$900 million, which is just under $1 trillion. we have these huge amounts going to be spent on this program. we have big spending, without a date. we have takeover by the government within the last seven months, it's happening in an area of our industry -- in area of our society and industry after area, you add to that the personal involvement we all have in our health care. put those all together, it's a combustible, volatile mix. people around our country have every right to be concerned. mr. akin: i just hit 62, i've become even more and more painfully aware of the fact that i have to live inside this body. i think americans feel that way. when you start talking about, well i've got some government that's going to take over all of this, and there's going to be somebody determining what kind of health care you get, that gets people's attention. maybe they like the idea, but they want to know how is this going to work? i yield time. .

mr. lamborn: tell me if you did or didn't observe what i saw. people around this country have every right to be concerned. it's the big spending. the fact that government's taking over all these sectors of our economy, plus it's health care are the most intensely personal things we work on. so we have a proposal before us, actually several proposals, so i don't know what the president really means when he talks about my plan, because there's four or five different proposals floating around there. mr. akin: there is something that has been proposed by the speaker of the house. it's her committees. and we have a bill number on it. and there have been amendments made to it. it's been dealt with in committee. we have to assume. he apparently wants the democrats to vote for that pelosi plan. so i think at least a reasonable person is thinking that the president wants the democrats to advance the plan which is the 1,000-page bill which is being

offered by the speaker. and the committees that are under her authority. and that's what we were talking about tonight because the president makes these assertions and yet when you take a look at what's in the pelosi plan, you start to see this disconnect between the two. i think a lot of americans have gotten that personally involved in this, that they have copies of the plan. they are starting to read it and say, the president's saying this. the plan is saying this. the president's saying this. the plan is saying that. that's what i was trying to get at tonight. here's an example. there are those who claim that our reform effort will insure illegal immigrants. this, too, is false. the reforms i'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. ok. so this is what the president says. if you go to the bill, the bill says, this bill's not for illegal immigrants. that squares with what the president says. but then when you look more closely you find out, that in the enforcement section it says

basically anybody can sign up for the deal. so there's no enforcement to put any teeth at all in this which then makes you think, wait a minute. what's the smoke and mirrors? so there's different ways to test this. one is to offer an amendment. so the republicans offered this amendment. in order to utilize the public health insurance option, an individual must have his or her eligibility determined and approved under the income and eligibility verification system. this is fancy language to say you got to be a u.s. citizen. you have to be here legally. and this of course is voted down on a straight party-line vote. there were republicans, 15 voted yes. total of 15. 26 democrats voted no. now, this basically would say that not only are we going to say, no, illegal immigrants can't get this, but we are also going to say before you get it you got to prove your eligibility. they said no.

now, that leaves some level of confusion, but it clearly leaves the point that the democrats did not want this amendment in their bill. and so this is that disconnect the president says one thing and yet when you start to look at the facts, you go, oh, my goodness. what other way could you look at this? one of the things we did there's a congressional research. we asked them when you take a look at this bill, will illegal immigrants be able to take advantage of the bill? this is a body not republican or democrat. they are a bunch of scholars. here's a quote from the congressional research service, august 25, 2009. just a couple weeks ago. under house resolution 3200, that is nancy pelosi's health care bill, a health insurance exchange would begin operation in 2013 and would offer private plans alongside of public option. h.r. 3200 does not contain any restrictions on noncitizens. whether legally or illegally

present or in the united states temporarily or permanently participating in the exchange. so these people are saying the same thing what our constituents read the bill, bless their heart to wade through all this stuff, they are saying, it says there's no illegal immigrants, but in fact there's an med we offer to make it clear, the amendment's turned down on a party line vote, and--party-line vote and there are no teeth at all. there is this disconnect that's creating stress out there. mr. lamborn: you raised a good point representative akin, and are you right on on that. it's unfortunate that the president didn't understand the ins and outs of the bill or hopefully he wouldn't have said that. i think maybe he didn't -- wasn't as familiar with the ins and outs and details as what you are explaining right now. let me back up and point out another problem that a lot of people in my district are having with this plan. 85% of americans do have health

insurance. by and large it's not a persist tell, but they are largely satisfied with the health care that they have. and so we have a relatively small number, not just 15%, it's actually smaller than that because of that 15%, some of those people can't afford insurance. they are just paying bills as they go. they are self-insuring. also there are those who are qualified for existing programs. so they don't really need a new program for them. so it may be 5% or less of americans that actually need health care. so why are we revamping 1/6 of our nation's economy, the entire health care system, for a small percentage, 5% or less of our population? the people in my district -- mr. akin: i have to stop you there. i think you put your finger on probably one of the biggest question marks going here.

this is such a straightforward question. i think it needs to be repeated. what we are saying is is that 80% at least of americans have some kind of health insurance, most of them are reasonably pleased with the health insurance of the doctors they have. and the delivery systems. so you got 80% of the people that are ok with it. and yet you are going to basically take all of that and change it in order to take care of what five or 10 -- mr. lamborn: would the gentleman yield? what it boils down to, if the problem really is those who are uninsured who cannot afford it, we have a lot more targeted and focused ways of meeting that small percentage rather than revamping our entire health care system. mr. akin: the gentleman, i think you brought an exceptionally important point. unfortunately our hour has just flown by. i would just like to thank my good friend, mr. lamborn, for

his expertise and great leadership you have shown here on the floor. i just thank my other colleagues for taking part in trying to get through some of these details. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 60 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, as always it's an honor to address you on the floor of the house of representatives. having listened to some of the dialogue that my colleagues that have been here just prior, and hopefully will join me in the next hour, i think it's important that the american people return their focus again to the values that made this a great nation. we are a country that we need to be cognizant of our history. that's why we teach it in our

public and our private and parochial schools. that's why we teach it in our families. we pass the lore of the american dream and history of the united states of america on down to our children. and we ask our children to pass it to their children and on and on. and to make sure there is a consistent continuity we teach the history of the united states in the context of the world. and so something that seems be to be missing from the awareness of the people on this side of the aisle, they are advocating a national health care act, a socialized medicine plan, is the foundation of the greatness of america. and i could go off into a lot of different tan gents about the pillars of american exceptionalism. but central to those pillars is the idea of freedom. the freedom and the free markets and the freedom of the markets to make a decision on what they want to provide to their consumers. and so this is adam smith. this is adam smith that laid

this out even though you can read through all 1,057 pages of wealth of nations, you'll not find him use the expression the invisible hand. but it's the invisible hand indeed that best describes the vision of adam smith. in 1776 having printed and published his book, "wealth of nations" the very found of -- foundation of free enterprise. and centuries later we come up with keynesian economics, there is no basis for the economy, the economy is a great big huge national or global chain letter and that if the government would just print a lot of money and spend the money in a lot of ways and maybe go drill some holes in an abandoned coal mine, according to keynes and fill it up with garbage and turn the entrepreneurs loose to dig dig up the money, he said he could solve all of the unemployment in america. i know. it sounds bizarre, mr. speaker. i am not making this up.

this is the characterization of john maynard keynes, the difference with his approach and president obama's approach anti-free market side of this where the consumer makes a demand by pulling with its invisible hand the loaf of bread off the shelf and let's say there is a good loaf of bread for a buck and the invisible hand will pull it for $1 off that shelf and somebody else comes in and say here's a loaf of bread that's not quite as good for a buck and a quarter. they might just pass up that purchase even though they need the bread and wait until the fresh ones come from the bakery that provides the good bread for a dollar. so the bakery that provides the good bread for a dollar is filling the shelves up with their product and selling a lot of volume and the bakery that sells the not quite so good bread doesn't sell much bread if at all. over time the company that's being outcompeted with the higher priced, lower quality

bread either learns how to make good bread for a competitive price or they give up the market to the company that makes the good bread for the competitive price. it isn't the end of the world if we end up with one company producing bread in that fashion. what if we get down to where only one company is baking bread and it's for $1 and it's a good price and high quality and it's a value to the consumer? not so bad. if thatp company realizes they are running a monopoly and decide to jack the price of their good loaf of bread up to a buck and quarter, buck and a half, $1.75, maybe lower the quality, put something in there, then what happens? the consumer gets dissatisfied. and the dissatisfied consumer then either bakes their bread at home to get the quality and costs they want, or they open up their own little bakery. maybe they bake that bread at home and decide i'm going to provide a little bit for my family. then that's so popular you provide a little for your

neighbors. and the family and neighbors decide i want mom to keep baking bread so they want to pay her so she keeps baking that bread. now high quality bread, that was now a buck and a half because you had a monopoly. the price of that that's competitive, because the other -- the homegrown business begins to compete into that volume and quality and cost of the marketplace and pull the cost back down. that's the difference between the free enterprise system and central command. central planning. the five-year plan. the federal government deciding what's going to be made and what the price will be and if it doesn't work, you subsidize the people making it, and if that doesn't work, you subsidize the people buying it. sound like the car industry? yes it is, mr. speaker. this is the difference between the philosophy on this side of the aisle, they think that they are smart enough to make all of these calls for all of the consumers except for perhaps the butcher, the baker, and cannelle stick maker. on this side of the aisle, one

moment before i yield. are the people that believe in free enterprise, invisible hand, adam smith's vision and dream. and the idea you cannot manage an economy, you've got to let the supply and demand manage the economy. that's the difference. we believe in free enterprise. you folks do not. if you disagree i'll certainly dwreeled to you but not one of you will stand up and take this argument on. i yield to the gentleman from missouri. mr. akin: i can't help but jump into when some of these defending the cause of free enterprise. i guess there's different ways to describe or explain the phenomena you are talking about. and one of them is that one side of the aisle tends to be much more in favor of free enterprise, and the other one is much more in favor of having the government do things. and i gess what we start to get to -- i guess what we start to get to is a question, a fundamental question, the biggest thing that we divide and talk about and argue and debate about on this floor, and that is

what is the proper function of the civil government, particularly the federal government? what should the federal government be doing? should it be baking bread or should it not be baking bread? should baking bread be left to citizens out on the street? should it be the job of the federal government to be giving food away to people? should it be the job of the federal government according to joe the plumber to take money from one person and give it to another person? is the job of the federal government be to be the big sugar daddy, dispensing favors? is it the job of the federal government basically to be big momma, taking care of everybody or is there a different purpose for government which is simply justice? simply creating a level playing field so that everybody could go out and use their god-given potential as their directed to do it? . it seeps you can make the case of federal control of everything versus free enterprise or you could say, what's the legitimate

job of the government? we have some liberals in this chamber years ago and they discovered there were people in america who were hungry. of course there had been people in america who were hungry for a long time but they came up with the bright idea that we were going to socialize a little bit, steal money from other people through taxes, print food stands -- stamps and give food stamps to people to take care of the hungry. they declared war on hunger and hunger won, of course. that was their approach. but what's being proposed here today, gentlemen, is an entirely more radical agenda. this would be the equivalent of somebody discovering that there's hunger in america and the government taking over the farms and the grocery stores and the distribution houses in between and taking over the entire food industry. that's what's being proposed with this socialized medicine. it's not about -- a matter of just giving somebody medicare or medicaid who can't afford to pay for medical care, it's about the government taking over 1 fifth of the economy.

this is a whole -- 1 fist of the economy. this is a whole radical challenge. it is fundamentally unamerican is what we're dealing with. mr. king: reclaiming my time. the statement that was made on the floor of the house the night before last by the gentlelady from minnesota, michele bachmann, the analysis of a lead economist in the country that had done the analysis of what is the percentage of the private sector profits that now have been nationalized by the federal government? if you add up the three large investment banks that have been nationalized, if you add up fannie mae and freddie mac, a.i.g., and general motors and chrysler, look at the profits that come from that, roll that up and compare it to the net profits of the private sector overall, this federal government, most of it under the administration of president obama, has nationalized 30% of the private sector profits in the united states. 30%. mr. akin: just a minute.

i can't help but interrupt. 30% has been nationalized if you just add up those big corporations? mr. king: 30% of the profits have been nationalized. most of it by this administration. those eight entities. mr. akin: that's not even counting health care yet. mr. king: and when you add health care to it, that's 17.5% of our overall economy, rounded up to 18% because i can do the math, 30% plus 18%, 48%. if they succeed in passing socialized medicine, 48% of the private sector profits in the united states will have been nationalized, most of it by this administration, this free country, this country that is built upon free enterprise in part and one of the pillars of american exceptionalism is free enterprise, will have had almost half of it swallowed up by an aggressive appetite of the white house without justification but only because we're in a time of economic crisis and magically the solutions that have been advocated by the president and the hard core left wing, jump

off the cliff liberals in this congress and across the country, those solutions they've been advocating for 20 years become magically the solutions for the economic crisis that we've been in over the last year. mr. akin: if would you yield, gentleman, riveb tried to -- one of the things somebody said and i was not a big whiz on taking history in high school but if you don't look for history, you're bound to repeat the mistakes. i do recall a very threatening and ominous nation that we saw taking over country after country called the soviet union. and if you were to try to simplify their philosophy, that was a government was going to take care of food and clothing and shelter, they were going to pay for your education, set up you up with a job and take care of your health care. and we laughed when that country collapsed, a little bit with a sense of anxiety because they had nuclear weapons aimed at us. we said, you know that communist-socialist stuff won't work. their economy was a mess. they couldn't keep up with us in the arms race.

because their economy was a disaster. the government can't run all that stuff efficiently. people starved to death over there. their medical care was so bad people went into hospitals would shutter, there was no anesthetic, no clean bandages. it was a disaster. and when the whole thing went down the drain we said, hey, everybody knows communism-socialism won't work, so what are we proposing now? the government's going to provide food, the government's going to provide housing, the government's going to provide your education. we just decided to nationalize a whole lot more of that, no more private loans, we're going to have the government take care of that and now we're talking about the government not only the insurance and the automotive but now the government wants to take over 1/5 of the economy in terms of health care. now, it seems to me we should learn something from history, don't you think, gentleman? mr. king: reclaiming from the gentleman from missouri, i would go further, mr. speaker, and that is i recall those years when they had collective farming in the soviet union. they had a five-year plan for

the production of the entire nation. they would sit down and decide, ok, here's what we're going to do. we're going to set up our factories and hire our workers and provide to the extent that they can manage it, the raw materials necessary, to run all that out and here's where we're going to go in five years. do that in farming, for example, and you can imagine, we have farmers that are making crop decisions up to the moment that they plant. and then they are cutting edge on fertilizer, herb side, etc., and equipment to get efficiency out of it, g.p.s. control of the equipment so they can apply fertilizer according to the soil types and the yieldses they get back out of it, all these things are going on realtime. mr. akin: you can tell the gentleman is from iowa. he has that farming technology down. g.p.s. in your tractor telling you how much fertilizer to put in a section of a field. it's amazing what free enterprise can do. mr. king: i have seen the corn planter parked not in iowa but the state south of me when people went fishing but it's

pretty rare and so what we saw instead in the soviet union was farm workers, when it was time to harvest the crop, they're eight-hour shift would be in. they'd park the tractor and combine and a crop could rot in the field or be hailed out or rained out or frozen out because they were hourly employees. they didn't have an interest in the actual product result. they just had an interest in going -- the old saying was, the workers of the soviet union will pretend to work and the soviet union will pretend to pay the workers. that's what happened, that's where they went and it is a big difference. by the way, this would be the 16th of september. we're three days away from the one-year anniversary of the first time that i have heard members of congress say to me in the years i've been here, see, this proves capitalism doesn't work. they said that on the day that henry paulson came to this capitol and demanded $700 billion to try to stop what he predicted was a freefall in the

financial industry and they said, well, see, the financial industry, free enterprise is the cause of this, it's the problem, it doesn't work and it's proven and they said so september 19, almost a year ago today. mr. akin: the thing that just amazed me about that comment, you know, free enterprise doesn't work because we've got this big economic crisis. and you go, well, let's see, what's the economic crisis caused by? oh, it's a real estate problem. oh, real estate, in what regard? well, it seems like a whole lot of people have mortgages that they can't pay in real estate. oh, well how did that happen? oh, well we've got freddie and fannie and what sort of agencies are those? quasi-governmental agencies. and what have they been doing? they've been instructed by the u.s. congress to make loans to people who can't afford to pay their loans. and now guess what's happening? the people can't afford to pay their loans and all this stuff is sliding down the wall in a big mess. and so we've sold the stuff all over the world and now the economy is in a mess.

so let's see. how did this economy get in a mess? oh, the congress created an agency who distributed lots and lots of loot to congressmen in the form of pack checks, they created an agency to sell stocks and bonds and packaged up in a nice clever way by wall street, that weren't worth anything because the people couldn't pay their mortgages and we say this is a failure of free enterprise? it's a failure of socialized government trying to impose itself on the free market in an idea of trying to be charitable, saddling -- saddling somebody with a loan they can't afford to pay so they have to go into bankruptcy. what a compassionate solution. mr. king: the gentleman from missouri is referring to, i believe, the community reinvestment act that passed this congress in 1978, signed into law by jimmy carter, and it was brought about because of the allegation and there's a basis of it in truth, that there were large lending agencies that were doing home mortgages in particular but real estate, righting real estate mortgages,

that drew red lines around districts. usually in inner cities, because the real estate values were declining, because of crime and other activities in those areas and the real estate wasn't being kept up so nobody wanted to buy real estate in those neighborhoods. they drew a red line around them and said we're not going to loan money into these neighborhoods. they passed the community reinvestment act as a means to try to a address that and that planted the seed, even though the motive was probably pretty good, that planted the seed for organizations like acorn to come in and seek to intimidate lenders and let me say, intimidate them into making bad loans in bad neighborhoods to people that didn't have the means to pay the loan and all of this -- mr. akin: you just jumped out of the realm of free enterprise, didn't you? you jumped into government planning. mr. king: regulations of lending institutions that were trying to comply with the letter and intent of the law. mr. akin: so it's no failure for the free enterprise at all.

it wasn't a failure of free enterprise. it was a failure of another government socialized scheme is what it was. mr. king: i think i can't embellish that a lot more and be more accurate. mr. akin: what i was getting at even more so was freddie and fannie. because you have the reinvestment act but parallel to it was freddie and fannie and freddie and fannie were encouraged to make all of these loans to people who couldn't pay but then the bankers got sta smart and they cut the loans up in lots of little pieces and packaged them up and sold them all over the place. freddie and fannie -- the thing that was interesting was, people were really getting down on bush for making such a bad economy and it was free enterprise's fault, it was george bush's fault and reality, you go in "the new york times" and you see president bush in 2003, i remember because it was september 11, 2003, "the new york times," not exactly a conservative document, and it says, this is bush saying, hey, i've got to have more authority to control freddie and fannie, they're out of control.

they're making loans that are going to become a huge disaster. at the same time you have a quote in that article, barney frank from the floor of this house who's now the chairman of the committee that runs all of that say, freddie and fannie are fine. you can read the quote and so -- but this isn't a failure -- mr. king: would the gentleman repeat that date again? mr. king: -- mr. akin: it was september 11, 2003. mr. king: why does the gentleman remember that? mr. akin: obviously because of september 11, 2001. king king -- mr. king: two years from the date, now the chairman of the financial services committee coming to the floor resisting regulation and increased capitalization on fannie and freddie, they're a government-sponsored enterprise that had the imple -- implicit guarantee of the government pind hem. now there's another date that sticks in my mind. two years and a little more than a month later, october 26, 2005, an amendment was brought to the floor of the house of representatives that would

require fannie mae, freddie mac to be capitalized exrarble to that of other competing institutions and to require them to be regulated in a similar fashion and that amendment was vigorously resisted by the now chairman of the committee, barney frank and yet he came to the well on the thursday before we broke for the easter vacation this year and set up a 60-minute period of time to explain to americans in that little lull when everybody else was going home but me and a couple others that none of that was his fault. that it went outside of him and that it was something that the regulations was not necessary, the capitalization was not necessary. well, we know the answer. the implicit guarantee. and by the way, the gentleman from massachusetts said on the floor of the house of representatives on that day of october 26, if anybody thinks i'm going to vote to support capitalized guarantee fannie mae and freddie mac, they're wrong. i won't do that.

we ended up with the nationalization. i yield to the gentleman. mr. akin: the interesting thing was, he was not in the majority party at the time. i think he opposed legislation but we passed it here in the house, republicans were in charge at that time. passed legislation in the house to regulate and to require that capitalization of freddie and fannie went stot senate but because the senate rules, democrats in the senate were able to kill that legislation. and yet they want to blame president bush, they want to blame free enterprise for what was another one of these socialized schemes where the big government's going to step in and try and repeal the laws of economics. mr. king: reclaiming briefly from the gentleman, i would point out that that october 26 vote, 2005, went the other way, the gentleman from massachusetts now the chairman of the financial services committee succeeded in convincing this body that fannie and freddie didn't need to be capitalized and regulated and that amendment failed here on the floor of the house of representatives in 2005. and it was gone in that

direction since, more support for fannie and freddie who spent tens of thousands, in fact, hundreds of thousands of dollars, lobbying this congress, so that he would be exempt from the standards that were required of other lending institutions and that is part of this package. the community reinvestment act, fannie mae and freddie mac, acorn asserting themselves as a broker in the mid of this and brokering bad loans in bad neighborhoods, intimidating bankers to give those loans and then passing those along in the secondary market and getting blocks of loans from the lending institutions for them to underwrite themselves and give the authority on loans that would be approved. . mr. akin: we'll pay acorn to do a lot of these activities. we has become an interesting topic where we see enterprising people coming in and checking out what the story was in these different acorn locations. mr. king: as you mentioned, an acorn location the gentleman

from missouri -- i happen to have an acorn location here. this little picture is taken not off the internet, not by somebody that slipped in surreptitiously. this is a picture i personally took. the weekend before the fourth of july, i'm going to guess second or so of july, 2009. i went down to acorn headquarters, mr. speaker. this is at 2609 canal street, new orleans. and this building is acorn's national headquarters. for all i know the international headquarters of acorn. it is the most fortified building in the neighborhood. the door itself is mostly bars. so is the ground floor, second floor. can you see through these bars it's a four or five story building. if you look, mr. speaker, you can see this huge obama poster right inside the window at the national headquarters of acorn. mr. akin: that's getting millions of dollars of federal money? we are using -- mr. king: $53 million i think,

and i think significantly more. mr. akin: $53 million of taxpayer dollars to advertise for a political candidate? mr. king: i don't know it all goes for advertisele -- advertisement. the law says it cannot go for advertisele. -- advertisement. i am observive observer here. when you put a poster in your office window, in my construction office, for example, if i put up a poster in the office window that says bush for president in 2004, if i were a 501-c-3 corporation i would be in direct advice lation of the not-for profit requirements of the i.r.s. if i put a poster in my window i'm also in violation of some of my customers that are of a different political persuasion. although i'm sensitive of this. i follow the law. this cannot be be following the law. acorn should have its not-for-profit status removed immediately for them and every

one ever their affiliates. they should be taxed. the i.r.s. should go in and audit every dollar that's come into acorn and their affiliates. there should be a justice department investigation. there should be a congressional series of investigations done by a number of committees, including the committee chaired by the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. frank. financial services should investigate. judiciary should investigate. government reform should investigate. ways and means should investigate. if i could find a way to get the ag committee investigating, that's what we need to do. mr. akin: it also makes you wonder about the attorney general investigating. i suppose perhaps the gentleman has seen some of the various tapes that were cut with hidden cameras as people went into various acorn locations. kind of an interesting phenomenon, nothing that was broken by the big media in america, but it just shows that underground kind of media, the new web and internet and bloggers and all, you have an enterprising gentleman and a

young lady going in and being very bold in various acorn offices talking about the fact they want to open a house of ill repute and want to get some help from acorn to help them figure out how to buy the house. they are so candid with what they are saying and the comments that are recorded on camera i think have been getting a lot of hits, a lot of people watching it. the mainstream media has paid no attention to it. yet all over america people are looking at this and they have already heard about acorn and the dozens of major violations of this organization that we are paying for with tax dollars. and i mean what in the world is going on? these two are just actors. but they are entrepreneurs in an information kind of age saying they are just going in pretending like they want to open up a house of ill repute so he could raise money to run for congress. it's almost laughable if it weren't true. mr. king: as a republican, run

for congress as a republican? mr. akin: i didn't hear that word somehow or other. mr. king: i heard, run for congress as a democrat. that must have been the measure of plausibility that they had to inject to get acorn to bite on the rest of the bait would be my speculation. mr. akin: they were interesting sets of tapes and courageous people that were willing to do that. because there was some threat potential there. mr. king: it is for me, reclaiming my time, it is astonishing to get a look inside the offices of acorn in four cities in america. and i ask questions. this is the culture of acorn. i don't know how you argue it's not. but each of them were so willing and so eager to be complicit in helping to set up a house of ill repute as the gentleman from missouri said. i have different names for it. a brothel would be another way. for them to go in and pick out this outrageous, i think it was, really it was a far-reaching

scenario, i'm the pimp and this is the prostitute and we want to set up this house of ill repute and bring in 13-year-old or 14-year-old girls from el salvador so they could turn tricks and take the profits and use some of the profits to put into the political campaign so that the pimp can run for congress? i don't know i would have a hard time holding myself in if somebody came into my office and said such a thing. but in each of those cases that have been published, in baltimore, washington, d.c., brooklyn, san bernadino, in each of those cases, mr. speaker, acorn reacted as if that was the business they were set up to be in. we'll help you facilitate a loan for the house of ill repute. we can get you good terms. furthermore, don't report more than about three of those illegal girls that are illegally here and that are most likely illegally here. and in the business of child

prostitution, a slave sex ring before their very eyes. they also advocated that they could provide the childcare tax credit and qualify for that. that's $1,000 per child per year. and the earned income tax credit as well. so the numbers work out to about this. acorn being complicit in drawing down fraudulently federal dollars while helping to facilitate evasion of income taxes and child prostitution, but the federal taxpayers, if they are successful, and what they proposed at least in baltimore, then the childcare tax credit and the earned income tax credit to add up to a family of, let me say a family of five, if the prostitute is the mom and the pimpp is the dad, and three of the 13 or 14-year-old girls were qualified under the child tax credit, that would be about $6,000 on the taxpayers that goes into subsidize the house of prostitution. and this doesn't cause anybody to bat an eye on acorn in four

cities in america. mr. akin: i have to interrupt just a minute if the gentleman would yield some time. i am -- i have always had a deep respect for my congressional friend from iowa and the fact that you're a small business man. but the way you put that together, coy see why you are a good businessman. i don't think your construction business you tried to stay a little closer to within the law. yet here we are talking about an organization that's paid for with federal money. what's happened with acorn is that there have been so many of these kinds of things that all of these community organizations that used to be under acorn have changed their names. it doesn't mean they changed their stripes but they changed their names. so when we try to withhold funding from acorn, all the other community organizers which used to be acorn no longer called acorn are still wanting to pull down federal money to do this wonderful entrepreneurial

kind of proposal that you are talking about or many other kinds of schemes along the same lines. again i think it suggests, it's one more nail in the coffin that says, maybe the federal government shouldn't be doing this stuff. maybe we've gotten our federal government just trying to do too many things for too many people. maybe we better pull back the idea as you started yes with the concept of free enterprise. with the concept of the federal government creating a set of laws where everybody is equal before the law, not a set up of special deals. and a place where every american can have the freedom and the risk to chase the dream that god puts in their own heart. to be whatever it is, whether it's a contractor with heavy equipment, as you were, or the steel business or working in the computer business with i.b.m. as i was, you can chase the dream that's in your own heart without the government doing any special

deals, either taking your money or giving you any money. mr. king: reclaiming my time. i so appreciate the analysis and the way that you have delivered this. i think that this goes deep and i think because i have had to live and i know the gentleman from missouri has had to live and been fortunate to live with the underpinnings of what's been the greatness of america. these checks and balances that come in not just between the three branches of government, the checks and balances that come in between our moral values, our values of faith, the laws that we have passed that reflect the moral values of our faith. and the reverence for the rule of law, the letter and the intent of the law that's so necessary if we are going to have a civil society. then we have watched if we go back to lyndon baines johnson and the great society, and they made a decision that they were going to take from one economic sector and they were going to

pass it along to another. i remember seeing film of hungry children in appalachia. i don't know they were actually hungry. but they needed dental work. they weren't dressed all that well. some were bare foot. some didn't have a shirt on. it was summertime. but they kept running these images over and over again and we passed the great society all right into the middle of the vietnam war. we set up a dependency class of people. this class of people that rewarded mothers that had children that didn't have fathers in the home. and if you will pay mothers to have babies if they don't have fathers in the home, women will have babies to become mothers without fathers in the home. and if you punish them if there's a father in the home. he won't be around anymore. he might visit but not a resident. because it would cut the government welfare check. slowly over time we created a dependency class of people that was dependent upon the federal

welfare check to come in. and now i look at the inner cities in the united states of america and i ask the question when i see the film within the offices of acorn and i think, what wealth is created in these cities? what is coming out of the inner city that is rooted in new wealth? i know what it is that comes out of the land. the all new wealth comes from the land. you can mine it out of the earth and gold or platinum or gravel or limestone or even raise it out of the soil in corn or beans or i'll say rice or root begas, you can cut -- rutabegas, but all that becomes the foundation of new wealth. that wealth is necessary if you are going to provide the essentials of life that we have long called food, clothing and sherlt. it comes out of the soil. we do that as productively as we can and evalue add to that as many times as we can and that's the wealth that pays for the added to it, the butcher, baker,

and candlestick maker. it pays for the accountant, doctor, lawyer, school teacher, pastor everything that gross outs of this economy in a legitimate productive sector can be traced back to our land, our earth, our soil. but in the inner city, their new wealth doesn't come out of the soil. their new wealth comes from the taxpayers of the united states of america. and it's brokered by acorn. and the benefits are distributed back out through the city. some of it goes into prostitution. some goes into illegal drugs. the culture that you saw in acorn is a culture that promotes and supports as a matter of fact illegal behavior, including prostitution, child pornography, and helping to enable bringing in illegals into the united states to commit illegal acts. and no one batted an eye. i yield. mr. akin: if you yield. it seems like what we are talking about is kind of two visions of government. one vision of government is, the government is limited.

and government is interested in justice. and it's a vision that promotes freedom. it promotes people having the freedom to go out and succeed or fail. it allows the individual to take the greatest gamble of their life, to live whatever dream god put in their heart. and america's full of people that came here and they were nuts. they had these crazy dreams. and they worked on them and they worked on them and those dreams became a vague possibility. then they became a possibility. and finally those dreams became a reality. and america was built one dream at a time. there was some nutty guy that had the idea of of making a light bulb. he made 100 light bulbs and none worked. he said that's good because now i know 100 ways not to make a light bulb. his name was thomas edison. it became so common we called it the american dream. the other view of government is

not a rule of law, it's not people equal before the law, it's the special deal society. it's the special deal for me or for you, and if you got the right government contract, you can get a bailout, but if you don't, you go bankrupt. . it's a special deal that for one person you get treated one way but for somebody else the law is different and so the question is, do we have a rule of law or do we have basically a political kind of controlled anarchy? and that's the question. where are we going as a country? are we going to have a rule of law? are we going to have people equal before the law or is the government going to be the big sugar daddy that's supposed to take care of everybody and will reward people for behaviors which will destroy their lives? is that the sort of government that we want? that's the question before the american public today as they watch what happens on the floor

of this congress. i yield back. mr. king: reclaiming and thanking the gentleman, i would point out my view on this that you'll never get the people on the other side into that particular debate. they don't want to go down that path. because, first of all, they don't like the result that one logically gets and the other component of it is i think they hide their own eyes from the result of what they're seeking to do. their endeavors are incremental endeavors to expand the power base, the political base, which is the power base. i don't think they've gamed this thing out to what america looks like if they exceed in these endeavors. if they expand acorn, if they succeed in writing into law cap and trade, if they succeed writing into law a socialized medicine plan or they succeed writing into law amnesty for illegals. in the end, what does america look like? they can't bear the thought of having to admit the conclusions of the policies they propose, but they're certainly for the things that give them short-term

power base. and i put the poster of acorn up here because i think they are the largest cancer america has ever seen. they're in over 100 cities in the united states, they have divisions within the cities, they have drawn down over $53 million, they qualify into up to $8.5 billion, the pressure that's come from the houses of prostitution that they're seeking to help fund, the criticism that's come from the community reinvestment act shaking down lenders, over $400 thank you fraudulent voter registration forms, prosecutions and convictions of acorn people up to 70 in the united states, another 11 indictments in the state of florida, six of them arrested, five they're on the hunt for and convictions of i'll say at least indictments of acorn as a corporation in nevada for their policies of directly violating the election laws of setting up quotas for people that are registering rather than

hiring them by the hour, by this hour right now. here's the latest news flash. first before i do the news flash i have to tell you that, mr. speaker, there has been some back off from acorn and it's the vote that took place on the floor of the united states senate where seven u.s. senators voted to defend acorn. two of them from illinois by the way. the president's home state, rahm emanuel's home state, david axelrod's home state and those two senators continue to defend acorn. rob blagojevich's home state who has also been a beneficiary of acorn's work. they defended acorn, the other senators voted not to fund acorn through acorn housing. then the whole list of things that are going on and we also know that the u.s. census bureau finally announced a couple, three days ago that they were not going to continue with their relationship with acorn that they'd already signed off of a month or two ago and don't believe them yet. but this is the news flsh that

came while the gentleman from missouri was speaking and this is an article that tells about -- it says, days after the census bureau announced it would cut ties with the organizing group acorn and barely 24 hours after the senate voted to withdraw funding from the lightning rod activist group, the white house, which is speaking for the president of the united states, the white house expressed support for measures to hold the group accountable for unacceptable behavior. mr. speaker, listen to this. this is a jeremiah wright moment. white house press secretary robert gibbs alluded to -- illewded to vehicle -- alluded to a video showing acorn employees and sex traffickers. obviously the conduct that you see on those tapes is completely unacceptable. i think everyone agreed to that gibbs said the administration takes accountability extremely seernsly. that's good.

because -- seriously. that's good because i will had tell you, i want to make sure that that is the case with the president and then it goes on and says, characterizing the census bureau's decision as a move based on a lack of confidence in acorn's ability to perform its expected duties gives -- said he was not sure whether the president would ask democrats to pull back from any campaign year collaboration with the group. quote from gibbs, i don't know that i've had any discussion with him about that. closed quote, gibbs said. so, mr. speaker, what we have here are a few more platt tudes, a little more word process that's going on here, that would indicate that the president is a little concerned and maybe robert gibbs is concerned about some fraud and corruption and blatant violation of a whole series of laws that seem to be apparent if you watch a film of acorn but we have yet to hear the president do, let me say, mia cull pa, i haven't heard the president say, even though i

played for acorn as a young man, even though i coached acorn employees, even though i headed up project vote by is -- vote which is indistinguishable from acorn, even though he wears acorn logo on his shirt, oh, by the way, i happen to have a little visual of this, mr. speaker, even though this is all the case and it's a fact, we still don't have the president saying, well, let's do what we did with jeremiah wright. let's get acorn out of our lives. let's go and investigate him with the f.b.i., the department of justice and every possible committee in the united states congress giving them a complete forensic analysis and coming back for every dollar that flowed through acorn and all of their affiliates to the extent where we can purge the poison from that corrupt enterprise, acorn. that needs to happen, mr. speaker, it needs to be directed by the president or this acorn albatross hangs around his neck until he does.

>> just asking if the gentleman would yield. my memory may be a little weak on this but we were involved about a year ago with this big wall street bailout. my understanding was part of that wall street bailout money, there was some sort of attack -- a tax that was going to be placed on some of those companies that was going to go directly to fund acorn. do you know if that part of the bill passed on part of that wall street bailout? weather the funding for acorn was built in there because i remember that there was talk that it would be and if that's the case, my concern is this, that all of these organizations known as acorn, they're not stupid, they're changing their names to community organizers. and so you have all of these people that used to be acorn still sitting there, still collecting federal money, and yet no longer with the acorn name because acorn name has been so incredibly disgraced. and so i guess my question -- concern is, i think as you're

saying, if we're really serious about dealing with this corruption, that it seems like we're going to have to deal with more than just acorn, but all of those organizations before that came under that acorn umbrella, i'd yield. mr. king: reclaiming from the gentleman, i have to agree, i don't know that that money is in that fund but if we're going to do a search i'd look for the number $1.6 million. that's the number i recall. i don't remember which bill that's in but that sticks in my mind. i remember numbers better than do i names. we did have, thanks to congressman issa of california who is ranking member of the government reform committee, they produced a nonpartisan report that came to a whole series of conclusions about acorn and in that report they list 361 acorn affiliates. i don't know that all of those are live, active acorn affiliates. i suspect some of them are defunct at this point. the pattern looked like whenever they had a new project they created another corporation.

many of them, i can't say all of them, but a majority of those corporations all are housed and reside in this place on canal street in new orleans. can you imagine as many as, and probably not quite that many, but as many as 361 different corporations and affiliates inside these doors? this is a five or four story building, not that big. in there, the finances that come are co-mingled through one single corporation that handled all of this. now money is fungible. if there's a single federal dollar that goes into any of these and it goes into a centralized account and gets redistributed out that have central pot, you can't sort that. there are not firewalls in it. it's a fact there's not firewalls in that. which peens -- means if any of the money that's used within the 361 corporations is used for political purposes it's a violation of federal law. this itself is a violation of federal law, mr. speaker. obama 2008, right in the window of a 501-c-3.

there it is for all to see. we do need -- we need a complete investigationworks he need the president of the united states -- investigation. we need the president of the united states to come forward and come clean. this is what the president has been. he is the consummate community organizer, he has riten to -- risen to the top of his profession, he's done it through the path of acorn and project vote and a series of other organizations, all of them affiliated within. this isn't a man that's come up through the free enterprise system, that's signed the front of the paycheck. he signed only the back and worked within these community organizers that are sitting there, in chicago politics. chicago politics that are steeped in the rob blagojevich and steeped in the rahm emanuels and the hardball politics where he would tell his supporters during the campaign, get in their face, and he stood here at the lot of rum in the house of representatives and said, we will call you out. because he disagreed with what

turns out to be the fact that's in the bill h.r. 3200. this country's infer been to this place before -- never been to this place before, mr. speaker. we've never seen this level of you a daft and level of a criminal enterprise that's so pervasive tied up into the united states of america and we haven't even gotten to sieu and a number of other affiliates. it is something the american people are going to have to spend a lot of time working at studying and understanding and being outraged about because in the end we can't sustain it here in the house of representatives if we don't have the support outside in america, mr. speaker. i yield to the gentleman from missouri. mr. akin: i am encouraged, gentleman, that it just seems to me in the last six months that many americans, many great patriots, i'm not talking about rich people, i'm talking about just people who love our country, are getting engaged, they're getting energized and asking the question, what can we do? and as they're busy asking those questions, all of this kind of information is coming out and people are understanding that

just as this president said that he was running on a platform of change, that many of us realize that there has to be changes inside us. the changes that you and i in the free enterprise system believe in are the changes that come in our own hearts. the changes of how we're going to run our business differently how we're going to do better for our family. those are the kinds of changes a lot of americans are looking at, not so much the change of big government telling everybody what they're going to do, and some of the change is going to have to be repairing some of the moral infrastructure of our country, a sense of outrage over a system that's gotten out of control. and particularly as good old ronald reagan said, we're buying a lot more government than we can afford. i think there's a lot of americans regardless of their political affiliations that are -- have come to that conclusion, that we're buying more government than we can afford in the order of trillions of

dollars of more government. and i think the time is coming when they're going to -- there are going to have to be some changes here in the floor in terms of -- before we can get the changes we need in policy to rein in a beast that seems to be somewhat out of control and that's the federal government that seems to be more in the business of telling us what to do than to be the servant of the people the way it should be. mr. king: boy, i thank the gentleman from missouri and reclaiming, about eight or nine minutes we have left, heek, -- mr. speaker, i seek to transition this a little bit and take the segue on the government that we can't afford. and address this issue. the president has laid out an argument. the argument is, we have to fix health care before we can fix the economy. the economy is a crisis but it can't be fixed without fixing health care. and when answering the question of what's wrong with health care in america, they came back with two responses, one is, it cost

too much money, the other one is, we have too many uninsured. well costing too much money, we can discuss that. it's about 14.5% of our g.d.p. and in other industrialized countries, by their analysis, it costs about 9.5ports of their g.d.p. i'm not sure we're half again richer than they are, we are richer than they are, and we can afford a little bit more, but we can have that discussion and take a lot of it out if we would simply doer to the reform, buy -- tort reform, full deductibility for health insurance premiums, can deal with some of this. but i want to, mr. speaker, make this point. that those uninsured, that being the biggest situation that is not resolved here by democrats or republicans, democrats want to do socialized medicine, republicans have some other solutions. so i began to ask the question, of the 47 million uninsured, that's their number, not mine, i don't know that it's high or low but you hear lower numbers, not

higher, you take the higher number, this number is supposed to be here. it's not on my chart but i can tell you, this is 47 million. i know that. and as you subtract from this list of those that are uninsured, that in america, you start with the undocumented noncitizens. that's illegals. well, this is a new chart so it doesn't say that things that i remember. i'm going to go off of what i remember and these are number numbers. 5.2 million illegals are part of the 47 million. this number has been four million who are here that have arrived recently there are under the five-year barbie law. these two categories of immigrants, the legal and those disqualified illegals, or excuse me, the illegals and those disqualified legals becomes 10.2 million. this number shows 10 million. those that earn more than $75,000 a year, mr. speaker, they can presumably resolve this out of their own check book. .

americans eligible for the government program but not enrolled, that number is 9.7 million. those americans that are eligible for a government program, but not enrolled. usually medicaid, but didn't sign up. that's this number. we are subtracting from 47 million. those eligible for employer sponsored but didn't sign up. and that is six million. this number here comes down to 12.1 million americans without affordable options. now, we have too many uninsured in america. 47 million, according to the people on this side. 47 million includes all these categories that we don't want to include in a new bill. you are down to 12.1 million people and that's less than 4% of the u.s. population. what's that mean? we are going to solve a problem

by transforming 100% of the health insurance in america and 100% of the health care delivery system in america to try to reduce a 4% number down to something less. now, what is 4%? 12.1 million. that's these people right here. these are the uninsured. this is the whole population of the united states. we are a lively bunch of people in the united states. it's hard to get a handle on us. this is 307 million people. this is the categories in that other pie chart that include the coverage for those eligible by employer in blue. those insurance eligible for government programs, usually medicare, medicaid, in green. the orange are those earning over $75,000. the black, those are legal immigrants that are on the bar.

and the this is the 12.1 right here. this little orange sliver, that's the percentage of the population that we want to address, because they are americans without insurance who do not have affordable options. the proposal is to transform all of the rest of this, the best there is in the world in insurance and delivery of health care in order to reduce this sliver of 4% down to something around maybe 2%. i think einstein would define this thing and if you have a flawed premise, you will have a flaud conclusion. i yield to the gentleman from missouri. mr. akin: i'm not a big fan of pie charts. i love pie, but not pie charts. but this is a good graphic. it did he pictures something which almost defies reason.

if you point to the gene area. that whole green area, we're going to change all of that, we're going to scrap our whole health care system and have it taken over by the government in order to address that little orangeish-red right there. what that suggests to me, somebody has an agenda and more federalizing everything than it is solving a problem and this is something that i find from an integrity point of view really distressing, particularly as an engineer. we just passed the biggest tax increase in the history of our country under the premise that co-2 is a bad thing and we have to tax everybody in order to put a tax co-2. if you are making $250,000 or less, you won't be taxed. what you are going to be taxed

is on flipping on a light switch. all you have to do is take the nuclear power plants, 20% of our electric generation in america, take the 20% and double it. so we have 40% of our electric coming out of nuclear. if you do that, you get rid of all co-2 from every passenger car in the country. we have come up with this complicated, tremendously intrusive huge tax increase when you could say in a page or two, double the number of nuclear. here what you've got is all this about health care, we have to take it over and the government has to do all this stuff and you have 4% of people who are uninsured. it seems like we have made our conclusion ahead of time that we want the government to run everything and our excuse is that little tiny 4% wedge. even i like cherry pie. if all i got is 4%, it isn't

worth it. that's the obvious conclusion of your chart and i appreciate you taking us into the world of free enterprise and what's going on with our federal government. i appreciate your leadership. the gentleman from iowa is a sapet and we are thankful to have good midwestern commonsense values here on the floor of the u.s. congress. mr. king: i reflect upon a pair of auto mechanics that run in my hometown. they have a sign that says complicated, difficult, technical nearly impossible jobs are our specialty, simple jobs are beyond our comprehension. i think that's what we have here. we have taken a simple job and turned it into a complicated, difficult problem and it falls back to the wisdom of congressman tom cole who said one day highly intelligent people will overcomplicate

things. if they didn't, there wouldn't be a particular advantage to being intelligent. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the chair will entertain a motion to adjourn. mr. king: i move that the house do now adjourn. the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motiogr the vote was 312-114. they also began work on a measure that overhauls federal subsidized student loans. that will be completed tomorrow. live coverage of the u.s. house continues when members gavel back and. -- gavels back in.

the latest on the health care debate is coming up next with the finance committee chairman announcing that his plan is ready to be considered by the full committee. you will hear reaction from other senators of both parties. in all little less than an hour, president obama says no decisions have been made in sending more troops to afghanistan. and after that, fbi director robert mahler testifies on capitol hill about their role in fighting terrorism. >> in 1971, as a new york times reporter, he obtained a top- secret pentagon papers. 18 years later, still writing about the vietnam war, he won a pulitzer prize. this weekend he will discuss his latest, a fiery peace in the cold war. "q&a," sunday night on c-span. >> senate finance committee max

baucus has released his version of the health care -- health care bill after weeks of negotiations with a group of three republicans in two other democrats. the bill will go to the full finance committee. we will hear details of the plan from senator baucus and reaction from other senators, both democrat and republican. >> welcome, everybody. our health-care system is simply unsustainable. it is breaking the bank for everyone. families, businesses, governments. millions of americans today simply cannot afford quality health insurance. in fact, in the past day, another 17,000 people lost coverage. more small businesses cut

benefits because they are simply too expensive. more americans filed for bankruptcy because of high medical bills. that is why it is time to act. that is why this is our moment in history. this is our chance to reform health care in america. we cannot let this opportunity pass. last week, president obama laid out what he believes are the key criteria for reform. it's to provide more security and stability with those with health insurance today. it should expand coverage to those who do not. it should slow the growth of health-care costs. and it should keep insurance companies honest. the chairman's mark i am releasing today delivers on these critical reforms. it delivers on and vision for meaningful health care reform.

-- it delivers on the vision for meaningful health care reform. it meets the criteria and could achieve our common goals for health care reform. it reflects months of work, and more than a year of preparation by our committee. it represents an effort to reach common ground and a real chance for health care reform. and it is balanced, a common sense bill that can pass the senate. achieving real reform means that we need to hold insurance companies accountable, and that is why we are presenting this package and that is exactly what this package does. the report -- it provides competitions to hold insurance companies accountable and ensures that americans have real choice when they buy insurance.

every american can fine quality, affordable coverage that cannot be taken away. it protect those with pre- existing conditions, very important. it forbids insurance companies from discriminating and capping coverage. and it requires insurance companies to sell and renew a policy to anyone who applies, so long as the policyholder pays their premium. our package makes clear that if you like your doctor and health can -- health care plan today, you can keep them. it delivers affordable coverage to tens of millions of americans and reduce costs and expand options for millions more. it increases the focus on prevention and wellness and begins to shift the focus of our health care delivery system toward the quality of care provided, not quantity of services provided. it protect medicare. it makes the medicare program stronger to ensure future

generations can benefit. for seniors, it lowers prescription drug costs dramatically. for small businesses, it establishes a new marketplace the helpmate benefits affordable again. in fact, the congressional budget office estimates that our reforms will significantly reduce the costs for individuals and groups policies. for the uninsured, are packaged guarantees immediate access to quality, affordable coverage. -- our package guarantees immediate access to affordable coverage. we have done everything imaginable to get the most generous, most affordable coverage that we could within president obama target of $90 million -- $90 billion. there are hon. differences among all of us, and this package may not represent all of our first

choices, but at the end of the day we all share a common purpose, that is, to make the lives of americans better tomorrow than they are today and to get health care reform done. this means the time for action is now. and we will act to pass reform this year. we will do our part to control costs and we will do our part to work closely with president obama to delivering health care reform for the american people. all afford to the efforts of the colleagues on my committee. i also look forward to working with peter reid and chairman harkin and the rest of my colleagues so that we can merge our bills quickly with theirs. this is a good bill. this is a balanced bill. it can pass the senate.

and i look for to making sure that we have an even better bill that passes with even a larger margin. thank you. dollars you spend so many months in a room -- >> dispense some many months and around with others and you ashley delayed this because you wanted to work with these republicans, and you are now standing here alone and they are not ready to support this. how disappointed are you, and you honestly think that you will get republicans on this? >> i believe that i have an obligation to work as diligently to try to get the most broad base possible. after all, the american people want us in washington to work together, republicans and democrats. they did not like all the partisanship that is going on. i also think a bipartisan approach is more durable and sustainable. i have worked very hard to try

to get that bipartisan support. and i think that we will get it. certainly by the time the finance committee in this room votes on final passage for health care reform, there will be republican support. no republican has offered his or her support yet, but by that time we get the final passage in this committee, if you will find republican support. this is a bill that should enjoy broad support. it is common sense, it is a balanced bill, and i think this bill -- i know that this bill will pass. it is certainly build can pass and a choice now is up to those on the other side of the aisle, if they want to vote for it are not. we have worked very hard to make his balance and that is what i think it comes down to. -- we have worked very hard to make this unbalanced and i think that is what it comes down to.

-- we have worked very hard to make this balanced and i think that is what it comes down to it. there is no doubt that we will address this. those are separate issues. it is what medicare pays to providers and doctors. we will find a way to deal with it. that is not going to be an issue. we will find a way. >> several democratic members say they have grave concerns about this and then you have made too many concessions to republicans. how concerned are you that you may not have enough democrats on your committee to vote for this bill? >> there is no doubt in my mind that this is a very balanced bill. i have talked to democrats, i

have talked to republicans about this bill, just intensively and i can tell you that those conversations, there are some who think i have not gone far enough. there are some on both sides of the aisle that think i have gone too far. this is within the framework the president obama outlined in his state of the union address. it is very similar to what he suggested, and again, some think too much, something too little, and i think i have come up with a good balanced bill that will pass the senate. this is just the early stage. there will be amendments offered, there is no doubt about that. and i expect some pretty good amendments, amendments that i would support. then we will merge with the help committee. there are a lot of opportunities, but to stay within the confines of under

$900 billion and tried to find a balanced approach, i think that this is a very good beginning. [inaudible] >> some concerns about the bill, taxes on benefits for health benefits -- cadillac tax. can you tell us how that came about? dollar>> we have supported some version of this sense they have

been pushing the measure. it is basically a tax, frankly, on insurance companies. i think it's appropriate to get the fat out of that insurance companies. my bill focuses on those who have profited the most, and i think that they should be part of the solution. actually not to get too deep into the weeds, but the congressional budget office said that the net result of this would be a significant change in the way companies and their insurance companies provide benefits to employees, namely, a consequence that wages would be increased, and that would increase taxable income of employees. they therefore give a a positive

scoring. it is also designed -- i am glad you asked a question -- thank you very much -- is helping the been the cost curve. -- is helping to bend the cost curve. >> [inaudible] >> no exact estimate, but it has been foremost in my mind. we do not want the cover to get too low. if coverage gets too low, then we start to no longer have the benefits of universal coverage. to many people -- too many people -- that help the, the young, you get this death spiral phenomenon it covers is to love. the more coverage is up, the

more that that will help assure lower premiums. i do not know it -- i do not have the precise number right now. it is in the mid nineties. it is a great concern of mine is a point i will be focused on throughout our committee as we pass health care reform. dollars u.s. said it to not want americans to lose their coverage. people who have it can keep it. why don't you have a stronger employer mandate? it sounds like it would be cheaper for them to take the tax credit. >> it's an effort to be balanced again. i decided that it made more sense not to have actual mandate, but for employer who does not provide coverage, they will have to pay a penalty for not providing coverage.

it discourages employers from dropping coverage. its $400 for all employees. or it is a tax credit per employee than employer may otherwise drop. this is another example of the difficulty in trying to find the right balance here. on the one hand, we want to keep our employer-based system and employers continue to provide coverage for their employees. on the other hand, we have got to make sure that insurance is not too onerous for employees and that employers are not too easily dropping coverage. china find that penalty in the right balance, so as not to reduce coverage very much. >> what kind of support for the expansion of the provisions?

>> i think frankly that this is pretty much resolved. the medicare expansion. -- the medicaid expansion. we took several conference calls, agrippa 6, and on the conference call yesterday, maybe a dozen governors, bipartisan, explaining what the net result would be to governors with an expansion of medicaid. essentially, when you factor in the rates that of assam is going to pay -- that local sam is going to pay -- that all sam -- uncle sam is going to pay, when you factor in chip flexibility that states will have, and some

other provisions -- on and net basis throughout the country, states will say, according to the most recent calculations, 0.89% increase in the state medicaid obligation over the baseline, other than what they would otherwise pay. i can take a few more questions. sorry? [inaudible] >> anything that would affect physician payment in medicaid? >> well, a key point here clearly is delivery system reform. that is a key point of this bill, and regrettably in my judgment as has been lost in most national debate on health care reform. we have to begin to change the

way that we are compensating providers in medicare and medicaid. away from paying on the basis of quantity and volume, more toward paying on the basis of value and outcomes. the more we can move down that road and the more quickly we can move down that road, the more quickly we're going to not only reduce costs -- an extremely but important point -- but it also improves quality. i want to underline that last point. it will improve quality. look at all the integrated and systems in our country. most folks know that this is the right approach and what we should be doing in health care today. it's cleveland, it's mail, and other clinics, where they are integrated -- the hospital and physicians and in some cases

opposed providers. they are finding that the quality is increasing significantly. the costs are lower. we're building incentives in this bill to help groups developed integrated systems. this is going to take time and not be accomplished overnight. but i do believe firmly that this is probably the most transformative, game changing provision here. it will start to lower health- care costs and then the cost curve. there are other provisions that will help that, but the underlying delivery system reforms is so critical for our country. >> when it comes to the effort to get bipartisan support, what realistically do you think you need to do in terms of actual policy changes to get republicans on board with this? >> i just think it is continuing to talk and work with, sparring,

probing, cajoling, just being created about it. this is probably one of the largest pieces of social legislation in american history since the depression. it affects everybody in our country. it affects everybody in many different ways. it if concept -- it is comprehensive and complex. it just takes time to fully fathom, but the pieces together, to understand, and then make a suggestion to make a better. i also believe as firmly that we have a moral obligation as americans to pass meaningful health care reform this year. all of us here are not going to be here forever. we have a moral obligation, when we leave this place, to leave it in better shape than we found it. each of us in this room and in this country has that moral obligation. this is our opportunity in our

month to help fulfill bad moral obligations for our kids and our grandkids to have something better that we now have. all of the cost of inaction, they are just horrendous. we have got to get going. and you know what? most everybody has some sense that we need to do that. i think our colleagues -- they'd understand that, too. this has a certain sense of inevitability, and with that more and more people will say, first of all, it might be the right thing to do to make this effort, and probably this is not too far off the track from what we need to do, so let me work with that and see what i can do to make it better. i firmly believe as i have said many times, at the end of the day there will be republican support for this bill. >> that is actually policy changes? >> i will. it is interesting.

i have said this several times. we have debated this -- we have met over 100 hours. i forgot what the total is. there are no real policy deal breakers. it is just getting more comfortable with what all of this is. i think that is what this comes down to, helping with, working with that, helping senators and the country been more comfortable with what all this is. we need to explain this with greater clarity said that people will have better understanding, and they will have a higher comfort level. there are millions of americans today who do not have health insurance. just think of that. we're going to provide the opportunity for all americans to have health insurance. there are millions of americans

-- pre-existing conditions, denial on basis of health status, no limit on out-of- pocket costs, recisions, companies put limits on coverage, how many dollars they will pay out. we are stopping all of that. just think of that for a moment. it is so important. that is why i do think that at the end of the day, we would get by -- significant bipartisan support and we're going to pass this. thank you so much, everybody. five [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

mr. mcconnell: mr. president, the debate over health care continues to be a top concern for most americans, but it's important to realize that this debate isn't taking place in a vacuum. it's taking place in the context of a nation that's increasingly concerned about the size and the scope of government. over the past year americans have seen the government take over automakers and insurance companies. they've seen government spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out banks and other financial institutions. they've seen government run up unprecedented debt. and now they see the government trying to take over health care. if the white house wants an explanation for all the unrest it's witnessing across the country, to all the worry and concerns that americans have about its health care plan, this is a crucial piece. democrats in washington may see all these government programs

and interventions as separate, individual events. but to most americans who are weathering a recession, it seems like every time they pick up the newspaper or turn on the television, democrats in washington are pushing another $1 trillion bill or calling for more spending, more taxes and more debt. that's why people are becoming more vocal, and that's why they have been delivering a consistent message for weeks: no more government take overs, no more spending money we don't have, no more tax increases, and no more debt. americans are concerned about a government running their lives and ruining their livelihoods, and they don't get the sense that either the administration or democrats on capitol hill are listening. nowhere is this disconnect between the people and the politicians in washington more apparent than in the debate over

health care. americans don't think a bigger role for the government in health care would improve the system. yet, despite this, every single proposal we've seen would lead to a vast expansion of the government's role in the health care system. it's not that the democrats in congress don't sense the public's unease about a new government plan for health care. i think they do. the primary reason some of them are backing away from proposals that include it. what some americans don't realize, however, is that even without a government plan -- even without a government plan -- the health care plans democrats are proposing would still vastly, vastly expand the government's role in our health care. and that's what i'd like to discuss in a little more detail this morning. let me list just a few examples of how government's role in health care would expand even without -- even without -- a

government-run plan. even without a government plan, the proposals we've seen would force employers to pay a tax if they can't afford insurance for their employees. employers have warned that this provision would kill jobs. at a time when the nation's unemployment rate stands at a 25-year high of 9.7%, we should help businesses create jobs, not kill them. even without a government plan, these proposals would require all americans to choose only from health insurance plans with standards set by the government and would let government bureaucrats dictate what benefits are available to families. on this point, americans have been equally clear. people want more choice and competition in the health care market so they can pick a plan that would work for their family, not one dictated by

politicians here in washington. yet, even without a government plan, that's what they'd get under the proposals we've seen. anyone who saw any of the town hall meetings last month know that this idea is about as popular as chicken pox. even without a government plan, these health care proposals would require states -- states -- to expand their medicaid program, something the senator from tennessee, who is here on the floor, has spoken about frequently. governors from both political parties have expressed serious concerns about the effect this particular proposal would have on their state budgets. they think these kinds of decisions should be left up to them -- the states -- not the federal government. and, frankly, so do most americans. even without a government plan, these health care proposals would impose new taxes on small businesses and on individuals.

under the house bill, for example, taxes on some small businesses could rise as high as roughly 45%, a rate that's approximately 30% higher than the rate for big corporations. under the same house bill, the average combined federal and state top tax rate for some individuals would be about 52%. more than half of their paychecks. finally, the president has said that his plan won't require any americans to give up the health insurance they have and like. well, what about the 11 million seniors who are currently enrolled in medicare advantage? nearly 90% of whom say they're satisfied with it. this program has given seniors more options and more choices when it comes to their health care. yet, under the administration's plan, the government would make massive cuts to medicare advantage, forcing some seniors

off this plan that so many of them have and like. when it comes to medicare advantage, democratic rhetoric just doesn't square with reality. let me sum it up. while getting rid of the government plan would be a good start, the democratic bills we've seen would still grant the government far, far too much control over the health care system. over the past few months americans have been saying they have had enough of spending, enough of debt and enough of government expansion. how are the democrats here in washington responding? by trying to rush through another trillion-dollar bill that americans don't even want and can't afford. the american people do want health care reform, not with more government but with less. they don't want a new government-run system. they want us to repair the system we've got.

on all of these points, the american people are sending a clear and persistent message. it is time we in congress started to listen. mr. pr mr. alexander: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee is recognized. mr. alexander: thank you. i congratulate the republican leader, the senator from kentucky, on his remarks. he made it very clear that we on the republican side of the aisle want health care reform, but our definition of that is a little different from that on the other side of the aisle. we want health care reform that reduces costs, costs to the american people when they buy health insurance, and costs of the government of the american people. and we do not want more debt and another washington takeover, which we're seeing so much of these days. president obama said in his address to us that he will -- quote -- "not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits either now or in the future. period." that's good. and as david brooks wrote in "the new york times" this past

friday, "this sound bite of the president kills the house health care bill," because the house health care bill would add $220 billion to the deficit over the first ten years of its operation and another $1 trillion over the next ten years after that. the president's sound bite about the deficit would effectively knock out the bill passed by the senate health committee as well, because according to a letter from the congressional budget office to the ranking member of the senate health committee, senator enzi of wyoming, -- quote -- "the ten-year cost of the coverage expansion of that bill to the federal government, including such a change in medicaid eligibility, would probably exceed $1 trillion." so that's off the table. and there appears to be growing bipartisan concern about a health care bill that might add to the debt.

senator warner of virginia said on monday -- quote -- "my feeling is, health care reform can't just be paid for in a 10-year window. it has to be paid for in the out years as well." that's washingtonspeak for over the long-term. he says, "this is so much bigger than health care. it goes to the deficit t goes right to the heart of our competitiveness." that's senator warner of virginia. i couldn't agree more. all of the health care reform bills produced so far by the democratic congress, either in the senate or in the house, flunk the first test, which is reducing cost, cost to the american people and cost to the american government. in july, the congressional budget office director, douglas elmendorf, said the house bill and the senate health bill did not -- quote -- "propose the fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the

trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount." unquote. additionally, the congressional budget office has indicated that the house bill would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $230 billion over ten years. this likely is a low-ball estimate because it assumes that congress will increase taxes by $583 billion over the next 10 years. so, mr. president, if we're going to implement health care reform without increasing our debt, how are we going to pay for it? who is going to pay for it, is the more precise question. here are some of the answers that have been proposed so far by the democratic side of the aisle. number one: grandma's medicare is going to pay for it. the bills and the president's own plan, which we've yet to see the details of, propose -- quote -- "medicare savings," nice words for "medicare cuts."

if there really is a $5 billio00 billion savings to be found in medicare, we should use it to keep medicare solvent because the trustees of medicare say we are now spending at such a rapid rate that we'll run out of money for medicare by 2017. we should not use medicare cuts to pay for a new medicare -- to pay for a new government program. we should use any medicare savings to make medicare stronger. now, the second way to pay the bill -- for these bills that we've been seeing in the house and senate -- is to shift the cost to the states. this is done by expanding the medicaid program, which is the largest government-run program we have today. almost 60 million americans, low-income americans, have their health care from the medicaid

program, which is paid for -- about 60% by the federal government and about 40% by the states. the plans we've been hearing about have the federal government expanding medicare -- medicaid coverage. this is the state plan i was talking about. expanding medicaid coverage from 60 million to 80 million or 90 million people. and after a few years asking the states to pick up their additional share of the cost of that expansion. according to the national governors' association, expanding medicaid to 133% of the federal poverty level would cost the states an additional $331 billion a year. and although details are still lacking -- we may find out more today about the proposals from the senate finance committee -- the governor of tennessee, the democratic governor bresden,

said on friday that he's concerned about the plan being proposed by senator baucus and that his guess was that it might cost our state as much as $600 million to $700 million per year. now, mr. president, in wa in tennessee that as a lot of money. we had out fight on what avenues state income tax. we do not now have one. our former governor did not succeed on that. he even got upset about that. that would have only raised $400 million. this is an increase of $600 million to 700 may and dollars that would be shifted to the states after a few years. and that is not all. since states only reimbursed doctors and hospitals for about 60% of their cost of serving the 60 million patients on medicaid, the expansion proposals of medicaid also

require states to increase reimbursements to doctors and hospitals. increasing reimbursement to doctors and hospitals would basically double the increase to cost to states. so you can see why earlier in the debate, many of the governor's, including many of the democratic governors of this country, objected to this proposal. brennerson called those proposals "the mother of all unfunded mandates." we know where that leads? that is, higher state taxes. in addition to cutting medicare and increasing state taxes by expanding medicaid, the bills we have seen ask small businesses to help pay the bill through employer mandates and fines. under the senate "help" committee bill, for example, firms with more than 25 workers would have to pay the full tax.

the congressional budget office said this would raise $52 billion over ten years. the house bill would impose over $200 billion in fines on businesses who can't afford to do that. and there's another consequence to that. we have often heard the president say, well, if you like your health care plan, you can keep it. but what he doesn't go on to say is that we create this government plan and if we require employers to pay $750 per employee and $375 for part-time employees, many employers are going to look at that and say, it is much cheaper for me to pay $750 or $375 for an employee, so i will just pay the government a fine and let the government plan offer health care to my employees. so it's estimated by most groups that have looked at the plans we

have seen, is that the combination of a government plan and an employer tax will result in millions of americans losing their employer-provided health insurance. then there's one other way of paying for the bill. that's just to tax people who have health care insurance. that's why governor rockefeller, a democratic senator from west virginia, is quoted as saying today that the bill coming out of the finance committee, which we really haven't seen yet, has a big, big tax, according to governor rockefeller -- senator rockefeller on coal miners, on the middle class. so we're barking up the wrong tree, mr. president. this debate health care should be about reducing cost. that should be the first goal of what we mean when we say the words "health care reform." reducing the cost to individuals

and families and small businesses who are buying health care plans and paying for insurance. that's 250 million individuals in the country today. and reducing the cost to the government in higher health care spending. that is why republicans have suggested that we should start over. a lot of good work has been done. a great many of us understand much better this complex subject we're dealing with. there's no embarrassment in saying we've gotten to this point. we're headed in the wrong direction. the mayo clinic, the democratic governors, the congressional budget office, the millions of americans in town meetings are sarge a headed in the -- are saying you're headed in the wrong direction. we say, okay, let's start over. and how should we start over? instead of passing 1,000-page bills that add to the debt and increase costs, we should work step by step to reira reearn tht of the american people. the era of 1,000-page bills is

over. smaller steps in the right direction is still a very good way to get to where we want to go. and there are some steps we can take, some things we can do to lower costs. for example, allowing small businesses to pool and reduce health care costs by putting their resources together would increase accessibility for small business owners, unions, associations, and their workers, members, and families to health care. this legislation has already been considered in the senate and the 0 house. iters a nearlit's nearly ready to pass. estimates are that passio passia small business health insurance plan would allow them to offer coverage to a million more americans. number two, reform medical malpractice laws so runaway junk lawsuits don't continue to drive up the cost of health care.

the president mentioned that the other night in his remarks. i congratulate him for that, but we should do even more than he suggested. we have 95 counties in tennessee, and in 60 of them we don't have an ob-gyn doctor because they won't practice there anymore. their medical malpractice insurance premiums are too high. over $100,000. and so pregnant women have to drive a long ways, to memphis, to nashville, other big cities, for their prenatal health care or to have their babies. that's a way to lower costs. reduce junk lawsuits. there's some disagreement about how much cost that saves. but there's no disagreement that junk lawsuits contribute to higher medical costs. number three, allow individual americans the ability to purchase health insurance across state lines. as a former governor, i jealously protect the states' rights. i like for states to have

responsibilities, but i think in terms of health care that we should allow more purchase of policies across state lines, just as people do with car insurance today. there is a third way to take a step toward health care reform that actually begins to lower cost. fourth, we don't have to pass a new bill in order to e insure me americans. about 20% of the uninsured americans, maybe 10 million or 11 million, are already eligible for existing programs such as medicaid and the children's health insurance program. they're not enrolled. we should sign them up. number five, we could create health insurance exchanges. i hear that from the democratic side. i hear it from the republican side. these are marketplaces in each state so that individuals and businesses can shop around and find a cheaper and better source of health insurance. then all of us have talked about encouraging health information

technology, which the general accounting office has said -- quote -- "can improve the efficiency and quality of medical care and results in cost savings" -- unquote. so, i have suggested six areas here that we could work on together to reduce cost. mr. president, we have forgotten in this health care debate what we set out to do. the first goal of health care reform is to reduce cost. the cost of health care to americans, to american businesses, and the cost to americans of their government, which is spiraling out of control in debt because of the cost of health care. we are spending 17% of everything we produce in this country, and we produce 25% of all the wealth in the world year in and year out, on health care -- twice as much on health care as a percentage as most industrialized countries.

if we don't reduce cost, we will bankrupt the government and make health care unaffordable for most americans. so, mr. president, the president of the united states was right to say that he'll not sign a bill that increases the deficit, since that eliminates all of the legislation that the democratic congress has produced so far, i hope that we will now take republican advice and start over and get it right. and a good way to begin would be for the president to send us a health care reform bill that not only doesn't add to the debt but that begins step by step to reduce cost to the american people and to the american government and by taking those steps we can reearn the trust of the american people. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor, and

>> you have more questions for me. [inaudible] i was with the president and then i was along with the president. -- i was alone with the president. for someone that i try so much and like so much and want to see succeed so much. it not reflect itself in the west virginia but it but it did in my heart. i cannot going to the details, but when i say the word constructive, you can see that as a brushoff state department thing or you can say that it was. i think that we're reaching out to each other. there are certain things that i talked about which are important had happened. -- to have happen. he has got to get out of committee.

>> we saw your statement. >> we'll be talking but i will not here. just because -- just because we agreed that that i can come to the press, but whatever went on there is not to be spoken of. [inaudible] >> can you tell us what you do not specifically like about the box is no? >> i would not like to talk about that there. -- talk about that here. [unintelligible] i am a free talker elsewhere. >> de expect republicans to support this? >> note, and i think that is one of the great and written stories. it is not such and yet, but the republicans and never supported anything. i have been health care for 35

years, really since i was an abyss of volunteer in 1964. -- a vista volunteer in 1964. i've never seen them support anything. we went through the summer of working it out somehow, but we have a maximum possibility of reforming health care. >> were there anyone else -- was there anyone else meeting with the president and you? >> no. i will certainly make the average. one of the things that is important about the public option, people hear the word public and say, a government takeover. actually the government does not do anything. it has a subsist on its own premiums. it has to succeed as a private

entity. adam smith would have been pleased by it. but it is not that i am just for that, but when you look at the alternatives, there has got to be some discipline to other insurance companies that makes them take seriously not just competing with each other but with competing someone, because they do not have marble headquarters and don't have to report a wall street that don't have to please their shareholders because they do not have any, they can offer premiums at lower prices. with that but the private insurance industry at a business? of course not. most americans basically like what they have died. they do not want to jump and the president has said that maximum of 5% would get into the public option if it passes. yes, i wanted to pass but if it

does not, i wanted to be an alternative. and so far that is not certain. >> as the president indicated how closely he would like the ultimate plan to merit of finance committee plan? did he talk about that question are dollars can we talk off- camera? nope. -- did he talk about that? >> can we talk off-camera? no. [inaudible] [inaudible]

nothing interesting here, folks. as you get closer to the casting of votes, people get much more serious. it is easy to make speeches, passionate speeches, many commitments in june and july and august, but when it comes down to next week, putting up amendments and going for a vote, yes or no, and then there will be more. the atmosphere changes in the process becomes more fluid. .

they are going to the same process. during the summer you can pretty much say what you one. now is talking about real things the >> do you think there is a chance of getting through on a regular order? will there be some sort of reconciliation? >> i hope. >> from what we can tell, there are not too many surprises. he does it tend to extend coverage to the uninsured. he does report a bill that this deficit neutral over the first 10-years ago he is under $1 trillion. it does include non-profit

health insurance cooperatives not a public insurance option or plan. it does include a number of insurance reforms such as outlawing insurance companies from excluding coverage is some pre-existing conditions and things of that nature. well we will continue to get more into the policy, there will be a lot more on this when the bill is marked up next week. it does not look that far off from what we have come to expect over the past week or so. but after the week's end months of negotiations, why won't the gang of six support the bill? >> the bill is considered by them to not be complete the finish. they do not have complete and final congressional budget office scoring. they do not have complete and final legislative language of some sort that even obliviousness was saying --

olympia snowe was saying on tuesday that she wanted to see it before she signed on to something. you have that aspect of it. i also think that ultimately the compromises that the chairman baucus was actively trying to make just were not enough to bring on the support of senator grassley and senator in sleep. this is not about the game of six. it was about coming up with a bill that could get back the broader finance committee, never mind the republicans. where chairman bacchus may have had to go to get enie and grassley on board would have alienated 11 democrats on the finance committee. senator rockefeller announced is not on to vote for the bill in its current form. he cannot do so. he is chairman of the subcommittee. >> what are his concerns on the bill?

>> a key concern is that there is no government run planner public insurance option. he sees that as very important in terms of adequately reforming insurance industry. he is also worried that the middle class is one to be stuck with tax increases to pay for this in the form it is in the finance committee. he just does not like it. i think there are a lot of democrats on the committee that has similar concerns and a health care want. the health insurance mandates and everybody buys health insurance and most people in those states are forced to buy a car insurance. this mandate will be too expensive for middle-class families. >> how this is it worked out politically before the health and finance committee? the use a product on the senate floor? >> the finance bill is going to

pass out a committee. now it is on to a merger with the health bill. it had the public insurance option. the finance committee does not. the health bill is more expensive than the finance bill. harry reid is willing to take the lead in trying to meld these two products together with struck in but from tom harkin who took over for the late senator ted kennedy. the loss of that input from the max baucus and the white house. -- he will also get input from max baucus and the white house. right now it is unclear as to exactly he manages the murder. >-- merger. >> thank you for joining us. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> of the health care bill would establish co-ops consider a so- called public option, offer tax

credits for small businesses and low-income individuals to help them buy insurance, expand medicaid eligibility, and have a total cost of $856 billion. the finance committee is scheduled to begin working on the bill next tuesday. you can read the draft of the bill online at c-span.org. in a few moments, president obama says no decisions have been made on sending more troops to the afghanistan. in about 50 minutes, fbi director robert mueller testified about the bureau's role in fighting terrorism. after that, and look at the health care options available to the low-income population.

on washington journal tomorrow, we will be joined by the co- chairman of the progressive caucus, raul gijalva. the president of the american enterprise institute, arthur burks, offers this assessment of the obama administration. you can call in to representative jim bishop, a member of the education and labor committee. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern frn. a couple of live events tomorrow. the senate foreign relations committee will focus on afghanistan one of the witnesses will be retired general john pratique -- craddock. at 2:00 p.m. eastern, a house

committee continues its look at private insurance companies bill when this is include executives of the six largest health insurance companies but a -- witnesses include executives of the six largest health insurance companies. president obama says no decisions have been made about sending more troops to let afghanistan. that decision he says will be met after strategy deliberations. no comment came after meeting with stephen harper. this is 15 minutes. >> we have just had an excellent conversation. -- reiterating the bond and relationship between the american and canadian people. we discussed both our bilateral relationships on issues of energy, our borders, issues of

trade, and how we can continue to strengthen the already excellent relations that we have. we also discussed international issues. we have been part joining with canada -- been partnering with kennedy on improving the global economy. we both agreed that although we are not out of the woods yet, that we are seeing signs of stability and both candidates are on a path to a positive economic growth. we agree that quarter nation needs to continue at the international level. we are looking for to the g 20 were we can discuss how to sustain efforts -- 20gg-20 where we can discuss how to sustain effort. we had discussions about the

international threats that continue to exist out there. we discussed climate change and preparations for the cook and hang it -- the code and hang it -- preparations for the copenhagen conference. overall, i want to publicly thank prime minister harper for being and that standing -- an outstanding partner to the united states. we appreciate his work. we very much appreciate the canadian people. we are looking for to seeing them next week in the united nations context and the other. >> we discussed three major

subjects. first of all, the economy, the recovery is happening, but it is fragile we really must redouble our efforts to apply stimulus measures to get those out to the door. we want to make sure we continue to fix and snatched the problems of financial institutions. -- to fix financially the problems of the financial institutions it is an important message for everyone. we are looking forward to the d 20. i think we will have useful meetings there. we discussed some of these irritants that arise in our trade relationship, for chilly and the question of the charter flights -- particularly the question of the charter flights. we think we are very close to resolving that. i think we have a tentative

agreement in principle. we are working to finalize that in the next few days. we discussed energy security and climate change. i remind all our american friends that canada is by far the largest supplier of energy to the united states. we are determined to be a continental partner in dealing with the joint problems of climate change and energy security. our two ministers have provided us with a report on the clean energy dialogue which shows some great progress in identifying areas of joint action. think the next step would be specific projects the we can pursue. today can in a dead -- to the canada is introducing a line in the british columbia which has the capacity to be more integrated in in north america

'sm hydroelectric system. we would discuss international security as the president mentioned. there is a great challenge in iran. there is also a challenge in afghanistan. we have a joint mission there pitta we have welcomed the renewed -- mission there. we have welcomed the united states in that country. we always value in joint cooperation with the united states on defense and security matters. our two militaries are working tremendously in afghanistan. we look forward to that. >> at this point our nato forces winning the war in afghanistan? >> i think that's what is clear

is that we had lacked as clear of a strategy and a mission as is necessary in order to meet our overriding objective, which is to dismantle and disrupt and destroy al qaeda and prevented from being able to predict violence against the united states allies like canada are operating around the world. when i came in, i had to make a series of immediate decisions about sending additional troops to ensure that the election could take place during the fighting season, but i was crystal clear at the time that post-election we are going to

need to do an additional assessment. the general has carried out his own assessment on the military strategy, but it is important we do an assessment also on the civilian side, and diplomatic side, that we analyze the results of the elections and make further decisions moving forward. my determination is to get this right. that means broad consultation, not only in the u.s. government but also with our nato allies and partners. i am going to take a very deliberate process in making those decisions. i just want to be absolutely clear, because there is a lot of discussion about this, that there is no immediate decision pending on resources, because

one of the things i am clear about is you have to get the strategy right and then make a determination about resources. you do not make determinations about resources or about sending young men and women into battle without having at least clarity about what the strategy is going to be. where one to proceed and make sure that we do not put the cart before the horse. >> very quickly, i want to try to answer that directly been built i do not think notwithstanding the continued problems in many parts of the country, the fierce efforts of the insurgency, i do not think the taliban constitutes an alternative government or immediate threat to replace in the government. in that sense, we can see the

progress that has been made. we are obviously concerned about the strength of the insurgency. we welcome the renewed american effort and effort of some nato countries. our emphasis in canada for some now predict some time now has really been the necessity -- canada for some time has really been the necessity of seeing the government handing greater responsibility for the security of that country. afghanistan is a very beautiful or difficult country. all of our military's have donea tremendous job moving the ball forward. in the end, we have to be clear that the security and sovereignty of afghanistan can only be done by afghans themselves. whatever we do on both sides of the border and with our nato partners have to have that as a

long-term objective. >eric? >> [inaudible] canada and other nato allies have deadlines to leave afghanistan. read the u.s. will be left -- the u.s. will be left. [inaudible] u.s. protectionism is hurting. [inaudible] >> @ aneesh start with afghanistan. i will reiterate what i said

earlier. we are in the process of making a strategy -- a series of strategic decisions that will be sustainable and will be doing so in close consultation with our allies and our partners. we are tremendously grateful for the extraordinary sacrifices of the canadian military. they have fought. they have had staying power. they have absorber losses that we all agree before. i am not worried -- they have absorbed losses that we have all grieved for. i'm not worried about what will happen post 2011. i want to make sure that given the amendments that have already been made in that are continuing, that we make sure that the canadian present fit

into a coherent whole. our goals are to eliminate al qaeda as a threat and it is important to recognize that ultimately afghan security has to transition onto the shoulders of afghan -- the afghan government and security forces. the degree to which we are training them is something that i am certain will be part of many long-term strategies. on the economic front, the issue of american stimulus package, i'm glad to hear the canadians see this as -- the recovery package as being so significant.

the provisions that were there, we made sure that they were wto compliant. that does not mean there was not a source of contention. prime minister harper has brought this up with me every time we have met. he has been on the job on this issue. our teams have been working together. it appears that there may be ways to deal with this by latterly and potentially multilaterally. it is my understanding that [unintelligible] that might be one solution. in addition, we are pursuing on a bilateral trek efforts to make

sure that these tensions diminish. i do want to keep things in perspective. u.s./canadian trade continues to be robust. canada continues to be a huge trading partner to the united states. businesses in the united states and canada benefit from that trade, including consumers. these are legitimate issues that have to be raised. i think it is important to understand that on the scale of our trading relationship, and these should not be considered the dominant element of our economic relationship. >> first of all on afghanistan, i think it is important to

rephrase your question. canada is not leaving afghanistan. will be transitioning to a civilian he meant tearing development -- -- we will be transitioning to a civilian humanitarian development. that is in place. we've had a robust engagement for some time. we have increased their troop levels as a consequence of that. you heard what i said earlier. what is essential is that what ever we and nato are doing, and we make sure that the country can stand on its own 2 feet, particularly on the securities side where they have their primary response ability. -- responsibility. the president indicated we have negotiators who were looking at a range of options. we talked about some of those today.

we will be getting more detailed directions. i grew president. we should not lose the horse before the tray. i would emphasize that it is critical at a time where we are trying to see a recovery in the global economy. protectionism is a significant threat. we continue to demonstrate to the world that canada and united states can manage relations in a way that is extremely positive. >> in a few moments, fbi director testified on capitol hill about the bureau's role in fighting terrorism. in a couple of hours, and look at the health care options available for the low-income population.

after that, at the latest on the health-care debate, senator max baucus announced his plan today. you will hear his briefing with reporters and reactions from republican senators. >> on "washington journal" we will be joined by the co- chairman of the progressive caucus, raul gijalva. arthur brooks offers this assessment of the obama administration. we will take your questions about a bill on how student loans are administered. you can call into representative tim ambitious. "washington journal" is live on c-span every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. >> this weekend, the best- selling author of "into the wild" on his latest.

he was killed by friendly fire in afghanistan five years ago. it is part of book tv weekend. >> robert mueller told the committee that the fbi needs to be involved in surgeon interrogations' in iraq. he testified for two hours. >> i always hate to wrest the

photographers. if i do this wrong i always hear about it at family gatherings. the photographers know what i'm talking about. today we hold our second hearing. we welcome. ue -- we welcome robert muel ler to the committee. alice singing to him before we started the day i was saying to him before restarted there is a briefing underway on afghanistan. [unintelligible] senator grassley is here. he will probably rather be here than the finance meeting. i appreciate his dedication to working with congress to ensure the fbi can effectively pursue its critical missions on

national security while maintaining the values and freedoms that define us as americans. last month, general holder announced a heightened role for the fbi with the formation of a detainee interrogation group. they will integrate the most dangerous -- interrogate the most dangerous suspects. [inaudible] i have talked with attorney general holder about this. i understand the internal debate that went on on this matter. it is being created to improve the ability of the the night is state's ability to interpret terrorists -- interrogate

terrorist effectively. i think it is a welcome signal the administration has house it within the fbi. the fbi has a long history of proven success in interrogation without resorting to extreme methods that violate our laws and values. in march, i noted his important statement commemorating the hundredth anniversary of the fbi. i have a copy of that and put it in the congressional record. the director said it is not enough to stop the terrorists, we have to stop the while maintaining the civil liberty. it is not enough to catch the terminal, we must catch them while they are disrespecting the civil rights.

the rule of law -- these are not our burdens bedewed they are what make us better. they are what have made is better for the last 800 years. during the past few years, audit provisions brought to light issues of certain tools provided by the patriot act. national security will allow the government to collect some information such as personal financial records. as congress expanded the authority, i raised concerns about how the fbi handled the information. there were no real limits imposed by congress. the fbi can store the information electronically and use it for large operations.

we know that the nsl authority would significantly missed use. in 2008, the doj issued a report on the fbi's use of information. they authorize an order for business records. the original patriot's act which addresses order for business records. the greater oversight of this section is required, including broader access to judicial review of the nondisclosure orders that are so often issued with section 215 demands for records. finally, i raised concerns over the misuse of exogent letters to maintain phone records of including reporters without

warrant, without emergency conditions and without a follow-up legal process. director mueller assured us appropriate steps have been taken to prevent a repeat of that abuse. he's helped to address concerns of records illegal le obtained, but these letters may have been inappropriately retained by the government. i'm hoping you would agree as we consider the re-authorization of expiring provisions of the patriot act, we should keep in mind the proven effectiveness of audits and reviews and considering oversight by congress. it also concerns review of the traditional law enforcement role. the fbi just released a 2008 crime statistic. in the work of law enforcement and the trendlines are to be commended. we hope the preliminary indications of this year show the continuation of these trends, despite the economic down turn in the financial crisis and assistance able to put in the economic stimulus

package to state and local law enforcement will have to keep crime down throughout the country. and may congress pass the enforcement recovery act which gives investigators and prosecutors the resources they need to aggressively detect and prosecute mortgage fraud and financial fraud that contributed to the massive economic crisis. director mueller, i want to thank you personally and the bureau for the help you gave us in putting together that important piece of legislation. the testimony of your deputy, others came up here, extremely important to make sure we wrote a law that would actually give law enforcement the tools that need to combat this really vicious and malicious form of fraud. i think we need a similarly aggressive approach combatting health care fraud, another

insidious form of fraud that victimizes most vulnerable americans that drives up the cost of health care for all of us. with senator grassley here, i might note senator grassley was my chief co-sponsor on that piece of legislation. made sure we got it voted on the floor. it was applauded when it was signed into law by the president. so i applaud the department for its commitment to reducing waste and excess of the health care system. i thank the director for coming here and once again i thank the hard-working men and women of the fbi. i look forward to your testimony. senator sessions, you wish to say something? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you director mueller. not often enough in our country do we have people holding positions for which their background and learning and experience equip them for exceptionally well. i believe you are one of the most capable leaders we have in

our country. you are utterly experienced in the matters you work with every day. i thank you and all the agents that work tirelessly to make sure we are not subject to another attack in our country. i know a lot of us were amazed last month when abmeghri, thank you for speaking that this was an unconscionable and unacceptable decision to release that murderer in the political environment he was released in made it even worst. every now and then a leader like yourself needs to speak out on those kind of issues and i appreciate that. the number of issues i would

like to talk to you. i'm on the armed services committee and i need to be at this briefing on afghanistan. it's at a critical stage now, so i won't be able to stay throughout this hearing. some of the questions i'll submit to you in writing and ask for before i leave. last month attorney general holder announced he was establishing a high valued detainee interrogation group. the interrogators will operate out of the fbi under the guidelines established by the army field manual. and according to department press release the group would be subject to the national security council for, "policy guidance and oversight." beyond the announcement and a few press reports, we know very little how it will operate, either administratively or operationally. we need to learn a little more about that. that is an odd mix due of fbi

entire heritage and background and training focused on civil law enforcement in america. prosecution of cases in federal courts primarily in this country. we always had military commission. they were referred to in the constitution. we had them before that deal with people who are unawfully at war with the united states. they are not treated in the same way. i don't understand this at all. it really is an odd mixture to me. this blurring lines that shouldn't be blurred. last week we had testimony from the national academy of sciences strengthening forensics in america, and they question whether law enforcement should be involved in any of the forensic activities. i think perhaps the greatest technological development in criminal justice history is the

fbi fingerprint program and this availability to every law enforcement agency in america. and it's used hundreds of thousands of times every week. this would be an issue i think we need to talk about, whether fbi would be required, if that policy were to be affected to somehow transfer this out of the oversight that you have so ably given it for so many years. this week the committee will consider legislation to shield journalists from being compelled to testify or produce any documents in investigations relating to certain protected information. i believe this information will do considerable, this legislation as written, will do damage to our national security. there are reasons, very good reasons that nations have to maintain certain amount of secrecy. i think we need to be aware of that and hope to ask you

questions about that. so thank you for being here today. i look forward to your testimony. we'll probably submit some written questions to you later. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. we'll keep the record open for any other statements. director mueller, please feel free to go ahead. >> thank you, and good morning senator leahy and senator sessions. when i updated you in march, our developing efforts to protect our infrastructure. this statement folks us on criminal threats as well as our other priorities. i pete say in fighting crime, the fbi continues to focus on areas where our skills and expertise will have a substantial and lasting impact. today's fbi is not an intelligence service that collects but does not act, nor are we a law enforcement service

that acts without knowledge. we are a security service fusing the capability to understand the breadth and scope of threats with the capability to dismantle those same threats whether they be terrorist or criminal. on the counterterrorism front, al qaeda continues to present a threat to the homeland. domestically through our joint terror and task morses and overseas through our legal attaches, we try to develop any al qaeda operatives with access to the united states. we are also alert to homegrown, radicalized terrorists. we work with our communities to identify and disrupt these threats. closer to home we are focused not only on terrorist threats but also on the threats posed by violent crime and white collar crime. to address these threats we moved from a quantitative to qualitytive approach.

we are using intelligence to identify the great st threats to each of our communities. to be effective, we need to collect intelligence that reveals any links between our existing cases, and also fills in gaps in our knowledge base. intelligence gathering differs from city to city and state to state, just as criminal and terrorist threats differ. and just has partnerships have been key to our effort against terrorism, partnerships are particularly important addressing criminal threats, as well. partnerships have enabled us to achieve notable successes in the fight against public corruption, our top criminal priority. taking as an example are our efforts along the southwest border where we have focused efforts and concentrated agents. with 120 of the 700 agents we have fighting for corruption, assigned to the southwest border we already have over 100 arrestses and 130 indictments and over 70 convictions in this fiscal year.

we are seeing success in the fight against violent crime, as well. earlier this week, we released the uniform crime report depicting crime statistics for 2008. for the second year in a row there has been a decrease in violent crime. while the report does not give the reasons for that decrease, i do believe that the drop in violent crime says much about the efforts of state, local law enforcement and the efforts of state, local law enforcement with the federal agencies. within our criminal program, our field offices continue to work with our law enforcement partners and safe streets, violent crime task forces in order to fight crime in the communities that you represent. yet despite the positive trends in this year's report, violent crime continues to plague many communities, especially small to mid-size cities. gangs are morphing, multiplying,

migrates, entrenching themselves not just in our inner cities, but increasingly in our suburbs and rural areas. the fbi focuses its efforts on the most violent and criminally active gangs. those that function as criminal enterprises. this model enables us to remove the leadership and most dangerous group and obtain and seize their assets. our goal is not just to disrupt activities, but dismantle their organizations entirely. we are also focused on economic crime, primarily mortgage fraud, health care fraud. these are not victimless crimes. they impact all americans by stealing taxpayer dollars and undermining the integrity of our financial and health care systems. we currently have more than 2,400 pending health care fraud investigations, and more than 2,600 pending mortgage fraud investigations. our investigations are focused on partnerships, intelligence

and information sharing through task forces and working groups and targeted law enforcement actions. we are having success generating cases, but also successfully committing these responsible for those cases and in general combatting fraud. in april this year, 24 individuals were charged as a result of a joint it involved 220 properties. joint investigations mean that additional resources for identifying perpetrators of fraud are essential. similar, i join the attorney general in announcing indictments against 53 persons a combined enforcement efforts targeting fraud schemes. they involve persons to a range on necessary or nonexistent

treatment for patients who are willing to go along with schemes for money. our investigative partnerships into the pond resolution -- helped ensure resolution against fraud and abuse. i would like to thank the committee for your support of the men and women of the fbi. we continue to look forward to working with the committee on the shunt is facing our country. i appreciate the average hindi to appear here today and headed for to -- the opportunity to appear here today and look for to your questions. >> there has been some mention -- we were at the meeting over a

long weekend the first of september. they need every two years. the meeting of the united states, united kingdom and parliamentary group that meets every two years. we raised with our counterparts from england the strong and bipartisan displeasure with the release of the lockerbie bomber. i raised the point it was very unusual for you to speak out as you did and that i strongly agreed with what you said. in my opening statement i talked

about retaining the housing of the interrogation group in the fbi. you have a long history of conducting investigation groups. there was testimony about abdue zabbia after he was captured. they used fbi techniques that proved useful time and time again. khalid sheikh mohammed was a mastermind in the 9/11 attacks and discovered jose padilla. something he had to point out a number of times when the record has been misstated. what lessons in the long history of fbi interrogations would you import to this high value interrogation group now that it's going to be housed at the fbi? >> why don't you start by saying

the concept is to have this combined group administratively housed within the fbi. speaking specifically of the fbi, we had a tradition of negotiation and interrogation over a period of years that is dependent principally on building rapport. we believe we are scovel at it. many of our agents spent years on the streets as police officers before they come to the bureau conducting interrogations in many environments in many ways and have some expertise. there are some substantial capabilities in terms of interrogation elsewhere in the country. other organizations, particular intelligence organizations. i believe the concept is to bring together this expertise in terms of what techniques work legally and are appropriate under the current statutes and regulations, but more particularly put together, not

only the capabilities of an interrogator, but also assure for each of the agencies you have subject matter experts, if it's terrorism or some counterintelligence arena you have subject matter expertise, as well as expertise and background of the person to be integrated so that capability is used to full effect in gaining the information you need. i will say at the outset that what one wants to do is give the policy maker the options on the table for how you proceed, and to the extent possible, if there is, and the possibility or anticipation of a court proceeding in the united states, open that option. by the same token, i must say the most important thing for us, whether it be the fbi, cia or intelligence community is to gain that intelligence information that will prevent attacks in the first place as opposed to the prosecution of somebody who has successfully undertaken that attack.

>> you have oversight to make sure their methods are legal and effective? >> yes, we will. >> what about the army field manual? does that give guidelines? >> yes, that is the manual that is being used to conduct investigations particularly overseas by the military in places like afghanistan and iraq. has a set of procedures. there may be other procedures there that are not contained within the army field manual that may be wholly useful and legal that should be undertaken, as well. that's something that has to be explored. >> but your department has the oversight in that? >> our department has -- yes, the oversight in terms of we are putting together. i hope fbi leadership with cia as the deputy. i've had conversations with leon

panetta. we are agreed this is a valuable contribution and it's going to be a joint effort. >> in that regard, and you've been very responsive to this committee's jurisdiction for oversight, i assume you will be responsive to oversight requests to the committee on how this group is working? >> absolutely. >> i realize in that regard there will be areas that will have to be responded to in a classified fashion as well as others that could be done in open fashion. >> may i mention two other aspects of it, mr. chairman? that is the importance of having a uniform training and building training curriculae each of the training institutes builds to understand the best possible training capabilities, but also pulling together the science, the capabilities that are known

in acedamia so we can build the best possible legal techniques to proceed. >> when congress included the 2006 patriot act re-authorization, we had a requirement in the justice department office and inspector general, in regard to the use of national security letters, section 215 orders for business records, the inspector general found some significant abuses including widespread misuse of exogent letters. you told the committee about the important steps and we discussed privately, too, the fbi has taken light of these audits, the changes procedures. the justice department sent a letter to me that oversight provided in 2001 and the specific oversight provisions

added to the statute 2006. to help ensure the authority is being used as intended. would you agree with that the audits mandated have been helpful in encouraging the fbi to improve its procedures and make sure these are being used the way they should be? >> at the outset, i say we have for several years now, i have used totally revised procedures that answers and responded to the criticisms of the inspector general. most particularly in office of integrity and compliance within the fbi which has now become a model for such offices. whichever mechanism reviews it is of less importance to me than there be periodic outside review. my belief is that this could well be handled by the annual

reviews that are done by the national security division of the department of justice who has an oversight role in this particular arena, but i do believe that there should be some outside review, periodic review. my suggestion would be it be rolled into that review which is already undertaken by the national security division department of justice. >> thank you. senator sessions. >> thank you. with regard to the threat of terrorism and al qaeda, do we have any reason in this country to feel that that threat is less today or can you tell us if there are any indications that, in fact, the threat may be growing? >> as i think i have repeatedly testified and discussed, the threat is always there. the concern is that we become

complacent. i tend to look at the al qaeda threat in three areas. one is rising directly out of the federally administered tribal areas, where you have individuals, any plot controlled by individuals in that area, you then have individuals in other countries, whether it be the uk, united states or elsewhere, who have been radicalized in some way, shape or form who may travel to pakistan to obtain additional training, which is the second level. i call that a hybrid threat and come back on its own, not controlled necessarily by the al qaeda hierarchy or individuals who have no contact with al qaeda in pakistan, but subscribe to the same extremist ideology that present a threat.

it has continued to present a threat over the last eight years and presents a threat today. >> with regard to the shield bill, you and a number of intelligence community colleagues opposed the predecessor of that bill in a letter stating, "the high burden placed on the government by these bills will make it difficult, if not impossible, to investigate harms to the national security, and only encourage others to illegally disclose the nation's sensitive secrets." are you aware of any nation that has not found it necessary to maintain secrets regarding their national security? >> i can't purport to be an expert. i do not know of any. >> throughout the history of the modern nations, they all have

intelligence agencies and have to operate with some degree of secrecy, isn't that true? >> true. i do believe that we are somewhat unique in that there is a first amendment which many countries do not have, as well. >> are you saying the first amendment prohibits the united states government maintaining secret investigations of al qaeda or other things of that nature? >> that is not at all what i'm saying. the letter from january 23rd is in regard to my view of legislation. >> i think we get that right in legislation and not make a mistake on it. would you share with the members of the committee what kind of roads are in place, and for the most part been in place for many, many years, 20, 30 years, about agents and united states attorneys, federal prosecutors, when they make inquiry of media

people? can an agent go out and interview a newspaper person or issue a subpoena on their own to a newspaper person? >> basic rule, it cannot be done without the approval of the attorney general. >> the attorney general himself or herself? >> yes. >> this is one of the highest protective standards in the department of justice, is it not? >> i wanted to make sure -- one point when i was in the department of justice i was involved in one of these. i was acting deputy and i wanted to make certain it was my role to advise the attorney general because the it is the attorney general's responsibility to sign those. >> well, the point which is, this is institutionally deep in the cause of the department of justice. fbi and department of justice that it's very sensitive matter

to inquire of a free news person in america, and it should only be done after the most careful review and there are standards set out in the u.s. attorney's manual that have to be met, are there not, before such things -- >> that's correct. if you look at the record, and i know from submissions from the department, the numbers of occasions which approval i am not sure that is always wise, but i think it bears on the side of protecting the media. that me ask you about this entire high-value detainees and whether they will be mirandize. the president said you are not want to give them a memoranda. 38 miranda. it appears that is exactlyre