the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 360, the nays are two. present are 15. the previous question is the previous question is ordered.

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 404, the nays are zeer with 15 votes present. the previous question is ordered. the -- question is on the motion to refer. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the gentleman from virginia. >> mr. speaker, i ask for aered roed vote. the speaker pro tempore: the ayes have it. the gentleman from virginia. >> i ask for a recorded vote.

the speaker pro tempore: a recorded vote is requested much those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having arisen, a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a@vs s

vote the yeas are 402, the nays are one. with 15 having voted present. the motion is adopted. without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from virginia, mr. connelly, to suspend the rules and agree to h.res. 1107 on which the yeas and nays were odded. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1107, resolution recognizing the 189th anniversary of the independence of greece and celebrating greek and american democracy. the speaker pro tempore: the question is will the house suspend the rules and area to the resolution. members will record their votes by electronic device. this is a five-minute vote.:vtzs nays

are zero and one member recording present. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection --

the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 413, the nays are zero. with one member -- the speaker pro tempore: on this vote the yeas are 414, the nays

are zero with one member voting present. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and agreeing to house resolution 1047 which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: house resolution 1047, resolution commending the ohio state university buck eyes football team for its victory in the 2010 rose bowl. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> mr. speaker, i send to the desk a resolution and ask unanimous consent for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 1165, resolution appointing and authorizing managers for the impeachment of g. thomas porteous jr. for the eastern district of louisiana. the speaker pro tempore: is there objection to the consideration of the resolution? without objection, the resolution is agreed to and the motion is laid on the table. the chair lays before the house a communication. the clerk: the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule 8 of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena

issued in the youngstown, ohio, municipal court for testimony in a criminal case. after consultation with the office of general council, i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedence and privileges of the house. signed, sincerely, matt veda's constituent liaison. the honorable the speaker, house of representatives, madam, this is to notify you formally pursuant to rule of the rules of the house of representatives that i have been served with a subpoena issued in the youngs toung, ohio, knew miss it pal court for testimony in a criminal case. after consultation with the office of general council i have determined that compliance with the subpoena is consistent with the precedence and privileges of the house. signed, sincerely, per let wigly, staff assistant. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will receive a message. the messenger: mr. speaker, a

message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: ms. secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house that the senate has passed with an amendment h.r. 2194 cited as the comprehensive iran sanctions accountability and dweftment act of 2009 in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. fleming: mr. speaker, where are the jobs? our nation's unemployment rate continues to hover around 10% and 36,000 more americans lost their jobs last month. yet once again the current administration is failing to listen. despite public opinion, two to one supporting opening new areas

of the outer continental shelf to drilling, the administration announced last week that it would discard the 2010 to 2015 lease plan for new development on the outer continental shelf and wait until 2012 to put a new plan in place. this decision flies in the face of the bipartisan action in 2008 lifting the decades long ban on energy development on 500 million acres on the oktokt -- on the outer continental shelf and it goes against energy independence and lower energy cost. as one producer of oil and number two producer of natural gas in this country, we in louisiana know that it is good-paying jobs. we know that -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. fleming: are available for oil and gas production. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, the process the liberals are considering to take to pass the government health care takeover is almost as bad as the bill itself. the latest plan includes the house passing the senate's version of the takeover of health care including the back room and kickbacks. an informative memo put together by senator jon kyl and eric cantor helps explain this process to the american people. the memo goes on to explain that it would fast track the reconciliation bill fixing some but not all of the problems. americans need to know the house democrats must pass the senate's takeover before the senate can alter to improve it. the senate bill is too big a pill for my colleagues to swallow because it kills jobs. on the good side "the hill" reports front page, the senate

provides for citizenship verification to buy insurance. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. are there further one-minute requests? for what purpose does the gentlelady from ohio rise? ms. schmidt: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house, mr. poe for five minutes, mr. jones for march 18 for five minutes, mr. whitfield today for five minutes, and mr. moran march 18 for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.

for what purpose does the gentleman from alabama rise? mr. bright: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey from california five minutes. mr. defazio, oregon, five minutes. ms. kaptur, ohio, five minutes. and mr. bright, alabama, for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. mr. poe from texas. for what purpose does the gentleman from utah rise? mr. bishop: i ask unanimous consent to use the time

designated for representative poe. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. bishop: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, we as americans have the responsibility to protect our environment and to protect our homeland and unfortunately we are failing at both. our border patrol has done a wonderful job in the urban areas of this country. however, in rural areas where the united states owns about 40% -- the united states federal government owns about 40% of the land from california to texas, we seem to not be doing quite as well and that now becomes the prime area where evil groups like drug cartels and human traffickers, potentially terrorists, are now entering into this country. the rules, the regulations, our interpretations of the law are prohibiting our border patrol from actually fulfilling their functions. we have gaps, not only gaps in the fence but gaps in our virtual fence, gaps in our monitoring that allow these groups to have open access. drug cartels, human trafficking cartels, potential terrorists

unfettered into this country. secretary salazar is currently at the border. on saturday he will be at the chris eegly visitor center. he was shot and killed at oregon pipe national monument back in august of 2002. he was pursuing a drug cartel hit squad who had fled across these open areas into the united states after committing a string of murders in mexico. these people we are talking about who are illegally coming into this country are those who are bringing massive amounts of illegal drugs into this country, who are involved in human trafficking, illegal coming into this country, violence against women. we have wilderness law protection that is supposedly there to protect the sanctity of the land. unfortunately in some of our laws or interpretation of those laws about wilderness area we are actually opening up this land to some of those evil

people coming across and in so doing they are destroying the wilderness characteristics we are trying to protect. therefore, i'm asking secretary salazar for four items in his visit when he sees firsthand the problems we have on our southern border. number one, i'm asking him to end the department of interior's requirement that the department of homeland security must negotiate access and seek permission before entering onto interior lands to enforce the law and secure the border. two, i want him to acknowledge the department of interior policies have contributed to severe environmental damage from fulfilling their job to stop organize crime, drug and human traffickers, potential terrorists from crossing the border through protected natural areas. three, i want him to stop impeding border patrol access in winderness areas for the sites of building electronic surveillance. and i want the end of extorting

mitigation funds from homeland security, money appropriated for border security should only be spent on making our borders secure, not diverted to unrelated interior spending projects. to secure our borders, we must do so to stop the evils of drug trafficking, human trafficking and potential terrorism. common sense tells us that that should be our goal. common sense tells us we should agree to that fick goal. with that, mr. speaker -- that particular goal. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. ms. woolsey from california. mr. bright: i would ask unanimous consent to claim ms. woolsey's time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from alabama is recognized. mr. bright: mr. speaker, one year ago yesterday a terrible tragedy occurred in south alabama. on march 10, 2009, a lone gunman went on a murderous reclaiming my time page through coffee and geneva counties, leaving 10 people dead kingston, samson and geneva,

alabama. it was truly one of the worse acts of violence our part of the country has ever seen. we can never foully understand what would drive someone to commit such a monsterous act, especially against his own family and a helpless child. be it personal, economic or mental problems that led to such cruelty, it is unimaginable that something like this can happen until it strikes your friends and neighbors. even though the tragedy was a devastating shock to our small and close-nit community, it also showed the result -- the resolve of those who helped protect and defend our way of life. we all owe a debt of gratitude to the first responders, the alabama state troopers of the dothan trooper post, officers of the geneva police department, officers of the geneva county police department and part of the conservation and natural resources department who pursued and eventually found the gunman dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound. without their swift action and

response, the loss of life could have been even worse. a year's time of reflection has only made their brave efforts more worthy of our respect and praise. another group that must be recognized is the soldiers of nearby fort rutger, alabama. since world war ii they have been part of the wire grass area. they were quick to answer the call of local officials still reeling from the shock to serve their communities and keep the feas. we are proud of for the rutgers' presence -- of fort rutgers' presence in south alabama. i'd also like to thank my colleagues in the house, especially the 58 co-sponsors of the resolution expressing sympathy to the victims of that terrible day, for showing their steadfast support though nothing could replace those who were lost, i know the folks in geneva and coffee counties certainly appreciate that congress was thinking of them during their time of mourning.

i encourage those watching across the country to remember the wounded as we pray for their continued recovery. state trooper mike gillis, greg mccaul, ella meyers, and jeffrey nelson, and to join me in praying for the departed victims and their families, bruce malloy, lisa mcclindon, andrea meyers, core even gracie meyers, -- corrine gracie meyers, dean wise and tracy wise. even though those souls are no longer with us, i know we will never forget them and we will do all we can to honor their memories. as elected officials we never want to come to the house floor for these purposes. in many ways, however, it's one of the most important duties we have as members of congress to honor and call the attention of the nation to those in our districts who have experienced great loss and committed brave acts in the most difficult times. i hope for all of us that these appearances are due few and par

-- are few and far between. our thoughts and prayers are with the counties. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. jones from north carolina. mr. poe: mr. speaker, i request to take mr. jones' time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman from texas is recognized. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. i bring you news from the third front, the battle wages for control of the border and i'm not talking about the border between afghanistan and pakistan where the taliban runs back and forth at will to commit crimes in afghanistan and then goes and hides in pakistan. no, i'm bringing you news from the border, the southern border of the united states, which is very violent. raoux dosea, new mexico, right across the border from texas, recently the consulate there, the u.s. consulate closed

because of the violence on the border. in fact, americans are prohibited from being in that consulate office because of the consulate office because of the kidnappings, th shootings, the old west style events that are taking place on this border town south of our border. the inconvenient truth is there is a battle for the border that is taking place in our own country. across the southern border of the united states, the drug cartels, all in the name of money and their financing of illegal activities, including organized crime and violence, and working with the i could oats, those people -- with the coyotes, those people that smuggle people into the united states, are seeking control of our border so they can bring in drugs and money. it seems as though drugs, rather drugs and people, drugs and people are coming into the united states and going south, money and guns. someone said recently that the

northern border is porous, the southern border is porous but the northern border all you have to do is walk across and the southern border all you have to do is shoot your way across to the united states. we spend time on other issues besides the national security of our own borders. and it seems to me we ought to solve this problem. but before we do this we now hear this talk again, this talk by those who don't live on the border about, well, let's just give everybody in the country illegally a little amnesty. amnesty for all is what they say. but these individuals that preach amnesty are ignoring the obvious. if we grant amnesty it means all of the criminals that had come into the united states like drug dealers, like those bandits that come here to commit crime, they get that free amnesty as well and they get the permission to stay here into the united states, not just those people that come here trying to seek a better life and to work.

some have estimated that in our county jails and our prisons, up to 20% of the people incarcerated are in this country from foreign countries, and yet we want to grant amnesty for all these people? amnesty has proven in this country it doesn't work. it encourages people to come here illegally. what should we do? we should do three things and do them in this order. we should secure the border and mean it when we say we will secure the border. if necessary, we should have our military on the southern border of the united states so that people don't cross into this country illegally, without permission of the united states. we've given lip service to border security, and we haven't solved that problem. you tell me, mr. speaker, that the greatest country that has ever existed, the greatest country militarily, the strongest country that has ever existed in the entire world can't protect its own borders? i think not. we can do it but we don't have the moral will to do and we have to make up the decision, we will secure the nation's border. the first duty of government is

national security. after we secure the border, we got to deal with the immigration problem. the legal immigration system we have now is a disaster. it has been a disaster since the 1950's, and it's time to set that aside and draw up an easier model, a more efficient model, a business model that solves the issues of immigration and makes it more streamlined, efficient and secure so when people come into the united states legally we know who they are, we keep up with who they are, whether they want to be here as a citizen, whether they want to work, whether they want to be a tourist or whether they're coming over here just to visit somebody. solve the border problem first. solve the immigration problem second and then deal with the problem of the 20 million-plus people illegally in the united states. we can solve that problem but we can't solve that problem until we deal with the first three -- the first two. it's time for the government to do its job. the duty of government is to protect us, not give our country away to other people who want to come here illegally. so right now the border war

continues controlled by the drug cartels, controlled by the human smugglers who are profiteers from illegal activities on the southern border of the united states. we owe it to members of citizens of this country but we also owe it to citizens of the country south of the united states to secure the border, to fix the immigration issue and then deal with the issue of the illegal immigrants that are here. that's just the way it is. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. mr. defazio from oregon. . mr. moran from kansas. ms. kaptur from ohio. mr. burton from indiana. mr. mccotter from michigan.

mr. witfield from kentucky. -- whitfield from kentucky. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from ohio, mrs. schmidt, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mrs. schmidt: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm here today joined by my good colleague from the other side of the aisle, mrs. dahlkemper from pennsylvania. today we really want to focus this next hour on women in history because this is the month for women in history. and toward that end we really want to focus on women in history who were pro-life. i would like to begin by talking about the fact that the national women's history month traces its origins back to 1911. and to the first observance of international women's day. since that year, countries around the world have devoted each march 8 to celebrate the

economic, political, and social achievements of women. and recognizing the many obstacles that they have had to overcome. in the united states this day is celebrated as part of national women's history month, designated first established in 1987 by congress. a similar resolution has been approved with bipartisan support in the house and senate each year therein, recognizing women here in the united states and around the world. but today, as i said, we are going to focus on pro-life women's history. i am going to start off by talking about a woman, a woman who began this movement in the united states way back in 1792. in 1792, as you well know, we were just becoming the united states, developing our constitution, developing our institution, our congress, and

our presidency, etc. and there was a woman by the name of mary wellstonecraft. this woman was very, very pro-life. she actually wrote a book, a vindication of the rights of women. and in that she condemned those who would either destroy the embryo in the womb or cast it off when born. saying, quote, they choose in everything deserves respect and those who violate her law seldom violate them with immunity. she was really the first pro-life woman in the united states. mr. speaker, we have been blessed with many since then. but right now i'd like to ask my good colleague from pennsylvania if she would like to join me in this wonderful

discussion. miss dal came perfect: i -- mrs. dahlkemper: i thank the gentlelady from ohio for leading this special order today for talking about the importance of women in history, particularly pro-life women. i'm pleased we can work together on this issue which i find to be of great importance. an issue that really has not -- is not defined by party. it's not defined by geeographer -- gee oggrapher or -- gee og graphy or demographic issues. i'm proud to stand here today with my colleague from ohio and other areas ever our country to raise our voices in defense of all in this country. during the march for life in january of this year, hundreds of my constituents from western pennsylvania, pro-life advocates, visited my office in the capitol. i spoke to large group of pennsylvanians who had traveled all day and all night.

they marched in the cold to demonstrate their commitment to the unborn. and was so impressed by their dedication. and overwhelmingly it was women and young women who came to my office to show solidarity in our cause. when i go home to western pennsylvania where my district is overwhelmingly pro-life in their belief, i talk to mothers and daughters and women of all ages who thank me for supporting life and encouraging me to stay strong in this fight. it's so important that we have women representing the pro-life movement both here in washington and in our districts back home. we can speak to this issue, i believe, in a more personal way than men can. no one can dismiss us for not understanding. no one can look at me and say, you don't know what it's like. because i have been in those shoes. at the age of 20, as a student in college, i found myself unmarried and pregnant. so i know what it means. i know what it means to choose life.

today we are here because women's history month and pro-life issues do go hand in hand. the sufficient a gats -- suffragettes who worked so hard to secure our voting rights a as women, they believed in the right to life. susan b. anthony, elizabeth katie stanton, alice paul and so many others whose names are bester known -- lesser known believed in the sanctity of life as strongly as they believed in the rights of women. women led the feminist movement and women led the pro-life movement. our voices are the loudest and clearest for both of these very important causes. contrary to what media or other organizations would have us believe, women can be both femininity -- femme gnat and pro-life. the bottom life is this -- respect. respect for women in the workplace, women in home, in schools, and in the voting booth. and respect for the rights of the unborn. the principles that motivate

both the feminists and pro-life movements are one and the same. the belief that people have rights and freedom. as pro-life women, we believe these rights and these freedoms belong also to the unborn. we believe that they are the right to be born and the right to live. this is not only consistent with the legacy of the early advocates of women's rights, but reinforces their belief in the rights of all americans. i'm happy to stand here today with my other colleagues in congress, pro-life members, who are speaking in their support of women and speaking in support of pro-life issues. i now yield to my colleague from ohio. mrs. schmidt: thank you very much to my very good friend from pennsylvania. right now i would like to give as much time as needed to my very, very good friend from north carolina, ms. foxx. ms. foxx: i want to thank my colleagues from ohio and pennsylvania for organizing

this special order today. today we are marking women's history month and commemorating the brave and principled women who have spoken out and fought for the unborn as well as having spoken out for equal rights for women in terms of our voting. and it remains more important than ever that women speak out on behalf of defenseless unborn children. as each year more than a million of the unborn are aborted in america. i want to strongly agree with my colleague from pennsylvania that one can be a feminist and also be pro-life. today i'm pleased to highlight how some north carolina women are standing up for the unborn back in my district. two women in particular come to mind today. tony buck letter -- buckler and

donny dire are leading a 40-day long vigil in winston-salem to bring an end to abortion. their effort, dubbed 40 days of life, are focused on 40 days of peaceful prayer and fasting and community outreach on the issue of abortion. one of the most important and visible parts of their 40 days of life effort is the prayer vigil that is held outside the local planned parenthood facility in winston-salem. every day between february 17 and march 28 they are bringing together concerned pro-life citizens to take a stand for the cause of life. what's truly amazing about this effort is that it does not stand alone. hundreds of other cities and 45 states have similar 45 days of life vigils that seek to raise awareness about this scourge of abortion and bring an end to abortion in america. it is an honor to represent

such committed pro-life women as tony and dawn. their efforts echo the voices of early women's rights leaders like susan b. anthony and elizabeth katie stanton who stood up for women and for the undorn. -- unborn. i want to thank all the pro-life women who are participating in the winston-salem 40 days of life vigil and commend them for their dedication to the pro-life cause. with that i yield back the balance of my time. mrs. schmidt: thank you so much. at this time i will yield as much time to my good friend from louisiana, mr. fleming. mr. fleming: thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on this subject. of course for those who are in the audience and gallery, the question is probably, what does this guy know about the national women's history month?

and certainly what does he know about women in general? well, what i can tell you is that a very important woman in my life gave me life itself, and that is my mother. she passed away many years ago, but obviously she's someone i could never forget. i have a wife of almost 32 years. and i also have two daughters, one of whom is gifted to me two grandsons. i think i know something about the appreciation of women when it comes to the national women's history month. let me just mention about abortion. and my pro-life stance. mr. speaker, i really oppose abortion on -- for four reasons. number one, i'm a christian.

i believe that only god can give or take away innocent life. that is within his prerogative and within his power. and his only. number two, as a physician practicing over 30 years i believe in the protection of life. i don't see any way that abortion could be in any way considered to be health care. health care and abortion are totally different things. as a scientist i understand that at the moment of conception that the unique d.n.a. combination that results at conception remains unique into history. that unique person can never be replicated by anyone else. and then number four, as a person, i believe that the only way that one can accept abortion is through something we call dehumanization. what do i mean by that?

we human beings have the distinct ability to think of other human beings in less than human way. what are some examples of this? well, oftentimes those who are pro-slavery gave certain explanations that would suggest that slaves were somehow less than human beings. certainly during preworld war ii -- pre-world war ii period and during world war ii we know that the nazis used a similar characterization in order to justify what they did to the jewish people and many others. and i think that we have to deal with that today. that to accept taking innocent life, even if it's pre-born, requires dehumanization. i think we need to come to that recognition. if we accept that the unborn child is indeed a human, then i don't see any way we can justify taking that innocent life.

i also stand today, mr. speaker, to just briefly mention that i think abortion is exploitive of women. and there are a lot of reasons for this and i'll just speak to the area of health care. . today there's more than 3,000 mothers victimized by a procedure that is abortion, that ends the lives of small children, the small children they carry. the harm to women is real and the physical ramifications are significant. as a physician i can tell you that women who have abortions are more likely to experience infertility, ectopic pregnancies, stillbirths, premature births than other women who have not had abortions. studies have shown that women having had abortions are 3.5 times more likely to die in the

following year, six times more likely to die of suicide, seven to 15-fold more likely to have placenta previa, which is a life-threatening condition for the mother and the baby, which increases, of course, the chance of death of the mom or stillbirth, twice as likely to have preterm or postterm deliveries and preterm delivery increases the risk of neo natal death and certainly handicaps. so in conclusion, mr. speaker, i do appreciate the gentlelady giving me an opportunity to speak on this subject. i think that anytime we think about women we have to think about moms. and anytime we think about moms we have to think about children and those children, of course, are children in my opinion from the moment of conception, that that is when life begins. and anything that interrupts

that deliberately, that's not of nature of god, is indeed the taking of innocent life and is not health care. so i thank the gentlelady and appreciate the time you've given me today. the speaker pro tempore: all members are reminded that the house -- the gentlewoman from ohio is recognized. ms. schmidt -- mrs. schmidt: to focus on pro-life women, i want you to imagine, mr. speaker, what it was like to be an american woman in the 1700's and 1800's. you know, it surprises me to have to say this, but at that time women could not vote, we could not hold property, we couldn't inherit property if we were married, we couldn't

control our own money or testify on our own behalf. we couldn't assemble or speak freely. we couldn't keep our children if we were divorced. and sometimes even when we were widowed. there was no such thing as marital rape. and no one woman ever graduated from college. that sounds like a third world country today. and yet, that's the kind of conditions women faced in the 1700's and 1800's. once women realized that we needed to have our rights reserved in the constitution, our feminists stepped forward tanned one of those feminists was elizabeth cadey stanton. she was a pretty moxie woman because at the time when women were pregnant, you couldn't

even say the term pregnant. i'm not sure you could say the term with child. they were supposed to stay at home and not be seen until the child was born. but what did elizabeth cadey stanton do? she shocked society because she paraded the streets showing the baby inside of her and people were aghast. but people were also surprised at the voice and the message that she was carrying, because you see at the time of the feminist movement as we know today with elizabeth cadey stanton and susan b. anthony, they were fighting for all people's rights, not just the right of women, but the right of the african-american, man and woman, and also the right of the child. african-american and white. they were fighting for

everyone. and it was elizabeth cadey stanton who was the most shocking of all because what she did was she showed her feminism on the streets. and one of the things that she said was, when we consider that women are treated as property, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children as property to be disposed of as we see fit. now, think about that. when we consider women are treated as property, i think you can put in there the african-american as well, it is degrading to women that we should treat our children, at that time the african-american slave child as well, as property to be disposed of as we see fit. this was a letter to julia ward howe, october 16, 1873, recorded in howe's diary at

harvard university library. this was a pro-feminist letter, mr. speaker. when i was a child in school i never heard that she was pro-life. i knew she was pro-woman and i knew she was pro-freedom for all mankind, but nobody ever said she was also protecting the unborn. and yet she was. but it wasn't just elizabeth cady stanton that was holding these views. it was also her good friend, susan b. anthony. susan b. anthony, who also wrote, guilty, yes, no matter the motive, love of eve, or suffering the unborn innocent, the women is offly guilty who commits abortion. it will burn her conscience in life. it will burn her soul in death.

mr. speaker, these words were written over 100 years ago. i want to repeat them. guilty, yes. desire to save the unborn, the innocent. the women is guilty who often commits abortion. it will burn her conscience in life. it will burn her soul in death. mr. speaker, we hear that sentiment today from women who have had abortion and have come around and realized that this was the wrong decision for them and that they wish they hadn't made that decision, that they wish they could have had the decision for life. but she wasn't the only person, elizabeth cady stanton, or susan b. anthony, that felt like this. i bet most people in congress don't know, mr. speaker, but we actually had a female candidate at the time of the feminist

movement in the 1800's. and her name was victoria woodhall. she was the first female candidate for president. december 24, 1870, she said -- this was the first female presidential candidate, a strong opponent of abortion. "the rights of children as individuals begin while they remain in the fetus." "the rights of children as individuals begin while they remain in the -- remain the fetus." long before women had the right to vote, the right to have a divorce, the right to own property, the right to represent themselves in court, this courageous woman ran for president. now, we know she didn't get very far, but she certainly had a voice. and it's a voice that i think

it's a shame that history doesn't highlight. regardless of her message of abortion. again, as a history major, i never knew that this woman ran for president in the 1870's, mr. speaker. and i bet most of our colleagues didn't know that either. but it wasn't just victoria woodhall, that talked about abortion. it was also someone by the name of alice paul. alice paul, another person that was part of the equal rights amendment, stated that -- and this was in 1923, that "abortion is the ultimate exploitation of women." that was alice paul. she was the author of the original equal rights amendment and opposed the later version of the e.r.a. because it promoted abortion. but before i forget, i also want to talk go sarah norton.

she first challenged cornell university to admit women. think about that. women couldn't go to college. sarah norton right ow there fighting to go to college -- out there fighting to go to college, also pondered whether there would come a time whether the right of the unborn to be born would have the right to be denied or interfered with. and you know, mr. speaker, we have to think about the way women were treated back then and why they came to this conclusion. again, as i said a moment ago, they had no right. they were very much like the slaves of that time. they had no voice, no right in court, no real rights at home. if they were raped they had no way to address the rape. and if they found themselves in a situation where they had a child as an accident, there was no other choice but to either carry it and be like esther in

"the scarlett letter," or they would force these women into a situation to have an abortion. again, mr. speaker, there were no rights for women at the time. they couldn't go to court and say, my name raped me or i had an affair with the neighbor, he was a married man, kind of like in "the scarlet letter," but they could be forced into situations that they disagreed with. that's why these women were such at the forefront of the fem nyse -- feminist movement and talking about the right for all people. what amazes me in all of this struggle is up until the 1970's people really didn't believe that abortion should be legal

in the united states. there was a lot of controversy going on at the time, and i think i became involved in this movement because where i come from in cincinnati, ohio, a piece of the right to life movement in the nation was actually born in my district -- well, actually not my district. the first congressional district, the district that borders mine. but it was with folks like barbara and jack wilky and folks like my parents, who are from my district, that really realized that abortion could become the law of the land. and they wanted to prevent that. and so they became very pro-active at the state level. they went to the state legislature, talking to the legislators saying if they were going to consider having abortion legal in ohio that was the wrong thing to do. and they weren't unique to ohio or unique to cincinnati. this was really going on all throughout the united states. these little pockets of

discontent about the issue of abortion. and they were beginning to weave together into a national movement. but it is barbara wilkey who said to his husband, jack, a physician, you know, jack, everybody deserves -- the constitution gives everybody the right to life, including the unborn child. and he looked at her and he said, barbara, that will be the name of our movement. well, we know that name didn't just stay in ohio, but it's also the national right to life movement. and barbara and jack wilkey have been at the forefront of this movement since its inception in the early 1970's. jack wilkey has served not only the board of the greater cincinnati right to life, but he's also been on the board of the national right to life serving as president. currently today he's with the life issues institute.

but he and barbara continue to be on the for front of abortion. i will ask those wonderful folks if they can bring those two posters over there for me. could you do that? now, back in the 1970's, when the e.r.a. movement was going around, people wanted to have an additional amendment to the constitution stating in full force that women were equal and should have equal protection, but the problem with the movement was that they also wanted an equal protection for abortion. at that time the public really started to figure out where they were on that issue. did they believe in abortion or not believe in abortion? and toward that end there was a lot of mix review. people didn't want women to suffer from back alley abortions but at the same time

the question was, should they have an abortion after all? and before the states could figure it out on their own, the supreme court in 1973 handed down the decision of roe vs. wade and we all know what that said, that women have the right to an abortion. well, folks like barbara and jack wilkey and my parents and i were aghast because we really understood that life begins at its inception and you can't question life at its inception because if you do you compromise life throughout history. . what i really think is interesting is that while the beginning of the 1970's and 1980's it appeared that women were on the edge of believing that women should have abortion rights. but today the trend is

changing. i have to digress is minute because the pro-choice women have been very smart on this. it was in the late 1980's, early 1990's they realized that with ultrasounds women were recognizing that baby inside their womb was alive and breathing and moving and had a little personality. so they started to weigh back on whether they agreed that women should have the right to an abortion on not. so they made a language change. what they said was instead of calling it pro-life or pro-abortion, anti-abortion, or pro-abortion, they changed the name to pro-life or pro-choice. now, the pro-choice, pro-abortion folks were very smart in that marketing approach because we as a society believe in choices, mr. speaker. we go to the grocery store. in my town it would be kroeger. or super value. and you have an array of delhi

meets -- deli meets, cheeses, anything that you wanted. in some of these stores you can even buy furniture. we love choice. how many restaurants offer a salad bar where you can get all kinds of salad? we like choice. you go to a department store and how many kinds of shirts and shoes and ties and sweaters can we buy? we like choice. so it was a very smart marketing strategy because at the time when women were starting to hesitate on whether women should have the right to an abortion because of the ultrasound, the pro-choice tag made them feel that, yes, indeed, maybe women should have that right. but you know, mr. speaker, it's interesting. because as technology has come forward and as we have had dealings with technology, women stepped back a few years ago

and -- back about 10 years ago with the ultrasounds that we have today and recognized that even as a child at the age of two weeks, it begins to appear to look like a child. and they started to hesitate on whether abortion should be legalized and women should have that right. and if you look at this chart, what you see is, this was a gallup poll, 2009 gallup poll, majority of americans, this is the first time, mr. speaker, a majority of americans, 51%, consider themselves to be pro-life over the terminology pro-choice. so this isn't pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion. this is pro-life over pro-choice. the pro-abortion marketing verbiage. what we see is that in 2001 40%

believed in pro-life, 49% believed in pro-choice. back in 2005 it was 42 to 52. in 2006 45-47. we are tightening up. in 2007 42-51. in 2008 46-48. in 2009 43-50. and in 2009 it has finally come full circle where the pro-lifers are at 49 and the pro-choicers are at 44. so we have seen this very narrow trend all the way through finally eclipsing just about a year ago. and i think it's because women especially, but men as well, realize that that baby in the womb is actually a human being. and that human being deserved to have the right to life.

the other interesting thing that i think we need to talk about as we focus on women in history is that women really oppose the use of federal funds for abortion. even if they are pro-choice women, they just don't think federal funds should be used for abortion. now, the late henry hyde, mr. speaker, i'm not sure whether you had a chance to serve with henry hyde. i did have the luxury to serve with the gentleman from illinois. but it was henry hyde after roe v. wade became the law of the land that decided maybe we shouldn't have federal funding for abortion. and in an appropriation bill he put an amendment which we still continue to use today that said there shall be no federal funding for abortion, period. this has been the law of the land for the last four years. when you ask folks today, this was a poll in december of 2009,

this was for women, do you support or oppose abortions to be paid for by public funds under a health care reform bill? well, 25% support it. 70% oppose it. and folks that weren't sure of the answer were about 5%. so i really think, mr. speaker, there is a real clear message here that women, whether they are pro-choice or pro-life, do not believe that we should have federal fending for abortion. -- funding for abortion. they don't think that's a smart way of using taxpayer dollars. i have to agree because, mr. speaker, when we are discussing the bill of the moment, and the bill of the moment is health care, it's the bill that touches everyone's mind, it's a bill that is something that will be a game changer in the united states. it passed. one of the things that is in

that bill is the public funding of abortion. from what i agreed, there will be a dollar of every premium paid to women's preproductive health. that will allow for all kinds of things for women, including abortions. and i think that when you look at the polling and you see that 70% of women oppose federal funding of abortion, i think we should listen to the word of the people and whatever we do on this health care bill, at least let's listen to the women of today. because as we look at women in history, we really have to recognize that we do have a voice today. my good friend, dr. roe just came, but before i give dr. roe a chance to speak on this, i want to mention that in women in history we have come a long way. but still have a long way to

go. when you think about the first woman to try to run for president way back in 1870, i think it's ironic that the first woman to serve in this house was in 1917, her name was jeanette rankin, two years before women got the right to vote. and yet today in the house there's about 275 women in total that have ever served here, mr. speaker. we have a lot of pro-choice women. we have pro-liferingse. we have some that probably haven't made up their mind. but we've really got a long way to go when you think of the thousands of men that have served here. and i think that's why it's so important as we debate this issue of health care to listen to women, because it is women that are saying, wait a minute, not with my tax dollar. right now i have been joined from my good friend from tennessee and give you as much time as you need. mr. roe: thank you very much

for holding this special order on health care and the life issue. i was walking over here i thought back to my medical school years and how this issue of abortion ever came up. and i fought it from the time i was a medical student when abortion was illegal in this country until it was legalized. at that time pregnancy was basically a mystery. it was described as tissue. i have heard a human being described in a lot of different ways. as ultrasound came along, we were able to view inside the woman's uterus to see what was going on. an astonishing thing happened, i will tell you after 30-plus years of practicing medicine, it will make your adrenaline flow to look at a baby and watch it grow from the time you see a flicker of a heartbeat at around -- we can see that at around 28 days post conception,

i can remember the first time to this day, it's been over 30 years since i saw that, and to see that within weeks, develop into a little person, at around 12 weeks, and certainly now the 3-d ultrasounds, it is amazing what you can see. this is a person there. you watch the move. you wotch them breathe. you watch their -- watch them breathe. you watch their eyes blink. they are people. if you have any question about what's in the uterus, look at an ultrasound and there will be no doubt in your mind that it is a person there. and i know in our area certainly a higher percentage, even 70% oppose abortion funding, using their tax dollars to end life. that's exactly what it is. it's certainly illegal in this country -- legal in this country now, but i think the pendulum is swinging. we have a very limited amount of resources for health care in this country. i think we'll talk about certainly the need for reform.

but abortion is not health care. it is not and we should not be using our tax dollars as precious as they are to provide care. let me just give you an example of what we are trying to do in our state of tennessee right now. this year because of the budget crunch we are limiting our state health insurance plan, medicaid or tenncare in our case, is limiting doctor visits to eight per year. you as a patient, if were you a patient of mine in tennessee and you had tennessee medicaid, you could only come see me -- that's all the state will pay for, no matter what your condition is. and also we will only pay $10,000 per hospitalization, per year. no matter how many hospitalizations. that's all you are going to get paid. those costs are shifting. right now in tennessee with our medicaid system, we are rationing care. what we should be doing before we marketedly expand this

system is to adequately fund what we currently have. certainly funding abortion not only is it just the public doesn't want it, it's the wrong policy. i think the senate bill that currently has this information in there, this language in there, i mean, should not be passed certainly in this body. i yield back. mrs. schmidt: i have just been joined by my good friend from minnesota, mrs. bachmann, would you like to add to the conversation? mrs. bachmann: thank you so much. i appreciate the gentlelady from ohio for inviting me. i also want to honor her for her service as the head of the pro-life women's caucus here in the united states congress. we benefit greatly from your leadership and we appreciate all that you do. this is the first issue that all of us have to deal with, the issue of life, going all the way back to the declaration of independence. if you look at the declaration, the unalienable rights, the rights that no government can give, no government could take away, that were given to each

one of us, the very personal right by our creator, the first one is life. and that's why this issue is central in every debate that we have. how will we as an american government and society deal with vouch saving life? -- vouchsafing life? because in the declaration it says that governments were instituted to secure the unalienable of life. that's why we are here. to make sure life is a value we uphold and safe. i appreciate so much the chart that the cheal has put up to demonstrate -- the gentlelady has put up to demonstrate that 70% of americans oppose funding for abortions. that's what we are going to see in this health care bill going forward. i'm sure my colleague, dr. roe, addressed that very well, that americans don't want to have their tax dollars paid for other -- pay for other people's abortions and have their consciouses violated. that's why we have seen the catholic bishops across the

country so heavily involved in this health care debate because they know what will happen. the allen guttmacher institute tells us there will be more abortion it is we have government subsidized abortions. as a matter of fact there will probably be a good 30% increase in the number of abortions that we currently have today. that wouldn't be good for the women of america, abortion minded women, and it certainly wouldn't be good for the next generation. in so many countries across the world today, whether it's russia or eastern europe or western europe, certainly italy, greece has a population, replacement rate of 1.3, all of those nations are not replacing themselves. there is a very level of abortion that's occurring in those nations. we don't want to see that here in the united states. we are at replacement, but our population levels could fall. it's not good when a nation's population level fallings below replacement -- falls below

replacement and the countries now in russia and western europe are dealing with that fact. it's also a vital -- of vital interest just for the sake of abortion-minded women that they have alternates. -- tarns. all too often what we see are women put into a position they don't want to be in by their parents, by pressuring boyfriends, to tell them have an abortion because it will cost me money. it will cost me embarrassment. but it's the woman who pays the price. the woman pays the price emotionally. i have just looked at some figures that said that women who have an abortion have a higher risk of death and six times more likely to commit suicide. that's such a terrible, horrible outcome for women. there are things that we can do for women who are -- find themselves in an unplanned pregnancy. we have pro-life centers all across the nation that would love to have women, whether it's with free pregnancy tests,

free ultrasound tests where they can see their unborn baby alive, moving within their womb, and then there's also help whether it comes from free clothing during the pregnancy, free help with baby supplies once the baby comes. if a mother chooses -- that she would like to adopt her baby, there are service that is are available that are free, open to women to help them with the adoption. and situations where women can actually help and choose the family that her baby will be raised in. . there are great options for life. i know my husband and i have been involved in foster care, helping children who have been in less than ideal circumstances. i think dr. roe for the very strong work he's done in the pro-life movement and also my colleague, congresswoman jean schmidt. i yield back to you.

mrs. schmidt: one thing is it's not just conservative women that's been at the forefront of this debate. this debate as i said before began in 1872. and mr. welstoncraft wasn't very conservative. she was very, very radical. one of the things i mentioned was that her name may be unknown but her daughter's name is not. you see, if you ever read the book "frankenstein," her daughter, shelly, wrote it. this lovely little girl never even got a chance to know her wonderful mother because her mother died giving birth to her. but it was women like mrs. mary welstoncraft, it was women like

lacriticia mott, it was women like elizabeth stanton that brought this attention to america over 100 years ago. and even today we have women all over the country making a difference on this issue. there's a group of women called feminist for life, and they have some pretty liberal thoughts on other social issues in america, but they're really dead on on this issue. and i had a chance to meet with them the other day, and sarah foster is one of the leaders in that and she wrote a paper that she gave to wellsly college on march 3, 2004, that talks about the feminist case against abortion. and that's really where i got a lot of my literature. and it's amazing what she talked about in here and how women throughout society that

have had abortions, social ills tend to fall to them, the depression, the anger, the sue eyed rate. you know, there's even talk that there could be some physical harm that could happen with abortion. and i don't know if my good friend from tennessee knows anything about that, being the doctor that he is, but is there any physical risks to abortion? mr. roe: oh, certainly there are. again, i thank you for having this conversation because what you're doing, jean, is you're speaking today, and michelle are speaking today for the unborn. they cannot speak for themselves. you are here on the floor of the house speaking for them. yes, throughout my career -- i remember a case i had, and i won't obviously disclose anything other than just a case i had in over a 30-year career of a patient i had known for years and she came in one day and had tears in her eyes.

this was a woman in her 50's now, and she told me -- she said, i have to tell you something, and i had known her for a long time very well. even as a friend i had known her. and she told me that i had an abortion years ago and i got to share this. many of the problems i trace back to the 20 years, 25 years i cared for her were directly related to that abortion and the psychological impact it had on her and her life. and we had a long talk that day, and just as a friend to friend, and i hope she left there that day and could go on and continue her life. so many women won't share things that are -- that are -- men and women a negative part of their life and realize it was a very bad decision. what we're trying to do here today is prevent women from suffering that psychological damage. and the other thing that

congresswoman bachmann just brought out a minute ago was adorpgs. as an ob-gyn doctor, that's what i do, i have delivered almost 5,000 babers, i can assure you i can find hundreds of babies a home in one town. i don't know how many friends have gone to eastern europe and china and russia to adopt babies. these are lucky children. why would you do that when we have children here to adopt? i assure you it will be no cost to the families. those medical costs will be cared for by these families who desperately need and want children. and what you brought out about a life that's lost, you can't -- maybe there will be a congressman or a president or a doctor or someone who -- mr. bachus: or a heisman trophy winner. -- mrs. bachmann: or a heisman

trophy winner. mr. roe: and i have to brag about that great young person. those are the things that i think we have to bring -- talk about. and what you hear discussed a lot, congresswoman schmidt, is that you will ahear about third trimuster abortions, about the life of the mother. and i have to say this right now, there are no medical indications whatsoever for that procedure, a trird trimester termination of life. there will be none. i will be willing to sit and debate with over 30 years of experience to say there's only one reason for that procedure and that's to kill the baby. that's the only reason. and if anyone wants to debate that i will be glad to do it on this house floor or in a medical setting. i want to make that part of the record today. we again are here today to advocate not only for the unborn but the mother who bears the brunt of what happens to her. i yield back. mrs. schmidt: and i think it's interesting as we continue to

debate this roe v. wade, sometimes the media inadvertently sends a pro-life message. a few years ago captured hollywood's attention a movie called juno." a high school girl found herself pregnant. i remember this scene in the movie where she was going to go have an abortion. her friend was standing outside an abortion clinic with a sign and said, what are you going to do, juno? and the person said, it's got fingernails. she goes in to fill out the paperwork, she sees someone filing their fingernails. she finds a wonderful woman who wants a child, wanted to be a mother and she gives that child to a loving arm. now, i know that sounds like hollywood fantasy except i have

someone very close to me that works with me on a daily basis and 11 years ago he and his current wife, the wife he married, the lady he married, had a juno experience. and yet today they are a loving family, they have their own child and they are doing just fine. and i got to meet his birth daughter and she's a beautiful young lady. who knows in another 10 years or 20 years what she'll aspire to. maybe to be the greatest mother of all or maybe to be the next president of the united states. but he and his wife made that decision. and knowing his story, i thought this is real. and yet hollywood, for whatever reason, didn't see the power in the message. mr. speaker, i truly believe this country is recognizing that every life is precious. and i think what is equally

compelling is the fact that last year in the presidential debate the issue of abortion took center stage. and it took center stage because a little unknown governor from alaska was suddenly thrust into the lime light and could have been the vice president of the united states. and with her came a family. and in that family came their last child. and their last child has some issues. in most cases in the united states when parents are met after an ultrasound where indications say that your child will have a mental handicap, a mental issue, they are given the opportunity to abort the child. and i think the numbers are -- doctor, am i correct, about 80% do have an abortion when they believe they are going to have a child that will not have, quote, what society deems as a,

quote, normal life? and yet she had trigg and trigg has become the face of life. i think it's interesting as history continues to develop that this wonderful woman, sarah palin, continues to be at the forefront of the media and her child is right there and together that family is the face of life. and she is i think our most current and prominent member of women's history and yet again another woman who was pro-life. i was hoping my good friend, mrs. dahlkemper, could get back. she had to go to a hearing. but i want to say that -- is she here? oh, good. mrs. dahlkemper just came back. mrs. dahlkemper, my good friend from pennsylvania, i want to you close this wonderful hour and thank you for your participation and all that you do for the cause. mrs. dahlkemper: thank you. and, again, thank you to my

colleague, mrs. schmidt from ohio, who has been a good friend and obviously a defender of women's rights and the rights of the unborn and to all those who have joined us today this afternoon as we've had this special hour as we recognize women's history month and we recognize the women who fought for our right to vote, for our right to serve our country, as so many of us are. although, unfortunately, still only 17% of congress, those women also fought for the right of the unborn. and i think it's important that we remember that and as we remember them and what they did for us. and as i -- was on a plane flying down here i was sitting next to a woman who was from my hometown and we were talking about many different things. as we got up to leave the plane, in front much us sat her daughter and her granddaughter and her granddaughter with down syndrome and she telling me how

it was her granddaughter's second time to fly on a plane. and one of the things she expressed to me is that she's afraid that someday there will no longer be down syndrome children in our world. and yet they are so loving and a beauty they bring to our world, if you've ever been known or hugged a child with down syndrome, we have a wonderful center in our area that has done wonderful work with those children but they are precious. they are very precious. that's the important thing here is that they all bring gifts to our world and they bring gifts to our lives. when i think about, as i mentioned in the beginning, my own son who's now 30, and the grandchild that he's brought into my life and what he's doing as a young man, all of these children, born, unborn, we've yet to see what they will bring to our world. mrs. schmidt: thank you. this is really a bipartisan debate. and one of the things that i know my good friend from pennsylvania and i will agree with, there's nothing better

than having grandchildren. it's worth having children, isn't it? but as my good colleague from tennessee and minnesota, do any of you want to add anything before we lose this hour? mr. roe: i don't know why i had kids first. i would just go to grandkids. they are so much better. you can't imagine life -- i know i heard this right here -- without our children and without our grandchildren. when you see a child out there, i guess it's why i'm so -- anybody that would abuse a child, i have no tolerance for them whatsoever. but to have a hug from a child, it doesn't matter whether that child is challenged or not. it's love. and i can't imagine life without mine and my grandchildren. i thank you for the opportunity to be here today. mrs. bachmann: if i could just add, i think it's so important that you have offered this opportunity for us to honor and recognize susan b. anthony, elizabeth cady stanton, matty brinkerhoff, victoria woodhall,

alice paul, among many other women who stood strong for women's rights and for the value of women in the country but also to be clear that these women also stood for the unborn. they weren't -- they made sure that -- they stood strong for women's rights understanding that it's all women, born and preborn, that need to have their rights secured. so i'm very grateful that you've hosted this women's history month and also highlighting the fact that our foremothers who went before stood for life just as we stand for life today. so i thank you and i thank representative dahlkemper and i yield back. mrs. schmidt: as we look that that statue of the women who gave us the opportunity to be able to be here on the floor today, not only did they give us

the right to vote, they gave all children the opportunity to have the right to life. and it wasn't until roe v. wade that that was taken away and maybe we can be the generation of women that will find ourselves with a statue out in the hall that will give all children, all god's children back the right to life. thank you all for this and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona, there shadegg, for 60 minutes -- mr. shadegg, for 60 minutes. mr. shadegg: i thank the speaker mr. shadegg: i thank the speaker and i'd like to begin an hour hope to discuss with my colleagues and with the american people the extraordinary

situation we face with respect to health care reform here in the united states house. i believe most people across america know that we've been debating health care reform for almost a year now, actually quite frankly a little over a year now. and i think most americans agree with me and probably with almost everybody who comes to this floor that our health care system needs to be reformed. i have been a passionate advocate for health care reform since i was elected in 1994 and i believe i've written more health care reform proposals and introduced them in this congress than perhaps any other member who began serving in 1995 or thereafter. i began working on patients' bill of rights legislation and have moved onto comprehensive reform legislation because i think our system can be much better than it currently is. indeed, if you look at it, the president is absolutely right that the cost of health care is going up dramatically faster than the cost of all of the other goods and services we buy

in our society. and the president is right that that increase in cost is not sustainable over time. we've got to rein in this spiking cost of health care, the spike in the cost of health care premiums or health insurance premiums. unfortunately i don't believe the president is right about the manner in which he wants to go about it and i believe we are being confronted with an effort now to cram through this house as early perhaps as next week legislation which is proposed to reform health care in america but will not do that. certainly there will not rein in costs. i want to reiterate, i'm a supporter of health care reform, i not only think we need to take steps to rein in the cost of health care, i believe we need to address other problems, such as pre-existing conditions. i happen to have an older sister who is a breast cancer survivor, thankfully she's now almost a 20-year breast cancer survivor, and she at a certain point in her career, because of her breast cancer, could have been

placed in a situation where she would have been denied care or denied coverage by health insurance -- by a health insurance company because she had a pre-consisting -- pre-existing condition of breast cancer. there are lots of ways to deal with pre-existing conditions rather than the mandate which is in the president's legislation. i hope to be joined and i am joined right now by one of my colleagues, dr. roe, from tennessee, and i'd like to conduct this particular hour in an informal fashion where each of us talk about issues within the health care bill that is going to be before us as early as next week and kind of banter those back and forth and try to make this interesting for the people of america to look at what we are being confronted with, to confront the issue of is this a better bill to pass than so-called doing nothing? and i think the answer to that is fairly clear. i believe this bill would be disastrous. but let me begin by yielding some time to my colleague, mr. row, and let him give you some

of his -- dr. roe, and let him give you some of his thoughts. mr. roe: thank you very much, mr. shadegg. i appreciate the opportunity to be here on the house floor, mr. speaker. when i was elected to congress, i had a 31-year medical career and was coming to the tail end of it and i'd seen various changes from the late 1960's when i was in medical school until now and i've seen absolute incredible changes in the way we deliver health care and what we can do for our patients. and just a brief example, when i graduated from medical school in 1970 there were about five high blood pressure medicines and three of them made you sicker almost than high blood pressure. and today, 40 years later, there are probably 50 or more. and with relatively minor side effects and patients now have the opportunity with high blood pressure, with diabetes, with heart disease, we're just --

we've just seen recently former vice president dick cheney and former president clinton get state of the art health care and the question is, how can we get this health care to the majority of our people and not bankrupt the country? because it's not the quality of care we're talking about, whether it's heart disease or cancer or any other diseases that we're talking about. in the mid 1980's we started seeing a shift in the way we discussed and delivered health care and what fee for service health care, you as a patient come to me and i see you and you give me a bill when you leave and you pay the bill. that's fee for service health care. and we saw that that was clearly a situation where there was overconsumption of the services. we didn't have enough money in the system to provide that. so a new system of managed care came along where insurance companies said, look, we can manage this care, and we can do this by limiting the number of

visits and very specifically saying what we're going to pay for in this particular health care contract that you have with us, your insurance plan. and there were various methods out there to do this. and in tennessee we saw costs rising ever so slowly, but rising faster than our inflation was, and we tried to control these in our state medicaid programs -- in our state medicaid program called ten care. we got a waiver from health and human services here in washington to try an speemplet with managed care. we had -- experiment with macked care. we had -- managed care. we had seven or eight plans that were going to compete for your business. what happened to us is it was a very generous plan, as this plan, as we'll discuss later, in this hour, when you mandate what's in a particular plan and you provide more health care and someone needs -- than someone needs to consume, it costs a lot of money. what our plan did in tennessee, it was first dollar coverage, all prescription drugs paid for,

so the patient had no cost in this. they had no so-called skin in the gain. in 1993 when we instituted this plan, we had -- the state spent about $2.6 billion on health care for the entire state. 10 years later we're spending $8 billion. every new dollar that the state brought in we spent on health care. there was no money in our state for schools, for new construction in colleges and so on, new capital, other things that the state does, roads. so we had to rein those in. our democratic governor did that and the way we did that wasn't a very good way. it was basically we rationed care by cutting people off the rolls. today in the state of tennessee and the other unknown about these federal plans is they never pay for the cost of the care. in tennessee the state tenncare plan paid about 60% of the cost of actually providing the care. so the more people you got on that plan the more costs that

were shifted to private insurers, forcing those plans to charge higher premium benefits. so we shifted the cost with a hidden tax over from the government plan to the private sector. forcing those -- forcing costs to be passed onto businesses and businesses much like i had. today what we're doing in tennessee is that in this particular year, right now our state legislature is in the process of looking at our state health insurance plan. they have cut the cost down to about $7 billion and how did they do that? well they simply just disenrolled people. and the plan -- what the plan is paying for this year are only eight doctor visits. you in the state of tennessee if you have that type plan, you can only come to a physician eight times that the state will pay for and they'll only pay for a total of $10,000, no matter what your hospital bill is and that means that cost is being shifted. and in our state this year the hospitals are going to have a

bed tax, they'll pass a tax again onto other paying patients to be able to make the medicaid match that they have right here in the state so an expansion that the senate bill currently has of medicaid will be disastrous for the state of tennessee. we cannot pay for the plan we have. mr. shadegg: if i can just jump in, let me talk about the update with the state of arizona. i happen to have here a letter dated yesterday from the governor of arizona. and she explains, governor brewer of the state of arizona, my governor, explains that our state is already taking a deep financial hit as a result of the economy, we have had a loss of state revenues in excess of 30%. this letter is from the governor to the president of the united states and i just think some of the points the letter makes reiterate what you just said, doctor, and they were important for the people of america to understand. she writes, as governor of a state that is bleeding red ink,

this is a direct quote, imimploring our congressional delegation to vote against your proposal to expand government health care and to help vote it down. the reason before my position is simple -- for my position is simple, we cannot afford it. she said, based on our own experience with government health care expansion, we doubt the rest of america can afford it. she then goes on to lay out the extra burdens that this legislation will place unfairly in her view on the state of arizona. she says, unfortunately your proposal to further expand government health care does not fix the problem we face in arizona. in fact, it makes our situation much worse, exacerbating our state's fiscal rules by billions of dollars and she cites a series of points. one, it makes arizonans pay twice to fund other states' expansions. she writes, your proposal continues the inequities established in the senate health bill, by the way, that's the very bill we're being asked to

pass never bait am without changing so much so -- verbatim without so much as a coma. it is clear that it will not fully cover the costs, we, the state of arizona, will experience as a result of the mandated expansion. therefore arizona taxpayers will have the misfortune to pay twice, once for our program and once for the higher match for other states. she then says, it makes states responsible for financing national health care. i won't read the entire paragraph but she says, for 28 years arizona and the federal government have been partners in administering the medicaid program. however, she writes, under your proposal more power is centralized in washington, d.c., and the states become just another financing mechanism. now that might not be bad but she points out, not only will states be forced to pay for this massive new indictment program, but our ability -- entitlement

program, but our ability to control the cost of our existing program will be limited. she then says, it creates a massive new entitlement program which our country cannot afford and in her letter says, your proposal creates a program that does not have the resources and our country does not have the resources to support. i think the point is made that it's great to have good intentions but it's important to be able to pay for these programs and this is simply one governor of i think many governors who are deeply concerned that what we are doing is expanding health care entitlement on the backs of states already in deep financial trouble. mr. roe: our state governor as a democrat has said that this is the mother of all unfunded mandates and what will happen, and let me give you an example of what has happened in our state. we're now being asked, if this bill were to pass as is, to have a massive expansion of government-run health care. it would cost the state $1.5 billion. in our state we have 50 less state troopers than we had 30

years ago and we've got two million more people. we're not doing a single new capital project on a campus of a university this year in our state because we cannot afford it. so it's a matter of not do you do health care reform, it's a matter of can you afford this? and what i've -- when i've heard the president say that premiums will go down, i beg to differ. if you look at the tennessee experience, i can assure you, if you extrapolate our experience with what they're proposing nationwide, i did the math this morning on the way into the office, it will be exactly twice what they're saying. and if you look at the estimates that the government has done on health care plans, let me just run through a couple of those for you. when medicare came onboard in 1965 it was a $3 billion program, the government estimated, the c.b.o. didn't occur until 1964, but the government estimate in 1965 was that by 1990 medicare would be a $15 billion program. it was a $90 billion program.

and today it is a $500 billion program in fwen. that particular -- 2010. that particular plan, medicare, will go upside down. there will be less revenue coming in than going out in six or seven years depending on current estimates. what we're proposing is and that the seniors citizens gets this, one of the proposals in this plan is to take out $500 billion. here's a news flash. next year the baby boomers, which is -- which are a large number of people, hit medicare age. that's 2011. they'll begin at the rate of several million, tens of millions in the next 10 years, to be on plan that's now underfunded by $500 billion. one of the thing this senate plan does have, which i totally agree with, is we should have been doing this instead of the fraud and abuse.

there's no question that anywhere there's fraud and abuse in the medicare plan we should be going after that. i couldn't agree more. i also in this plan, the new taxes that are in the plan over the next 10 years, which equal about $500 billion, this is the absolute worse time on the planet earth is to have -- are to have new taxes is when the economy is still reeling from the worst recession since the 1930's. and to increase taxes on businesses, whether it's device makers or whatever it may be, is the wrong time. i yield back. mr. shadegg: i think it's important to understand the burden this places on our economy when we should be focused on jobs. i know when i go home on the weekends i encounter many of my constituents. i get to see them at the safeway or the home depot or wherever they are. i have to tell you, quite frankly, i don't understand why the president and the majority don't get this message but they do not come up to me and say,

congressman, when are you going to fix health care? i'm deeply worried about it. what they say is, congressman, what are you doing about this economy? i need a job. my son just graduated from college. he can't get a job. that's where they are. but one of the issues i want to focus on in this hour goes to how we propose to pass this legislation, because i think it shows that we are not a functioning institution and are not doing what the people want and that they have reason to be quite frankly very upset with us. speaker pelosi, when she ran and captured the majority in 2006, said she was going to have the cleanest, most ethical congress in history. you can debate that issue. i personally believe that it has been the least procedurally open congress i've ever seen. but i at least had hoped that she would fulfill the promise that republicans had made of no special deals. and when president obama campaigned and said he was going to bring america change

we could believe in and that he was going to, for example, negotiate this bill on c-span, i had hoped that -- well, maybe you might have obtained that goal but there would be fewer back room deals. but it is stunning to me, absolutely stunning to me, and i think stunning to every member of this body and stunning to every american that not only have we not cleaned the process up but we have seen in the year that we have debated this bill the most outrageous examples of back room deals in the composition or construction of this bill ever in at least the history that i've been here since 1995. it is important to understand every one of those back room deals, every one of those special deals cut with members of the united states senate and put in the senate-passed bill will have to be voted upon as a part of the bill that passes the u.s. house. we are now being asked to vote for, my colleagues on the

democrat side, are being asked to vote for a bill that contains the cornhusker kickback, that contains the louisiana purchase, that contains a special provision for a connecticut hospital. let me just document those because i think they are important to understand. now, the latest trick, and i don't know, doctor, if you heard this, is somehow we are going to avoid this because the majority will simply pass a rule deeming the senate bill passed. now, if that's not a charade to trick the american people, i don't know what is. but i will tell you this, these provisions are in that bill. number one, the louisiana purchase, according to "the washington post" on november 22, 2009, there are -- their headline, "sweeteners for the south." the bill in section 2006 provides a special adjustment of $300 million to aid or to provide for the state medicaid program and the only state that

would qualify is the state of louisiana. sounds like a sweetheart deal to me. sounds like a back room deal that the american people thought wasn't going to happen anymore. second, according to "politico" december 7, 2009. section 10502 of the bill, section 10502 of the bill this is the bill we will vote upon or deem pass, you can go online to look at the bill, provides $100 million for the university of connecticut hospital. i don't know about you, dr. roe, but i didn't get $100 million for a hospital in the state of arizona in this bill. item number 3, "politico," february 3, 2010. headline, "democrats protect back room deals." this one is pretty interesting. it appears that vermont, represented by bernie sanders,

john kerry representing massachusetts, were able to find in the bill or to put into the bill in section 10201 $1.1 billion, $1.1 billion for the states of vermont and massachusetts for their medicaid program. now, i -- i've had my staff go over the bill and i'm looking for arizona's $1.1 billion. or since those who split it, turns out to be $600 million for vermont and $500 million for massachusetts, i wondered if i could find $600 million or $500 million for arizona. guess what, it's not there. but every member of this body, i think maybe as early as next week or the week after is going to vote on that special deal. they can't change a word of it. if your congressman says, oh, no, i'm not voting for it, that's wrong. that's in the bill. i have many to go over but i thought, doctor, maybe you found $500 million or $600

million for tennessee in the bill? mr. roe: i would have loved to have but i have not. when you point out louisiana, massachusetts, vermont, connecticut, all these, quote, special deals, what that's saying is those representatives and senators in there realize this is a bad idea. if it's going to cost -- mr. shadegg: wait, wait. you're suggesting they find the bill a bad idea so they had to find a special deal or a sweetener to get their vote for that? mr. roe: that is exactly right. mr. shadegg: shocking. mr. roe: that is shocking. and the people from the outside that look at that, the people in nebraska are fair people. the people in louisiana are fair people. i've heard the governor say this, they'll pay their own way. they didn't ask to be cut into a special deal. and that's exactly what this is. and what we're looking at in tennessee is this special deal right here is going to cost us $1.5 billion more, more in addition to what we're doing now of dollars we do not have. neither does the state of

arizona nor most of the other states. that doesn't mean we can't do something for health care, but this is not the right way to do it. the other thing i wanted to say it in intimacy we have a law called a sunshine law. as mayor i could not discuss with other members outside a public meeting, totally transparent, any city business. so the camera was on or it was an open meeting. every single thing we had. was it curver some and hard to do -- was it cumbersome and hard to do? yes. this kind of thing did not happen. john, i woke up on december 24 when the senate voted on this and i knew what was in there and i told my wife, i had worked very hard to gain my reputation throughout the years as a physician and i was very proud to be a member of the u.s. congress. it made me ashamed to be a part of an organization that would cut a deal like this, a back room deal like this. i yield back.

mr. shadegg: well, i think you make a fascinating point. clearly the american people get it. they tpwhreeb in -- they believe that the health care reform system delivers quality care and many are left out. the uninsured are left out. many of those uninsured are those just not lucky enough to get employer-provided care. one of the moral out rages i find in marek -- outrages i find in america's political situations is, let's say you work for general motors or intel or motorola, you get employer-provided health care. you know what that is? it's tax free. you go but if you -- but if you own a lawn service and you don't get employer-provided health care and your employees don't get employer-provided health care, they have to go out and buy health care on their own. now, that might be ok. i think it's better if you buy your own policy. but here's what the federal government does to those

people. it says, we want you, the guy that works for the lawn service or the guy that works for the corner garage that can't provide employer-provided health care, we want you to buy health care and we want it so much that you are going to have to buy it after-tax dollars. that means we will charge you at least a third more. mr. roe: will the gentleman yield? mr. shadegg: i will. we can fix that inequity and let americans buy that tax free just like their employers can but this bill does not do it. i yield. mr. roe: that sounds like me. we had 70 physician and 350 employees. i retired to run for congress and i was on my own. that tax bracket, the year i ran, the health insurance cost me that much more money. as an individual i couldn't deduct my health insurance premiums in a company -- and a large company can do that. my business could do that.

i yield back. mr. shadegg: if this bill solved that one problem, if it just said to the average american who doesn't get employer-provided health care, we're going to let you buy it tax free like the people who get it from their employer, we would solve a huge amount of the problem of uninsured americans who can't get care. but it doesn't do that. let's talk about what it does do because i only went through some of them. let's talk about how this is the cleanest, most ethical congress in history and thousand we have change you can believe in -- and we have change you can believe in. the bill has $1 billion, according to "the wall street journal" in an article fun lished october 15, called "states of personal privilege," that is states like arizona and tennessee that have personal privilege. this article published on october 15 says that there's $1 billion in the bill to assist new jersey's biotech companies and they get that subsidy.

put in there, according to the article, senator bob menendez, senator of new jersey. here it goes. apparently he didn't think it was a particularly good bill. not good enough until he got $1 billion in there for drug company research, at least according to "the wall street journal," one more special deal. but it -- but wait. there is more. let's look at an article in "the wall street journal," same article, october 15, 2009, states a personal privilege, points out that massachusetts, one of the united states senators is of

care. which when you stretch out over $1 trillion, $100 billion a year, really you're putting that $1 trillion in six years worth of spending. there is a little thing called a sustainable growth rate for physicianings. if we don't kick the can down the road again, a 21% cut in their medicare payments . if that happens, and i talked to my own doctor, colleagues around the country, three things are going to happen. number one, you are going to decrease access because the physicians can't afford to see those patients. remember, another government program, medicare, doesn't pay for the total cost of the care.

it pays about 80% to 90% of the cost. number two, when you do that you'll decrease access and quality. number three, you are going to increase the cost to our seniors who cannot afford it. so i think that's a thing that people get. this doctor fix, which is left out, is about a $250 billion or $260 billion additional cost to health care. and how you can take physician payments of medicare out of the health care bill and say you're reforming it is beyond me. i yield back. mr. shadegg: pretty stunning when you find out that, for example, you won't find a doctor that will take them as a medicare patient. and more so, unfortunately, america's poorest who do get medicaid, a program that some would advocate, cannot find a doctor who will treat them under medicaid because the reimbursement rates are so low. we're mixing a discussion here of kind of the things that are procedurally wrong with the bill because they must pass here in the house, the senate bill exactly as it passed the senate. we're talking about the special

deals that are in that bill, but i think we ought to also be talking about this whole notion of do republicans have any ideas? what is it that we would do? i've already talked about one. i said, look, if you fix the tax code so that every single american could buy health insurance tax-free just like those who get it from their employer, you go risk pools and he said,

oh, those don't work really very well because you just put all the sick people in them and over time their premiums go up. secretary sebelius said, no, high risk pools don't work because you put the sick in them and you give them no help with their premiums. i've got news for the president and news for secretary sebelius. no high risk pool in america works the way the president described one, no high risk pool in america works the way secretary sebelius described it. in point of fact, they don't work by putting the sick people in and expecting the premiums paid by the sick people to take care of their care, they are put in the high risk pool so that healthy people can be assessed a

fee to help care for the extra care and services needed by the sick. and in point of fact they work quite well. we could and should expand them dramatically and the costs are spread amongst the healthy. now, why do people agree to that? well, it's very obvious. it's because you and i don't know that tomorrow we won't be the one with breast cancer or the one with heart disease and need to be in the high risk pool ourselves. so, we're supposedly having an educated debate with the secretary of health and human services and the president, who sponsored the town hall or the summit, don't even understand how a high risk pool works. that's an idea that republicans have put on the table, i guess if democrats are going to say we don't have ideas it's because they don't understand our ideas. but to have a high risk pool -- does tennessee have a high risk pool? mr. roe: that is how they work. just so people understand, a pre-existing condition is a problem in an individual. if you're an individual as i was two years ago out trying to buy

insurance or, number two, in the small business pool, if you have 10 employees, 12 employees, it's very difficult if one person has an illness, it just runs your cost up so high you can't afford it. so how do you make small groups or individuals large groups? and one of the things that congressman shadegg has brought up makes absolute sense to me, i cannot understand why anybody but the insurance company wouldn't want you to do it, it's to remove the state line. and what you do, you can buy health -- you can buy car, your life, your home, everything else across the state line except health insurance. well, if i'm blue cross and blue shield in alabama and i've got 84% of the market there, i don't want that to happen. but i bet the consumers in alabama or tennessee or wherever it may be would like that. allow us as consumers to go on the internet, look and purchase across the state line and to form pools which make small groups large groups and pre-existing conditions go away. i yield back. mr. shadegg: as i understand it,

we first talked about a republican idea of saying, let everyone buy health insurance tax-free. the republican idea. that would take care of the little guy who's paying an outrageous after-tax price for -- one republican splution, not in this bill. we talked about high risk pools so that people who have a pre-existing condition and they may have diabetes or something very expensive to treat, they can get help from those who are healthy in the state, they actually get a subsidy. second republican idea, not in this bill, only -- the president says, it's a temporary measure and taken back out, now you're talking about a third republican idea which is that we allow people in the individual market to buy health insurance across state lines, increase their competition. it sounds to mere le ideas coming from our side of the aisle. i guess i'd like to know, why don't we -- rather than doing one big massive bill, some 2,000 pages long that according to what i've read, at least 56% of americans don't want, that at

least 78% of americans believe will cause the cost of government to go up and cause the cost of their premiums to go up, why don't we just pass individual bills? one to allow people to buy health insurance tax-free, two, one to allow people to join a high risk pool. three, one that would allow people to buy health insurance in the individual market across state lines and enjoy the competition of not having to pick from just blue cross/blue shield of, what did you say, alabama? be able to pick from blue cross/blue shield across the country or 20 other companies. couldn't we do that on a piece by piece basis, do one bill and then the other bill and then the other bill? mr. roe: you absolutely could you don't eat an elephant in one bite. you take a bite at a time. mr. shadegg: i don't think i could eat an elephant in one bite. mr. roe: i tried last night. the other thing that i would like to bring up while we're talking about, how you affect cost. because you started this hour talking about health care costs. and without meaningful tort

reform, liability reform, you will never bend the cost curve. let me give you an example. years ago when i was a resident in my training and after i got out of the army and came back we didn't make a lot of money as a resident so we'd moonlight, work in an emergency room. let's say you came into an emergency room, i'd examine you, get your vital signs and an inexpensive blood test. let's say it was 10,000 or elevated, your temperature is 99.2. i don't think you have appendicitis. say, why don't you come back in eight or 12 hours and we'll reevaluate you and that was a very inexpensive visit. today if that person comes in to the emergency room, you're not going to leave until you glow in the dark. i can tell you. because you're going to get a c.t. scan and ultrasounds and every other thing in the world. it's going to be ads 1,500 or $2,000 visit. most of those are negative and the reason that the doctor orders them is that there is no reason i shouldn't do that

because if that appendicitis patient does happen to get out there, you can just write the check with the zeros and the comas, i can tell you, when you get sued, and the cost of that is eye enormous in this country and who pays for that? we all do. every consumer of health care pays for that. let me tell you the other thing -- mr. shadegg: just to interrupt, that's what we call -- a doctor defending himself in advance or practicing defensive medicine because he's afraid he's going to get sued. mr. roe: exactly. you hear us being compared to canada and england and so forth. they have tort reform. they don't practice defensive medicine. as a matter of fact there's a lot of medicine that doesn't get practiced there at all because of cost. but they don't because you can't sue the government. and the v.a. has that system, you can't sue a doctor in the v.a. that's another area where tort reform has worked. the reason it needs to be done is that no one has argued not to

compensate an injured person, someone who has actually sustained an injury with their actual damages, absolutely that should be done. in our state of tennessee since 1975, when we formed the state volunteer mutual insurance company, over half the premium dollars paid in by physicians into that company have gone to attorneys. not to the injured party. less than 40 cents on the dollar actually have gone to people who have been hurt and 10 cents to 12 cents on the dollar has gone to run the company and put on reserves. we need a system where we can help people who have been damaged and the cost of this, i can tell you right now, i have a friend of mine who in my local community, a great family practitioner, 25 years, got his first lawsuit on a 19-year-old woman who had a very rare situation that occurred and there was no malpractice involved, just a very rare condition. his first year after that, his referrals to doctors, to specialists, went up 500% and

his ordering tests went up 300%. and that happens all over the country. mr. shadegg: it is clear that tort reform should be a part of this legislation. but, of course, it is not. right? i tried to outline here, i told you that i had many, many kind of special deals, backroom deals, behind-the-scenes deals, change could you believe in if you will that i wanted to go through during this hour. we've been through five of them so far. you just mentioned blue cross/blue shield. it turns out that blue cross/blue shield does pretty well in this legislation because section 10905, 10905, of the senate bill, the bill we'll vote on here on the floor next week or the week after without changing a comma has a special deal in it that exempts blue cross/blue shield but only blue cross/blue shield of two states. it turns out it exempts blue

cross/blue shield of nebraska and blue cross/blue shield of michigan from having to pay a particular fee that will be imposed on all other insurance company. interestingly senator ben nelson represents nebraska, senator stab know represents michigan and again the source of this story, another news story, "the boston globe," december 22, 2009, the article, "concessions lawmakers won in health care bill." these senators won a lot of concessions. the blue cross/blue shield of nebraska and michigan are happy. but talk about the next one. it turns out that according to "the new york times," we've got lots of sources, "the wall street journal," "the boston globe," the "politico," "the new york times," december 20, 2009, deep in health bill is the title of the article, very specific beneficiaries. turns out that coal miners in libby, montana, in section

10323, get, i guess, several billion dollars worth of free coverage as a result of -- according to the article, senator max bachus of montana. but i thought, maybe that is a part of the change you believe in. only powerful senators get a deal. not powerful house members. the third one i thought i'd bring up in this segment goes back to florida. this is actually called the, i think it's been called the gator aide. this particular one appeared in an abc news blog february 22 of this year, 2010, white house cuts special health for nebraska but other deals remain in reform bill and it points out that the provision that senator bill nelson was able to negotiate, not cutting medicare advantage in florida, now, mind you, medicare advantage is very important to the elderly. in arizona, my state, a big retirement state, i have lots of constituents on medicare advantage.

if i could cut this deal, you know, maybe i wouldn't be complaining, but that's not the way the system works because i wasn't a senator and i didn't get to cut this deal but ben nelson did. it says that the medicare advantage cuts that will occur in tennessee or in arizona won't occur in florida courtesy of senator ben nelson. so i guess we have the most ethical and change we believe in except when we don't have the most ethical change we can believe in. mr. roe: i guess one of the things i have fought against for many, many years is the abuses of insurance companies. they don't get all free here. one of the last cases did i in practice before i came to congress was i spent as much time on the telephone getting the case approved as i is it doing the case, a major surgical case. so there needs to be some meaningful insurance reform. and how do you do that? well, what also isn't in this bill works extremely well

because i have used one myself and a majority, 80% of my 300 employees that get health care through our practice used this. it's quality a health savings account. and what it does is it puts me, the consumer, in charge of first dollar, not the insurance company, but i'm in charge of it. this particular plan that i had -- the argument is only the wealthy will do it, will use a health savings account. this is not true. this is how my health savings account worked and how it works for my employees. we put $3,000 away, business does, tax deductible, into a plan that's yours. you have a debit card. i have one here in my pocket so when i go purchase health care i am buying it on the first dollar. the people i'm buying it from don't have to wait two seconds to get paid so i want the lowest price. after two years, and the one i use has a $5,000 deductible. i had almost $8,000 left of my

money. the insurance company didn't keep it as profit. i kept it and i am incentivized to spend my health care dollars wisely. and that is a very good way to bend that cost curve down when you put me, the consumer, in charge of my own health decisions. mr. shadegg: you touched a hot button for me. i think the health insurance industry in america has cut a fat hog. i think quite frankly they have failed the american people. mr. roe: that sounds like a southern saying. mr. shadegg: they have failed to hold down cost. i think the health insurance industry is largely to blame for a system that wastes a ton of money. but it's the government that put them in that position because it's the government that says you and i can't buy first dollar coverage just for ourselves without paying for it with after-tax dollars. i think we ought to be making in this bill the american health insurance companies compete with each other.

and they don't right now. now, i can hear the howls and screams of the health insurance executives across the country saying, of course we compete with each other. what are you talking about? wrong, wrong, wrong. they compete to get your employer to buy their product. they don't compete to get you to buy your product. i got to tell you, in my life i've worked for a number of different employers. i never had an employer say to me, look, i'll buy your suits for you because i know what kind of suit you need more than you do. or i'll buy your car for you. or i'll buy your home for you because i know better what kind of home you should live in than you do. and i've never had any of them say, i'll buy your auto insurance for you because i know better than you do. in all those other products, we allow individuals to pick the product. i pick out my own suits, i pick out my own home, i pick out my own auto, and i pick out my own auto insurance, my own

homeowners insurance, my own life insurance. interestingly, in each of those businesses, costs aren't going up as fast as in health care. they're going up a slow rate. now, why is that? could it be because those companies, the people that sell me suits, are competing with other people? could it be the people that sell the house are competing with other builders? let's talk about just one clear comparison. you go home tonight, turn on the tv, doctor, i guarantee you will see advertisements for auto insurance by geico, by progressive, by allstate, by farmers. there will be a slew of tv commercials on your tv tonight and every single commercial will say the same thing. buy our auto insurance and we'll charge you less and give you more. they're pounding each other's heads in with competition.

as a matter of fact, when i was a kid growing up, there was a song called "breaking up is hard to do." you have probably seen it. allstate has an ad out right now. it uses the song" break -- it uses the song "breaking up is hard to do." if you fire your insurance company and buy ours you'll get a deal. if you don't want to fire your insurance company then allstate will do it for you. here are these auto insurance companies saying they can give you a better product for a lower price. home ads like that do you think you'll see tonight by united health care or blue cross blue shield or aetna saying, buy our health care product and we'll give you our health care plan and we'll give you lower health insurance costs and better health insurance coverage? i know the answer. i think you know the answer. you will not see a single ad from a health insurance company

saying, buy our health insurance plan and we'll charge you less and give you more. you know why? because they don't have to compete for our business. that's just dead wrong. if this bill did one thing it ought to make those guys compete for our business. and instead, look at what this bill does. this bill, the white house stunningly says the answer to solve health care problems in america is to force us to buy a health insurance plan from the guys that already are selling us lousy, expensive health insurance. it's got an individual mandate. it's got an employer mandate. they're saying we're going to fix health care in america. we're going to make you buy that crummy product that the current health insurance company are selling you. how is that going to work? but let's talk about who's cut a fat hog in this deal. the health insurance company into this and said, here's what we want out of health insurance reform.

we don't want no public plan, because that would be public competition and we don't want to compete with the public plan. maybe they got a point. and they said, we want an individual mandate. guess what they're going to get? the bill the senate passed, the bill we are going to vote on in this house says no public plan but we're going to compel almost at gun point every american to buy it from those insurance companies that are overcharging us now. and the white house say they're fighting the health insurance industry -- mr. roe: they're in bed with them. mr. shadegg: they're in bed with them. mr. roe: if you did two things, you can cover almost 2/3 what the senate bill does and not have one new program or actually one new bill would do it. number one is is to allow your adult-age children, if they are 18 and above, pick three -- i have had three.

they didn't have health insurance. just let them stay on their parent's plan. pick your number, 26, 27, 28 years old. you cover millions of people doing that. number two, adequately fund and simply sign up the people who are eligible for schip, the state children's health insurance program, and medicaid right now, and you cover 10 million to 12 million people. you covered almost 20 million people without this massive 2,700-page, incomprehensible bill with all the special deals in it. mr. shadegg: wait. without a 2,700-page bill you couldn't hide the cornhusker kickback, you couldn't hide the gatorade, you couldn't hide the louisiana purchase. and i haven't even gotten to all of them yet. mr. roe: you talked about one page. 18 million, 19 million, 20 million people. what could you do very briefly and very simply? number one, increase competition. you have to a-- to go across

state lines. mr. shadegg: i was the first one to allow across state line purchase. the university of minnesota, two professors, not exactly a conservative university, two professors at the university of minnesota said if you enacted just across state line purchase then that would enable 12 million additional americans to afford health insurance at not one penny cost to the american taxpayer. mr. roe: well, the three things we mentioned right now would cover this bill. anyway, you have state lines. association health plans or groups allow small, individuals, groups to have tax deduction. allow an individual to deduct it. four, tort reform. five, allow adult-aged children to stay on the parent's plan. things you can do without all the special groups, interests. and one other thing would be to

expand health savings account, you put people in charge of a health care decision. it should be made between the physician, the patient. not insurance companies and not the government. mr. shadegg: i just want to reiterate what you said. a health care decision ought to be made by the patient -- mr. roe: their family. mr. shadegg: their family and their physician? mr. roe: that's absolutely right. mr. shadegg: yet, that's not how the system works today. mr. roe: no. mr. shadegg: the system today is your employer picks the plan and the plan picks the doctor. and you don't get to pick the plan and you don't get to pick the doctor, and if the plan and the doctor abuse you can't fire them. mr. roe: you're stuck. mr. shadegg: but your idea is we should empower patients to be able to pick their plan and pick their doctors. which we could do by, number one, letting those americans who can afford it that don't get employer-provided care buy health care without paying a

tax penalty. letting those who get money from their employer either take their employer's plan or pick their own plan. mr. roe: pick their own plan. mr. shadegg: but instead of empowering patients -- i guess that's why we call it patient choice -- instead of empowering patients, the senate bill that has these 11 special back room deals in it, and i still haven't gotten to all of them, that bill says, no, we shouldn't make it a patient, his or her family and their doctor, and we shouldn't leave it as the employer overruling you, we should make it the government controlling the system. mr. roe: i understood. i had a very successful medical practice, and i understood who i worked for. not the insurance company, not the hospital. i worked for the patient. and we're losing that because we're putting insurance companies and we're putting the government in between those decisionmakers. mr. shadegg: it's a third party pay system that is in right now. it doesn't work. it will not work when the

government controls your health care plan. it makes all the sense in the world to let people control their own health care plans. i got a couple of myths and facts here i thought i'd conclude with. the white house says that your insurance premiums will decrease if this bill is enacted. interestingly, c.b.o. and the joint committee on taxes, say that the average premium per person covered for new nongroup policies would be about 10% to 13% higher in 2016 than the average premium for nongroup coverage in that same year under current law. so we're going to put the government in charge and premiums are going to go up. the president said that you could keep your coverage if you like it. interestingly in baltimore when he came and talked to us he admitted it was not the case but in fact here are the numbers. between eight million and nine million people who would be covered by an employer-based

plan under current law would not have that coverage if that bill passes. i think it's a critically important debate. i think we can reform health care in america. i think we can find ideals on that side of the aisle and this side of the aisle. i think we can get to reform, but i don't think the way to do that is a system that moves power away from you and me and gives it to the government. i thank the gentleman for his assistance and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? ms. slaughter: mr. speaker, i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 1168, resolution providing for consideration of the bill h.r. 3650, to establish a national harmful algal bloom and hypoxia program to develop and coordinate nate a comprehensive and degrated strategy to address harmful algal blooms and hypoxia and to provide for the development and

implementation of comprehensive regional action plans to reduce harmful algal blooms and hypoxia. the speaker pro tempore: referred to the house calendar and ordered printed. ms. slaughter: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, i move -- the speaker pro tempore: the house lays before the house the following leave of absence. the clerk: leave of absence requested for mr. young of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the request is granted. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from new york rise? ms. slaughter: i move that the house do now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question son the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed. to accordingly the house stands

>> last month marked one year since the economic stimulus was passed. $346 billion has been committed with $195 billion payout of four. to mourn -- to learn more about that, go to/stimulus.

-- go to c-span.org/stimulus. karl rove will take your e-mails and phone calls on his new memoir. they are interviewed by a congressman put it is all this weekend. live coverage of the tucson festival of books. find the entire weekend schedule at booktv. >> obama and his socialistic ideas and the deciding of salaries, this is a life lesson for conservatism. >> michelle easton, founder and president of the clear both policy institute on her work to promote conservative --

conservative women in leadership roles. >> our public affairs content is available on radio, television and on-line. you can connect with this on twitter, facebook and youtube. sign up for alert e-mails @ c- span.org. he has been negotiating with banking committee chairman chris dodd of connecticut over the last several weeks. senator dodd released a statement this morning saying he intends to bring the bill to the full committee on march 22 for consideration. this is 35 minutes. >> thank you for coming out. i appreciate it. yesterday was one of the more

bizarre days that i have experienced in the senate. i began the day feeling like we were on the 5 yard line as far as fishing something that we began on february 10 and never did i realize that health care would affect financial regulation. i knew that tensions would exist but i did not realize it would affect the calendar the way that it did. chairman dodd started the day, the biggest deal i ever did took one year and 10 months. a lot of ups and downs. the person you are dealing with is under stress and every now and then you need to call and and buck things up. i called him at home and told me we were on the 5 yard line and to keep our heads down and did

not let anybody interfere. he said you are right, and an antenna when up. we met privately and then staff came in but he made me aware that with reconciliation coming, he felt the need to go ahead regardless of where we were in the negotiations to put forth a bill on monday. that obviously is very disappointing. i understand the pressure that he is under. i have enjoyed immensely working with chairman dodd and his team. i think his staff has negotiated with us an absolute good faith

and i think chairman bob has done the same. there has not been an issue yet, not one, no impediment that we have not been able to overcome. the fact is, on the issue that all of this has focused on the consumer, we were there. what is going to be happening, and let me go on for their. i have enjoyed this immensely. i think what has happened over the last 30 days between the two of us and our statuaffs is why e came here. we have laughed, and debated, and we got to the 5 yard line. even though yesterday i was made aware that he was going ahead, i still plan to work with him.

our staff met with him today. 9%uo"'ñ+ko[y)w2j you realize that we do not have a committee staff to work on this. they have been incredible. i will say this, they know this bill better than any staff in the senate and look forward to continuing to play a role in trying to shape this in a bipartisan way. i am obviously disappointed. a lot had been at stake. i still think that we get in a financial regulation bill. the thing that is sad about this is that this really is a jobs bill. the fact is that our financial markets need predictability. they need to know the rules of

the road. it does not take but a few phone calls to leaders in the financial world for them to tell you that we would like to have a good bill. we would like to know where the country is going. we want to know the rules of the road so we can get on with business. many of them are hoarding cash. let me mention one other thing. in fairness, there is no question that white house politics and health care have kept us from getting to the goal line. the question. -- no question. i have truly enjoyed working with chairman dock. mark warner has been the best partner anybody could possibly imagine. he is disappointed. jack reed is one of the smartest senators working in the senate. they are not quite finished.

in all fairness, it might take them some time to finish it. a very complex issue. there was a hearing where there is debate over who should have jurisdiction over certain derivatives. it is my sense that what we should do is get things right. it is important for us before we pass legislation to get it right. through this weekend, except for derivatives, we could have gotten it right. we would be ready to introduce a true bipartisan bill. i always felt the committee would then amend these bills. and these are substantive. in fairness, one other thing. i think that much of the pub was -- public talk, and i felt

very free to talk about any policy you want to talk about, i am no longer constrained point i will answer any question you wish about where we were. in fairness, i think what was happening was members on the left or getting very nervous about what they were reading. i think that what chairman dodd is going to do is introduce a bill on monday that is a little to the left of where we were, to try to ensure that he can get as much as he can and the way of democratic support and the committee and then hopefully what people do is move to the right. for me, a better course of action would introduce something in the middle of the road and have people on both sides try to influence it in a better way. to put the positive on this, which i will do, the fact is that now, all of my colleagues,

and by the way, i want to say something, this began as a very awkward situation the first week or so. my republican colleagues have become very excited. i think they have seen the senate actually working the way it is supposed to work. i think they have seen breakthroughs and negotiations on a bill that were knocked split down -- that were not split down partisan lines. i met yesterday with all of the republican members at 4:00. there was a lot of engagement. we were actually talking evicted bill that is bipartisan. i hope that continues. the bill that will be introduced is not the bill that we would have completed but it will be much better bill than the bill that was introduced in december.

back in december, chairman dodd introduced a bill and i pleaded with him not to introduce or go forward with the partisan mockup. others did the same. that bill was not amendable. there was no way to amend that bill to get it right. one of the positives that will come out of this, this bill will be a more middle of the road. it will be more amenable. it will not be where it could have been. basically what happened yesterday, with a few days left on the week on some very important issues, it is kind of like if you are writing a column and you are three-fourths of the way through and the editor says turn it in that is the way it is going to be. i look forward, this probably doesn't play well to my republican base in tennessee, but i consider chris dodd to be

my friend. i consider his staff to be a stand-up people who were great to negotiate with. i know that our staff continues to work with them. i hope we get to a bipartisan bill. i want to say this. this will be the first disagreeable thing i have said to chairman dodd -- this is a very important bill. i cannot imagine a committee member, republican or democrat, passing a bill with this type of substance and that out of the committee and one week. i think that would be a travesty. i know this goes against what he wishes to happen and it is the

first time i have spoken against it. if senators can pass a bill of this substance out of the committee in one week, 1200 pages, full of substance that has a real effect on the financial industry, the state to elect them [inaudible] i hope that people on both side of the aisle look at this bill and get it right. i stand ready to talk to mark warner. we are both disappointed. even the language that we were working on, there is still at the to work to do, it will not quite be completed in the way that we hope. there are some issues we would like to work through. if there are other issues we would like to work through.

we made a lot of progress over capital issues. one thing we need to deal with as we went way down the road on consumer. i am surprised about where many of our republicans were for consumers. they came with over to the middle of the road to meet halfway. what i hope will happen is americans will no that they were taking advantage of. no question on mortgages. most people in america or less there were an awful lot of people who borrowed money who had no business borrowing money in the first place. i hope that what we look at is our underwriting standards that at the bottom of the pyramid that created this issue, there were loans made that should have never been made and people who borrowed money and who should not have, that we will deal with that also because that is very

important as it relates to the stability of the financial system. with that, i look forward to working with german dog -- chairman dodd and the other members, i will do this again. i will get a good night's sleep tonight, dust off, wake up and come back and i will continue to do with the people of tennessee elected me to do. that is to continue to work with people across the aisle to solve the problems of the nation. i thank you for letting me talk so long and being so patient. >> do you think it is possible that senator dodd is going to push through this bill on a partisan basis?

>> i think he is sincerely wanting a bipartisan bill. i think he feels under pressure to pass a bill before reconciliation hits the senate floor. >> from the white house? >> i will not speak about things i do not know. let me say this. the elephant in the room, that is reconciliation. trying to get a bill of committee prior to that time. the fact of the matter is i think he is a victim of health care policy. >> what was left in those last 5 yards? >> there were some issues relating to the risk retention.

i think the house passed the risk retention issues. many of you probably read a headline about the fact that credit is starting to percolate again. one of the things we have to be careful love as we look at risk retention is that we did not have the unintended consequence of shutting down the commercial market. we were trying to work through some issues there. if you are going to have to retain rest, maybe you do not retain risk if you are writing a mortgage on a 15% down payment home. maybe you create an incentive for people to actually write mortgages that are the kind that happen in canada were at their home ownership is equal to ours and they did not have the defaults that we have, so we are working to some of those issues.

there were a few traditional issues on resolutions. the big piece that was not ready was derivatives. very complex area. something we absolutely have to get right. the devil is in the details. there were some member issues that were coming up. whenever a vehicle is one that is moving, proxy access was going to be an issue. senator schumer whom i respect had actually agreed to look good governance issues he had put forth on proxy access and fairness. that concerns us greatly about activist groups getting

involved. let me say this, no roadblocks. there has not been a single issue yet that we have not been able to work through. i called timothy geithner this morning and thank him for the way that treasury has worked with us and give us technical assistance and talk this through some of these issues. i talk to him yesterday afternoon. i want to thank tem =hem. -- themn. . >> 18 months after a ig, what kind of messages that some to wall street? >> i think we are going to get there. this bill is full of substance. the senate counsel and having

the ability to gather data to turn the information and actually have some weather warnings, that is an important piece. secondly, the absolute knowing that you have an orderly liquidation of large companies, that is important to get back in the american psyche. that is something that americans aren't united behind. -- are united behind. if you choose to not go through bankruptcy, you are going to go through a very painful liquidation. derivatives is the third thing. think about what happened with derivatives. they had a regime that causes people to put lateral up against. do you think aig what happened if we had a purported derivatives? i think we are going to get there. i am disappointed today but i am equally energized with the

continued work with the staff to get a bill. i think we will get there but it will be far messier. i find that when you are willing to grind out every issue, the grind it out, our staff has been working almost 24/7, that is when you get good legislation. >> where are you on rating agencies? [inaudible] >> i did not say anything about clm. no.

no. what i am saying, and i could be more eloquent, if you look at what has happened and our financial crisis, you start out with the fact that we had mortgages that were bad. you had easy credit. low rates. whenever there are low rates, the value of real-estate spikes. it is an inverse relationship that occurs. you add the fact that we had a bunch of institutions that were over leveraged. 321 leverage. you have the ability to multiplied that with derivatives. it is the bottom of that pyramid, you had mortgages that were bad. i do not mean bottom of the pyramid as far as society or anything like that.

i am not sure we know enough to do the right thing about the ride is about the rating. we have a painful cause for rating agencies put of the house root them out of the code basically. i am not saying i am opposed to that. and the credit rating side, we had a pretty big liability that is going to be placed on credit rating agencies. it will cause them to pay a lot more attention to what they're doing >> on derivatives, are there any issues that are keeping [inaudible] >> let me be clear. on derivatives, jack reed and the judd gregg, chairman got assigned teams to work together

during the health-care debate. he assigned derivatives to those two men. the issue that has kept them from coming to closure, although they are close, has been how much exclusion exists. they have been back and forth. i have not seen their language nor has determined not seen the language because it is not quite ready yet. i give german dog some additional slack because i think he knows -- i give chairman dodd some additional slack because i think finohe knows that it has o move forward. a better way would have been to leave it out and add it when it comes up. >> [inaudible]

>> the top did not break off. where were we discussing things? i think the consumer title that is put forth will be very much shaped by our discussion. it will probably feel a bit to the left but hopefully not. appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. one thing about the said, -- about the fed, we are still almost there but we might not get their debt. -- get in there yet.

the president sent to want an independent source of funding. the fed gives whatever surplus is left but to the treasury chair. that was a way of solving that problem because in essence, the consumer protection agency would have an independent source of funding. i think people, there is a lot of negative attention, but it did not report to the chairman. half it is a lot different than people thought. republicans, conservative republicans, have agreed to broad scope rulemaking. that has never happened. we were talking about will making with a shattered industry has to live by the same rules that the regulators market and. if i may consumer, that is sort

of breaking ground. the republicans have drawn a line in the sand. we do not want consumer involved in enforcement. that is the arrangement we have come to. that is what has been agreed to. if the consumer issues exist, we want the fed to implement or the fcc to implement. we do not want rulemaking and enforcement combined. that is the relation. we made the first will offer in september. it was a first offer to get a deal done. there is a process through which rules would be made. it is consulted. it is -- there is a veto process.

we had offered that in the beginning. we were in discussions to make that in a way that really worked for all of us. we made the offer and it was accepted. we were down to the issues that i promise you not of you ever dreamed of in your life. we were working through if there is a conflict and a judgment is made, how does that work out? it got down to judicial issues. that is the fine-tuning we had gotten to for consumers. the major concepts absolutely agreed to. >> what about the ability of the consumer agencies to conduct compliance exams? >> yes. that had to go and joint

examinations, which is what we always said, conducted at the regulatory level. it was a huge win. what we are concerned about is that enforcement. that is an area where we were able to meet each other's accommodations. we accommodated on the democratic side to ensure that enforcement was not part of this entity's rahm. -- realm. the rearranging of the deck chairs is one of the silliest efforts i have seen. it reminds me of being in business years ago and you have a company that was in trouble. what to do?

they change their organizational chart. they still made lousy products but the had a meeting and this person moved up and that person moved over. nothing changed. that is what this whole reorganization is about. it is not worth the effort in my opinion. ots going into occ that makes sense. everything else is just moving deck chairs around to act like you have done something. what we need to do is make sure the regulatory agencies that are in place and do the things that are supposed to do. i think it has all been kind of silly. at the end of the day, personally, my prediction, nothing changes much. but let me say this, a lot will change as it relates to the standards these entities are held to.

the fed will have its wings clipped. there is no question. it will still be supervising, let me say this, they will still be supervising the large entities and middle-sized entities. the debate is over whether the fed will do the smaller institutions. there is all kind of lobbying going on five fed governors around the country. they like their marble buildings and stature and relevance. i am not trying to make fun of them. i do not see any reason to change that. it all seems kind of silly to me. it is like we're doing something but not doing anything. [inaudible] >> there are included. >> federal regulations?

>> yes. that is what is amazing to me. remember, the will making scope covers everybody involved in financial activity. everybody. [inaudible] >> they all have state charters just like banks do. the ftc has an arcane rule making ability that makes them ineffective. this change is that and creates rulemaking standards across all the financial activity. one of the things that i think many of you are missing is that credit unions, community banks, people like that across the country, they'd like to see a level playing field. i think that is the peace. everybody is focused on this consumer issue in such a backwards way that people have

to live by certain standards. they want to make sure that everybody has to live up to the standards they live up to. dodd dodd draft had no userid fees. and those were major step forward. republicans want to make sure that there is not consumer out of bounds and there is a veto clause that exists. i think it accommodates a very good balance. >> [inaudible] >> starting monday, there are two weeks left. >> why does that involve --

>> i think it is envisioned that should the house pass it, reconciliation would end up the last few days before recess. i think he feels pressure and i understand that to try to get something out of committee before that process occurs. >> he said the bill that senator dodd put out would be less than where you left off. >> we were still working through issues to get things into the middle of the road. we hit the pause button. even some things we had worked through, the language will not be crafted. it takes a long time to get this language could help. even things we worked through will not make it into legislative language as a result of it. we did not have one of those

all-night sessions. we will continue working together but the bill will be much like you coming to cover this press conference and you start writing your column and you get halfway through or two- thirds of the way through and stop and done that is the way the bill will be. on the plus side, it will be a much better product than what was offered in december. we will continue, this will not affect my attitude one way. we will wake up every day and tried to get good financial regulations out. >> it sounds like [inaudible] >> i was asked the consumer is not the cause of the breakdown. there has been no breakdown.

you are on the 5 yard line. there was no bird down. we will work three things. i am disappointed as you might imagine. especially after all of the things that occurred over the last month. i think republicans and democrats want to see a good financial reform bill. if we cannot do this in a bipartisan way, and i still have hope that we can, we cannot do anything any more in the u.s. senate. we hope to get this done. [inaudible] >> christopher dodd briefing to offer a plan for new financial

regulation. he said it will be presented on monday. this is almost 20 minutes. >> let me know when you are ready.

>> i may be irish genetically but i am tone deaf. no danny boy here, i tell you. let me th ank all of you. i put out a statement earlier this morning indicating that we on a positive and optimistic tractor coming to a conclusion of the financial reform package in the senate. i did not want to sound like a mutual admiration society but let me commend my colleagues for the work he and his staff had been doing. we are not there yet.

having learned at the side of ted kennedy, bills of this magnitude, nothing is done until everything is done. i have to continue working. we have made progress but we have to move along. i intend on monday to put out a proposal on the table. that is the next step. i have been promising that to many of you in this room that we have a proposal on the table. each week we let it slip of little bit because we thought we could get a little further along in developing this product. the proposal i will offer on monday does require a lot of the ideas that bob corker and others have brought to the table. and we clearly need to move along. i am facing the 101st senator which is the clock. that 101st senator becomes a brother demanding member. as time goes on, there is the

possibility of getting something done drinking. but particularly a bill of this complexity and magnitude. i want to try to get at least to the committee if we can before the easter break. we come back almost the middle of april at that point. we have a limited amount of time because of the break in may, july, august. the time is crucial to get this done. this is not a reflection of something breaking down. quite the opposite. the process is moving along quite well. i thought it was important to put a proposal on the table. i am grateful to bob corker. the major part of this bill we are working on, we intend to stop for a for the notion that some institutions is too big to fail. that is going to end.

we reached a broad consensus on that. that is a major achievement of this bill. average of the american taxpayer be exposed to the tune there were the past couple of years because institutions became too big to fail. we want to pick up address that put things at risk. it is not complete. we want to be in a situation where we are dealing with derivatives. we are not quite there yet but did -- but we are getting there. that was a major source of the factors that contributed to the economic difficulties. the issue of the consumer. how would better protect the consumer?

having a strong agency that will be able to engage in the type of protection consumers need. we are not there yet but we are getting there. all this will be further advanced by having a proposal on the table. a lot of conversations could go on. members and others who have a strong interest in this on monday will have a chance to look at a document and react to it. my goal is the week after that to begin a markup of the bill utilizing the week between the proposal to continue the conversation we have been having to bring ideas to the table. i just wanted to come over and express my sense of optimist -- optimism about this. there has not been any retreat. all members of the committee did a tremendous support over the last number of weeks on this issue.

and to particularly recognize bob corker because he has stepped up and i would like to try to work with him to get to a yes. that has been so valuable in this process. i will stop address any questions. >> hide huge -- how you plan to treat the consumer section of your bill? >> i cannot negotiate at this table. that is what we have members. that is a major issue we are working at. a lot of progress has been made. we are trying to find a proposal that would enjoy broad support. i do not expect universal support the broad support. >> creating a council that has veto power but will that be in the bill? what we will say. >> we will see.

it will be different from what i proposed in october or november. it will be changed from that proposal. i am not going to negotiate in your presence. >> it was said it be a travesty to have the bill that quickly and it requires more time. >> it may. you always want time schedules. i realized by doing so i create my own set of problems. this is all subject, i am more interested in getting this right them getting it on a certain date. i obviously need to drive the process. i have learned a lot marking up bills over the years. one thing is consistent, you

need to move things forward. you need to put product proposals on the table to get people to react to them and then set time to go forward. kidding this right is more important than getting it by date. i did not have a lot of time left in this congress. this can go by very quickly. look how long it takes even for a nomination just to go through the procedural motions to get to a vote. i am hoping to avoid a lot of that if we develop a consensus. >> reconciliation and health care was mentioned as putting pressure on you whether that -- >> that is an issue we are aware of. the administration cares deeply about this bill. we are constantly in touch with them. we talk almost every day.

the chief of staff calls about the status all the time. there are other matters around the table. i come back to you, the real problem i am facing is that clock. but 101st senator, that is something that has been here a number of years. you can appreciate what happens. the longer you get into the year, that 101st year can play havoc. >> been going to the marked up to try to get progress how concerned are you at holding on to the bipartisanship? >> i hope not. i have been trying to do that. i think the best products and every major bill i have been involved in involved having a

partner. that goes back to the day of family and medical leave. there was not an exception were removed anything without that relationship. i think that is true here, too. the major pieces require cooperation. you did not get as good a product without that. that is that substantive evaluation. i am determined to try to get that. if i do not, it will get a lot harder to get a bill done within the time constraints. my relationship with bob corker and other republicans and my own committee members, they are all critically important. i talk to them all the time. this bill will introduce and reflect a lot of what those

conversations have produced. >> [inaudible] >> we're not just killing with one issue. we're dealing with a set of issues. they have gone unattended for almost 80 years. that was the last time there was any major effort to reform the financial sector. we're not going to do with every issue but major issues. too big to fail. $700 billion of the american taxpayer had to write a check for. i am determined to close that door and close it forever. that might be the single most important thing we do in this bill. we can either regulate and provide transparency and culpability. we need to have the ability to look over and see what is going on in our economy. the idea that nobody saw it

coming, i do not buy that. having a council in place that allows us to make those determinations is critically important. how many times have we talked about that legislation that passed in 1994 and the federal reserve to not do anything when it came to regulations and a boarding catastrophe. it was a major reason is of the tumbling of the economy. this bill will address all of that. maybe not exactly but as much as we can. >> how much does that affect the process for you and losing by partisanship? that is one issue we are all aware of. that is not the only thing. we are at a point where you can talk about a bill. we have had 52 hearings on the bill alone. i put down a proposal in november.

i was trying to find somebody to get a compromise. there has been a lot of progress. the moment has arrived to put down a proposal. we have outside interests to be able to react to something. they did something on paper. they've like it or they did not like it. what does this mean, how does this work? but that only happens when you have a proposal on the table. that is why we need this. >> is there a possibility you might split the bill apart in an effort to get too big to fill past? >> you would have to postpone the elections if you do that. i think it would be impossible. >> a lot of things are unanswered.

there are 22 members on the committee. it is not just to a loss. we're in chilly with a lot of members with a lot of ideas and interests. as chairman of the committee, i have to pull that together in a way that produces a consensus. that means a consensus on all sides. i am trying to report were i think there is consensus. were there is not, that will reflect something different. that is not closed the option of getting to a consensus there seems to be a growing concern about the direction this is taking. how concerned are you about holding onto -- >> it is a complicated institution. you have to deal with all sorts of people. >>you have to put a proposal on the table. every day, i read a different story about what is in and what is out.

>> what is the price tag? >> a dollar amount? we cannot have a report yet. the price tag of doing nothing is far more exorbitant then what would be for what we are going to do. we handed $700 billion to firms that had an implicit guarantee from the federal guarantee that they could never fill. that is something i am determined to end. in the limited time i have left before a retired, i want that to end. an institution that reaches that status that the american taxpayer had to write a check, that is critically important.

>> sometime this spring. weeks ago, it was hard for him even with house rules to get this bill. we're talking to his staff to keep track of what we're doing. i just want to stay away from deadlines. >> do you support chairman frank's proposal? >> i wanted all night, all day, every camera you can find. [inaudible]

>> on the other side of the capital, nancy pelosi spoke to reporters after a health care meeting at the democratic caucus. the president's chief of health policy spoke to the caucus about the process for passing a bill which will include budget reconciliation, a parliamentary maneuver in the senate requiring a simple majority for passage. this is just over 10 minutes. >> i was waiting for other members of the leadership to come back. since you are waiting, why don't we begin? we had a very productive meeting with the white house and the presidential adviser on health care. she walked through the president's proposal. members had opportunities to ask questions about it and express their priorities, public option,

as you can imagine. another step taking us closer to voting on quality affordable health care for americans. in the context of our final word from the congressional budget office, we were briefed by the committee as to the action they need to take to put the reconciliation bill on the table and they cannot do that until we have the final from cbo. the rules committee emphasized the reconciliation bill would not be about health care reform or health insurance reform in its totality. it would be only about changes that would be made to the senate

bill. those reflect the president's proposal which honor many of the requests we have in the house. 75% of the house and senate bill are similar. the president says 90%. let's split the difference. the senate bill was passed the 60 votes and our bill was passed by to enter 20 votes. we will not be addressing just the changes. they will relate to affordability for the middle class. accountability of the insurance companies, closing the donut hole, and i am learning that some of the young people did not know what this means, for seniors, that makes purchasing

prescription drugs more affordable and equity for the state. correcting the agreement about having more equity for the stake and this is very important because we did not want to have unnecessary burdens on the state's and this legislation comes closer to what the house had in mind. on the pay for side, again and again we have talked about the cadillac plans and we discussed what the change would be and that is that 80% of us would be removed from the bill and that is a real victory for the house and discussed further help that is representing the bill.

it was very productive in terms of the hearing directly from the white house what the president's proposal was. it is a time when we have a better idea of what is going and your the administration see if there is any room within reconciliation. reconciliation is a very narrow discipline. that was emphasized to the members this morning. unless the provision that is essential to the budget, it cannot be considered. we abide by the parliamentarian. we will come back this afternoon to go over