that's why republicans -- this isn't a matter of hey, can't you be open minded? no, i can't be open minded. i don't want the government involved in health care decisions with my body and the republican proposals don't do that. we're joined, i don't know whether he wants to join us yet or not, but a good friend of mine from texas, he's not quilet ready, will you talk to us in a few minutes? ooh, you're going to do another hour, good for you, that's good. then here's one, this is breaks president obama's pledge to not raze taxes on those who makeless than $250,000. i recall in the campaign, he said i'm not going to tax anybody who makes less than $250,000 and i thought, man, am i glad about that because i don't make $250,000, i am going to skate free for four years no taxes, it's not going to be a big deal. .

if you flipped the light switch, you were going to get taxed and that doesn't have to do with $250,000. this bill is going to tax a lot of people making less than $250,000. and the old democrat bill, the new bill, yes, it is taxing people under $250,000. it mandates you have to buy a government product, which is unconstitutional and the republican bill doesn't do that. mr. bishop: if i could add one element to that $250,000. if $250,000 was a salaried employee, that's pretty good money. the only problem is in all of these equations, it applies to the business world as well, in which every small businessman is grossing $250,000. utah has more small businesses on average than most states do. and in my district, almost 98% of those according to the i.r.s.

will have a bottom line that is $250,000. the taxes that are imposed are also imposed to the business community. one of the reasons why the state of utah, when they looked to reform in the state, tried to come up with a policy that would give a consistent number to small business so they knew how to plan for what the health care costs would be. and then come up with a defined contribution level they could give their employees, who could go to the exchange and fits into what they need. that consistency is extremely important. it's very difficult for small business to provide health care for their employees when they don't know the escalating, almost roller-coaster cost will be to them. they can't plan. so they basically don't do it at all. if we add a tax to them at this stage of the game, that means we are making it even harder for the business community to recover to provide jobs, to grow our community and get people

working again. th's thing hurts job performance, that's why it hurts job performance. it can be devastating to jobs. mr. akin: i appreciate your highlighting this question of unemployment, because i think a whole lot of america cons would think we were more effective and they would have more respect for congress if we were dealing with the fact that we have a 10-plus percent unemployment rate out there. and that number is probably conservative because of the fact if you haven't had a job in a year, you are no longer part of the statistic. as people more and more get discouraged, they fall off the numbers and we still have a 10% unemployment rate. i think a lot of the public would say, hey, why don't you guys pay attention to unemployment. here's a way. we've got a bill here, that on the face of it, economists have said it's going to cost five

million jobs. why in the world would this proposal cost five million jobs? you just hit it. but do it again, gentleman. you have to understand, this is going to increase unemployment in america. is that what the public wants? more unemployment? i don't think so. please, run through again. you are a small businessman and this bill passes, and what does that pleen? mr. bishop: that means that -- mean? mr. bishop: that means extended costs associated with this particular plan. and anyone making over $2250,000 will be taxed, they will be taxed. if that was a salaried employee, that sounds pretty good. but that covers almost all the businesses that we have who are small in this country and large as well. and once again, it goes to the point we tried to make a little bit earlier, shadegg bill, price bill, other republican bills that should have been allowed to be dated, they don't have any of

those provisions. so that negative anti-job aspect that is definitely part of this bill if it's pushed through does not necessarily have to be there if you simply allowed the other ideas to be debated, discussed openly here on the floor. mr. akin: we don't have to create unemployment and deal with health care. it's just that this approach is going to create unemployment. let's look at how that works. there are a number of ways that unemployment is going to be driven. the first is, you're going to tax the guy that owns the business. when you tax someone, it means he has to give money to washington, d.c. and that means he can't take that same money and put it back in his business to add a wing, to buy a new machine tool, to create a new process, to create more jobs, because instead of taking the money to build the small business, you're taking it to give it to the government to run health care. so when you take money away from

the owner of a small business, you're he going to kill the job creation process. what else does it do? it creates a lot of red tape for business owners. and when you create red tape that makes it so it's harder for them to be efficient and competitive. that tends to hurt job creation. you also, because this bill has been sitting around and been hanging, scaring everybody to death for three-quarters of a year, it creates a sense of tension and restlessness, so the business owners are saying, i don't know what the business climate's going to look like in six months. i don't dare take a risk because i see threats on the horizon to the financial stability of my company. mr. bishop: the gentleman from missouri has those points on your chart which re-emphasizes the points you were making. mr. akin: forces individuals to purchase government-approved health insurance. the old democrat plan forced you, it forces everybody in

america to buy something. and the president's new version forces you to buy something. the republicans' does not force you to. americans don't like to be told to buy something. it's not constitutional. when can the government tell you that you have to go out and buy a gun or you have to buy a watermelon or something? that's not constitutional for the government to tell you you have to buy something, and yet, that's what's going on here. mr. bishop: if at times we have talked in the past about this concept of constitutionality in two ways, one that on it violates the concept of federalism, but the second one deals with the commerce clause and that has been brought to our attention before. that even in court cases, and maybe someone will correct me here, in court cases there are two principles on whether the commerce clause is justify bly used, does it have an impact on

interstate commerce? and everyone admits this would have an impact. the second is, is there a willing participant in this program? this is why this is different, because for the first time, you are threatening to fine people, throw them in jail for not doing anything, for doing nothing. i don't know how many negatives i put in that sentence, but for someone living their life who does not want to participate, they will be fined for doing that. government's never done that. and that is what i think exascerbates and expands the commerce clause beyond recognition and beyond fairness to individuals at the same time. mr. akin: i think we have had a chance to take a look tonight at what i started out by saying that we are standing as americans on the edge of an abyss. i recall standing on the rim of the grand canyon and seeing 1,000 feet of open space in

front of me. and in a sense, that's where we stand today with america perhaps politically poised to push forward using a misuse of a process to force this government takeover of health care down the throats of many, many americans who do not want to see this take place. and this is a very serious moment in american history. i can recall historically there's been other very serious moments in american history. the pilgrims standing on the frozen shore of preliminary outh with the dream of -- plymouth. the gentlewoman is recognized washington on his knees praying for his army. and even old skeptic ben frankly -- franklin asking for prayer

each day. in all of these cases, americans discovered that in their hour of need, they turned to god for his help and his guidance. i believe as we stand on the abyss tonight, that those americans who will want to turn to god for answers, that this is a time to be doing that, to ask for his help so we don't make this fatal step pushing our nation into socialized medicine, creating a precedent for our citizens to be continuously handcuffed to government health care in a system in which no politician that is freely elected could reverse because they're going to say, you take my health care away, i won't elect you. that has been the experience in other countries. it completely changes the nature of the freedom and the nature of the quality of health care in america if we fall off this

abyss and it's time for prayers. god bless you all. thank you. and good night. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. gohmert: permission to address the house for one hour. mr. gohmert: it is a privilege to be on the floor any time when you know the history of this place and what all has gone on before us and i'm grateful for my friend from missouri, my friend from utah pointing out such important things about the health care debate that's ongoing. it's critical. we're talking about the lives of americans. this is not something that should be considered lightly or done too quickly. it is incredibly ironic to

realize, here we are now into march of 2010 and beginning back over a year ago, we were told there is no time to waste. we do not have time for republicans to have any input. we don't really want to hear from americans. this is too important, we were told, to delay. we have got to have this done by may. well, even though the democrats have plenty of votes to more than pass this bill, they didn't get it done by may. they could have done it without any votes from republicans, yet it was the democrats themselves that were not able to pass this bill. and the reason is, there were democrats who were also concerned about what was in this bill, just as many of them are still very concerned that what's in the bill is not appropriate

and not good for the people in their districts or their states. so, here we are that we need to get this done by july 4 and we heard we need to get it done by the august recess. and we need to get it done by halloween. we need to get it done by thanksgiving. each time, it was given a reason that there wasn't time to incorporate any republican ideas. the trouble is, these were not republican ideas. these are ideas that come from some of the smartest people in the country, that come from doctors, that come from economists, people that have worked through these issues. and yet, still, the effort has been made to ask america -- not ask, but demand america, stick out your tongue and say ah,

while we cram this down your throat. it needs to be looked at even more closely and there is a technique that's been known in the debate world as creating a straw dog. you create the straw dog and say, that's what your opponent believes and is trying to do. you get rightously indignant and you beat up the straw dog, showing how you tore your opponent up because your opponent had this ridiculous idea. the problem was in that debate device, it's simply not accurate because that's not what the opponent was saying. in this case, i don't see us as having opponents. we are out here trying to do what's best for america. and yet, most of america, through their representatives, have not had a chance to be heard. that includes many represented by democrats. but we're joined by my friend

from utah and would be glad to yield such time as mr. bishop might use. mr. bishop: i appreciate the gentleman from texas not only for his insights, but you have a special talent that i think the gentleman from missouri and i did not have in this and that is a legal background. i appreciate you bringing up the fact that there is bipartisanship in that there are concerns for this particular bill. i also appreciate the fact that sometimes we present arguments and i need to have a specific legal expert explaining them to me. so we talked a little bit earlier that apparently in his speech today, the president once again said if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, but if you are in an insurance company right now and you're happy with that, it will not change. and maybe i could ask you now as an attorney, someone who reads this stuff for a living and tries to understand the

gobly-gook, is that accurate? is it the fact that if you like your plan, you will be able to stay on your plan? and insurers will be able to maintain that commitment to people if either the senate or the house version were to pass? . mr. gohmert: the answer is, yes, you can keep your plan if you like it for maybe a year, then you lose it. maybe two, if you're lucky. the gentleman from utah has quoted exactly, i have the text of the president's speech here if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. the thing is, nobody -- nobody, not even my dear friends on the floor with me, nobody can

promise you that if you like your doctor you get to keep your doctor and i'll give you one good reason why. i talked to numerous doctors that are my age and older who have told me, many of them, that, i have not accumulated what i'd hoped to by this time but they are very sincere and they say, but it has gotten so frustrating, dealing with the government over medicare and medicaid and even dealing with insurance companies, they've had enough. and they, i've been told, i'm sure my friends have been too, that if this bill passes, they're walking away from the practice of medicine. they're walking away. it will not be worth it. i've heard that from so many people. so for somebody to say, if we pass this bill, and i don't care who it is if any democrat or any republican were to say if we pass this bill and you like your doctor, you can keep

him, it's wrong. you can't make that promise because many of the doctors you like the best have already said, we're walking away. mr. bishop: i have a followup question to that. in the law that's proposed to be passed, either the house or senate version, does it allow me to maintain my insurance in the present form if i want to maintain that insurance in the present form? mr. gohmert: one of the things i love about being on the same committee with the gentleman from utah is, he may not be a lawyer but he has incredible insight and discernment and shoot right to the crux of an issue and so when we do that, as the gentleman has asked, and we look at page 91 of the house bill and i've asked others, you know, look at the 11-page summary the president proposed and then look at the 19-page

summary of the summary that the white house gave to us, both the summary, the 11-page summary and the white house 19-page summary of the summary and see if you can tell if one single letter of the law under section 202 of the house bill is changed. i've been told by attorneys that have looked at it that it does not appear the president is proposing any change to page 91 of the house bill and so when you look for the answer, do you keep your insurance, you look to the language and the language is this, section 202, protecting the choice to keep current coverage. a, grandfathered health insurance coverage define. grandfathered health insurance coverage means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and affect before the first day of y-1, if the following conditions are met.

and while we're -- y-1 is just the day that the new bill starts. number one, limitation on new enrollment. in order to keep your insurance, you like it, number one, and i quote, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first date of y-1. so if you add a single additional insured to the policy that you have, you're on a company policy, or if you're like a couple of guys that told me recently, their unions negotiated a fantastic health care plan they love it, they're not worried about the rest of the country because they get to keep their plan and unfortunately, i asked, does anybody ever get added to your health care policy? yeah, people retire all the

time. and they get in there and we all have the same great policy. i had to explain, bad news. as soon as they add one more person on your health care policy, you lose your policy. and then that throws you over under the federal insurance exchange program that the government controls. there will be private insurance companies that will be allowed initially until they go broke, they will be allowed to offer policies but they are mandated exactly what they have to provide in those policies. but here's the real kicker. the second limitation on changes in terms or conditions. so the second condition about keeping your policy is this, and i quote. the issuer does not change any of its terms or conditions, including benefits and cost sharing. now, that's why i replied to

the gentleman earlier, the answer is, you might get to keep your insurance policy for a year, two years if you're lucky. but there is no way you'll have an insurance policy go more than a couple of years without having to make some changes in the terms and conditions. for one thing we know that health care, medicine, knowledge and practice changes all the time. we find out some types of procedures are more dangerous than we knew so a policy says we'll never no longer cover that the benefits do not outweigh the risks that are involved. another thing is, you have new technology, new, sometimes less expensive ways to treat something, well obviously you want those included in your coverage. that would be added. it changes a term or condition. within one year or two years, everybody in the country that liked their policy just as the

president promised gets to keep it for about a year or two and then they lost it. so when the president says you get to keep it that is accurate, he just didn't tell you, you won't keep it very long. i'm glad to yield to my friend from missouri, mr. akin. mr. akin: i appreciate your discipline and having worked through specifically and exactly what the bill says because it's easy to say, that this bill isn't going to cost a dime because somebody could say, it isn't going to cost a dime, that's because it's going to cost $1 trillion instead. you're clarifying the importance of words here. let me ask you this question. is it true that the policy defines what insurance has to cover? and therefore does the federal government tell you that you have to have this, this, and this in your policy and therefore force the plcy -- policy to be changed even if

you didn't want to change it. mr. gohmert: the gentleman asks a good question and i appreciate the question. that affords great insight. you look over at page 167 of the bill that was passed in the house and as best i can tell, even though all we have is the 11-page summary and the 19-page summary of the summary, the best -- mr. akin: the summary of the summary is longer than the summary of the bill? mr. gohmert spst that's correct. mr. akin: so if we had the summary of the summary of the summary, would that be 3,000 pages? mr. gohmert: absolutely. that would have more information and would be more helpful. but the best we can tell, since the president didn't propose a specific bill, very elusive in what's being proposed, page 167 couldn't a-- doesn't appear to have been changed, that says the commissioner shall specify, the federal commissioner on

this bill shall specify the benefits to be made available under the exchange participating health benefits plan. now that means every plan that has had a term or condition change or has added an adgsal insured, those have been -- an additional insured, those have been lost and within a couple of years, everybody is under this. the commissioners shall, one of about 3,000 or so shalls in the bill, spegsfi it to be made available. then it goes on to say, the entity offers one base -- has one basic plan for such service. the commissioner is going to require that everybody provide exactly the same plan. mr. bishop: this is a one-size-fits-all. mr. gohmert spst it's a one

size fits all approach. mr. akin: then if you change those policies, you're not having the same policies you were promised you could keep? mr. gohmert spst the gentleman is correct. if you go on further, now you can -- you have -- everybody that's offering insurance in an area has to offer the same exact basic plan. it's a basic plan. and then if a -- an insurance company provides that one basic plan, they may be allowed to offer, it says may offer, one enhanced plan. but again the commissioners -- commissioner specified exactly what that plan is. if your -- if you offer an enhanced plan, you may also have one premium plan for such -- but the bottom line is, there will be many areas in the country, once everybody loses their own health care insurance within a couple of years, everybody goes under this plan,

the commissioner tells everybody what has to be in their plan. everybody. you have no choice. you have to go with what they say. and so the other thing is, that once an insurance company provides that, they've got no flexibility. there's debate about whether or not there would be a public option or a public -- publicly financed insurance company to compete. we know how that work we saw it with flood insurance, when the federal government comes in and provides that alternative that competition, you run the private insurance companies out of business because the federal government operates in the red, runs the private businesses out, and then the federal government does as our federal flood insurance program has, continue to run deeper and deeper into red ink.

mr. akin: you've got one choice, a little like henry ford's automobile, you can get any color you want as long as it's black. in this case you can get any health insurance you want, as long as it's the government policy mr. gohmert: the gentleman is correct. one of the great ironies in this, we have so many friends across the aisle, i know they're very sincere when they believe with all their hearts they want to help what they call the little guy in america. so i'm sure they haven't read this bill as thoroughly as i have. but if they will trouble themselves to do so, they will see that under the bill that passed the house that we just had to rush through, if you make just above the poverty line so that -- as determined in the bill -- so you don't get free health insurance, but you don't make enough to buy the

policy that the federal government mandates, you pay an extra percentage, i believe it's 2%, on your income tax. this is -- we're talking about low-middle class. some of those folks working two and three jobs to keep food on the table and what is the majority going to do to them? why if you can't afford as good a plan as we order you to get, we're going to increase your insurance -- your income tax. you can't afford insurance and yet you're going to increase the income tax? i just know there are people that care deeply about the poor, those who are -- the working poor, doing what they can to struggle to get by, yet they're going to hammer those very people. it's just ludicrous. mr. kay in-- mr. akin: what you're talking about is a mandate. this is a mandate that says you've got to buy the government product.

mr. gohmert: that's exactly right. the president has mentioned, states require you to buy car insurance. the fact is, you buy insurance for the privilege as the law is determined to drive on the road. you don't have to drive to live. to just live in america. if this bill passes, you will have to buy insurance just to live in america or you will be fined, you will be hammered with extra amount of money you'll have to pay. let me finish one other thing about that insurance. there is no state in the united states of america that requires anyone to insure their car for damages to their own car or damages physically to themselves. . the only requirement is for

damage you do to someone else. this will be breaking new ground, never done in history, never envisioned by the constitution, not anywhere in the enumerated powers. you have to buy insurance on yourself just to live. i yield to my friend. mr. akin: you got to the point that i was going to ask. you were not only an attorney, but also served as a judge as well as a congressman we have come to respect, so what i was going to ask is, is it constitutional for the federal government to tell somebody that they have to buy insurance this way? and what i'm thinking i'm hearing you say, this would be something that the supreme court will look at, but if you use the basis of the constitution, this would be margin neal and maybe not constitutional, is that what i hear you saying?

>> mr. gohmert: if the cream court takes a fair and literal look at the constitution, they will know that this was not an enumerated power reserved to the federal government. therefore under the 10th amendment, it's reserved to the states and the people. and i would like to point out one other thing. in this article that was already out, came out so quickly after the president's speech today. it's from cnn and can be found at cnn's website. but they point out that the president's proposing four different things. first of all, combating waste, fraud and and abuse and i'll come back to that. but this article says, quote, obama is also considering a republican-supported idea to appropriate $50 million to help states find alternative resolutions to medical

malpractice dispute, including health costs. well, when this information came out today after the president or during the president's speech, i was in a meeting with about 50 other republican members of congress and i couldn't believe this statement saying this was a republican idea and he said, we're embracing this republican idea. i want to know which one of my republican friends proposed such a rick clugs program such as that. no one knew of any republicans that proposed that. i'm sure there is a republican somewhere in the country, maybe someone who deems themselves half socialist, half republican, i can't find anyone in congress who has proposed this bill, because we don't need to give

the secretary of health and human services $50 million, $50 billion or one red dime to come up with a way to help states find alternative resolutions for medical malpractice dispute. that's already in the house bill. and what it provides is a fund for the secretary of health and human services to bribe states, that's my word. my state that has a cap on attorneys' fees or cap on medical -- non-economic damages, the secretary is authorized to pay whatever sums is necessary in her opinion, basically to reward a state that gets rid of any caps like that. mr. akin: that's the punitive damages, right? mr. gohmert: it's actually pain and suffering as non-economic damages. so attorneys' fees and things like pain and suffering, which

is hard to put a figure on. mr. akin: we have not got tort reform but reverse tort reform. states reduce the cost of health care accordingly are now going to be told they will have to reverse that legislation? is this the reverse? mr. gohmert: the gentleman is accurate, it is the reverse. but the states aren't going to be told you have to get rid of your caps. we have seen in texas and california, medical malpractice insurance rates come plummeting down. mr. akin: missouri has enacted the same thing. it's dropped the cost of health care. mr. gohmert: i'm sure the gentleman then would agree, there's no need for further study or to try to look for ways toville alternative resolutions to medical malpractice dispute. we've seen what works, and yet, it's not going to force states

to get rid of their caps on pain and suffering or attorneys' fees. it merely will allow the secretary of health and human services to generously reward any state that will get rid of their caps on damages and attorneys' fees. and let me also mention this. that is only one of the proposals. another is that health care exchange plans are what is being proposed in this supposedly cut-down bill. the health care exchange plan is the cancel tall structure that allows the -- skeletal structure that allows the government to take over health care. the snake is still in there. it will have to go a little further to bite you. so this is not a good proposal,

not a fair proposal. and one other thing in the president's speech that i thought was very unfair. he said on the other end of the spectrum, there are those, and this includes most republicans in congress. you know, i prefer to speak for myself and not have somebody that profoundly disagrees with me tell me what i believe. but according to this, the president's speech, that includes most republicans in congress who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry. the gentleman from missouri and i have been on this floor many times and in the last five years particularly i have been here. i know the gentleman has been here longer than i have, but repeatedly, repeatedly, i know we have all said, i don't want the government between me and my doctor, and i want the insurance company restricted so they're

not between me and my doctor. i don't want the insurance company to run amuck and run wild. i want us to get back to a doctor-patient relationship. and so, when somebody speaks for us and the next paragraph, the president says, i don't believe, as opposed to the crazy republicans he mentioned in the paragraph before, i don't believe we should give insurance company bureaucrats more control over health care in america. we have been saying that for years. we agree. we don't want the government or insurance companies to have more control over our health than we do. isn't it time to put the patients back in charge? mr. akin: didn't you start by saying that there was this line of reasoning where you create a straw horse, is that correct? mr. gohmert: i call it a straw dog, straw horse. i have heard that as well.

mr. akin: you say your opponents have heard this and then beat it up. i have been a republican -- this is my 10th year, i have never heard republicans say we want to reduce or relax what health insurance companies are doing. we have been railing on the fact that we don't want them to get somebody who is not a medical person, between a doctor and a patient. we have been trying to defend that point. and certainly, we wouldn't do what this bill does, which allows an insurance company to get between a doctor and a patient, make a medical decision in practice and then not be held accountable for that decision. i don't know where the president comes up with this idea or who it is that writes the speeches for him, but it just isn't really true. mr. gohmert: well, i would direct your attention to the declaration of health care independence. i know my friend, mr. akin, was there when we unveiled that

declaration here in the capitol. i think we got 100 or more members of congress who have signed on to that. there are thousands and thousands of people across the country that have gone online and looked for declaration of health care independence and found web sites where they could sign on so people could keep building the pressure. and so, the truth is, i'm very gratified by some of the comments that the president made here, because once again, he is embracing many of the things that we have had in this declaration of health care independence for some time. and the wonderful thing about these 10 points that we asked people to pledge who signed this is that the president's already said that he supports these things. and i would just like to run through these 10 again. number one, protect the vital

doctor-patient relationship. we have signed a pledge to that effect. that's what we want. so we're gratified to see him include in his speech today, but we've been there. we were hoping we would get him to sign it before now to join with us to show we are of one accord. mr. akin: the problem is one thing with lip service to say that you like the doctor-patient relationship, it's another thing to try to substitute a bureaucrat in between that relationship and that's what we have been objecting to all along. mr. gohmert: i heard the brilliant gentleman frank luntz. 15 people had voted for president obama, 15 had voted for john mccain. and it was interesting to hear some of the observations.

i loved what one gentleman said. didn't sound like a lawyer but a good commonsense person. he said, i just know that i have never been in a government office in line to get some service and seen a government employee come running out and say, let me open up another window. this line is too long. he said, we've seen that in private businesses, because if you make someone wait in long too long, they'll get to the next business and not stay in your business. and his point was, he did not want those people who would come around and not open the extra window would be in charge of health care. it was a beautiful point. mr. akin: it raises as much as you and i have always railed against insurance companies making health care decisions, that's not quite so bad, because if you don't like the insurance

company, you could change to a different insurance company. you might have to change your job to do it, but you could change your insurance company. it's not easy to change the u.s. federal government. mr. gohmert: we sure know about that, don't we? number two on the list of pledges is reject any addition to the crushing national debt heaped upon all cans. and i know there has been in the sum -- all americans. and i know there has been in the summit all the glowing things have been said about c.b.o. the c.b.o. scoring is this. and i know people have paid great tribute to it. but i still remember last year when the president was not happy with c.b.o. and called the director off the white house and had a little woodshedding go on. we didn't see that on c-span. mr. akin: a lot of people would

have tuned in for that. mr. gohmert: have tuned in for that. mr. gohmert: if it was on c-span, the content of the conversation may have been a whole lot different. but we do know what has occurred in this congress since last year. now, it bugs me to no end to continue to hear as i did, and i heard a friend from across the aisle say in just a ridiculous misrepresentation that the republicans -- again, they don't have any plans and don't want any changes. that is absolutely ridiculous. in our republican study committee, the more conservative of the republican members of congress, it's germly the way it's touted, there are republicans that are conservative not part of the r.s.c., but we have just a summary of 70 bills to help

reform health care, not to give more control to insurance companies, not to give more control to government, but to help reform health care so it's patient-controlled and it's affordable, accessible, all of these things. and these are real bills. they've got numbers on them. and let me just share with you -- i had addressed probably back in november, the fact that i had been trying to get my health care bill scored since august. now, i realize who's in the majority, and with that comes lots of privilege. we sure know about that. hard to get a meeting room the kind we used to be able to get and the kind we used to provide to the other side, just to have a meeting, but we do with what they allow us to have. but the great thing about that is, we can meet outside.

that doesn't stop us from doing what we need to do. but when it comes to c.b.o., i appreciated getting a call from the director of c.b.o. and i appreciated all the glowing things that was said about the wonderful bipartisan gentleman he is, but the trouble is, you have to look at what has been produced since that woodshedding at the white house. i really do believe he wants to be fair. and i really believe he thinks he is fair. but when it comes to health care bills, there have been 50 bills that have been requested to be scored by the democratic leadership -- i'm sorry, 50 bills have been formally scored that are democrat-requested scored for their bills.

you know -- i would like to get 1/10 the bills scored that the democrats have. i have been trying since august. i made the request in writing of c.b.o. back in august. then eventually i'm told, well, you don't have the highest ranking republican on the committee of jurisdiction requesting it. so i talked to joe barton. our highest ranking member of the energy and commerce committee, where chairman waxman rammed this thing through the committee. . he sent a letter requesting that c.b.o. score my bill. we wait a while, ok have you got it in the works, sit coming? and then we're told you don't have a request from the highest-ranking republican on the tax committee, i asked dave

camp, wonderful colleague, he says absolutely he shoots a letter to c.b.o., says score gohmert's big. that was back in september. since then -- gohmert's bill. that was back in september. since then, spur of the moment, could be a democratic senator or speaker or chairman waxman or somebody down here, man, they request one they won't even have a full bill and until just last week, when they were given an 11-page summary and the 19-page summary of the summary, thank god c.b.o. finally did the appropriate thing and said, we can't score a summary and a summary of a summary. we've got nothing to work with enough to give you a score. thank goodness they finally were able to come out and say that because they've scored some stuff that wasn't appropriate to be scored. mr. akin: but they wouldn't score your bill. mr. gohmert: they still haven't scored bymy bill. i would point out also it's not

just in health care that c.b.o. has scored 50 democratic bills and six republican bills which does not include mine, despite the efforts and requests from the highest-ranking republicans. from the legislation that's formally been scored by c.b.o. in the 111th congress, there have been a total of 530 bills scored, 442 of those were democratic bills and 88 were republican bills. so i appreciate very much the director of c.b.o., mr. elmendorf, i know he sounds very sincere, that he is doing everything he can to be fair and objective, but when you as the c.b.o. director knowing that you really probably would rather not be wood sheded again at the white house, and knowing that if you do not allow any of these wonderful republican ideas to be scored, you can

profoundly change the discussion on health care in america. you can prevent some of the best ideas in america on health care that didn't just come from the people whose names were on the bills. the ideas in my health care bill came from brilliant people around this country who have dealt with the issue. i appreciate newt gingrich sending friends of his over, some of the brightest minds in america on the issue of health care to help come up with what would be the best proposal, best way to do things, i appreciate his help and those he sent over. now you get a score and see what you got. and i appreciate it. i can't get a score because the so-called fair and objective c.b.o. want to score 50 democratic bills, six republican bills and one of those will not be mine. it could make a difference. now i realize, and i've waited

a long time to get loud and vocal about the ignoring that republicans have had from c.b.o. because i know by making such a big deal about the lack of objectiveness in the number of republican bills scored by c.b.o., that i am inviting c.b.o. to come in and there are so many variables in any bill, democrat or republican, where they can take a presumption and that presumption that can just run the cost right through the roof or it can run it right down through the floor. that is all dependent upon the presumptions they make. so i realize by coming forward, there's a good chance that if one day a rathering anly ry and upset c.b.o. finally gets around to scoring my bill, they're probably going to fix my wagon, i understand that. it may not be what they should

be to give the bill a proper scoring to my way of thinking but i just felt like we had to say something to point out that the emperor doesn't have the bhufle set of clothes that everybody is going around saying he has. there is a lack of objectivity there, certainly in the bills that are being scoring. mr. akin: that makes it awkward because let's say that some of these bills were scored. i think you know this very well, some of these bills would save a lot of money. mr. gohmert: of course they would. mr. akin: somebody is going to ask, we have a president that wants to spend $1 trillion at the cost of $5 million in jobs to pass a government take -- a government takeover of health care and think republicans have a plan that's going to cut the cost of health care, doesn't have tax increases in it, why don't we take the less expensive plan? somebody is going to ask that question. it's an awful lot easier if the republican bills have not had a chance to be scored.

the interesting thing is, there was a guy that is scoring the president's bill that's not c.b.o. and he's a democrat. i don't know if you've heard of him but he's the democrat of tennessee, the governor. and why would he say anything bad about the democrats' health care bill, the president's health care bill? the reason he would is because guess what? tennessee is going to have to pay for this government takeover of health care. that trillion-dollar -- trillion-dollar price tag that c.b.o. hooked on this bill is not all the cost because some of it is hidden. guess who is going to pick up some of the pieces of that? it's going to be the various states and the various states like tennessee who have tried this government-run scheme of health care, knows it's a disaster, it wrecked health care in tennessee and in massachusetts, it ran the cost of health care way up so that democrat governor who also could be take tont woodshed says, no, this is a bad idea.

this is going to be very expensive and states have balanced budgets, how are we going to pay for this thing? there's somebody who is scoring a bill. it's not c.b.o. it's a democrat. he's saying, no, it's too expensive. mr. gohmert: i appreciate that observation from mymy friend from missouri. i would like to finish the declarations, the pledges that he and i both made. number three is improve rather than diminish the quality of care that americans enjoy. now, we have heard so many horror stories, terrible situations where someone did not get proper health care. and nobody wants to see that happen. but despite the problems most of us here that i know contend we got the best health care available anywhere in the world. it's right here in america.

and we saw a good example of that after years and years of hearing some friends say, we need to have a health care system like canada, we need to have health care system like england, well, you start hearing stories like the secretary there in tyler who told me, she emigrate -- she immigrated from england. her mother had cancer, it was found while she was in england and what happens in that scenario, you're put on a list. you're put on a list to get mammogram, you're put on a list to have surgery a biopsy, you're put on a list to get radiation or tiki moe, whatever you're going -- or to get chemo, whatever you're going to get. she said my mother tied from cancer because -- not because it was not curable, but because she lived in england. she said, i was found to have cancer, i didn't have to wait on some list to get it taken care of. she said, i know i'm alive

because i moved to america and didn't stay in england. which brings me to an article in february, this was from "the national post," newfoundland premier danny williams will undergo heart surgery later this week in the united states. mr. williams, 59, has said nothing of his health in the media. the premier's press secretary confirmed the report monday evening. deputy premier kathy donderdel confirmed the treatment at a news conference tuesday but would not tell the location of the operation or how it would be paid for. she'll be active premier while he's away, expected to be four to six weeks. for many, his need for heart surgery comes as a surprise, especial in -- especially in light of the fact that he's an

avid hockey player and has shown no signs of late. he met with prime minister stephen harper and seemed healthy and in good spirits. a decision to leave canada for the surgery, especially if it's available here, raises questions about the premier's confidence in newfoundland's health care system. so you've got a premier from canada -- his health care is important to him. he wants to keep being the premier. and so he's coming to the united states or already has, i understand he's already had the surgery here in the united states. we have the best health care that has ever been anywhere in the world in time or in geography. mr. akin: you're making a point here my friend that i don't know if you knew you'd left off the preaching and went on to meddling because when you talk

about cancer, i'm a cancer survivor myself. if you take a look at cancer survive -- survival rates in england, they tend to be about 20% worse than they are in america. why is that? you've explained it very accurately, that is cancer is particularly sensitive that when you diagnose it, you want to get to it quickly before it spreads or gets too bad. the idea of putting someone on a long waiting list is deadly when you're dealing with cancer system of if you've got cancer, you have a much, much higher percent of dying from that if you're in canada or particularly in england and it's because of the waiting list. you know, governments have a little bit of sensitivity to them. instead of telling you that they're going to deny your health care, they just say, no, you've got to get in line. by the time you get to -- i mean, you can get a free -- you can get a free what is it,

cesarean section, you have to wait 12 months. well, but, i needed it in nine. well, now, that's a problem, isn't it? so what you're talking about is a sensitive subject to me because i had cancer in this country, when they discovered it, i thought it was time to take care of it right away so did the drrks so did the hospital and i had it on spring break, had an operation to try to get rid of the cancer, back i guess it was nine years ago, our very first spring break down here. in america when you get cancer or something the doctor says, it's time to move, let's go. that's why we have such better survival rates, that's why the, you know, the guy from canada wants to come here to get health care. mr. gohmert: and it's so important that people understand that. to say no one will be denied care or coverage is accurate to a point.

but the fact is, they're told in canada and england, gee, we're not going to deny you treatment or care, we just have to put you on this list. and the gentleman brings up an important point about how much greater the survivalability rates are in the united states -- survivability rates are in the united states from diseases like cancer but some want to try to compare apples and onions and say they both taste and smell alike when they're not at all the same and the fact is, when you hear some people say, well, in this country, england, canada, you know, these other country, they apparently have much better health care, even though they have government-run health care, because people have a longer average life span. well, that's not exactly fair to put that on the health care.

because it's sad but true when you make those comparisons, we have a much higher murder rate in america than they do in england or canada. . another involves what was explained by a health care expert that most countries do not include premature babies, the death of premature babies in their numbers. but we sure do here, because every little baby born counts, premature or otherwise. unless it's one of those horrible tragedies where somebody aborts a baby and realizes they are alive and takes action to make sure they're killed or allowed to die on their own without proper care. but number four on the pledges of the declaration of health care independence, negotiate

publicly, transparently, with genuine accountability with oversight and be free from political favoritism. we saw an effort last thursday at the summit to look like there was going to be publicly transparently negotiated health care bill, but the president announced beforehand, here's the bill we're going with and the summary we're going to do and the summary of the summary, it had all been negotiated behind close doors. aarp representative said we worked this out in secret behind closed doors. now we're going to bring in republicans in and put window dressing on it. i don't know how many members of congress are certified as mediators are been certified through the process. teas pretty extensive to become

an arbitrator, an international arbitrator, but i have been through those processes, and i can tell you that what happened last thursday was not a negotiation or mediation. it was structured to look like perhaps it was with the president being the objective and all-caring mediator in the middle. but the trouble is, the mediator kept cutting off one side when they said something that he didn't want to go there. i tell you the most gratifying comment to me that touched me deeply, and i was so proud of the president. it meant a lot to me, when john mccain was speaking and the president pointed out that the president had finally realized for the first time since november of 2008, that we're not campaigning anymore. that meant a lot to me that the

president finally realized it was time for him to quit campaigning and work on the bills rather than on a campaign. after that, i read this weekend that the white house is already preparing the next campaign for 2012, so apparently, maybe it lasted a day or two they weren't campaigning. number five, treat private citizens at least as well as america public officials. americans weren't fooled and there are four volumes of the house bill. and i don't have time to pull out the other, but in there, to address america's concern that are congress was being treated more specially than rank and file citizens, they had a line in there that said under the federal insurance exchange program that members of congress may be covered under that if they wanted to be.

most people, no matter how low you read what is in the bill, they pick up on that pesky little word, may. mr. akin: it shall. one little may sitting in there and the american public picks up on that and says well, maybe you're not sure that this bill is such a good thing and doesn't seem like it's good for you guys. i think you have really been pretty humble in talking about that declaration of health care independence because you are one of the people who wrote it and you are laying out the basic principles. i had a chance to speak this last weekend to a big crowd in st. louis. and one of the things that i wanted to talk about, i mentioned the fact that if republicans have made mistakes, it seemed to me we made just one mistake and we make it over and over, and that is when we don't

stick to basic principles what we believed in. and what you took time to do, gentleman and i want people to let them know that the guy who wrote this declaration of health care independence, you are laying out these basic principles. you talked about transparency. that is something that was promised. you talked about if it is good enough for us, it ought to be good enough for us in congress. you are laying out the basic principles in this health care declaration of independence. and i was in the meetings when we were writing it, too. other people can write it and sign their name on the bottom, too, is that correct? mr. gohmert: that is absolutely correct. and we just have a few minutes left. let me finish the 10 here. number six, protect taxpayers from funding of abortion or abortion coverage. and one might wonder, is the

president really on board on that? he has said it more than once. he said it standing right there at that podium behind the gentleman from most, that there was no abortions that will be funded by federal tax dollars. well, this is just getting him to agree, if he would, to what he said was the real case. number seven, reject all new mandates on patients, employers, individuals or states. now, in the president's speech, he said, we want to loosen the controls on insurance. no. we want to loosen the controls on patients. that what's what we want to loosen. patients need more control, not the insurance companies and not the government. and then eight, proper hibt expansion of tax -- prohibit expansion of taxpayer -- one of the things in myville, if you are going to get a visa to come

into this country and some countries require it, then you have to show that you will have health care insurance coverage while you are in this country or else you don't get a visa. and if it expires, then you got to go. it provides that since there are probably one and a half billion people in the world that would love to come here to the united states and that would destroy this country because we can't handle that many immigrants, even temporarily, we can't let people bankrupt this country. it says, if you're here illegally in this country and you present in health care. we believe in following the law, we believe we follow the law, we will provide you health care coverage, even if you are illegally here that one time. and when you're well enough to travel, you're going to be deported. and if you're ever found back in this country again after you

were here illegal and got free health care, it's a prison sentence. we can't let people bankrupt this country or those other billion and a half who want to come here at some point. number nine, equal protection under the law. , 10, marketplace opportunity, choice and opportunity. we begin our practice every day with prayer and it goes back to 1787, i believe it was june 28 that the constitutional convention that had gone on for over five weeks and accomplished nothing. and some people said, ben franklin was a deist and he said the longer i live, the more convincing proof i see of this truth. god governance in the affairs of men. if a spell cannot fall to the

gound, without his nose, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aide. he went on, we have been assured in the say credit writing that they labor in vain. he said, i believe without his concurring aid, we shall succeed in this building no better than the builders of babel. he said i move we begin every day with prayer in this room. and from that day, june 28, 1787 to this day today that we are about to wrap up, we begin with prayer. so america works when people let their elected representatives hear from them and let them know their mind. it works when we do what ben franklin suggested. and with that, mr. speaker, i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. gohmert: mr. speaker, i move that we do now hereby adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands

>> intel little less than an hour, the hearing on the military's don't ask, don't tell policy regarding gays and lesbians. >> the nest -- next journalism must be one open to blogs an e- mail setter herring like fists on the door to be let into the conversation, to add new information, to raise new questions, to suggest new context. >> winners of the national press foundation awards talk about the role of journalism in a changing society. saturday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> are public appears content is available on television, radio, an online, and you can connect on twitter, facebook, and you too. sign up for scheduled alert e- mail's at c-span.org.

>> president obama is calling on a final vote of health care legislation, saying that starting over would not work because of the policy differences between republicans and democrats. democratic leaders are considering using a senate procedure that would allow passage of a health-care bill with a simple majority. the president spoke about the issue for 20 minutes. [applause] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of irian -- the president of the united states. [applause] >> thank you very much. please, everybody have a seat. thank you so much, all of you, for joining us today.

i want to thank julie, barbara, rowland, stephen, renee, and christopher, standing behind me. they are physician assistants and nurses to understand how important is for us to make much-needed changes in our healthcare system. i want to especially recognize to people who have been working tirelessly on this effort, my secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius. [applause] as well as our quarterback for health reform health of the white house, nancy. [applause] we began a quest to reform

health insurance last march in this room with doctors and nurses who know the system best. it is fitting to be joined by all of you as we bring this journey to a close. last thursday, i spent seven hours at a summit where democrats and republicans engaged in a public and very substantial discussion about healthcare. this meeting cap on recapped off the debate that began with a similar sum at one year ago. since then, every idea has been put on the table, every argument has been made, everything there is to say about health care has been said, and just about everybody has said it. now is the time to make a decision about how to finally reform health care so that it works, not just for the insurance companies, but for america's families and america's

businesses. where both sides say they agree is that the status quo is not working for the american people. health insurance is becoming more expensive by the day. families cannot afford it. businesses cannot afford it, and the federal government cannot afford it. smaller businesses and individuals who do not get coverage at work are squeezed especially hard. insurance companies freely ration health care based on who is sick and who is healthy, who can pay and who cannot. that is the status quo. that is the system we have right now. democrats and republicans agree that this is a serious problem for america, and we agree that if we do nothing, if we throw up our hands and walk away, it is a problem that will only grow worse. nobody disputes that. if more americans will lose

their family's health insurance if they switch jobs or lose their job. more small businesses will be forced to choose between health care and hiring. more insurance companies will deny people coverage to have pre-existing conditions, or they will drop people's coverage when they get sick and need it most. the rising cost of medicare and medicaid will sink our government deeper and deeper into debt. on all of this, we agree. the question is, what do we do about it? on one end of the spectrum, there are some who suggest scrapping our system of private insurance and replacing it with a government run health care system. though many other countries have such a system, in america, it would be neither practical nor realistic. on the other end of the spectrum, there are those, and this includes most republicans

in congress, who believe the answer is to loosen regulations on the insurance industry, whether it's state consumer protections or minimum standards for the kind of insurance they can sell. the argument is that that will somehow lower costs. i disagree with that approach. i am concerned that this would only give the insurance industry even freer rein to raise premiums and and i care. -- and deny care. i do not believe we should give government bureaucrats and insurance bureaucrats more control over health care in america. it is time to give the american people more control over their health care and their health insurance. i do not believe we can afford to leave life-and-death decisions about health care to the discretion of insurance company executives alone. i believe that doctors and nurses, physicians assistants like the ones in this room should be free to decide what is best for their patience.

[applause] >> what is best for their patients. >> the proposal i approve forward gives americans more control over their health insurance and their health care by holding insurance companies were accountable. it builds on the current system where most americans get their health insurance from their employer. if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. if you like a doctor, you can keep your doctor. i can tell you as the father of two young girls, i would not want any plan that interferes with the relationship between a family and their doctor. essentially, my proposal would change three things about the current health-care system. first, it would end the worst

practices of insurance companies. no longer would they be able to denied coverage because of pre- existing conditions. no longer would they be able to drop your coverage because you got sick. no longer would they be able to force you to pay unlimited amounts of money out of your own pocket. no longer would they be able to arbitrarily and massively raise premiums like bantam bluecross recently tried to do in california, up to 39% increases in one year in the individual market. those practices would end. second, my proposal would give uninsured individuals and small business owners the same kind of choice of private health insurance that members of congress get for themselves. if it is good enough for members of congress, is good enough for the people who pay their salaries. [applause]

the reason federal employees get a good deal on health insurance is that we all participate in an insurance market where insurance companies give better coverage and better rates, because they get more customers. is an idea that many republicans have embraced in the past, before politics intruded. my proposal says that if you still cannot afford the insurance in this new marketplace, even though it will provide better deals for people than they can get in the individual marketplace, we will of the tax credits to do so. tax credits that add up to the largest middle-class tax cut for healthcare in history. after all, the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance there is, and the

least well-off are able to get coverage through medicaid. the middle class is to have to help -- is who we have to help. it is true that all this will cost some money, about $100 billion per year. but most of this comes from the nearly $2 trillion that america already spends on health care, but a lot of it is not spent wisely. a lot of that money is being wasted or spent badly. within this plan, we are going to make sure the dollars we spend go towards making insurance more affordable and more secure. we will eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies, set a new fee on entrance companies that stand to gain a lot of money and profit. we will make sure that the wealthiest americans pay their fair share on moderate -- on

medicare. the bottom line is, my proposal is paid for. all the new money generated in this plan goes back to small businesses and middle-class families who cannot afford health insurance. it would also lower prescription drug prices for seniors and help train new doctors and nurses and physician's assistants to provide care for american families. finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions. families, businesses, and the federal government's. we have now incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain rising cost of health care. ideas that go after the waste and abuse in our system, especially in programs like medicare. we do this while protecting medicare benefits and extending the financial stability of the

program by nearly a decade. our cost cutting measures mirror most of the proposals in the current set of bills, which reduces most people's premiums and brings down our deficit by up to one trillion dollars over the next two decades. it brings down our deficit. those are not my numbers. those are the savings determined by the congressional budget office, which is the washington acronym for the nonpartisan, independent referee of congress in terms of how much stuff costs. so that is our proposal. this is where we have ended up. it is an approach that has been debated in changed, and i believe improved over the last year. it incorporates the best ideas from democrats and republicans, including some of the ideas republicans offered during the health care summit, like finding state grants on medical malpractice reform, curbing

waste, fraud, and abuse in health care system. the proposal also gets rid of many of the provisions that have no place in health care reform, that were more about winning individual votes in congress that improving health care for all americans. despite all that we agree on, all the republican ideas we have inc., probably most republicans in congress just have a fundamental disagreement over whether we should have more or less oversight of insurance companies. if they truly believe that less regulation would lead to higher quality, more affordable health insurance, then they should vote against the proposal i have put forward. some also believe that we should instead of doing what i am proposing, pursue a piecemeal approach to health insurance reform, where we tinker around the edge of the challenge for the next few years. even those who acknowledge the

problem of the ensures that we cannot afford to help them right now, which is why the republican proposal only covers 3 million uninsured americans, while wheat cover over 31 million. the problem with that approach is that unless everyone has access to affordable coverage, you cannot prevent insurance companies from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. you cannot limit the amount families are forced to pay out of their own pockets. the insurance reforms and rest on everybody having access to coverage. you also do not do anything about the fact that taxpayers currently end up subsidizing the uninsured when they are forced to go to the emergency room for care, to the tune of about $1,000 per family. you cannot get those savings if those people are still going to the emergency room. the fact is, health reform only works if you take care of all of these problems at once.

both during and after last week's summit, republicans in congress insisted that the only acceptable course on health care reform is to start over. but given these honest and substantial differences between the parties about the need to regulate the insurance industry and the need to help millions of middle-class families get insurance, i do not see how another year of negotiations would help. moreover, the insurance companies are not starting over. they are continuing to raise premiums and deny coverage as we speak. for us to start over now could simply lead to delays that could last for another decade or even more. the american people and the u.s. economy just cannot wait that long. so no matter which approached you favor, i believe the united states congress owes the american people a final vote on

health care reform. [applause] we have debated this issue thoroughly, not just this past year but for decades. reform has already passed the house with the majority. it has already passed the senate with a supermajority of 60 votes, and now we deserve the same kind of up or down vote that was cast on welfare reform. it was cast on the children's health insurance program. it was used for cobra, health coverage for the unemployed, and for both bush tax cuts, all of

which had to pass congress was nothing more than a simple majority. i therefore ask leaders in both houses of congress to finish their work and schedule a vote in the next few weeks. from now until then, i will do everything in my power to make the case for reform. [applause] i urge every american who wants this reform to make their voice heard as well, every family, and business, every patient, every doctor, every nurse, every physician's assistant. make your voice heard. this has been a long and wrenching debate. it has stoked great passions among the american people and their representatives.

that is because health care is a difficult issue. it is a complicated issue. if it was easy, it would have been solved long ago. as all of you know from experience, health care can literally be an issue of life or death. as a result, it easily lends itself to demagoguery and political gamesmanship and misrepresentation and misunderstanding. but that is not an excuse for those of us who were sent here to lead. it is not an excuse for us to walk away. we cannot just give up because the politics are hard. i know the rest and a fascination, bordering on obsession, in this media town about what passing health insurance reform would mean for the next election and the one after that. how will this play? what will happen with the polls?

i will leave it to others to sift through the politics, because that is not what this is about. that is not why we are here. this is about what reform would mean for the mother with breast cancer whose insurance company will finally have to pay for her chemotherapy. it is about what reform would mean for the small-business owner who will no longer have to choose between hiring more workers were offering coverage to the employees she hess. it is about what reform would mean for middle-class families who would be able to afford health insurance for the very first time in their lives. get a regular checkup once and awhile. to have some security about their children if they get sick. it is about what reform would mean for all those men and women i have met over the last few years to have been brave enough to share their stories. when we started our push for reform laughter, i talked to a

young mother in wisconsin -- our push for reform last year. she has two young children. she thought she had beat her breast cancer but later discovered it had spread to her bones. she and her husband working and had insurance, but their medical bills still landed them in debt. now she worries about that debt, but all she wants to do is spend time with her children and focus on getting well. this should not happen in the united states of america. [applause] and it does not have to. in the end, that is what this debate is about. it is about what kind of country we want be. it is about the millions of lives.

at stake is not just our ability to solve this problem but our ability to solve any problem. . they are waiting for us to act. there are waiting for us to lead. as long as i hold this office, i intend to provide that leadership. i do not know how this plays politically, but i know is right. so i ask congress to finish its work, and i look forward to signing this reform into law. thanks very much, everybody. let's get it done. [applause]

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] iiu [applause] >> senate minority leader mitch mcconnell responded to the president, saying there would be a national referendum on health

care if democrats pass a bill. this is 20 minutes. >> where are all the lab coats? every press conference on this subject is surrounded with lab coats. no one supplied you with a lab coat? i thought it would be appropriate to make some observations about the president's comments today, and then i will be happy to throw it open to whatever you would like to talk about. in discussing where he is, he left out a few things. i noticed he did not mention the half trillion dollars in medicare cuts. he did not mention the 500 trillion dollars -- $500 billion in new taxes, and he did not mention that the size of this measure when fully implemented over a 10 year.

is 2.5 trillion dollars in new spending -- over a 10-year period is 2.5 trillion dollars in new spending. we always call for a bipartisan approach, but where we are heading through the use of reconciliation means that the only thing that will be bipartisan about this proposal is the opposition to it. it is abundantly clear that the president and the democratic leadership are calling upon their members to ignore the wishes of the american people. we know where the people are, and is not even close. never in my time here have i dealt with an issue that people pay more attention to than this one. if you think about it, we are all interested in our healthcare, no matter what age we are. everybody is focused on this

issue like a laser. we know where they are on this subject. our democratic friends know where they are on this subject. so this is really not an argument between democrats and republicans. it is between democrats and the american people. to mark back to the scott brown election, there were a lot of after action reviews about what happened in massachusetts and why. one thing is clear. you look at the surveys that were taken, there were polls taken that day of the voters asking them why they did what they did. in the most liberal state in america, 48% mentioned health care. no other subject had more than 5%. so looking at the political situation, i don't think there is a democrat in the house of

representatives or the senate who fails to understand that the american people are not for this. they are not for it in massachusetts or anywhere. so what are the leaders left with arguing for their members? one argument that has been used is to make history. looking at this poll data, one could conclude that you would be history if you voted for this bill. another argument being made is, we know everybody dislikes this, we are asking you to do something courageous, but if we pass it, it will be behind us. listen, i assure you, if this bill is somehow passed, it will not be behind our democratic friends, it will be ahead of them. every election in america this fall will be a referendum of

this issue. it is an overwhelming likelihood that every republican candidate will be campaigning to repeal its. the issue will not be behind them, it will be ahead of them. we are likely to have as close as we have ever had to a national referendum on an issue. we do not usually have national referenda, but this could well be a national referendum. with that, let me just throw it open for whatever questions you might have. i am not going to let out every move we may make, but obviously, senator byrd, the author of the budget bill and the author of the byrd rule said within the last year that using

health care under reconciliation is an outrage that should be resisted. we know what the author of the bill thought about using reconciliation in this way on this subject. we are going to scrub the bill thoroughly, but i am not going to just announce in advance what efforts would be made. obviously, it will be in play. >> the democrats just held a news conference in which they held up senator bunning as a primary example of why reconciliation is needed, because of what they say is republican obstruction. >> i think we are comparing apples and oranges. what we know about the health care bill is people do not want it fast. it is up overwhelmingly unpopular. the impression the american people get is that the administration and the majority are very arrogant about this.

they think they are smarter than the american people. they think we are going to give this to you whether you want it or not. with regard to the argument that reconciliation is routinely use around here, let me make a few points about that. virtually every time reconciliation has been used, the results were bipartisan support. virtually every time reconciliation has been used, the people were in favor of what was being done. two examples to the contrary. the democrats in 1993, with what we described at the time as the largest tax increase in history , and the republicans in 2005, with the deficit reduction act

that made what seemed like modest reductions in the rate of increase of medicare, paled in comparison to the half trillion dollars in medicare cuts we are talking about here. what happened after the 1993 vote in 1994? the congress switched hands. what happened in 2006 after the 2005 boat? the congress switched hands. so we have some examples here of when this device was used on a narrowly partisan basis by each side, and we know what happened next year. i would say to my democratic friends, you ignore the overwhelming desires of the american people at your own peril. we have recent examples to demonstrate that. >> i know you will not discuss specifically what you might do to try to block the bill, but generally speaking, how vigorous

oven effort -- how vigorous of an effort do they expect you to lock and derail it? >> they are making a vigorous effort to roll it out to americans who do not want it. we think that is a policy mistake, and resorting to these kind of tactics is something that ought to be resisted. there are certain things that you ought to say no to. there are differences of opinion about the way to go. i would quote from the no. 2 democrat in the senate right now, who said within the last few days, "if we go the reconciliation route, we will be testing some reconciliation rules and provisions that have never been tested before." so here you have the no. 2 democrat saying this is not an ordinary thing, even though they

have been arguing that it is ordinary. so this is an extraordinary use of this device in order to get this passed, a public that is overwhelmingly opposed to it. >> the democrats do not plan to move the reconciliation bill until after the house passes the senate bill. >> you are asking me to get down into what that amendment would be and what the strategy would be. i am not going to assume this thing will pass the house. no matter how many times that try to dress it up, the house democrats are going to be called upon to vote on a bill that has the cornhuskers kickback, the louisiana purchase, the gatorade, and all the rest. maybe they will try to do something close to

simultaneously that purports to fix the problem, but the votes will be there, and the reaction of the public to going to such links, such extraordinary links to ignore public opinion is not going to put the issue behind them. it will put the issue ahead of them. [unintelligible] will be paid for by cutting spending elsewhere it than through new debt. was he right or wrong? >> we have moved onto a new bill. everybody voted on the men that he offered. -- on the amendment he offered. >> why do you think they are pushing this bill if the american people are so overwhelmingly against it? >> is a stunning thing.

i am hard pressed to answer that question. i remember how difficult it was just taking the medicare cuts alone, just part of the unpopularity of this bill. i can remember how challenging it was for us to explain in 2006 -- reduction in the rate of increase of medicare over five years. explain that. we are talking about half a trillion dollars over 10 years, over the objections of hospitals, a hospice, of medicare advantage customers. this is politically toxic in the extreme. it is not being used to make

medicare solvent, which is going under in seven years anyway, but to use it as a piggy bank for something else. maybe courage would be appropriate if you were doing the right thing. i am not suggesting to all of you that i think everything we do around here should be determined by public opinion polls. i do not think that. but this is no small issue. one sixth of the economy, analysts debates and discussions, the american people completely engaged in this and thinking about it -- in the time i have been here, i have never had an issue where people come up to me all the time and want to talk about it. admittedly, that is anecdotal, but i am reasonably well known at home, and a lot of people come up to me and i have never seen anything like this.

i am sure that is going on all across the country. there is a time for courage and a time for caution. courage was demonstrated on things like passing the civil rights act, which passed overwhelmingly. the social security act passed overwhelmingly. welfare reform passed overwhelmingly, bipartisan. this is a narrow, partisan, bipartisan opposition moved to override the wishes of the american people. it is quite audacious by any standard. >> some of your republican colleagues said they will make repealing health care reform and issued. is that the right approach going into the fall? >> i think virtually all republican candidates will say starting in new spending program

is something they would not have supported. i think it will be the issue in the fall campaign. as i said earlier, at the risk of being redundant, the democratic leaders are misleading their members in suggesting to them that somehow by approving this, they will get it behind them. approving it guarantees that it will be ahead of them. >> in the chance the republicans regained control of congress, would that be something that you would pursue? >> i am not going to predict the outcome of the fall election. we hope to be in a better position next year than we are now, and i think all of our candidates will take their campaign commitments seriously and try to enact them. >> have you had a chance to reach out to senator hutchison after her loss in the texas governor's race?

would you support her plans to retire after health care gets finished good marks i have not spoken with her. you'll have to ask her about her plans. i am told she will be back soon, and we are proud to have her as a member of our conference, and hope she will be here a long time. thanks. >> as debate continues on the healthcare bill, you can go online to read what members of congress are saying and join in the conversation yourself on twitter. you can also find other resources including hundreds of hours of video from house and senate floor debate, committee hearings, and markups. c-span.org/healthcare.

in a few moments, represented charles rangel says he is stepping down as chairman of the house ways and means committee. about 10 minutes, a hearing on the "don't ask, don't tell" policy regarding gays and lesbians. afterwards, the head of afghan training talks about the need for more instructors there. on "washington journal" tomorrow morning, your questions about congressional efforts to oversee the financial services industry. more about health care legislation from senator john barrasso and rep peter welch of vermont. we will examine the president's budget. "washington journal" is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern.

as washington post international correspondent, t.r. reid has traveled the world. his books are about his global views on contemporary issues, including the united states of europe, the healing of america, and confucius lives next door. join our conversation with t.r. reid live on sunday on c-span2. >> which for presidents lived past nine years old? there were john adams, herbert hoover, ronald reagan, and gerald ford. by these and other presidential facts in our newly updated book, "who is buried in grant's tomb?" >> it is a travelogue and also a mini-history biography of each of these presidents.

>> a resource guide to every presidential gravesite, the story of their final moments, and insights about their lives. now available at your favorite bookseller or get a 20% -- 25% discounts. >> democratic representative charles rangel has stepped down as chairman of the house ways and means committee. congressional investigators have been looking into his financial records and released a report last week saying he violated gift rules by taking trips paid for by corporations. he spoke with reporters twice on capitol hill, first in the morning and then later after meeting with the democratic caucus. >> good morning. in the view of -- in view of the fact that my chairmanship is

bringing so much attention to the press, and in order to avoid my colleagues having to defend me during their elections, i have this morning sent a letter to speaker pelosi asking her to grant me a leave of absence until such time as the ethics committee completes its work. now, i know that all of you have a professional obligation to ask questions, but i am afraid if i went down that road, it would distract me from what i have to do in terms of completion of the president's health bill as well as making certain that our

committee gets a good jobs bill. so i will not consider it rude if you insist on asking questions, but i hope you understand that i do not intend to be rude to you as i leave. >> so it is not our fault that your stepping down, as you said at the outset. x. i do not recall saying it is your fault. that is subjective. like a sick, i hope you don't mind if i do not take questions. -- like i said, i hope you don't mind if i did not take questions. i also would like to say that from the very beginning, i had offered this to speaker pelosi.

>> no questions, please. >> thank you. >> i don't think i have much to say that i did not say at the press conference this morning. that is that i had told the speaker last year, many months ago, that it might issues are going to impede the elections of the democratic party, then i would be glad to take a leave of absence. i love my country, i love the congress, i love the democrats, so any member who thought my chairmanship would impede their

election, and i think that if the speaker accepts my request to take a leave of absence politically, i think that should take care of the political problem. >> [unintelligible] they interpret your letter which says it is a temporary leave of absence as final. the chair used the term resignation. according to them, there is no shading of this. they interpret all these things as final. for you to be reinstalled as chairman, the full house would have to do that. is there any judgment in your mind that this is temporary, or this is final? >> i wrote the letter, and i wrote what i meant, and i said what i meant. if there is anyone who needs clarification, is the speaker, not you. i think that takes care of us. thank you so much. the press has been very

understanding of the need for me not to answer questions, because the whole situation, some of the questions you ravenraised are f. having said that, this congress has been very good to me, and it just seems to meet that i should not do anything that would impede the success of other democrats. they should be so lucky as i am. have a great afternoon. >> i am trying to be courteous. i think you guys are bending over backwards to be professional. >> after their meeting, democratic leader spoke with reporters.

>> just very quickly -- is everybody ready? we just had a great caucus, interrupted by a vote that is currently going on. we heard presentations today on financial services, and we heard from chairman frank and went over the bills that we haven't acted already in the house of representatives -- that we have enacted already, and talked about making sure that we are getting that message out to the public. we had a very poignant

statement from mr. rangel that he wanted to speak to the caucus directly, and said that he would be stepping aside, taking leave while this matter is currently pending before ethics. he thanked the caucus for its forbearance in what was both noble and heart rendering. we will be meeting tomorrow morning and the president will be talking about his plan. we are waiting anxiously for that, but we feel very strongly that there is a great opportunity here. we hope that the republicans join us. we think the president has

reached out yet again to the republicans, and we feel is important, as he does, to embrace some of their concerns and address the fact that there can be bipartisan solutions to this problem that the nation has been trying to tackle for 60 years, but we knowledge there are strong differences. . .

>> we will work to complete the health care reform efforts that will be historic. we are ready to work. everybody, as i said, from charlie rangel down, we are ready to work. >> thank you. >> about the selection of the interim chairman. >> we have rules that we intend to follow. the house rules indicate that barring exceptional or extraordinary circumstances, these things will be discussed. we have an order that we follow and we intend to follow it. that means that there is normal succession. currently, until the hand of takes place once the ways and

means committee formally meet barring exception. there is great sensitivity about the man who has given a lot of service to the nation into the country and has great respect so please allow him and us the opportunity to go through this in a very thoughtful manner that takes considerations. i note that does not happen often. the relationships that people have amongst one another, so no fully that there is a process and there are rules. mr. rangel was extraordinary before our caucus.

he said that there are things that are bigger than yourself. as a lot of this institution, this love of the city and state came uppermost to him. anything that got and the weight of that, anything that is on the table in front of us requires. i think he stands taller in the minds of many people in our caucus for doing that. >> you said what i was going to mention. i remember expressed his fervor desire to worked for completing the president's agenda. charlie rangel said it best, he does not want to be distracted.

he wants us to finish our work and he believes that he is doing the best thing so that america can get its work done in washington d.c. this is a man who respects the institution in great deal. thank you. >> this weekend, former republican candidate mitt romney discusses his new book, "no apology." part of our book television weekend on c-span2. >> a hearing on the military's plan of ending don't ask, don't tell. this is a little less than two hours.

>> the president has made clear that this fundamental and justice should not be tolerated. secretary gates has set into motion a study group to determine what needs to be done to implement repeal of this law. and they have called for a comprehensive examination and to this issue deserves no less. when it comes to repeal, the question is not whether but how and when. the president and our civilian and military leadership and the pentagon has stated the need for repeal. the majority of americans, see the appeal as not only as a national security interest but in standing with the principles of america.

i understand and support the position of the civilian and military leadership that comprehensive analysis should accompany any decision of this importance. it should include outreach to service members and their families to ensure that we understand all perspectives on the issue. the purpose of this hearing as for the witnesses to help the subcommittee understand what you want to learn and how you plan to become better informed about any possible challenges surrounding the field of do not region of don't ask, don't tell. since the department does not pull service members before making personnel decisions, which need to know what type of information you are seeking that would allow the department and implementation of process that could be helpful. well i appreciate the intent of this review, i believe the evidence would suggest a quicker solution is possible and necessary.

public opinion supporting a pill -- repeal is strong. as the call for service negros, a policy that removes members of the volunteer force, many with critical skills, -- as the call for service grows, a policy that removes members of the volunteer force, many with critical skills, is not ideal. the 1993 study of the strategy needed to successfully implement the repeal provides it can be quickly updated to today's environment. in my view, this blueprint should include a moratorium on discharges while the department decides how to implement repeal. i was disappointed that the secretary saw a moratorium as

destructive and i feel there is a way to stem the tide of these painful and unnecessary discharges, especially those instigated by third parties and avoid subjecting the confusion about the direction of this policy. sound positive leadership camp and will be the key -- can and will be the key to ensure readiness and unit cohesion cannot suffer as a result. to assist us in understanding the repeal process, we are fortunate to have the top personnel official at the department of defense to fill secretary's dietz -- secretary gatess'.

and the hon. j. johnson, a general counsel of the department of defense. welcome to each of you and i want to thank you for being here. we recognize the difficulty of your presence here today and that you really have not had a chance to embark on this study but it is important and i think it will be helpful for us to hear from you but also for you to hear the views of the members of the subcommittee. >> i jr. and welcoming witnesses, all three of whom are appearing before us for the first time. unlike most hearings, when we receive testimony from tax -- task forces at the completion, we will have the opportunity to examine and assess the scope of the work of a study group just beginning. this also gives us the opportunity to shape the group's work ethic.

we have heard clearly from the senior leadership at the department of defense in each of the services of the importance of the study and the necessity of doing nothing to repeal change or suspend current law until the study completes its work. i fully support this approach. for the poor, i believe until this committee in congress have had the opportunity to review and assess recommendation of the study group and those of the department of defense which we expect at some point after december, to us and then, we should not rush suddenly into action. a series of issues are to be examined as well as requirements for evidence to be presented to congress before congress could make an informed judgment about the repeal of section 654.

i ask unanimous consent of the letter and attachment be entered into the record. thank you. by further ask the staff to distribute the letter to members of the subcommittee, some of whom may not be familiar with it and to the witnesses. the central focus of the letter is the fourth paragraph, reflecting the fact that the responsibility for deciding this issue rests with congress, not the president, the secretary of defense or the chairman of the joint chiefs. the fourth paragraph reads ultimately won responsibility of this committee is to ensure that it improves the readiness of the armed forces. no action to change the law should be taken by the administration or by this congress until we have full and complete understanding of the reasons why the current law

threatens or undermines the readiness and any significant way. whether a change in law will approve -- will improve this and measurable ways and what affects and military readiness, cohesion, morale, good order, and discipline are entailed with the change in the law. given the mandate from the secretary of defense, i am concerned the citigroup will focus itself solely on the third requirement, the implications of change and not present congress with evidence to decide of the first two fundamental issues, white current law threatens or undermines readiness in any significant way and whether repeal of the current law would improve readiness and measurable ways. if the study does not address these issues, its overall credibility and usefulness for the congressional decision making process will be significantly undermined. i would ask during the course of

the hearing for you to commit to us that they're fully and objectively exploring the first fundamental issues raised by mr. mckeon and present that in their final report. this is a difficult issue but want your predecessors have had to deal with. a central argument of the proponents for the repeal of section 654 is that repeal is a military necessity because in time for, the military services need every willing and able person to serve. the discharge of more than 13,000 people because of section 654 since 1993 has hurt military readiness. your predecessor addressed this issue in july of 2005. and the fourth year of the global war on terrorism. when he testified before this committee, "this is not a

significant factor in our attrition experience and the lost generally occurs early in somebody's service." i would like to hear from you whether you agree or disagree with that assessment and whether you agree with the advocates for repeal of section 654 that feel it is a military necessity. i would further like to hear with the discharge of personnel under section 654, especially during the time of war, has negatively impacted the readiness of our military services in any measurable or significant way. based on the data recently provided to this committee by the department of defense and the military services, i would guess that your objective assessment would be that you agree with the previous statement. during the fiscal year 1995

through 2008, eight of those years of being wartime years, the military service separated more than 1.9 million people, 8300 of those, less than one- half of 1% was the result of section 654. that is about a hundred people being discharged per year. unless you contradict me, that is not a significant loss from an overall the 0 d manpower perspective. moreover, your data shows that this charge of personnel under six -- under section 64 has not affected the ability of military service is to recruit or retain high-quality people in numbers that meet or exceed requirements. according to department data, fiscal year 2009 was the best year for recruiting in the active duty, national guard, and reserve forces in the history of the all volunteer force. nor has section 654 inhabited

the ability of the army, marine corps, or army national guard to increase manpower significantly while fighting two wars. furthermore, the department data undercuts the assertions that section 64 must be repealed because in times of war, this nation needs to attract and retain all the qualified people it can who want to serve. for example, both the navy and air force had made significant manpower reductions during the last 10 years totaling some 77,000 personnel. to achieve such reductions, they used measures not only to reduce the numbers of new recruits but also to entice and force people to leave this service. in short, both services in times of war for the good of service reasons, have denied service to tens of thousands of persons who otherwise qualified to serve and

wanted to serve. such actions only reinforce the congressional funding in 1993 that there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. the department data for the last 10 years reduce the argument that the repeal of section 64 is a military necessity and supports the statement that current law appears to be working well. if you disagree with regard to the conclusion, we would like to hear from you today on this point. before closing, i would like to come back to some critical questions raised from the letter and ask for assurances from mr. johnson to that the committee adjust them in detail. a critical area that needs to be examined is the impact of the repeal of section 654 on military family readiness. as the chairman, it was pointed

out that if mama is not happy, nobody is happy. family readiness today equis to military readiness put a whole families feel about military service has a direct impact on the retention and repeal of section 654 that will not -- that will have a direct impact on military culture tied closely to military family readiness is the issue of eligibility benefits. specifically, the bill to repeal section 64 would not require depended benefits to be provided. such provisions would be in violation of the marriage act but if such a prohibition would seem to extend to any federal benefit such as veterans' benefits for which married military spouses and survivors of military personnel are eligible. knowing that family readiness is a major factor in maintaining the all-volunteer force, mr. mckeon asked for an evaluation

of the limitation of benefits created by the marriage act. in terms of its effects on cohesion, morrell, could order and discipline. enactment of this limitation creates a wide diversity of situations. how would this affect family readiness, morrell, and cohesion. to successfully repeal section 654 in a matter -- in a matter project in a manner -- in a manner that does not affect cohesion, the marriage act would have to be repealed or amended. information from the department of defense, i am concerned that the department of defense may be creating obstacles in achieving that objective.

specifically, we understand the citigroup -- the study group carried out on an attempt to repeal the 654. if accurate, i believe the study group will prejudice from the outset the perceived credibility in other activity of the result recommendations. i say this because the 1993 effort raised significant concerns about the comprehensiveness and objectivity. more recently, the prejudgment as well as lack of original work was evident in a november to cousin not report that used data collected by the palm center to support the repeal of section 654. we understand that rand is a well-recognized and competent research entity in many areas. however, given their history on this issue, i believe that even if there were able to produce a product that was comprehensive and objective, and the study group agreed, it would never be seen as such by others and will

ultimately poisoned the overall success of the citigroup efforts. to minimize potential criticism, the instruments used should be designed to not cook the books, i would strongly recommend that the department relied primarily if not exclusively on its own civic an in-house survey and study capabilities than any external survey not done by the department be done by reputable organizations that have not previously done survey or analysis work on this issue and that you engage both opponents and proponents section 654. i appreciate the patience of the witnesses and my colleagues for this long opening statement. given the limited ability to question the service chiefs, i thought it is necessary to get some of the more critical issues out on the public table an order to ensure this study group can

address them in this hearing. i look forward to your testimony. >> thank you. secretary stanley, do you want to begin? once again, thank you for being here. >> good afternoon. i am honored to be here to represent men and women in uniform. i have been on the job for just about two weeks. i had to assure you that i hit the ground running. this being the first hearing, and i am looking forward to your questions. we prepared a joint statement that i believe you have. myself, mr. johnson and general ham, i will turn it over to them for opening comments. >> thank you. in ms. j johnson, general

counsel for the department of defense. as the secretary pointed out, we have our prepared written statement. i would just like to say in summary that secretary gates has appointed general hamm and me to cochair this working group. the goal of our working group is to assess the impacts of the repeal of 654 should the congress decide that that is the course of action it should take and to develop an implementation plan should there be repeal and to understand all of the issues associated with a repeal. we are at the outset of that process. we are just beginning at this stage we are committed to conducting an objective, thorough, and comprehensive assessment of the repeal of 654.

some of the guiding principles we have said are as follows: we should enlist the views and opinions of a broad array of people within the service as well as congressman has pointed out, military families. we believe that is important. i know secretary gates believes that is important. we have asked working group members to set aside their personal opinions regarding repeal or not repeal and to go about their work in a objective and comprehensive fashion. frankly, in my experience, that is the best way in which members of the u.s. but terry go about their work. if we are all asked to set aside our personal opinions and do the best we can in a objective way. we intend to solicit the views of organizations and groups that

are familiar with the issue. not just within the active-duty force but organizations that have spent a considerable amount of time studying the policy, studying the potential for repeal, and that includes groups that have a diverse range of opinions on the issue. we are determined to do that. we are also determined to conduct our review in any way that minimizes disruption to our activities on the front lines. we are engaged in two wars at the time. that is one of the guiding principles that secretary gates has given to us. we all look forward to your questions. new >> members of the committee, thank you for allowing us to come here today. when i was informed that secretary gates account had

selected me to coakley this group, i will admit to feeling humble, honored, and a little bit nervous at the same time. i can also tell you i feel a strong obligation, consistent with our terms of reference to ensure that we have broadened our presentation in the engagement of the force and their families. to that end, which built a team that includes a wide variety of rank, age, a military specialties. the coast guard is included. we have members from the national guard and the service reserves. key in our effort is to ensure the enlisted force has a prominent role. seated behind me is the fleet master of the united states navy who is the senior enlisted leader for the department of defense working group. he reports to nobody but mr. johnson and myself and has full access to all that we do. all of us in uniform who are privileged to participate in this effort understand the special trust and confidence

placed in us by you, our department's senior leaders, and most importantly, our fellow service members and their families. we shall do our very best everyday to merit that trust. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate your opening comments. i know we have a number of members here so we will stick with the five minute rule. we will likely be interrupted by foot along the way but we will do the best we can. mr. johnson, you have a 4:00 engagement. >> i have say invitation to come see them at 4:30. >> i want to clarify the objectives of the working group.

the objective of the working group is the not facilitate repeal when it states the assessment of the implications of such a repeal should it occur. what does that say to you? you did try to clarify that but i am wondering, is there anything you want to add in terms of clarifying what you believe the objective of the city is? >> secretary gates said one month ago that the question in terms of the guidance we have the president is the issue of not whether but how best. secretary gates believes that if the congress and the president's determined that repeal of the law is appropriate, we should go about that and a careful and deliberate fashion and thing to the issues associated with repeal. that is what he has appointed us to do. should repeal occur.

i hope to have answered your question. what aspects of the military environment that secretary keeps considered critical to the successful implementation of repeal that require research, a study kemar can you clarify what aspects require that? that is my basic question. what do you want to know and how are you going to find out? >> the aspects that come to mind immediately are some of the things he said in terms of reference that were made public yesterday. first of all, readiness. impact on readiness. we are engaged and to conflicts right now -- in two conflicts right now. i assume everyone would want to know what the impact either way

would be on recruiting and retention. as i mentioned earlier, we are interested in assessing the impact on what we call family readiness. the way i would sum it up is to say the impact on readiness and family readiness and recruitment and intention -- and retention. >> have you had a chance to think through, and i know this may be premature, how you intend to get that information? we anticipate there might be some surveys but i would also wonder about face-to-face interviews that might be helpful, as well. we have all had discussions here and the questions that are asked of returning troops, which may or may not be valid down the line, and i am wondering if there is an anticipation of a

lot of face-to-face discussion or if it would be done more under service and how we would reach out to families. what do you think is likely to be the vehicle for this? >> the issues that you have addressed are exactly but we're thinking about. in principle, what we are envisioning at the direction of the secretary of defense is a wide average to get a wide variety of views put it in that effort, which envisioned a survey instrument of the force and of their families to get their sense on the issues. we absolutely agree with you that that survey must be enriched by personal contact. focus groups, if you will. some of them targeted to specialized groups and families within the department of defense, active reserve and guard. that personal interaction is very important. turkey, we envision the average

for social needs. -- thirdly, we envision the out reached for social needs. >> to you anticipate that focusing on whether or how? or a combination of both? >> it really is on how. as you indicated, we do not poll the force on should we do this or should we not do that. in this regard, it is more important for us as we survey the force and conduct these focus groups and reach out to groups is to understand the implications of repeal should it occur so that necessary policy adjustments, if required, can be foreseen and envisioned. it is how. >> thank you. mr. wilson. >> thank you, madame chair. >thank you.

i am concerned the direction given to you by the secretary of defense will not result in your study group examining to fundamental questions, whether current law threatens or undermines readiness in any significant way and whether the repeal of current law would improve readiness in measurable ways. with the to review commit to us today that you will examine these two questions as part of your study and provide the secretary of defense with your data, findings, and recommendations regarding them? in your personal view, to you think this question should be examined? would you object to them being added either by the secretary of defense or by congress? >> let me start, if we to a

comprehensive and thorough job, a necessary component of that would be to look at the two questions you raised. >> thank you. >> i would agree. it is clear to me in the terms of reference and with the discussion of the secretary of defense the military readiness and effectiveness must retain primacy. that is what you expect of us and what the nation expects of us. we will clearly examine that. >> looking at your backgrounds, and very impressed. i am not surprised, the high integrity both indicated. thank you very much. dr. stanley, taken as a whole, the department data over the past 10 years with regard to recruiting and retention and practices of the navy and air force to reduce manpower the

levels in wartime refutes the argument that the repeal is in deficit -- is a military necessity. the statement that current law appears to be working. the you agree with this assessment, why or why not? >> in my opening statement, i said i have been here a couple of weeks. i am not new to this discussion. as i join the secretaire, my marching orders were clear. i am open-minded. the secretary of defense has given me orders here that basically layout exactly what we are expected to do which is to study. make an assessment. to a review. to look into the questions or the issue you are racing right now. agreeing or disagreeing with the general would be part of the process of exactly in the we have in the assessment.

>> your background is such that i take what you say very accurately. i would like to have your personal use on whether the repeal of section 654 is a military necessity and to, whether you agree with general conway that current law that section 64 is working. >> my personal view is that we should carefully study the implications of repeal should that occur before we make a change. i believe that is precisely what secretary gates has charged mr. johnson and myself would doing. >> thank you. based on the department provided -- the information provided by department, it does not seem to have had any effect on the ability of military forces to recruit and forces and

numbers that meet or exceed service requirements. moreover, section 64 is not inhibited to the army, marine corps from rapidly expanding manpower levels while fighting to separate wars. to you agree with the assessment that section 654 is no significant hindrance to successful retention during wartime? >> what i hope the assessment or the review that we do will be deleted and to that question. i cannot answer that question right now but i will say that i know that as we go forward, we will be able to answer more accurately in the future. i am sure that we will. again, thank you for your efforts and i wish you well as to pursue this issue. i yield the balance of my time.

>> thank you. thank you, madame chair. thank you for being here. we appreciate your work at this important time in our history. i want to assure you that i think your work is not only important but it will be used. i know there are people who are opposed to changing this policy. the policy will be changed. even some of those people who are opposed to the change recognize that it will be changed and there is a generational thing going on here. america is changing. the world is changing. your work will be put to good use. whether it is this month, this year, next year, i did not know. if you do a good job, which will provide guidelines to your country and military and we appreciate your work. if i wanted to ask mr. johnson, you probably heard a question i have asked about 17 times. the split of authority between night circuit in the first circuit.

-- ninth circuit and the first circuit. the current policy is working well has been said. i have to ask what the definition of working well is when you have different sections of the country under different legal opinions about exactly what the region and authority of that law is. that is not my definition of working well. the question is how have you in the military responded to the ninth circuit. what do you doing differently and the states in light of the ninth circuit opinion which is not being appealed? >> as we have discussed in the past, the decision in the ninth circuit creates what we call a split in the circuit. the rule of law there is different than the rule of law and all of the other circuits. we in the department of justice

have been very actively working through that split in the circuit should be applied and implemented throughout the force. we have put out guidance to our lawyers to inform them of the decisions. i certainly have and we continue to work through how to address whatever pending cases exist within the ninth circuit versus the other circuits. it is something we are actively looking at at the department of justice. >> one of the service secretaries made the comment last week that they were applying the law nationally the same and consistently. when i said a week ignoring the net circuit, there was a that a bit of backpedaling. it is a terrible problem for you to be in. the second part of that question is what are you doing with regard, not at the legal

level, i mean you can certainly take every case to the courts and loose at the district court level who will site the night circuit over and over again or you can some direction to the commanders and legal authorities throughout the state's to say there is now a category of gay and lesbian service members that if they meet these following criteria, they indeed can surf even though we know they're gay or lesbian. have you made those kinds of statements? >> otherwise you will have a series of litigation's. >> the case, as you know, requires an intermediate a level of constitutional scrutiny to the policy. we have to balance that against applying the law as the congress

has given to us under we say consistently within the department of defense that we applied the law and faithfully implement the law in a fair and as balanced the way possible. we have to balance that against the rule of law for the night circuit. it is a complex exercise. we are working through it right now with the department of justice. >> there has been no different direction given to base commanders that a certain number of cases or criteria, there is no reason to move ahead because the would be overturned in the ninth circuit. >> not right now in any formal way. it is something i am actively thinking about. >> one quick question in my remaining seconds, you say recommended a proper stages of the uniform code of military

justice is one of those under consideration that prohibits acts between men and women. >> we are undertaking the -- a comprehensive approach. we would likely focus on that. the ucmj is not the main focus of the review. >> to buy. >> thank you. mr. murphy is next. >> thank you. you mentioned that you were nervous serving as cochair. i am sure you were nervous as an 18 year-old infantryman are paratrooper. we're not going to be asking you to jump out of any airplanes now or in the future. we appreciate your service to our country. this is an issue that the american people deeply value.

i want to echo that what we are talking about is that this is a hearing not to discuss if we're going to repeal don't ask, don't tell. it is clear that secretary gates and barack obama are going to repeal the law. the question is how the services implement the repeal to make sure there is no disruption to the force. i am grateful that you volunteered to co-chair this working group. we should move forward with care. we should also understand that this review cannot be an excuse for july. a repeal must be a dual track process. the working group of the services must figure how to implement the changes but it is the duty of congress to change the law. there is no reason why these things cannot happen simultaneously. the 2010 defense authorization act did not become law until

october 28, to test nine. the 2009 became law in 2008. my point is that if we repeal don't ask, don't tell and the fiscal year 2011 defense bill, it will not likely become law until at least seven months from today. secretary gates stated that the working group should finish work by december 1 of this year. congress could -- could put pill language and this year's authorization act. the statute could be changed at the end of this year but full repeal would not take effect until sometime in 2011. would you agree that this would give your working group ample time to complete its study and to prepare the services for implementation of the findings?

>> i think that the approach you have just outlined, there are some aspects of it that we should carefully consider. there are some intriguing aspects to it. i want to be sure in our view that we hit all the right issues and make of the adequate assessments. i would think that our review might inform what this congress wants to do. our work is due to the secretary of the -- secretary of defense on february. that they will touch upon how the congress decides to go about repeal. or one to think about and carefully studied the approach you have outlined but as i see it, our work would not just the implementing regulations but it

may -- may well be a relative to how you fashion a legislative approach. i would not undertake to tell congress about what to do with their time table. >> you did not oppose congress to taking action. >> i am not here to oppose or support any particular congressional action. we are here to do an exhaustive and comprehensive review of the repeal of the policy. opponents of the repeal argued that allowing open service members would harm morale in units that my experience in the army and stories that i hear from young american heroes point to the exact opposite.

one company commander who happened to be gay currently serving his second deployment and afghanistan wrote me a letter that exemplified how don't ask, don't tell harm's unit cohesion. don't ask, don't tell made it impossible for him to confide in his battle buddies. he had thought of suicide but had nobody to turn to because of fear of losing his job. he wrote to me and said "gate soldiers should have the right to go to a commander, first sergeant, or battle bloody and not worry about the ramifications of don't ask, don't tell. at shackles the hands of leaders like me. it prevents us from giving our all and the support of leadership the deserve. the don't ask, don't tell policy put up walls between battle buddies. they are the ones who are most

impacted by don't ask, don't tell. " how with the panel take into consideration the opinions people like this service member? >> thank you. just to comment before i ask questions. i realize that the president wants this policy but he is not the king. we will have to vote on it. i cannot think the president can decide unilaterally that we will repeal don't ask, don't tell. my question is is the primary purpose of the military to be a force for social change or to protect americans?

>> the primary purpose of the united states military is to defend the nation. >> i concur. the primary focus is to defend the nation. >> absolutely agree. >> thank you. i am not sure who is best able to answer this question, how well are we meeting recruiting goals? >> we are not only a meeting but exceeding in the active card and the reserve our goals across the board. >> that would imply that our current policy does not appear to be hurting our recruitment abilities at this point. how many service members were removed as a result of don't ask, don't tell in 2009? >> 428.

>> 428. that is for the year of two dozen 9. -- 2009. what is the total size of the military? >> if you could make sure that we hear you and your microphone, just a little bit closer. >> with regard to reserve, and active because it is hard to swallow -- separate, it is around 3 million. it seems to be certainly not a lot of people are being affected one way or the other. i think we could agree to that. i would open up the floor to what did you see from your standpoint and what have you seen in terms of the current

policy and how it is adversely affecting readiness for our military. >> i will let the general and to that point i will say that we are at the beginning of the process. >> i am just asking you to draw on your experience. as i and extended, what we're doing is putting off in 1993 study. we're going to try to update the study. am i correct about that? >> yes, that is one thing that we have been directed to do. >> i am just asking your personal opinions and observations with your exposure to the military, what have you seen and what observations have the made in which our current policy has harmed our ability in

terms of readiness. >> it is clear to me as a long serving soldier that our military is currently the best military in the world. the challenge to us and the task of ours is to assess the impact on that standing should the current law be repealed. that is what we shall endeavor to give. we have not yet decided exactly how to do that. we know at the beginning of this process that it is foundational to our work to assess the impact in readiness should the law be repealed. >> if i could just go back to your first question, the primary mission of the ads its military as i said this to defend the nation. having said that, i think that the u.s. military is proud of the fact that it is one of the

most diverse institutions in america and we have a track record for being a diverse institution. somebody once told me that the united states military is the community where interracial marriage is most prevalent. that would not surprise me if that were in fact the case. we are very proud of our racial and cultural diversity of people who are all dedicated to a common mission since the have been given their orders to do something. >> but you would agree that the primary purpose is not to bring about social change but to be ready for war which we deal with frequently around here, as you know. >> thank you, madame chair.

i am in full support of the motion that my friend from pennsylvania had the courage to introduce. i am encouraged to do right by the people who give up themselves to protect the rights that we hold dear. whether or not they are gay, lesbian, straight, bisexual, transgendered, it makes no difference. if you were to cut people open, to dissect them, after you looked at them, you would see that they have eyes, ears, nose, mouth, teeth, leggs, arms, i

would not talk about what else everybody has got a brain. thyroid. hart, it hurts when you aren't discriminated against and the after bloody has intestines and respiratory systems. we are all the same, people. regardless of the color, regardless of nationality, regardless of sexual identity, that is just a basic fact. when we talk about defending freedom in this country, it is hypocritical for us to have

government-sponsored discrimination. it really needs to change. i admire your courage being a military man yourself, you have become a general. to do a study, to pass 1000 to one to 83 now and then during the transition. period, all of the complicated issues that you all are looking into, let's change the policy.

let's not send the wrong message as we go out and talk to people and servicemen and women and hear what their thoughts are in the process. what you're calling to find is that people are polarized some people did not like gays and other people do. that is just going to be the end of that. the question is what kind of politics is the u.s. government going to have? is it going to allow this discrimination or is it going to ban at and then expect the men and women and service of their country to abide by the change? i believe that those men and women will. having said that,