i was talking to cardiologists is today and i were talking about the cuts in this program. we have positions in we know the story there, but what they did not realize is that the money you're taking out of medicare will be to create this new entitlement, meaning that that money that cannot go to making medicare solvent, and that means when the insolvency is right around the corner, seven years away, we will have to go deeper into medicare to make it solvent. that means to all those medicare providers, 20% are being told that they will go out of business, you aren't seen nothing yet. it is not going to restore any degree of solvency to this program. .

this is how great empires fall. this is the kind of wave of debt that is coming in this country. the greatest driver of this debt is this program, medicare. if you're going to raid half a million dollars out of medicare, put it in medicare. did not use it to create another government program. if you can go to no. 8. scheurer #8. this shows you how far we have to go. -- chart number eight.

if we keep kicking the can down the road, look what happened. the liability was $62.90 trillion. that means we need to set aside 62.9 trillion dollars today in treasury rates for the government to keep the promises it is making to people in america today. that was last year's number. it went up to $76 trillion this year. this year in 2010, the new unfunded liability, the promises we are making we cannot afford a 76.4 trillion dollars. looking ahead to 20/20, a $83 trillion. what you are doing is you are raiding this program not to make it more solvent or to address the and coming fiscal and debt crisis, you are taking money at this program to create a new

entitlement. it is a new open-ended entitlement that says to people making less than $100,000, if you are -- your health care exceed -- expenses exceed gross income, the taxpayers got you covered. the government will subsidize the rest. the president said he hopes most people go on the exchange. i do believe that is your intention. that means we're going to explode these numbers. that means not only are we walking off a cliff, we're diving. that is why you are going to take $0.50 trillion and they go toward its solvency. make it go toward making sure the next generation gets a debt free nation. the cbo told us one thing. by the time my three kids are my age, the tax rates on them are mind boggling. the current & income bracket

goes up to 25%. the middle income tax rates goes up to 63%. according to cbo, the tax tax rate -- top tax rate goes up to 88%. we know right now that statistically, we are giving the next generation a lower standard of living. we are severing the legacy of leaving the next generation better off. if you pass this motion, you can put a downpayment on that. it is making medicare a piggy bank to create a new federal government program. i would be happy to yield. >> thank you. this is very clear. you talk to americans out there, they will tell you that america -- medicare will not be around. the have half a trillion dollars out of medicare to create a

government entitlement program. this is simple. let's make sure that the money, if anybody is out of medicare, let's reinvest some medicare is reformed so we have it for future generations. let's protected and save medicare. that's not raid it le itt's not aid -- let's not eraid it. -- let's not raid. we urge the adoption of this proposal. i yield back. >> the chair recognizes ms. ander[unintelligible] >>i am compelled by the debt

statistics. 70% of the national debt was run up during the administrations of president reagan, the first and second president bush. my friend from wisconsin. but graf called the cost of waiting. what we have consistently from his colleagues as we should wait. that we should rip up the bill. there is a cost of waiting when you're not satisfied with the answer. i think we agree on one thing and have a very strong disagreement on another. the first thing on which we agree is there is waste and misspending on medicare. senator coburn made a statement that he thinks of to one-third

of the spending in health care is wasted. i think he would agree that is true of medicare. i think that is an overestimate but that was his number. the heritage foundation has estimated 10% of what is wasted. my friends must agree with the number, something like that. the verb the use now is -- they use now is raid. we are taking for murdered $67 billion in the waste that i think senator coburn things is there and the heritage foundation things is there. mr. ryan's road map was scored at $638 billion over the 10 year window. and the budget republicans put on the floor last spring was scored at $606 billion out of

medicare. i guess it is a raid if it is for 67 but it is reform of its 638. here is what we disagree on. i give mr. ryan credit on this. i think he is completely wrong the way he does this. his plan is to say people -- to people under 55, you know lugger get medicare. what you get is a voucher and you negotiate with a private health insurance company and see how you can do. i think we know how people will do. if we do nothing, if we take a course that i think our republican friends are advocating, people with diabetes or breast cancer and other pre-existing conditions will either not get coverage or have to pay more for it with

their medicare voucher. the unfortunate one who has a long period of chemotherapy or is a ventilation problem, they will run out of benefits. if they pay their premiums and they get sick in a way that the insurance company in fines to be too expensive, they can have their insurance canceled. if they live honesty like most americans where the top two insurance companies have 75% of market share and do not compete with each other on the basis of price which leads to an annual increase of 11.7% per year an average, they will have to figure out how to deal with that. if you think that the private insurance market with no rules of the road, no competitive divisions, no ban on

discrimination, if you like that, you would love mr. ryan's plan for men -- medicare. we think equipment suppliers that are charging medicare too much for their services should not be allowed to do that. we think if you defrauded medicare ones you should not able to do it again and you should be put into a database issue -- so you can add to another contract. insurance company should not be paid 114% of what medicare debts, that medicare provides. we do make major changes in the so-called medicare advantage proposal. i would say to my friends, we are going to stipulate that the verb raid is inaccurate or should be equally applied to the plans of both sides. what we ought to do is compare

the plans of both sides. we think that the privatization of medicare, that turning the new program over to the people who gave us an increase to the people of california is not such a good idea. we think that the same people who run medicare since 1965 on behalf of the seniors of this country should continue to do so. we do not think it should be the insurance oligarchs who are gouging the public and creating increases that are unsustainable. there is a difference. i will yield to my friend from koreshan. >> -- oregon. >> i do think it is important to look at the the picture. we are all committed at least rhetorically to trying to solve the problem. what has been done here is to

deal graphically and directly with what is cascading the american budget over the cliff. the runaway costs of an unreformed medicare program. it is eight times that deficit that we face with social security. what we have done, working with house incentives and a number of people around this table to try and put together a package that reforms medicare, which has made the difference for americans, if you look at american's overall. we rank behind all these countries that are so bad.

they live longer for less cost. when you look at the signal pairs that we give to our senior citizens, that improves dramatically. this is a balanced approach that takes reasonable, common-sense efforts to reform medicare, to not discriminate against low- cost high-value areas like some of us represent, but not do so in a way that pulls the rug out from underneath them. it is a balanced approach that gets us down this path of fiscal stability. if we do not, spending a couple more years along this line is going to increase the deficit and create more problems. as you point out, my good friend from wisconsin has a great proposal in terms of doing something but does so at the expense of gutting the

protections of medicare. >> i would say to my friend from wisconsin that and think the choice is the future of medicare. we should agree that the dollar's we're spending held del with the crisis this country faces. [unintelligible] it uses some of the proceeds to insure the uninsured. the reason it does is that medicare payers like all the pair's help bear the cost of uninsured people when they go to the hospital and have no insurance. it is part of the cost of medicare. the fundamental question is what medicare should look like in the future. we believe that the people making decisions about medicare should be doctors, patients, and those who shepherded the

medicare program since 1965. we do not think it should be anthem, blue cross, and blue shield. we do not think that the oligarchic market which has gouged consumers on a regular basis, and regulated by rules of the road to protect people, should take over medicare. the word takeover has been used a lot. i think this is a wall street takeover of medicare. we think that is a bad idea. we would urge people to oppose mr. ryan's position. i yield back. >> listening to these arguments, i am reminded of a visualization of a pyromaniac in the field of straw men. the difference between savings and the build be have offered is the bills go toward resolving the insolvency of medicare. the savings from medicare goes to spend on another program.

a really big difference. what have i propose? my individual bill. wpeople ought to have private coverage. it is -- we get a payment or a voucher. pick the ones that are right for us. that is what i am proposing for medicare. a million people already have five -- private insurance. we understand you do not like that. that is a debate we will have. what we're saying is are you -- if you get these savings in medicare, make a go to medicare solvent -- insolvency. >> all those in favor? the no's have it.

the clerk will call the roll. [roll-call vote] [roll-call vote]

[roll-call vote] >> any member who cares to changes but? -- change his vote?

>> the motion is not agreed to. are there additional motions on the democratic side? >> i offer a motion protecting americans from insurance caps. no one should be forced to lose their health insurance when they needed. when they're forced to lose their health insurance, they face bankruptcy. our colleague held up -- would you do that again for me? held up the federal plan. in those federal plans, there are no caps. unfortunately, we do have a system where insurance companies and many patients have caps.

insurance companies are making decisions on what those caps are. they have been using lifetime an annual limit since the 1970's. told dollars and benefits which with it -- they will pay off over the lifetime of a patient. this affects everyone who does not have a federal insurance plan. every child, every american, every person who does not have a plan like that. someone could find themselves left with no insurance. forced to find ways to pay the medical care costs out of pocket. these cost taxpayers money. as people are forced onto medicaid or keep -- seek uncompensated care. we find ourselves paying property taxes often to pay for that. some patients lead -- reached their limit and they find themselves forced to go without treatment. we hear a lot of -- on the other side about how the current

system should give people choices. here is our opportunity to give people choices. a choice not to have caps. i want to share with you a couple stories. about what facing a cap means. one is a colon cancer patient. she defied doctors expectations. she was 42. after being diagnosed with advanced colon cancer, she underwent surgery, for 25 rounds of chemotherapy and a second major operation. she is at home and feels good. she has no more medical coverage for her cancer. she exhausted her plan's $150,000 limit months ago. her husband appealed and wrote

failure to provide coverage will from -- result in death. "i have been attempting to assist a family with the sun with cerebral palsy. -- a sun with cerebral palsy. they are trying to get coverage for their kids with disability but he was denied because he was not disabled enough. we are appealing and we are hopeful. what i want to point out that this is unjust and it is wrong and it should not be taking place in america, two out of three personal bankruptcies are the result of death. on february 23, 2010, senator

olympia snowe stated [unintelligible] to go a bankrupt and shift their health-care costs to public programs such as medicaid. we know that maintaining the status quo will mean lost productivity and making families sector. i have some other colleagues who would like to share their stories with you. i yield to mr. bishop. >> i thank the congresswoman for yielding. let me associate myself with all of her remarks. let me make a couple quick points. reference was made to the fact that lifetime caps have been part of the industry. those caps were set in the 1970's at $1 million. for the most part, that limit

remains the same. despite decades of increasing costs in terms of health care coverage and health care services, the lifetime cap remains in place. the fact that so many of our bankruptcies are associated with catastrophic illness i think tells a very compelling story. it tells the story that the tragedy of illness is compounded by the tragedy in insolvency given our current system. something we have an obligation to address. let me say i have a constituent we're trying to help. he is suffering from osteoarthritis. he is rapidly approaching the $1 million lifetime cap. he is at $900,000 and has a long way from medicare -- is a long way from medicare eligibility. he is petrifies he will not be able to access the service he needs to stay in the workforce.

this is an important issue. one that all the should be able to support. i yield back. >> thank you. i would like to associate myself with the remarks of my colleagues. no person should be forced into bankruptcy because they come down with a catastrophic illness or disability but that is what happens every day. health insurance reform is about ensuring the american people have quality, affordable, stable coverage they can count on. millions are denied coverage because they are sick. even more unconscionable is that millions more already have coverage. they cannot access the care they need because they have reached the yearly lifetime insurance

limits. this overwhelmingly affects families dealing with chronic conditions and disabilities and can lead to bankruptcy. i would like to talk about a family in rhode island. barbara is a devoted mother of two remarkable boys. a three month supply of medication costs success in dollars. she came to my office to advocate for her son. despite her challenges, she knows that she is one of the lucky ones. she has insurance coverage for now. without health care reform, she will forever be held hostage by insurance companies' lifetime caps and barriers about pretenses -- pre-existing conditions. there are others like barbara who are struggling to afford the coverage they have.

currently, there are no safety nets in the private market for people who reach annual lifetime caps. the only options are to get rid of their assets or go on medicaid. it is time to fix this injustice. people did not deserve to go bankrupt because they're ill or disabled. this bill gets rid of lifetime caps so that people have a stable and affordable coverage that every member of congress sitting here today enjoys and the american people should have that same kind of access. >> when an insurance company pulls the plug, they are faced with a choice. paying out of pocket and forced into bankruptcy or poverty or forgo the treatment they need. jose montoya said "failure to provide continuous cancer treatment for my wife's condition will result in death." their appeal was denied. i yield back.

>> mr. ryan is recognized in opposition. >> we generally agree with those points. the point of insurance is to mitigate against future risk. it goes without saying that you ought to be able to get what you need without company [unintelligible] this is why the republican alternative had this provision in there where it eliminated lifetime caps. some of our members may vote for it and some may vote against. because of the context in which this is being done. there is a good argument here that the vast majority of people agree with the need to eliminate lifetime caps. what we have a problem with is the context that this is being done in. under this legislation, one person, the secretary of health

and human services defined and decides what insurance is. what you can buy. that is too much power to give to one person but more importantly, it will reduce choice and competition. while we would agree that there needs to be parameters and rules within which the marketplace can operate, we would disagree by saying this goes far too far. that is why in this context, we have a problem with these ideas. the idea that we should supersede states rights and if you have a state exchange which is federally mandated, that negates the purpose. these exchanges are little in difference between [unintelligible] to put the same rules in place. you are telling people what insurance is and what it is not. what you can buy and what you cannot. that is where we have a big problem. it or not only defining what

insurance is, you're making people buy it. you are mandating that everyone by this product. if you mandate people buy this product, you give them subsidies to help for this product which cbo estimates will be more expensive. you have to go to an exchange to get the subsidies. we are corralling people into this new entitlement. i do not know what -- anyone knows what it will cost. the full 10-year cost is three. -- [unintelligible] what we're saying to people making less than $100,000 is do not worry. taxpayers have got you covered. you consume more than 2% or 9% of your income, your fellow taxpayer will bail you out. we are defining what insurance is federally. we are mandating what it is. we're limiting the options of what you can buy. we are regulating it from

washington and we're making you buy it and we will subsidize it. creating a brand new open-ended entitlement at a time when we do not know how to pay for the entitlements we are -- already have. it is the context in which this is done. not the idea of removing lifetime caps. >> the gentlelady is recognized. >> we can get peace of mind for americans to have one chronic condition. we can tell those people that insurance companies will not be able to end their coverage when they are sick. we can save taxpayers' dollars by increasing the lifetime cap which is predicted to result in net savings for the federal and state governments as people maintain their health insurance. that savings is $7 billion over

seven years. due to increased enrollment in medicare. we can put patients first. no longer let insurance companies continue to profit as families are forced to go without a care or go bankrupt. the choice today is clear. we can give patients a real choice. i encourage people to join us today, join us in protecting individuals and families from being one accident, when illness away from losing their coverage. >> a vote occurs on the motion. all those in favor say aye. all opposed? the ayes have it. >> i would like a roll call. >> ms. schwartz. >> aye.

[roll-call vote]

[roll-call vote] >> yes. mr. mchenry changes vote to no.

anyone who wishes to change hjis his boat? >> de klerk will announce. >-- the clerk will announce. the motion is not tagreed to. >> we are at 25 ayes and 11 no's. the motion is not agreed to. >> thank you. i wouldl ike t like to move wit- to dispense with reading of

the amendment. it prevents the government from limiting the freedom of individuals and families to choose a health plan that best meets their needs. it would prohibit the federal government from controlling health plan choices or restricting competition among health plans. droplight town hall and i listened to some of you -- throughout the town halls, people in families and communities not only in wyoming but everywhere voiced frequent anxiety about his health reform effort because theiy are concerned that the federal government will interfere with choice of doctor or health plan. if you like your plan, you can keep it. frankly, this bill does not do that. neither the house bill nor the senate bill. i would think that the democrats

would support this to help justify and support the president's promise. the democrats' plan requires that everyone purchase health insurance but delegates to an abrupt received the power to change and create the requirements for bureaucrat approved health insurance. the secretary of health and human services together with the un elected health benefits. fisa committee will have the power to decide what health plans will allow individuals to escape the tax penalty for not purchasing bureaucrat approved insurance. the democrats' plan would eliminate the individual health insurance market. if you had a plan in the individual market now and your plan does not meet the secretary's new mandate, you lose your health plan. the cbo has said in their updated estimates that up to 10 million people will lose their health coverage under that

legislation. will the new bill that is coming out of the rules committee if we pass this and send this to rules provide something different? of course not. this is based on a wide, philosophical divide between the most liberal wing of american thought and the rest of us. we don't know what you're going to do. we know that nancy pelosi will let us read what you are going to do once the bill passes the house. this, after we know this bill affect every single person in america, one sixth of the american economy. there is no guarantee. -- no guarantee that if you like what you have, you can keep it. this motion is designed to remove this uncertainty and

preserve health care freedom and choice. let me give you an example of what is going on in wyoming. in my home state, the ink is barely dry on a bill signed by our democratic governor to cover low income populations. the new program uses a personal savings account model. with contributions to help the uninsured individuals pay for health care. some of the details need to be worked out. the legislation that created the program was done by people who feel they can design a coverage mechanism that is more affordable than medicaid and also more effective to medicaid in reaping cost savings associated with preventive care. in wyoming, we know that instead of 100% of the children in wyoming on medicaid, it would be

2.87 times cheaper to put every single child [unintelligible] than it is to keep them on medicaid. we serve 100% of those kids. that is the beauty of being from a small state. they are trying to give wyoming insurance control over their own health care dollars. incentives to seek care before they end up in the emergency room. as wyoming's government proceed, they should not have to worry about whether or not the coverage they create will help the participants in this pilot project avoid a federal tax penalty because of this federal program that dictates what will be acceptable insurance. they should not have to be concerned that they might disagree with the health benefits advisory committee on what acceptable coverage looks like.

they should have the freedom as a state to design a coverage mechanism that makes sense to the unique characteristics of the wyoming people and certainly, to their uninsured population. states should be the centers of health care innovation. we have seen it over and over with programs like welfare reform, which began at the state level. and not be dictated by bureaucracies in washington. employers to provide coverage should be able to export several ways to structure their health plan, including ways to incentivize wellness and adhere to prevent of care regimes. health care decisions should ultimately be made by individuals and families, not by the federal bureaucracy. i urge my colleagues to urge this freedom preserving motion. >> i think my colleague for yielding. the president said if you like

you have, you can keep it. direct quote. you have not read your own bill. this 2400 page bill that we have before us, we have four pages for one page here. look at scetion -- section 124. the secretary of health and human services which determines what is an acceptable coverage plan to be offered for all americans. under the cbo estimate, nearly 10 million americans will lose their coverage based on this provision alone. we're trying to make clear the american people will have choices, not a mandate from washington, not a mandate from this committee. not a mandate from the secretary

of health and human services, but freedom of choice to determine the health insurance they want for themselves and their families. that is what this amendment is about. it is simple. if you look at section 124, it runs counter to that of president repeated statements about if you like what you have, you can keep it. this provision alone prevents that. we're asking for a simple bipartisan vote to say if you like you have, you can keep it. that be in keeping with the president's pledge. i yield to my colleague from florida. >> i want to add, it is disingenuous to say that you can keep you have when in fact, it will be bureaucrats and politicians who are going to make the decision of what is

available so you get to keep what we tell you you can keep. this is not what the american people want. they do not one you to tell them what they can have for what choices they can have. they do not trust that bureaucrats and politicians will make the best decision. i would suggest that if that were the case, if that is what they wanted, you would not have seen the backlash you have seen. i do not know how you can support the idea that government, politicians, bureaucrats, are going to decide what choices you have. it is not american. we should not stand for it. i yield back. >> time has expired. >> the government health plan is good enough for the people who support this motion. i do not understand why they think it is not good enough for

the rest of america. this does not have anything to do with freedom of choice. it is about the standard republican approach which is to let the insurance monopolies be as free as they want to be. it is a motion that would deny consumer protection of the type that every one of the members sitting around this table and other members of congress have. i do not know many people who have read this bill outside of members of congress. i sure do not know met -- very many that said down and read the fine print in their insurance policy. until a company tells us they will be denied coverage. it is great to have an insurance ad that says complete cancer coverage accept it only applies on a leap year, if lightning strikes twice. when there are conditions like that and similar unreasonable limitations in policies, you're not getting insurance contract

but a gambling contract. to avoid situations like that on the insurance policies that apply to members of congress and every federal employee, we have to review minimum standards of the insurance company does not take away in the fine print what it promises. that is what this motion would eliminate for the rest of the people in america. the same thing that members of congress rely on. if you were general josh -- genuinely interested in promoting competition, you would be joining with us as we have asked you to do for the last year-and-a-half to support meaningful health insurance reform. the purpose of our reform is to give consumers more choices and to spur competition. the american medical association has reported that lack of competition in health insurance is driving up costs. 94% of all u.s. metropolitan

areas are controlled by one or two insurance companies. we want choice for people. we want competition so they do not have to depend solely on the local insurance monopoly. i saw this issue brought close to home in a surprising way recently. it was a happy day in our family when our daughter came in and told us this summer, she would have a baby. she is an educator. she has a good insurance policy through the state of texas education system. her husband decided to go out and form his own business. he applied for an individual health insurance policy in the province over the denial that he gets no insurance because he is an expectant father. that is one of the most extraordinary excuses i have heard from an insurance monopoly recently. if you have -- you have the choice of having a family or

insurance. another story occurred to a neighbor of mine over in austin. corey is an individual small business person. paying. $550 -- paying out $5050 a month. [unintelligible] her main hope is to make it to june without major medical expenses. she will be eligible for a true sponsored program called medicare. the same arguments you are making to obstruct this plan are the same arguments to have been making for a year and a half and the same that your predecessors made to obstruct lyndon johnson. we overcame that. we will overcome this.

under our plan, corey will be able to choose from a variety of insurance policies. she will know there are consumer protections there that she will not be ripped off by the insurance company as so many people are. it is the lack of coverage and the gaps in coverage that make health-insurance the problem is. that may get the number one source of consumer bankruptcy and credit card debt. in one small town after another, they are having a barbecue and a concert or a fish fry or an auction because someone had the misfortune of an accident or a serious health problem and their insurance company is nothing but swiss cheese coverage. that is what we want to change. i will yield to my colleague to discuss the same problem i am sure cut -- occurs in kentucky. >> sometimes i wish i were jon

stewart. i would get one of those crazy looks on my face and say the republicans want people to buy unacceptable coverage? i agree with my colleagues on one thing. when they say the president misspoke. what he should have said was, this bill does not force anybody to change what he or she likes. in fact, there are a lot of people every day who do not have control over whether they can keep their coverage or not to the tune of 14-and americans every day. 14,000 losing their coverage every day. the numbers on bankruptcy are stark. 700,000 bankruptcies the year due to health care costs. 1800 a day filing bankruptcy. 60% have insurance. they do not have acceptable coverage. they do not have acceptable insurance. when we say we're trying to

establish standards, we are saying the same reason we're trying to institute credit card standards, simple forms that people can understand instead of 38 page documents the cannot, we're trying to give the american people basic plans and a minimal global of standards that they will know they can rely on when they get sick or an injury. in my community, we are seeing the effects of that. one of our major hospitals eliminated 500 jobs. what was the reason? because more and more people are losing their health insurance and they are not able to get the care they need and go in to the hospital. 500 people out of work in my community because people did not have acceptable coverage. the american people deserve acceptable coverage and we intend to give it to them. i yield back. >> thank you.

the american people want choice and they want a guarantee. whenever they choose provides them quality care. if you pass this motion, you are denying millions choice. there are millions who do not have the ability like you to choose from dozens of different plans. what makes the american people mad as they think you hold yourself to a different standard. why is a good enough for you? why do you have multiple choice? why can you have consumer protection but they cannot? they want to have the same coverage, the same kind of choices and the same kind of consumer protection that your member of congress does. this has been one of the obstacles. if you want more portability, you have to have more choices.

i talked to a fellow who owns a sign making store and he was about to hire two employees. his health insurance bill went up 20%. he will not hire anyone. we can do so much better. give the american people the same choices. i yelled back. >> this benefits advisory council is not some bureaucrat. it is a panel of doctors, consumers, employers and others. they will help set some minimal consumer protection standards which i believe every american deserves. them maybe people across america who have policies that if they needed it, would find out it is not worth the paper it is printed on. this is designed to provide a minimal level of protection. this health insurance reform

leads to the exclusive responsibility of care for the patient and their physicians and that is the way it ought to be and that is the way it will be with the minimum consumer protections we set forward in this bill. >> i yield. >> we had the opportunity to say congress is under this health care plan under these exchanges and it was your party that rejected it. secondly, the american people understand that it would not take 2400 pages to let them purchase the same health care that we as members of congress and federal employees do. they understand that. it would not take 2400 pages. it would not take this wrangling and maneuvers. the fact is, we should let the

american people buy in to the same health insurance that we get as members. i support that. i have said that. to say that this catastrophe is that is highly incorrect. with that i yield the balance. >> the gentlelady's time has expired. the vote carried 25-11. the motion was agreed to. i ask for consent of the record be amended. motion was agreed to. without objecttion, it is so

ordered. all in favor say aye. the no's have it. the clerk will call the roll. [roll-call vote]

[roll-call vote] [roll-call vote]

>> are there additional members who wish to be recorded? the clerk will tally and announce. >> the aye's are 15, no's 20. >> the motion is not agreed to. is there an additional motion on the democratic side? >> i offer a motion to include a health insurance authority in our package that will work to hold insurers accountable. >> let me recognize you. >> thank you. >> the gentle lady is recognized. >> the motion includes a great

authority in the health reform package which will hold insurers accountable to the american people at long last. my state of connecticut this past summer, and then tried to raise insurance by 32%. -- anthem tried to raise insurance by 32% in california, the same company is trying to pull the same trip. state after state, same story. we do not have effective rate review. half the states do not have the power to modify unreasonable rate increases. current law does not put the brakes on insurance. insurers want to change -- charge of outrageously high premiums to people with chronic conditions or because they're older. we have families tired of double digit increases. we know that health insurance is

seeing record-breaking profits. last year, we saw increases in profits of 91%. at cigna, the top five insurers was -- 2009 was their best year. how did they accomplish this? how did they do it while losing 2.7 million paying customers? they delayed payments and raised deductibles and left families to sift through the stacks of higher bills and rate climbed higher for american families. . .

>> our reform will insure that premiums are lower and rebates are provided in other action is taken so that families are not priced out. indiana has negotiated lower premiums. i was negotiated a 50% production. new hampshire proposed 100% increase which was negotiated down to 12.5%.

this is one of many ways in our package works to wrest power away from the insurance companies and give it back to the american people and the doctors and preserve the doctor- patient relationship. the health insurance authority will make this happen. i urge the committee to adopt this bond it is my pleasure to yield time to the gentle lady from massachusetts. >> i want to thank the congressman from connecticut. current law does not insurance companies from charging outrageously high premiums to people with chronic medical conditions because they are older or for a host of other features -- other reasons. that is why we need the mechanisms that this bill provides, exchanges and a review committee to promote competition

and keep insurers honest. i want to give you an example of somebody who benefits from this type of common sense insurance regulation and competition in my state, massachusetts. the owner and operator of a bed and breakfast often found getting insurance to be daunting. for so many of us proprietors, she said, escalating premiums reaching renting figures, not to mention out of pocket expenses. that all changed in the summer of 2007 when she heard about commonwealth choice and looked into the exchange of what we call the commonwealth connector. after she completed her research, reviewed the a rate of companies competing for her business, it took her five minutes to enroll in a plan her doctor accepted. it was $300 per month less than what she would have paid with our old plan. this shows that regulation and competition is essential to

keeping insurers honest. without any accountability and not enough competition, companies have been taking advantage of consumers but excessively raising rates, denying coverage and rescinding coverage to name a few examples. democratic health reform in shares that unjustified -- in shares that unjustified premium hikes are not allowed. when one company increased 39% last month, it became even more clear that this is a problem we must address. this happened at a time when insurers are making record profits. the company's strong financial position makes these rate increases even more hard to understand put your parent company has seen its profits soared earning $2.70 billion in

the last quarter of 2009 alone. this motion will ensure that insurers are held accountable in the marketplace and keep them honest, provide competition and ultimately protect the american consumer. i yield back. >> here is the choice we have to make. this -- as an insurance company says they want to raise premiums by 40%, the first question we might ask is is this the result of a fair and competitive market? that is what the market will bear. in 96% of the marketplace is in this country, that would not be the answer. the market concentration of the top two or three companies exceeds -- exceeds with the antitrust laws would permit. in most states, the average market share of the top two insurers are 76% of the marketplace. they are exempt from the

antitrust laws. most of you agree this should not be. they are exempt from it now. market competition is not going to fix this problem. the second reason might be that they have to pay a lot more to doctors and hospitals because they are being charged more. that is quite reasonable. but that is the reason, so be it. right now, nobody asks that question in most places in the country. as my friend said, they raise the premium by 40% because they can. the question before the committee is should they be able to do that? in a situation where you have a monopoly power, where there is not effective free-market competition, should or should not there be a mechanism to control that? it really is a question of whose side you are on. we think that american consumers are being abused by the system.

you can stand with consumers or with the people charging these rates. yield back. -- i yield back. >> these companies can get away with what they want to get away with. we have an obligation to align ourselves with the families of this country, the small businesses of this country, foreseeing double digit increases every year. they are going out of business. they cannot provide health care. we have an opportunity to take this power back from the insurance companies and put it into the hands of american families, american businesses and american doctors. >> time has expired. is there a position on the republican side?

>> if where it -- if it were only as simple as that. some things are simple and that is the fact that they look at washington and realize that the system washington has created and managed for several decades is not being managed properly. the american public realizes that with the systems we have here that washington cannot even figure out how to pay for those systems. yet here we are about to enact a larger program that we have no way to pay. we are now going to be meddling and peddling ourselves into an area of the private sector and we cannot figure out how to run our own system. you could talk about what the states can do. each of the 50 states has the authority to go in and set up parameters as far as regulating should they so choose. with california, they have that authority.

what is it that you are actually trying to do here? you are trying to say that we have the federal government system where we have people on medicare finding it difficult to get doctors. we know that people in medicaid are finding it difficult to get pediatricians because of rates. we are now going to put the similar system with private sector. this imposes insurance price controls. this really shows the fundamental difference between the democratic approach and the republican approach to health care reform. several majors -- measures call for restriction of competition. somebody said they want a fact check. here are some facts. in addition to the health insurance reported, the democrats propose expanding the powers of the u.s. preventive

service tax force -- task force. that was in the bill. you want to create a new federal coordinating council for comparative research that is in section 14 01. this the sets which treatments are worth paying for and which ones the government is not going to pay for. what else do you want to do? establish an independent pimm advisor report. that is in section 34 03. u.n. to fast-track cuts to the medicare program. the very same seniors having a difficult time services, you want to provide cuts. you are giving the secretary of health and human services

unprecedented powers to make payment decisions. what is the result of all of these things? these will take away the ability of doctors and patients decide together what is best. this is an infringement upon the most personal decisions in american makes. what you want to do, it seems, is but the government in charge of health care and by doing so, that will lead to rationing. individuals of families no longer will have the ability to choose any health plan. the gentleman from california made that point is very well before. if these plants are not out there, we no longer have the choice to choose the plan we currently have. regardless of patient needs, the government decides what is best. these policy limitations will

also affect competition. your side of the aisle would likely come up with the same talking points but we have not seen that. as competition a good thing or not? you heard that it would be helpful. what i heard is that competition is not going to solve the problem. which argument is correct? i would like to hear what the answer is? >> with the gentleman yield? >> when i am done. >> ok. >> at the end of the day, the language you have will do away with competition. we need to reform healthcare while ensuring that families have the widest range of availability. >> i am glad the gentle lady from connecticut brought up this motion. i think it is very useful and it highlights the debate. my read of the procedure is that

this position -- provision will not survive. something the president is proposing in addition to the senate bill. i want people watching this debate and my colleagues to pay close attention to this. we will see this idea again. if you listen to the debate, if you listen to the rhetoric, senator rockefeller and the speaker at the blair house summit, to the rhetoric from the white house, one gets the impression that the idea is not to make companies work better, it is to make them go away. this idea is the public option in sheep's clothing. why is that? this is price control. if there is one thing we have learned about price control is it produces scarcity. it reduces supply.

what will happen here is this -- we will see a spike in insurance rates if this becomes law. the ratios alone in the individual market will crank up health insurance rates companies will drop coverage or go out of business. you will see rate shock if this goes into law. i really believe you will see that. there will be calls for a new health insurance rate of 40 to put in because it was knocked out during a reconciliation. that is where this ends. if you are mandating all of this coverage and making people buy all of this stuff but then price controlling it, there is no way a private insurer will stay in business to provide that benefit. they will go away. the only option left is to have the government finish the job. i find it more than mere coincidence that the people who wrote this legislation in the house are on the single payer

bill. our colleagues giving us these arguments are the ones who tell us that they think the government should run health care. they believe this is a right that should be provided to the american people by the government. if it is that, government can ration it cannot register but it cannot control what comes out to determine how, where, and when we get it. there is a clear difference between our philosophies. at the end of the day, do you want a system where we make all of these decisions in washington? we appoint all of these boards to ration decisions and make these decisions and control this 70% of our economy. -- 17% of our economy.

we believe there are problems and the insurance company. -- insurance markets. we want to give the power to the consumer, not the government. the plan you are putting into place will make it inevitable that government bureaucrats must run health care. the only way to get the cost explosion this will produce under control is for the government to systematically ration health care. the point i am making is we have seen this movie before. these are not new ideas. they are on display all over the world. look at western europe. price controls and rationing. waiting in lines. inferior outcomes but lower satisfaction. it does not work. we want to change the current system, and get rid of the status quo.

the patient and doctor are the nucleus of the health-care industry, not the government. this will come back. because of the rate increases and because of the notion that private insurance should not be involved in this, so that is what you will have to control prices and that is why i appreciate this amendment showing us where they want to go and how this creates the public option. >> thank the chair. it does point out some very basic differences. you would like to keep the decisions in the hand of the insurance company and we would like to make sure that the decisions are in the hands of the american families and of small businesses.

to date, the reason consumers are at their wits' end is because they have been powerless in the face of the insurance companies. insurance companies are rationing today. ask anybody in your district whether or not they have been told no by an insurance company without any reason. maybe members of congress do not get rationed health care but every single day, american families and children are getting rationing. this is about a rate of 40. for the first time, it would hold the insurance companies accountable. i stand proudly from a state that has the biggest insurance market and the world to say that they should be held accountable in the same way that we are every day. >> time has expired. the vote now occurs on the

motion. all those in favor, say aye. all those in favor say no in the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it. >> miss swartz, aye. mr. dogget, aye. mr. barry, aye. mr. mcgovern, aye. ms. saunders, i. mr. anders, aye. mr. edwards, aye. mr. scott, aye.

mr. bishop, aye. mr. connolly, aye. mr. more, aye. mr. edwards, aye. mr. ryan, no. mr. garrett, no. mr. simpson, no. mr. mechanic, no. mr. mack, no. mr. jordan, no. mr. austria, no.

mr. harper, no. mr. spratt, aye. >> are there additional members who wish to be recorded? anybody wishes to change the vote? if not, the clerk will announce the vote. >> on that boat, the ayes 24, the no's 15. >> 21 aye and 15 no. the motion is agreed to.

is there an additional motion on the republican side? you're recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. who would have thought in this great country we would have seen the things we have over this past year? who would that we could see the president of the united states fire the ceo of general motors? who would have thought that we could see this congress passed a $700 billion stimulus program that has not done anything? who would have thought that and the united states of america, we would have a pay czar telling private citizens how much money they can make? who would have thought that we have a 1.4 trillion dollar debt? who would've thought that this administration would attempt to ram through this health-care bill using reconciliation? simply put, the american people

have had enough. they told democrats no in august, september, the thanksgiving, christmas, by the state of the union, and they will say no more when thousands of americans come to say enough is enough. during the past year, i have travelled round our districts throughout ohio and have seen firsthand the emergence of a grass-roots movement fueled in large part by the arrogant and out of control the federal government. millions of americans from every walk of life have stood up, in many cases for the first time, to make their voices heard. they organize, pray, and march on washington. far from the dangerous extremists the elite media may characterize them as, these are ordinary people. mothers and fathers, grandmothers and grandfathers, who believe america is an exceptional mission. they feel the government is ignoring them. they work hard every day so their kids and grandkids can have liked better than they did.

they believe we did -- they see those principles being insulted and washington. i had been to town halls where documents had been distributed and read aloud. no matter how many times i hear, i am always moved by the principles they promote. i would argue the declaration of independence next to structure, the words that start that document, we hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, i think it is interesting to note the order. the order they placed the rights to mention, can you pursue happiness and go after goals and dreams if you do not have liberty? do you ever experienced true liberty if government does not protect your most fundamental right, your right to life? in my time in politics, i have

been strengthened by the majority of americans who believe, like i do, that life is precious and a secret gift from god. over that time, whatever disagreements there are, there was a shared understanding federal dollars should not be used to take innocent human life. since 1976, this amendment has done that. no federal dollars are used to pay for abortion or abortion to the says. the senate-past health-care bill would change that. it represents the largest threat to innocent human life since the roe v wade decision. there is another way. when the house passed its own health-care bill, we included the stupak amendment saying that no dollars to go to abortion. this continues -- this

overwhelmingly passed the house. the motion i am offering today is the same amendment. it amends the senate bill, this is important, the will of this house has been clear. it would be irresponsible for this committee to pass reconciliation without this important amendment being included. not only is it the will of this body but of the american people. 70% of america are opposed to their federal dollars taking the life of an innocent child. the senate bill appropriates $7 billion for community health centers, many of which are represented in districts i represent. this is not subject to the protection because the funding is not in the appropriations bill. it also authorizes tax subsidies

for plans that cover abortion. this is a slap in the face to americans who will be forced to pay for this procedure. by adopting this message, the house will send a strong message that real health care reform respects and attacks him like. we sent that signal in november when the house passed the amendment. those principles must be included in any fix worked out in the future. this debate must adopt this motion that injures any bill that becomes law has protection for human life. i incurred leaders to work toward that goal. just 10 days ago, a former nfl star stood before a packed house in ohio. one of the toughest guys to ever play football recalling a touching story about a challenge he and his wife faced a few years ago. there were and the midst of her public bout with cancer. she was 2-years cancer free when

she had terrible news. she needed to see a doctor. they've learned that she was pregnant and that would normally be joyous news. there were faced with a unique challenge that tested their faith and sent a message to is a bust. she was on a drug for cancer. she could stay on the drug and lose the baby, abort the baby, or lose both. they chose life. he has a beautiful little girl he is crazy about. we have a greater choice to make. we are making decisions for millions of american families. we will not allow our values to be hijacked by this debate. rarely is a choice so clear in public service and the stakes so high. i urge my colleagues to choose

life and support this motion. with that, i yield. >> thank you. too many times, we have seen legislation passed along party lines. americans view this as one of the most polarized congresses they have seen. we have seen some moments of bipartisanship. last fall, while debating the democratic health care bill, there were 64 democrats that joined with the republicans to favor the stupak men in. this prohibits the federal funding of abortion in the new health-care bill. this has been the case with another amendment with medicare and medicaid. unfortunately, there are some that would disregard the bipartisan vote in november and the longstanding established precedent in the will of the american people by removing this amendment from the legislation

that we are considering today. the issue is not the legal status of the unborn child. that is simply on the question of asking taxpayers to underwrite abortions. it has been a longstanding federal policy not to fund plans that cover abortion. the senate health bill that we plan to take up actually uses an accounting gimmick to separate public and private funds for health care plans that provide abortions. government funds will simply help these plans and reduce premiums essentially subsidizing abortion. this is a clear departure from the president and contradicts the will of the american people. there was a poll that found the president's decision to support groups that support abortion

have the lowest support ever. -- had the lowest support ever. six out of 10 americans opposed financing of abortion by the federal government. some would claim the funds will not be used for abortion, it is merely an accounting scheme that separate private and public dollars. " the gentleman's time has expired. >> our live coverage of the house budget committee reconciliation reconsideration of the reconciliation bill continues on c-span3. we take you the yeas and nays. proceedings on house resolution 4628 will resume later in the week. the first electronic vote will

the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. davis of illinois for today, mr. baca for friday, march 12, and mr. young of florida for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. will all members please remove your conversations from the house floor.

the speaker pro tempore: will all members please clear the well. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to remove mr. simpson as a co-sponsor of house resolution 1177. he was added in error. the speaker pro tempore: without the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. green: i'm not from arizona, but from texas. i honor my alma matter and university of houston and men's basketball team for being selected for the ncaa tournament for the first time in 18 years. they secured a bid by winning the conference championship. and solid team surrounding the university of maryland in the opening rouvend. while it has been some time since houston has made a an appearance we have success. it was during this time from 1982 to 19 4, it became the university of houston cougars. it was nick nasmede by the the players and appeared on team warmups.

it featured turd drexler. while the 2009 and 2010 has a different style of play, we are rooting for an upset on the number four seed on friday. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: to atressdz the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: a pastor at sage view baptist gave some sage advice, he said you cannot multiply wealth by dividing it. you cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. what one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. the government cannot give to anybody anything the government does not first take from

somebody else. when half the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, the other half gettings the idea it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for. we are in a time when the government does too much for us, too much to us in the narme of taking care of all of us. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. mr. moran: in an effort to pass health care reform, the senate is trying to cut medicare by $500 billion and increase taxes by $500 billion, it's outrageous i'm not surprise

thared "the democrat"s don't want their name on this bill, which was settled in backroom deals like the cornhusker deal and the louisiana purchase. i'm not surprised they don't want to vote on something that led to a stunning electoral upset in massachusetts. and i'm not surprised they don't want their names linked to a plan like this they are distancing themselves to a-- and taking every opportunity to distance themselveses from the passage of this package. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from pennsylvania rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: it was late 1959 when two teams met on a football field in pennsylvania. they were there to decide who

would waub the aaaa championships. it was state college high school and la salle high school. la salle won 24-7. touchdowns with were made by jamar abdan and tim wade. a 55-yard run pushed the explorers ahead with 4:00 left in the fourth quarter, sealing the victory for the catholic school. they became the first philadelphia team to win a title and went on to have six of their players selected for the all--state football team. runner up state college had three players chosen for allstate. i want to extend my congratulations to them and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one

minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: one of our best friend as a country is israel. israel -- they have accepted the premise they shouldn't be building housing outside jerusalem, they have a moratorium on that that was worked out with our government, but as far as building in jerusalem is concerned, they have always built in jerusalem and they have allowed christians, muslims and other groups to build in jerusalem. ians why the secretary of state criticized israel and the prime minister for allowing the construction of new housing in jerusalem. it's always been done and there's been no prohibition against it. at a time when we should be worrying about what's going on in iran a nuclear development

program that threatens the entire middle east we certainly should not be criticizing our best friend, israel. israel is a best friend. they stuck with us through thick and then and -- thin and we should support them in every way possible. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, today i had the opportunity to meet with a group of residents from an area of palm beach county called the acreage. recently, a pediatric cancer cluster was confirmed in the acreage. i spoke with mothers who have had children with brain tumors, as well as others in the affected area. i was affected bier their -- by their optimism and dedication to the cause. they are not seeking to play the blame game but are looking for answers. at the same time, i heard their overall unhappyness with the

federal government. there are limits to what they can do and experiences they can draw on. i call on the federal government to -- federal involvement to improve. they need to lend their knowledge to assist as we move forward. this is not a political or partisan issue, it is about finding answers for what caused the cancer cluster so my constituents can move on with their lives. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute, revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: thank you. this is the week that we'll have an opportunity to provide expanded coverage for americans and i hope this will be the week of truth. not the misrepresentations that have been carried forward, i

hope that those who are uninsured will understand now 31 million will have insurance. that medicare will be protected and in actuality expanded by the basic benefits plan. that medicaid will be reimbursed in all 50 states. there'll be no fixes for 100% and then going forward 95% and then 90% to protect those who are impoverished. that we will have a system of a pool of insurance companies to thwart the one insurance company per state, you'll be able to shop for the best plan. if you have your insurance, you'll be able to keep it. if you're a small business, you'll have subsidies. and as well, yes, we require companies to carry insurance. i believe this is the week, it is a good week for america to vote for health care reform. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> i ask permission to address

the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: i attended community events this weekend and the message was clear, scrap this government takeover of health care and start working across the aisle to create jobs. how many times will the american people have to reject this health care monstrosity before the message is taken to heart. americans are tired of congress' misplaced priorities. it continues to cripple many communities and liberals are obsessed with passing a job-killing takeover. nfib documents 1.6 million jobs will be killed by the takeover. they want congress to tackle the unemployment rate first through job creation incentives, then work together for bipartisan health care reform that increases access and lowers costs. in conclusion, god bless our

troops and we'll never forget the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise tonight to join a celebration going on in south carolina. the word college terriers have won the southern conference championship this week and have got an ticket to the ncaa tournament. led by southern conference player of the year noah dorman, they won their first ever soconn title. they will be making their first ever appearance in the tournament as the smallest school in the tournament. while they may be small in size, they played big in upset wins against georgia and south carolina. my congratulations to word head coach mike young and all the terrier players. i'm with them all the way to the finals, if they're against

duke at that point, sorry, all bets are off. but until then, i'm for the terriers. thank you, madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> madam speaker, ski unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address this house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials. myself, mr. poe, march 22, mr. jones for march 22, mr. lincoln diaz-balart for today, march 16, 17, and 18, and mrs. capito for march 16. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. woolsey: 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 of california, mr. engel of new york, ms. jackson lee of texas. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previoused orer of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: i request permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: the new health care bill is an invasion of people's privacy. it's another reason why we should vote it down. the government shouldn't be sticking its nose into people's medical records, it's none of the government's business. there's a health care integrity data bank in the bill that gives the feds access to everyone's medical records. what's the government -- once the government has everybody's medical records, none of that information is secure. health care information should be between the patient and the doctor and that's all.

not the patient and some yet unnamed anonymous, unaccountable, federal bureaucrat. ask joe the plumber about the federal government keeping things private. he was standing in his yard when the presidential candidate talked to him. he asked the presidential candidate a question, a government employee didn't like that question, and she took it on herself to dig up his private information. giving government employees access to information allows them to use that information. the right of privacy is almost sacred in our system and this federal government grab of health care will eliminate medical privacy. why do you think there are

1,100 new agencies in this bill? to administer and snoop around in the medical records of americans. if the government health care bill passes, privacy is history. talk to your doctor the government will know about it. you have some type of illness or disease, the government will know. feeling a bit depressed after a family death and need medication for that depression, the government will even know about your mental health issues. is this the kind of information that should be in the hands of federal bureaucrats? you know when you fill out that background information for your private doctor and they ask you all about the diseases and illnesses and medical problems you've ever had, now that formerly confidential information will be in the hands of federal bureaucrats to use however they want to. that should make us all sleep very well tonight. once medical records are available to the feds, every government agency will be fighting for the right to get their hands on that information. that's the way bureaucrats work, especially when every

individual's health in america becomes a federal budget item. every american will be required to be part of the big brother health care database because everybody will be required to have government approved health insurance plans. it's not just the medical records that are no longer private. under the government takeover of health care, they wail have -- they will have a plan for the government to have access to your banking records as well. the law now is the government has no access to your finances without a court order. but under the new plan, the goth will have access to your bank accounts to make sure you're paying for the mandated health care or paying the fine on failure to have insurance. this 2,709 page bill gives the federal authority the authority to debit yourback account. private medical records and bank records are none of the government's business. people won't talk to their doctor about problems anymore, they'll know that somewhere in the deep, dark, dank dungeons

of washington, d.c., a federal bureaucrat will be reading their medical records and bank statement. this is a violation of our constitution. those who say we can trust the government to keep this confidential live in an alice in wonderland existence. this whole scheme is the denial of individual liberty and the attempt to make america another european style nanny state where the people are subjects to an inefficient federal bureaucracy this health care takeover by the feds is a violation of the right of privacy for all americans. that's just the way it is. . the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? ms. woolsey: madam speaker, for eight-plus years, we have been told that the military campaign in afghanistan is about promoting freedom and democratic values, which is why the latest

news out of afghanistan is so zopetting and i ironic. the karzai government which is corrupt in so many ways is imposing restrictions on media's freedom to cover suicide attacks. of course the government insists that the policy is simply about keeping journalists safe. it reminds me of when they said they were enforcing some new rule or discipline because it was good for you or it was for your own good. of course, you thought that they were doing it for their own interest, not yours. in all seriousness, that's what's going on here. this is censorship, designed to shield all of us to understanding the horrors and failures of this war.

sometimes, madam speaker, propoganda takes the form of active misinformation, but sometimes, as in this case, the propoganda is in what they don't tell you. just as the previous bush administration didn't want the dead soldier's photographed, the afghan people doesn't want the world to know that the insurgency remains alive and well. they don't want us to know about the violence or bloodshed or that this troop surge is not working or that it is embolding rather than crushing militants. the taliban, one of the cruelest and most repressive regimes afghanistan or the world has ever known has put out a statement tweaking the afghan government for an action against

freedom of speech. you know you have run afoul of civil liberties when you have gotten a rise out of the taliban which bans everything from the internet to kite flying to painted fingernails. democracy depends on the ability of citizens to make sound decisions based on open access to information. when we crack down on freedom of the press, we undermine the very foundation of democracy and everything we're fighting for in this war. this episode is just one more reason why we need to bring an end to the conflict and adopt an entirely new approach. smart security approach would replace it with civilian surge and defeat terrorism and promote human rights instead of sending troops and smart security would have a strong democracy-building

component to help freedom of speech and the press to take root in the troubled regions of the world. we cannot accept this decision by the karzai government to impose a gag order on the media. i urge secretary of state clinton and special envoy richard holbrook to raise this issue at the highest level. at a time when americans are sacrificing so very much and asking their sons and durs to risk themselves, we owe nothing less than about the unvarnished truth this war. we need more information, not less, the bad news as well as the good news. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones of north carolina. mr. jones: last week during the debate about afghanistan, i

spoke on the floor. i was in support of the resolution introduced by sue kucinich, house resolution 248 and i used an article from "marine times," november 2, 2009, and it says, "caution killed my son" sadly, the first sergeant, retired marine john barn ard lost his son joshua, lance corporal who was killed in afghanistan. and from that, his concern was the rules of engagement had changed to such a point where our military's restricted in certain areas of what they can use in ways of defending themselves. well, after i read the article on the floor, part of the article, it got on my mind about what are we doing to our military if we're asking them to

go to afghanistan and fight, yet we tell them in certain situations, you cannot use your weapons? so i asked my staff to email a dear friend of mine, who is a retired senior military general. and i wanted him to help me understand the rules of engagement. well, the comments that he sent back really didn't speak to my question of rules of engagement, but i want to share with you part of his email back to my staff. as i wrote and mentioned, trying to win in afghanistan is a losing proposition. you're not dealing with a nation state nor are you dealing with state actors. afghanistan is a tribal country and we are involved in a tribal warfare. bottom line, afghanistan has been too tough a nut to crack for every nation that has ever tried to crack it. we need to figure out a way to honorably pack our bags and get

out. it is not in our national interest to be there. he further stated, al qaeda is the enemy, not some tribesmen who are affiliated with something called the taliban. al qaeda does not need afghanistan to attack us. they play whack a mole. they pill pop up somewhere else. case in point, yemen. if we want to fight these guys, we need to fight like them. set ourselves up into bad guys' back yard and hit them whenever they show their faces. madam speaker, before i close, i want to say again that i am concerned about the issue of rules of engagement. i intend to write the chairman of the armed services committee and ask for hearings because it's not fair to send our men and women overseas to fight for this country and tell them they are handcuffed and can only shoot at certain times to defend

themselves. before that, i yield back my time, as you know, i have signed over 9,000 letters to families and extended families who lost loved ones in afghanistan and iraq because i will go to my grave regretting that i voted to send other troops to iraq. god bless our men and women in uniform and our families and ask god in their loving families who have given a child dying for freedom in iraq and afghanistan and bless the house and senate that we will do what is right in the eyes of god and give strength, wisdom and courage to the president of the united states that he will do what is right in the eyes of god and god, please, god, please, god, please, continue to bless america. and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the alyields back.

mr. engel of new york. mr. engel: thank you, madam speaker. madam speaker, i rise this evening to re-affirm the strength of the u.s.-israel relationship. both of our countries have shared values, both of our countries are democracies. israel is the only democracy in the middle east. i know there have been some difficulties during the past few days when vice president biden visited israel. there was an announcement of the expansion of a neighborhood in north jerusalem. the timing of that announcement was wrong. but i don't think we should blow the timing of that announcement out of proportion. we should not have a disproportionate response to israel. we need to be careful and measured in our response. and i think we all have to take a step back. the relationship remains rock solid. the obama administration and the administration of prime minister

netanyahu have been cooperating on a number of things containing iran, the goldstone report, making sure that israel retains its quality edge in the region and there has been good cooperation between the two administrations, the obama administration and the netanyahu administration. but to question the very nature of the u.s.-israel relationship and to put it in personal terms in a public way will not contribute to peace in the middle east. rather, it's the contrary. it will cause the palestinians to dig in their heels thinking that the americans can just deliver the israelis. last year, when there was public pressure of being put on israel not to expand settlements, there no public pressure being put on the palestinians. and we saw that the palestinian president, abbas, sat back and

didn't make any concessions and didn't do anything positive to spur the peace talks and just thought that the united states would ring concessions out of israel. the israelis have been welcoming peace talks with the palestinians. the israelis have said they will sit down and have face-to-face talks for peace with the palestinians. that's what you do when you have peace. instead, the palestinians have refused to sit with the israelis. and senator mitchell is proposing to shuttle back and forth between the palestinian side and the israeli side to have negotiations, but not direct negotiations. we need to be careful. if we criticize israel for doing what we think was wrong, then we need to also criticize the palestinians when they do things wrong. just recently, the palestinians

named a square in ramallah for a terrorist who killed 30-some-odd israelis. i didn't hear any criticism. when the palestinians dig in their heels and say they won't recognize israel as a jewish state. i didn't hear any criticism of the palestinians. all i'm saying, madam speaker, we need to not only re-affirm our ties between the two countries, but we need to understand that in a relationship between friends as in families, there will be disagreements and we need to be fair -- careful how we voice those disagreements in public. let me say that harsh words are never a replacement for working together, but i think that harsh words can sometimes make us understand that only by working

together can we confront the things that we both know need to be confronted. the scourge of terrorism, the thing that all nations understand eminates in the middle east from radical forces and those are the kinds of fights that israel has every single day fighting trirme. we learned about terrorism on this soil on 9/11. israel has to deal with it every day. let me say in conclusion, i think we need take a step back and re-affirm all the things that bring our two countries together. we in the united states understand that our best friend in the middle east is israel and we need to continue with israel. when we have disagreements, we have to talk about them, but we have to always understand that only by working together can we have peace in the middle east. i yield back.