prosper in the economy. that's what's happening to our people individually. but as a whole, our country is in such an economic crisis. and what does congress do, because these energy pricesr as they say, are draining the family budget and draining the national budget? what does congress do when it comes to energy? we pass a job-killing, energy- expressive legislation, the cap and trade bill. this bill which passed this body in the midst of this economic crisis and as the energy crisis loomed, this bill which passed our body, will make it more difficult to produce the energy that we now depend on. and the excuse? well, this time it's not saving a little fish. the excuse for passing this anti-energy legislation is what?

saving the plavenet. we can understand how we can -- planet. we can understand that they want to save a little fish, but how are they going to save the planet from manmade global warming? this theory is bogus and it surfaces every day. the public and decision makers for 10 years were inundated by phony science, altered numbers and outright fraud. scientists who disagreed with the manmade global warming theory were cut from research grants and prevented from publishing peer review dissenting opinions. it's coming out. every day, we see stories verifying that this fraud and what's been going -- the lies that have been told, the

altering of numbers, statistics, the cherry-picking of actual information that would be put into computers to come out with solutions, all of this is coming out more and more every day. yet, the congress ignores all of that, as does the science advisers of this administration, they ignore this evidence. they belittle it claiming that this is inconsequential, but the case is closed. how many have heard that expression? the case is closed. that means they won't listen or permit disagreement or permit an honest debate of the issue. this is what the proponents of manmade global warming have been doing for the last two years to stifle debate and prevent the american people from getting a balanced view of the positions of the various positions that are taken on the proposal that

mankind is changing the climate of the planet, making the planet warm up. . even as we wade through the snow and the freezing weather that is gripping large parts of our country and the rest of the world, i meet add, even as experts now confirm that there's been a lack of warming for 15 years, economy-killing legislation passed in the house has been put forth in the name of stopping manmade global warming. well, at least that little fish that they were trying to save and all the hardship of -- on regular people to save that little fish is real, that little fish is real. manmade global warming is a hoax. and i would now submit for the record, mr. speaker, i would submit for the record at this

point a list of many prominent scientists from around the world, major scientists, heads of university science departments, etc., from around the world who have taken a position that the manmade global warming as has been presented to us is false. i would add that to the record at this point. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. roar roar thank you very much. well, we've had cooling and -- mr. rohrabacher: thank you very much. well, we've had cooling and warming cycles for millions of years. these cycles are tied to solar activity just like similar temperature trends that we've identified on mars and other bodies in our solar system. by the way, what does solar system mean? solar, the sun, the sun is the greatest source of energy not just for our planet but for the other planets and we see on mars the same type of temperature trends. i guess they think that there's some sort of s.u.v.'s or something being driven on mars

that creates a temperature change on mars. well, global warming should not be the issue because it's a fraud. what should be the issue, this is -- global pollution, and the preventing of global pollution. but this distinction between global pollution which are the pollutants that hurt human beings versus carbon, co-2, which is something that actually is beneficial to the planet, actually helps us grow more plants, is not harmful to human beings, the fact that they are focused on co-2 rather than pollutants hurts us in our effort to stop the pollutants that are hurting people and at the same time is costing us billions of dollars with no payback whatsoever. in fact, we are spending billions of dollars unnecessarily in order to justify the research that has been done in order to justify the accusation that it is mankind and not the sun that is

creating changes in our temperature. the temperature of the planet is not manmade. we can't do anything about it. but the energy shortage, the energy shortage is manmade. and we can do something about that. and that is costing us billions of dollars as well. billions, perhaps trillions of dollars. global warming, global warming is a fraud that has made the job of dealing with the energy crisis almost undoable. it has hampered our ability to solve the energy crisis and we have made it worse, much worse, by legislation that was passed in this congress in the middle of an economic crisis. for years it has been a costly drag on our economy, this concept that we're going to try to outlaw co-2 rather than

getting to pollutants. well, now with the horrendous crisis looming, with a sword hanging over our head, not producing domestic energy is no longer acceptable. the economic consequences are too damaging and too painful, painful to our people. we should be aggressively looking for ways to produce more energy here rather than searching for reasons to prevent increases in domestic production. becauses that i what the powers that be in this congress now are doing. that's what happened with the cap and trade bill, they are looking for reasons to prevent domestic production for the current energy that we dependent upon -- depend upon. the end result has been, yes, a hampering of domestic production and has been thus resulted in a

decline in wealth generation in our country. imagine that. we aren't being permitted to develop our own energy, thus the amount of wealth is being generated in our country has been declining and because there's less wealth, people are beginning to suffer. a transfer of wealth to those countries when we are purchasing energy that we could be producing ourselves is impoverishing our country. that's right. if we can provide it ourselves, yet we're buying it from overseas, we have less wealth here. this, as i say, has cost our economy trillions of dollars, trillions. and we are expected to continue our economic woes even as congress passes more restrictions on domestic energy production. then of course when it comes to

wealth transfer one needs to look closely at america's trade policies. another major cause for our economic decline. we have been betrayed by wrong headed idealists both when it comes to the environment as well as when it comes to trade policy. we have also been betrayed by powerful special interest groups in our own country who have global goals in mind, both environmentally and economically, at least that's what they say. the american people, as trusting as they are, have expected their government to represent their interests in trade negotiations. instead our representatives have focused on long-term global goals and time and again our interests as a people have been secondary instead of a primary consideration for those with

authority who are supposed to be protecting our interests. you know, when people sit down with us, representing other countries to negotiate, their people know they're supposed to be negotiating what is in the interest of their people. we expect them to do that. the people on our side of the table have something much more majestic in mind than just the self-interest of our own people, as if there's something wrong with democratic government representing the interests of people who elect them. and we have gotten the short-term -- short part of the stick. we have been shortchanged in these negotiations, trade negotiations, because we haven't anybody been there aggressively demanding what's in the interest of our people, but instead we want to create a global system and convince these other people to sort of inch along in this direction so we can have a global effort. don't get me wrong, i believe in

international trade. i believe really actually in a robust trade between free people and i believe such a trade between free people is a benefit to both parties, especially if the ground rules are fair and equal and negotiated out between the two peoples, a trade between democratic countries is a win-win. well, there's obviously something seriously wrong when our economy is sputtering to a halt while our trading partners are going into high gear. free trade between free people which is my motto should not be blamed for this. because the problem is not free trade between free people, because it's free trade between on one side and controlled on the other. free trade with a controlled and auto contractic government is inherently not free. if permitted to do so, which is

what our negotiators are permitted, the powers -- the power of economic activity will be directed by these tyrannical governments like in china to bolster the power of their elite and it will be done at the expense of, yes, of their own people's freedom, but it will be done at the expense of the economic well-being of our people. under this guise of free trade which has not been challenged, because it isn't free trade if you're dealing with a dictatorship like china, we've had policies aimed at creating a global system. that's why we're permitting the chinese to get away with this, because we want them to be a part of a global system which includes everybody and that will have a positive influence on all of these other countries. well, the global system is supposed to include everybody. dictators, rogue regimes, countries where people are treated like serfs.

sorry, we don't need free trade or to be in a binding relationship with those type of regimes and we don't need to be controlled by a global trading establishment that will result from all of this organization of commerce. and you can bet that that global trading establishment, the systems that will be set up will be generally -- eventually dramatically influenced, if not dominated by if he farious regimes and self-enriching elites. this, the w.t.o., which is what they're trying to created a a global system, -- as a global system, will be and is becoming more like the united nations. the united nations, which was a theoretical dream but in reality a nightmare for free and democratic people. the u.n. is an organization that

gives china the, the world's worst human rights abuser, a veto and it provides general assembly votes to the likes of burma, iran, cuba and north korea. oh, that's a good gang that we should depend upon. we should make sure we're part of an organization that gives them an equal vote in the general assembly to ours or gives china a veto over anything the u.n. can do. and speaking of china, here too is an explanation of why our country is on the verge of an economic calamity. we've permitted communist china a one-way free trade policy for the last 20 years and, yes, when it was democraticizing and opening a strategy must have been justified for a time. during the reagan years we saw a liberalizing china. reagan made it clear and i know this because i worked with him on his speeches when he went to china, he made it clear that as long as progress toward openness and freedom continued in china,

our generous trade and commerce policies would continue to be in place. then came ten minute square. unfortunately reagan was not president when this historic atrocity was committed. tiananmen -- the tiananmen square massacre was not something that needed to happen. but it did happen, i believe had ronald reagan been president it wouldn't have happened. he would have sent a telegram to those communist dictators and said if you slaughter the democratic moment and -- movement and end development reform in china, we -- democratic reform in china, we will withdraw your credits, there will be no investment in your country, there will be no open market for your goods, don't do it. that's what reagan would have done. you know what the telegram that president bush, the father of our last president said?

he would have said to those communists -- it didn't say anything because he never sent the telegram. he never sent the letter. in fact, there was no communication and no repercussions that the bush presidency used against the communist chinese atrocities that occurred in ten amen square. yet -- tin amen square. yet -- tinmen square. yet, it changed history. for 20 years we've let the policies that we put in place to encourage demock are atyization -- democratization stay in place. all along -- all along the dictatorship has been strengthened by its position and strengthened in its position by exploiting america's wealth and technology which we have heaped upon them even after tinamen square.

we have strengthened them at our expense. our china policy has disamated manufacturing in america and drained -- dismated manufacturing in america and drained trillions of dollars in our economy. note that. again, more trillions of dollars drained from our economy. no wonder we're in an economic crisis. it prosecutes and persecutes religious believers, be they be christians. there is no freedom of speech, no free press, no independent judiciary. yet, we treat china better than we do some democratic countries or countries that have at least made reforms, like russia, that have made dramatic reforms even though they are imperfect. over the years our elite have been encouraged to make deals to set up manufacturing in china so factories and production has been shut down

in the united states and some companies have opened up new factories, some of those same companies have opened up factories in china over and over again. it has taken its toll on all of us. the corporate elite gets a short-term profit by some of these forays into the china market. enough to warrant big bonuses for the short term. it is our achilles' heel our corporate elite will sell out the well-being of their grandchildren for a quick profit next year. china, on the other hand, has the long-term has interest in the long term. they get our wealth generating tech nothing. the bosses get rich quick selling out their employees. american consumers get cheaper products, short term, but in the long term they and their children don't have any good-paying jobs. not even enough to buy those

cheap products. even congress wouldn't be stupid enough to buy that deal. there was a sweetener to buy that. if we let the one way free trade coupon it would bring about world peace, especially peace with china. now, isn't that something we've heard over and over again, just like the mantra of global warming? oh, we're going to have a democracy in china and world peace if we allow this one-way free trade policy which is obviously not working in the interest of our people. well, if there's one thing that liberals might like even better than stopping manmade global warming if is world peace. and on top of that, on top of feeling good about a nice slogan, really rich guys here in america are making a lot of money to boot and their friends

are these policymakers. well, they promised political liberalization in china would result with more personal contact and more prosperity in china. to get them to do business, well, basically they promised us that because that's what we needed in order to keep these trade policies in place. well, the promise that there would be a liberalization in china because they're having more interaction with us it's what i call the hu go-a-nazi liberal thing. we created a franken stein monster that threatens us militarily. this gang of thieves now has leverage to drag us down and destroy our prosperity and the prosperity and well-being of our people. we are now vulnerable to a corrupt dictator ship in beijing. and after tiananmen square we ended up not just having most

favored nation trading status, but under bill clinton he made most favored nation trading status permanent. bush allowed that tiananmen square for the policy to continue. clinton made it permanent. one of the most disturbing aspects of this unwholly relationship has been the transfer of american technology to china. technology used against our remaining manufacturers and against our defenders and technology that advances chinese military power and threatens our safety. technology has flowed over there. much of the technology to which i refer was a product of r&d paid for by the american taxpayer. letting such american innovation to bolster and strengthen such a monsterous regime in china is sinful and an incredible betrayal of the american people and a disservice to the freedom-loving people of china. let us note that i believe the chinese people are our greatest

allies. they are the wubs who will rid themselves -- ones who will rid themselves of this tyranny and save the world from this threat. we must do everything to reach out to the people of china who are our friends by fighting -- confronting -- not fighting in terms of military, but confronting the chinese dictatorship, just like we should be doing in iran. but there is a deal between our corporate elite and the chinese hierarchy. our corporate elite wins. our people lose their jobs. freedom loses. our government has foisted this upon us. our government permits the cheaps to keep their currency -- chinese to keep their currency value artificially low which even makes china even more able not just to compete but to overwhelm our manufacturers.

they have been keeping their currency artificially low so they can obliterate domestic manufacturing in the united states. and we have permitted the limited access of our products to their market while at the same time we have opened up our market totally to chinese-made products. they limit our access to their markets while they have unlimited access to ours. their currency is kept on a low level to make sure the flow of wealth is coming in their direction by manipulating occurrencies. we permitted technology and investment to go there even though it's a dictatorship. so what we've seen is trillions of dollars have been drained out of our economy. so the wage in the united states has been depressed. our investment in the infrastructure has been obliterated. we must deal with this situation or america will continue to slide down even as the power of beijing asends, it

will continue to affect our security and our prosperity and our freedom and we will become more docile and more subservent even as the arrogance and maliciousness of the chinese regime becomes apparent. china trade policy must be on the list if we are to get ourselves out of the downward economic spiral we are in. trillions of dollars of wealth being drained from our people, yet we hear no such proposals about china trade. in fact, there's legislation making its way through congress that would make the situation worse. surprise, surprise. it would result in even more american technology ending up in chinese hands and being used against us. there are proposals in congress to weaken export control laws that control the flow of american technology. i agree that with three nations our entrepreneurs and enterprisers should be free

from the heavy-handed restrictions they now face. this, of course, as long as is -- as long as the final destination of the people we're dealing with is not a transaction that will end up in delivering products to threatening nations like china or iran. but the american business community insists on one set of rules for all. whether than free and democratic countries being on one tier to a transfer controlled by dictatorships and regimes? no, they can't have a two-tier system. not to baseman who thinks of himself as a citizen of the world. not as an american -- not as a businessman who thinks of himself as a citizen of the world. not as an american. he's a citizen of the world. yes, he's a citizen of the world just like all people around the world.

he wants a fast buck. it's our job to protect the interest of the american people, not the interest of an elite that wants to make a fast buck in dealing with dictators. interestingly enough, one of the issues of contention in this debate deals with the launching of u.s. satellites on chinese rockets. the last time this was tried i originally thought it could be done. as long as safeguards were in place to prevent transfered technology. it turned into a national security nightmare. the safeguards were promised by the clinton administration but they were never enforced. when i realized this i immediately changed my position on the issue. and in fact conducted a personal investigation that turned out to be -- to discover a damaging transfer of rocket technology to china. later, the cox commission verified our national security had been severely damaged. now, the same arguments are being made. now, current chinese rockets, however, have benefited from the technology they took from us and were given 15 years ago.

well, if we permit them to launch our satellites on their rockets we will be undercutting our own rocket industry. you can kiss our aerospace industry goodbye. if companies like boeing and g.e. start outsourcing rockets to china, kiss our aerospace industry goodbye. we will not capture the economic momentum that we need to level our current crisis. if our manufacturing and no how goes to china we -- and know how goes to china we lose. we should be treated as an adversary to our democratic system well. but to transfer technology to china is moving forward here in washington. as is the proposal to launch u.s. satellites on chinese

rockets. all of this is part of a trade policy that has obviously worked against us. us, the united states, the people of america. it's worked against us. yet, instead of being advocates of democracy to the chinese leaders as we were told would happen, our guard business will go there and interact with the chinese leaders and become more democratic. they'll learn to trust us and more benevolent while instead our business community, instead of lobbying the bad guys, is here lobbying us on these policies in order to support, what, their buddies in beijing. it's -- just as disturbing, another thing may be handed to china as well as well as to other foreign competitors in the united states. as part of a so-called patent reform bill that's making its way through the legislative process. for two decades the very same corporate elites, especially in

the electronics industry, who have been shipping jobs to china, have been pushing hard for fundamental changes in america's patent system. pro-inventiveness rhetoric has masked their attempt to dramatically diminish and even destroy the patent protection that has been enjoyed by americans since the founding of our country. well, our only chance of getting back to an upper economic track is the efficiency to produce more wealth through innovation and to use the creative jean us of our people to build the machines that will enable americans to compete and to beat foreign adversaries. one of america's greatest assets, the butt -- the bull wart of our freedom, the wealth production in our country has been a strong patent system. it's been the right of our people, specifically written into our constitution in article 1, section 8, that guarantees the right of ownership to inventors for a

given period of time in order to stimulate innovation and progress and, yes, lead to general prosperity. and it worked. that's why americans have had such a high standard of living. people work hard all over the world. hard. maybe harder than americans. but we had the tools and the equipment and the technology and the machines to outcompete those people throughout the world and build the standard of living of ordinary people. that's what we're proud of. other people work hard, as i say, but we produce the wealth as never dreamed of before for normal, ordinary people because we had the tools and the machines. and ch threatened our genius saved us, from hostile ideologists -- ideologies, our technological superiority is even more useful today when we were in a life and death struggle with radical islam. not islam in general, not the 1 1/2 billion muslims on this planet who we have to reach out

to just like we reach out to the people of china but to the radical islamists who would hurt us, who would kill our people as they did on 9/11. some foreigners would like to use the product or creative genius against us. unfortunately there are those in the corporate elite who will are willing to let that happen. the megaelectronics industry has been investing huge sums of money, campaign donations, for 15 years to accomplish this goal of diminishing or destroying america's patent protections. they are the last ones you would think would be the enemies of patent protections because they have the biggest names in the electronic industry. why should such company does this? why companies that appear to be based on innovation want to destroy the patent system? because they produce products that contain multiple elements, each one is a separate invention, but there's a cell phone or computer or other technology, there might be 20 elements that someone else

invented and they must use that capability in order to stay competitive and the big boys don't want to pay royalties to the little envin -- inventors. so instead they're negotiating an agreement that will undercut america's independent inventors, little guys, as well as other industries, it will permit these megatech multinational corporations to steal because they're going to make it legal. they're going to change the way the law works. they're going to diminish patent protection. well, the fact that this will also enable other gangsters around the world and other people around the world to steal america's technology, just like they're trying to steal it from america's little guys, that's of little concern to them because these corporate elites are also global thinkers. many of them consider themselves citizens of the world. yeah, globalists. for 15 years they've tried time and again to run through major

fatal changes to our patent system and each time they've been thwarted by a small band of patriots, that's right, the patriots can still beat the big guys. we can beat the globalists. just last week a bill has made its way through the senate judiciary committee. chairman leahy is looking for floor time to bring it to a vote and once it passes it is likely to make it through the house. the finished legislation will destroy -- will not destroy the patent system. as was the case with all of the past legislation that these megatech industries have tried to hoist upon us. but the fact is that it will undermine and diminish the current levels of protection as a compromise with these big businesses. why should we compromise with megatech companies that want tody inish our rights? they say -- to diminish our rights? americans enjoy more freedom and more rights than the people of the world. if they want to harmonize their

laws with us, let them increase the protection that they give to average citizens rather than diminish it. the bill is going, of course, right now it's going in the wrong direction. even though there's been compromise. it's still taking us in the wrong direction, even though the megatech companies now, some of the major players, who have been calling for this bill to be passed, actually helped mold the first bill that was passed through this house. these people are now saying they don't support the legislation. well, we need to skip -- we need to just say that bill contains compromises that are not doing no favor to anybody. not the big guys, the little guys, not to american competitiveness, not to those people who are inventors, not to anybody. so we should just simply wait until next year. we can then build a strong coalition for patent protection with biotech, small and medium

electronic firms, pharmaceuticals, colleges and universities, small inventors, all the people who actually are the main spring of human progress for america, we can strengthen them by giving them more legal protection for their inveptiveness. of course, compromise is not good enough for these electronic firms, so they actually are opposing the bill, too. let us all work together, then, in making sure this compromise legislation does not pass and that next year we pass a bill not for the megatech companies that are trying to destroy the patent system but for the american people who depend on innovation. the fight could go either way on this bill now but let's hope that we can basically thwart their efforts because there are people in china and overseas right now waiting for us to change the rules in order to make sure they can get the technology and steal it from the american people themselves.

by the way, since the 1996 these megatech companies, these electronic companies, which have set over thousands and thousands of jobs to china have been sued by little guys. in 730 cases of patent infringement. these megacompanies, they do not want to suffer those cases, they just want to be able to take those -- take that intellectual property, even though they didn't invent it, and not pay for it. and benefit and profit from it themselves without giving royalties to the inventor. that kind of dynamic put into our system will undermine american progress and bring us down. thanks for our independent judiciary, these infringements have cost the bill guys $4 billion in judgments. we need to keep in place a system in which the big guys trying to steal from little guys, the little guys can win. the patriots can win. but the big guys, they want to change the rules, let's see if

we can do it. we need to make the american people alerted to it. but to get out of this crisis, this is what we need to focus on, the american people are becoming focused because their whole way of life, their specific standard of living of their family is being threatened and they understand that. they're going to get out of this and go back and get back on a path of economic growth. if our children are to live at peace and enjoy prosperity we must produce our own energy, we must have trade agreements that are done not at our expense but are mutually beneficial trade agreements, we must protect our freedom, especially the rights of technology ownership that have served america so well. an innovative surge will give us the edge, it will give us the ability to produce more wealth, create more jobs, keep america competitive. we can produce and grow our way out of this crisis. but the challenge will not be met by wishful thinking. patriots must act to save the

day. we can rely on freedom and technology but only if the patriots act to ensure that freedom and technological progress are not undermined by counterproductive policies and changes in the law that have been hoisted upon us by powerful interest groups. or ideological zealots or just plane idiots with influence. patriots have to step forward or things will continue to go haywire and the standard of living of the american people will go down. we will not -- we will not sit idly by. patriots can and will win. we will not give up our freedom. we will not give up the dream, the freedom and technology here, the freedom and technology that have with it but freedom and technology there is no limit to what we as a people can accomplish, no limit to how far we can go, no barrier to progress that we cannot bring

down. ronald reagan used to say, there's nothing wrong with our government that cannot be fixed with one good election. i would amend that by saying there's nothing wrong with our country that can't be corrected by patriots working together. and with freedom and technology we will overcome the challenge -- economic challenge and crisis that we face and we will ensure that our children are given the freedom and the opportunity and the decent standard of living that we have enjoyed as americans over these last few decades since the great generation of americans stepped forward and saved the world from naziism and saved the world from communism and saved the world from fanatics who would murder and terrorize decent people throughout the world. we have a very special role to play. americans come from every race, every religion, every ethnic group. we have come here to show the world there's a better way, that we can live together in peace and respect each other, that we

-- and as this conglomerate people, we represent an ideal, not a territory, that we have to reach out to those people throughout the world, provide leadership and an example and that's what this fight is about, the patriots will win because we are doing so for the cause of all freedom and humanity. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. ellison: and we'll claim the time on behalf of the progressive caucus. but i have a few boards to put up so i'm going to grab those right now.

mr. ellison: mr. speaker, i'm keith ellison and here to offer the progressive message, to deliver the progressive message. looking forward to having some other progressive caucus members join me, but in any event we'll be here tonight for a few minutes to talk to america about the progressive vision of america. america is a great country because people stood forward and had a higher vision of what it could be, yet we came here as a nation and the united states

said, you know what? we can have a country where all men and women are created equal, we have to make that happen understand so americans set out on a path to, what, end slavery. and then exalt the rights of workers and then eliminate gender discrimination and have the women's right to vote and then move on forward to spread the economic prosperity to all people, to make sure that working class men and women during the great depression were able to have the kind of economic where with all that could see them through a difficult time. america is a progressive idea. we saw the end of segregation because americans stood up of all races and colors and said, you know, this offends the basic principle of our nation. it wasn't easy, it wasn't pretty, it was real messy and people gave up everything to pursue that ideal but they did. so america is really at the bottom of progress ofive idea -- progressive idea. no more important than the fight for health care. no more important than the fight

for universal health care. and as a member of the progressive caucus i come here as a person who really would love to see universal single-payer health care, the right way to go. but single-payer did not make it into the debate really this year but important ideas like the public option did and we'rifying for those ideas tooth and nail to the vast very last. progressive message tonight, talking about health care as i have so many weeks hence, but it's an idea that is coming to the floor and there's no time to stop talking about health care reform now because americans, we've been through a lot of changes, you all remember when the president started off his service, the president started off and said, we're going to move forward on health care, begin some health care summits. and we had a number of conversations as we went through and went forward. and of course as so often happens, members from the other side of the aisle, the republican caucus, had a lot of

complaints but they didn't have many you constructive ideas. we move forward anyway. and we went through this spring where we had literally tens and tens and tens, dozens of community hearings and hearings here on capitol hill about health care reform. we had witnesses come here to talk about how to bend the cost curve down, how to reduce costs, how to expand coverage. we literally had well over 100 hearings on health care reform. and as i said, we went into the communities and i had a member of community meetings myself and we had this debate right on and up into the beginning of august and people were telling us, you know, the public option is dead but the public option as you know is not dead. we kept fighting for it and bringing it up and kept rallying americans, mr. speaker, and we just didn't break and we wouldn't bend and we kept the conversation alive. we kept the conversation alive even though we had a very tough economy to deal with, even though with had to deal with the

failing auto industry, even though we had a financial catastrophe. we understood that getting health care reform right was key to prosperity for the poor, for working class people, for middle class people. so we never really gave it up. i know some people in fact earlier today somebody said, what are you going to talk about tonight on the special order think? said i'm going to talk about health care. they said, wow, we're sick of talking about that. you know what, we don't have the luxury to be sick of talking about health care reform because right now at this very moment there are people who are facing being cut off health care insurance, people whose medical expenses have gone so high they have to consider bankruptcy in order to make it and survive economically. there are people who have children getting ready to turn 22. i had a situation where our health care carrier told me on

your son's birth way, which should be a happy occasion, he's going to be terminated from your health care policy. this is my own son. i am many of congress and i am sitting here figuring out my boy who is going from 21 to 22 covered because he's going to be looking for health care coverage in only a few days. americans are going through this all the time. some americans are thinking, wow, i hope i can get to 65 so i can get medicare because then i won't have all these problems, i will be able to afford health care like i haven't been able to afford it in so many years. americans are in dire straits. so it doesn't make any sense to anyone not talking about health care because americans are not done fighting health care. and so we're here with the congressional progressive caucus. in is our email. contact us and let us know what your ideas are.

we believe that progress is made through new ideas and we want to hear about it. but we're going to be talking about health care tonight. hopefully be joined by some of our colleagues. i want to talk about health care and the economy, how these two ideas are linked together. shocking, shocking, shocking, shocking news. how do you like this one, folks? health insurers break record profits as 2.7 million americans lose coverage. wait a minute. i must be reading this wrong, mr. speaker. health care insurers break profit records as 2.7 million americans lose coverage. you mean they're breaking records, getting more money than they ever got before, as they're throwing people off

coverage? well, that doesn't seem right. you would think that during this time, mr. speaker, of reviewing health care policy that somebody somewhere would have at least the good sense to say, well, maybe we shouldn't throw all these people off at a time when we're making all this money. it would look back. these be a rigsist folks don't have any chame when it comes to grab more money. -- shame when it comes to grab more money. like those in the financial services industry giving themselves record bonuses as america's banks are -- have enough reserves but aren't lending it out. so small businesses can help grow our economy. as we're in the middle of a financial crisis, they're giving themselves bonuses and they feel put upon and personally attacked because they can't get a gazillion more dollars. health care insurers break

record profits as 2.7 million americans lose coverage. mr. speaker, i'd just like to show to whoever's looking the report where i get this information. this report, health care insurers break record profits as 2.7 million americans lose coverage, february, 2010, health care now, health care for america now. this is something very important. great report. you can get it on the health care for america now.org website and people need to check it out, mr. speaker, because it's the kind of information that can really help you get you engaged, get you involved and get you moving toward real health care reform. let me just say -- read a little bit from the report so the americans who are watching can get a taste of this important. the largest health insurance companies, mr. speaker, sail

through the worse economic downturn since the great depression to set new industry profit records in 2009, a feat accomplished by leaving behind 2.7 million americans who had been in private health plans. for consumers who kept their benefits, the insurers raised rates and cut the share of premiums spent on medical care. executives and shareholders of the five biggest for-profit health insurers, united health group, incorporate rated, aetna, incorporate rated, cigna , corporation, enjoy the combined profit of $12.2 billion, that's $12 billion with a b, in 2009, up 56% from the previous year. it was the best year pour big

insurance. wow. wow. that's amazing to me. you would -- these folks coming down here saying that they got to have the private insurance go their way so they can survive, well, they're reaping megaprofits. mr. speaker, it's wrong. mr. speaker, we got to do something about it. it's downright unpatriotic. the outsize earnings are a vivid reminder that without comprehensive national health care reform the gatekeepers of our broken health care system will put the short-term interest of wall street before the needs of millions of patients and a national economy plagued by joblessness. i'm not going to read the whole report, mr. speaker, but it is worth it to go on a little further. the 2009 financial report from the nation's five largest insurance companies revealed that, one, the firms made $12.2

billion, an increase of $4.4 billion or 56% from 2008. four out of five of the companies saw earnings increase with cigna's profits jumping 346%. cigna's profits jumped 346%. that's pretty good. now, this is -- as americans are losing their health care benefits, as the unemployment is spiking, as people are getting in real pain, they're getting more money. the companies provided private insurance coverage to 2.7 million fewer people than the year before. four out of five of the companies insured fewer people through private coverage. united health alone insured 1.7 fewer people through employer-based and individual coverage. and that's why i'm an advocate of universal single-payer health care. as long as the private insurance market is a player in this thing, they are going to

offer the worst at the highest price. but all but one of the five companies increased the number of people they cover through public insurance programs, medicaid, schip, medicare, united health added 680,000 people to public plans. that's me and you. that's the public. the proportion of the premium dollars spent on health care expenses went down for three of the five firms with the higher proportion going to administrative expenses. and guess what, profits. i know you're shocked. one last paragraph, mr. speaker, so that people can really get a flavor of this thing. i'm hoping the people will really get a handle on this and look into it so that they can see what's really going on. you can't figure out what's going on by some of these talk show hosts, depending on what station you like to watch, they're not going to tell you the truth. they are going to be busy

telling you about death panels and school-based sex clinics and say, government's taking over health care. well, i'd rather have government take over my health care than united group take over my health care. i would, and i think a lot of americans would probably agree. some may not, but i think most americans expect the government to make sure that the private corporations in the health care business play fair with the american people. going back to the report. the shedding of 2.7 million americans from private health care plans is part of the long-term shifting of responsibility for the care of millions of the sick, older and lower income customers to taxpayers supported government health programs such as medicare and state children's health insurance program. state and federal programs have increasingly been hiring big insurers to manage their care. well, i think we need to not do that. we need to do something -- we need to get a real plan that

will provide some real competition with these people like a public option. or better yet, have single payer health care and just get the private market out of the health care business and allow private doctors to take care of patients as opposed to private insurance companies, which, mr. speaker, i will say don't really add value to the health care equation. what do these people do? they move paper around. they don't see patients. they don't diagnosis. they don't treat. what do they do? what do they add? do they get one aspirin? do they go get -- do they put gauze or dress wounds? they don't do any of that. i think they are more or less a pair asite on the system -- a pair site on the -- parasite on the system. so here's a little bit more from inside of the report. faced with such onerous costs, many customers are winding up

uninsured. health insurance premiums have risen so high that experts forecast that 52 million americans will be without coverage this year. now, mr. speaker, i know and you know that the number we always toss around is 47 million americans don't have health care. well, if that's what you say, you're wrong. 52 million americans -- we're approaching 52 million americans without health care, and that's at a time we're in the very middle of a debate around reforming health care. left alone, the purchase of health care plans directly from private insurers, many will have no choice but to remain uninsured or to buy cheap policies with inadequate benefits that leave them underinsured and at financial risk should they have a serious accident or illness. now, one little fact that americans should know is that 60% -- think about six and 10

-- 60% of all bankruptcy filings are directly related to medical debt. think about that. a broken health care system is driving americans to bankruptcy and to poverty. and as that happens, our industry doesn't seem to care much at all because they're getting theirs, what seems to be their only obsession. well, mr. speaker, i may return to this topic in a little while, but i want you to -- but i want you to know and i want the american people to know this is something, this is a problem that must be addressed. this is not a time for cynicism, mr. speaker. this is a time for action. this is not a time to say what can happen. this is the time to make something happen. this is not a time to quit. this is a time to act. and if americans act now, mr. speaker, we can get that public insurance option. we can get that public option. you know, last week when i was

talking we had only about 24 senators sign onto a letter saying they would support a public option. last time i checked we were up to 35. the question is, is your senator on the letter? we got to get 50 on there because if we get 50 senators on a letter to say they support the public option through reconciliation rules we will have that of and despite people saying the public option is dead it would jump back to life just like the folks. and i would be surprise those who say no to the -- to it. those for the public option who are like me and those against the public option like them, we have the same reason for the position that we take. they oppose the public option and i support it for the same reason. it's going to cut into corporate profits and give more people health care.

that's why we don't agree. they want to take more from the american people. i want to give more to the american people. so we all agree. but the public option can succeed if we just don't stop. if passed through the house, 70% of americans support it, we got a climbing number of senators getting on it every day. i want to thank senator sherrod brown. you know, i think president sherrod brown sounds pretty good. i'd like to see him think about that. and we got president -- senator kristen gillibrand, another great american. and we have other senators joining every day who say we are not going, we are going to break free of this strangle hold that's been around the u.s. senate and we are going to really do something good for the american people. i just want to say hats off to them and say i appreciate the hard work that they're doing. mr. speaker, i got another board that i want to show to the people here.

and this one is quite sobering, quite sobering. it's another big number, mr. speaker. and it's the kind of number that really, really, really -- we almost don't want to have to mention it but if you don't mention it you do a disservice to the memory. this board right here -- i want to put it in the camera shot. says 45,000 -- 45,000 americans die every year because they're uninsured. now, think about -- this number -- think about this number as you think about this number. 2.7 million americans lose coverage. because of no coverage, 45,000 americans die every year. so people are literally dying

because they don't have health care coverage and not one, not two, not somebody here or there, 45,000 people. this is a national disgrace, mr. speaker. it must be changed. we've got to do something about it. it's got to be something that is a national priority. we've got to extend coverage to people and we've got to do it in a way that is cost effective and does not -- so that we can extend as much coverage as we possibly can to as many people as we possibly can. this is the reality of the situation. we've got to fight for this and we've got to understand that this fight for health care reform is a life and death fight, mr. speaker. it's not just something that one side would prefer and some other side would kind of not prefer. that's not what we're talking about. we are talking about a life and death situation that unless we're able to move forward on health care reform, americans

die. this number 45rk,000, looks like a big number. here in washington we throw big numbers around all the time. 2.7 billion, 45,000, all these numbers, numbers, numbers. they jumble the mind. one of these 45,000 is the mother of someone. one of these 45,000 is a child of someone. one of these 45,000 is a young man in the prime of his life whose family is dependent on his income. one of these 45,000 is a small business owner. one of these 45,000 is someone who somebody loves. this is a national emergency, mr. speaker. i don't need to tell you if we're talking about losing this many people a year in conflict or war, there's no doubt we'd have a national debate and outrage over what we're going to do about it. it's not less important because it happens silently in hospital rooms and bedrooms and in

houses. it's just as important and we've got to do something about it. now, mr. speaker, i want to talk about -- talk more about health care but i want to lay out a few other impacts, since we laid that one out. let me put it back up, it's relevant to what i'm about to say. not only do 45,000 americans die every year because they're uninsured, but this year alone, an estimated 1.5 million americans will declare bankruptcy because of a lack of health care. or health care expenses. studies in recent years suggest that more than 60% of people who go bankrupt are capsized by medical bills. ed me -- bankruptcies due to medical bills increased 40% in six years.

-- increased 62% in six years. most of those who file bankruptcy were middle class, well-educated homeowners, according to a report published in august of 2009 by the american journal of medicine. i'm not sure warren -- unless you're warren buffett or bill gates, you're one illness away from financial ruin in this country. that's what this report said. private insurance offers very little protection against medical bankruptcy and that's the major finding of the study. over all 3rk/4 of the people with medically related bankruptcy had health insurance. let me tell you that again. some people you know, sometimes in our country, you know, this is the most generous, giving country, there are a lot of people with the best of intentions, but all americans know not everybody is like

that. for some who think, i don't care about people, i only care about myself and my family, well if those people don't have insurance, that's their problem. probably something they did to deserve that. shocking as it is, there are a lot of people who think like that and the fact is, is that the statistic of these people going into bankruptcy because of medical debt is talking about folk whors middle class vand jobs. this is a shocking statistic. 3/4 of the people with medically related bankruptcy had health insurance. they had health insurance. and they still went down. why? lifetime caps. because they got dropped. because of co-pays and escalating premiums. all these things. that was actually the predominant problem in patients studied. 78% of them had health

insurance but many of them were bankrupted anyway because there were gaps in their coverage like co-payments, dedubblingtables and other circumstances. other people had private insurance but got so sick they lost their job and lost their insurance. we'll return to that in a moment. health care cost is a percentage of gross domestic product. -- health care cost as a percentage of gross domestic product has increased. in march, 2008, i have a chart here which i'll explain to you, i don't have a blowup of which illustrates that we pay more than every other cubtry for health care and the other countries cover the entire population. so, for example, in the united states, in 1970, health care was 7% of gross domestic product. today it's 15.3%. in canada, 1970, it was 7% of

gross domestic product, now it's 9.9%. more than five percentage points lower than ours. in germany, health care was 6.2% in 1970, grew to 10.6%. 5% lower than us. the u.k., 1970, it was 4.5% in 1970rk now it's 8.1%. we have expanded this because it makes somebody a whole lot of dough. you've got to think about this and we've got to do something about it. from 2000 to 2008, workers' health insurance premiums shot up more than five times faster than their wages. the average cost of family coverage in the workplace went from $6,672 in the year 2000 to $12,,000 in 2007. that's a 78% increase. it's eating family income. at the same time, average wages rose only about 15%, which

means that they significantly outstripped the cost of -- the cost of health care outstripped american pay. so -- may i ask the speaker, how much time do we have left? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman has approximately 30 minutes remaining. mr. ellison: thank you. i just want to speak a little bit about the importance of financial choices that americans are having to make, bankruptcy or not bankruptcy. get the coverage or not. what are you going to do? now that you're out of work, what are you going to do? difficult choices. i want to spend a few minutes talking about the important issue of the public option because i think that a lot of people are thinking, you know, now that the public option seems to be back in play, more senators are supporting it, already passed through the house, the president said he was in favor of it, people are thinking, maybe it will happen

now. this is no time to quit the fight for the public option. in fact, it's time to accelerate your energy around the public option. mr. speaker, it wouldn't be a bad thing if people had rallies and community forums and petitions for the public option thefplg public option is a great choice, i'm an advocate of universal single payer health care but the public option is a good choice if we can't get that far. currently, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies, mr. speaker. many areas of the country are dominated by just one or two private organizations. what that means, mr. speaker, is that americans don't have much choice. we're dealing with highly concentrated markets and a public option would give people in these highly concentrated markets more choice. competition. again in 34 state, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. in alabama, almost 90% is

controlled by just one company. now, is that a monopoly or what? in addition, the public option would provide competition for private insurance companies to keep them honest. so the public option is -- it offers choice and competition and also lowers costs. that's the funny thing about it. you'd think it would have a lot of republican support because it reduces cost. but we know that existing public options like medicare and medicaid consistently have lower administrative costs than their private insurance counterparts because they don't have any competition. why should they worry about lowering costs. according to the commonwealth fund, the cost for medicare and medicaid were 5% for medicare, 8% for medicaid. if you look at the top five health insurance company, their administerive costs for over 17%. triple. it's crazy. with the insurance market

controlled by fewer and fewer companies in more and more states, there's little incentive to lower costs. also, as one former insurance executive testified before congress, insurance companies are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop seriously ill people, they are rewarded for it. bureaucratic overhead cost coupled with multimillion dollar c.e.o. salaries and bonuses provides high cost for american families and a lack of competition leaves them no reason to change their policies. competition always improves -- it doesn't always, but often improves quality and threver public option will help consumers get a better coverage for the same amount of money as private insurance. there's some things people have been saying, mr. speaker, about the public option, that are not true. one of those things is the idea of the public option being a government takeover or even a government-run program. you know what, the fact is that

the public option would be administered by the department of health and human services, but it would be with private doctors and private providers out there. it would still be people dealing with their own private doctor. the idea that the mandated health insurance is a new tax is also false. it's not true. what a public option really means is the government would help cover the high cost of insurance for americans while bringing those costs down through competition, access, and choice. without health care insurance reform, however, we can expect the problems that exist today only to get worse. so, mr. speaker, i want to now just talk about the fact that we've been hearing a lot about the idea of reconciliation. there might be some americans saying, reconciliation what is that about? is that like how me and my neighbor have been feuding are going to try to get along? not really, though that would

be a good thing. in this case, reconciliation is just some special budgetary rules that are passed through congress that allow congress to pass law without -- by getting around the filibuster rules in the senate. that's what it is. there are reconciliation rules in the house and the senate, but in the senate they have rules that you've got to have 60 people to end debate so you can vote on something. reconciliation and -- allows us to get around those rules and it's a good thing. it's a simple up or down vote by more than half the house and senate should be enough to send the president final improvements to health care reform measure that we've been talking about for a year. simple majority vote would not be used to reform health care -- a simple majority vote would not be used to reform the health care system just to

clear limited improvements to the health reform bill which already passed the senate and a supermajority in a similar form in the house. but not exactly the same. reconciliation is part of the normal legislative process, mr. speaker, and it's been used 22 times over the last 30 years. 16 times by republican-led senate. nearly 2/3 of the time, republican presidents have signed reconciliation bills. not all the time. democrats have used it too. but certain times, reconciliation was used, for example, was to enact a law, a health reform bill called coberasm everybody know what is cobra is. cobra is what allows you to maintain your health insurance after you lose your job. this is a law that lets employees just keep their employer's health insurance after they left their job and this bill was passed through reconciliation in 1985 and passed into law under ronald reagan. in fact, the r in cobra

actually stands for reconciliation. isn't that something? schip, bipartisan state children's health insurance program passed with reconciliation in 1997. medicare changes done through reconciliation include a hospice benefit, benefit karin colluding cancer screening and the way medicare pays doctors and health care professionals. also the law requiring emergency rooms to screen medicare and medicare patients regards will of their ability to pay was part of the 1985 reconciliation measure. don't think reconciliation is something new. there are people on the television and radio say, oh, my god, the democrats are using reconciliation. of course we are. it's a normal legislative tool used many times before and there's nothing unusual about it. .

reconciliation was used for the america people that wasn't that good. i just want to wrap up. so if any of my republican colleagues that want to get started, this would be a good idea to start thinking about that. i want to talk a little bit about our economic situation, because so much of the pain people are suffering through lack of health care and lack of health care reform is related to the fact that they're not working now. you lose your job, you lose your health care. cobra, yeah, you can pay out of your own pocket if you lose your job, but you still have to have money to pay that. so, i just want to say, last thursday, the house unanimously passed the emergency legislation extending a range of programs that expired this weekend.

and so, these things were included, unemployment benefits, health insurance for the unemployed, satellite tv, delay in cuts for physician payments, flood insurance, things like that. and mr. speaker, it just concerns me that we have had one republican senator who up until a few days ago was blocking the passage of an emergency measure despite serious consequences for families. i went to my own district and asked people to raise their voices about the action that senator bunning was taking because it was inflicting a lot of pain around the country. according to the department of labor, the expiration of unemployment benefits caused 100,000 people to lose their benefits and 400,000 people will lose their benefits, including 4,300 people in kentucky if

senator bunning does president drop his opposition. jobless americans will lose cobra subsidies, letting the high and transit programs lapse will shut down projects this week in highway reimbursements and transit grants to states and urban areas, endangering 32,000 jobs, anti-drunk driving efforts and highway projects. history knows that senator bunning came to an accommodation and that's good. but the fact that the senator held it up, to me is an example of how important it is to really understand who is not working for the american people and who is. democrats are here trying to extend unemployment, extend cobra, help americans make it through tough times and other

people are obstructing and holding things up. the american people deserve to know who is fighting for their economic livelihood and who's not. fact is senator bunning actually said, it could be argued, unemployment insurance is a disincentive for work because people are being paid, even though they're not working. it could be argued that unemployment insurance is a disincentive for work because people are being paid even though they're not working. that's pretty sad. the fact is that is senator jim bunning, republican of kentucky. i want people to keep it in mind what they're dealing with and what they're up against and who they're up against.

so, the senate ended up passing the bill. voted 78-19 on tuesday night to pass legislation extending unemployment benefits, highway funding and other programs for one month, bringing the one-man crusade to filibuster the bill. the fact is, the filibuster resulted in thousands of federal workers being furloughed and interruption of unemployment benefits. it hurt people, people that are without money because of this. and that was incredibly unfortunate, but i think americans in this great democracy of ours, you can express yourself at the ballot box and let people know that and let people know what happened, how it happened and who did it. i just want to mention, mr. speaker, that over 200,000 jobless workers will lose unemployment benefits this week

or are scheduled to lose unemployment benefits last week and it didn't happen because we narrowly avoided it. there was a break, a lapse. federal employees were furloughed. and i want to keep that in mind. mr. speaker, as i begin to wind down, i just want to say, there is a group of members of congress who have a progressive vision for america. the progressive vision for america is an america where the government actually takes responsibility for making sure the economy works for everybody. we have civil rights and human rights for women, people of color, working people, people who live in rural areas, where the country literally works for everyone and not just the few and where all men and women are created equal with certain

unalienable rights. we want to offer educational opportunities by saying that the military budget is expanded way out of control and need to put more energy into diplomacy around the world. a progressive vision in which we say that america should use its strength to help confer those lessons for other people and people within. with that, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: is there a motion to adjourn? the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the heist have it. the motion is agreed to,

>> as we speak, the members are gathering on the floor where we will pass the higher act, to create jobs for the american people. -- the hire act.

this is the latest step in that. it would provide support for small businesses to use tax credits and accelerate depreciation. -- appreciation. it would build infrastructure for our country. it triggers tens of billions of dollars of new investments in infrastructure. more on that if you have questions as it house -- as to how it does so later. the president called for an up or down vote. we are preparing to follow his lead on that. as i said to you before, we are again waiting for the design on the substance and to get a bill, which i hope will be very soon. to see what the senate is willing to do and take up the issue with our colleagues in the house. it is pretty exciting because we

feel that we are on the brink of making very important history, relevant to the lives of the american people. affordability of health care, access to health care, told the inrance companies accountable and to do so in a way that reduces cost to the feral government, reduces the deficit, saves money for the taxpayer. now that we have a new acting chair of the ways and means committee, mr. sandy levin of michigan, as you know, the chairmen has left, and then he became acting chairman and he laid a letter to the congress to me, that he wants to retain his chairmanship of the health subcommittee. he wanted to not serve as acting chair. the house committee is a very important committee.

he has devoted his life to it. -- to implement it, he did not want to lead chairmanship of that committee. with that, we are pretty happy about bringing this jobs bill to the floor. it will be one in a series of others' jobs bills. i can take any questions you may have. >> there have been a lot of steps toward your goal of making this, there remain questions about some members. i wonder what you say to americans who might wonder are democrats better than republicans? >> we spend our time meeting our ethical responsibilities to the american people by doing the job here for them, to making sure the leadership we provide and the legislation that we pass is in the people's interest and not in the special interests. that is a high ethical

responsibility. in terms of how ethics, how we live up to that standard here, since i became speaker, i established something unprecedented, and outside -- to receive complaints, and to convey them to the ethics committee. we have a functioning ethics committee, which is independent, bipartisan, and now functioning. my commitment to the american people is that the public trust will always be honored. on the floor of the house, that has appeared in terms of members individual behavior, if there is a reason for them to have -- the context of their activities, the proper process is to go to the ethics committee. we have come a long way since i became speaker. and now to have a functioning

ethics committee, bipartisan and independent of the speaker. >> what did you hear about the allegations against -- >> yesterday. >> [inaudible] >> he called me yesterday and told me that the indictments just came through. and that he may not be seeking reelection. that was the first i heard of that. i asked my staff if there had been any rumors. there had been a rumor, but just that. no formal notification to our office. we had a one, two, three per cent rumor that had been reported to mr. steny hoyer's office. this is rumor city.

i have a job to do. >> can you talk about what you're saying to convince the those of your members who voted yes on the health care bill the first time around and now are on the fence or saying it will vote no. were you saying to bring them back into the fall? >> when i talk to my members, -- >> what are you saying to bring them back into the fold? >> i have to say what is the final status of the bill, and what are the actions the senate will take. the senate cannot tell us until they see the final product as well. i feel very confident about the up or down vote on the majority, on a proposal that will come to the house, that will satisfy members concerns about the senate bill, that it is, in terms of affordability for the middle class, we want is

stronger -- we want stronger language and more resources for affordability for the middle class. we want to repeal the nelson nebraska provision. we want to close the door not whole, and we did. fourth, -- and close the doughnut hole. -- 80% of that has been eliminated. those are the key elements. there are other issues, how part-time workers are dealt with, and there are other issues that we were resolved in the favor of the house. what we are showing in the legislative process, the substance has moved much closer. our members are very excited about what is coming next.

they want to see what actually is the product, but they know without seeing the language, they know that some of these permit -- what some of these provisions are. now they want to see the actual legislative language as to how this would be implemented. when we go to that step, i feel confident about how to go forward. we take a new vote every time. every legislative vote is a heavy lift around here. you assume nothing in terms of where you were before and where you are now. you start one, two, three, four to a majority vote. expecting that -- respecting the questions they may have. we believe the product will be good. the bill is smaller. the bill is smarter, because by its nature the 51 vote -- let me

make this point, too. what the budget vote is about is about correction to the senate bill. this is not about doing a health care reform under reconciliation. this is about doing corrections to the senate bill under reconciliation. the bulk of the bill, 80% of it, is already in the senate bill. this is about a small percentage of what is there. and members are pretty as do. they know these issues very well 0-- they are pretty astute. as soon as we get the language, will read it to the caucus, and have today on that. >>-- q $a o &a a on that. >> you have heard bart stupak on abortion.

they have said, forget it, you will not have are brought on that if it does not change. >> they have not said that to me. this is not about abortion. this is a bill about providing quality, affordable health care for all americans. it is about bringing many more women into the health care base, in terms of their access to health care. i will not have it turn into a debate -- let me say clearly. we all agree on the three following points. if you agree, we will have a health care bill. one is that there is no federalist funded abortion. that is the law of the land. it has not changed in this bill. there is no change in the access to abortion. no more or no less. it is abortion-neutral in terms

of access. and third, we want to pass a health care bill, to provide much more health care for all americans, and especially women who are discriminated in terms of health insurance and pay more. so if you believe there should be no federal funding of abortion, and if you believe there should be no change in policy, and if you believe we need health care for all americans, we will pass the bill. we will pass the bill. >> there are many who do not agree with that. >> this is a city of -- when people think there is not going to be a bill, they can take whatever position they want. but now they know there is going to be a bill. and these members are saying, let's talk. >> with all the ethics concerns and what some are saying is the democratic party in crisis because of all the things dealing with, the house and

senate, and health care, do you feel like you are leading a party in crisis? in-house to deal with that? >> no, i feel very strong. we have been very accepting in terms of passing the full obama agenda in 2009. the house democrats stepped up, sometimes in a bipartisan way. sometimes we could not get their vote. so we know that when you are affected, you are a -- you are a target. northeast target will do. certainly, we are -- -- any target will do. we want more results. we want the senate to pass some of these bills and be signed into law. some of them have been, but many more need to be, especially those for job creation and expanding access to health care. i feel very strong about that. some of the issues you reference in terms of the issues that

transpired in the last few days, they are behind us. we have a new acting chair of the ways and means committee. that is a very big change. our members are strong. they know we have to be stronger on our message as to what it is we have done. we told the american people we would do certain things about job creation, expanding health care, building an infrastructure for the future, etc.. we did it in the house and now we will go out and talk about it. i think members feel confident about that. so, i think we are ready. we know why we went down a certain path and passing the legislation, what we believed in, what we said we would do. and now we have to talk more about it. that i will grant you, we have to get our message out there

now. >> about the senate, would you support changing the filibuster rules? 290 bills, nothing passing. would you like to see their roles change down to 55 votes? >> the senate has its own rules. i am sure i would not welcome their suggestions about house rules. i think they will have to make a judgment about how legislation proceeds or not in the united states senate. let me make a point here. what has happened in the last year in the united states senate is a total obstruction by republican senators. the idea you would need 60 votes, and a super majority, to pass any and all bills or confirmations is unprecedented. so this is not just about their roles. it is about a decision that a party has made to stop

everything, to stop everything. so make sure we understand. senator reid has had the votes. you do not have the time to go to the 60 vote procedure and get to your agenda. yes, perhaps, they should review their rules. i don't know. it is not my jurisdiction. but it is important to note that a political party has made this decision to obstruct. there is an expression, 99 senators are not enough. jim bunning, witnesses said one senator can hold up unemployment through people in this country who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own. the list goes on and on about what he has held up because one senator made an objection. the minority or the majority should not tolerate a system that operates that way.

if you want to talk about rules, that is one thing. the idea that you need 100% to proceed is something the american people should know more about. again, i leave the senate rules up to the senators. i have enough to do over here with my own rules, but i appreciate your question. thank you, all. >> [inaudible] >> i don't know. it depends on -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> taking a look at the stimulus plan, no more than a year old, over $343 billion has be committed to various projects, while $190 billion has been paid out. these are the latest figures. we have a web site devoted to following the money, c-

span.org/stimulus. that is where you will find news conferences, hearings and links to government and watchdog groups who are tracking the spending. >> the next journalism must be one of into blogs and e-mails that are hammering like fists on the door to be led into the conversation, to raise new questions, to suggest new context. >> winners of this year's national press foundation awards talk about the role of journalism in society saturday night on c-span. c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio and on line. you can connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube. signup for our schedule of lord e-mails at -- alert emails at c- span.org. >> the president's meeting with

health care executives was one of the main topics at this -- at today's press briefing. this is 55 minutes. >> usually after the third answer is when i get a reaction like that. the jersey update was not delivered to my house yesterday. i drank it all yesterday. sorry. >> last week the president opened up the health care to cameras and to members across the aisle. today he is meeting behind closed doors with democrats. how do you square those two positions? >> he is meeting as he does throughout the day, different meetings here in the white house on various subjects. i assume healthcare will come of it. other topics will be discussed.

the president has had extensive conversations with the american people on health care. and, uh, we are going to make one final push to get this done. the president stopped by a meeting this morning that secretary sebelius had called with the nation's largest health insurance companies, asking them to justify their massive rate increases we have seen. the president stopped by that meeting with a letter from natoma canfield of madina, ohio, that had been sent to the president. the president responded to it from december 29, 2009. i want to read this letter to give people a sense of what the president believes is at stake. "i am 50 years old.

i was diagnosed with carcinoma 16 years ago. after my cobra benefits ran out, i was able to find a costly but affordable of health insurance. i have struggled to maintain my individual coverage and reduced might deductible in an effort to keep my health insurance. last year, my insurance premium was increased 25%, even though i increased my deductible and out of pocket to the highest limits available. i paid out over $6,000 in premiums, $2,000 for medical care, to under $25 in copays, and $1,500 for prescriptions -- and $224 in copays.

the insurance company only paid out a total of $900 to my providers. in 2009, my insurance company received $6,075 in premiums and paid out only $900. incredibly, i have been notified that my premium for the next year, 2010, has been increased over 40% to $8,496.24. this is the same insurance company i have been with for over 11 cancer-free years. i need your help reform bill to help me. i simply can no longer afford to pay for my health care costs. thanks to this incredible premium increase demanded by my insurance company, january will be my last month of insurance. i live in the house my mother and father built since 1958. i am so afraid of the possibility i might lose this family heirloom as a result of being forced to drop my health care insurance.

this is a lot of the president brought to the insurance executives today. a letter the president will likely take with them at to meetings today and throughout this period to remind everyone what is at stake with the final push for health care reform. and what happens if we walk away. yes, ma'am? >i will let the insurance executives speak for themselves. the president want to discuss the need for comprehensive reform. the need for insurance companies to not block comprehensive health care reform. i believe it secretary sebelius has asked insurance companies to provide actuarial data that justifies a huge increase in health care premiums at a time in which health care inflation is not on the order of magnitude we have seen. >> my question. what assurance should the public have that there will not be back

room deals passed today? >> people will be able to see the legislation and see it before it is voted on. they will be able to evaluate it. >> robert, and the democratic -- in the 22nd district of texas, it was won by a young african american, quiche or rogers, who had -- keisha rogers, who had as the first item on her agenda the impeachment of president obama as -- because of the health care bill. what does this say to the president about the general mood with regard to his program? >> i cannot read anything about the general mood of the country except to know the general mood of the country is that they want democrats and republicans to work together to get something done on health care. we know what happens if we walk

away. people get letters were their health insurance goes up 40%. -- we are their health insurance goes up 40%. -- where their health insurance goes up 40%. parents are on the phone listening to somebody say, we will not cover your child because it is based on a pre- existing condition. that is what happens. even as we are so close, that is what happens if we walk away. >> is the white house concerned about the comments from -- to u.s. energy companies that they may suffer a diplomatic row between the u.s. to god i have not seen the comments. we will take a look at them -- >> the trade representative talked about a holistic approach to trade in china. while currency be one of those

-- one of the things included and that approach between the white house and other agencies? >> i will say this. in meetings with the chinese in beijing in november, we discussed a host of issues. trade was one of them, as was currency. >> is a decision coming shortly about whether or not the u.s. will call chai not a currency manipulator? >> -- will call chai not a currency manipulator? >> i don't know. -- will call china a currency manipulator? >> how will health care reform go -- how will it help her? >> it would provide for greater choice on the individual market. she would be able to join an exchange where millions like her, their purchasing power

would be pulled to compete -- pooled to compete in different ways that would provide the best options. she also -- already has changes and deductibles, copays, in order to try to keep her insurance. the greater cost controls, greater choice and competition. understand, somebody who has had a disease like cancer, albeit 16 years ago, and she has been cancer free for 11 years, once the bill is implemented, she will not have to worry about an insurance company discriminating against her on the basis of a pre-existing condition. and she mentioned later and the letter, she mentions the fact

that if she loses this health care coverage because of a previous illness, she will have a hard time getting covered. >> the president when he was running for president told the concord monitor that you have to break out of the 50 plus one pattern of politics. we will not pass health care reform with a 50-plus one strategy. he was talking about building consensus. i understand health care reform is the first-generation -- it passed the senate with this with a super majority. is he not pursuing a 50-plus one strategy? >> shaw no. he is talking about electoral strategy, not vote counting. you will not get legislation through congress if only 50% plus one in the country think it is a good idea.

if you look at poll after poll, people want health care reform and the debate on health care reform to continue. they want to see progress made. they want to see democrats and republicans work together to get something done. >> the american people are very divided about this bill. >> and majorities believe we have to keep going. if you break out individual concepts of what is contained in the president's plan, some of which are republican ideas, they pull in the upper sixth -- upper 60's. >> can you say other than the president -- can you see the president pursuing anything other than the 50 plus one strategy? >> i do not believe he is pursuing as strategy. there are far more than 50% of the people living in this country know and understand we have to change, for them, the

cost of health care. we're working on that. >> beyond the letter, did the president give any strong language with these executives about rate hikes? >> absolutely. obviously, the point of the meeting that secretary sebelius had was to ask them to justify how, in an environment where medical inflation is at 4%, 6%, how can one justify increasing insurance by 39% or 40%? the president said, i realize it costs are going up, but it is unjustifiable to raise health- insurance rates at such a drastic, to such a drastic level

when health care inflation is not at that level. the president talked about the need for health care reform. as you know, in the proposal is the ability, with the help of secateurs -- with the help of the secretary, to talk about rate increases. >> what was their reaction? >> i will let them discuss their view. on this. -- their viewpoint on this. the secretary asked them to provide the american people with the actuarial data that would justify an environment where health insurance costs are going up at 5% or 6%, how to justify insurance rate increases of 39% and 40%. we will wait their disclosure and justification -- await

their disclosure and justification. >> some of republicans have been -- some republicans haven't been critical -- and there is a potential conflict of interest. what is your reaction? >> the best reaction might be from somebody other than me, and those who have written extensively about this. i think of that guiliani firm who might be able to speak of the bizarre criticism. >> leaped from the white house that president obama -- leaked from the white house. [inaudible] >> no. >> what does the president think about all this. >> the president believes this in the campaign and in the white house, that we all work together as a team appeared that we rise and fall together -- that we rise and fall together as one

tea. m. the president greatly appreciates the skills that rahm brings. there is nobody better suited as we are trying to get health care reform through congress. i do not believe that anybody who works in this building would say there is anybody who works harder at implementing the president's decision and does the chief of staff. i think the problem is that right now we are in a tough environment. governing is hard because unemployment is way up. we had two wars. we have a lot of big things on our plate that we are trying to change on behalf of the american people. >> back to the issue of transparency the democrats met with the president today. -- the democrats met with the president today. there have been times, as we understood, where a bus pulls up and the white house says, we

will get off the bus of your and get on the bus over here to make it difficult -- >> we put out the names of members of congress that come here. so you know whether they are here on capitol hill. >> you discouraged that -- have you discouraged them from coming up. ? >> i would tell them and exclusive to cbs would be the whip -- the best way to go. [laughter] >> will the president be telling them to get in line? >> the president will do much of what i just did, which is describe the benefits of the legislation, why it would help constituents, their constituents, whether in ohio, like this woman, or someone else in this country -- somewhere else in this country. why it is important for them. reiterating what happens if we walk away from reform.

what happens if everyone takes their toys and goes home. >> there was a stern tone or steely as some described yesterday. do you think he will have that with them and say you have to pass this? it is time to vote for this? >> i describe this as the president being very focused on this. he was energized and focused yesterday. he continues to be, and he thinks we are only a couple of weeks of get it -- away from getting this done. >> you said that you believe this thing will be signed into law within two weeks? >> i really believe that what i said on a television show this morning was the president leaves for indonesia and australia on march 18. and we believe, i believe based on conversations i have had in the building, that we are on schedule to get this through the house by then.

>> through the house by then? will the president consider postponing his trip if that schedule falls apart? >> we believe we are on schedule. >> and signed into law? >> shortly thereafter. >> the senate bill and reconciliation through the house by then? >> i am working on the main part of passing the senate bill through the house. >> not reconciliation? >> that would come closely there after, but that is a better question for speaker pelosi. >> you are not setting a deadline -- >> i am not setting a deadline. the statement i made this morning was based on conversations i have had within the building, with people who had conversations with the speaker of the house about what they see the schedule as. >> you said yesterday the president simply will have the votes in the house. how can you be so sure when they seem less than short? >> i have confidence in the understanding of the problem. i have confidence in them

understanding what the solution is and why this is good for them and good for america. >> the meeting with the insurance companies. i assume it was not a one-way lecture. what concerned did they bring up about the legislation? >> but -- >> concern that -- >> i will not read out in one of these meetings their viewpoint. i will say this. if you look at the original stories on the anthem-wellpoint increase, they said what they wanted, what they needed was comprehensive health care reform. regrettably, they have been working with other insurance companies to prevent that from happening. and i have here, and i could

send it out. there is a report from wall street that says, should reform fail, wellpoint would be a primary beneficiary. that sort of sets the tone of where we are. our insurance company's going to win? -- are insurance company's going to win? or are we going to cut costs, put ourselves on a rational path, cut costs not only for families and small businesses, but for the federal government's burden? i think that is what is at stake. >> any other concerns? >> what do think their concerns might be? >> i do not want to get into doing that. i will let them air their

concerns. >> [inaudible] >> it was open dialogue, frank? >> the president walked in with a letter from a constituent that he had gotten from ohio, that he had read. i think that set the tone. the rate increases set the tone for the reason for the meeting. >> house republican leader john boehner called two things on the deficit commission -- [inaudible] to make the deliberations public. are you thinking about that? >> i have not seen his comments. >> any reason not to make them public? >> it is odd to move up the date for completion of a report. . .

>> and the people he would appoint would take up that argument for him. i guess the best thing for the congressman to do is to provide names. i cannot imagine he has to look far in his caucus to find out the people he would like to represent him on the budget.

he deferred to many of them at the health care summit. >> you would not be against making the deliberations public? >> i have not seen what he said in specific about the rules. we certainly support greater transparency. the best thing to do would be to hold the first meeting. to do so, we would like to have his representatives. >> he treated -- heat an tweeted that this was the obama tax hike commission. does that mean he is not going to participate? >> he told president obama and larry summers that he was going to participate. i do not know if he was pleading -- was tweeting while he had that conversation. not to go through the hypocrisy that pervades this town, but this was a committee that was set up proportionally better

than the one he supported in the house. if he is serious about dealing with the deficit, the best thing to do would be to appoint members. he could appoint himself. >> could you say to the provider was for that constituent in ohio? >> i will check. >> finally, doctors, hospital executives -- pulling down pretty good salaries, mercedes, bmws. are they going to be coming in with what they can do for cost containment? >> the president has met with doctors to wrap this process. there were doctors at the event yesterday. the president has made multiple stops and talked to everybody about steps that can be taken to cut costs. >> he has asked them for their support. has he asked them to sacrifice? >> justin, there is not a silver bullet that is going to contain

costs. everybody is going to have to do something in order to change the current trajectory for health- care spending. >> in his speech yesterday, president obama said that if we cannot solve health care which cannot solve anything. why does he believe that? why would health-care keep him from working on any of the other issues on his plate? >> i would say -- i think the president has had this viewpoint for several years. that is that we have to -- obviously, he was talking about the bigger things we face. how are we going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil? how're we going to get our economy moving again? how are we going to have a foreign policy that looks toward the interests of our country? how are we going to make simple progress on the issues we have talked about for years? he said throughout the presidential campaign, i heard him say it quite a few more

times than i care to remember, that he did not want to wake up in four or eight years, turn on the television, and find as continuing to argue about the very same problems that we were discussing in the presidential election or that we are discussing now. let us take the debt and deficit commission. this is not a problem that we should continue to pass off. it is a problem we should work to solve. we could play politics with this, as is happening clearly in this instance. the example was brought up earlier. we could get about to solving the problems and doing the people's business. that is what his focus is. >> he said it again. we can play politics. who is playing politics? at the speech yesterday, republicans were at the summit, speaking honestly about what they felt about it. >> on the debt commission, i

would suggest, based on the comment -- on health care, i think there are individuals that have wanted to make this a political argument rather than a health care policy argument, from the very beginning. i would say senator demand -- senator demint, who thought of this as the president's waterloo. you have heard the president say this. there were people more interested in creating a political atmosphere that benefits them rather than dealing with the problems that threaten the hopes and dreams of the american people. >> do you include john maynard -- john boehner in that? >> i would include anybody who is not moving us forward. >> do you know what the president thinks about nato? >> i do not. i was in meetings. i think they talk about a number

of issues. i will try to get a better reading. >> you used the phrase "all this done"-- meaning final congressional action? >> i think i said this morning that we believe the house can act by the time the president leaves for his trip on march 18. >> that is not the final congressional action. >> i am not a parliamentarian. the senate, the house -- i think the next series -- obviously, the senate has work to do, too. i am not absolving them from getting what they need to do done. when i said march 18, it is a time that we believed was doable. that is not me deciding to make a little cable news. it was based on conversations we had yesterday, specifically with

senior staff at the white house, based on conversations they had with speaker policy and the majority leader. i am not saying the president will sign fully into law everything that has to be done before going on this trip. >> senator web is going to be offering a bill for a 15% tax on bonuses of bail out financial companies. he is going to offer that amendment to tax legislation. the president said he wanted to recover every dime, so what does the president think about this? >> i have not talked with legislative affairs or others about the proposal that you talked about. obviously, the president outlined a proposal in his state of the union to recoup about $90 billion over a roughly 10 year period of time.

that would be used to make up for any losses that were seen in the tarp funding. i do not have my most up-to-date figures on the amount of money that has been paid back to the government. you know -- you know the president's feeling on bonuses. i do not know where we are on the specific bill. i can say that the president certainly shares the goal of assuring that those who were -- the recipients of tarp and those who enjoy, because of tarp, greater stability in their financial dealings -- that a financial crisis responsibility should be instituted. >> would you be sympathetic toward a tax on bonuses? >> i have not had a conversation

on that. >> robert, i assume the president has an opinion on the debate in health care. is there anything the white house would like to tell the public who might wonder if there is anything coincidental in the approval of mr. mattheson's brother for the 10th circuit? >> whether it is based on his long legal was a man come up based -- based on his long legal resume, the support of orrin hatch, who has agreed to shepherd the nomination to the senate, i think it is a silly argument. >> the republican committee said it was a blatant attempt to buy mr. matheson's vote. >> i think that is very silly.

>> secretary sebelius said there is a fix needed on the abortion language. it can easily be done on -- be done as this bill moves forward. does the administration see that there needs to be something fixed in the senate abortion language based on the concerns raised by senators to pack -- senator stupak? >> i have not talked to secretary sebelius about that phrase. we have talked to members of congress representing a number of issues on this the point in other ways to try to best resolve these issues. understand that the president does not and will not change current federal law in dealing with abortions in health care. >> if i understand correctly, the senate language must be changed in some shape to meet the president's own definition. >> we do not believe that the senate language does that. we do not believe that the

senate language changes current federal law. >> is it -- i am trying to figure out if the white house is nervous. stupak said this morning he is prepared to bring the whole bill down and there are 11 other house democrats who think as he does. are you prepared to take that chance? >> we are prepared to have conversations with people about getting health care. >> can you talk about the thinking behind the group that you invited to the white house? only one progressive on that list voted against the health bill. of the new democrats, only one voted against. maybe you can share with us -- what is his method for these groups? why were these lawmakers over the others taken? >> i think the president look and spend -- the president will

spend a considerable amount of time with lawmakers and the public explaining the benefit of the legislation, why it is important to do, and why we cannot walk away now from health care. >> this is the first in a series of meetings? >> i imagine he will have conversations with any number of people. >> are more scheduled for tomorrow? >> i have not seen tomorrow's schedule. >> insurers feel that the white house has singled them out. >> i can only imagine what policyholders must feel like when they open their mail. >> they put out numbers saying that spending has increased on prescription drugs and medical prices as well. >> 40%. >> why are the insurers here today and not the drug makers or others? >> the insurers are here today based on the complaints that you and others have heard about dramatic increases in the

individual -- in the health insurance rates for individuals in the individual market, rates that we believe are unjustifiable. if they believe they have been unnecessary singled out -- have been unnecessarily singled out, they should take secretary sebelius up on the idea of greater transparency by releasing the actuarial data that would justify a rate increase at seven or 10 times the rate of medical inflation. i believe the secretary made that -- she certainly speaks for the president on that. >> on the boat that was scheduled today -- on the boat that was scheduled today -- on the vote that was scheduled today, why did the president asked it to be put off? >> i would refer you to the specific conversations with members of congress. the president talked to the

president of turkey yesterday. when we travelled there last year, the president, on that trip, was working on bringing about the normalization of relations between turkey and armenia. progress has been made. they have announced the idea of that normalization. protocols to normalize the relationship have to go through the turkish parliament. our focus is on moving that through. as the president has told these two countries, it is in their best interests to move forward. >> are you afraid that this would throw that off a little? >> our focus is on insuring that we continue to make progress on an issue that has, for almost 100 years, divided to countries -- divided two countries. through tough diplomatic work by secretary clinton, we are on

the cusp of normalization. i think the president believes that passage of these protocols in the turkish parliament will make it that much easier. >> does the white house feel like the intense focus on premium increases in the past couple of weeks and the anthem story is giving new momentum, either with lawmakers or the public? >> obviously, we have heard -- this is a letter from -- it is dated december 29. we have heard in the mail that the president has received, see news stories about these rate increases. i think that crystallizes what is at stake with health care reform. i know i have said this a thousand times. i will add it one more time. whether it is this individual or

other individuals in that market, left alone, health care is not going to stay where it is. it is going to get more expensive. it is going to get a lot more expensive for individuals. it is going to get more expensive for families. right now, the typical family insurance premium is about $13,000. that will go to $24,000 by 2020 if we do not act, if we do not do anything. it has once again reminded people why health care is such an important economic issue. again, whether it is this woman in ohio, whether it is anybody across the country -- if you are working harder for either the same amount of money or less and your insurance company takes its rates up 40%, that is an economic issue for you. it is also, obviously, a health

issue. if you have to decide between keeping your house and keeping insurance, the president believes that is a choice you should not have to make in the country that we call home. >> just to clarify on jake's question -- you are saying the president has not changed his mind when it comes to the passage on not wanting to pursue 50 + 1 @ but needing 60 votes on health care? >> i do not think it was talking about 60 votes. i think we were talking about the political environment. >> i have a quick question. i have heard reviews from many small businesses -- some concerns because the president has been making this about big businesses, helping them in congress. what is going to affect small business is our concern. >> what this bill has four small

businesses is the biggest tax cuts for small businesses in providing health care in the history of our country. what this will allow -- it will allow small businesses to pool their purchasing power. it will allow them -- it will allow individuals to have a small business provide tax credits when they provide insurance for their employees. we know that small businesses are the job creators in our economy. we understand that as costs go up like they are in ohio and california -- that makes it harder for a small business to continue to offer benefits to their employees. if they are going to offer that type of benefits, it may mean there will be fewer employees. h is the president does not think, given the foundation we need to lay for our economy --

it is not the type of thing the president thinks should be necessary. we want to provide tax credits and allow individuals with small businesses to enjoy the purchasing power that the bigger businesses have. >> a second question. how is the u.s. doing -- the progress. the president has always talked about those hurting around the globe. what is the president's focus? >> in afghanistan and in pakistan, particularly in our efforts in afghanistan, you have

seen the recent offenses in marja and -- in being in the briefing with general mcchrystal, we are making progress. it will be a long road in afghanistan. we believe the steps we have taken made progress. the president and military leaders believe that we are also making progress in rooting out and in capturing members of the taliban, members of al qaeda, and working every day to make the world safer. >> do you have any guidance on tomorrow at all? >> the president will visit a small business tomorrow. we will have details on that a little later this afternoon. >> is there anything the insurance companies can do now to have a hand in structuring

what that reconciliation looks like, or is the discussion now between sebelius and the president completely separate from that? if they play ball, if they play nice now, can influence how the language of the reconciliation will look? >> we would always like to have their support on health care reform. i do not -- i can certainly check with folks here, what they could do. i think first and foremost, let us go back to something far more rational, as it relates to the letters they are sending to their policyholders right now about health care. i would say they have -- again, the original articles around and

some -- around anthem and the 39% premium increases in california talked about the need for comprehensive health care. we could not agree more. >> what if they do that voluntarily within the next two weeks? is that going to be reflected in the reconciliation language? >> as i said earlier, the president has included in his proposal a rate authority to allow for the secretary of health and human services, in conjunction with states and others, to evaluate it and ask for a justification for, as you said, the crazy premiums. >> is that no matter what? >> yes. that is intended to insure that the type of shenanigans that we see now does not happen between the passage of health care and

the set up of health insurance exchanges that would then take over that regulatory ability. >> this visit to a small business -- is that employment related? >> unemployment. >> can we expect to see doctors and hospital groups at the white house in the next weeks to talk about reducing their costs? >> it is a bit like the jobless question. i do not have a schedule going forward. >> you have to be quicker, david. [laughter] >> i will get a bigger mic. >> all across the nation, there have been reports that counties and states have been forced to enact salary cuts, benefit cuts, staff cuts, and unpaid furloughs. in what section of the obama

administration have there been any such comparable cuts? >> on the second day of the administration, the president of the united states signed a pay freeze for senior staff here at the white house. we sent to congress last year $17 billion in budget cuts. we identified an additional $20 billion in budget cuts and have held, for the next three years, at the same level for non- security discretionary spending. >> what was the president's reaction to the wire service report that nearly one half of the state of arizona as state legislatures -- state legislators already support a bill to require that all presidential candidates who want to be on the ballot in 2012 submit documents proving they meet the requirements to be president?

>> i do not know if he saw that article, lester. >> did you see it? >> i did not. >> it is there. [laughter] >> i am the guy that said, "put the president's birth certificate on the internet" two years ago. i know. >> thank you robert. i appreciate it. >> why put it on the internet? for the crazy idea that somebody might actually look at the birth certificate under the rubric of transparency and come to the conclusion that the state of hawaii claimed that the president was in fact born in the state of, say it with me, hawaii. [laughter] david? >> this is not as important as that, but about nuclear weapons

-- >> colorado "does not have nuclear weapons. -- hawaii does not have nuclear weapons. >> the nuclear conference is under way. can you tell me why the president does not support increased use of nuclear weapons? >> i know there were a series of stories about decisions that the president and his team are in the process of making as it relates to the nuclear posture. i think each of those stories said that those decisions and that review have not been concluded. the president met with secretary gates about this earlier in the week and will be prepared to discuss decisions at their conclusion, not at the halfway point. >> do you have a timeline on that? >> i can check and get back to you. >> i have two questions, probably unrelated to each other. >> that seems to be the order of the day.

>> the first is -- a couple of days ago, you offered an endorsement of blanche lincoln for senate. she took out an ad that offered her opposition for a cap and trade legislation. why would you endorse someone who states all of those objectives when there is no person in the race who is with the white house on those objectives? >> the president supports senator lincoln, who is an incumbent member of the senate. even if he is the head of the democratic party, not every democrat is going to agree with him on every issue. and he is not going to agree with every other democrat on their views on every issue. he believes that senator lincoln is serving her state well and believe she should be returned for an additional term. >> tomorrow, the jobs numbers

are coming out. republicans have pointed to comments by mr. summers that suggests the weather is going to take a toll on the figures. can you explain what mr. summers meant when he talked about the weather affecting the figures? >> dr. summers -- i am listening. trust me. larry, i am sure, has been called worse earlier today. [laughter] come on. what happened to the new politics here? this is a very serious -- is a very serious question. i think whether it is dr. summers or dr. romer, many economists, macroeconomic

analysis, and the fed, have noted that, similar to 1996, when a lot of the east coast was dealing with adverse weather, meaning 20 inches of snow -- it has an impact on economic growth, particularly on employment. macroeconomic analysis came out in the last couple of days. it said that two different weather events in february was likely to show a jobs report -- which i have not seen, and i have to stipulate that i have not seen at -- likely, the jobs report will show that 150,000 to 200,000 jobs were lost because of the unintended effect of weather on the economy. the census will, over the course of the next several months, both

higher and let go people -- both hire and let go people to count parts of the 10-year census. some of that is going to go up and down over the course of the next four months. the analysis many people did was back to what people had seen happen in 1996, and how that affected the employment statistics. that is the economic advice we have seen from dr. summers, dr. romer, and the fed and many private economists as to what we will likely see tomorrow. regardless of the number that comes tomorrow, the president is not going to be satisfied that we have taken all the steps and made all the progress that is necessary to get our economy moving again and to begin to put the 8.5 million who have lost

their jobs since this recession began in 2007 back to work. >> on the violence in iraq -- the general suggested troops could stay beyond august. what conditions would the president required? >> general of the year no -- the general, at a briefing in the pentagon, suggested that a host of contingency plans be prepared for a number of different scenarios. the iraqis will vote on sunday. we believe, obviously, that there has been an enormous amount of progress in the past few years. i say that with the notion that it is going to take some time to sort out, as it did last time.

vice-president biden was asked by the president to oversee the political portfolio in insuring the continued transition to democracy in iraq. the team here believes that we are on track, strongly on track, to meet the president's promise of withdrawing our combat brigades by the end of august, as he laid out last year. thank you. host[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> the next journalism must be one open to blogs and e-mails that are hammering 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 press foundation awards talk about journalism in a changing society, saturday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span. >> we are in the business of trying to help our students, predominantly young women and some older women and men, at to understand that we should focus on achievement in your own life and not be looking to grab headlines. >> sunday, meet the woman credited with turning around trinity washington university, patricia mcguire, on c-span s's "q & a." >> find presidential facts in

"who is buried in grant's tomb?" >> it is a mini-history, a work a biography on each of these presidents. you can tell a lot about people at the end of their lives. >> a resource guide to every presidential gravesite, their final moments, and facts about their lives. now available at your car -- after local bookseller. >> next, sctott gration talks about his recent trip to sudan, the government there, and other issues. it is 25 minutes. >> good afternoon. it is a great pleasure to introduce to you our special envoy to sudan, scott gration,

who is going to brief us on his trip to sudan and rwanda. without further ado, i will hand it over to him. >> good afternoon. i did just returned from a 2 week trip to chad, sudan, and rwanda. the trip focused on pushing the door for peace process -- pushing the darfur peace process toward conclusion. my talk with the president and other senior chadian officials focused on the recent chat-sudan agreement and on normalization of relations between these countries. these steps will be critical in resolving the door for -- the darfur conflict.

i continued to work on the precess -- on the peace process. i was there when the government signed a landmark framework agreement and a cease-fire. we were actively engaged in the whole time i was in doha, sometimes late into the night with the government of sudan and with other armed movements. we tried to get an inclusive process that would result in a comprehensive peace framework. the framework that was signed between the government of sudan offers us an important opportunity to significantly reduce violence in darfur. it must include the other rebel groups to be secure. we have worked to facilitate negotiations, to find common ground between the rebel

groups, and to speed this process toward an early agreement that can be implemented on the ground. the united states supports a peace process that is inclusive and comprehensive. we believe the newly formed liberation and justice movement, which represents most of the rebels, must have a clear voice in the negotiations. the civil society, the diaspora, and the refugees must also have a voice in this process. in kigali, the countries met with frank discussions with un top leadership from sudan. we had an excellent opportunity to focus the international partners on their core mandate, which is to provide security and

to protect the civilians in darfur. while the agreements that are being negotiated in doha are critical for achieving a lasting peace, the problems of bandits and lawlessness must be dealt with quickly. the people of darfur must see better security in their local environment. i want to highlight some of the positive progress that is being made in the cpa implementation. i was able to travel to khartoum and to the mountains. i spent a lot of time discussing the issues with our friends in the south. we had numerous meetings on the elections. we wanted to make sure we understood how they were progressing. i will be able to answer questions on those in a minute. concerning the cpi, i want to

thank the npc for moving forward and resolving the census dispute. we also saw progress made on the north-south border demarcation and on formally agreeing to enter discussions on the post- 2011 arrangement. national elections are scheduled for next month. significant preparation has been made to ensure that elections will reflect the will of the people. we remain concerned about some of the logistical challenges that must be resolved in the near future. i continue to urge authorities at all levels to make sure that every eligible sudanese that has met the qualifications to vote has the right and the access to vote in this political process. basic rights, freedoms of speech

and assembly, freedom of the press, must be respected. we are going to work to insure that that is the case. there is a lot of work before april. we are working with all of our partners to make sure it gets done. i will be leaving again this weekend to travel to niobe. i will be attending the summit on the cpa implementation. i will have to paris to meet with french officials to discuss how we can ensure success of the chat-sudan agreement and build on the peace -- on the chf the chad-sudan agreement and build on the peace process in doha. we will make sure it is inclusive and comprehensive and does meet the needs and requirements on the issues of the darfuri people.

we must not let this opportunity to support sudan-wide political transformation, to improve overall security, to facilitate lasting peace, pass us by. we will do everything we can to secure a brighter future for the next generation of sudanese. failure is not an option. we will strive for success. i am ready for your questions. thank you. >> there are reports of a resurgence of violence. do you think the elections -- do you think that violence can put the elections off track, or is it sort of a rock of expectation ha? >> that is a concern we all have. there has been a history of

violence and injured-tribal tensions. -- and inter-tribal tensions. we are doing our best to make sure these conflicts are mitigated and do not interfere with the election process. we have talked with the ministry of the interior and the national elections commission. they have a plan to increase security, using both security forces from the police and other forces to ensure that people can get to the polls and that the polls are not interrupted by ethnic mischief. we will have monitors in place from the carter center, from the eu, the au, and internally, to make sure that we can get ahead of these issues and bring the proper attention to areas where

polling may be disrupted by violence, conflict, and insecurity. >> as i am sure you are aware, there has been some concern amongst advocacy groups on darfur about some of the way the diplomacy has been pursued. more generally, how do you feel about how we should deal with the government in khartoum, based on what is going on in darfur? what do you feel about pressure in a broad sense? >> it is the responsibility of a government to provide security, to bring development to its people, to make sure money and developing goals turned into a reality, that people have security and gender equality and communications. certainly, we are going to be working and using pressures in

the senate to make sure that takes place. as you know, the agreements that will be reached in doha will probably increase the number of people going into camps. less violence, decreased fighting between rebel groups and the sudanese armed forces, will decrease the disruption. but they really will not change the conditions that people are living under. the fact is that we need a multi part approach. we need to bring peace at that top level, but we also have to make the changes that will result in a more secure environment for the people who now live in camps and these villages. gender-based violence still continues. that must stop. people's possessions are taken. they do not have their human rights, in many cases.

this has to be changed. that is what we are trying to do now, is put in patterns of order, rule of law. we are trying to increase capacity and the un forces. we are trying to set up programs that will allow the conditions that people live in to be made better so that their future is brighter. >> the agreement so far has been has with jem. what are the obstacles to bringing in other rebel groups to the peace agreement? is it things the government is not offering or just logistical -- >> so far, it has been to things that has stopped the progress. this was a framework agreement. the details, which are to negotiated at doha, is a process facilitated by the

government. there are two issues that are hampering progress. jem wants to be exclusive. they either want to have everybody together under their leadership before they start or they do not want the rebels to have a parallel track program. i am talking about the other rebels. the other rebels i am referring to were brought together in a unification affect in addis aboubaba. all of those rebels are now in doha, or many of them are. the second issue, and besides that desire to be exclusive, is that the rebel groups themselves are having a little bit of difficulty in choosing a leader and in organizing themselves. that is much of what i was doing there, trying to reach common ground, trying to bring the

rebels together in a way so that they can represent their people and can represent their causes with a single voice and be strong. at some point, we are going to have to bring in the views of the diaspora, of the civil society, especially as we start talking about things like land reform, compensation, and wealth sharing. a cease-fire can happen with the rebels. that is the first agenda. things like power-sharing can be done. as we expand, we are going to have to be inclusive of people outside of doha. >> you said that jem wants to be the exclusive representative of the rebels and that the non- jem groups are having trouble finding a representative, which suggests there should be two people negotiating with the government in this process. is it one or two?

if the other guys are trying to find one and they say they want to be the only one, that seems insoluble. >> you have hit the problem. there are several solutions. the best solution is if everybody could come under the leadership of one individual, whoever it is. that would be the best thing. you would have a single voice representing everybody. there is a second option where you could have two tracks running in parallel, where the same issues are being discussed with both groups. as they reach agreement and common ground, the facilitators and negotiators can go back and forth and come up with an agreement that is put together in a parallel track but essentially is one agreement.

you can also do it so that jem gets resolution of the issues unique to them and the other groups get their issues resolved, and you somehow put that into a framework agreement. the reality is that allows them to move forward with a peace deal in darfur, but it is not going to be a final peace deal intel compensation is sorted out, until the power sharing deals are worked out. as you know, many of the rebel groups, because they had an active militia, were not allowed to participate in the election process. therefore, they are not represented in this election. there would have to be some way -- whether the constitution is changed, whether there is an interim election. there are a lot of things we can put into play that will allow

people to be represented in this interim period in darfur. these are issues that will be worked out. the last issue is that no lasting peace will be complete until there is accommodation of justice and accountability. those issues must be included in a final arrangement. the question in the back. >> who will represent the u.s. at the conference in egypt this month? >> we are still working out the details. there will be representation. whether it comes from usaid or our office or another office -- those details are being worked out. we only recently got the invitation. we do know that our u.s. representative to the oic will be there. the question is what kind of technical support we can put together. >> do you expect the u.s. to

contribute additional money at this conference? >> it would be difficult for me to speculate. we just started this process and just got the invitation. >> with 21 co-sponsors, i believe the senate has asked for enlarging international representation. could you use some help from some other countries? would that embellish opportunities for solving this problem? >> let me give you some background. first of all, we agree that this problem is so big and so complex and so far-reaching that not only the parties have to be involved but the region has to be involved, the african union and all of africa.

then the international partners have to be involved. we totally agree with that analysis. let me tell you some of the things we are doing already, as we build this coalition. we have put together a group of on a voice from the p-6. we call ourselves the e-6. france, the u.k., russia, the united states, and the european union have special representatives. we were together to discuss all of the issues having to do with darfur and cpa implementation. we meet regularly and have video teleconferences. in addition to that, there is a troika -- the u.s., norway, and the u.k. -- who were influential in the birthing of the cpa. we have reinvigorated that process. we meet regularly. we have a group called the contact group that works on

financial and other issues, primarily in europe. that group meets regularly at the staff level. as i said, i am going to participate in the conference where the president and senior leaders from ethiopia, you gotta, kenya, and other countries -- ethiopia, uganda, kenya, and other countries are coming together. this is not a u.s. problem. it is something the world has to work on. development is going to be a key factor. we need security and development to go hand in hand. this has to be an integrated -- it has to be integrated not only in the u.s. would but -- not only in the u.s. but in the region. >> in your travel, i do not

recall hearing china mentioned. can you discuss china's role, how actively they are engaged to help or not to help? >> i have made a trip to beijing and have discussed these issues at very high levels within the government of china. when the chinese delegation came over here to meet with secretary clinton, she invited me to join in on the segments that had to do with sudan. we have been involved at a government-to-government level. the special representative of china to sudan -- he and i have a relationship that goes back to when he and i were in kenya. we have known each other for a while. he was at kigali with me the last week. we continue to have a relationship.

while we have differences at the tactical level, and certainly differences in terms of supporting the military aspects , there is a strategic commonality, in that chinese -- in that china needs security and stability for its investment, the same stability and security we need for our humanitarian goals. we share common objectives in the region. we are working hard to insure we are working together in terms of development, humanitarian assistance, and those kind of things -- that our plans are integrated. on areas where we have disagreements, which continue to discuss those in an open and frank way. >> you talked about a settlement requiring justice. i assume that includes bashir in

the international courts. where do you come that -- where do you come down on that? >> that issue is going to have to be resolved if we are going to have a lasting peace. we support efforts to insure that president bush your answers the questions of the icc. we support the process continuing in the international system. we will have to see where that one goes. there is no hesitancy on our part to support that. >> about the cpa -- how do you drop a balance between this and the north-south issues and the door for issue -- and darfur issue? does one need to take precedence? >> in terms of importance,

making sure the south has the ability to express its will through the referendum is very important. at the same time, there is an urgency of making sure that the conditions in darfur are reversed, that people can have a brighter future and the opportunity to roof -- to return and stay in an urban environment. these things happen at the same time. we do not have the luxury of doing one and maybe the other. they have to be integrated, not only because we are running out of time. the two are integrated in many ways. there is a common border between darfur and the south. being able to come to a solution in the north, i think, will make things a lot easier in coming to an accommodation with the south, especially on border issues, on sharing of wealth