you know what? you're on your own on this. we have debated this issue now for more than a year. every proposal has been put on the table. every argument has been made. i know a lot of people view this as a partisan issue, but look, the fact is both parties have a lot of areas where we agree. it is just politics are getting in the way of actually getting it done. . .

>> there are those that believe to on least the insurance industry and provide them less oversight and fewer rules. ytçthis is called the and house approach to insurance reform. -- and house approach to insurance reform. -- hen house approach to ensure

reform. it would segment the market further. it would be good if you were rich and healthy. save money. if you are an ordinary person and you get older and a little sticker, you would be paying more. i do not believe we should give the government or insurance companies more control over health care in america. i believe it is time to give you, the american people, more control over your own health insurance. [applause] and that is what our proposal does. our proposal builds on the current system where most americans get their health insurance from. their from if you like your plan, you can keep your plan. if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor. i do not want to interfere with people's relationship between them and their doctors.

essentially, here is what my proposal would change -- three things about the current health- care system, but three important things. number one, it would end the worst practices of the insurance companies. [applause] all right? this is like a patient's bill of rights on steroids. x4éwithin the first year of soag health care reform, thousands of uninsured americans with pre- existing conditions would be able to purchase health insurance for the first time in their lives. [applause] this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. [applause]

this year, under this legislation and insurance companies will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick. [applause] those practices would end. with this reform package, all new insurance plans would be required to offer free preventive care for their customers starting this year. free checkups to catch preventable diseases on the front end, that is a smart thing to do. [applause] starting this year, if you buy a new plan, there will not be lifetime or restricted annual limits on the amount of care you receive from your insurance companies so you will not be surprised by the fine print that says suddenly they have stopped paying and you are up to

$200,000 out of pocket. that will not happen. it does become law this year. -- if this becomes law this year. [applause] i see some young people in the audience. [applause] if you are an uninsured young adults, you will be able to stay on your parents' policy until you are 26 years old. this law. [applause] so number one, is insurance reform. the second thing that this plan would change about the current system is this -- for the first time, uninsured individuals, small businesses they would have the same kind of choice that

private health insurance that members of congress get for themselves. [applause] if this reform becomes law, members of congress will get their insurance from the same place that the uninsured get theirs because it is good enough for the american people, it is good enough for the people who stand up in washington. [applause] basically what would happen is, we would set up a pool of millions of people across the country who would buy into these pools that give them more negotiating power. if you were great big company, you have a better insurance deal because you have more bargaining power as a whole. we want you to have all the bargaining power that the federal employees have, that big companies have so you will be able to buy in or small businesses will be able to buy into this pool.

that will lower rates by up to 20%. that is money out of pocket. my proposal says that if you cannot still for this insurance in the new marketplace, we will give you a tax credit to do so. that will end up to the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history. that is what we are going to do. [applause] some folks say that is a nice idea but we cannot afford to do that. the wealthiest among us can already buy the best insurance. . the least well among us, the

poorest among us get their help in trents for medicaid. if the middle class, working people getting squeezed, and that is who we have to help and we can't afford to do it. -- we can afford to do it. [applause] it is true that providing these tax credits to middle-class families and small businesses will cost some money. it will cost about $100 billion per year most of this comes from the nearly $2.50 trillion per year that americans already spent on health care. a lot of that money is being spent that the pri with this plan, will make sure the dollars we make -- the dollars we spend on health care are going to make insurance more affordable and more secure. we will eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance

companies. insurance companies are making billions of dollars on subsidies from you, the taxpayer, and it takes those subsidies away, we can use them to help people get health insurance. [applause] and yes, we will set a new fee on insurance coverage because they stand to gain millions of new customers who are buying insurance. there is nothing wrong with them giving something back here is the bottom line -- our proposal is paid for. there is more than can be said for our colleagues and the other side of the aisle when the past the big prescription drug plan the cost as much as my health care plan and they did not pay for any of it and it went straight to the deficit and they are up there on their high horse talking about not wanting to expand the deficit for this plan does not expand the deficit.

their plan to expand the deficit. that is what we pay for what we do. [applause] that is the responsible thing to do. let me talk about the third thing which is my proposal which would bring down the cost of health care for families, for businesses, and for the federal government. americans by in comparable coverage to what they have today would seek premiums fall by up to 20%. that is not my numbers. that is what the nonpartisan congressional budget office says. for americans to get their insurance for the workplace -- how many people are getting their interest for their jobs, raise your hands. a lot of those folks, your employer would see premiums fall

by as much as 3000% which means they could give you a raise. [applause] we have incorporated most of the serious ideas from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care. we go after waste and abuse of the system, especially medicare. our cost-cutting measures would reduce more people's premiums and bring down our deficit by up to $1 trillion over the next two decades. those are not my numbers. those are the numbers determined by the congressional budget office. they are the referee. that is what they say. that is not what i said. the opponents of reform are trying to make different arguments to stop these changes. first they said there is a government takeover of health care per that was not true. then they asked about death

penalty. that did not turn out to be true. the most insidious argument they make is the idea that somehow this would hurt medicare. i know we have some seniors here with us today. you guys look great. [laughter] i would not have guessed. i want to tell you directly -- this proposal adds almost a decade of solvency to medicare. [applause] this proposal would close the gap in prescription drug coverage called the doughnut hole. that sticks seniors with thousands of dollars of drug costs. this proposal would help reduce the cost of medicare over time that you pay every month this proposal would make preventive

care free so you do not have to pay out-of-pocket for tests to keep you healthy. yes, we are going after the waste, the fraud, the abuse in medicare. we are eliminating some of the insurance subsidies that should be going to your care. that is because these dollars should be spent on care for seniors, not on the care and feeding of big insurance companies in a sweetheart deal. everything you should know, there is no cutting of europe medicare benefits, period, no ifs, no ands, and nobody. buts. this proposal makes medicare stronger, the coverage better, and the provinces more secure. anybody who says otherwise is either misinformed or they are trying to misinform you.

do not let them hoodwink you. [laughter] ohio, that is the proposal. i believe congress owes the american people a final up or down vote. [applause] we need an up or down vote. it is time to as we get closer to that vote, there is a lot of hand-wringing going on. people are talking about politics, talking about what this means in november, talking about the poll numbers for democrats or republicans. we need courage. [applause] that is what we need.

that is why i came here today. we need courage. [applause] we need courage. in the end, this debate is about for more than politics. it comes down to what kind of country do we want to beat. . it is about the millions of lives that would be touched and in some cases saved by making health insurance more secure and more affordable. it is about a woman who is lying in a hospital bed who wants to be able to pay for the care she needs. the truth is, it is not just our abilities to solve this problem but our ability to solve any problem. i was talking to dennis kucinich on the way over here about this.

it has been such a long time since we made government on this side of ordinary working folks. [applause] where we did something for them. , that relieves some of their struggles. , that make people that work hard every day and are doing the writing and are looking up for their families and contributed to their communities, it gives a better chance to without their american dream. the american people want to know if it is still possible for washington to look out for the interests. , for their future. . they're looking for courage. their wedding for us to act. they are waiting for us to lead.

they do not want us put our finger up to the wind. they don't want us reading polls. they want us to look and say what is the best thing for america and then do what is right and as long as i hold this office, i intend to provide that leadership and i know these members of congress are going to provide that leadership. i don't know about the politics but i know what is the right thing to do. i am calling on congress to pass this reform. i will sign it into law. i want to encourage. i want us to do the right thing, ohio. with your help, we will make it happen. god bless you. god bless the united states of america. [applause] ♪ ♪

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> you are watching public affairs programming on c-span. from this morning's "washington journal" we will talk about the 2010 elections and the collapse of bear stearns. the house committee voted to change the nation's health-care system for the full house should vote on the measure later in the week. here is part of the health budget committee debate from yesterday, including debate on abortion. we start off with opening statements from committee members. be deficit neutral but actually improve the deficit. the president subscribed to that principle and so have the house and senate. the budget act asigns us, our

committee, the role of packaging the reconciliation bills and transmitting them to the house, quote, without substantive change. the rules committee has the authority to make substantive changes and report reconciliation rules, bills as amended to the floor. i'll briefly describe your purpose and make an opening statement limited to ten minutes followed by an opening statement limited to ten minutes by the ranking member mr. ryan. without objection, other members wishing to make a statement may have it included in the record at this point. after opening statements, the committee will take up a motion to report to the house the recommendations sent to us by the authorizing committees in response to the reconciliation instructions that i've just side. after its passage, we'll move to consideration of a maximum of ten motions on each side. all nonbinding, subject to our mandate which is to finish before midnight tonight. or turn into pumpkins. these motions request that the

chairman of the committee go to the rules committee and ask that certain amendments be made in order. i will outline that process in greater detail when xhi to the point. i would remind all members of the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time based on the agreement we made at our organizational meeting earlier this year. now i am on the ten-minute clock. the budget act calls for this ghot combine the lifth legislation sent to us in october in response to reconciliation restructions that were included in the budget resolution for last year, passed last year. and then report the product to the house by way of the rules committee. the budget act bars us from amending the bill. we're told to assemble it and report it without substantive change. in response to the reconciliation instructions in last year's budget resolution, we have received and we have before us legislative language sent to us in october from the ways and means committee and from education and labor dealing

>> critics have suggested the process of moving too fast and congress wants to expand coverage for more than one year. during this congress, the house held nearly 100 hours of hearings and heard from 181 witnesses and the democrats and republicans. during the markups, the house debate over health care and considered 239 amendments from democrats and republicans and accepted 121 amendments including some republican suggestions. it is hard to understand how anybody could say this and is being rushed through the house in view of those facts.

we have the best medical system in the world but it is also the world's most expensive system. does not readily accessible to millions of americans. each member here has tilted tell about what is wrong, what is right, but not need to be faxed. -- what needs to be fixed. views expressed te today are likely to be collide scopic, but no one will say that health scare increasingly affordable, unaffordable, especially for millions who lack insurance and rising costs are unsustainable. not only in househole and business budgets but in the federal budget as well. higher premiums are putting health insurance out of risk for more and more americans and even those who have insurance have no ironclad guarantee of protection. annual and lifetime caps can leave the city with astronomical bills that can wipe a family out, sfrn they have insurance. even if they have insurance, they may not have the coverage they need do to riders that

preempt coverage of pre-existing conditions. the final takes of the reconciliation bill that the house will consider now is not before us but it is clear the health care provisions will uphold principles that a majority of people, i think, support and that a majority of this congress should be able to support and agree upon. for starters, we need insurance underwriting reform, restriction denial of coverage due to pre-existing conditions or due to raising renewal premeiums when insurance is needed most after the insurance suffers a major illness. second we need a far more competitive marketplace for insurance, where consumers benefit from choice and competition. third, we need affordability credits to individuals and small businesses so they can afford insurance offered in these new marketplaces. fourth, we need to strengthen medicare by closing the doughnut hole, so-called by limiting overpayments to medicare advantage and we need payment reforms that encourage doctors and hospitals and other providers to stress quality of care over quantity of care.

all these and more -- all of these needs and more are addressed in the comprehensive bill coming before the house. everybody's own perspective on why reform is needed. let me use facts from my own state to make my point. according to statistics provided by the department of health and human services in my state, south carolina, 764,000 residents kushtsly lack health insurance. 290,000 residents with nongroup coverage would be able to get affordable coverage through the health insurance exchange we're promoting in this bill. seniors would have their brand name drug costs in the part d doughnut hole cut in half. 49,300 small businesses would be helped by small business tax credit to make premeiums more affordable. they make up about three-quarters of all businesses in south carolina, but only 40% are able to offer health coverage. we'll also hear today that reconciliation will not intend for this purpose. in fact, reconciliation has been used 22 times in prior years,

and on 20 of those occasion, republicans were in the majority and at least one house or in the white house. in 2001 our republican colleagues used reconciliation to pass massive tax cuts that worsened the bottom line of the budget by 1,350,000,000 over ten years. the second round of tax cuts using reconciliation added $350 billion to the deficit. by contract, the clinton administration used reconciliation in 1993, the deficit was reduced by $496 billion over five years. and when reconciliation was used in the balanced budget act of 1997 it was used to create c.h.i.p., children's health insurance, med pac for oversight and med var advantage. what we do today lies well within those precedence. i've devoted all of my remarks to health care reform. but before closing, i should add that the legislative text before us today also includes higher

education, student loans, pell grant provisions and if the house passes the higher education provisions in the reconciliation bill, we'll take up later this week it will result in a landmark investments in higher education, making higher education more affordable and more successful. in doing so without adding to the deficit. a productive economy requires demands education that is accessible, affordable and of higher quality and the higher education provision being considered today will help us advance that goal. so today the budget committee meets to rer form the important but limited role and vision for the committee under the budget act. in taking our next step we begin the process of bringing to fruitful conclusion our work on these vital issues. i now turn to the ranking member, mr. ryan, and recognize him for ten minutes for his opening statement. mr. ryan? >> thank you mr. chairman. before discussing health care reconciliation, i want to begin by thanking you for continuing this committee's tradition for

allowing a full and fair debate and give the minority the opportunity to offer motions in committee to modify this reconciliation bill. you've always been a gentleman, and i want to say the beginning of this process, thank you for continuing to be one. today in this committee, we begin what might be the final chapter of this health care debacle. my friends in the majority claim that what we are doing here is simply paving the way to fix a mildly flawed senate bill. they argue it is a simple, frequently used procedure to move legislation through the senate. but that's not what's happening here, and we all know it. this is, in fact, an extraordinary and unprecedented abuse of the budget reconciliation process. reconciliation has never been used, never, to push through a $1 trillion expansion of government and to seize control of one-sixth of the u.s. economy. no one has ever employed the process to leverage such a vast

social change based upon a token $1 billion in savings. while we're facing a $1.5 trillion budget deficit this year alone. and doing it on a deliberate, purely party line vote. the only bipartisanship in this procedure is in the opposition to it. never before has the house committee process been so grossly exploited that thousands of pages of legislation reported by the committees of jurisdiction are irrelevant. even before we vote on them. we will report these provisions right here as the process requires and then they will all be stripped out, discarded, tossed on the ash heap and then the real legislation will get written under the cover of the rules committee. in other words, we are right here creating a legislative trojan horse. in which a handful of people hidden from public view, will reshape how all americans receive and pay for their health care. and then it will be rushed to the floor and members will be forced to vote on it to beat

another artificial political deadline. we've also learned that the house might try to pass this 2700-page senate bill and send it to the president without actually voting on it. it appears that you are going to deem passage of the senate bill in the rule. last week, in a stunning and revealing statement, speaker pelosi said and quote, we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it, end quote. this is the vaunted transparency that the president promised? the arrogance, the paternalism, the condesension to the american people is just breathtaking. this is not just a simple fixer bill either. this is the linchpin for health care. it's the vehicle for the back room deal that will buy the votes so the house can pass the senate health care bill which then supposedly will be amended by this bill. to put it another way, if this

process fails, the whole health care house of cards collapses. of course, the real reason we are all sitting here in this room is because of one man, scott brown. we are here because scott brown won his election and got elected to the united states senate, sent there by the people of massachusetts. you can't pass this health care you can't pass this health care bill the right@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ using the president's proposal built upon the same philosophy as the present health bills, the most fundamental problem is that this legislation is not about health care. the essence of it is about ideology. it moves away from the american idea and toward a european- style welfare state that will lead millions of americans to be

more dependent upon the government rather than upon themselves. even though it is not single payer and even though without the so-called public option, this is still a government takeover of health care. here is why we keep saying that -- the entire architecture is designed to give the federal government control over what kind of insurance is available for patients, how much health care is enough, and which treatments are worth paying for. this plan assumes that everything is contract -- connected to everything else. economic cover the costs by requiring a republic to buy health insurance and you can do that only if you subsidize people and wants to start and get subsidies, you have to impose artificial limits that further inflate the true cost and for their trips decision- making power from patients and doctors. e true costs and further strip decision-making power from patients and from

doctors. it creates a health insurance rate authority. a washington-controlled price-setting board. this will usurp state government's role in regulating insurance premeiums and will further smother the normal market forces that would always empowers washington to decide what kind of insurance will be available. committee and unelected group of federal bureaucrats, unprecedented, washington-centered power to create and change the requirements for acceptable coverage. it gives the u.s. preventative services task force new powers to further limit patient choice. allowing the secretary of hhs to unilaterally deny payment for prevention services contrary to task force recommendations. empowers a comparative effectiveness board created by decisions about what treatments are best for their patients.

let's take a quick look at the price tag. as i point out at the blair house summit a few weeks ago, the reality of this bill violates the president's promise that this legislation will, quote, not add a dime to our deficit, close quote. my friends will say the cbo has scored this overhaul and said it reduces the deficit. here in this committee, we work with cbo every single day. they are a great, hard-working people. very good professionals. and they do their work very, very well. but let's be very clear. cbo's job is to score what is placed in front of them. the authors of the bill have gained the system themselves. writing the smoke and mirrors right into the bill. when you strip away the gimmicks, the double counting and the faulty assumptions, it is clear that this overhaul does not reduce the deficit and it does not contain costs. this charade, both today's blind mark-up and the entire fast year of desbat disspiriting in so many ways. there are real problems that need to be fixed in health care, and we could have done so in a

bipartisan way. that's the shame of all of this. we agree on the key problems and agree that real reform is needed. skyrocketing health care costs are driving families, businesses and government to the brink of bankruptcy. and leaving millions of people without adequate coverage. we agree on the need to address pre-existing conditions. realign the innocentives of insurance companies with patients and doctors and weed out waste, fraud and abuse. we agree on the problems and on many of the same goals. yet the past 12 months have crystallized. the differences in approaching to fixing what's broken in health care. it didn't have to be this way. and it doesn't have to stay this way. at the blair house shumit, vice president biden claimed we haven't qualified to speak on behalf of the american people. i respectfully disagreed then and i respectfully disagree now. we are representatives of the american people. we communicate every day with those we serve and it's clear they are engaged. the people we represent and i

suspect most of us here, passionately believe we need to fix what's broken in health care. but i don't believe that this is the way to do it. the abuse of the legislative process, the abuse of the constitution, a massive government takeover of health care in america. this process is not worthy of your support. this is not worthy of your vote. let's start fresh and let's work seriously to address this issue and let's do it together. is there an additional motion on the republican side? mr. jordan is recognized for nine minutes. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, who would have thought in this great country we would have seen the things we have over this past year. who would are thought we'd see the president of the united states fire the ceo of general motors, who would have thought we the@@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ '

who would've thought this congress and this administration would attempt to ram through this health care bill. the american people have had enough. they told the democrats know in august and that thanksgiving and christmas. they said no one the democrats want to do it by the state of the union and they will say no to more when thousands of america come to washington to say," enough is enough." i have travelled around our district and throughout ohio and i have seen a grass-roots movement fuelled by the arrogant and out of control 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 gathered an organized and prayed and they have marched on washington. these ordinary people, moms and dads, grandmas and grandpas, who believe america is an exceptional nation. they feel like their government is ignoring them and they work hard every day so their kids and randkids can americans who feel like their government is ignoring them. they work hard every day. and they believe that will are ideas and principles that make this country special and they see those being assault the every day in washington. founding documents have been distributed and even read a loud and no matter how many times i hear them, i've always moved by the principles they promote. and i would argue the declaration of independence next to skip chur, the words that start that document that started

this great nation, we hold he's truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal, even do youed by their creator with certain alienable rights that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, i think it's interesting to note the order placed the rights they chose to mention. can you pursue happiness, can you goi after your goals and your dream, those things that have meaning to you if you don't first have liberty or freedom? in my time in poll tick, i've been strengthened that life is precious. and whatever disagreements there were with those of us who don't share those belief, there was a shared understanding that federal dollars should not be used to take isn't human life. under long standing policy, no

federal dollars are used to pay for abortion services. this bill represents the largest threat to human life sense the roe v wade supreme court decision. when the house passed either own health care bill this past november, we included the stupak amendment that says no dollars can go to cover this procedure. this continues the current policy under the hyde amendment and this overwhelmingingly passed the house. the motion i've offer dag is a restatement of the stupak amendment, it amendments the senate bill. this is important. the will of this house on this amendment has been clear it would be irresponsible to pass out rec could be sill quags instructions without this important amendment being included. and pot only is it the will of

this body but of the american people. polling in ohio and across the nation includes that 70% of americans are owe possessioned to their federal dollars being used to pay to take the life of an unporn child. i've heard they can vote for the senate bill and continue to claim the pro-life label. that is inaccurate. this $7 billion is not subject to the protections because the funding is not in the hhs appropriations bill. the senate bill also authorizes tax subsidies for plan has cover abortion. this is a slap in the face to pro-life americans who will now be forced to pay to this procedure. @ @ @ @ @ @

game of football, recounting a very tender and touching story about a challenge he and his bif, stephanie, face a few years ago. chris and stephanie were in the midst of stephanie's very public bought with cancer. she was two years cancer free when she came to cross with the heart dropping news that a husband and dad don't want to hear. something's happening, i don't peel right, i need so's a doctor. what they learned was that stephanie was pregnant and that would normally be joyous new, but they were faced with the unique challenge that tested their faith and sent a message to each of us. you see, stephanie was on a drug for her cancer and they were told that a baby had never been born to a mom on that drug. they were given three choices. stay on the drug and risk losing the baby, terp nature the

pregnancy or go off the drug and risk losing both mom and baby. they chose life and today as chris would put it he has a beautiful 7-year-old little girl that he's crazy about. mr. chairman, in this debate, we have an even greater choice it make. we're not just making a decision for our own family, but for millions. the ro life majority has made it clear that we will not allow or values to be hijacked. we are about to cast career defining votes. rarely is the stakes higher. i urge my colleagues to choose life and support this motion. with that, mr. chairman, i yield the balance of our time to mr. attaholt. >> thank you, mr. chairman. too many times we have seen legislation pass along party lines. today americans view this as one of the most polarized congresses that they have seen. however, we've seen some moments of bipartisanship in this congress.

last fall while debating the democrat health care bill, there were 64 democrats that joined with 176 republicans to favor the stupak-pitts amendment. it prohibits the federal funding of abortions in the new health care bill. as has been the case for the hyde amendment in medicare and medicaid. unfortunately, there are some that would disregard the bipartisan vote that we had in november, the long standing established precedent and the well of the american people by removing this amendment from the health care legislation that our xhetity is considering today. the issue is not the legal status of the unborn child. it is simply on the question compelling tangs payers to underwrite abortions. it has been a long standing federal policy not to fund plans that cover abortions such as in the federal employee health benefits program, medicaid. the senate health bill, the house plans to take up, actually

uses an accounting to gimmick -- an accounting gimmick to separate public and preeft funds for health plans that provide an bofrgss. government funds will simply help these plans reduce their premiums, essentially subsidizing abortions. this is a clear departure from the president and contradicts the will of the american people. in fact, when we began this debate, there was a goal will you please poll that found that president obama's decision to restore fund to go overseas groups that promote abortion had only 35% support, the lowest of any administration policy they tested. last november right after the vote on 3962, cnn found that 6 in 10 americans oppose federal financing of abortion. provisions in this current bill permit taxpayer subsidies to private health plans that allow abortions. while some would claim that the funds will not be used for abortions, it is merely an

accounting scheme. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> for that reason, mr. chairman, i would say it would be imperative that we keep inability the bipartisan language. >> what we're doing now amounts to recommendation. it doesn't amend the bill. it doesn't have that sense at all. about it's a recommendation. and it's november binding. very clearly the basis what have we're doing. is there opposition on the democratic side?@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ >> this prohibits federal funds paying for abortion. there is an unprecedented overreach of women's basic rights. on this first point, this

existed long before this particular amendment cannott%/a it currently exists in the senate version of this legislation, as well. i will say it one more time -- for some reason, too many of our colleagues have not gotten the message or, like congressman john boehner, have willfully continued to repeat falsehoods about it. other than the situation accepted by the hard-liners, no federal funds are used. for use 4 of 4 and or can be used r abortion in this health care package. this reaffirmation of the concession was made early on to reach common ground on this in turn lead contentious issue. early on to reach common ground on this eternally contentious

issue. we made this concession because we know that abortion has always been a matter of conscious on both sides of the issue. and the health care bill was not the place to lit gate abortion. meanwhile access to quality affordable health care coverage is literally a question of life or death for millions who have already waited too long for us to act. right now, an estimated 45,000 americans die each year because they have no health insurance. so holding up this bill to play politics with the abortion issue is emphatically not a pro-life stance. let me just read to you some excerpts from recent articles and letters in the last couple of days.

and i would ask the chair if i can include these letters into the record. the letter by sister carol keenan, who is the catholic health association president and chief executive officer. cha has a major concern on life issues. we said will could not be any federal funding for abortions and there had to be strong funding for maternity care especially for vulnerable women. the bill now being considered allows people buying insurance through an exchange to use federal dollars in the form of tax credits in their own dollars to buy a policy that covers their health care. if they choose a policy with abortion coverage, then they must write a separate personal check for the cost of that coverage. there is a requirement that the insurance companies be audited annually to insure that the payment for abortion coverage fully covers the administrative and clinical costs thats payment is held in separate account if

fr other premiums and that there are no federal dollars used. let me quote from an article by timothy s. jost, a health law professor. it was in the pittsburgh post gazette and went nationwide its title is pro-lifers should support health reform. it would not encourage abortions, but it would save countless lives. and he is a health law expert. and he says as a strong believer in the sake vcredness of human , i have followed the health care reform debate intently. approximately 45,000 americans die each year because they're uninsured and health care costs increase annual for almost all of us. many in congress have been working hard to solve this crisis, but now erroneous clamts about the issue of abortion, a main of tremendous moral

concern, are threatening to derail these efforts. the senate bill like the house bill prohibits the use of federal subsidies to pay for abortions in situations where federal funding of abortion is now permitted under the medicaid program, the cases of i incest or physical threat to the life of the mother. it kaet as fund of $7 billion. some have argued this money may go toward abortion, however, this money must be spent through the department of health and human services which@@@@

a pro-life argument in health care reform must rest on real arguments as well as a deep regard for life at all stages. we should accept the word of people who are experts in the health-care industry like the catholic health association. we should listen to people who have examined this very carefully, day in and day out and who have made comments on this. perhaps this has something to do with the fact that with very few exceptions, the most vocal proponents of this amendment are the execs same individuals who want to see our health reform package failed. at any cost. this amendment goes well beyond existing law. cost. as i said last november, this amendment goes well beyond existing law. it disallows private insurance companies who private in the new

exchange from covering abortion services and plans that receive government subsidies. in other words, it attempts to bar women from access to an abortion even if they pay for it with their own money. it invades women's personal decisions. it discriminates against working women and it violateses the law of the land. and i urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment. >> yield your time to mr. moore? >> i'd be happy to yield some time to mr. moore and then following to -- mr. yarmouth first, i'm sorry. >> i just want to be brief. this is a very peculiar issue in a way because it is an issue only about an issue and not about substance. we agree on the goal. we agree on the pact that no

federal money should be used to finance abortions. we have a strange issue in that the logic behind the stupak amendment, and many of us have talked to him about it, is that somehow the fung ability of money means if anybody buys insurance with -- into a pool with tax dollar subsidy, then even if somebody pays for an insurance policy with their own money from the same pool, that somehow that means taxpayers are paying for abortion insurance. that would be the same way of saying that if any hospital performed an abortion that no hospital could receive federal funds, even a catholic hospital that didn't do it, because they're being paid out of the seam pool of money. the logic just doesn't hold up and the extension of the logic is ludicrous. i thank me colleague for the word.

what we have here is a provision that will not reduce the number of abortions. it will discriminate against women who are in the individual and small business market while anyone who is working and ensured through an employer-based plan will still be able to have insurance that provides coverage for a legal procedure. and those women who are in the individual market must in order to get coverage for a legal procedure have to anticipate an unplanned event and buy a awryd. so i think while the goal of the amendment is noble and we all agree on its goal, it didn't accomplish much except to create an issue where there really isn't an issue. and it does discriminate against many women in this country. i yield back.

>> yield to mr. moore. >> i just want to say with regard not to the amendment because i think that's been spoken to, but we need a health insurance health reform in this country. congress should have done this 40 years ago. we can't change what didn't happen for 40 year, but we need to get the people in this country a program that works. and this bill is a program that works. i implore all of my colleagues to vote for this bill and put something in place which even if it's just decent, we can improve it in the future. yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> time has expired. the gentleman is recognized for one minute in closing. >> just two quick points. first she said it would prohibit dollar it is to cover the procedure. items not true. mr. stupak in his statement said the federal government -- review

of the language indicate s a dramatic shift. the catholic bishops said the senate bill requires federal funds to help subsidize the health plans. so her statement is not accurate. here's the bottom line. if everyone who voted for this on the health floor in committee supports it today, this motion to instruct will pass. we can send this motion to the rules committee saying make sure that any senate bill that goes through is going to have this stupak language in it. if everyone just votes the way they did in november, this motion passes. and with that i would yield back. >> the vote now occurs on the motion offered by mr. jordan. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed say to. in the opinion of the chair, the nos have it. >> ms. schwartz, no.

mr. basari. mr. do fwchlt gift, no. mr. bluminau represent. no. mr. boyd, no. mr. mcgovern, no. mr. etheridge, no. miss mccollum, no. mr. yarmouth, no. mr. andrews, no. ms. delawyer row, no. mr. edwards, no. mr. scott, no. mr. langivin, aye. mr. larsen, no. mr. bishop, no. ms. moore, no. mr. connelly, no. mr. schrad event r. mr. moore, no. mr. ryan, aye. mr. hencer link, aye.

mr. garrett. mr. diaz, aye. mr. simpson, aye. mr. mchenry, aye. mr. mac, aye. mr. campbell, aye. mr. jordan, aye. ms. lummis, aye. mr. aderholt, aye. mr. nunez, aye. mr. harper, aye. mr. latta, aye. mr. spratt, no. >> are there additional members who wish to be recorded? if not, the clerk will announce the vote. >> on that vote, the ayes are >> the health care committee finished its work on health care

monday when the committee passed a reconciliation bill. the measure now goes to the rules committee wednesday to set the parameters of debate for the house floor. for more information, visit c- span.org/healthcare. >> "washington journal" is next where we look at today's news and take your calls. we will talk about the water preservation measure and a wilderness bill. coming up this hour, we will get an update on health care legislation and talk about the november elections. next hour, a look at the financial situation in europe. w