didn't go through the scrutiny that a cabinet secretary or high official would have to go through, testifying before committees and being answerable to the american people. you have the czars with these powers and they are trying to create a health care czar that would have are the ability to make major decisions over individual families' health care. it's important to go through and talk about some of these claims that are being made, because there are claims that are being uncontradicted by the bills we have before us in congress that are supported by this president and this administration. . personally i think that's a very important claim, i think that's one of the sacred parts of health care we should maintain, if people like the health care they have, they should keep it. the problem is, in the bill that president obama supports in the house, the only bill this administration, speaker pa lowsy, and others are promoting is h.r. 3200.

in that bill, in fact on page 15 of that bill, they give the power to the health care czar, again an unappointed bureaucrat, person who did not go through any confirmation process, appointed by the president, who is totally unaccountable to congress. this health care czar would have the power to decertify private plans. that's right. that means if you have a health care policy you like, the health care czar in their bill has the power to take away your health care plan. even if you do like it. it's in their bill. we actually try to take that out in committee. another claim that's been made a whole lot, it was made here on this house floor, deals with the issue of illegal immigration. and do illegal aliensp have access to health care? -- aliens have access to health care? many have claimed illegal aliens wouldn't get health care in their bill. the problem is their bill according to the congressional budget office, the president's bill allows eight million

illegal aliens to have access to his government-run health care plan. that testimony was given by the congressional budget office. it's not a republican or democrat that said that. that's the bipartisan group that we actually have to follow who scores these bills, who makes a determination whether or not these statements are accurate. the congressional budget office has said, eight million illegal aliens would have access to this government plan that the president is supporting, h.r. 3200. there are a lot of other claims that are similar to those that are just not accurate. one of the ones that's thrown around a lot by the president and others is this strawman, we have to fix health care. if we don't pass his bill, then everybody else is for the status quo. if they don't want his bill. if they don't want the government to take it over. that's not true. if you look at the bills out there, there are many bills that myself and others support that are very different approaches than the bill president and speaker pelosi support. one good one is h.r. 3400.

h.r. 3400 has nearly 40 members of congress who are co-sponsors, including four medical doctors. in our bill we actually go and address the problems that exist. we address the problems with pre-existing conditions. i don't think it's fair or right that somebody can be denied health care coverage because they are battling a disease like cancer or some other tragic disease that in the current system they are currently discriminated against. we fix that problem in our bill. we invoke real competition. it's not for bringing in the government, it's by allowing people to buy across state lines. we need to address these problems in a real honest way. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from minnesota rise? ms. mccollum: to address the house for one minute. permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady from minnesota is recognized. mrs. bachmann: i thank you for the opportunity to address the house for five minutes. the context of my remarks is engaging the issue of the

current financial situation that the united states finds itself in. mr. chairman, as we -- mr. speaker, it was less than one year ago that the government began bailout nation, which was $700 billion in tax money that was given to the united states treasury secretary for the purpose of stabilizing america's financial situation. let's take just a brief history at what's happened in the united states in just less than one year's time. this congress appropriated essentially a blank check to the treasury secretary of $700 billion, a blank check. the treasury secretary literally could do anything he wanted to do with that $700 billion. that $700 billion went to the treasury secretary. it's gone to bail out banks. it's gone to bail out insurance companies. and it's gone to set up the automobile task force.

in that time we have seen $700 billion go not only for that bailout, we also saw $29 billion go to bear stearns to shore up that investment banking house. we also saw $200 billion go for fannie and freddie, the secondary mortgage company, because remember all of this began with the meltdown in the housing industry. so we thought first of all money needed to go to bail out the secondary mortgage provider. almost all loans today in the united states are now backed upp by the federal government. this is amazing what has happened to our country in less than one year's time. we saw over $100 billion go of our tax money to bail out the largest insurance company in the united states, a.i.g. still the united states taxpayer has yet to be repaid from the money for a.i.g. we have yet to be made whole.

we have yet to be made whole for the money that was extended to general motors and chrysler. that's tens of billions of dollars that were given to the car companies. we were told that we had to give them tens of billions so they wouldn't go into bankruptcy. well, lo and behold what happened? both g.m. and chrysler went into bankruptcy. we were told that we had to give all of this money to freddie and fannie so that they wouldn't go into bankruptcy, and we continue to pour taxpayer money into freddie and fannie. not only that, we were told that the american taxpayer to give another $75 billion to mortgage bailout money. at what point is enough is enough? $200 for the secondary mortgage company, another $75 million for mortgage bailout. but that wasn't enough because the american taxpayers were told we needed to give $1 trillion in stimulus programs. $1 trillion. that money hasn't been

completely let out, thank god, every penny that hasn't let out at this point should be reeled back in and we shouldn't be committing any more of that money. we also agreed in this body to spend another $4700 billion in an end of the year budget gap that we were able to shore up. at this point we know the congressional budget office has said that our country will be in deficit $1.6 trillion this year and it may go worse. how do we know that? unemployment is at 9.7%. and president obama's own economic advisor has said, if we pass his version of government takeover of health care, we will lose 5.5 million more jobs. we have lost four million jobs. if we passed president obama's health care reform by his numbers we'll lose another 5.5 million jobs. and if we pass his national energy tax, the cap and trade

bill, this energy tax by president obama's own numbers will cost our economy an additional 2.5 million jobs lost every year going forward. this doesn't seem to be working for us as we look at this one-year anniversary of layman brothers collapsing. so -- lehman brothers collapsing. now the federal government owns or controls 30% of all private business profits. and if president obama gets his way and takes over another 18% of our economy in health care, that means the federal government will own or control 48% of private business profits. just think, a year ago 100% of private business profits were private. today we are looking at the specter of 48% of private business profits owned or controlled by the federal government. mr. speaker, that's why the american people are are are

nervous. that's why they don't want congress to own or control any more of our economy. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? without objection, so ordered. the gentlelady from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: thank you very much, mr. speaker. we have some joyous moments in this body. and i'm delighted to say that we will have that tomorrow. gospel music is part of america's culture. and i was very pleased to pass the legislation, house joint resolution 12, to acknowledge gospel music as part of the great culture of america. tomorrow here in this house we will celebrate the gospel music heritage legislation, was

passed in this house and in the senate, by my colleague and friend, senator blanch lambert lincoln. we'll celebrate it with the wonderful sound of richard smallwood. we had the privilege and honor of celebrating this cultural aspect of america, reaching from the east to the west, north to the south n places like nashville, tennessee, to iowa, to atlanta, georgia, to houston, texas, to new york, new york, and places in california and around this nation. we had the pleasure of celebrating it at the kennedy center, byron cage and the ebenezer choir, a.m.e. church was there on saturday evening celebrating gospel music heritage. we are excited about it and we thank our house leadership for helping us pass this honor of those wonderful gospel musicians that all of us enjoy over the years and decades. some starting out or gaining their rock 'n' roll status like elvis presley from their

original origins of gospel music or al green, a gospel singer, mahalia jackson, or marion anderson, so many great gospel singers have given all of us joy. i would like to thank the house leadership, i would like to thank the majority leader and his staff and chairman towns and the ranking member of the government oversight committee all of whom helped this day come to fruition. as we move into issues that require our attention, mr. speaker, aid like to comment very briefly on our position in afghanistan. tomorrow i'll have the opportunity to join in listening to ambassador holbrook who has just returned back from afghanistan. and i'd like to offer these thoughts. i do believe that afghanistan is very important to the united states. and after 9/11 it was important to respond to the attack on this nation. but now i think it is important to emphasize a diplomatic surge

and to stand down on the military soldiers all who are valiantly working there. i believe it is important to allow the afghan people through the building of schools and roads and the building of the afghan army to take control of their own security. we cannot allow this to be a 20-year war as it was with russia and the afghan people must stand up. some may say it is not the time. that it is a difficult time. and they are right. because instead of pursuing the cause in afghanistan over the last eight years we failed and detoured into iraq. iraq that took thousands of american lives and still unfortunately and tragically struggles today with democracy and leadership in their own country. but i do believe it is time for a surge of diplomacy in afghanistan and i'm going to work with my colleagues to see this happen. i wish to mention iran as well as the national, as the general assembly gathers in the united nations, and particularly the

focus on camp afrat that has displaced iranians. these individuals are in iraq and they are subject to abuse. i'm calling upon the administration to demand for the people that are displaced that happen to be iranians who are in iraq to be treated with human dignity and for that campp to be protected and for the iraqi military to protect that camp and not allow the intrusion into that camp and the rampage that's going on he and the attack on women and children. enough is enough. if iraq claims itself to be a democracy, it is important. i also call upon the general assembly to comment on the abuses in iraq. the human rights abuse, the press abuse, lack of freedom of press. even as we debate this question of nuclear proliferation, we should not allow the kinds of abuse that is are going on in iran. as i move to the domestic issue, mr. speaker, it is

important that we clarify that health care is something that america wants. 60% of the american people want health care. as i was coming here to washington, i met someone in the airport who indicated that their son, mrs. wallace, will have to have surgery, costing $1 million. she pleaded that we get our job done. i said i would take her message to washington, d.c. she was sending off her sister going to zue knew zealand. they have not been hampered by a program that is in essence underwritten by the government. we are not asking for a program to be underwritten by the government. we are asking people to have choice. but more importantly we are hoping to have an option, public option that will provider for the competitiveness that is so very important to providing health care to all americans. let's stop the myth and attacks and let's have an evenhanded debate to recognize that a public option provides for competition. i want to conclude, mr. speaker, by just simply saying

that we have celebrated this one year with the lehman brothers, but will i say to you that we have to have a recovery that makes sense and this administration is working on it. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey of california. mr. moran of kansas. mr. inglis. mr. souder. ms. foxx of north carolina. under the speaker's announced policy january 6, 2009, the gentleman from texas, mr. carter, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker, for recognizing me for this hour. this nice young man is going to

help me set up this tripod so we have some pictures to look at. as i think some people might know and some of my colleagues know, i have been appearing before this house in the leadership hour for approximately 12 weeks and i have been talking about this house of hypocrisy that we seem to be trifing in here involving multiple people on ethical issues and maybe even some criminal issues that need to be addressed. and i raise the issue, because i want to remind the leadership of this house that if we don't address these issues, we are failing in our duty as members of congress.

as we sit here with the democrat majority blasting joe wilson for an inadvertent outcry in the house of representatives, we seem to have forgotten what i have been talking about the last 12 weeks, which is chairman charlie rangel's tax evasion and ethics violations that have been raised over and over and over on the floor of this house. this is the ultimate hypocrisy. so, i'm going to talk about it again tonight. and i think it's important that we listen. and it's important to also know that this is not like it just started in the last few months. today is a very important day. this is september 15 -- i believe -- close to it, anyway. and on september 15, 2008, the

"new york times" certainly not one of the more conservative newspapers nor i don't think would consider them a republican newspaper, called for the resignation of chairman rangel as chairman of the ways and means committee because of allegations that he himself had pointed out to this house, on the floor of this house of his failure to report certain items of value and failure to pay taxes on $75,000 worth of income that he realized in the dominican republic on a vacation home that he owned there and rented out. and rightfully said he was go to go correct that by paying the taxes and amending his return and felt bad about it, but he

turned himself in to the ethics committee. well, this turning yourself into the ethics committee is the hypocrite's dream because you say i want you to judge me. well, are they? they have had a year now. this was turned into the ethics committee a year ago. we were promised when this new congress started, we were promised in the fall of last year by the speaker of this house, nancy pelosi, that she was certain that all the rangel issues would be resolved by the first week or second week of january of this year. and yet, they're still not resolved. the ethics committee's job is to the charging body in this

congress and they are to look into these allegations and they are to make decisions. it's our method of policing ourselves. and quite frankly, when you find your method of policing yourself has failed -- and i would argue one year on one person, it's pretty close to failure. then maybe we need to come up with a new system. maybe we need to come up with a new way. maybe we're not capable of policing ourselves. there have been bodies like bar associations, medical associations that historically have policed their own members and other associations, certified public account ants, architects and others have policed themselves. if they do a good job, they

should be commended. if they fail, they should be condemned. but there is nothing in the law having spent the majority of my life in the courts as a trial judge in my last 20 years before coming to congress eight years ago, we have an addage that justice delayed is justice denied. and that is why we have things like speedy trial acts in the courts of america where a defendant can say, i want this case brought to trial within a set time period because justice delayed is justice denied. that's why we have multiple terms of grand juries and we promote the grand jury process to move cases along through the system so we can deal with so many criminal cases in a opportu

ne way,. that's why we come up with alternative forms of resolution of dispute in the courthouse because our civil dockets and family law dockets get so bogged down in numbers that justice becomes delayed and therefore justice is denied. well, i would argue that when one man stands at that microphone and for about an hour confesses his transgressions to this house defeated by the speech and debate clause of the constitution and states in no uncertain terms that he had made serious errors and he was going to correct them and this -- he was turning over to the ethics committee to get it resolved, then he has not been fairly

treated by the ethics committee. that's one of the things i wanted to point out here as we have done this, i am about resolution of dispute. i am about solving these types of things that put an evil light upon this house of representatives. we have enough trouble with the public right now. our poll numbers are terrible. but the reality is, the history of this place causes us to be honorable people. we address each other as honorable people. and if you're going to be an honorable person, then we have to have a means of recourse when honor is challenged, even if you challenges it yourself. and i would argue that our methods that we are using in the ethics committee are failing this house of representatives. and the leadership, whose committee it is is failing this

house of representatives. and this needs to be resolved. when we talked about thfer one year ago -- about this one year ago, we heard about mr. rangel's issues about how he failed to report income and he announced to us that he was paying the taxes and would pay any penalties and interest that would be assessed against him. later, we learned that he paid taxes, but he didn't pay any penalties and interest because they weren't assessed against him. that looked like to me that the i.r.s. was giving special privileges to mr. rangel. why would they do that? is it because he is the chairman of the committee that oversees the i.r.s. and chairman of the committee that writes the tax laws of this nation? could be. but that's not right. that's not the way it ought to

be, just because 652,000 americans decides to send one of us to congress, does that mean we have special rights in this country that others don't have? no. it does not. and we need to stand up and say so. we go through that same line everybody else does at the airport. we get our pockets emptied and we go through whatever they call it at the airport just like everybody else and we should. no be -- nobody is any different . it is totally inappropriate for the chairman of the ways and means committee, who has admitted that he failed for years to pay taxes on income that he received in the dominican republic that he should not be assessed penalties and interest. for 10 years i practiced law in texas.

i represented a lot of people who had trouble with the i.r.s. and i always saw when we finished it up trying to resolve their issues, penalties and interest. the penalties and interest in many cases were more than the taxes. and mr. rangel's -- don't have exact numbers, but it appears like 10, 15 years he didn't pay on this income. why shouldn't he pay penalties and interest? so i wrote him a letter and said -- very respectful letter, mr. chairman, i'm sure you don't want to be treated any differently than any other american. i would request that you speak to the i.r.s. and ask them to assess the appropriate penalties and interest and that you pay them. i received no reply. i introduced a bill that i call the rangel rule and it says very simply, if you owe penalties and

interest on income that you failed to pay, when you pay that tax, write on your tax form, exercising the rangel rule and you as an american citizen be treated the same as the chairman of the ways and means committee. i thought that was fair. i thought that was just. it's still in the hopper and i'm perfectly willing if the leadership will bring it up, to put it to a vote of my colleagues and we might be surprised. rangel rule might become law. we should have at least have that fair treatment for americans, the same kind of fair treatment we expect to have. we don't expect people in this congress to get different treatment than we do. that's what i have been talking about. that and the other things like failing to report -- we have to file a report every year. required by law. like an oath. and if you violate that oath, there are consequences, i

violated an oath. and you swear, this is what i owe, this is what i made. dividend income, or interest income or whatever, we sign that, we swear to it. at least make it subject to perjury. and we file it every year. now the complaint we are given is true. you can report that i made -- i own appropriate that is worth between $250,000 and $500,000 and you don't know the range, but it gives a range. i didn't write the forms. those are the forms. but if you fail to report it, you are given a certain amount of time to amend it. that's fair. people can miss something. and many of the things that mr. rangel talked to us about when he talked on the floor of this house was the things that he didn't report. and that's good.

i mean he was being honest with the american people and with the members of this house. and he turned that over to the ethics committee, too. and i assumed that he filed the amended reports. and that's sort of what we have been trying to get resolved before the ethics committee, is this something that should be sanctionable by the house. and the ethics committee's job is to tell us that. we have certain sanctions that this house can have. they are set out in our rules. those rules that were given to us by thomas jefferson, a fairly famous and -- scholar and famous democrat. and we've got these rules. now we've got these sanctions and that committee is supposed to start the process. today is the first anniversary of the process starting for that, just what i told you so far.

but since then, since that time, other things have come forward. in fact, recently other things have come forward. mr. rangel has been found in many newspaper articles have come out about this, a potential additional violation of underreporting income and assets in 2007 by more than half, including failure again to report the income from his caribbean property -- resort property. he has aides that work for him that also fail to file these reports and failed to disclose this information. . his lease of a multirent controlled apartment was a discussion that took place at that time. using his house parking lot as a storage space for a car he didn't want to pay to be stored. his failure to report or pay taxes on this rental income in

the dominican republic. the alleged quid pro quo trading legislation action in exchange for the new rangel senter. all these things are part of previous accusationings. now we have new property -- accusations. now we have new properties, brand new retirement accounts, brand new investment accounts, five different investment accounts that oops, we just discovered those. and we have just discovered rental properties over in brooklyn, new york, and new jersey that just discovered. and have just come out in the newspapers. and there's article after article after article. as we celebrate this anniversary here are some of the things that are out there. we just talked about some of

them. the spark -- parking spot. there's also a trip taken by mr. rangel and others to the caribbean, was paid for by lobbyists when we had a firm promise by the speaker and the leadership of this house, democrat leadership, that this was a new congress, they were draining the swamp. well, the swamp's not drained. in fact we are knee-deep inal gators right now. and -- in alligators right now. but the draining the swampp was there be would be no more lobbyists paying for trips. we have multiple members of this house, including mr. rangel, who went on a lobbyist paid trip where they are on film thanking the individual lobbyists for their contribution to the trip.

people say why aren't we -- why isn't this working? why isn't this ethics committee working? and of course the newspapers who like to speculate have pointed out that three of the five democrat members on the ethics committee have received major campaign donations from charlie rangel. we ask why speaker pelosi hasn't taken a hand in this. we found out 119 house democrats have been given money by mr. rangel for their next campaign. so he's a source of funds for this -- the majority party. and that may be it, but we don't know. you know what, what this is all about is i am sick and tired of everybody being lumped together as evil people in this house. and therefore justice delayed is justice denied.

is the time we address some of these issues. i am joined by my friend from -- who is a classmate of mine, he will talk -- he is one of the stars of this floor because when he speaks, he speaks from the heart. mr. king, tell us what you got to say, i yield you what time you may need. mr. king: i thank the gentleman, the judge from texas, judge carter, for your leadership on this issue. i know it's hard for a lot of members to come down to the floor and raise an issue that has to do with the ethics of any other member. whatever party they might do, if they are democrat or republican, there is a certain restraint that exists in this house chamber. sometimes it's because members are afraid that they will -- their agenda will be punished by a powerful committee chair who holds a gavel. and there are some, though, as you have done for 12 or 13 or more weeks, stepped up here and

stood on principle and talked about real ethics and about the standards of this house and the standards that we need to hold the other members to, and ourselves to, for that matter. regardless of the consequences that might come along within this circle of people that work together every day, we've got to be the ones that raise the standard of this house and hold it up. now, if you have someone who is in charge of the i.r.s., who doesn't pay their taxes, immediately they lose the moral authoritier to claim anyone else's tax money. that's the case with tim geithner. it's a point i think has been alluded to by the gentleman from texas. if you have the chairman of the most powerful committee in the house of representatives, the ways and means committee, and the list of these questions, the ethical questions and the problems with his own taxes gets longer and longer after -- happy birthday, chairman rangel. a year since "the new york times" called for the chairman to step down, charlie rangel to

step down as chairman of the ways and means committee. i can remember the excoreation that took place when the republicans were in the majority and democrats were looking for anything that they could fabricate to allege against the people in power on this side. i remember constant attacks on speaker of the house newt gingrich who had something like 74 charges brought against him. every one of them speeshshuss, none substantive, and -- specious, and none substantive, and none stuck. but it was designed on the person who held the most power here. so this taint this. so people think it's a political battle. it's political in a lot of ways. judge carter talked about how political it is with 119 members of the democrat caucus in the house of representatives having received a campaign check from charlie rangel. when you have the majority, close to it anyway, near the majority of your own caucus that you contributed to their campaign, somehow they just magically over time lose their

conviction to stand up for pure ethics. it is a shame that the reality of the political world today is that it isn't just a matter of altruism, it isn't just people that come here and many do, come here to do the right thing, many come here because they want to help america. many come here because they want to believe, they are either liberals, or conservatives, or someplace in between. they believe in what they do and speak out about it. that sense of conviction and altruism is something that should be be allowed -- alouded and honored and respected whatever that judgment is. i think that a lot of america believes that that's what drives this house. i'd like to think it is. it's part of what drives this house. but another part that drives this house is political power. political patronage. campaign contributions. the unflunes that comes from being able to direct policy as chairman of a committee, it's a powerful thing. it's an unflue wention thing.

why did chairman rangel have all that money to give to 119 members of his own caucus? because he controls the tax writing committee. he controls a lot of the regulations that control the economy of the united states of america. at least the free market economy and what's left of it. and so there are those who disagree with the philosophy and policy that charlie rangel drives as the man who holds the gavel chairing the ways and means committee, and there are many people in this country, many companies, many corporations, many entities that will find a way to get check noose that campaign fund because they don't want to be funnished and that money gets cold out to members of their own caucus. and the chair forgets to pay his taxes and underestimates his tax liability and assets by more than half, including forgetting to report the i come -- income off his villa property in the dominican republic and forgetting to report that he's receiving rent subsidy apartment houses for

years in new york city. fair to report and pay taxes -- failure to pay report and taxes on the rental property in the dominican republic is clear. wasn't it an attack of conscious that chairman rangel had when he amended the statement? no, because to falsify those statements are a felony. when the issue was raised by judge carter, by "the new york times," by a number of others, then the chairman stepped forward and amended his returns. then amended them again. i actually don't know how many rounds it's been that those ethics reports are financially reports have been amended. but they are not, as i envision, being amended because of an attack of conscience. they are being amended because the news media, john carter, other members have stepped forward and laid the facts out before the american people. they are being amended to avoid the embarrassment and perhaps the consideration and in order

to comply with and hopefully avoid an ethics ruling that comes out of the dysfunctional ethics committee in the house of representatives. i think it's pretty interesting that there's an alleged -- this is one of the list of things that have emerged in the last year, an alleged quid pro quo of trading legislative action in exchange for donations to a center named for charlie rangel at city college of new york. one of our members, john campbell from california in particular, came down to the floor and offered an amendment to strike $1 million out that was earmarked forer a center named after charlie rangel. he asked mr. rangel, would you really ask that they name a center after you? the answer was essentially i wouldn't be named after you, mr. campbell, yes, i have been here a long time. it's ok. i think we ought to do that. house members don't do that. there are posthumous names for federal buildings for members of congress. it's very rare to find a member

of the house of representatives to ask for a real estate to be named after them. kind of a self-glorification, quid pro quo? possibly. it certainly raidses the question. the trips to the caribbean, this is fairly astonishing. the gift rule violation the trips to caribbean that were sponsored by the carib news foundation 2007, 2008 raise all kinds of questions. now, now the chairman of the ways and means committee, which by the way shouldn't be in the business of trying to direct thers toirs examine -- the i.r.s. to examine anybody. not micromanaging and focusing an i.r.s. investigation. had he the awe dance it to push for a crackdown on u.s. taxpayers who make honest mistakes on their own returns and that on the heels of secretary geithner's crackdown on u.b.s. depositors. it goes on.

the statement i thought was interesting was the democrats house of hypocrisy. they made a lot of allegation. but the house of hip hicy. the i.r.s. should investigate both charlie rangel and tim geithner. the problem is time geithner controls the i.r.s. so if you control an entity, it's pretty unlikely they are going to do a vigorous job of investigating the people that actually decide what's going to go on within the operation. the house committee on standards hasn't produced anything yet. that's the ethics committee. it's been a dysfunctional for a long time. it took place at the former chairman -- at that time ranking member of the ethics committee was now the chairman of the justice appropriations committee from west virginia. funny, under investigation himself. he holds the gavel that controls the appropriations to the people that are investigating him and controls their pursestrings. mr. mollohan. geithner controlling the i.r.s. charlie rangel controlling the

ways and means. and the tax code. the house committee on standards can't seem to move. the chairman, charlie rangel, has given campaign donations to three of the five democrats on the ethics committee. it should be unethical to make contributions from the house to members on the ethics committee. after all, especially if you are under investigation, surely that would turn the focus on it. the another interesting thing, this is one that stands out, we have a little investigation going on in these caribbean trips in question, mr. rangel was on. well, turns out that the chairman of the investigation of the caribbean trips was also along on the trip. so he knows what was going on there. if he would have thought there was a problem, would he have blown the whistle at that time one would think. this isn't the america that the people in this country pay for. that they want to have. it's not the america the people i know -- deserve. this country is full of hardworking, honest, decent

people white collar, blue collar people, people that get their hands dirty every day, people that keep their hands clean and use their brain and use their fingers, telephones, and steering wheels. people in the trenches, people in the meatpacking plants, people producing a product every single day and they giver up time away from their families and their homes and they pay their taxes and they comply with the regulations and they fear the i.r.s. coming into their kitchen or their office and doing an audit of them and they respect the government. we have a house of hypocrisy hire for the chairman of the ways and means committee can't seem to get his own filings right on his own accounting forms. the rules that he writes. he has the audacity to turn up an i.r.s. investigation on people that may not be. 119 democrats have received money from charlie rangel. the ethics committee can't move. three of the five democrats on the ethics committee have seemed to have received money from charlie rangel. so i would just say this that

we've got to clean this house up. we've got to end this house of hypocrisy. if anyone is under an investigation, under question, and they are in the middle -- chairman of a committee, and this speaker of the house can't see fit to bring the right kind of decorum, the right kind of decency, and when a liberal newspaper like "the new york times" is indignant at this house of representatives, the house of hypocrisy run by speaker pelosi, thumbing their nose at the people of the united states of america, if "the new york times" can see it, i guarantee you the people in my district can see it. they know it in iowa, they know it in texas. they know it in the heartland of america. they know it across the red zones of america. everybody that gets up and goes to work and punches their time clock and earns their salary and pays their taxes and carries their weight and contributes be to this country understands that we've got to

have a nation that's rule of law. you can't write enough laws to make a decent people out of an indecent people. you can't cure a hypocrisy by covering it up. at someplace, some time, somebody's got to dig up that rotting corpse and it's going to have to have the light of day shine upon it. . when that happens, we'll learn the truth and the american people will rise up again as they did last saturday when they came into the city of hundreds of thousands, hundreds of thousands of people came into washington, d.c. and registered their rejection and contempt for the overspending that is taking place in this congress, for the corruption that's here, for the house of hypocrisy that it is, they want clean, decent people representing them in this congress. and between them, they have the solution to everything that's wrong with america. they aren't all good ideas, but

among them all the ideas we need to solve the problems that we have. we need to listen to the american people and the founding fathers and reform our fiscal responsibility. we've got to take this i.r.s. out of our lives and give us back our freedom. got to give people choice. got to make sure that the younger generations learn it right and they learn about god and country, our true history and founding fathers about personal responsibility and about the price for freedom and what freedom is and about the pillars of american exceptionalism. this house of hypocrisy is not a pillar of american exceptionalism. we must clean it up. it needs to happen now. why not on the first anniversary of the "new york times" calling for the resignation of chairman charlie rangel. there is no time like the

present as my father always said. i thank the gentleman from texas and i yield back. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman and i agree with everything you said. i want to say something that is concerning me and has come to my attention through the rumors that spread through the halls of congress that some are saying that this issue that i have raised with mr. rangel has something to do with his race. and i want to make it very clear. i spent 20 years on the bench. i believe in that lady justice who stands there with that blindfold. and i can tell you in no uncertain terms that i will leave it up to the people back in my district. you can check with them. i never gave a sentence to a criminal defendant based upon his race nor did i see the color of his skin. i based it upon his behavior.

and the behavior that needed punishing, i certainly punished. it had nothing to do with the race of anybody. for people to start accusing someone of being a racist because they raise an issue of right and wrong, there's something wrong in this house of representatives. and i would hope and i bring this up now, because i would hope that this doesn't happen. if it does, i stand ready, willing and able to point out that this has nothing to do with race. and by the way, mr. rangel isn't the only member of this congress that i have spoken against and said we need todd do something about. i just had to get that off my chest before this stuff starts. i want you to know the race card has nothing to do with what i'm trying to do on the floor of the house. i'm trying to see that we get justice at this level.

mr. king pointed out the fact that the chair of the i.r.s. has issues of not paying taxes and who's going to go after him. the chairman of the ways and means committee has issues of all sorts. we have talked about it here. who's going to go after him? i'll tell you who can. the justice department. you know, just because they are allegations of improper behavior, if they rise to the level of criminal behavior, it is the duty and responsibility of the justice department to investigate. and i think the justice department should and supposed to be like that lady justice, blind to political ramifications and go forward based only upon doing justice. that's why it's called the justice department. and if there are issues here that people see, the justice

department ought to do something about it. this congress has the ability to hold hearings on these issues. and they have the ability to hold hearings on other issues that have been talked about tonight. and it's about time we do it. we have issues of major proportions that are being totally ignored by this house. this has become the house of hypocrisy, as mr. king said, where those who accuse others of a culture of corruption just two years ago, now as the corruption is being exposed -- and actually blatantly stepped forward on the floor of this house and admitted, all of a sudden, you don't hear anything more about that. it is hypocrisy. i wanted to bring that up, because it's important that i spent my lifetime trying to be with that lady justice, blind as

to who they're dealing with. if people will think back, the reason i stand here tonight is because the rule of law underpins the basic foundation of this republic. if we let the rule of law be forgotten or discarded and we as a people are not bound together by those agreed laws we agree to through our legislative process, if we're not bound by them, if political power or influence changes that, then we're no different than the banana republic. therefore, nothing is more sacred to the basic premise of the basic form of government and democracy than that all people, no matter what their status, are bound by the law. we just had a man who stole in a ponzi scheme billions of dollars

from people around the world. it speaks to the american system. he is in prison tonight. that's the rule of law. and that's the way it's supposed to be. so these -- when we talk about this and occasionally, i do smile and have fun with the rangel rule, but the reality is, if we surrender the rule of law, we surrender our freedom, we surrender our nation. and we just can't do it. and with all the political back and forth that may go on in this house, i believe in my heart and i hope in my heart that every person that sits in these sits is about standing up for the rule of law. and if they are not, they don't belong here. because the rule of law is the glue that holds our society and

our republic together. it's very simple. it's not a complex issue, it's that people as a people decide to govern themselves with certain rules and regulations that are required of us as citizens. it's what we promise to do about being good citizens. we're not go to go take a handgun and walk across the street and rob the grocery store, because that is disruptive and society decided we're not going to tolerate that. and that armed robbery in texas will put you in prison for life and some people know that very fact. but there is a reason we have laws. they hold our society together. and it's not a law that says the poor immigrant gets the prison sentence and the rich executive does not. if they both broke the law and

the punishment is prison, they're both going to go to prison, because that's the rule of law. so when we have issues that affect the rules of this house and maybe the rules of law of this nation, right now i'm talking about the rules of these people house, this is the house of the people. this is the only house of the people. don't let the senators fool you, ok? they're not the house of the people. this is the house of the people. if someone dies in this house or is removed or leaves office in the middle of a term, nobody appoints their replacement. it is unlawful to appoint their replacement, because the constitution of these united states says, this is the house that is elected by the people. the senate, when a senator dies,

the states can have a rule that says the governor -- in fact my state has that rule, if they die, the governor appoints a replacement until such time as an election is held. and most states have something along those lines, which means they aren't necessarily placed in that office by the people. and that's the difference. when we say this is the house of the people, this is the only house of the people. if we can't abide by our own rules, when we are in charge of making those rules that govern life in america, what kind of example is that? maybe these folks that have been on the streets in the last couple of weeks marching and yelling and fussing about congress, maybe they have something to fuss about, because the truth is if we can't cover our own house, how can we be expected to govern our nation?

i have been pointing out to the democrat leadership of this house who has this responsibility, you know, when you're in the majority, you govern. when we were in the majority, we governed. governing is harder than being in the minority. in the minority, can you just vote your conscience. and that's what we all should do anyway. but in the majority, you're responsible for the results, just like whoever sits in the white house is responsible for the results. well, if we can't even figure out our own little rules and make our own rules, how can we make laws that are response ibbling for the results that affect the people in iowa, the people of texas, louisiana, oregon, the people in maine? how can the people have confidence if we can't even take care of our own business?

by the way, on issues coming up, i think in this house, whether you're for it or against it, joe wilson made an outcry the other night and he knows and has admitted he shouldn't have done that. in the heat of emotion he made an outcry while the president was speaking. and joe is a very honorable man and he immediately apologized to the president of the united states and immediately apologized to the white house and to the vice president. now, there's another street rumor that a privileged resolution is going to be filed on the floor of this house to cesure mr.âwilson before this congress. of course it's kind of interesting that the process is

normally done through privileged resolutions, but there is usually some involvement in the ethics committee. i don't see any here. the speaker said she didn't think it was appropriate to do this and she made public statements that we should move on on health care and he has apologized. and i read that in the newspaper. and yet we're going forward on this. i'm crying for 12 weeks about really offensive behavior when you pay your taxes, don't you think the guy that runs the ways and means committee ought to pay his taxes? i don't see anybody jumping up, except the one time i did, and offer a privileged resolution, which was tabled on party lines and didn't get addressed. but i find it curious. i think joe wilson has apologized and has acted like a

gentleman and i think that's where it ought to be. and i gee with speaker pelosi's statements of three days ago to the press that we should move on. we'll see. but i hope we don't do that, because it's just going to add to the hypocrisy of what we're talking about. i yield back to my friend from iowa. mr. king: i thank the judge from texas. and listening to the dialogue here on the floor and i have to also rise in defense of the individual that everybody knows here as a true gentleman, true southern gentleman and that's congressman joe wilson of south carolina. anybody that knows joe know that he is an officer and gentleman. he comes from generations of military personnel. he has four sons that served in the military and joe spends his life and his time respecting others, respecting our military people who serve this country and i have never known joe to be

anything other than respectful, polite gentleman. and yet, duty, honor, country, he was offended by what he heard here in the house of representatives. . so was i. the president of the united states came here in the house of representatives as our guest and stood here in the podium here in the well from the rostrum of the speaker and he threw the first stone. he said, the prominent politicians had lied. he began to tell how. that's how this was set up. the president threw the first blow. in here as a guest of the house of representatives. and joe wilson, a man of honor, was offended by that, instantaneously. it was an instictive 4r -- instinctive thing. also so was the instinct to go to the phone after the speech and go to the white house. that's enough. there doesn't need be to be

more. the people in this house seeking to gainp a partisan advantage and turn this into a circus over two words that probably were said a lot of other times that night here in the house of representatives, too, but they were covered by the other chatter that happened to be two words that went into a pause of silence and the timing of it was really unfortunate, but i don't think joe wilson was unique in his emotion. it just happened to be made clear and embellished by the press. i don't make excuses for that and neither does he. but if the president of the united states accepts an apology, no other person has any grounds to request redress beyond that point. and this house of representatives shall not be be turned into a circus to deal with minutia because democrats in this country have decided to run this country off over the cliff into socialized medicine. and they can't sell it to the american people so they want to change the subject. that's what it is. by the way, the president of

the united states injected himself into an incident that took place up in boston when a professor at harvard was breaking into his own house and the neighbors out of good will called the cops and officer crowley showed up and the president made intemperate remarks, they were emotional, they were knee-jerk, and they show his bias. no bias in joe except duty, honor, and country. that's not a bias. that's an altruistic belief system that's in the gentleman, joe wilson. the president injected himself and injected race into that situation up in boston with the professor and police officer and he invited them to the white house for a beer. so it became a global story about how the president's masterful diplomacy brought everybody together at the white house and we all knew what kind of beer everybody drank sitting there at the picnic table outside. i don't know if they draining any. we know they served it. well, so the president has accepted joe wilson's apology.

and we are watching the majority whip drive a resolution towards the floor tomorrow to try to excoriate a southern gentleman. and the president is sitting there now having accepted the polzpwi -- apology, all he has to do is tell rahm emanuel, pick up the phone, call down there and talk to clyburn or pa lessy or steny -- or pelosi or steny hoyer the majority leader and call off the dogs. we don't need a circus in the house of representatives over something that may or may not have offended the president of the united states. but that's over because he accepted the apology. now if we have a circus and the president doesn't come in and be a referee and call for a beer summit and invite joe wilson to the white house, that's what i would like to see happen, the president doesn't call for that, you have to wonder if he isn't secretly sitting there watching the fight enjoying it. enjoying the circus they are staging for tomorrow.

the circus itself will bring disgrace on the house of representatives. and it's designed to cover this house of hypocrisy that we have. but instead it will illuminate t as the judge was saying about the rule of law, when i write rule of law, i capitalize it. rule of law. r and l capitalized in everything i write. sometimes the staff slips by, but i get it in there because i have such reverence for the rule of law. if we are going to be a nation that functions we all have to have reverence for the rule of law. if you look at some of these other countries that have some gifts and blessings that look like they might be comparable to that of the united states and you wonder what's wrong, why can't russia get their act together, why can't mexico get their act together, and go there. i could go almost anywhere in the world and tell you what i think we ought to do to fix it. can i go to those places but i can't tell you what to do. i can't fix corruption. when corruption is endemic in

the culture of a country, can you not have enough law enforcement officers, you cannot clean it up. it's got to be something that is a habit of the heart of the culture of the people. we have had that throughout these centuries in the united states of america. and the things that threaten it, it isn't just a reflection of the chairman of the ways and means committee that has this whole list of ethical problems including tax avoidance, and that's the nicest way can i say that. it isn't just that, it's the culture that supports it. it's the speaker of the house that enables it. it's the majority leader that backs it up. it's the fact that we are dealing with this house of hypocrisy while we are trying to set standards for the people of the united states of america he in saying be altruistic, pay your taxes, follow through and do your part. if do you that, we are a greater country. but if people decide to take the charlie rangel, time geithner route, we can't have enough enforcement officers out there working for the i.r.s. to

go out and collect enough taxes to run this government. it's got to be because people have great respect and reverence for the rule of law. and it should start here. this should be the highest standard of the house of representatives. but if i go to mexico or if i go to russia, i see the natural resources, i see a good labor force. people that are pretty good workers, more so in mexico than russia from my observations. but they also were used to payola. they are used to payoffs. they don't think they can make a difference. they don't think their voice matters . when it gets to that point in the country where people don't believe any longer their voice matters and if they don't believe in the people making the decisions for them, and if they don't willingly comply with the laws and pay their taxes, then it all becomes a whole nation of gotcha and who was the victim of enforcement and who knew how to pay somebody off that had influence so they could avoid doing the right thing. that might be paying taxes. it might be completely violating in a violent way,

just plain out and out theft if they can get by with it. if they have influrens -- influence. the rule of law. the rule of law is the central pillar of american exceptionalism. without it we would have never become the unchallenged greatest nation in the world. but we are. because of that central pillar, the rule of law. there are many other pillars, but the central pillar is the rule of law, and we've got to respect it. if you don't like the law, go over and run for office and support somebody that does and ask them to change it. we have amendments to the constitution. if you don't like the constitution, find a way to amend it. if the people speak, we are supposed to listen here. hundreds of thousands showed up in washington, d.c., over this past weekend. we need to hear what they have to say. they want to respect their elected representatives. they want the rule of law adhered to. they don't want to see this country be flooded over with a level of corruption that we have seen in places like mexico and russia, where gi there and

i think, what can be done? i can prescribe the solutions that i think are very constructive to those countries, but if you could snap your fingers and get rid of the corruption in those countries, that would be the biggest thing that could be done. then the people would have hope, they would have faith again. they would believe again that their government was responsible and responsive to them. but the rule of law, i think about how important it is to comply with the letter and the intent of the law, not just avoid prosecution. not just find a way to zirt around -- skirt around the edge of it. respect and revere the law and comply with the letter and intent of the law. hi this little thought that popped up into my head. this little phrase recurs back to me, no controlling legal authority. remember that? the vice president of the united states, al gore, said there is no controlling legal authority. so therefore if there isn't any way you can control his

activities by enforcing a law that one can point to, therefore whatever he might do apparently is acceptable or maybe even moral. the absence of prohibition, things become more in this era of morals relativism. i reject that. we've got to have high standards, high standards of conscience, high standards of morality. and our laws uphold those standards. and the people on the left will constantly argue you can't legislate morality. well, but if you delegislate the morality that others legislated, now you have. now you have lowered the standard. now you have lowered the bar. now people believe it's acceptable. it's happened over and over again. our legislation is morality. our legislation, the laws of america, the laws of our states, and our local subdivisions uphold the moral standards of the people that pass them. it's often our faith, our judeo-christian values are what shaped this country.

the declaration and the constitution are infused with judeo-christian values. and those values are part of the culture reflected in the documents not the documents that drove the culture. if we lose our culture, the documents will become meaningless to us. that's why we've got to stand up for the rule of law here on the floor of the house of representatives. and everybody in america has to stand up for the rule of law. the letter and the intent of law and the moral and ethical foundation that underpins it. or we lose our weigh and we lose our country. i yield back. mr. carter: i thank the gentleman for that impassioned speech. we have about five more minutes left. i make it very clear, don't think i made it clear, roll call newspaper reported on august 25 some of these issues with mr. rangel. i'm going to go through them very quickly. he filed amended return about his 2007 assets and income disclosing more than $600,000

in assets, tens of thousands of dollars in income that he failed to report. he failed to report for instance a congressional federal credit union which is just right down the hall from us here, account of at least $250,001. an investment fund account also worth at least $250,001. he originally claimed assets of 516,000 to $1.3 million. now he's revised it to $10 it -- $1.028 million to $2.5 million. once again he failed to report the income on his dominican republic account. he failed to report investments between $29,000 and $81,000 in

capital gains dividends in rental income when he previously claimed between $6,000 and $17,000. he failed to report his invest n-certain stocks, at least $1 ,001 of young brands. $15,001 in pepsi could he, and $250,001 in funds of aligns global invest tures consultants diversity portfolio. number three. he failed to report rental income. that's onp top of the multiple allegations we have been talking about. it's time for a member that justice is -- must be swift and justice delayed is justice denied.

i ask this -- the leadership of this house to move this process , reconcile these issues of the chairman of the ways and means committee, and let's resolve this crisis of this house, so we can no longer be called house of hypocrisy. with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina rise? ms. foxx: permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. ms. foxx: mr. speaker, tonight i want to take a little time to examine some of the statements president obama made when he addressed congress on the issue of health care. many of the things he mentioned in his address deserve some clarification or outright

rebuttal. the president said that, quote, not a dollar of the medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan, end quote. that was easy for the president to say and it is technically correct. . it is technically correct only because there is no medicare trust fund. it is an accounting mirage, a sham of government i.o.u.'s. thanks to decades of government deficit spending. and furthermore, among authorize than $500 million in proposed savings for medicare, the democrat bills also propose redirecting $23 billion from the medicare improvement fund to fund new health care entitlements. according to current law, the medicare improvement fund is designated specifically, quote, to make improvements under the original medicare fee for service program.

then there's the issue of taxpayer-funded abortion coverage. president obama said, quote, under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions and federal conscience laws will remain in place. end quote. but independent groups have confirmed that the legislation will result in federal funds being used to pay for abortions, both through the government-run health plan and through federal subsidies to provide -- provided through the exchange, despite various accounting gimmicks created in a so-called energy and commerce committee compromise. republicans offered amendments in all three of the committees to say, this money cannot be used for abortions, and they were rebuffed at each turn. president obama also went on to claim that, quote, reducing the waste and inefficiency in medicare and medicaid will pay for most of this plan.

much of the rest will be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. end quote. both the congressional budget office has -- but the congressional budget office has found that cuts included in the democrat legislation would result in millions of seniors, including thousands and thousands in my district in north carolina, losing their current plan, a direct contradiction of the president's assertion that nothing in this plan requires you to change what you have. the president could have strengthened his statements by quoting sections and lines to back up the statements. we who have presented our alternatives and who have stood to refute the comments have been able in most cases to quote the section and the line of the bill

to show that what we are saying is the truth. as you can see from this discussion of the president's speech, when it comes to the debate over health care reform, there are often two sides to the issues and it is simply not as cut and dried as president obama has tried to make it out. many of us have serious misgivings and disagreements with the proposed legislation and will not allow our disagreements to be mischaracterized and sidelined by lofty rhetoric. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from ohio, ms. fudge, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. ms. fudge: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members be given five legislative days to enter remarks into the record on

this topic. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. fudge: thank you, mr. speaker. certainly i appreciate the opportunity to join my colleagues of the congressional black caucus, the c.b.c., for the special order. currently the c.b.c. is chaired by the honorable barbara lee from the ninth congressional district of california. my name is congresswoman marcia fudge and i represent the 11th congressional district of the state of ohio. c.b.c. members are advocates for the human family, nationally and internationally. and have played a significant role as local and regional activists. we continue to work diligently to be the conscience of the congress. but understand all politics are local. therefore we provide dedicated and focused service to the citizens of the congressional districts we serve. the vision of the founding members of the congressional black caucus, to promote the public welfare through legislation designed to meet the needs of millions of neglected

citizens, continues to be a focal point for the legislative work and political activities of the congressional black caucus. as members of congress, c.b.c. members also promote legislation to aid neglected citizens throughout the world. we understand that the united states as a bell weather, has the ability to positively impact our neighbors abroad. the united states is a leader in advocating for the underprivileged at home and abroad. americans understand that if we uplift others then we, too, will be advanced. with this in mind, tonight's c.b.c. hour will focus on poverty reduction and economic, sokes and political outlook for the continent of africa. specifically, i will discuss increasing access to both education and financial services in africa. as a member of the education and labor committee, i know well the

far reaching effects of education on individuals' quality of life and a nation's economic competitiveness. in the context of improving developing nations such as many african countries, the basic education offers the hope of a more prosperous world. the benefits of basic education are imnumerable. for instance, we know that when all citizens receive a good education, their nation's economic prosperity is increased, preventable illness is decreased, democratic ideals are spread, violent conflicts are reduced and women are able to advance further than if they were discouraged from pursuing their studies. mr. speaker, i see we have been joined by our chair, the honorable barbara lee from california. i would now like to yield to the gentlelady, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

ms. fudge: thank you so much. ms. lee: thank you so much, mr. speaker. and let me thank the gentlelady for yielding and also for organizing once again the voice of the congressional black caucus. thank you so much, congresswoman fudge, for continuing to raise the critical issues that our entire country must address at this moment in our history. and thank you so much for having a focus tonight on the continent of africa which is often forgotten. africa faces numerous challenges which you mentioned earlier, but also enormous opportunities and the promotion and the strengthening of the united states-african relationship is really vital to realizing the progress that's being made in addressing enduring crises related to food insecurity, the devastating health pandemic such as h.i.v. and aids and the growing rates of inequality in poverty. also the economic prosperity. as chair of the congressional black caucus, i'm proud to point

out that the congressional black caucus is privileged to draw upon the wisdom and the expertise of our colleague on the house committee on foreign affairs, congressman donald payne of new jersey. congressman payne is more than a member, however he is a resident expert on africa. he understands the continent and each country on the continent. he is the chair of the africa and global health subcommittee. he is recognized on the continent of africa as being a person who seeks global peace and security every step of the way. he's also the leader of our congressional black caucus international affairs task force. the congressional black caucus also is ably represented on the foreign affairs committee by congressman gregory meeks of new york, congresswoman, former ambassador, diane watson of california, and congresswoman sheila jackson lee of texas, also congressman david scott of

georgia. president obama has likewise demonstrated a clear commitment to turn the corner in africa. most notably with his announcement of a governmentwide united states review of the u.s. global development policy. also a renewed $3.5 billion food security initiative and also we must remember his very stern and forth right speech in ghana where he asserted america's responsibility to help advance a brighter future in africa with action, not just with words. further, secretary of state clinton's recent visit to africa brought much-needed attention to the global fight against h.i.v. and aids, violence against women, trade opportunities with the continent and all of the development and aids issues which the department of state is responsible for -- aid issues which the department of state is responsible for.

despite such a positive outlook for our administration's strategy, the persistence of health pandemics, chronic food insecurity, a global economic crisis and the looming threat of climate change continues to threaten the livelihood of millions of individuals across africa each and every day. there are currently more people going hungry in the world than ever before. according to the united nations food and agriculture organization, almost 1/6 of the world's population, or one billion individuals, are now undernourished. encouraging sustainable, long-term development will require a significant contribution from the united states and international partners. recent estimates indicate that it will cost $500 billion to $600 billion for the next 10 years to allow developing nations such as those in africa to grow -- excuse me, it to grow

using renewable energy sources rather than relying on dirty fuels. members of the congressional black caucus and its international affairs task force under the leadership of chairman payne, have long been a leading voice in congress and calling for the united states to provide support -- in calling for the united states to provide support and adaptation of development abroad as well as assistance to ensure affordable access to emerging clean technologies. the reality is that any strategy to combat global warming and climate change will need to include meaningful and equitable action on the international level. the scale of these challenges reflects the urgency of our efforts here in congress. the goal of the congressional black caucus is to find and fund long-term sustainable solutions to these threats at the household, community and national levels. despite this great moral imperative, the united states continues to spend a disproportionately small amount

of funding on nonmilitary foreign affairs programming. most people in our country think that we spend a large portion of our budget on foreign affairs, but we just do not do that. instead of spending a staggering 52% of the federal discretionary budget on an inflated defense budget for the pentagon that continues to invest in cold war-era weapons systems to the tune of about $100 billion, for really an enemy that does not exist, we should be investing in diplomacy and development activities that will help bring stability to nations on the brink of collapse and conflict. that is the essence of how we ensure our own national security. that's why i've introduced h.con.res. 63, a resolution calling for an increase in nonmilitary foreign assistance to an amount equal to no less than 1% of g.d.p.'s. hard to imagine we're not even at 1% yet.

foreign assistance programs are essential at promoting national security and improving the credibility and standing of the united states in the world. to that end, our congressional black caucus will continue to work to develop clear goals and strategies for alleviating poverty, improving global health and encouraging sustainable development, particularly in africa, will also continue to strengthen america's foreign assistance and diplomatic capacities which is critical to this effort. in noting the critical role of the united states in africa, i must also speak out with regard to our responsibility to urgently seek peace for the residents of darfur and the sudan. when it comes to darfur and the sudan, it's important to recognize that the people of sudan's desire for a just and long standing sustainable peace has been crushed repeatedly by one of the most brutal regimes in the world. more than two million south sudanese have died in the

21-year war and have suffered countless atrocities, mostly committed by the same regime in khartoum. that's why it's so important to do the right thing now. which is to support the international criminal court in its efforts to hold sudan's president bashir accountable for his crimes against humanity. let me tell you, they are crimes against humanity. i have visited the refugee camps on three occasions and witnessed the effects of genocide that was taking place right in front of my eyes. i tell you, we cannot lift sanctions at this point. we have to keep the pressure on. and help make sure that people in sudan are protected and that the humanitarian assistance gets to them and gets to them immediately. the congressional black caucus under congressman payne's leadership was instrumental. we encouraged president obama to appoint a special envoy for sudan, who is fully empowered and resourced to focus on sudan as a whole and with special

attention to the ongoing genocide in darfur, the full implementation of the c.p.a. and the humanitarian crisis. i have to applaud and thank president obama for appointing major general grayson as the special envoy for sudan because the general, who i met the first time i was in sudan, is really uniquely qualified to undertake this critically important post. . i know i speak for all members of the black caucus when i say we look forward to the convey toned the genocide in darfur and bring piece peace to the long suffering people of the sudan. these are just a few, i mean just a few of the many critical issues with which the congressional black caucus is taking a leading role. the continent of africa is strong, it's resilient. the congressional black caucus is committed to working with our colleagues here in congress to enact policies which support

african nations in their efforts to ensure good governance, to prevent violence in conflict, and provide a foundation for future stability, human development, and sustainable economic growth. so thank you again, congresswoman fudge, for this evening and for giving us the chance to once again speak our mind and tell the american people what the congressional black caucus not only continues to work on, but also to encourage their support for many of the policies in the funding initiatives that we have been long calling for many, many years. thank you. ms. fudge: thank you, madam chair. mr. speaker, we would like to thank our chair for being here at every special order. for the support that she has given to me personally, but more importantly for the leadership she gives to the c.b.c., i thank you. mr. speaker, if i may continue, i wanted to talk about the economic prosperity on the

african continent. many african countries do still indeed struggle to achievement economic sustainability and growth. this pursuit is undermined in part by the large number of citizens who have not received a basic education. not a single economically viable nation achieved its prosperity without implementing near universal primary education. additionally, education increases a nation's gross domestic product. adults with a primary school education earn twice as much as adults without any schooling. in the areas of health, education and behavior changes are also the most effective way to address preventable diseases. including smallpox, tuberculosis, diarrhea, and other water-borne illnesses. according to some estimations, if all children completely primary education, 700,000 new cases of aids and h.i.v. could

be prevented each year. we also need to improve the political stability and reduce conflict. education and the free exchange of ideas also encourages democratic styles of government. when citizens are well informed, they are more likely to participate in their democracy. as it relates to violent conflicts, education that teaches tolerance, the value of each individual, and respect for different beliefs is the best method to reduce violence and extremism. basic education provides girls and women with expanded employment opportunities, which is important for the overall advancement of families. women's employibility is especially crucial if they are the family's sole support. children of educated women are in better health and are twice

as likely to be enrolled in school. 75 million children worldwide are not in school, mr. speaker. 55% of them are girls. sub-saharan africa accounts for nearly one half of the world's school-aged children who are not enrolled in school. 12% of the developing world's primary school-aged population is not in school. more than 80% of them are in rural areas, and the vast majority are poor. globally 134 countries account for 2/3 of the out-of-school children, and current projections show that those countries will have 29 million out-of-school children by the year 2015. among african nations, there are various barriers to basic education. the lack of school buildings, shortage of teachers,

prohibitive compulsory fees, and unique challenges faced by girls all limit many africans' ability to access formal education. however these challenges are not insurmountable. nearly 80 million new places of instruction must be created in order for all school-age african children to be accommodated. this will be a large undertaking to say the least. i applaud african governments for making progress towards the goals advanced in the framework for action in 2000 that. framework was a statement signed by 164 countries during the 2000 world education forum stating that their commitment to universal education was strong. without diligence and support for the international community, these great goals will remain elusive. in addition to the need for new schools, it is estimated that

an additional three million teachers are needed in africa. needed in africa in order for the continent to reach its goal of universal education by the year 2015. in nigeria, which is the most populous country in after carks there is a shortage of one million teachers. not only are work force shortages are caused by the difficulty to obtain thorough education, the availability of teachers on the continent is also impacted by the hiv-aids economic. the disease itself has robbed education system of manpower and continues to drive up costs. in a report released by the world bank in 2002, an estimated 860,000 children in sub-saharan africa lost teachtories aids in 1999. in some cases where there has been an increase in class enrollment, the loss of one teacher can affect hundreds of students.

the cost of replacing these instructors is prohibitive for many countries. if the nation of swazzyland hired and trained enough staff to replace the teachers lost to h.i.v. and aids, the estimated cost would be $233 million, more than half of the government's budget for 2001-2002. again there are too many primary and secondary schools in the developing world that are forced to rely on student fees to supplement government funding. these fees while modest by american standards often prevent children from enrolling. similarly some families cannot afford the uniforms commonly required by the schools. in 2002, kenya eliminated primary school fees in a step forwards universal primary education for its entire population. in kenya alone, 1.5 million

students had not previously attended school, then enrolled increasing the average class size from 40 to 120. kenya took a step in the right direction, but these actions must be coupled with greater investment by local dwosts -- governments and donors to address the issues of quality that arise when access to education is increased. while this statistic represents an improvement in the rate of primary school enrollment during the early 1990's of over 10%, we should also be aware that the problems still remains. in countries such as djibouti, thope, niger, and mali less than half of school age children go to school. there is a disparate in enrollment rates between boys and girls. 42% of girls as opposed to 38% of boys, are out of school. as the international community and donors discuss the importance of quality

education, we must remember the vast number of teachers who will need to be trained and what this means to the international partners who work with african governments and civil society groups. education is a long-term path to economic viability. stimulating small businesses through microlending is another method of improving the economies of developing nations, which will ultimately lead to expanded trade and business opportunities for all of the world. i and several members recently returned from a congressional delegation to tunisia, rwanda, zimbabwe, and senegal. our goal was to educate members on the impact that the global financial crisis has had on the continent of africa. additionally we examined the regional impact of multilateral development banks. international financial institutions, and the international monetary fund.

the could he dell -- codel spent significant time examining the effect of the global economic crisis on local economies. we were especially interested in how the multilateral development banks and the united states supports particularly the african development bank, are helping countries to obtain grants, loans, and technical assistance. we also explore the role and impact of the i.m.f. on the region during this period of economic crisis. africa is increasing strategic interest to the global economy. the continent is expected to soon provide the united states with more petroleum than the middle east. again i will repeat, the continent of africa is expected to soon provide the united states with more petroleum than we get from the middle east. several reports state that more than half of all africans are estimated to live on a dollar

or less a day. the nations we visited were interested in a help up not hand out. millions of countries have poured billions of dollars to improving conditions for africans but their efforts have repeatedly failed to stimulate large-scale sustainable growth. this is in part because many of these groups do not fully incorporate local traditions, values, and attitudes into their assistance programs. assistance can only be successful if it is culturally sensitive and adapts to the needs of a local community. the direct impact of a global crisis on africa, however, has been relatively contained. many african nations have not been severely affected by the crisis since african banks generally are not well integrated into the global financial system. nonetheless, african countries still are at risk of indirect

adverse effects such as reduced worldwide demand for african exports, a dampening of economic growth, a tightening of credit, and reduced remittance flows. despite these setbacks, mr. speaker, african countries can greatly benefit from programs that both encourage productivity and promote economic independence. access to formal financial services is a key component of economic development. one method to facilitate development is microfinance. microfinance is when banking institutions or even individuals grant small loans to other individuals usually to establish or expand a small or self-sustaining business. when individuals gain access to credit, they can start a business, hire their neighbors, and stimulate local economic growth. for example, a loan made to a

woman to buy a something machine can yield an income when she offers her something and tailoring services, or if a loan helps a family purchase a cow, the milk produced from the cow can generate both nourishment and income. the average microfinance loan amount ranges from $50 to $5,000, and the repayment cycle can range from 90 days to 18 months. repayment of microfinance loans is 98% compared to regular business loans by traditional lenders. official microfinance organizations are currently only reaching 5% to 8% of the businesses who are in dire need of loans. access to credit for the poor is in dire need as well. microfinancing institutions also provide access to savings accounts, microfinance has

proven to be successful because of its ability to reach the poor, especially women. with highly sustainable programs that have a positive impact. as the united nations office of special advisor on africa reports, women are a better credit risk than men and more responsible managers of meager resources. furthermore, women are, and i quote, more committed to using their loans for the benefit of their household rather than self-gratifying consumption. as is common among many african men. empowering women sets families on the path toward economic independence. this case study demonstrates how microfinance can help alleviate poverty. in 2007, a bank group in south africa established dedicated microenterprise finance unit to make funding more readily available to businesses that are formally excluded from

getting regular bank loans. it has been estimated that as many as 97% of microentrepreneurs in south africa had no access to loans prior to receiving funding through the amef. today more than 4.5 million people on low incomes use the bank services for everything from microloans to saving accounts and transactions leading the way for microenterprise loans in south africa. . in addition to providing loans, microfinance institutions can also support individuals by keeping savings in a secure manner and by helping to accumulate interest on deposits. this allows the poor to lift themselves out of poverty. self-reliance, mr. speaker, is the key. i've seen both the despair and resiliency of africans. in rwanda i met a woman who was

given a cow. shortly after she received the cow the cow had a calf which she was then obligated to give to her neighbor. but based upon the cow she had and the milk that she could harvest from that particular cow, she was able to not only feed her family but to sell enough milk to then buy a bicycle. she bought a bicycle, mr. speaker, so that she could ride the three miles it took to get clean water. so instead of walking now she could ride and send her children to get clean water. she then made enough money to send her children to school and pay the fees, she then took out a loan and bought another cow. and with that cow she is able now to buy food and clothing, she is able to do much more than she was before. she is really quite an entrepreneur and by the way, mr. speaker, this woman has aids, but she is raising five children

on her own because someone gave her a cow and she had the ability to go from there. mr. speaker, in the very near future, microloans that support small scale entrepreneurship will improve the lives of africans and empower them to work their way out of poverty. microfinance has already proven in india and bangladesh to be an effective economic development strategy. according to world vision, one loan, just one loan, can create 40 jobs in a community of approximately 600 to 700 people. the difficulties faced by african nations should not deter us from providing assistance. through america's support of expanding basic education and access to financial services, we can assist african leaders and people in creating a more vibrant continent and in turn a richer world. my recent experiences confirm

for me that both of these approaches can empower people by providing them with confidence, self-esteem and the financial means to contribute to their economic advancement. our leadership and our moral strength is only enhanced when we help others. truly, mr. speaker, we lift as we rise. mr. speaker, with that i would yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. fudge: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does -- under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair now recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king for 60 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. as always, it's an honor to have the privilege to represent you here on the floor of the house of representatives and convey the thought process for myself and a good number of the members of my colleagues about the issues of the day and hopefully

we'll be able to cap off this evening and send some people to bed with some thoughts that they'll wake up in the morning supporting or else have good reasons to oppose. a lot has transpired here since the august break began and we've only -- we only have one week behind us here in the house of representatives since we returned. a deep tradition has been that members of congress would leave washington, d.c., in the hot, humid month of august. this tradition began before air conditioning. it's a good tradition. i think we should keep it, because we saw something phenomenal in america this past august. and it was -- seemed like a never-ending series of town hall meetings that took place in community after community, nearly every congressional district held something. some held many, many meetings. i don't know the record on the number of town hall meetings that were had, but i'm sure it fell in the dozens of meetings for a single member.

for myself, i represent 32 counties in western iowa, the western 1/3 of the state. 32 counties, 286 towns. a good number of town hall meetings and it was a very, very rewarding experience. the thing that i take away from it, mr. speaker, is, and there are many, i've got some ideas on the health care issue that are on my list that i'll talk about in a moment, mr. speaker, but the thing that i'll remember the most, it isn't a single issue or a single individual or a way an argument was phrased or worded or how compelling they were and there were many they were compelling arguments, but it was the image of town after town, meeting after meeting, rooms full of people, often people standing around the outside, some people standing looking in the doorway. we always found a way that everybody could hear. if they wanted in, they could get in. we couldn't always hear the comments of everyone because there were just too many.

but the centers -- dissenters had their say and they had a disproportion amount of voices within the meetings that i had, but that's all right. we got to hear more about those that oppose the national health care plan than those that support it. those that supported it were a distinct minority in my district, but they had more than their fair share to say. and so we weighed those issues and i watched the reaction, but the thing i remember the most are hundreds of attentive people sitting there, focused attention, listening to every word, listening to the words that were spoken by their friends, their neighbors. their family members. listened to the response i gave and weighing this and putting it into their calculator for what america's going to look like. i'll never forget those faces, those eyes looking up to the front of the room, paying attention to every word, taking notes. some of the questions were well worded and so carefully phrased,

you could tell that there was a deep amount of research that went into the questions. i wondered if some of them didn't stay up all night long just to be ready for their chance, their chance to have that moment, to have their say. and i'm so encouraged by their commitment and i wish they had more voice. i wish we could hear them now, mr. speaker. i wish we could fill this chamber up with the people that filled up these town hall meetings and especially the leadership, put the rank and file of all of us that have the privilege to serve here, could hear those voices again in here. i hope when we debate health care bill here on the floor of the house that this gallery is full of people. i hope the c-span camera, mr. speaker, as represents millions out there that are watching every move, listening to every word, people that are taking notes, people that are tape recording our actions and our words and carefully analyzing

and i hope we're held accountable for the decisions that are made. in committee where generally it doesn't get the press that it gets here on the floor, but when the day comes, the american people need to know that they have been heard, that we went home, that we traveled our districts, we did our town hall meetings and that we came back and confered with each other and arrive at a decision that's the right decision for the best interests of the long-term best interests -- best interests, of the long-term best interests of our descendents, our progeny and their descendents as well, mr. speaker. so i hope that's what happens. i toent know that it will. i don't know that it will because there are forces at play and some of the people, especially in the majority, have voiced this that their town hall meetings and constituents are just one of the places they get information to decide. other places might be the lobby, it might be their coffers, it might be their leadership and it

could be just simply a deeply entrenched philosophy that favors big government over freedom. and so for me in my town hall meetings, if there was one position that i took, that i was clear on, that had the most support of all, was, i will not support a bill that diminishes the people's freedom in the united states of america. that's my pledge, mr. speaker. i will not diminish our freedom. it's my freedom, too. and i've taken an oath to uphold this constitution and it's our constitution -- it's about freedom. it's not just about individual freedom, it's about the 10th amendment, it's about the freedom of the states to control those things which are not specifically designated for the federal government. and this federal government has reached across the 10th amendment and violated at least the spirit and i will say also the letter of the constitution over and over again.

and if this united states of america passes a health care bill that looks anything like h.r. 3200, it will be a violation of our constitution consistently in several different ways. so i'm very concerned about where we go with this. the district -- the cavalier attitude that many members of congress have toward the constitution, toward their oath to the constitution, toward its meaning, toward its content. and this drive to create this single-payer system, you know, you just couldn't quite drive the wooden stake in the heart of hillary care back in 1993 and 1994. when senator phil graham stood on the floor of the united states senate right down this hallway where i'm faced right now and he said this health care bill, this national health care bill will pass over my cold, dead political body, a lot of people thought that senator phil graham was going to become a cold, dead political body and that hillary care was going to

pass. but it has not. it's been 15 years and more since phil graham made that statement and he has held off this nationalized health care, this socialized medicine juggernaut. he has, many others have, too. it has been a national effort. and yes there are people out there that think that they'd be better off if somebody would take their responsibility for their health care. and they are large in number but small in percentage, mr. speaker. now i'll make this point that we've constantly heard the words and the statistics that there are over 40 million people that are uninsured in america. we've got to do something about the uninsured. and this number of 40 million, usually rounds around 44 million. now it's crept up to 47 million and it's probably the most reliable number, close to 46 million. people unyou is insured in america. now that's a pretty large percentage of our population.

we have about 306 million americans and if 46 million or 47 million are uninsured, that's -- let's see, two, four, six, 1/6 or a little bit less of our population. the uninsured is the same as the g.d.p. is consumed by health care. but if that number is 47 million, that's the highest number that's consistently delivered by the other side, sometimes they stretch it and round it up to 50 million. but if the uninsured americans are 47 million and they would have us believe that these are chronically uninsured people that are stuck on these uninsured roles year after year after year, well, that's not the case, mr. speaker. a lot of those people are just temporarily uninsured and they're in transition between policies and so as those policies change, occasionally they find themselves without coverage. but i began to ask this question a little more carefully and that is, who are the people without affordable options? if somebody's uninsured and they're making $1 million a year, i'm sorry, my heart

doesn't bleed for them. they have decided that they don't care to have a health insurance policy. and they're willing to take the risk with their equity. so that's not my concern. in fact, the united states senate republican conference staff set the bar at $75,000 a year. if you make $75,000 a year or more and you don't have health insurance, we're not going to put you in the category where you get a lot of our governmental compassion to extract dollars out of somebody else's labor to provide that person making over $75,000 a year with health insurance. now, the president has decided to do class at $250,000 but let me say if you're making more than $75,000, you can find a way to pay for your own health insurance, even if you just buy catastrophic and you should get a health savings account and grow that health savings account and buy a major medical policy, a catastrophic health insurance policy, take care of your own incident health care bills. but, 47 million uninsured at any given time. biggest number that we get. now, to boil this down, mr.

speaker, to who are the people without affordable options? you take the 47 million and you subtract from it those that we really don't want to provide health insurance for out of the taxpayers' pocket at least and that's going to be those that are in the country illegally, eastbound the -- even the president of the united states doesn't insist that we ensure -- insure illegals under this policy. it was a new position that he he took the other night. i'm not sure that he's as serious as we would like. but i was encouraged that right back here, a few feet behind me, the president of the united states, and said, no, we're not going to fund illegals. h.r. 3200 does. and the congressional budget office thinks so. the congressional research services thinks so. the vote that took place in the ways and means committee, that voted down the citizenship standard requirements in order to qualify for under h.r. 3200, this health care bill, that

partisan vote or democrats voted down the language that would require proof of citizenship that's tried, tested and true and used to be part of our medicaid policy from the beginning, was voted down by a vote of 29-28 in the ways and means committee. . illegals could be funded under the new policy. that was the case in the ways and means committee. they voted down the effort to try to raise the standard and require proof of citizenship. so if the president has taken the position he doesn't want to fund illegals. so 47 million uninsured at a given time minus 5.2 million illegals. i think there are a lot more than that. i'll use that for the sake of discussion.

subtract that from 47 million. we do not want to and cannot under current law, fund those who are new immigrants. they are under the five-year bar. and then you can qualify if you come legally. under the five-year bar, five million. 5.2 million illegals. five millions that are under the five-year bar. those making $75,000, nine million. those who qualify for government programs. all part of the 47 million. 9.7 million qualify for government programs that don't sign up, mostly medicaid. medicaid eligibles not enrolled. if we take and hand deliver it to them. we are adding up some numbers here. those americans who are eligible with their employer but either

opt he opted but not bothered. so those numbers, 5.12 million illegals. nine million making more than $75,000. nine million eligible for medicare and six million eligible for employer programs. that comes to 39.9 million americans. of the 47 million, we don't want to cover with this new policy under h.r. 3200. there is a consensus out there that we aren't worried about this. the ones we are worried about is those without affordable options. that number is not 47 million any longer. if you have done the math, you will have subtracted from the 47 million, all these categories, add up to 34.9 million.

and come to 12.1 million americans without affordable options. that's the universe we are trying to fix. the president has said we have two problems with health care in america. first one, we have an economic crisis that we're in. year long now. stock market was good today, i might say. and he says, we can't fix the economy unless we first fix health care. in fact, the cost of health care is the problem with our economy and he would tell us. according to the president of the united states, mostly as a candidate, but mostly as a president, we spend too much money. health care costs too large a percentage of our gross domestic product. we have to fix it otherwise we have to fix the economy. the president's position. the other two points on health

care is that we have too many uninsured. well, let's deal with the big problem first. we spend about 14.5% of our gross domestic product on health care in america. that's premiums and the care and the litigation and all those things. and 14.5%. the average of the industrialized world is 9.5% of their g.d.p. on health care. we spend a high percentage on recreation and a high percentage on other things, too. we are a rich nation. one of the reasons we spend that money on health care, we do have the wealth in order to distribute it to the health care industry to that 1/7 of the economy that is our health care industry. we have wealth and we decide to spend it on health. i do think we spend too much, too large a percentage. but by the same token, i don't think they get good health care in those countries that spend

less. but we spend more on on a percentage of our g.d.p., but we produce more per capita. and i need to pull that back. i hope somebody does. otherwise i'll spend the night. we spend too much money on health care. what would you do about that. if you have a problem on your family budget and spending too much money, you don't solve the problem by going out and spending a lot more money. but the score on this bill is someplace between $1 trillion and $2 trillion. on the low sound is $1.6 trillion. according to the president we spend too much money on health care. he solution is to spend another $1.6 trillion. that's not the solution. it doesn't solve the family

budget when you are spending too much and doesn't solve the government problem when you are spending too much. even if the president identifies the problem correctly, he has the erroneous solution to apply to it. voila, the solution is spend more. this is the approach he brought to this economic crisis. when he came to our conference and said, f.d.r. lost his nerve and should have spent a lot more money. he convinced us, he was the president of the united states wasn't going to make that mistake. he was going to be f d.r./ keynesian. and they made a mistake. i remember when tom hashingin said that $1.6 trillion was

pencil dust and his opponent walked around and taugged about pencil dust. i can tell you that $1.6 trillion is not pencil dust. getting within $2 trillion of the target is not pencil dust. that is real, huge money. if we are spending too much money on health care and why wouldn't we address the things to fix the problem? why don't we come at this in a bit different way and go after those most obvious things to fix the problem. for example, how much money does defensive medicine cost? what does it work within the macroeconomics within the health care equation? and there are some numbers that will rattle on down, 5.5%. the health insurance underwriters, top legislative officer gave me a number of

$8.5, the cost of medical malpractice premiums, 8.5% of overall health care costs. if you take that and apply it to the $14.5% of our g.d.p., you can come up with a number of $203 billion a year that's going for defensive medicine and malpractice premiums and trial lawyer litigation. in other words, it's not being spent on good health care. it's money that is being churned up in the system to pay other people to do other things other than to deliver a product to people for the benefit of their good health. defensive medicine, some of the priors have got together and advised me in one of my meetings that their consensus was between 20% and 28% of the tests they do are for defensive medicine purposes. in other words, get the test,

get it on record to protect them in case someone files a lawsuit, they can always go to court and say, i did this and ran these tests and they were all negative and our medical conclusion was thus. we know there are problems when it comes to health. defensive medicine, 20% to 28% of the tests, the costs, the costs in health care that has to do with malpractice and premiums and litigation and in defensive medicine, perhaps 8.5%, i see numbers up to 10%, numbers up to 16% of the overall health care bill. i will settle on the 8.5% number. perhaps slightly less. but perhaps 16%, then you are looking at roughlyly in the area of $400 billion. over 10 years, there's the $4

trillion. i know some folks saw the humor in this, if you adopt my policy, it will save $4 trillion over time. how long is over time? is that right before the end of infinity? half a century, century, over time, his policy would save $4 trillion. there is an ambiguous statement. and you know if you invest a penny and drop it in your passback savings, you would be worthy over $4 trillion. i don't think you want to wait that long. let's go where we can get the most money and the best results the quickest. let's do lawsuit abuse reform. let's adopt the california and texas policy.

we passed it out of the house of representatives about four years ago. passed it out of the judiciary committee, passed it over to the senate and the trial lawyers association decided to kill our malpractice reform, our lawsuit abuse reform that passed this house under the leadership, at that time the chairman of the judiciary committee, jim sensenbrenner. the see him pleas thing we couldn't do, the -- and if you do the scoring on this and i don't think we're going to get it all. if we did, $203 billion, just on my back of the envelope calculation and over the decade where we do our calculations over a 10-year budget, that's $2 trillion. save $2 trillion and still let people get whole and let the dock to us do their dr.ing and it would reduce their

malpractice premiums. they said they passed medical malpractice reform in texas and the doctors that had undergone a an exodus had come back to texas again. interesting, if health care costs too much, why don't we address the problems. why don't we put more competition in it. we have states that have one company. my state, one company dominates the market up to 70%. why don't we let the people in new jersey buy health insurance in kentucky. why don't we let the people who buy health insurance in new york buy it in texas and in iowa and we have pretty good policies available in iowa. if we let people buy state insurance across state lines that would help solve the

problem. they need to inject competition into the health insurance industry. inject competition because too few companies dominate the market so much that they can dictate premiums. and that probably is true. i just won't take issue. but the solution is not to establish ar federal government-run health insurance. we know how that goes and many of ugs have made the argument if you do that and set up health insurance, it will swallow up the rest of the private insurance companies in the country. we have 1300 health insurance companies in the united states today selling a possible combination of 100,000 policies and if we get obamacare we're going to get a national health insurance system that will be subsidized by the taxpayers and all of our private insurance companies will also have to meet

new standards written by the new health choices administration and the result of that will be the pattern is out there for us, here's one pattern, 1968, they passed national flood insurance. yes there were private insurers selling flood insurance to people who can be flooded. that happens. it wasn't a big market, but we didn't have a big infrastructure to protect either. we do now. the federal government stepped in and passed the national flood insurance act and in a short period of time all property and carkt flood insurance companies dropped the selling of flood insurance and today you can only buy one kind of flood insurance, that's the federal government. they have the monopoly now. they dominate the market. they have squeezed everybody else out and they have destroyed the private market in flood

insurance. well, you don't have to buy that model and think that is an anomaly, but we can think of another situation going on. how about the student loan program going on in the united states? the private banks and lending institutions that manage the student loans, the good competition that we've had and now we have george miller deciding he wants to replace it all with federal. and smaller percentage of our student loans are provided now through the private sector. they want to eliminate it all. if george miller has his way and i'm confident the president will sign it, he won't be able to go to the bank and borrow money to go to college, it will be all through the federal government. federal flood nuns insurance, where the only flood insurance you can buy in the united states is from the federal government, owned, operated, managed, marketed, premiums set by the federal government, federal

flood insurance is 19.2 billion in the red and no way to get it back. . do we mant more of this? here's another interesting thing that comes out of listening to people in town hall meeting. some proponents of obama care would say, well, listen, we have medicaid and we have medicare and we have social security and they're all government programs and you like those, don't you? well, yes, the people that are receiving the benefits like them better than nothing. and some parts of them are pretty good. but there's a big difference between what they're proposing here and medicaid and medicare, social security. and all three of those categories that i've mentioned, those government programs that we have, the people receiving the benefits are predominantly not the once paying for them at the time they receive them. so they are the beneficiaries of someone else's labor and largesse. the highest producing people in

america are paying the most taxes and now the president and the liberals in this congress are determined to tell the freedom-loving, top-producing americans that not only are they going to have to continue to fund someone else's medicaid, medicare and social security but now they're going to fund a hole lot of other people's health care that are in the most productive years of their lives and by the way, you're going to fund everybody's else's but your choices are going to be diminished because the federal government has to be able to compete and push out a lot of the private providers. and i guarantee you, if they pass this bill, there will not be 1,300 health insurance companies any longer, there will not be 1,000 policies, that number will diminish overnight and over time and we'll see how long it takes before there's the same number of private health insurance companies in america as there are property and casualty companies selling flood insurance. i see my friend from minnesota,

michele bachmann, has arrived a the floor. persistent, relentless and ever on the ball. i'd be so happy to yield as much time as she may consume to the gentlelady from minnesota. mrs. bachmann: i could never hold a candle to the stunning steve king of iowa. i thank you for deferring to me for a few minutes. i'm grateful for the gentleman's comments on the floor this evening. one thing that brought to my mind from your comments is you recalled you had mentioned president obama came to meet with house republicans down in the bowels of the capitol building and he gave a private speech to us where there were no members of the press. one thing that i recall from that meeting with the president, the president had said to us he would prefer to enact his full agenda and be a one-term president rather than not enact his agenda and be a two-term president and i think that the american people cannot underscore enough the fact that the president is very determined in his desire to enact this health care legislation.

and perhaps never again will one party hold the type of card hand, the type of cards that have been dealt in their hand, as they hold right now. that's why i think the american people recognize that with overpowering one-party domination we see an intention to enact this government takeover of health care that literally will lead to life and -- life definitions. you talked about three areas where the government has gotten involved and it reminded me yesterday when i was meeting with a group of constituents, a gentleman told me this story. he said he just purchased from what is now known as government moters in our country because the federal government has taken over not one, but two car companies, the united states government is now the largest car manufacturer in the united states. well, government motors, and again, this is nothing derogatory against our dealerships, our dealerships through no fault of their own are in the current situation that they're in, we know 3,500

car dealerships have received pink slips from our government putting out of work about 150,000 good american-paying jobs. in the midst of this, a gentleman told me yesterday he went to what's now called government motors fondly, he purchased a top of the line vehicle, brand new, his dashboard split, so he has a brand new dashboard in this top of the line vehicle from government motors. he went down to the good dealership, excellent dealership that he purchased the car from, dealership said, sure, it's under warrant, we'll take care of that four. the gentleman waited, he didn't hear back. he said, hey, what's up with my car dashboard? brand new car, top of the line government motors, it's under warrant, what gives? i'm calling all around the country. this wonderful local dealer turned over every stone that he could and do you know what he discovered? in the entire country in the united states there isn't one single dashboard available to

replace this brand new top of the line dashboard in the car he just purchased. what am i going to do, he said? well, since the federal government took over g.m. suppliers have been let go, no new suppliers are in place. so here this gentleman purchased a car, it's the last of its series, how many suppliers are going to be out there bidding for a car that will never be built again? that's part of the problem when government takes over. because does government really have to worry about customer satisfaction? the same way that a private business has to worry about government satisfaction? i think that's what the american people in their innate genius understand in the middle of this health care debate. they understand that when government is in charge, government doesn't necessarily have to worry about customer

satisfaction unless you're an elected official. then you know you have to go back to your constituency, you have to answer for the votes that you cast and the decisions that you make. but if you're government and you own the company and you dominate the company, what are you worried about customer satisfaction? especially if you're not only the car maker but you also control the contracts with the dealerships and you are the lender. because let's face it, now the federal government is also the lender when it comes to car sales. and the federal government is backing a lot of the credit card loans that are out there now. so where's the public going to go? and who does the federal government have to answer to? and this is what people know, because now it's about my health care and my child's health care and my elderly mother's health care and i really care about my mother but will a bureaucrat, a

nameless faceless bureaucrat give a rip if my mother can't get her hip replacement? or if she can't get the pacemaker? remember, that question was asked of president obama. he held a town hall meeting in the white house and recall there was a woman who stood up and said, president obama, my mother was 100 years old. i couldn't get one doctor to give her the pacemaker she he needed until finally i found a doctor who said, your mother has a lot of spirit, i'll get her a pacemaker. he did and her mother was still living five years later. doing very well with her pacemaker. president obama's response -- he said, well, you know, maybe a pill would be the better answer than surgery. well, the woman didn't need a pain pill. what she needed was the surgery and this is exactly the point. will we have bureaucrats and politicians looking at their bottom lines and their constituencies rather than

having a doctor who really his best interest is to make sure that patient is healed and becomes well? who will make the decision in this upcoming scenario? that's really what the american people want to know. i defer to the gentleman. mr. king: i thank the gentlelady from minnesota. i was listening to the general motors part of this discussion. and i'm thinking about the components of general motors, government motorses, and how this all transpired. it came about with first a little dialogue going on and some of us said, put them through chapter 11. we're not going to be without cars. somebody will take up those assets and turn them into a competitive company. speaker pelosi said, i'm not going to let the unions -- i'm not going to let the car makers get bargaining leverage over the unions. so you had the bond holders, the secured creditors, involved in this. and then the president effectively fired the c.e.o. of general motors.

mrs. bachmann: that's right. mr. king: and hand picked his own guy to go in there as the c.e.o. of general motors and over -- near that period of time picked all but two members of the board of directors in general motors. and the federal government ended up with 61% of general motors. that's the u.s. federal government. the canadian government, 12.5%, the union, 17.5%. i didn't do the math on what's left, it's not much. then on top of that you have cash for clunkers that goes out and buys these cars or puts the down payment down and the federal government guaranteeing some of the loans for the cars, it is the perfect circle of socialized economy, it's astonishing to me, what do you do if you're out here making a car that you can't sell and you need to pay the scale for the workers that didn't give up anything if we pass a national health care act, the unions didn't give up anything in this deal, but they got 17.5% in interest in the company.

mrs. bachmann: let's go back to the crux of this issue. and it is the economy and what's happening in the united states economy. and as we have seen the federal government come in and effectively nationalize about 30% of our economy and they're on a deep long drive to make sure that they can nationalize another 18% by taking over health care and what's more, with the national energy tax they want to take over even more of the national economy so that the federal government would effectively own or control well over 50% of the private business profits earned in this country, what has it yielded for the economy? i just looked in an article today that was in the "hill" newspaper and it said president obama's chief economist has said today, the jobless rate will remain high despite economic growth. she voiced worry that the economic growth expected in the coming years won't be enough to bring down unemployment rate to pre-recession levels. christina romer said, in 2010,

that's next year, representative, next year, the economy will likely grow, but the jobless rate will peak at 10%. we're at 9.7% unemployment now. it's going to grow according to the president's chief economist, up to 10%. it won't start falling at a rapid clip. in fact, the administration independent economists expect next year steady but not over the top g.d.p. growth of between 2% to 3%. that will bring unemployment down slowly but not by big movement. unemployment on the right trajectory but not coming down. this is incredible. we were told that we had to pass in three days a $1 trillion stimulus plan because the president said otherwise we would go to 8% unemployment. we could only wish we had 8% unemployment. we're at 9.7%. the president's chief economist said we're going to over 10% and according to the president's chief economist, if this health care plan goes into effect we

will lose another 5 1/2 million jobs. if we put his national energy tax into plan, it will be another 2 1/2 million jobs lost every year. the president is bent on a china-india job stimulus plan. we're losing american jobs, ceding them to our national competitors and the americans aren't gaining anything for it. that's why last week the flashpoint when president obama stood here in this chamber and gave a speech to the joint session of congress, there was one story that overshadowed the entire night. and that was one of our colleagues, mr. joe wilson of south carolina, who had made a statement to president obama and in the midst of that statement, representative joe wilson became effectively the point at the tip of the spear on this debate. and it was over the issue of whether the president was accurate in his statement that illegal aliens would be receiving health care benefits

at co-equal with other americans that are here lawfully in our country and at the expense of taxpayers. that was really the flashpoint issue. and what we found out last friday night, we saw democrat members of congress saying, we're willing to put that verification in the bill and -- in other words proving that our colleague, joe wilson, was right, which makes it almost incomprehensible to me to believe that the democrat majority plans to bring about a resolution tomorrow in this very chamber condemning our colleague for his words. he has already apologized for his lack of decorum. everyone agrees with that but to think that you would say that to one of our colleagues who the democrats have already proved right by admitting that they're going to take the provision out of the bill that representative wilson was referring to? it's almost uncanny to me. that we would live to see such a day when that would happen.

mr. king: i thank the gentlelady and i believe it says in the book of john that if you forgive men's since, they are forgiven. if you hold them bounds they are held bound. president obama accepted the ajoy -- apology. that's forgivenessness. because the president accepted the apology from the officer and the gentleman joe wilson, no one else in the country has the claim to any other redress whatsoever. mrs. bachmann: which is why i thank the gentleman from iowa for pening a letter asking our other colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join that letter in support of our colleague joe wilson. i was very happy to sign onto your letter but you, steven king, the stunning steve king of the state of iowa, you took the initiative on the front, you were right to do so. and i'm extremely grateful for your leadership on that issue because this is the point when we're talking about this issue. it isn't about the president, this isn't about any member of congress, this is about the

american people. will the american people continue to enjoy the finest health care system that the world has ever known or will we lose our freedom of choice over health care and will americans lose the control over another 18% of private business profits? this is a big deal, this is a really big issue because since the inception of bailout nation less than a year ago, 30% of private business profits are now owned or controlled by the federal government. if president obama gets his way, that's another 18%, almost 50%. this is the issue right now. will our economy be better off by government taking over the economy? no. are you kidding? we've already seen demonstration of that in the last few months. surely we would not be better off with president obama nationalizing health care and the energy industry. . mr. king: let me bring this to your mind and that is 30% of the

profits are controlled by the federal government and if another 18% would be swallowed up in a national health care plan taking us to 48%, what if all private interests were rolled up in shares and you could buy derivatives of those shares in the private sector. what if you could do that and the government controlled 48% of all the shares of the private sector, shares of the private sector, that would shares of th sector, that would be the equivalent. that would be to the point of controlling private interest. is that how the equation works out? >> that is right. we know that president obama's intention is to nationalize the energy by giving the federal government control over the use, distribution of energy. and remember, we had had a conversation earlier. then candidate obama, senator obama, made a statement during the course of his campaign.

he said americans can't think that they can drive s.u.v.'s set their thermo stats at 78 degrees. well let's look at the report card. by taking over the car companies, we are seeing high-end vehicles being phased out and seeing the new cars that the president wants to have put in place by government motors. that's the s.u.v. portion. what about setting our houses at 72 degrees and buildings like this one at 72 degrees? once we have the government effectively nationalize energy, people won't be able to afford to have their homes at 72 degrees. they will be schiffering at 55 degrees in winter and in summer, won't be able to turn on the air

conditioning. president obama said we can't eat as much food that we want. as if that matters. well, we just heard last week that the federal government under the obama administration is calling for a re-ordering of america's food supply. what's that going to mean? will the white house decide how many calories we consume or what types of food we consume. you are from an agriculture state and i'm, too. my farmers are concerned about this. we have the greatest geniuses. when you think of the number ofer farmers producing the food when the nation first began. we are now less than 2% of our population, produces all of the food that america consumes and on the not only that, a good portion of the world as well. mr. king: you triggered something in my memory, mrs.

bachmann and that is the hearings that we held before the house ag, committee, march, 2007 and it's what people should be eating and how we're going to legislate that. there were those that we should increase food stamps. they were pushing 46%. they got that job done. but how do you justify that when you can't find people that are suffering from malnutrition or people that are hungry? i'm among them. but we don't have chronic hunger in america. in order to justify the expansion of food stamps, they brought before us the president of la raza. and she said this, and this is a quote, this is mounting evidence that the overweight and obesity trends are due in part to high levels of food insecurity.

so we have a situation where the argument is being made to the united states congress that we have fat people in america that are overweight because they were worried about some meals that they miss one day in the future and tended to overeat in the pretense. if we would give them an unlimited food supply, they would lose weight and live happily ever after. where has in world gone, george orwell? how did we get to this place? and i remember walking down to franklin roosevelt's monument and looking at the speech he gave, the four freedom speech, they are rights, freedoms. they are guaranteed. freedom from want and freedom from fear can't be guaranteed by anybody but god and i'm not sure

it is healthy to have freedom from want because want is what drives us to produce and be better and our philanthropy causes us to help other people. mrs. bachmann: if the representative would allow me to intervene. there is one want, and that is one organization in the united states that has been given a great abundance and that is acorn. you have done a great dial of work trying to expose acorn. last week, acorn, which has a persistent record of voter fraud was brought under indictment for 11 counts of voter fraud down in the state of florida and there were videos showing that acorn which is a grand recipient of federal money was found facilitating and bringing in underaged girls illegally across not only the state lines but across our country's borders into the united states for the

purpose of prostitution. they were enabling not only this illegal business, but coaching people on how to avoid their tax payments that they would have to pay and how to go into federally-funded housing. that's why i have been writing letters to the census bureau, to the housing and urban development agency to call on them to stop current and future grants and investigate past grants. it has been the recipient of $53 million in federal funds. now that president obama, who is a former employee of acorn, now acorn has access to $8.5 billion and in another bill that passed through the house an exirble $1.8 billion, $1.8 billion they have access to. mr. king: why didn't you do something about that? mrs. bachmann: i did.

i have and you have. we have been writing letters and doing -- mr. king: did you offer an amendment in financial services? mrs. bachmann: i did in financial services and did pass out of the committee and the amendment said that organizations like acorn are similarly situated organizations that are currently under indictment for voter fraud would be ineligible to have access to federal grants. mr. king: did chairman frank vote for that amendment? mrs. bachmann: he voted for that amendment? mr. king: why isn't it law? mrs. bachmann: it came to the house floor and chairman frank said in the course of his remarks on the floor that he was not -- he didn't read the amendment fully and wasn't aware of what the amendment said and came to his attention later by his staff and now he was going to change that. mr. king: doe that mean that acorn talked to his staff and advised him he should come to the floor and change the language? mrs. bachmann: i can't tell you

whether acorn spoke to him or not. when chairman frank came to the floor he proceeded to pull my amendment out of the bill, which he did, which meant that now acorn would have access to another $1.5 billion in decision to the $8.5 billion they have access to. acorn should have the internal revenue service look at their tax-exempt status. in my opinion, acorn has a tough time proving they should hold on to their tax-exempt status and that they should be the recipient of my federal housing grants. if they want to be an organization, they can, but shouldn't be a recipient of federal funds. mr. king: here's an image. i don't know if this poster is. i'll try to bring it down this week so everybody can spee it. i thought it would be good for

me to see 2609 canal street, new orleans, louisiana. national headquarters and the international headquarters of acorn. in there is where they process the paperwork for many of, probably most of and probably not quite all of their affiliate corporations. inside those doors -- mrs. bachmann: over 200 affiliate organizations housed there and two-story building. mr. king: four, five-story building. but the first two are all bars and above that, i guess it's high enough that the crowds can't get in. behind the glass in acorn's national headquarters on the street side, huge poster, obama for president, 2008 and hanging next to it is an acorn flag. i have turned it into a poster. it is a 501 c 36r7b corporation

answer unlawful for them to engage in politics and yet they are get out the vote for democrats and taking federal tax dollars and then they boldly advertise it in the front window of their national headquarters in new orleans. mrs. bachmann: over and over, i have had people tell me that acorn is the arm of the democrat party and that is very concerning, at the least i would think that the democrat majority that controls this house would want to hold hearings to clear their name, to say that acorn is not our arm and prove that assertion false. i would think that's what they would want to do, which is why i wrote letters to chairman frank and speaker pelosi, demanding that we have oversight hearings and investigate acorn and take a look at all of the grants that acorn has received to see if they have been spent wisely and

used according to the rules that have been spent up for their disbursement. mr. king: you have raised a lot of children, foster children, natural-born children. have you ever caught your children caught in the cookie jar? mrs. bachmann: yes, i have. they knew they were guilty. mr. king: i think that's the case and it is a get out the vote organization. they're everywhere in america. over 100 major cities and subdivisions within the cities. and the reach doesn't just go into politics. we saw what was going on -- what's the nicest word, child prostitution, the encouragement of what appears to be illegal immigration, saying they are going to help with a refundable tax credit, which is a transfer from the taxpayers to the pimp and the prostitute?

mrs. bachmann: this is acorn enabling it and one of our colleagues said he would hold hearings about acorn. several months ago, there was one indictment after another that came out after voter fraud. these latest indictments deal with the housing grants. he announced he was going to hold hearings and investigate acorn. the next thing we knew, he was not going to hold those hearings because he said the higher-ups told him that he was not to hold hearings. i think the american people have a right to know. i think they have the right to know that these red flags about acorn just didn't happen last week. these red flags have gone up from months and years ago and now, remember the speaker of the house said she was going to drain the swamp. that's what she was going to do, drain the swamp of corruption. could anything be more corrupt than a taxpayer-funded, tax-free

organization doing the bidding for a dominant political party? does it get any more circular than that and some might suggest incestuous. mr. king: the statement that was made about investigating acorn was made by chairman john conyers. we had a hearing before the constitution subcommittee. the subcommittee chairman is jerry nadler. the chairman said, we should look into it. chairman nadler said when i see something of substance, i will investigate. john conyers said that the powers that be have decided there wouldn't be hearings. who could the powers that be be when you are the chairman of the judiciary committee in the house

of representatives and you look up and say the powers that be are the speaker or the president of the united states. what we do know is that the president of the united states used to work for acorn. he not only worked for acorn but was a trainer for acorn and headed up a project vote which is part and parcel of acorn. he wore a jersey, player and coach and alumni who has hired acorn to help facilitate hiring people to help acorn. . we have a president of the united states with a chief of staff named rahm emanuel who used to serve in the house of representatives, he's known for a hardball, hard core chicago-style politics and we're going to have to wonder if we can actually get hearings and investigations? here's what need today happen, mr. speaker. this congress needs to have

multiple committees with bipartisan hearings and investigations on every aspect of acorn. the department of justice has to deploy an entire division to go in and do a complete forensic audit of every dollar that comes and goes from acorn and every one of their affiliates. they've got to bring the i.r.s. into this so we can track every dollar. and we've got to see indictments, we've got to see the pepper walk. we're going to have to see people put in prison for what they're doing to the american taxpayer, mr. speaker. mrs. bachmann: and also there's video footage today of the president speaking to acorn saying that acorn would be a part if his decision making on various bills. mr. king: mr. speaker, did i hear the gavel? does that mean my time's expired? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has 60 seconds. mr. king: i thank you, mr. speaker. sile simply conclude and pick up the sound very well, but i appreciate the gentlelady from minnesota coming to the floor to engage in this discussion and dialogue that we have.

i'll appreciate it when this congress steps forward and does the investigations of acorn and multiple committees, the finance committee, the ways and means committee, the judiciary committee, the government reform committee, the government reform committee, those among others, and when the justice department steps up and instead of shutting down investigation of voter intimidation which was an open and shut case in philadelphia, if they'd step in and do an investigation of acorn, let's give the taxpayers their due, let's represent the american people, let's clean this place up and let's have the high standards that were envisioned by the founding fathers with that, mr. speaker, i thank you and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. is there a motion to adjourn? mrs. bachmann: yes, mr. speaker, i make a motion to adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the chair having received a motion to adjourn places the question on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 10:30 a.m.

>> live on c-span at 7:00 eastern. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> here on c-span, ben bernanke is at a brookings institution forum on the state of the financial markets. the health care bill will be before the senate finance committee next week.

max baucus. >> briefly, i will say that we are going to meet again this afternoon. tom we have had lengthy discussions about medical malpractice. various options for consideration there. medicaid, the approach sharing of the burden. it is clear, " vast majority of the responsibility for the new lot eligible will be the federal government responsibility that we are born to be having discussions with governor's. tomorrow, late afternoon.

we also talked about further refinements on how we make sure no one here illegally would benefit from these initiatives. we talked about other agenda items that remain. that will also be on the agenda for later this afternoon. we covered a lot of subjects this morning. we still have more to do. we have another meeting scheduled for this afternoon, and then an important meeting with governors tomorrow. >>substantial, additional progrs made on medicaid by giving

detailed numbers back that looked not only at the overall federal defect -- effects in states, and we are very close to a conclusion on how we prevent people who are here illegally from benefiting. i think we have also made very substantial progress on medical malpractice. we have legal language. this is to permit the states to experiment with federal assistance. very substantial progress has been made. >> can you give us more details on the illegals provision? >> i do not think going into all the detail at this point is a productive thing to do. i just described it as i did. absolutely.

>> is there verification? >> yes, yes, we also got overall scoring back which is encouraging, that shows we have fully paid for the package. in fact, we are a little bit to the good. we are also confident we are bending the cost curve in the right way said that is good news. >> are we going to see a bill today? i have described about as clearly as i can. below $880 billion. that states would be given resources to help them

experiment on what works best, including a certificate of merit program, but a whole series of options opened to them -- open to them, how to make a best determination on what works effectively. >> we discussed several issues, medicaid, because the governors are concerned.

we talked about medical malpractice. that took a little bit of time. we discussed immigration. we want to make sure immigrants do not get benefits here. we are working toward revising our health care system. we can help tens of millions of families. we are on track this week to mark up next week. we're working to bring this process to closure over the next weeks or so as we approach the markup. we are getting ever closer to lower costs to ensure americans have quality, affordable health care. i look forward to working with

my colleagues to achieve that goal. we are budget neutral. i do not have a total score yet. it is close to what i mentioned in the past. >> why has the cost come down? >> some of this is in trouble interaction, and once they work on it more.

the medicaid costs to the expansion are not going to cost states near as much as it is originally feared. rebates, which will be more expansive, and that will be more generous to states. the interaction of the changes made to that program, and that basis, states will be pleasantly surprised that there will be additional cost at much less than they originally thought. we are all somewhat pleased. >> last one. >> today is monday. >> are you on schedule for tomorrow?

>> are you confident that senators grassley and enzie will sign on? >> where working on a bipartisan solution. basically, as the senators on and off the committee, as we know more about this, their comfort level is starting to come up, and i believe that strongly. >> are all the members of the gang of six together? >> where talking and we are meeting. -- we are talking and we are meeting.