the chair: on this vote the yeas are 346, the nays are 51. the amendment is not adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 15 printed in house report 111-256 by the gentleman from connecticut, mr. heinz, on which further proceedings were postponed. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 15 printed in house report 111-256 offered by mr. himes of connecticut. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support for the request for a recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their vote by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for a recorded vote on amendment number 17 printed in house report 111-256 by the gentleman from idaho, mr. minnick, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which voice prevailed by voice vote. the clerk: amendment number 17 printed in house report 111-256 buffered amr. minnick of idaho. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the vode will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the -- this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly

prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: the yeas are 428. the nays are zero. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 19 printed in house report 111-256 by the gentleman from michigan, mr. schauer, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the yeas prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 19, printed in house report number 111-256, offered by mr. schauer of michigan. the chair: a recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 425, the nays are five. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 21 printed in house report 111-256 by the gentleman from new mexico, mr. teague, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 21, printed in house report number 111-256, offered by mr. teague of new mexico. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 425. the nays are zero. the amendment is adopted. the unfinished business is the request for recorded vote on amendment number 24 printed in house report 111-256 by the gentleman from kentucky, mr. guthrie, on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote. the clerk will redesignate the amendment. the clerk: amendment number 24, printed in house report number

111-256, offered by mr. guthrie of kentucky. the chair: recorded vote has been requested. those in support of the request for recorded vote will rise and be counted. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the chair: on this vote the yeas are 165, the nays are 265, the amendment is not adopted. the amendment is adopted, accordier the rule, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: the chairman of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r.

3221 and pursuant to house resolution 756 -- 46 reports the bill back to the house with an amendment adopted in the committee on the whole. under the rule, the previous question is ordered. the question is on adoption of the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965 and for other purposes. >> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. house will be in order.

>> mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. issa: mr. speaker, i have a motion to recommit at the desk. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman opposed to the bill? mr. issa: i am in its current form. the speaker pro tempore: jault qualifies. the clerk: mr. issa of california moves to recommit the bill to the committee on commission and labor with instruction to report the same back to the house with the following amendment, at the end of the following -- at the end, the following title and conform the table of contents accordingly. title 6, defund acorn act, section 601 tort title. this title may be cited as the defund acorn act, section 602, prohibitions on federal funds and other activities with respect to certain -- mr. issa: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent for waivering of the reading of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to dispensing with the reading? to without objection, so ordered.

the gentleman from california is recognized for five minutes. mr. issa: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, this motion to recommit is critical at this time. as many people in this body realize, the scandal surrounding the criminal activities of acorn have called into question their role in all aspects of government, including aspects covered in this bill. the funding they've received under health and human services title 4 which is covered in this bill and other areas make it extremely important that we consider it at this time. acorn as our committee had previously reported is an organization with a long history of criminal indictments and activities. so much so that in fact the census bureau has on its own removed its funding. the senate has voted 83-7 to remove funding. we must do the same thing. this motion to recommit deliberately is here because in

fact this is a funding-related activity. this is one in which we understand that the very fundamental of taxpayer dollars being properly used and supported is at stake. there is no question as to where acorn stands, where the administration and multiple governors, including my own governor, ar norled schwarzenegger, have called for this investigation. 130 members of this body have called on the president to defund. so the motion to recommit, narrow in scope, simply makes it the defunding of acorn, a portion of this bill makes it clear that the members of this house do not support acorn's activities, including child trafficking, prostitution and in fact a great many other criminal activities including voter fraud. this is timely, it is targeted and it is time that this committee -- this house act.

i move the motion and ask it to be voted positively and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. miller: in opposition to the motion although i will not oppose the motion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. miller: mr. speaker, members of the house, i want to begin by thanking so many members of the house that have supported this bill today on this floor. the bipartisan support we had for so many of the amendments, the debate and the dialogue that we had. thank you so very much. when the president talked about the future of the american economy, he made it very clear that if we were going to be competitive in the rest of the world, if we were going to emerge in that top competitive position, in the next iteration

of the globalized economy where so many more countries are now able to educate young people, provide world class organizations, universities, research facilities, that we had to change our education system. that we had had to make a major investment. that we no longer could just think about how much money we put into education, we had to start thinking about the outcomes and whether we were getting the results for young people all across this country, were we getting results for businesses across this country, were we getting the results for families? he made that very clear with the race to the top fund that is getting such wide reception and acceptance from governors all over the country, from school districts, from unions from families and organizations that see that change. he has extended that to the colleges and universities. it's not enough that a student enters a college, that he or she is eligible to go to college. the question is, will they

graduate from that college? and what he's put on this legislation is a discussion and requirement that we understand how many people in a college attain that certificate for a career, that a.a. degree in a two-year college, their ability to go onto a four-year college. that's the first time we've ever asked that question. but it's terribly important when 2/3 of the people going to college today are borrowing moneyworks when -- when they're borrowing money, we need to know that colleges are employing the ride kind of educational experience -- providing the right kind of educational experience to succeed. it will change the direction in by -- which we're going in which we're going in this nation and i think it will dramatically enhance our possibilities of remaining the top competitive country in the world. that's why the business round table spoke to the issue of the community college provisions in this bill, how important they

were so that the community colleges could become a catalyst for economic revitallyization, for retooling, for dislocation, so the communities that are welcoming a new industry are communities that are losing an old one and thinking about where to go in the future. to make the community colleges the center of that training and education that so many american workers and families are seeking out today. that's what you voted to do in this bill. i want to thank you very much. and i want to say -- i do -- i will not yield. i want to thank you very much. as to this amendment, acorn gets, i believe, no money under this bill, but that's not the issue. the issue is that i will support this -- i will support the gentleman's motion to instruct. we have a world class bill here, we have a bill of opportunity, for families, for students, for employers, for our country and our economy and i hope you will support it. vote for the motion to instruct. vote for this bill on final

passage. . the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to recommit. the question is on the motion, so many as are in favor say aye . those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the gentleman from california. mr. issa: on that i ask for a recorded vote. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. pursuant to clause 9 of rule 20, the chair will reduce to five minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on the question of passage. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 344, the nays are 74.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 345, the nays --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 345, the nays are 75, two voting present. the motion is adopted. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. miller: mr. speaker, pursuant to the instructions of the house and the motion to recommit, i report h.r. 3221 back to the house with an amendment. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by mr. george miller of california, add at the end the following new title and conform the table of content it's accordingly, title 6, defend acorn act, section 601, in short title. this title may be cited as the, quote, defend acorn act, end quote. section 602, prohe bigses on federal funds and other activities with respect to certain indicted organizations, a, prohibitions with respect to any comparable organization -- mr. miller: i ask unanimous consent to suspend with the reading of the motion. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the reading suspends. the question is on adoption of

the amendment. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. the question is on engrossment and third reading. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the third reading. the clerk: a bill to amend the higher education act of 1965 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on passage of the bill. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the -- mr. miller: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. broun: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a record -- recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned

coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of

peaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 253, the nays are 171. the bill is passed. without objection a motion to

reconsider is laid on the table. mr. miller: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: mr. speaker, i first i want to thank the staffs of the education and labor committee on both sides of the aisle for all of their hard work, and i also rise to ask unanimous consent that the clerk be authorized to make technical corrections in the engrossment of h.r. 3221 and to include corrections in the spelling, punctuation, section numbering and cross-referencing and in the insertion of appropriate headings. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. miller: thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia. mr. kingston: i rise to ask unanimous consent because i'm very sorry that my office inadvertently put my friend, mr. william clay, on a bill in which he did not intend to co-sponsor. it was our mistake, not mr. clay's. so i ask for unanimous consent that we remove the name of mr. william lacy clay from h.r. 3226. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

mr. kingston: thank you very much.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i ask to address the house for one

minute for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. cantor: i thank the speaker and i yield to the gentleman from maryland, the majority leader, for the purpose of announcing next week's schedule. mr. hoyer: i thank the republican whip for yielding. mr. speaker, on monday the house will meet at 4:00 p.m. for pro forma session. on tuesday the house will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour and 2:00 p.m. for legislative business. on wednesday and thursday the house will meet at 10:00 a.m. for legislative business. and on friday the house will meet at 9:00 a.m. for legislative business. we'll consider several bills under suspension of the rules. the complete list of suspension bills will be announced at the close of business tomorrow, as is the custom. in addition, mr. speaker, we will consider h.r. 3548, the unemployment compensation act of 2009. h.r. 324, the santa cruz national valley heritage act. and a resolution which will make continuing appropriations for the fiscal year 2010, and for other purposes.

i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, and as -- mr. speaker, as the gentleman's indicated, we are going to be considering several extensions expiring next week. i would ask, though, with the recent reports of the senate finance committee marking up their health care bill, whether the gentleman could tell us if the house could expect that health care legislation would be moving to the floor either this week, next, or sometime soon, and i yield? mr. hoyer: well, i hope sometime soon but not next week. that's certainly the case. we'll be moving the health care bill as soon as it's ready to be moved. obviously, as you know, as you say, the senate put a bill on the table. it will be marking that up next week, but our committees are working on bringing three bills that have passed out of

committees together. as soon as they're ready to go, and i can't predict when that will be, we'll bring the bill to the floor. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i'd like to ask -- mr. hoyer: but i reiterate, it's not going to be next week. mr. cantor: thank you, mr. speaker. i'd like to ask a follow-up whether the gentleman believes whether the house will be waiting for the senate to act prior to a bill coming to the floor of this house, and i yield? mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. no, the house will be, as i said, moving the bill to the floor when the house is ready to do so. we don't know what the senate schedule will be. so that we're going to proceed on our own schedule, and then obviously at some point in time the bills will have to be krched and reconciled. -- krched and reconciled. -- conferenced and reconciled. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i'd like to ask surrounding the house's actions issues confronting the assembly of the

united nations in new york next week. mr. speaker, as the gentleman knows, he and i both traveled to israel over the august recess. i know that the gentleman is as concerned as i am about the potential nuclear developments in iran and the fact, i believe, that both of us feel that iran poses an exowe sention threat not only to the -- exowe sention threat not only to the united states but to our ally, israel. there have been some reports today regarding some shifting of that notion of the policy behind that notion from the administration. we have the vice president today indicate that somehow because iran did not have the potential capacity to launch a missile to reach our shores that somehow we could deal with the threat of iran. we also have news that

indicates a shift in our policy of missile defense in terms of our commitment to our allies in europe as well as israel. again, i would say, mr. speaker, to the gentleman, that he and i worked hard on the issue of trying to stop the development of nuclear weapons in iran as specifically aimed at our only democratic ally, israel, in the region. and i have believed all along, i have spoken to the gentleman about it, that we ought to be moving as quickly as possible on the iran refined petroleum sanctions act. and i'd like to ask the gentleman with all that having been said, would it not be appropriate at this point to bring that bill to the floor to give the president some tools at his disposal while he meets with the leader of iran in new york next week, and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding.

as the gentleman correctly pointed out, i believe that nuclear armed iran is dangerous and unacceptable. not only to israel but to the region, which i think will be greatly destabilized and we will start a nuclear arms race in the region. in addition, as the gentleman knows, there are a quarter of a million americans within right now today, as we speak, within range of iranian missiles. and so i believe that a nuclear armed iran, personally i believe that it is in fact a danger to the region and to the international community and to the interest of the united states of america. it is the policy of the united states expressed by our president that a nuclear armed iran was not an acceptable situation to exist. the administration, as you

know, is pursuing attempts to negotiate to an end which is an abandonment which is verified by iran's nuclear efforts. with respect to the bills, there are two bills, as the gentleman knows, chairman frank has a bill in his committee on an iran sanctions enabling act. and chairman berman has a bill in his committee on the iran refined petroleum sanction act. i will tell the gentleman that i am meeting with mr. berman and mr. frank next week, early next week to discuss the bringing of those bills and the order we ought to bring them in to have maximum impact. and i expect to do that in the near future. when i say the near future, i mean within a matter of weeks. i can't say it's going to be

next week. i can say it's not going to be next week or the week after or the week after that. but my expectation is in talking to both mr. frank and mr. berman that we will be bringing those two sanctioned bills in the near future. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. my concern is the reports out of the administration today and that perhaps new intelligence information's being relied upon to result in a swift turnaround in our policy vis-a-vis iran. which is why i raised this question and seek from the gentleman his consistent position that has been up until now that we do face a threat in iran in its current capacity. as the gentleman states, we have uniformed armed men and women in iraq, in afghanistan,

throughout the region that's certainly in the line of shahab 3 missiles that could harm the life of our interests. i think out of that concern i ask the gentleman, could we see an expedited push on this bill to demonstrate that this congress, this house is not yielding to this notion that somehow iran is no longer a threat? and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. now, to this concept, i don't want anybody to be confused. i'm not sure exactly what the gentleman -- i heard him talk about the administration's position as far as i know has not changed with respect to the concept of which the gentleman speaks. a nuclear armed iran, i believe the administration, i believe this congress believes is an unacceptable undermining, both

of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty but also of the stability of relatively unstable, very unstable region of the world. so that i want to reiterate that i think that remains the position of the administration. it's certainly my position, and i believe it's the position of the chairman of the foreign affairs committee and the chairman of the armed services committee. and i think of this congress. mr. cantor: well, i thank the gentleman. i take heart in that position because i do know the administration today has downgraded its alarm, if you will, downgraded a threat that iran poses. and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i'm not sure exactly what he's referring to other than the perception of how quickly the iranians may convert to nuclear capability at their present

capacity. whether there's a longer time than that, but i would -- i have not had direct communication with the administration on that issue, don't want to speak for the administration, but i think what i have already said to this point does in fact reflect certainly all the communications i've had with the administration to date. mr. cantor: mr. speaker, i thank the gentleman for his time, and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. hoyer: mr. speaker. i ask unanimous consent that when the house adjourns today it adjourn to meet at 4:00 p.m. on monday next and further when the house adjourns on that day it adjourn to meet at 12:30 p.m. on tuesday, september 22, 2009, for morning hour debate.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair will now entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: mr. speaker, louanne is an elementary student in texas. she eagerly waits to be picked up by the school bus. after school she rides the bus home but sometimes she hesitates and slowly gets off that bus. once she just sat on the bus when it pulled in front of her house. the bus driver walked to her seat and told her, this is where you get off. she would not leave her seat and replied, daddy hurts me and mama. we should realize, mr. speaker, that behind the closed doors of many houses in america violence is a way of life. it's a bad life. a sad way of life.

it affects spouses and children, it affects the physical and mental health of american families. domestic violence is a public health issue. one group that helps victims of home violence is the national network to end domestic violence. these crusaders are the leading voice for domestic violence victims and advocates. they are helping to expose violence, support survivors and change the culture of our communities. i commend them for their wonderful work of all the places on earth where a person should be safe, it's at home. and that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. are there any further requests for one-minute speechs? for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> thank you, mr. speaker. a little while ago the house passed an amendment to the bill that we were considering that

says no contract or federal funds may ever go to acorn, a named organization, or to any individual or organization affiliated with acorn. unfortunately this was done in the spirit of the moment and nobody had the opportunity to point out that this is a flat violation of the constitution, constituting a bill to the constitution says the congress should never pass a bill of retaineder. no matter what their form applies either to named individual or to easily ascertainble members of a graup to inflict punishment. that's exactly what this amendment does. it may be that oicorn is guilty of various infractions and if so it ought to be vetted, maybe sanctioned, whatever, by the appropriate administrative agency or the judiciary. congress must not in be the business of punishing individual organizations or people without trial. that's what this amendment did, it is flatly prohibited by the constitution and once confidence

in this constitution is sapped when we ignore the constitution, we ignore constitutional principles, whatever one may think of the subject matter or the organization here, the constitution and the ban on bills of ataineder are there for the protection of liberties of all of us. it's unfortunate we passed this and i hope it is removed in the conference committee. i thank you and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the chair lays before the house the following personal request. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. costa of california for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special order rs heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to

address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. mr. poe, september 24 for five minutes, mr. jones, september 24 for five minutes, mr. burton, september 22, 23 and 24 for five minutes each. mr. souder today and september 22 for five minutes each. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials. mr. edwards, texas, ms. woolsey, california, ms. kaptur, ohio, mr. heinrich, new mexico, mr. grayson, florida, mr. schiff, california. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and and you previous order of the house, the following members are

recognized for five minutes each. mr. edwards of texas. mr. edwards: mr. speaker, i rise today to honor the dedicated public service of our friend and former colleague, pete garn, iii. tomorrow will be the last day his service as secretary of the united states army. i'm confident it will not be his last day of service to the country he has served so well. pete gar en's service to country began 26 years ago as an aide to the distinguished ugs senator from texas, lloyd benson. the depth and breadth of pete's public service since then has been rarely matched in american history. for eight years this native son of fort worth served the 12th district of texas here in the u.s. house of representatives. as a member of the armed services, science and technology

and public works and transportation committees, congressman garren earn earned the respect of democrats and democrats alike, as an intelligent, hardworking and effective member of congress. he championed, among many others, the causes of a strong national defense, fiscal responsibility and bipartisanship. pete garren earned the respect of his constituents in texas and his colleagues here in washington. because he always treated others with respect. he per sonified the golden rule each and every day. and in doing so set a standard of public service that we would all be well served to follow. i will never forget a december day in the late 1990's, standing right on the back row here, when house votes were unexpectly added for a friday afternoon. pete was torn between going back to texas where his family was and seeing his daughter in her

school christmas play or staying in washington for the unscheduled vote. this devoted father agonized over that decision and ultimately decided that he had an obligation to cast a vote on behalf of his constituents. it was not long after that that pete made the decision to retire from congress. i will always believe that his love of family and the missed christmas play that day strongly impacted his decision to retire. four years later his country called on pete garren once again. a life-time democrat, he was called by the george w. bush administration to serve in the pentagon. 2001 began a remarkable chapter of service to our nation's defense. from 2001 to 2009 during a time of war and a critical time in our nation's history, pete garren served as special assistant to the secretary of defensey the -- in the areas of interagency initiatives, legislative affairs and special projects.

he then was appointed to act as the -- serve as the acting secretary of the air force and later as the acting secretary of the army. in march of 2007, he was confirmed as united states secretary of the army. in that position, he championed the cause of improving the quality of life for every army soldier and every army family. for years to come, because of the dedicated leadership of secretary garren, soldiers will live in better housing, they and their families will receive better health care and can know that their children will attend quality schools. pete garre in is secretary of the army, set up cosk nantz between communities and the military installations in which they existed. pete garren's accomplishments are too numerous to list them all today. but i think one of his greatest legacies will be that he proved that in the rough and tumble world of politics in washington, d.c., one can succeed at the highest levels of public service

through hard work, respect for others, solid integrity and genuine humility. pete garren is living proof that public service can and should be a noble calling. and i wish him, his wife, becky, and their family all the best in the years ahead. the speaker pro tempore: mr. poe of texas. for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? without objection, so ordered. mr. souder: i wanted to briefly explain what happened to the sauder amendment in the student loan bill. we had worked out an agreement last night and then i was occupied over in a border security hearing that was very important on s.b.i. net and make it over to the floor. i appreciate that chairman

miller explained the compromise some but i want to go through what the history of this is. first in existing law, both a possession conviction and a dealing conviction will result in your loss of a student loan. you can get that loan back by going through a treatment, drug testing, you can get it back in the first year. the second time it happens, this is while you have a loan, if you get convicted then you would have to go -- you'd be suspended for two years unless you went through treatment or -- and then were drug tested as clean. the third time and you're out. for dealing it was two times. there's been a lot of ruckus about how this law was initially implied -- applied but we fixed that. i had no intention of ever -- ever of unfish -- punishing people who at some time in their lives had problems, whether it was in high school or later that they had convictions. i believe in forgiveness, i believe it's important that people get back on the right track. i believe that we need to work

in our prison population to get them to move back to school, to get degrees possible. the initial debate on this on the house floor and in committee said, you will lose your loan, you can't lose a loan if you don't have a loan. we had debate about that for many years. we got that fixed. but i believe overwhelmingly every poll shows that the american people believe that if you are convicted, which is not easy, when you're on a college campus, while you're getting taxpayer funding, should lose the funding. it doesn't mean you're going to lose school or go outer but why should the taxpayers fund if you you're going to be basically drugged aled while you're at school? in the challenge with this debate, it has become kind of a cause celeb in the marijuana community and as this progressed, as we did the re-authorization on student loans, the so-called souder amendment was not completely knocked out but possession was knocked out. we left the law as -- in place for dealing.

so my amendment today would have re-instated possession as a grounds for losing a student loan. congressman perlmutter from colorado came to me and said he had a suggested compromise and he made his compromise which basically says that -- conviction of a felony offense of narcotics for possession in addition to dealing, dealing is already covered in the democratic bill, but would make felony conviction for possession also grounds for losing your student loan. presumably that's the federal felony conviction. in this i was faced with several choices. one, look, i'm a republican in a democratic congress. i was probably going to lose today. this is a practical way, i didn't want to see possession go out of the bill. it basically means that marijuana won't be covered, if

you have that much marijuana in your possession to be a felony it probably means you're a dealer, you wouldn't have that much if you weren't a dealer. it's far more than individual use. it basically covers meth, cocaine, all sorts of other drug convictions for felony possession. it means the united states government still stands on record saying that both possession and dealing should restrict your ability to get a student loan. but there are some other practical things here. a lot of states, i believe, falsely and wrongly overrode federal marijuana laws by decriminal idsing marijuana, decraring that it was medical in some state when is in fact it is not medical. there are ingredients inside marijuana that can be medical. but the chaos in marijuana laws across the united states is very similar to what we are dealing with in canada as i debated up there as they proposed changing laws and now mexico has and that is, when different provinces have different laws and there's complete chaos in the laws, the federal courts are not likely to uphold the law because it would

be unequal enforcement. so how would an indiana student get the night alone but a california student wouldn't get the night alone? what if it's somebody from indiana who is in california going to school? what about if you're taking an online course combined with going to class and the online class is based in california but you're going to school in indiana? it's chaos. i don't believe even if i had won the courts would have upheld my provision. this shows in fact republicans and democrats can work together. the very difficult on the major fundamental debate arguments. for example, i felt this was a federal takeover of private lending and will lead to more federal takeover in the national bank, so we weren't going to be able to agree on the loans but it doesn't mean inside even or controversial provisions that we can't work together. i wanted to explain that and cha chairman miller and congressman perlmutter for working with me. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. ms. woolsey of california. walwal thank you, mr. speaker -- ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, every child and

every adult is familiar with the story of goldy locks. remember how it goes. after wandering into the three bears' house, goldylocks saw three bowls of pourage. one was too hot, one was too cold but one was the medium temperature and it was just right. i mention this because "the new york times" recently reported that goldilocks is playing a role in shaping american defense policy. according to the report, general mcchrystal is expected to give secretary of defense gates three options for troop increases in afghanistan. the three options are, first, 15,000 more troops. second, 25,000 more troops. or third, 45,000 more troops. peng officials apparent --

pentagon officials apparently believe that troops will choose the medium option, 25,000. according to "the times" they call this the goldilocks option. here's why. spending -- sending 15,000 more troops would be too cold because it wouldn't be enough to satisfy the generals that are requesting. sending 45,000 more troops would be too hot because it would cause political problems. so sending the medium number of troops, 25,000, is considered just right. of course, the problem with this is that afghanistan is not a children's story. it is a real war where real people are getting killed. and it is rapidly losing the support of the american people. recent polls show that the american people want to reduce our troop strength in afghanistan, not increase it.

the american people have good reason to oppose the escalation of the conflict. they know that the recent elections in afghanistan were filled with fraud. and they believe the government is more interested in corruption than in improving the lives of the afghan people. the american people also know that we have already spent nearly $225 billion in afghanistan but have little to show for it. our troops have performed brilliantly and courageously, but the insurgency is growing and the war is getting harder to fight every single day. besides, they believe the money that we have point of order into afghanistan is -- poured into afghanistan is desperately needed here at home for health care reform and other vital domestic problems. the american people also know that we to not have a clear mission in afghanistan and

there is no exit strategy and they fear that we run the risk of being considered an occupying force. since the afghans have opposed and defeated every single foreign power that has ever tried to occupy its nation, it all seems to be a repeat of past failures. four awful these reasons, we need to debate and we need to reconsider what the u.s. role is in afghanistan. i'm urging the house to support my bill, h.res. 363, the smart security platform for the 21st century, the smart security platform would change our mission in afghanistan to emphasize economic development, humanitarian aid, education, jobs and better governs. -- governance. it will help afghanistan develop its policing and intelligence compass its. policing and intelligence, you see, are far more effective

than massive military invasions when it comes to tracking down violent extremists in the communities where they lurk. mr. speaker, if the administration sends more troops to afghanistan, the united states will be doubling down on a strategy that has already failed. the afghan people don't want the united states to occupy their country, and the american people don't want an occupation either. i urge president obama to reject any plan to send more troops to afghanistan because, like goldilocks, who should not have eaten any of the portage that did not belong to her, afghanistan does not belong to the united states. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from north carolina. for what purpose -- >> reclaim my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman wishes to claim time.

without objection, so ordered. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. every president has the right to get advice from anybody he wants to get advice from. that's a good thing. the united states presidents have a tough job. they should have as many advisors as they wish. my dad in fact would like to be an advisor to this president and the past presidents. these czars, as they are called, are not new to the executive branch. but when a person crosses a line from being an advisor to being a policymaker and decision maker to the government, that person needs to be held accountable to the people of the united states. someone who gives advice to the president is one thing, but there's a difference between an advisor and someone who sets a policy and implements that policy. then, that person has direct

control over the american people. if this occurs, our constitution requires that person be subject to the oversight of congress to be legitimate. the big questions become, are these czars advisors or are they policymakers. if -- or are they policymakers? accountability is important, and confirmation by the united states senate is mandatory. our constitution requires it. without the confirmation process, we don't know who these people are. and are these czars nothing more than a shadow government? we don't know. the constitution mandates this ability and oversight by congress. that's how our government works within the bounds of our law. we don't know how many czars we have or who they are. how much do they get paid and where does that money come from? and what do they do? who do they report to? are they in control of the executive branch and its duties?

well, we don't know. mr. speaker, here are some of the czars that we know about and some of the occupations that they claim to be in control of. what are the cabinet secretaries doing? who reports to who? do the czars report to the cabinet members, or do the cabinet members report to these folks? the american public does not know. we don't know because there's no oversight and no accountability, and it doesn't seem like anybody's talking. czars haven't gone through the senate confirmation process. are they a national security risk? we don't know. no one knows. now, the f.b.i. tells us they go through a background check, but it's the same background check that the f.b.i. does for a white house intern. these czars do not get a security clearance. that's a much more detailed background check for people with more responsibility than a white house intern. the f.b.i. gives the information from the czar intern background check over to the white house. that's it.

and once the f.b.i. hands the information over, they have nothing else to do with the czars. if these czars are decisionmakers and policymakers that's not acceptable. just like cabinet secretaries, they need to be vetted. we have to know who the people are that are in control and who controls the levers of our government. this is just common sense. the american people don't want a shadow government controlling america. just who are the czars? we have the right to know and congress has the responsibility to find out. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: ms. kaptur of ohio. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> request permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, every once in a while i read something that makes me wish i had written it or said it. i had that experience recently

reading nick christophe's column in "the new york times." it's just like abraham lincoln said in the gettysburg address. i read something like this and say it's far beyond my poor power to add or detract. so i'd like to read it to you, i'd like to share it with you and the other members of the house because it so well captures what's going on in the health care debate. he wrote as follows -- in the debate over health care, here's an inequity to ponder. nicky white would have been far better off if only she had been a convicted bank robber. nicky was a slim and athletic college graduate who had health insurance, had worked in health care and knew the system. but she had systemic lupeis, a chronic inflammatory disease that was diagnosed when she was 21 years old and left her too sick to work. and once she lost her job she lost her health insurance. in any other rich country, nicky probably would have been fine, notes t.r. reid in his

powerful new book "the healing of america." some 80% of these patients in the united states live to a normal life span. under a doctor's care, lupeas would be manageable. indeed, if nicky had been a felon, the problem could have been averted because the courts have ruled that prisoners are entitled to medical care. as mr. reid recounts, nicky tried everything to get medical care but no insurance company would accept someone with her pre-existing condition. she spent months painfully writing letters to anyone she thought would help. she fought tenaciously for her own life. finally, nicky collapsed at her home in tennessee and she was rushed to a hospital emergency room which was then required to treat her without payment until her condition stabilized. so money was no longer an issue, they performed 25 emergency surgeries on nicky

and spent six months in critical care. when nicky showed up to the emergency room she received the best of care and the hospital spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on her, her stepfather told me. that's not when she needed the care. because by then it was too late. in 2006, nicky white died at age 32. nicky white did not die from lupus, her doctor, told mr. reid. she died because of the failing american health care system. she fell through the cracks. nicky's own mother, gale deal, told me grimly. when you bury a child it's the worse thing in the world. you never recover. we now have a chance to reform this cruel and capricious system. if we let that chance slip away, there will be another nicky dying every half-hour. that's how often someone dies

in america because of a lack of insurance, according to a study by a branch of the national academy of sciences. over a year it amounts to 18,000 american deaths. after al qaeda killed nearly 3,000 americans eight years ago, we went to war and we spent hundreds of billions of dollars ensuring this would never happen again. yet, every two months that many people die because of our failure to provide universal insurance. and yet many members of congress want us to do nothing? mr. reid's book is a reach to health care around the world. because he has a bum shoulder, he asked many doctors in many countries to examine it and make recommendations. his american orthopedist recommended a titanium shoulder replacement that would cost tens of thousands of dollars and might or might not help. specialists in other countries worn that a sore shoulder did

not justify the risk of such a major surgery, although some said it would be available for free if mr. reid insisted. they offered therapy, acupuncture and cheap and other noninvasive alternatives, some of which help pretty well. that's a window into the flaws of our health care system. we offer a titanium shoulder replacement to those that don't need them but we let a 32-year-old die if they lose their health insurance. no wonder we spend so much on medical care, and some health statistics that we have are worse than those than in slovenia. commit a crime and get locked up, said mr. christophe. in washington state, a 20-year-old inmate named melissa matthews chose to turn down parole and stay in prison because that was the only way to get treatment for her cervical cancer. she said if i'm out i'm going to die from cancer.

that's what she told a television station. this has to end. as mr. christophe wrote, do we really want to be the only rich nation in the world that lets a 32-year-old woman die because she can't get health insurance? is that really us? thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. moran of kansas. mr. moran of kansas. mr. heinrich of new mexico. mr. heinrich: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, on tuesday we began our nation's hispanic heritage month. hispanics comprise over 45% of new mexico's population, and our state's hispanic community has deep roots and a rich history in our state. i am truly honored to highlight this important community in congress today. for a population that is

expected to triple in size in our country by 2050, education continues to be an issue of fundamental significance. preparing our children for the future is the greatest investment that we can make for our long-term economic vitality and for our country's ability to compete in the 21st century. we have many disparities to address in education and a long way to ensure the success of our children throughout their elementary and secondary ed cathes, particularly -- education, particularly our hispanic students. but, mr. speaker, i am proud to stand here today to highlight an example of a new mexico institution of higher learning that is doing a tremendous job of serving our hispanic students. this month the university of new mexico was given top rankings by hispanic business magazine's list of top 10 schools in the nation for hispanics in the fields of engineering, of

business, of law and of medicine. u.n.m. which is located in my district is our state's flagship university. u.n.m.'s success at serving hispanic community is a result of decades of hardwork by the university's administration, their faculty, many organizations and their students. u.n.m.'s law school which the magazine ranked number one in the country for the third year in a row, has an outstanding number of hispanic faculty and a schoolwide emphasis on the engagement of students, faculty and alumni in the wider community. organizations like the mexican-american law student association recruit local hispanic high school students and then mentor them through their undergraduate years and help them to prepare for admission to the law school. it's worth noting that the u.n.m. chapter was also named law student organization of the year by the hispanic national

bar association. u.n.m.'s school of medicine which the magazine ranked sixth in the country has also formalized a pipeline program called joining communities to increase access and reduce disparities. there, mentors from the school of medicine recruit students from under-represented high schools to consider careers in health care, enroll them in the new mexico clinical education program for undergraduates and support students taking the mcat. u.n.m. school of engineering, which earned a seventh place ranking, has steadily grown its enrollment to 32.7% this year. much of that increase is owed to the school's leadership in creating the hispanic engineer and science organization's annual science extravaganza with more than 500 youth from our state. and finally at the anderson school of management which has

panic business magazine ranks sixth in the nation, the number of his spanic students -- hispanic students entering their 2009 first of all freshman was doubled from the previous year. much of the anderson school success is owed to innovative programs such as a regular breakfast they hold with the chamber of commerce to increase interest in the m.b.a. and masters of accounting programs. mr. speaker, across the university of new mexico community there is an ingrained commitment that strives to ensure that the university is representative of our community. that commitment is not just symbolic. it is essential to the service that u.n.m. graduates offer to our congressional district once they graduate. i want to congratulate the university of new mexico for its national recognition as the top university by hispanic business magazine and i wish them

continued success in serving our community and our nation. mr. speaker, there is no doubt that when our hispanic students succeed, new mexico succeeds and our nation succeeds. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. mr. burton of indiana. mr. burton of indiana. mr. bishop of utah. mr. schiff of california. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the

gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority party. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i'm here to claim the time. i'm just going to get the board set up. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. ellison: mr. speaker, welcome to the progressive hour, progressive message. the 60-minute period of time where the progressive caucus comes to the house floor to talk to the american people and our colleagues about the critical issues of the day. the progressive message, the progressive message. the fact is, mr. speaker, we've got a lot to talk about today. the issue of the day is health care. and as we get started, i'd like to bring our chairperson right into the conversation in the very beginning, to introduce

some of her ideas on this issue, our chairwoman of the progressive caucus, congresswoman wolsy has been a stalwart leader on this issue, has been convening meetings, has been keeping us together, has been unrelenting on her insistence for a public option and so let me yield to the gentlelady from california. ms. woolsey: i thank you, again, congressman ellison, for your leadership on these weekly, hourly discussions about health care reform and what's going on in our congress at this particular time and things have happened this week. finally the senate has two bills that are written and have been introduced. the second bill coming out of the finance committee has not passed through the committee yet but it is the bachus health care reform bill and we've gotten a lot of pressure here, i know i

have, i know you have, most progressives have, because there's some idea out there that because the bachus bill that doesn't have any republican support either after three democrats and three republicans spent months and months and months writing it, now senator bachus seems to be almost standing alone with that one, but he'll pass it through his committee and we'll see what happens. but what does that mean to our proposal and our absolute commitment for a robust public option to be included in a very strong health care reform bill? as far as i'm concerned it means nothing. what it does, it shows the opposites of what this country could end up with. it gives wind beneath our wings

for our debate on just why we need a strong robust public option. and one of those whies in the bachus bill is that -- whys in senator bachus' bill is it doesn't provide a public option of any level. the public option we offer through the progressive caucus would have its rates determined based on medicare plus 5% and do you know that that saves $110 billion over five years? over five years. and the energy and commerce committee has a public option that they have proposed and their public option rates would be based on negotiating with the administration and their negotiated rates would save $25

billion. so we have $110 billion in savings through the progressive caucus plan, we have $25 billion savings through the energy and commerce and we have zero savings through senator bachus' plan. so that in and of itself is enough for me to know that that is not a bill that i want to be negotiating and compromising with. mr. ellison: well, the gentlelady yields back and i know the gentlelady has to take a brief interlude but let me just say very quickly, the fact is that senator bachus, who has spent many hours trying to pull together a bipartisan bill, comes out of that process without any bipartisan support for his bill and there may not be many democrats who want to vote for that bill coming out of the finance committee.

the reality is that we've had three house committee bills, all produced at public option -- all produce that public option, and we have the health committee? the senate that produced the public option and now coming out of the finance committee there is no public option. i think when you look at the convergence of all these bills it means that we're going to have a public option, but i think that this is a time for a grassroots activism. people let their voices be heard and people need to be very clear on what they want. a public option -- let's step back to the public option, health care reform is really a three-tiered thing. it's a three-legged stool. one is making sure that people who already have insurance have stable insurance, are not discriminated against and are treated better by the insurance companies with lower costs. the other is covering the uninsured. the third leg is a public option that can compete with private

market insurance so that they can hold cost down and can introduce evidence-based medical practices to give americans the best quality care that's available. the fact is that this three-legged stool is essential in order to have the kind of reform that americans need today. this reform, we can have it, it is well within our grasp and we can do it, but we've got a little bit more to go. at this point we now know it's on the table and we know that this finance committee bill is not adequate and they need to go back to the drawing board. it's interesting to me that not one republican said that they would support it after hours and hours of bipartisan effort to get them on the bill. anyway, it's time to move forward with a bill that makes sense to all the american people. the fact is, the president is on our side when it comes to the public option. the president made himself clear

right on the floor of this house chamber only a few days ago when he came here and said that he was for a public option. the president said it, he made himself very clear and the fact is the president was eloquent when he said that without competition the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. and it takes -- it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly. by cherry picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage and by jacking up rates. the reality is the president was right about that and he is on our side and wants to see reform come forward. let's just say that this health care reform that we're talking about needs the support of the american people, slowly the real facts have been coming forward,

slowly american people have been coming to a better understanding of what the public option is and what health care reform means in general. the president as -- the president's on our side, as i said, and i believe the house should act quickly to pass a bill with a strong public option as it reflects the president's preference for a public option. the plan will do the following, it will cover pre-existing conditions. how many americans dropped or had their insurance go up because of a pre-existing condition? the plan will stop the practice of rescission or denying you health care when you need it the most and the bill will stop bankrupting our businesses and families for the sin of getting sick. public option, which is an essential part of reform, as i've already mentioned, will offer choice, introduce competition and lower cost for consumers and taxpayers and bring higher quality health care to all americans.

choice, the president stated last week, currently 34 states -- in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. what does that mean? that means that if we don't have a public option we're going to mandate 49 million new consumers into the insurance companies' arms without any way to make them compete. because these markets are monopolized. they're highly concentrated. there's not a lot of sellers in the market, there's just a few. now, if i say you have to buy insurance and there's only two or three people to buy it from, you can bet those two or three companies that are selling it are going to give you the maximum price unless you have a public option that's going to really compete with them and make them do the right thing. so we've got to be for choice

and we've got to have competition. let me also say, that the president said, and i want to repeat this, without competition the price of insurance goes up and up and quality goes down. now, think about it if you were a resident of the great state of alabama. alabama's a wonderful state, i always enjoy going there. but in alabama almost 90% of the insurance market is controlled by just one insurance company. what does that mean? that means that if you want to buy insurance in alabama you're dealing with a monopoly and if the monopoly says you pay, then you pay whatever it is they say you pay or you don't get it. . there is no competition. given that situation we know we need a public option to introduce choice, competition, and real cost control. i want to talk about this public option because people

don't always understand it. think of the public option this way. we are going to have employer-based health care. that will be one part of this thing. employer-based health care, you have insurance with your employer, you keep it. the second part is, if you have government health insurance already, like medicare or the v.a., you keep that. we are going to try to subsidize low-income people so they can get medicaid and health care like that. the third part of this is this, it will be something called an exchange. icks change. -- exchange. what is an exchange? it's like a grocery market. it will be online or it will look like a catalog like this book, and you go through it and you look for an insurance product. now, there will be different products. some will be a basic plan. some will be a middle plan. some will be a cadillac plan. and they will tell you what you can get covered for a given

price and just -- you'll be shopping. you might be able to do it like online or like craig's list or east bound or something like that, or you can do it with paper. but the fact is it's kind of a -- it's a market where people are selling different products. thousand, -- now, all we are saying is if you can imagine this health care insurance grocery store, is that on one aisle there would be a product offered by or administered by the government. actually it wouldn't be run by the government because it would be private doctors who would be actually providing the medical care, but it would be administered by a government program, the same way medicare is now. now, i know people who said that they got medicare and they don't want the government messing with their medicare. well, if you think the government is messing with your medicare, what you must not know is the government is medicare. that's who is administering your medicare right now.

if you think the v.a. health care is good or medicare is good, then you will also see that a public option will be good. very important for people to understand this. let me also say this. and that is sometimes people on the other side of the aisle, i'm a democrat, the other guys, they say stuff like, i don't want government-run health care. and they make it sound like the government's bad. but in a democratic country, who is the government other than you and me? the government is the people. government of the people, by the people, for the people. in a democratic society, the government is us. if the government isn't functioning right, then we need to be more engaged to make it function right. we need to insist on lower costs, more efficiency. we need to be active citizens to make sure things go the way we want them to. we need to get out of this thing that government can't do

anything right. did lehman brothers do everything right when they are company crashed? that's a privatep company. what about enron? what about worldcom? what about bear stearns? private industry makes a lot of mistakes as well. the government does good things, though. think about this. if you or me should have the misfortune of of needing emergency medical care, an e.m.s. truck will come up here and hopefully save us. who is that? that's the government. if you call up because your house is burning, who are you calling? the government yet again. if you when you start slicing into that steak you might eat tonight, who is making sure that meat is safe for you to eat? a government inspector. public schools have made education opportunity for every kid in america. are some of them bad in need of repair and need to be better? of course they do. anything human beings do is going to need more work.

but you can't say that public schools in general are a failure. can you say that public school needs to be improved. we need to get out of this thing where the government is -- we say the government can't function and can't produce good results for us. they do every day. you going to tell me the officers who are putting their lives on the line to keep us safe are not doing a good job? the firefighters are not doing a good job. they are doing a great job. we got to understand that part of what's going on here is just plain old government bashing. government bashing in a democratic country where government is, by, for, and of the people. i hope people don't let this go by. it's not a good idea to just say -- just always run down whatever the government does. if they do, we bear responsibility because it's our government, democratic society. let me just say this, too, the public option really means that the government would help to

cover the high cost of insurance for americans while bringing those costs down through competition. the public option means that americans will be free to seek health care from any doctor they choose at any facility they choose without having to fear that they could not afford it or will incur tens of thousands of dollars in medical debt. the public option is a good thing. you would think, well, who should know the most about whether the public option would be a good thing? it's not -- i will say i'm not the most well qualified. but i think doctors are. i think doctors are well qualified to know whether or not a public option is a good deal. doctors, doctors who serve patients every day, serve patients day in and day out, would have a good opinion that i would trust as to whether it

would help the system improve. doctors the one who is sit up on the phone and have to argue with insurance companies over whether a procedure is going to be covered or not covered. i'm lucky enough to have a brother who is a primary care physician in detroit. how you doing there, leonard. the fact is is that my brother, leonard, has to spend hours away from patients because he's trying to deal with insurance companies. the fact is that we need a public option. we need a public option. let me just talk a little bit about this. the graph to my right here says most doctors support public option. most doctors support public option. here in the blue section is where doctors were asked, they said, do we need a public option and a private option? 63% of doctors said we need both public and private options. 27% of doctors said -- for a

private options only. and 10% of doctors said public option only. most doctors say they -- we should have both. i trust the doctors. this is a whole lot of doctors, 63% of them have said we need both. so this is who i think we should listen to and who has a good opinion as to what's really right and what's really wrong. a large majority of doctors say that there should be a public option. 63% of physicians support a public option. and when polled, nearly 3/4, 75% of physicians supported some form of a public option either a loan or in combination with other private insurance options. so that means if you take this 63 with this 10%, that's a full 73%, that's about 3/4. so this is overwhelmingly what doctors believe we should have a public option.

i think the doctors are right about that. let me just say again, we have been joined by the gentlelady from california, the chairperson of the progressive caucus. what do you think about this? do you think that doctors know what they are talking about when 63% say we should have public and private options, and another 10% say we need only a public option? 73%, does that mean anything to you? do you think that's an important fact to know? ms. woolsey: of course it's an important fact to know. if anybody's close to their patients and to the needs of this country, it is our physicians. they have been very important in putting into all of the committees that have been writing legislation. another thing that will be very important is when the house of representatives brings all three of our bills, one from

ways and means, energy and commerce, and the committee we sit on, congressman, the education and labor, when we unify those bills and come up with the house bill and we can say to our constituents and to the people of this country, this is the house of representatives' health care reform bill. and then they'll be able to hear back from them on exactly what that bill is. right now we keep saying, well, it might be, we think it is. we are pretty sure about 99% of it, but not all of it. mr. ellison: i look forward to that moment as well when we can have a unified house bill. i hope this is something that happens very quickly because i really believe that the public is really -- excuse me for that bad use of language. dying. ms. woolsey: negative pun. mr. ellison: really calling for true health care reform. we were talking a moment ago

about the bill that came out of the senate finance committee, a bill that i don't favor at all. i just thought i'd share a few basic facts about it. you should note that if you look -- all the house bills together, even though they haven't been unified, if you look at them together, they'll call for a public option. the senate finance bill, does not have a public option. it has a cooperative which is not nearly -- which is no good. no value. the house bill -- ms. woolsey: would the gentleman yield? do you think it would be important for our viewers to know why the co-ops are of no value? i think we could explain that. co-ops could be of value over time. but what we need is a public option that's available the day the exchange goes into effect so that that is one of the

options. if we depend on co-ops, right now there are less than 10 in the country. i really know of he only one that's totally successful. and that took more than 10 years to come up -- get up and running. it's not impossible. it could happen. that should not be what we consider a public option. it can be an option of -- at another time. mr. ellison: if the gentlelady would yield. i think you're right. it's not an inherently bad idea but it's bad for this. i want to be very clear, we are not -- and i are not loosening up and opened to co-ops. we are clear that a co-op is a wrong thing. here's one reason why. the congressional budget office , nonpartisan, they report that on senator baucus' bill, the

proposed co-ops have very little effect on the estimates of total enrollment in the exchanges or federal cost because as they are described in the specifications, they seem unlikely to establish a significant market presence in many of the areas of the country or affect federal subsidy payments. in other words, you mentioned that there are some successful health care co-ops around the country and how it took them years to build up. well, this -- the c.b.o. report says that when the exchange opens up, the co-op will be too little, too small to have any market presence and any -- and will not be be able to really be strong enough to actually impact the market. so the fact is is that people will be left for years and years with no real successful option to lower costs. so the co-op is really not a

viable option. and i just -- i don't want to completely be dismissive of the idea of co-ops in general. food co-ops are great. we want to be straight with everybody. but in this case it's the wrong thing. because it will be too small, too weak, too little to compete with these insurance companies that have been in the game for a long, long time. what we need is a public option. that's what we got to have. ms. woolsey: a robust public option. mr. ellison: i'm talking about paub lick option with some muscle. also if we compare the senate finance bill with the house bills, the senate finance bill has no employer mandate. the house bill has an employer mandate to provide health insurance to its employees. so, look, employers -- and i'm grateful to the employers that provide health care to their employees, but no employer will be able to say we are not going to do it because for whatever reason. the employers are going to have to provide health care for

their employers -- employees or contribute to another way -- a fund which will allow their employees to get health care. ms. woolsey: if the gentleman would yield. that's the only way we can level the playing field so that employers who do provide health care for their health insurance -- health insurance for their employees aren't at a kiss avalanche in committeing -- disadvantage in competing like industries. mr. ellison: that's right. . we want to level the playing field. you can't go out there and get a competitive advantage on your competition by dumping your health care insurance. third thing, under the senate finance bill, taxes and the pay-fors are a tax on hay end -- high end health insurance plans and a tax on medical devices, etc. under the house bill, income tax

surcharge on high income earn,, -- earners, that's one idea. if i am ever fortunate enough to be a wealthy individual, i assure you i am not one now, i would hope that as an american -- ms. woolsey: the gentleman will yield? you're not going to be wealthy staying in this job. mr. ellison: you better come here already wealthy or -- ms. woolsey: or you're going to stay the same. mr. ellison: that's right. but as i was saying, if i ever become a well-to-do person, i would hope that i would have enough patriotic commitment to put other people's bare necessities in front of my own luxuries. you understand what i'm saying? ms. woolsey: absolutely. mr. ellison: how many boats can i ski behind? how many houses can i own? if i have to pay a little bit more to make sure that some poor single mom and her kids have health care, why wouldn't i do that? why wouldn't i do that? i don't know. do you have any thoughts on this? i yield to the gentlelady. ms. woolsey: well, i have a lot

of thoughts on that. you see, i represent probably the wealthiest county, not the wealthiest district, but the wealthiest county in the country -- in the congress. and i have not gotten one letter from one constituent that says, how dare you think about raising my taxes -- the people that would have to pay the taxes -- so that -- that is not the kind of people i represent. they're educated and progressive and they get it. that if other people are taken care of, they're better off in the long run. their employees are, their kids in school are safer because the other kids are covered, have good health care. they just totally get it. and i think if there weren't so many fear factors around, most people would understand the concept. mr. ellison: i mean, the fact is

that, you know, well-to-do people, many of them, they recognize that this country's being good to them. and that many of them went to public schools, many of them have police who secure their properties, many of them, you know, really are grateful for all of the bounty that america has given them and don't mind doing a little bit more to make sure that low income, poor americans have some way to go to a doctor. i just think it's the basic -- it's just basic and i'm always a little shocked when i hear people say, oh, don't ask -- somehow we're pun innering -- punishing well-to-do people. i don't understand that kind of thinking. because you find a lot of extremely generous well-to-do people. i yield to the gentlelady. ms. woolsey: that's absolutely true and there's many things we

ask of our constituents, but mostly there's many things that the government provides for them which is like public education, police, fire, roads. and we pay for all of that because we use all of that, some more than others, some benefit more than others from these services. and it's pretty proportion about how much you pay and your taxes, depending on how much you earn and how much you have and how much you have benefited from this country of ours. so i believe you're right, it's a shared thing. but one of the suggestions is that people who have health care benefits, that they're benefits are taxed.

there's a lot of us who feel that that's not the way to go because they've probably given up raises in order to keep their benefits in the first place and to tax those benefits on top of that would not -- that would just be a hit to the middle class of this country. mr. ellison: i just want to point out that, you know, does the gentlelady agree we should go 10 more minutes and hand it over? ms. woolsey: right. mr. ellison: ok. under the bachus or the senate finance bill subsidies to low income people would be capped at 13% on premiums of the max. whereas in the house bills the premiums would be capped at 11%. so the house bill again is doing more to help middle class people.

the senate finance committee's doing -- is cutting into the middle class even more. this is just premiums. this is not co-pays, this is not deductible payments you have to make, this is not other costs associated with health care. this is just premiums. so, again, the senate finance committee, not nearly as good as any of the house bills. senate finance committee has -- ms. woolsey: if the gentleman will yield again, just that 2% difference, that cuts into middle income workers who -- i don't know what the numbers are, but i think it's if they earn $41,000 a year and have four children, then they're not -- the subsidies would -- they wouldn't be eligible for the subsidies and i don't have that in front of me, i'm sorry, i might be off a little bit. but it really cuts into middle income workers and part of what

this bill is about is making it secure for all workers who have -- already have coverage, not making it harder for them to have their coverage and part of that security -- they might love the coverage they have but they know in their heart of hearts that they could lose that. their employer could decide they can't afford to cover them anymore and, boom, that's the end of it. they might lose their jobs, they might want to change jobs and not have insurance going with them and the truth of it is that this house health care reform bill, not the bachus bill particularly, the house reform bill makes it more secure for people that already are covered. they lose nothing, they don't have to leave their coverage unless their employer decides they don't want to cover them anymore.

and then -- but they -- with the house bill they have a place to land. they have a place to go and to get health care coverage. without prejudice. mr. ellison: if the gentlelady yields back, we're wrapping up now, but the fact is that under the house bills, if you look at them together, insurance companies can only charge different premiums based on age. and then it's like two to one. the house bill. ms. woolsey: tell what it is in the bachus bill. mr. ellison: the bachus bill is five to one. this is wrong. this is very bad. this is very, very, very bad. and the fact is that this is going to be financially devastating for people who aren't yet elderly but still are, you know, up in the 60, 58, 59 -- you know, it's going to hit them very hard if the insurance companies can

discriminate like that. and there's far less -- there are far less stringent reforms. it's an inferior product. the senate finance committee is an inferior product. the senate finance committee bill is an inferior product. that's what it is. and it really is a nonstarter. and so we're pulling for people in the senate health committee to make a better bill than that came out of the senate finance committee and we believe that help is on the way, health care reform is right around the corner, it's time to raise the voices and not be shy. the president's running all over the country talking to people about health care reform. he was in my own town of minneapolis last saturday, did a phenomenal job. when the president mentioned to a capacity crowd in the target

center in minneapolis, minnesota, my city, when he mentioned the public option, the crowd roared for a minute and 40 seconds. wouldn't even let him continue with his speech. just clapping wildly, deafening noise. that's how much people want the public option. so i leave the last word to the gentlelady from california. ms. woolsey: well, i'd like to say that the progressive caucus believes that it is our responsibility in the house to get our bill united and that it is our responsibility to bring our bill forward, get it voted on and -- so that we have that as an example and as a robust health care reform package so that senator harkin's health committee can follow suit and we can give him a lot of the strength that comes from this

house and then we'll be negotiating with them later but we will be negotiating two very good bills. and we're not -- we want to come -- go first. mr. ellison: and so that will close us out. i just want to say thank you, chairwoman woolsey, for being here and always supportive of our special hour, our progressive message. the progressive caucus, committed to values of shared community, shared responsibility, making sure that the least of these are cared for and looked out for, making sure america is a country that supports peace around the world. this is what some of our essential values are, progressive caucus, progressive message, thank you very much, we yield back. ms. woolsey: and thank you. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from georgia, mr. gingrey, is recognized for 60

minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i thank you and i thank the minority leader, john boehner of ohio, the minority whip, eric cantor of virginia, and the minority conference chairman, mike pence from indiana, our leadership, forgiving me the opportunity to take this hour this afternoon as the designee of the republican party, the minority party. and like my colleagues on other side of the aisle, the democratic majority that you just heard from, mr. speaker, concerning health care reform, my hour also will be spent discussing this topic of tremendous importance to the american people, certainly we were home during the august recess for almost 5 1/2 weeks and i think each and a every member on both sides of the aisle, if they didn't know

health care was the number one issue, mr. speaker, when they went home to their districts, they found out pretty quickly. i think, mr. speaker, you would agree with me on that. certainly it was all over the television, news, cable news, the networks. so we are in a time in this 111th congress where we're dealing with something that is just as important as any -- almost anything that you can think of. there are other issues, of course, that are on people's minds equally as concerning and one of those, mr. speaker, is the economy. the economy has been pretty rough and we all know it. for the last year and half we've been in a pretty deep recession, it seems like no matter what we do we're not able to pull ourselves out of that ditch.

and so i would say to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, while the health care reform issue is important and it is important that we lower the cost of health insurance so that everybody in this country can have affordable, accessible health insurance plans and the opportunity to see a physician when they need to, there are other great concerns. and one of those great concerns, of course, is the economy. and i looked at some polls, mr. speaker, earlier today and when 1,000 people were asked the question to list in order of their own priorities what were their greatest concerns, 44% of them said, my greatest concern is the economy. in second place was reforming health care at 14% of the

respondents and our national defense tied in third place when 14% also said that was their greatest concern. so it is important that we keep this issue as high a priority as it has and important as it is to people in this country, that the economy is the number-one issue. mr. speaker, i think it was president clinton that said it's the economy, stupid, or maybe somebody said to president clinton, remembered that -- remember that it is the economy. and it is, there's no question about it. when you're looking at an unemployment rate bumping up to 10% and people losing jobs since february when we passed the economic stimulus act, mr. speaker, $787 billion, i

believe, of borrowed money, 1/3 of that money borrowed from the chinese government, that that was going to stem the tide, we were going to make sure that unemployment did not get worse than 8.35% -- 8.5% and we stopped the hemorrhaging of jobs and indeed began to grow jobs. well now here we are some six months later having in the process, we haven't spent it all, but appropriated that much money, again, $787 billion to try to get things going, to stimulate the economy and we've lost another two million jobs and the unemployment rate is approaching 10%. . i think one thing i wanted to share with my colleagues this afternoon, mr. speaker, is the revision of our health care system, the revision of our health insurance system while important and important to our

economy, it's not the number one issue. the number one issue is to get people back to work and start creating some jobs and do something about the home building industry where sales are down, prices of homes are down, 40% probably in some parts of the country. jobs are lost in that industry. and there's so many things, mr. speaker, that we could be doing and should be doing to stimulate this economy, and yet the president's attention is -- has been diverted so much that he's going all across the country doing his own town hall meetings, almost like in a campaign mode, lobbying for this idea of a comprehensive total reform of our health care system such that the government

has more involvement, maybe not total involvement, but from my perspective, mr. speaker, and those of us on the republican side of the aisle, we have great fear that these plans, my colleagues that spoke in the aisle before, were comparing the senate version versus the house version. i would say, mr. speaker, that i have concern about both versions, about both versions leading to a total takeover of the health care system by our government. ms. woolsey and mr. ellison very good people, compassionate members as we all know. and you could tell from hearing them speak that they have good hearts. if you ask them or -- and i have heard actually -- i'm not going to put words in their mouth, but i have talked to a number of members of the

progressive caucus of which they are a part, mr. speaker, and what many of them have said and don't deny it is that they are not going to be satisfied until the federal government completely takes over the health care system in this country. and that is similar if not identical to the canadian system or the u.k. system. a nationalized, socialized medicine is actually what we are talking about. so we feel on the republican side of the aisle that first of all that's not desirable, the people don't want it, the town hall meetings told us they don't want it. the recent polling tells us that they don't want it. they clearly want lower prices for health insurance, they want us to do something about that. and they want to make that opportunity to have health

insurance more accessible for each and every one of of them and the members of their families. but they don't want a government takeover, mr. speaker. so i say to my colleagues, look, the president in the state of the union address, really it wasn't a state of the union address, it was a joint session of the congress, where our colleagues on the house side, our chamber, were object grouse -- we are obviously here, our colleagues on the other boddy, united states senators were here, cabinet members, supreme court justices were all here as the president addressed the nation in prime time. you can't have a better bully pulpit than that opportunity for the president to make his case. and during that 45-minute speech, another great speech by president obama, he said one thing that i agreed with. probably several things that i

agree with, many things i don't agree with, like a public option which is a euphemism for a government takeover of our health care system. but president obama did say that one thing, one area of reform that he has not yet seen in any bill is medical liability reform and that he felt that that would bring down the cost and that he was willing to listen, mr. speaker, to ideas presented to him. his door was opened. don't know about those three or four levels of gates before you get to the door, i'm not so sure, but i'm hopeful that he really meant that, mr. speaker. that his door is opened to republicans and democrats and rank-and-file leadership, every member of this body, in fact

even would be great if his door is opened to the citizens of this country that have great ideas. and where we get most of our great ideas if the truth be known. but this idea of medical liability reform, i have sent him a letter based on what he said in that speech. he also, mr. speaker, said the same thing to the american medical association annual meeting in his hometown of chicago this past june. mr. speaker, i know you know this, but some of my colleagues may not know that in my prior life before i came to this body seven years ago, now serving my fourth term, i spent 31 years practicing medicine, 26 as an ob/gyn specialist in my 11th district of georgia where i still live and will spend my entire life. it's a wonderful, wonderful community in northwest georgia.

so this issue of health care, i'm as compassionate about it as anybody. just as compassionate as my friends on the democratic side that had the previous hour. and this idea of doing something about medical liability reform, i am so glad that the president said to the american medical association at the annual meeting, yes, in response to a question from one of the doctors. we do need to do something. and i will take that into consideration. now, he wasn't specific. just like the other night he wasn't specific in regard to what he would be amenable to in regard to liability reform. mr. speaker, tonight i am going to spend some time talking about a bill that i have introduced every year since 2003, that was 108th congress,

i have a member of the 108th, ninth, 110th and 111th. each year i have inter-- introduced the bill called the health act. and it is about medical liability reform. the bill number for those of you who would like to look it up, and i hope you will because i've got about 60 co-sponsors right now, mr. speaker, i want co-sponsors on both sides of the aisle because i want this to be a bipartisan effort. i think that's the only way we really can accomplish things that the people will be happy with. but h.r. 1086 is called the health act. and it's modeled after a bill that was passed in california.

california with its 35 million people passed a bill back in 1978. it was the acronym for the bill is micra. the motion important aspect of that bill, mr. speaker, was to put a cap on awards from a jury to a plaintiff for pain and suffering. now, when a medical case is brought before a jury and there's alleged malpractice and the patient has been harmed or injured in some way, there's all kind of evidence given to the jury in regard to what the patient has lost. how much they are disabled. and whether or not they can

continue to work. if they can't continue to work over a lifetime, maybe be 25 more years that they expected to work, how much is that worth? and that's called compensatory damages, and those awards can be in the millions of dollars. and sometimes are. and in most of those cases i would say bravo, mr. speaker, that that -- the patient was injured by some physician or some hospital practicing below the standard of care and they've got just compensation. we call it a redress of their grievances. maybe it doesn't make them whole but it helps. this bill, though, doesn't say anything about that. doesn't take away not one scintilla of their right to redress of those grievances.

it simply says that if someone -- it's a minor, minor situation. a minimal injury or even in some cases where the jury says, you know, we know based on two weeks of the attorneys, the plaintiff attorneys and the attorney defending the physician, the doctor didn't do anything wrong. this was really just an unfortunate outcome. the doctor followed all of the standard practices, best practices in the community, but, golly, we just feel sorry for the patient and after all the doctor's not going to really pay this. she pays a high malpractice insurance premium to be insured, but it's that old insurance company. we are going to just go ahead

and award $4 million for pain and suffering. well, that's what drives up the cost of health insurance, mr. speaker, for everybody else. and it is estimated that if we limit that kind of opportunity for just out of compassion not based on any factual evidence, that these sort of run away jury awards are given, if we limit that, then we could save in this health care system of ours, mr. speaker, up to $120 billional year. $120 billion a year. that estimate by the rand corporation. it just to me, mr. speaker, seems that if we go in this

direction, that we wouldn't have to say to the american people, we are going to pay for health care reform by taxing the so-called wealthy an additional $800 billion a year. my friends, we are talking about, well, it's ok. if you had a lot of money, why not give to the poor and the downtrodden and follow the good book. that's fine. i understand but there's another perspective on that. you teach a manp to fish, you feed him for life. you give a man a fish, you just give him one meal. and many of these people, these so-called rich that are going to be taxed in the house bill they were praising so much i think, the number h.r. 3200, there's a surtax on people with a combined income i forget something like $250,000.

well, many of those people, mr. speaker, are small business men and women. that pay their taxes just like an individual, like a small business, sole proprietor. . when you add that surtax on top of their marginal rate and their state and local taxes and fica, they're paying 52%, more than half of their income, in taxes, so many of them will simply say, you know this little company that we started, years ago, this little roofing company this sheet metal company this real estate shop, and we created these 10, 15, 20, 25 jobs, we've been good to our employees and we provided them health insurance, you know, we're now in our 50's and

we've been prudent and frugal and saved back and we were planning on working another 10 years, 15 year, keeping this company going, maybe turning it over to our children, our grandchildren. but you know, this is crazy. we can't continue to do this. we're not working for ourselves. we're not working for our employees. we're working for the federal government. so they can totally reform health care and turn it into a socialized medicine system. we're just not going to do it and we're going to close the door and we are going to have that many more people on the unemployment rolls and that many more people without health insurance. i've been hearing my colleagues talk about, and i think president obama, mr. speaker, said it just last week in his speech, this is a crisis, 14,000 people every day, 14,000

people every day are losing their health insurance and we've got to do something about it. mr. speaker, 14,000 people are losing their health insurance every day, not because of the cost of health insurance, they're losing it because they lost their job. six million of them in the last couple of years, two million since february when we passed the so-called economic stimulus bill. so, you know, we have to kind of put all these things in proper perspective, so this bill that my colleagues were praising, h.r. 3200, i'm on the committee, i was there, i know what's in the bill, i've read the bill, the 1,100 pages. the pay-for of $1.5 trillion over 10 years, and that's a very conservative estimate as told to us by, as they said,

the nonpartisan congressional budget office, $1.5 trillion, $8 billion coming from that taxation on those small business men and women, that job-killing taxation, and another $500 billion, mr. speaker, taken out of, what? the medicare program. do you think, my colleagues, that we can afford to cut medicare by $500 billion when we've already been told by the trustees that by 2017, there'll be less money coming in from the medicare fica that's going out in benefits to our 45 million, i think there are, medicare beneficiaries? and that the long-term, unfunded liability of medicare out through the year 2075 is $35 trillion and that's with a

t, $35 trillion. so we say, oh, well we need the money because the president said we're not going to do this bill, either the senate bill or house bill, whatever is the one that is ultimately chosen, we're not going to spend one dime, no i think he even said one penny, i think he said one penny, we're not going to spend one penny of federal money, it's all going to be paid for. so that's the pay-for. $800 billion worth of taxes and the $500 billion cut to medicare. mr. speaker, $500 billion over 10 years. i heard someone from aarp recently say, well, that's a small cut.

well, in 2008, we spent $480 billion on the medicare program. so if we cut it $500 billion over 10 years, that, my colleagues, $50 billion a year, isn't it? divide 500 by 150. -- by 10. $50 billion a year. well, $50 billion as a numerator over $480 billion as a denominator, i believe that's more than 10% a year. mr. speaker, cutting medicare when it's about to go broke by the year 2017, over 10% a year for the next 10 years, you tell me that makes sense? so that we can guarantee insurance for another 5% of our population, many of whom don't want it?

but yet we're going to force them to take it. to buy it. certainly it's not going to be free. but what happens to our medicare recipients, our moms and dads, grandparents, who are, let's say, on medicare advantage. medicare advantage is that option that you have under medicare, you have to pay a little bit more, but it covers prevention and wellness and you get to go to the doctor and have an annual physical and medicare pays for it. you have screening for a lot of dreaded diseases and medicare pays for it. and a nurse calls you back, maybe a week after your appointment, to make sure that you got your prescriptions filled, or that your fever went down, or that you checked your blood pressure and it's ok. all of that is provided under medicare advantage that's not available to the 80% who get

medicare as traditional fee for service. doesn't pay for physical. except the entry physical to medicare when you first turn 65. but you need one when you're 68. you need one when you're 72. you might need one every year thereafter. 10 medicare advantage my colleagues, we may be paying too much. we may need to sharpen our pencils. i'm not saying we don't look at everything very, very closely. we should do that on everything. every dime, as the president said, mr. speaker. every penny of taxpayer dollars we spend should be well spent. we should make sure we're not overpaying insurance companies who provide the medicare advantage ooption. but it must be pretty popular, mr. speaker, because 20%, 11 million of those seniors pick medicare advantage. well, to pay for that $500

billion out of medicare, guess where the biggest chunk comes from. it comes from medicare advantage to the tune of about $170 billion. it literally guts medicare advantage. it literally guts medicare advantage. so when the president says, mr. speaker, you and i and all of our colleagues, i've heard him say it many time, you like what you've got in regard to your health care, nothing will change. if you like what you have, you can keep it. well, try to convince those 10 million or 11 million people, senior citizens, precious senior citizens, who are on medicare advantage, they may want to keep it, but if the providers of the medicare advantage are losing money on the programs, and they will if you cut 17% of their reimbursement, they'll simply

say, look, i've got other business lines. i sell property and casualty. i sell automobile. i seal homeowners. i sell catastrophic. i sell life insurance, but i'm out of this. no way. that's 11 million people potentially, not all of them, but a large number of them who will lose their health insurance, what they like. they wanted to keep it but didn't get to. so it's an indirect taking it away from them. so you know, when we talk about, well, this is the way we're going to pay for it and not spend one extra dime, it's very important. it's very important that people understand what the pay-for is. that's why i say in regard to medical liability reform, the current system of the runaway awards given to patients for

pain and suffering, there are a couple of other provisions in my bill, the provision, of course, that we cap the award for pain and suffering at $250,000. several states have done that. several states have actually done that and expanded that number to $350,000. and it's worked fine. and i certainly, many mind is open in regard to -- my mind is open in regard to some changes because the bill, 1086 i'm talking about, is based on a california law that was passed 30 years ago. so, you know, to say today, well, 350,000 -- $350,000 is a reasonable thing. i would be willing in a heartbeat to talk to the president about that. to talk to the leadership of the democratic majority party about that. i want to, mr. speaker, there are a couple of other things about medical liability, tort

law, that i think our colleagues need to understand. there's something called joint and several liability. so, here's the scenario. a patient suffers an injury and the plaintiff's lawyers name everything that had anything to do with that patient during a hospital stay. let's say it's a patient that is scheduled for surgery on monday. a routine operation. and the doctor going to perform the surgery says to her partner , i'm going to be at church sunday morning with my family, do you mind, when you're making rounds, seeing your patients, would you stop in and see mr. smith and just make sure

everything is ok, tell him i'll come by this afternoon and check on him and see if he has any last-minute questions before the surgery. so the doctor's partner does that, kind of sticks his head in the door, says hello, you know, your doctor will be by this afternoon. well, that doctor could, under current law, be just as liable for any adverse outcome of that next day's surgery as the operating surgeon. and the way the law, current law says if that doctor who, all he did was say, hello, i'm your doctor's partner, i wanted to stop in and tell you that she'll be by this afternoon. if he has the most coverage, maybe he bought a more expensive malpractice policy,

mr. speaker, and he has, well, you've heard the expression, my colleague he has the deepest pockets. then in a lawsuit, he could be liable for everything, although he never even laid a hand on the patient. that's wrong. and that ought to be corrected. and that's why we need to eliminate this policy, it's called joint and kefrl liability. -- and several liability. in other words, everybody named is equally liable. clearly, as that analogy i just presented shows, that's not the case. it ought to be very specific, it ought to be proportional. i would think, mr. speaker, that would be plain as the nose on your face. there's another provision of 1086, the health act. it's called collateral source disclosure.

i mentioned earlier, mr. speaker, about how the evidence that's presented to a jury so they can figure out what award, if any, is appropriate for a patient who is injured by a physician or hospital, medical facility that's practiced below the standard of care. it's a very scientific approach. it's -- if the patient had to come back in the hospital and stay for another two weeks or a month, if the patient had to have another surgical procedure done if the patient had to be put to sleep and had to have the services of an anesthesiologist. if the patient went home, mr. speaker, and had to have a specialized wheelchair, if the patient had to have an assistant to help them with daily living, all of that stuff is -- and i'm sorry, mr.

speaker, i use the word stuff, that's improper. but all of those things, items of cost, are used to calculate what the total amount of a judgment should be, if in fact it is determined that what the doctor did led to this terrible, unfortunate outcome. . well, if the patient has disability insurance and when the injury occurred, they were 30 years old and that disability income compensates them for 80% of their salary for the rest of their life, if the patient has health insurance that covers anything else that had to be done, that information should be

known to the jury, because if not, you're looking at a situation we sometimes call double dipping. all of these things, mr. speaker, drive up the cost of health care and health insurance for everybody else, for everybody else. so, mr. speaker, that's why i was so pleased to hear the president say that he acknowledges that and something ought to be done about it and his mind is open. and i will say to him and to my colleagues in this body and in the senate that my mind is open as well and we should sit down, if necessary, mr. speaker, with a blank sheet of paper and just say, look, certain things in representative gingrey's bill, h.r. 1086, we don't agree with, but here are some other sections

that we think are very good. and by the way, we have some ideas here, the majority certainly, because it would be their bill, would say, look, let's put this in and that in and let's get to a point where we can all agree. and if we take this attitude, mr. speaker, on every aspect of health care reform and health insurance reform -- i would like to name several things that i just know that there would be bipartisan agreement in regard to how the insurance companies treat their clients. we, on my side of the aisle, we republicans absolutely would prohibit insurance companies from cancelling or rescinding a person's health insurance coverage after the fact by

saying, oh, you know, five years ago when you took out the policy, you didn't answer every question just right. you had a lab test that you didn't tell us about. or you had hepatitis when you were 16 years old and playing high school football and completely recovered and still, you didn't tell us about it and now you're 45 and you have to have your gal bladder taken out and that $20,000 bill estimate of benefits that you got, we're not paying a dime. that's got to stop. that absolutely has to stop. we are in total agreement that insurance companies should not be allowed to deny coverage for pre-existing conditions.

we are in agreement that setting up exchanges, insurance exchanges in every state where a person who doesn't have insurance or works for a small company that doesn't offer it can shop and you've got multiple insurance companies, 1,300 across the country, that offer health insurance product that they can compete and a person can go on-line knowing exactly what's covered, what the deductible is, what the co-pay is, who the doctors are in the provider network, even go on-line and check and find out if the doctors have a good record, if they're cost effective and make a decision and if their income is lower than 300% of the federal poverty level. of a family of four, that is

$65,000 a year, to supplement them so they can afford to buy those policies. we are in agreement with that, mr. speaker. we don't disagree. we have compassion, too. the two democrats who were here earlier are probably the most compassionate members of this body, but we have a heart as well, and we want to help people, help the down tropical depressionen. but we don't want to just simply say we can't solve this problem. g omp lly, we put a man on the moon in 1969. we caught russia and passed them because we had the determination and the will to do that and you tell me now 50 years later that we can't solve this problem without just saying, look, we throw up our hands and can't do

it. federal government, you take it over and run our health care system and let's have everybody on medicare or medicaid. no. we have a lot of things that we can work together on and we need to do that. and this idea of medical liability reform and the savings that it brings, certainly it should be on the table and heretofore it has not been. there's not one section in either the three bills that came through the house or the two bills that came through the senate. we need that. just as we need, mr. speaker, a comprehensive electronic medical records system. that's another cost safer of maybe $150 billion a year. yes, there is upfront costs. the president put $19 billion into the economic stimulus

package to make sure the government is continuing its efforts to set the standards so that all these computer systems, hardware, software forever specialty and every subspecialty can talk to the medicare system, can talk to the medicaid system, can talk to the v.a., can talk to the military, can talk to every private insurance company across this country so if you go on vacation and you have a little card about the size of a visa card or american express card that's got your identification in there, very secure and you're at the south pole, for goodness sakes and you hit your head on the ice and you are in a coma, somebody can reach in your back pocket, swipe

that card and know what your medical history is, what medications you're on and if you are taking plavix and not give you cumaden and kill you. mr. speaker, if we put the bickering aside and listen and the majority party allows the minority party in the room, we can do this. we can do this. and i think the american people would be proud of it. there's one other thing that i have been proposing and my colleagues on this side of the aisle, this idea of why is it that people can only buy health insurance in their own state.

their own state may have passed all kinds of mandates on health insurance that require a test for this, a test for that, coverage for this, coverage for that. all of these things that sound nice when you propose them, but they are part of a basic policy. so every policy in the state has to include all those things. well, these people can't afford health insurance in that particular state. maybe it's my own state of georgia or alabama, louisiana or florida, massachusetts. but yet they are forced to buy insurance in their own state. and many of them don't, because they can't afford it. let's let them go online and shop in neighboring states to look and see, just like on

medicare part d, the prescription drug plan, you'll see that the competition in the free market will keep those prices down and make them competitive and that an individual could pick a policy that's almost tailor-made for him or her. in the medicare prescription drug plan, my mom makes a list of the six medications she's on and gives her social security number, gives her zip code so she will know which pharmacies are close to her and which plans are available and she looks and sees how much the different plans charge for the medications that she's on. she doesn't care what they charge for something she's not taking.

that doesn't matter to her. it's the uniqueness of her that allows her to shop in that way and get the best price. and we can do that with these health plans through these exchanges. we can set up these high-risk pools so people who have a birth defect or come down early in life with type i diabetes or multiple diseases, they could become part of the high-risk pool in each state and say to the insurance companies once again, you have to participate and you can't charge more than 1.5 times what the standard rates are. i started out the hour specifically talking about medical liability reform and the significant savings.

i referred to it as the silver bullet worth of savings. and i think that is something that certainly ought to be -- if we pass health reform this year, that certainly should be a major provision. electronic medical records, of course, as well and many of the other things i mentioned. but to throw up your hands and say, we can't do it. we have 535 of the best and brightest people in this country serving this congress. all walks of life, all educational levels, all previous professions and we can't do this? we have to just literally toss up our hands and say, let's let the federal government do it and yet, there is not one word in this constitution that talks about health care and the requirement of the federal government providing health care, not one word. and i look at it often, my

colleagues and look at the glossary often. i look at arms, the right to bear. assembly, the right of. counsel, the right to. grievances, we talked about earlier, didn't we? petition the government, the right to. the press, freedom of. religion, freedom of. speech, freedom of. but not one word about health care. and i want to just close by saying to my colleagues, we don't want to let the federal government take over our health care system. there's an art to medicine. it's not an exact science and we don't need bureaucrats getting between our doctors and our patients. and the american people are telling us that. and i say it would be woe to us

if we turn our back to them and force a government-run health care system by some parliamentary trick erie. i hope my colleagues are smarter than that. we will do the right thing and i hope we do it in a bipartisan way. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr. meek, for 60 minutes.

mr. meek: once again, it's an honor to come before the house and i look forward to always coming to the floor. the 30-something working group, we have been working now not only through the 108th congress but all the way up to the 111th congress. and we pride ourselves on coming to the floor talking about issues that are not only facing americans, but the challenge we have as policy makers here in washington, d.c. to make sure that we provide the kind of leadership that not only our constituents in our various districts deserve, but also the people in our state and of course the entire country. and to try to achieve that is definitely a hard thing to do at times, but very easy to do when we work together. as i start off every special order, mr. speaker, and members, just want us to continue to stay focused on what's going on not

only domestically but throughout the world. as you know, our men and women that are in uniform and those that work not only in the diplomatic corps and the state department are deployed throughout the world. we do know that we have individuals that have to clean sand out of their boots and stand up on behalf of our country in the theater of war in two areas. . as of today at 10:00 a.m., the death toll in iraq is 4,347 troops and soldiers. those that are wounded in action, returned to duty is 17,633. also wounded in action, not returning to duty, 3,861. the death toll in afghanistan,

operation enduring freedom, is 830. wounded in action and returned to duty is 1,506. wounded in action, not returning to duty is 2,390. i think it's important, mr. speaker, every time that we get the opportunity, we definitely appreciate not only those that are enlisted now, reservists and national guard units and also their families, but we must show them a great deal of appreciation, allow them to -- allow us to salute one flag, also for the many veterans out there who have served. it was a great honor for me, my uncle served in the korean war and saw a little action in the vietnam war. he recently passed on. he was not only honored to get

medical health care at the end of his life at bay pines medical center in bay pines, florida, but also he has the honor, along with many heroes and sheroes to have his final resting place at arlington national cemetery. mr. speaker, there's been a lot of discussion about this issue of health care, and i think that it's important that we continue to have not only that discussion, but some action, and when i first came to the floor last week, when we reconvened as a congress, we talked about a number of issues that are facing not only americans, but we talked about what happened at town hall meetings and we talked about, we wonder where the president stands and we had a lot of discussion going back and forth , need it be members of the republican caucus, democratic

caucus or the two independents over in the u.s. senate. a great discussion, great discourse a lot of congressional record statements made a lot entered without official statement on the floor, but just in writing. still this debate continues. we know that we have at least four working documents that are out there right now. we know that the chairman of the finance committee and the senate -- in the senate has working with senators on both sides of the aisle to come to some sort of resolution where americans will be able to say, those of us that are here in washington, working toward some sort of -- we'll get to a final rest more sooner than later to make sure that insurance companies are no longer doing what they're doing to the american people and what they have done to the american people. and that's pushing up rates, pushing up co-pays, and denying

coverage for some americans when they worked very, very hard, some $300 $400 in the paychecks, some personal testimonies, $1,200 for a four-week period to insure their families. i'm not going to stand here and tell you they were able to do that on their own. they were able to keep not only the c.e.o. benefits at the levels they are, benefits that the average american would never see or the paycheck an average american would never see. they would never be able to live in the gated communities some of these insurance executives are living in right now. they'll never be able to understand what it means not to be denied for coverage or a procedure when one may need it when they go to visit their doctor. they would never have that opportunity. i'm not even going to blame it on the insurance executives, saying they set forth the

environment to live that way and to be able to stand in judgment of an individual's health care even when there's a doctor that's recommending that their patient receives a certain procedure or a test that has to be carried out. the environment would not be what it is today if the congress was to do our job. if we were to do our job, we wouldn't have some of the horror stories we've been hearing over a period of time. we would not have constituents calling their congressman or congresswoman saying, i need you to call this 1-800 number for me because i need an operation or my husband needs an operation or my child needs an operation, we cannot operate that way because everyone can't call their member of congress or their elected official or the mayor to be able to stand for them.

it's important, and i want to come to the floor today to say it's imperative, even adding on to important, even more, that we follow through. i'm speaking here with a bipartisan voice because something, mr. speaker, that i saw when the president came to speak to us last week, it seems like it was two weeks ago, but it was last week. he talked about passing a health care package that would not add one red cent to the day. i think that's important. i think that's a value that this congress can embrace on both sides of the aisle. he also said that he would not sign a bill that would allow insurance companies to deny people based on pre-existing conditions or family history. that's a value. that's something sound that we can both agree with. i was pleased to see my

colleague on the republican side of the aisle, the republican response after the president's speech, say there's some things we agree on. that was one of them. no longer allowing insurance companies to deny individuals on family history or pre-existing conditions. that was major. as far as i'm concerned. i was once upon a time just a public worker, a state trooper in florida and even before that, my occupation, before i was a student at florida a&m, was a skycap at the airport. i was -- i used to carry furniture at the jewish home for the aged in miami. i worked in the thrift shop. even though i was, in part of that time i enjoyed being on my mother's health plan, i knew what it meant to kind of be in that area that i hope i don't get hurt because i don't have the kind of insurance i need as a skycap. now it's important that we take

this no longer being denied on pre-existing conditions or history should no longer be a debate on do we agree with that or not. that's a softball. i want to say, mr. speaker, and members, it took us decades to get to that point. and the reason why members are now emboldened to say i agree with that provision is that leadership was provided to set the environment for them to say yes to that, for democrats to say yes to that, for republicans to say yes to that, for our two independents in the senate to say they agree with that as a principle and bedrock of this health care reform. i think something that's also so very, very important. we look at many times on this floor, we have a discussion of urban versus rural. when you look at this health

care debate and you look at how members are coming to the table, needing not only the resources to be able to bring about a -- a medical home for individuals that do have insurance and in this bill, we're achieving that, of making sure a super super majority into the high 90's have an insurance card and they're able to go in and get preventive care and also go in and get the procedure they need and to do that, they have to have a medical home. we're talking about community health centers having more capacity to be able to take on everyday americans. not just indigent, not just individuals that could not -- they don't have a primary doctor. this is to allow individuals that are in the top 1% or the top 2% of income gatherers in

this country to be able to go to their medical home, a community health center or they could go to their own doctor, but they'll at least have the capacity to be able to have that medical home. this is important in rural america and in rural florida. right now, as i travel throughout the state of florida, there are a number of people saying, you know, kendrick, i -- you know, i kind of like this health care thing, but i don't have a car and have to drive two or three hours to go see a primary doctor. and the reason why that primary doctor is not there is because of the lack of medicare or medicaid reimbursement or a constituency that will help keep that practice aflolet. so when you have -- afloat. so when you have not only in the 3200 or other product here's in congress, these community health centers as a foundation a base, a bedrock of this health care reform

package, i think we look at it from the standpoint of saying that people will have a medical home to go to. they will no longer have are to drive for miles and miles and lose doctors that come in and do their residency but cannot afford to stay in the rural or emerging county as it relates to the population because they don't have the backing and incentives. i can tell you in the house product those incentives are there to be able to not only encourage those doctors to stay there and those medical professionals to stay there, but to provide a medical home. now i want to let you know that as we look at the different proposals and we know that members have their own version of what they feel health care reform should be, i can tell you with the proper leadership, i know that democrats,

republicans, and independents can come together on making sure we work with a public and private system as we see in both proposals and both house and senate. one that has a private exchange along with a public option that will allow those who can cannot afford to be part of the private exchange to no longer find themselves in the ranks of the uninsured. why do i say that, members? i say that it's key and that it's important so that individuals who do have insurance, like myself and probably everyone in this chamber because we're public workers, that they will no longer take our premiums up throughout america, the 250-plus million americans who do have insurance because of the uninsured ranks there, because someone has to pay for their health care and that's

the reason why we have the $20 aspirin. that's the reason why a box of tissues in the hospital is far beyond anything you would ever pay for, even if you were to go into the gift shop at the ritz carlton to buy a pox of tissue, it costs more in the public hospital or private hospital than it costs at some five-star hotel because that cost has to be covered soom way, somehow. it's very, very important that everyone understands as it relates to this overall application of health care that we have to make sure we provide a public and private opportunity for individuals to be able to receive insurance. i come from a state, mr. speaker, where you have over 3,500 floridians that lose their insurance every week. that's a reality. that's what's going on. and to just use that statistic as some sort of backdrop for a

political speech or a backdrop to just make a point is really robbery to those individuals of the 3,500 and the 80% of floridians that do have insurance. it's robbery to be able to use that as a talking point without following it up to say that action will take place and we will have a paradigm shift to make sure that those 3,500 floridians that come a little bit over 80,000, 85,000 floridians losing their insurance every year and that automatically we know for that 80% or super majority of the floridians who have insurance, many of whom, i must add, mr. speaker, are on medicare, which i must say is a public option that a lot of people would do -- carry out a lot of choice words if you tried to do a away

with medicare now. i think it's also important that we understand that in this debate, members are going to be misunderstood, but the foundations of the debate should be about action. . i have a book of statistics pro and con. it's not going to make sure individuals become bankrupt because one of their family members have a medical emergency and insurance ran out in the first 10 days and now they're in open water and we have some facilities, believe it or not, legal or illegal, denying care to individuals, those that have paid their taxes and done all of the things we have asked them to do, but based on the fact that they don't have enough coverage, underinsured and those that find themselves uninsured because they can't afford the premiums

or the co-pays, they find themselves waiting. we have a lot of 50-somethings and early 60-somethings that are waiting for medicare to get a procedure that they should have gotten seven years ago. it's not only going to cost me more but everyone i represent in florida more, because of the paralysis of analysis that have taken place here in the halls of congress. there were some things that i was very pleased to hear during the joint session. i was happy to hear that the president was determined to be the last president to deal with this issue, because i have been in politics now or you may say elected service, public servant now for 15 years, going on 16 years. i'm a second generation member, mr. speaker, as you can also appreciate. second generation. my mother before me served in

this house for some 10 years. then before that, she served in the legislature and the senate and house of representatives and worked at a community college. and so we come from a family of public servants. i was a state trooper, served in the legislature eight years, came here serving to the best of my ability. i can't remember an election that i didn't have somewhere in a stump speech that i wanted to make sure that we could make health care affordable for all americans and bring down the cost of health care for those who are paying too much and getting too little. this health care reform package is more of a bill of rights for those of us who are here punching in and out every day, making sure we raise our children and doing the things we need to do to make this country strong, this bill and this concept of reform of not only health care insurance, but making sure that no american that pays for insurance find

themselves in a situation where they sacrifice what kind of milk they buy, soy milk or what kind of bread they buy, bread on sale or whole wheat bread or what kind of eggs they buy, organic or non-organic eggs should not be based on the fact that well, i have to pay $300 every pay period to be able to cover health care costs for my family to be there when we need it and then find themselves in a situation that when they need it, they pull the card out of their wallet, mr. speaker, and thinking that they're on their way to getting something, to only find out that the cards they had in their wallet wasn't even worth the plastic that it was made out of. that they find themselves paying out of pocket even before some

$1,600 they didn't have in the first place, going to the credit union, trying to get a signature loan -- this is for real. this is what happens in america. this is what happens in florida every day. calling family members, disclosing to third cousins personal medical crisis that they're going through, quite personal in many cases, to be able to ask them, swallow pride and ask them for help when they have been paying $200, $300 out of their pay period for health care insurance. it's not what it's about. so i'm seeing, mr. speaker and members and pleased to see that the debate is now moving toward -- we agreed that something should happen and something will happen. and the leadership has been

provided from the executive branch to the legislative leaders saying if they're constructive components that can be placed into this insurance reform legislation, then we definitely would like to hear it. now i, for one, have not and will not and if debate comes to the floor to advocate any canadian-style plan, that's just a public plan. that's not what it's about, even though we know there's a medicare -- something close toe -- to a plan, similar, but not the same, but medicare has a -- has private entities that are there that are helping close the gap. but the federal government is making sure that our seniors that have paid into and that they have something to fall back on.

i can tell you also that when we look at this issue of health care and we look at the experience that real americans and i would add, floridians are going through today, i want to make sure members and i wanted to come today which is really a voice of the every day individual what they are paying and what they're getting. 535 between house and senate. i think it's important that people understand that our experience is totally different from the every day american or our constituents' experience. seven years in congress, i must have -- i must say i have had family members that have had a

medical dilemma. i haven't been denied anything. i'm a member of congress. i don't think my constituents -- i said it last week and this week, elected me to say, i want you, your wife and two children to have better health care than i ever have. i'm showing up 7:00 early on a tuesday morning to vote for you. they voted to say i know you know what i'm going through and i'm sending you to washington, d.c. to give voice to my call. and because the every day americans is making sure that its government will not be a part of the hand-shake deal. neither be democrat or republican administration, the fact that doctors are spending more and more time on the phone talking to someone in sioux city

, iowa, in a cubicle trying to convince them that their patient needs a procedure or test and that they need to cover it. they should not look at that person's file and say, well, you had this, that and the other and i don't think you're gel gibble for it. if you are paying for it, you get it. that's the school i come from. i think it's important that no matter what your economic background is, you go into work every day, you buy health care insurance, you're in an exchange, you will have put forth a sacrifice that you were not to put dollars into a college fund or do what you wanted to do, whatever your religion may be, when it comes to that time of year, you weren't able to provide the kind of things you wanted to provide, or that vacation you wanted, you

could not go off to church or synagogue, camp to study more or the mosque and you could not go, because financially, you are too busy paying more every year into your health care insurance. it's not on that individual trying to get it to get adequate health care. it's on us. democrats and republicans have the responsibility to meet that common ground to be able to make it happen. for those leaders be it here in congress, state or local community that is sitting on the side line of the biggest date that has to do with the multinational companies that are at a disadvantage because of the lack of policy on this floor to set the stage, they are at a disadvantage. and when they're at a disadvantage, they cannot

provide jobs. that goes all the way down to that small business. i talk to small businessmen and women every day, be it through emails or talking on the phone. and they say, kendrick, you know, it pains me when i try to buy insurance as an employer, people don't talk about that a lot, based on the individuals i employ and based on their health care background, i pay more because i'm in a rural part of florida where probably the diet is not what it should be or whatever the case may be or family history or what have you and that plays a factor. i talk to businessmen and women that have a plant here and plant there and costs more at the plant here in this county versus the other county. i don't know what goes into this whole insurance coverage and what the executives look at, but

i can tell you this, that's painful for that individual providing jobs because they know their insurance isn't adequate enough to make sure that their employees who helped build their company to where it is today, allow them to live in the house they live in and celebrate the kind of life they celebrate, they care about those individuals because those individuals made their company and built their family name if the company is named after their family to what it is today. so there is an attachment that's there. when we look at this health care issue, we have to look at it that not only does it deal with every day americans, every day business and health care workers -- and i will close out this segment on this point. if a health care worker whether it be a certified nurse's assistant or r.n., registered nurse or a specialist, a doctor

who has been in the profession and even primary care doctors that we're going to need an army of these primary care doctors to create what we call this medical home so people have somewhere to go with their insurance card, to have them in a profession that they know that's bleeding constantly and that's hooked up and they're in i.c.u. because of the cost of insurance and cost of coverage and level of coverage that every day americans are receiving. we have public hospitals that are going under and finding themselves in budget crisis and even private hospitals where staffing levels have been cut back. and when you come into a state like mine in florida, i helped pass legislation as regards to nursing home staffing levels and making sure that our frail and most vulnerable have the kind of staffing they deserve. but when it becomes a challenge

on the reimbursement rate to be able to make sure that their staffer is there for that individual, that have put their loved one in a hospital, they shouldn't have to watch. i was in gainesville over the weekend and i talked to a young lady who came up to me and said, congressman, my mother is in the hospital. she didn't know me. but she said, since you're the congressman, i want to talk to you that my family -- we work a schedule out to go sit with my mother in the hospital because the staffing level is not what it should be. that's what's going on out there. now, if something were to happen to me right now, mr. speaker and i hope it doesn't, but if something were to happen to me, i wouldn't be worried. i would get over to bethesda. i'm covered, i'm a congressman. people going to put me in a room, i probably would have a private room and prehe