come here's in 20 or 50 or 100 years say about what you did for this country. your families, your teachers and i, are doing everything we can to make sure you have the education you need to answer these questions. i'm working hard to fix up your classrooms and get you the books, equipment, and computers you need to learn. but you've got to do your part too. i expect all of you to get serious this year. i expect you to put your best

effort into into everything you do. i expect great things from each of you. so don't let us down. don't let your family down or your country down, most of all don't let yourself down. make us all proud. thank you very much, everybody. god bless you, god bless america. thank you. [applause]@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ ♪ [applause]

♪ [unintelligible] ♪ [unintelligible]

those of their view our second

floor, you will have lunch later. if you left bags and backpacks become all we have locked them away. after lunch, we will give instructions on picking up the bags and backpacks. let me just say to i am exceedingly proud of all of you. thank you. [applause] good job. timber -- good job. we will start from the back. [unintelligible] >> president obama speaks to a joint session of congress tomorrow night at 8 eastern. a poor coverage begins at 7:30 live on c-span and online at --

our coverage begins at 7:30 live on c-span and online at c- span.org. president obama met with democratic leader harry reid in speaker nancy pelosi tuesday on health care and spoke with reporters for 10 minutes. >> good afternoon. the main subject was held insurance reform. this of the president and vice- president. we spoke about other issues that relate to the fall agenda and other issues. in terms of health care reform, three bills have been passed out of committee out of the house. we have plenty to work form to pass comprehensive, affordable,

accessible, universal health care. it is a pretty exciting time in the month of august. our members have heard from constituents and communicated with them. they bring back the benefits of that thinking. they have had a chance to explain to their constituents the opportunity that is in the bill. we have legislation that will lower costs, improve quality, extend coverage, and maintain choice. if you like what you have, you can keep it. if you like to improve upon it, that can happen. you will have that opportunity. this will be done in a fiscally sound way. it is necessary for us to act. the present situation is unsustainable. as the president has said, health care reform is entitlement reform. we must reduce the deficit and we have to have health care reform to do that.

we prepare to bring our three bills together in the house to prepare to meet the senate in the conference. >> the president and vice- president were very positive. it is in keeping with the conversation i had with my members the past week. we are ready to do health care reform. keep in mind that even before the august recess, 80% of health care has been done. it was the 20% that we still had to work on. in our conversations today, we think we are up to 90% of things we agree upon. there are 10% that we need to work on. as far as the speech tomorrow, the president did not give us a dress rehearsal of the speech. he did tell us that he is going to outline to the american people and to congress the

health care reform bill. we are in agreement with him in that regard. when he finishes his speech tomorrow, i think the american people can put aside some of the ridiculous of falsehoods that have been perpetrated these past few weeks. we can focus on what we are going to do that is positive for this country. we have a lot of work to do. we understand that. we are still approaching this in the form of bipartisanship. after all these months, we have a place at the table for the republicans. we are going to do everything we can to work with them. we want a bipartisan bill. we do not want to do reconciliation unless we have no alternative. i think -- i am in favor of the public auction. -- option.

if i were betting, i would think that the majority of the house caucus believe in it. we are going to do our best to have something like that before we finish this work. >> why was there no place for the republicans at the table today? why no republicans at this meeting today? >> we have had a large table with the finance committee and other committees in the senate. there is always a place for them. i think today was a very positive meeting. that is how i feel. >> the president is meeting with the speaker of the house and the democratic leader of the senate. he has other meetings that we are not invited to that republicans are at. i do not know what the point of the question is.

three committees in the house have passed a bill and all of them have strong numbers of republicans on those committees. i saw to that when we did our ratio. they have had a place at the table as our bills have come through the legislative process. that is what we are engaged in now, the legislative process. >> did you discuss a schedule? >> those are two separate questions. on the public members option i believe it will be essential to as passing a bill in the house of representatives. as the president has said, he believes it is the best way to keep the insurance companies honest and to increase competition in order to lower costs, improve quality, retain a

choice. and expand coverage. and do that in a way that saves money. but he said, if you have a better idea, put it on the table. and so if somebody has a better idea of how to do that, put it on the table. for the moment, the overwhelming majority of house members' support this option. this is the legislative process. right now, we will have a public auctibeoptin in our bil -iop op. the speech tonight will be a very -- tomorrow will be a very important factor in how we go

forward. >> some have said that a trigger on a public option was a doable alternative because it saves it. >> out of context, i cannot speak to that remark. i do know that mr. kleiber is a strong supporter of a public- private option. i have said it before and i will say it again. the health-insurance industry is out there fighting the public option because it does increase competition which is what they do not want. if you get a triggered public option it is because the insurance industry has demonstrated that they are not cooperating in doing the right thing. i think they will have a tougher public option to deal with. >> can you talk about the draft

from senator baucus? >> i have not seen it. [unintelligible] host: calle[captioning performey national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] connect 12 >> i think the calendars have been sped up by the calendars -- by the president's speech. we were supposed to have a longer time to continue our

discussions that went on during the break. not much but some conferences that we had over the telephone. not much has occurred since august 5. the president speech -- the president's speech will speed it up. baucus is that the finance committee will be left out of the president announces something on wednesday. he would like to have some of their for consideration. he was trying to see it that could be a bipartisan proposal or another one. bipartisan would be the six of us agreeing to something. but by partisanship is not three republicans and 58 democrats. you have to have a broad coalition of people that are going to be supportive. i did not say that because it is an end of itself. there are some that can be cited for a few republicans and a lot

of democrats. we are talking about a restructuring part of the economy. we are talking about health care. that is life or death for every american. senator baucus and i have been talking throughout this year that we should do that with 80 votes and not just with a mere 60. host: let's get a look at some comments that president obama made during a speech in ohio. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ >> some have said we are going to pull the plug on granma. you never heard all the lies. i have a question for those people. what are you going to do? what is your answer? what is your solution? and do you know what? they do not have one. [applause]

their answer is to do nothing. >> this is an easy answer because for a long period of time there has been four, five republican plans -- than there were three republicans working with three democrats, hopefully a bipartisan plan. there is another bipartisan plan so presidents -- republican would be on record of supporting plan. it has some controversial things in it, but it is evenly balanced. it is the only version on the table, unless our version comes out this way, that is deficit neutral, and also reduces inflation in health care. those two things not adding to the deficit and reducing health care inflation are the two most immediate goals that any plan should have.

whereas the president is talking about what is coming from his party, because they are partisan, coming from christopher dodd's committee -- the cbo says that they add to the deficit and does not do anything about health care inflation. so what is the point of doing anything? if you want to get what is happening at our town hall meetings, democracy at work, people are scared to death about the deficit. that is not just about health care, it is just the straw that broke the camel's back. it is really the stimulus not working. the federal government shoveling out money and nationalizing and general motors. a budget that tripled the national debt. and then you hear about $1 trillion health care bill coming from the house committee, and

you know, they come out in droves of the town hall meetings because they are fearful that we are not going to leave the country in good shape for the next generation. host: the situation of so-called pulling the plug on grandmother has got a lot of attention. do you think that is adding to the fear in the country? is it being correctly used? guest: there are other people higher up in the hierarchy that used that, and it was wrong. if it was wrong for him, it was wrong for me. if you listened to my statement, you would think that i was giving a speech, and blaming the whole issue. then some newspaper said something about sarah palin.

sarah palin said that, presumably, before i said it, about that the panels. so i was in a town hall meeting in iowa and a person stands up -- like you could stand up now, and get a copy of the house bill from the internet. what it says is well intentioned. host: you are talking about end of life counseling. guest: yes, i do not agree with how they are doing it, but it was nothing new for me to say i do not want the government involved. i want the families involved. i answered it that way. if you connect several doffed, you have a concern about -- dots, you had a concern about saving money, concern over a government-on health care plan,

and then you have the veterans administration putting of a book saying that everyone needs to do with the end of life issues who is in that situation. put all of that together, and frankly, between government running everything and paying a doctor to give that advice, everyone figures that the government will be in the middle of the end of life issues, as they are in england, for example. host: next phone call from georgia. caller: i work in health care and i have heard people say that we do not get health care -- we do not turn anyone away at my hospital, whether you have insurance or not. how come we need to have government to run it? why not have legislation that makes insurance companies responsible for covering the

uninsured. i have been told that my premiums are high as they are because they go to cover the uninsured, to offset that. i do not always want to turn to the government. insurance companies are making a lot of money. i know that i have used very little of my interest but i pay my premiums every month. that is my concern. our government is broke, why do we want to put more debt on it? guest: several things you say is accurate. -- are accurate. you are right, the emergency rooms provide coverage for everyone, and it is a very expensive form of medicine. that brings us around to the fact that we do not want the

government to run it -- i should say, i do not want the government to run it, and that is why i am against the public option. there are other possibilities out there, like one congresswoman saying we needed a public option for those of us who wanted to go to canadian- style single payer. that is why i am against single payer because i do not want the government to nationalize health insurance. you need to continue to talk the way that you have because there are a lot of people in congress who do want the government to run it. i am working to prevent that. what we do to solve the problem of expensive health care through the emergency room is to move the people who do not have insurance, with some help,

through a tax credit, into a private insurance. so they have a choice. whereas, if you are under a government-run system, you have no choice. guest: let's talk about some alternatives to -- host: let's talk about some alternatives. in a public option exchange -- there is a public option exchange. guest: i think senator snowe is working very hard to find some middle ground probably the most where she finds middle ground -- middle ground without having anything to worry about. there would be a backup plan, a trigger. i believe that will be interpreted by everyone as just

a step away from public option, one more step away from canadian everything. so i cannot support the trigger. in response to co-ops, yes. if they are like the other co- ops that we have run in the country for 150 years, governed by the consumer, and all the benefits flow to the consumer -- in the case of health insurance cooperatives, they would be regulated by the state's, the same way any insurance company is regulated. then i think that is a reasonable alternatives. i do not think it is absolutely necessary, but is a political issue you are trying to deal with. the reason i say it is not necessary -- there are two principles that would put an end to our tent to get a bipartisan

plan. you do away with the discrimination of pre-existing conditions. you make premiums affordable for everyone. you do not have caps on what can be paid out. then the other one is affordability. so we have tax credits for people who cannot afford it. if you want everyone covered -- and that means 96% of the people. someone is going to play the game. the bottom line is, why you need a public option if we are already covering everyone? host: barbara on the democrat line from washington. caller: good morning. how is everyone?

thank you for c-span. i just do not understand why people are against helping all americans. my son had three heart surgery's before he does two years old. i had to quit my job to take care of him. we could only afford to put him on cobra, which was $356 a month, back in 1988. then use the rest of our money to pay the bills. that came to about $10,000. all of our savings. we have never caught up. we have been struggling ever since. guest: well, i think what our bipartisan plan would do is, first of all, if you are denied insurance because of your boys pre-existing condition, we would

do away with that. you have low premiums and high premiums, sometimes 30 times difference. we would make those premiums more affordable for everyone. in the case where you had so many surgeries, maybe you have a cap that the insurance company has that they will pay for one person. we would do away with that as well. copays can mount up to a lot. there could be a limit on that. but we are trying to do it is reform health insurance, but at the same time, we are not just trying to say health insurance companies have to absorb this by increasing everyone's premiums when you have so many millions of people who are giving tax credits to be injured.

obviously, there will be more people under the umbrella and you will spread the risk of two people who are not under the plan today, and we on to do that in a private sector way. buying health insurance of their choice because there will be in exchange to go to to get all of the programs available and compare prices, a consumer- friendly sort of exchange. and reform the private insurance companies so that the problems you run into -- because you had to quit your job and it is not affordable, there would be some help for the tax credit. host: we have very on the independent one calling from new mexico. caller: this is very complicated.

just like your answers on that call, it is very complicated. the democratic plan in the republican plan. i do not like the health-care system at all. i want to choose the way of what it and do not go to the emergency room because the cost is so high. i voted for obama because he said he did not want to mandate a system. not everyone is going to go into mandated system. -- i feel like the health-care system is broken itself not the insurance for it. guest: there is -- a lot of what you say is there. some of the things you said are complicated and are

controversial. you mentioned the mall. what you said at the end, the health-care system is broken not the health insurance system. a lot of the things that the legislation does that does not get much attention because it is not so controversial is meant to help the health-care system. for instance, reimbursement of doctors under medicare based upon quantity not quality. the doctor says i want to see you every day of the week and twice on sunday. every time he sees you, he gets paid. an effort toward a six system, as opposed to a health system. we want the business on preventive medicine, reimbursing doctors based on quality instead of quantity -- let's say pay for performance. we do not pay attention to the five malady that eat up 75% of

the health care dollars. for instance, diabetes. we want coordinated care systems to monitor them. we have had several people testified from mayo, hospitals in pennsylvania, organizations that do coordinated care. we have a group in cedar rapids, iowa that does that. you've enhanced coverage can save money. these all all efforts to do what you say, to change a health care system that is broken, not the health insurance business. although we are going to make some changes in insurance, as i said before. host: you have made some predictions about a scaled-back version of the health care bill. what would that look like, and would initiate from your

committee? guest: the document senator baucus put out would not fall into the category. it is about $900 billion. i was hoping for something in that $700 billion range would work. we are going to talk about these things this afternoon, so i do not draw any lines in the sand. the reason i came out with something around $700 billion, it seemed that we have offset that were fairly easy to arrive. we do not want to add to the deficit. another thing is, i think i have heard some of my colleagues responding to democracy at work, these town hall meetings. i had a 17 of them in my state,

12 in just the last week. for instance, i get a message from those meetings, the deliberate, slowdown. how can you spend $1 trillion when you have all of this deficit? people do not realize that a lot of that money is saving money within health care through some of these reforms we are talking about. this is not $1 trillion in new money, but that is not the way that it comes out in the press. so everyone thinks it is trillions upon trillions. where rent my goal and senator baucus'goal is not to add to the deficit. host: next phone call from jonathan. co ahead. caller: thank god for c-span. how long have you been a member

of the congress? guest: this is my fifth term. caller: so 30 years, correct? and when was the last time you had to decide whether you were going to buy food or health care for your children? your salary is about eight times with the average american banks. to be honest, you live in a bubble and does not realize what the average american goes through. guest: you asked me in the last time. 1961 through 1970 when i was a member of the international association of machinists. i was a furnace maker in iowa and i spent 10 years putting screw holes in furness registers. in that time i have to worry about whether i was going to buy

food or other things. that was two jobs that i had at that time. host: did you struggle with health care, insurance at that time? guest: i was like a lot of early 20, 30-year old people. i never thought i was going to get sick and i did not need insurance. he'd been no my company had a plan for us to join, i think i was not covered for about seven years out of the 10 years that i was there. if you are working where they have health insurance, and you or 20, 30 years old, and you never think you are going to get sick, maybe that is true. but if you have the chance to get injured, you should do so. about 30 million people out of the 50 million who do not have

insurance fall into that category. host: we have david on the democrats' line. georgia. caller: senator grassley, when are you republicans going to care as much for the citizens as you do for big business? insurance companies -- many people are going broke that have insurance. 700,000 bankruptcy's a year are from people who have insurance. the insurance companies will not pay. i have a little sister who is in debt $27,000 and as united healthcare. guest: those are all good questions. first of all, i would advise anyone in the state of iowa that as having trouble paying two things. one, congressional offices do

not have control over private insurance companies but if you could get your congressman to write a little for you, if you are entitled to something from your company, and you are not getting it, you ought to try that. we also have to the insurance commissioners in the state that are supposed to be there for people who are not being delivered the promises of insurance, whether it is life insurance, casualty insurance, or health insurance. the most difficult thing to answer is the political question you brought up. when a republican going to be concerned about this? i am a republican, what do you think i am doing working with senator baucus to come up with a bipartisan plan to solve all of these problems? we have discussed all of these problems with other colors so i will not go into them. as i said on cnn this morning,

if they would report on things, bipartisan and partisan plans, there are republican plans. since they are in the minority, four plans from republican members are not getting any publicity. cnn promised me they would start talking about them. i was on there this morning, so i know i can say that. john roberts told me so. there is another bipartisan plan that is very thorough and thought out. where you get the impression, where you are from, that congressional members are not concerned about helping people who are not injured, i do not know where you are coming from. there are plenty of plans available.

somehow, the press, being bent toward the liberal side, only wants to give attention to the democrats' plans. that is why i think c-span is very fair in what they are trying to do, and my town hall meetings, like the one we are having now, is important for enhancing democracy. i would like to think c-span for offering a fair point of view. host: next phone call from scuffed bill, virginia. caller: center, you said earlier that people were fearful because the health-care issue was related to matters of life and death. doesn't that put it in the national defense arena? thank you. guest: this came from a town hall meeting. people would say, there is one

thing the federal government has to do because only the government can do it, national defence. because no other level of government can do it, and it is a constitutional responsibility of the government. some of the same people brought up, we're in the constitution does it say that the government should be dealing in health care? so there is a real difference of opinion of their, to the person from virginia, about whether or not the federal government should be doing this. host: steve on the republican line from maryland. caller: senator grassley. i have been involved with medicare as an insurance broker for over three years. years ago the federal government had unified all of the medicare supplements, so plan a is

planned a, wherever you purchased it. why can't we leave the public option out and allow congress to mandate several plans that all insurance companies throughout the country must carry. then by allowing to purchase across state lines will simply lower the cost. the reason is, if everyone can purchase, let's say, plan b of a program designed by congress and the insurance companies, and all the benefits are equal, the only thing the people will have to look at is the cost of the policy. guest: these are very good digestion that you gave to us. the only one that is controversial to do with, and i support when you say about telling across state lines, but

there is a partisan difference on that. on the other things that you mentioned, there is not a partisan difference. the extent to which we set up exchanges, consumer-friendly exchanges, where every plan is on the exchange, so people can exchange plans would what costs -- we are less-restrictive than you suggested what we did on medicare 20 years ago. we do have four different options but each one is not restricted entirely by the government what can be in it. we do not want to be that restrictive, as we were and supplemental insurance. within these four values,

different plans have different approaches to meet the needs of different consumers in america. we have 177 people -- million people in america who have insurance through the private sector. those 177 million people have 177 million different needs, so we do not want to be too strict. but actuarial value need to be met at four levels. host: next phone call from new caller: good morning. i just have a couple of things and a couple of questions. one is, in a minute ago, the said it was 1971 was the last time you have to worry about providing food for your family and paying for coverage.

guest: prior to that time, i was making about $15,000. then being elected to congress and making $42,000, that doubled my income. caller: since that time, health insurance premiums have gone up about 400%. -- the world has changed since then. that time brought out relevant to you is not relevant to most americans who were struggling with those choices today. i have seen this in your town hall meeting. you talk about canada and other countries that have single payer health care. canada is number six in life expectancy in the world. japan is no. 2 in the world. singapore is number three, and they have a system where they have private insurance competing

with a public option. . o do not live as long if they have cancer. canada, where you have to wait three months to have an mri. why do so many people come across the border to get an mri? why do you have to wait in line to have hip and knee replacement? government-run plant have certain amounts of dollars they will spend on health care. when that does not go far enough, they will raise it. enough, they will raise it. are trying to do here for the 50 million people who do not have health insurance is to give them a choice, by putting them in private insurance plans. that is why we do not want a public option.

every expert says tens of millions of people -- the lowest level i have seen is 83, the highest, 120 -- will be pushed out of their health care plan into a government plan. when you do that, sooner or later everyone premiums will go up, people will opt-out, and then you will have what the congressman from illinois said, to a group wanted canadian-style single payer -- we need a public option first because the american people will not go from here to but they have in canada immediately. there needs to be an interim. i do not think the government does a good job running >> stephen langel of "roll call

," the lawmakers are back. who is saying what? >> the main focus is on the senate finance, some sort of bipartisan agreement. there is a question about that. max baucus has come forward with a summary of what he wants to do with health care. but at this point, the reaction has been muted from lawmakers, from the gang of six who had been negotiating on the finance committee, but in the act of this committee, it has been much more vocal bear dollars you're talking about senator baucus with his finance committee plans. why does that not have a public option in it? >> it is one of the more contentious issues, an issue that the key republican lawmakers and finance say they simply will not support, charles

grassley and olympia snowe. you certainly will be getting any other republicans, because she has gone as far as any of them in trying to reach some sort of agreement. >> on the house side, steny hoyer, the majority leader, he talked about the public option. >> what he is saying is that a public option is a wonderful idea that should be in the bill, but essentially he said it is not a deal breaker it is not there, but he would like it to be there. there is some equivocation on the part of the house in what they will and will not accept. >> with congress being back, is there any sense about a time line? >> or says that there is no timeline but there watching to see what the senate does. he made a point of noting that they usually do not wait for the senate to do anything, but they are curious to see what they

come out with pierre >> tomorrow night president obama on the hill for a joint session, his speech. what effect, if any, is that going have on the process and these lawmakers? >> it the president's speech -- speaks with authority about what he wants, what needs to be in, what must be in, that will have a real impact on what lawmakers are willing to do. they have been waiting for guidance from him. and on the public option, for instance, it would be invaluable. >> is there anything particular he has to say to remove recalcitrant democrats along a little bit? >> he might be making the point that you cannot scuttle the entire bill, because of one provision, the public option, especially if there is a viable alternative, such as the trigger, or some sort of

cooperative plan, but you have nonprofit cooperatives that provide health care coverage. he might send the message that people should not die for that issue. -- is not do or die for that issue. >> will be watching for most closely? >> i am watching for indications from the republicans on finance, if they are ready to go along with what democrats have done or if they want to lead. i have heard about a staring match between who wants to lead person take the blame, republicans, because they have not been and is involved, or will democrats the scene is pushing them out the door? >> stephen langel, that you as always for your time. >> no problem. >> as the debate over health care continues, c-span's health care hub is a key resource. go online, all the latest week's, the video ads, and links. why is the latest advance including town hall meetings and

share your thoughts on the issues with iran citizen video, including in the video from town halls you have gone too. and there is more at c-span. >> and a few moments, just as sonia sotomayor makes the traditional step -- walked down the front steps of the court. in 20 minutes, south carolina gov. mark sanford takes calls from constituents on a radio program in columbia. after that, an update on military operations and write. later, the head of the food and drug administration on food policy. on "washington journal," tomorrow, we will talk about the health care debate with pete dupont, richard kirsch, with a group americans for health care

now. and a look at the future of south carolina gov. sanford with kevin cullen from radio station wvoc in colombia -- keven cohen from radio station wvoc in colombia. >> although she took the judicial oath of moment -- a month ago, a ceremonial swearing-in was held for just a sonia sotomayor. after the ceremony, she took the traditional walk down the court steps. but for this, there was a federal opportunity with her family. -- a photo opportunity with their family. >> this is a producer with nbc. she is on the camera. >> hello. >> and an abc photographer. >> i have seen you before.

come right over here. i have a memory for space. and hello, how are you again. when dna? >> we need you first. >> ok. >> she is an expert. ok, perfect. we'll do this all day and tell your family says stop. dollar is going fine them. [laughter] -- go and find them. here we go, right here. that's great. 11. on one.

that's great. i hear people downhaul. -- down the hall. [unintelligible] >> this is dangerous. >> you're going to be first. >> mock, you look great. -- ma, you look great. [unintelligible] >> ok, here we go. great, great. and th--

[laughter] [unintelligible] >> get as close as you can to you. ok, all right. that's good, all right. right into the lens. very good. >> milsmile, ma. >> she has a nice smile. >> this way? >> that looks great.

some people have to work for a living. great, a couple more. great. [laughter] >> great, you guys look great. [unintelligible] [speaking spanish] >> you have to get used to that out of order. >>, i know, i know.

>> all right, look right here and smile. ok. [laughter] >> this should we bring up? >> your brother? we're going to do this. [unintelligible] >> i do now what i'd do, justice, so if you could step

forward -- i do not want to high vde -- hide you, just as, so if you would step forward. [unintelligible] >> you just get to stand and watch us. >> i want everyone as close to the justice as again. [laughter] >> the tall guy is always at the back, you know that. he can hold as prop, and to that step.

very nice. one more. nice smile. good, very nice. and now we need to add your sister, tracy. >> and then i would like one with my brother. >> tracy, come over here. [inaudible] >> we are all turning toward the justice. [unintelligible] you are fine or you are.

-- you are fine where you are. being tall, you always go to the bag. >> i do not mind being tall. >> very good. you guys are doing good. a couple more. >> i think we're going to do father. >> brand new. i figured if we were going to take pictures, i wanted a new suit. [laughter] [unintelligible]

>> why don't we get tracy into this? >> tracy? the oilers don't tell him your shoes hurt. -- >> don't tell him your shoes her. -- hurt. [unintelligible] >> your good until you got upstairs.

>> grade. -- great. >> de winter mother or your brother? -- do you want your mother or your brother? >> you must have a million shot to me. are you sure it's too many? [unintelligible] >> what a shot. good, good.

>> you guys have done great, but there are -- because there aren't any but a knotts. -- polka dots. >> i think we are done. >> when we were here last time, you talked about a cd. >> i can get you anything. [laughter] >> you do not understand. i'll have to reason get it. -- to recent -- teresa get it. [speaking spanish] >> thanks, guys. i will see you all later.

[unintelligible] [applause]

>> microphone, microphone. [cameras clicking] >> can you say a few words, please? [speaking spanish] >> tell me when you have enough. >> never run out.

>> never? >> here they come. [laughter] [cameras clicking] [inaudible] >> we are over here. there you go. [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> bye, guys. >> congratulations.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> the supreme court has a rare special session tomorrow, hearing oral arguments on a campaign finance case. listen to it the same day on c-

span3, c-span radio, and c- span.org. tomorrow is the first appearance on the bench for justice sonia sotomayor are. here is clarence thomas on what it means to add a new justice. >> as far as the composition of the court, you're bringing in basically -- and this word can be over used -- this is a family and it changes the whole family. it is different -- it is different today than what it was when i first got here. and i have to admit, you grow very fond of the court that you spend all long time on. there was a period there were chief justice rehnquist and justice o'connor, when we had gone, we had a long run together. and you get comfortable with that and then it changes. and now it is changing again. so the institution is different,

your reactions are different, you have to start all over. the chemistry is different. >> hear from other justices during supreme court week as c- span looks at the home to america as high as court starting october 4. >> the supreme court hears oral argument tomorrow and a campaign finance case, citizens united v. federal license commission. they will decide if laws that allow government to band corporations from supporting political candidates should be overturned. you can hear that at 11 at 30 a.m. -- you can hear that at 11:30 a.m. on c-span3, c-span radio, and c-span.org. >> south carolina mark sanford was on a columbia of radio station taking calls on his political future. there have been calls for him to resign after he recently admitted to an extramarital

affair. ♪ >> 5 minutes after 5:00, wvoc welcomes you back to the after nine dry. you're listening all of a palm estate and beyond. gov. mark stanford in the studio with us. you can reach us at the telephone number. we look forward to taking as many calls as we can cover the course of this 5:00 hour. we will tackle as much as we can with the governor bear we all ought to talk about. we appreciate you coming on here. it is good to have you back here in the studio. >> my pleasure. >> let's dive right on into the phone calls. you'll have a chance to talk with him as much as possible. but, i mean, piling on is continuing today as the house speaker is calling for the resignation in this and that. to you think that his his way of

saying, i appalled enough people and i've got enough numbers for impeachment and so i am going to say it? >> you cannot judge another person's intent. he does what he does. i think there was something rational about what he said earlier, let's let this work its way through. we have a group that is going to look at this. let's let them come out with what they think are do not think and then let's take steps accordingly. so i think it is unfortunate and a bit premature, because as i said repeatedly, let's just throw the obvious out there. i had a real moral failure. we have talked about it. we have talked on and on about it. and then some more about it and then some more about it. i've apologized again and apologized and again. it gets to the point where you can go back and beat and reprimand and whatnot,

acknowledging on that front, but the measure of all of our lives is not when we fall down, because we will fall down, but the question is how do we get back up? and they're real question for all of us south carolinians is where do we go from here? i talked about earlier that we have a real opportunity. you are often doing this and that. we have that first chance in 6.5 years to litigate the issue of restructuring and make some real changes and move away from the out mandated models -- the outdated models, are we going to change economic development, and that is more important. if you want to go back to this other stuff, i cannot apologize more than i possibly have. and then this other has been pure politics. you go to the bottom line of where this administration has been on, on airplanes, all of those different things, we have

a compelling lead good record. and our love to explore that with you during our visit here over the hour. a compellingly strong record watching out for taxpayer interests. >> we're talking with the governor, mark sanford, an adult when it's been my part of the hour -- i do not want to spend my part of the our back on that. but for the people listing, this is keven cohen talking, if you had, even an ounce of respect for the lieutenant governor or an ounce of confidence in the sky, might this have to change your mind and encourage you to resign and walk away? >> note, that is not really where i'm coming from. after the original plane went down at the end of june. with all due respect, you never see a television camera again for the rest of your life.

but if god is going to make lemons out of lemonade, if you believe in the process of repentance and hope and growth, it will not be a fun part of the show but you have to stay around for that part of the show. you go through this process, and it really is not about the lieutenant governor, whose merits -- it is about saying, all of our lives are imperfect. we're going have imperfections. the question is, do we still go on and make something and allow got to make something of our life? or do we just pack up the suitcases and head for the farm or wherever one wants to go? it is very important that if you have a chance -- a different way of saying what i am saying is, with all due respect to the lieutenant governor or anybody else, there is a proven track

record of the past 6.5 years of pushing for reconstruction. people and not wanted to hear that our talk about that in columbia but it is long needed and we have begun that process with regard to changing things that work in colombia. there has been a long needed conversation on spending. you go back and let it peaks and valleys throughout that time. and yet that we pretended it is. the idea of coming up with a different way of budgeting, i think it is important. we had a six. five-year track record of certain things, and continuing to advance on those things, albeit more slowly -- more slowly than we would have wanted. look at the last legislative session and continue to push those things, with a new level of humility and remorse. >> i want to get some phone calls. from the standpoint of the general assembly, eye session it

was battle mark stop -- mark sanford on the stimulus. i am not looking to take anybody specifically. but it was a waste. as a south carolinian, i was enraged and nothing getting done. i found it interesting that bobby harrell said today that they did not get something done. and from here to the rest of the general assembly, it works both ways. you've had to do a lot of that yourself. but nothing is getting done. >> and that is why i keep going back to taking all of this political energy -- i don't know how many times i have been here with the studio with you. i've never been here to say cameras, reporters, and i will say hello to all of the currently of -- and i will not say hello to all the columbia press corps. can we take that energy, and as south carolinians say where do

we go from here? could we send an e-mail, a phone call, a letter, a conversation with a neighbor on changing the way that the south carolina government works? that's what we talked about an article today. we are the only -- and 49 other states, they do it differently. this is the only state in the union square in the administrative functions that are handled by the of the 49 governors, actually handled by this entity called the budget office. in fairness to my predecessor, he was elected by the people of south carolina as a democrat. he had certain ideas that he wanted to push. in fairness to him, his first check on the prerogative was not the general assembly or not the judicial branch of government, but what credit costs but all to the lieutenant governor, the

opposite party, one to go in the opposite direction, and it is a dysfunctional system. if you have bison -- a president and vice president elected from different political parties, people would say that this was madness and would not work. it splintered. it was the 1895 constitution put in place by pitchfork ben tillman, and it was built on the fears that a black man would be elected governor in south carolina. there are other rules that are out there. and so what i would say is, if people would pick one area where they want to make a difference and really it is the squeaky wheels they degrees in politics. make some noise. >> i have supported reforming the state. it makes sense. one of the things i have defended you on most is that a lot of reform issues that mark

sanford had pushed had nothing to do with his term and governor. i think you have been very selfless on that and it is important to note that. but if you had even some semblance of a decent relationship with the general assembly, to you think that there would be -- have been more done? i have been on the record by numbers of people in the house and senate, if stanford research center were not as are that, i would of voted for him every time. but with so much pressure, i cannot do it. >> i would say two things. have there been missteps along the 6.5 years where i could or should have done things slightly different? sure. that is the nature of the human experience. you're not going to get a perfect. but the whole of what we have been pushing for is about taking the gold from he who holds the gold.

generally big guy who holds the goal does not want to give up the gold. but gold is the constitution of 1895. are racist constitution. and it is not a mark against anyone in the general assembly. and it has a lot to do with why we are one and a 30% more in the cost of our government than any other state. we have a totally weird system. a lot of the controversy that has been created has been created at times because we are trying to change the system. a lot of people agree with the system, particularly those with the popular out there. -- people say that this really does not make sense. just on the issue of transparency holon, on how close the system was, when we

came into the office in 2003 we were one of only three states in the country where you could get on limited and up -- gelb on limited an undisclosed amounts of money to a political party. you ought to disclose where it's coming from. in 2004, we said -- he used to be on the back of a number of. money would go to the agency, but then we would say, you best be finding these bayh projects. we said no to that. someone saying, you could pull up on a keyboard how much has been given to a candidate, and from where. i got that, and then we work in 2007 to have online disclosure of all state expenditures. but in many cases, if you are in the know in columbia, it is a

pretty good system. but if your not, it is not such a bad system. it's time to open the system up and create -- and that is been troubled by 6.5 years. and the other part of this, and why spending caps are important, it is tied to this larger notion of the executive branch not having a better perspective on where money ought to be spent. but it does have a different perspective. historically, governors did not have an operation in the office of the budget. it was time to pull up the chair the table even though we had no right to. but our point was, if the construct of our budget was your district, your district, and your district, you could end up with a lot of duplications. that is why we're at 130% of state government costs. as an equal perspective in the

legislative process, the executive branch says, i do not have a better perspective but i have a different one. do we really need eight of those? would not be a good thing? the front row seat of what happens, what are you spending and what you spending. what is it on and how much? we pulled up a chair at the table and that was a historic -- that caused sparks to fly. if you simply traded marbles and stayed between the 40 hardline in the 40 hardline, everything would have been great. but that is not what i was hired to do and that is not what we tried to do. >> how seriously, before it hit the fan in late june, how seriously were you going to run for president? you'd heard about it for years already. in your mind, did you think you would run for president? >> i consistently said that this

is not where i am. we had this conversation. it keeps coming up. this is not where i am. what happens in politics is you a have those friends and foes, a lot of those of late, but friends wish for you, they have hopes and dreams and we wanted to do more. there was a certain level of pushing, elected chairman of the national governors -- republican governors association. the stimulus came up, and people said i did that because i wanted to run for president. when i ran for congress 15 years ago, i said exactly the same step. so the answer is no. what you have to do in the process is basically say goodbye to three years of life, i will see you in three years. marshall, we have one year left with him before it goes off to

college. dollars the state are first timeout. i've had my turn. when we come back, it is your turn. for the phone calls, we need to but the headphones on, so you can hear the callers, and we will go from there. >> different friends brought it up but i had not caused that bridge yet, and that is a big mental bridge to cross. >> and did you hear from jenny, let's do this, let's not do this when it comes to president? >> she is never a big fan of that. >> when anybody would ask, i was always say asked jenny.

>> it was never big fan of that. >> i did not know where your heart and had was when it comes to that. you have asked yourself, what i, if i had a chance against obama in 2012? now obama, he seems to be vulnerable. heaven forbid that we get a chance to talk about issues. what oscar about health care. it is scary what is being talked about. all right. we'll put headphones on. mark will be our first caller. >> plays six days week. ♪ dollars a couple of earlier accidents. -- double arrows a couple of earlier accident.

a car hit a deer just off of bush river road. the traffic tip line is open. >> no agenda, noseband, just the facts as they happen. columbia's news radio 516, wvoc. ♪ >> our guest is governor mark stanford in this city of. the only thing i will tell the callers is that gov. sanford and his office, they did not say word one in terms of anything like restrictions, nothing, just willing to take your telephone calls. all i would ask is that you keep your question quick said that we can take as many callers as possible between now and the end of the program. markets up first for your on with gov. mark sanford on wvoc. >> i am going to keep this quick. gov. sanford, our state is

plagued with the legislators not coming from principle, but just for themselves. free enterprise is everything. it is everything that we've got very you are defending it. you need to stay. >> thank you, mark, for the call. >> i agree with him. [laughter] i would say this, and it is an interesting point, and that is, there is a disconnect that i hear as i traveled around the state, whether or rotary clubs or small business or other places, and what i hear in columbia. what i consistently here are around the state are comment's like the one that he just gave. where there's a disconnect in the political world and the media world.

going to his point, people operate out of self-interest in life. in the world of politics, there is no exception there. i would be the example of -- some people thought it would propel our help their political careers to keep this alive and keep it stirred up. other votes, with all due respect, i think it would help sell newspapers of a help to keep it alive. going back to the first point, is a senator in the upstate who is holding an investigation on ice using of business class ticket on the economic development trip. if that investigation was really about bidding to the bottom line of how did we use taxpayer resources, rather than going out and saying, i think you broke the law -- which is a big thing to say, when you're one person in an elected office saying that to another. he would have done some

homework, and what he would get down with the purchase of the business class ticket, is that it turns out that that has been the accepted practice of the department of commerce for the last 25 years. republican and democratic governors alike have used business class tickets on this international economics trips. dollar just piling on. >> it is worse than that. other governors, undersecretary of commerce, other staff members, and other members of the general assembly. before you say, hey, you broke the law, you would want to say to another fellow center who has been on the economic development trips, the same thing. i am not begrudging the former governor for his economic development trips or four senators for going on and -- or four governors who were going on them, if you get three people in

your subcommittee, one that was using a business class ticket, if you got to the bottom line, you would be bringing it up to the people of two seeds other rather than going out and making headlines. -- to the people two seats over rather than going out and making headlines. >> brin and, welcome, your on wvoc with the governor. dollars can i interrupt -- >> can i interrupt? they ought audit themselves, the executive branch. they did a study in 2002 in another study in 2004. both of them said, there are no wrongdoings, even though there has been lots of a business class ticket purchases during that time. >> go ahead. >> mr. sanford, i'd heard it the

beginning is that the staff was aware of where you were and that they did have contact with you. is that true? >> several different times, a back channel way of getting ahold of me. several people did. a change by fighting came back home. >> of the media is overplaying this and making it worse than what it truly is. >> again, if you're the guy that messed up and i am not guy, i am not going to be casting's down about where people are or are not coming from. but some people have seen it in their best interest to keep things stirred up more than ought to be the case. i was gone over that weekend, and i am dead guilty of being gone over that weekend. >> is that impeachable? >> we will see. >> to you think you have done anything they could be impeachable?

we've talked about the moral issues, but have you done something that is impeachable? >> what i would say is -- there have an 8 governor's impeachment history of the nation. that had been similarly heinous things in terms of taking money out of the general fund of the state, going out and purchasing property -- hundreds of thousands of dollars. so i would say, there is certainly a world of difference between what has happened there and what has happened here. >> if it comes to the house and senate? >> i am not looking for a fight. water ultimately seeks to its own level. the moral wrong was all mine. i am working through those but there is a very different story that has led to the headlines of the last month and a half, almost two months, a lot of spending things. if you look at the raw data with

this investigation of using business class tickets to go on economic development trips, there is a compellingly good record. not only a good record on the business class tickets themselves, but we used to have a jet that had transatlantic capacity. we sold that chin said that any ships would be taken on a commercial aircraft. what i believe is that if people -- if i had read the headlines over the past 45 days, i would want to impeach me. if i believe that they were true. but there is a whole rest of the story to the spending stories that ultimately poised to was having a compelling good record in terms of watching out for the taxpayers. even if -- when you have a governor who spends 50% less, it

is telling you something. when you go out and begin to look at -- wait a minute. it's not a lady's travel plans, but they opened up the summer residence they used to be reserved for the governor and began a rental program and brought in $700,000 of revenue on that. that saved over a million dollars of the governor's mansion. the governor was given a bmw and became an office. commerce could use that. aikido down a long list of savings, things that have been real and material. again, and eventually water seeps into its own level, and people will see that other side of the story. i think that a lot of the media circus probably will subside. >> 31 minutes after 5:00, we will come back with more of your calls in just a minute. first, headlines. the was good afternoon.

the top-ranking republican officials are calling for the governor said -- to step down. bill is what has become clear is that gov. sanford is issues will dominate our state as long as he is in office. the issue we have facing our state and the work and is to be accomplices 0 important -- [unintelligible] >> providing nothing, they're going to comment from that standpoint. -- come at it from that standpoint. it is to that point -- if it gets to that point, it is not going to change your mind of a long haul? >> you know my nature. we bent over this more than 615 years. two wrongs do not make a right,

in my opinion. the moral wrong was mine. >> sure. >> i on it. i have said more about it than the state in the world wanted to hear. i have laid all the cards out there. and a lot of what has been going on since then -- selective outrage, if you want to call it that -- you broke the law but then they don't mention the fact that the guy in the subcommittee also to a business class tickets, and former officials did. i've been to a number of different folks, i wanted to resign for all the different reasons, the embarrassment. but now it has gone on to people tried to paint a picture that does not exist. i don't think that is right.

the fact is, we have done a very good job of trying to watch out for the taxpayer. for some reason, we never really liked it guy anyway, where he is coming from, we just need to push him out, to undermine the will of the majority of south carolina and, i think that is a problem. >> if there was not the other thing, right and bond -- right in line with people like that, it is just what the governor does. >> we have gone the extra mile. i wrote a letter to a friend asked -- u.s. me about it. they are worth talking about dollars when you're going on a

trip, the business -- they are worth talking about. >> when you going on a trip, mr. whatever -- >> people are saying that this is ok by s, such as during the campbell administration, they brought it up. you can take you -- you can be penny wise and pound foolish. wait a minute. when we got that six and a million dollar investment in north carolina, began n.c. -- north and south carolina. [unintelligible] your plan for a lot of marbles in those instances. >> anyone who is a south carolinian knowing what the

potential return is, you obviously want that. i want that. >> the comptroller general of the state looks at every budget, with regard to expense, for every common and preferred 30 years, they have not had a problem with that. that is where he gets a little bit strange and wait a minute. you've been watching as for 30 years, you that oversight for 30 years, you're legislative audit actually does an audit and finds no material on doing, and now you are saying that this is a huge problem? a little bit selective. that is the world of politics. dollars is it worse here or in d.c.? >> i do not know. beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. bubblers' was it worse in d.c.

in june were here since june -- >> was it worse in d.c. in june or here since june? but again, i have so many media cameras on me. in fairness to obama, i really thought about him with some of the storm around health care. would you agree or disagree with that, if the point of reporter -- if the point of reporting is finding a guy who objects most loudly, as opposed to -- that is trying to sell a story rather than simply saying, what is really happening here? it depends on the event, probably. >> year ago. -- here we go. thank you so much for being with us on this tuesday afternoon. .