huge levels of debt in the private sector and also in the public sector. .

[speaking chinese] >> it does also mean, though, that we have a level playing field when it comes to our trading partners. >> [speaking chinese] >> and so with respect to china, what president hu and myself and our delegations have discussed is how do we make sure that, in fact, our trading relationship is fair and a win-win situation opposed to a win-lose situation? >> [speaking chinese]

>> some of that has to do with issues completely unrelated to currency. for example, we're making progress on making sure that the government procurement process in china is open and fair to american businesses and we have made progress as a consequence of this state visit. >> [speaking chinese]

>> so can get better enforcement since that is an area where america excels intellectual property. high valued property and services. >> [speaking chinese] >> and the chinese government has, to its credit taken steps to better enforce intellectual property. i think president hu would acknowledge that more needs to

be done. >> [speaking chinese] >> but the currency issue is a part of the problem. the r. sbmbings undervalued. the chinese government has intervened very forcefully in the currency markets. they have spent $200 billion just recently and that's an indication to the degree to which it is still undervalued. president hu has indicates he is committed to moving toward a market-based system. it is not as fast as we want. what i said to president hu, and firmly believe this, is not only will u.s. businesses be able to export more to china if we have

a market-based currency, but it will also be good for china and president hu's agenda of expanding domestic demand because if the bank is worth more, they can contribute to buying more services and that will contribute to china having greater purchasing power. this is something that can be a win-win. president hu's concern understandably how rapid this transaction takes place and the disruption that will occur but i am confident that it is the right thing to do and my hope and expectation is that president hu's resolve will lead to a fully market-based currency program that will allow more effective trade between our two countries. >> [speaking chinese] [speaking

chinese]

[speaking chinese] [speaking chinese] >> i'm from xinhua news agency.

i would like to spli two questions interpreted correctly and accurately. >> [speaking chinese] >> a question for president obama. many people do believe that the biggest problem in this relationship is the lack of strategic mutual trust. do you agree with this view and how do you think the two sides should -- mutual trust and how do you think that the two sides should appropriately manage their differences and expand their common interests?

>> [speaking chinese] >> my second question is for president hu jintao. we have noticed that the chinese and american leaders have on various occasions stressed the fact that the influence and the significance over the china-u.s. relationship has gone far beyond the bilateral dimension that china and the united states share broad common interests and shoulder important common responsiblies in addressing a variety of regional and global issues. so my question is that how do you think that china and the united states can step up their

cooperation in a joint endeavor to tackle the increasing number of global issues? [laughter] >> we certainly -- the more that we can build a baseline of trust, as as you called it strategic mutual trust, the more likely we are able to solve the friction or irritants that exist in a relationship between any two countries in a more constructive way. >> [speaking chinese]

>> which is why i think it is so important that not only governments, but people in both countries, understand the challenges that each country faces. >> [speaking chinese] >> and not view every issue through the lens of rivalry. >> [speaking chinese] >> for example, i know that in china, many believe that somehow the united states is interested in containing china's rights. >> [speaking chinese] >> as i indicated in the answer that i gave a previous

questioner, we welcome china's rights. we just want to make sure that that rise is done -- that that rise occurs in a way that reinforces international norms and international rules and enhances security and peace as opposed to it being a source of conflict either in the region or around the world. >> [speaking chinese]

>> and the security and economic dialogues that we have established are precisely designed to lessen suspicions, to enhance mutual understanding, the more we understand each other's challenges, the more we can take advantage of opportunities. >> [speaking chinese] >> [speaking chinese] [speaking

chinese] [speaking chinese] [speaking chinese]

>> [speaking chinese] >> the gentleman who raised that

question said in today's world mankind faces more and more global challenges and i would like to stress here that no country can remain unescaped in the face of so many global challenges, and no country can single handedly tackle global challenges. for example, fighting terrorism, upholding the security of humanity or in tackling the international financial crisis, promoting the growth of the world ke in addressing -- economy, fighting piracy and preventing and ending communicable diseases. in of these phases, countries need to work together. china is the biggest developing country and the united states, the bigs developed country. in this context, it is necessary for china and the united states to strengthen their cooperation

to meet such challenges. then how can china and the u.s. do a better job in working together to meet global challenges? i think there are three points i would like to make and these three points deserve our serious attention and consideration. number one, that our two sides have access in the spirit of cooperation. as if we were the n the same boat and we should row in the same direction. when we tackled previous international challenges, and i think we need to keep up the spirit in the future as we tackle challenges. number two, we need to increase our communication and coordination and number three, we need to respect and accommodate each other's interests and concerns. i'm convinced that as long as our two sides continue to act in

this spirit and as long as we continue to work together with other countries concerned, we will be able to engage in cooperation in an even broader range of areas to the benefit of world peace and development. >> all right, everybody. thank you so much for your patience. due to the technical difficulties, president hu, once again, we appreciate your visit. we appreciate the day log and we are looking forward -- diologue and we are looking faurt to this evening.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> chinese president hu jintao is on a four-day visit to the united states. his first since 2006. learn more about him and c-span's coverage of him throughout the years. all searchable and all three. -- free. it's washington your way.

there are white house held a state dinner for chinese president hu jintao. here are some of the highlights and a look at relations between the two countries. >> a live view from the north lawn of the white house. inside, president obama hosting a state dinner, his third in his presidency. the white house guest list includes members of congress, chinese americans and cabinet members and a number of entertainers. earlier tonight greeting president hu and from there they went to a reception on the top floor of the white house. protocol and business relations between united states and china. tomorrow jintao will travel to capitol hill where he will meet with congress members. there are four no-shows.

john boehner. the former house speaker nancy pelosi is. we're joined by ken lieberthal. thanks very much for being with us. steve yates who is the president of an advisory council firm in washington, d.c. he served in the bush-cheney administration as deputy stint to vice president cheney. thank you for being with us. so much at stake with this meeting going on. the issue of protocol and ceremony and also the business of trade relations, currency and human rights. what will come out of this visit? beyond the long list you provided because there's a lot on the security side of the relationship, and from the evidence at this point, it suggests some of the biggest gains are in the security relationship. the chinese had a statement on north korea that acknowledged

their rich uranium program and really pushed hard to get the north koreans back to an agreement they signed back in september of 2005, but it violated and on iran they were forward leading. i think the administration was happy with that dimension. if you step back, it might be the main purpose of this visit was to set this relationship on a more solid and generally constructive track. we've had a very up and-down year. there's a lot of anti-american going on. it helps to have president hu jintao come here and indicate how important a solid relationship with the united states is and why it's on both sides interests, and i think that both men see this as a relationship they have to manage and a hard-headed pragmatic way, but we both recognize we get this right, or both of us suffer a lot of losses that should be

avaded. >> host: yet, steve, a lot of questions coming up is why give china the platform of a state dinner when there's problems with human rights and debates between the countries. >> guest: that's right. president bush had a different view. he had a close relationship with president hu jintao and at the beginning of the administration, a similar relationship at the time. he decided to only have a working visit, rather than a full state's visit. this symbolism of a full state visit is important to the chinese. it happened before in the clinton administration, and so from my point of view, you know, i think we look at the world as having changed a great deal. our approach in dealing with china has not changed tremendously. i think secretary clinton raised interesting and powerful

questions in the speech she gave last week that summits and meetings are well and good, and the administration has done a lot on that, but now it's time for real results and issues. it's good to have statements on north korea, iran, other important issues, but i think in order for this to be sustaining in a real effective modern relationship, action needs to be taken, and as fred thompson said, it's not enough to do good, you have to be seen doing good, and when it comes to north korea, iran, and other things, the old way of having a private agreement between leaders, i'm afraid is not carrying enough weight in a modern society plugged into media, congress, and the united states, so i'm hopeful that they will indeed make the progress they're indicating, but i think there's a high standard to show results. >> guest: it's a question on deliverables in a meeting like

this. a lot were delivered before the actual meeting. as you're well aware, there's a huge runup to meet like this where it's fast on both sides. if you look at what's happened over the last six months as the meeting was teed up and put on the agenda, there's been stressed military to military relations. they say china is much more helpful with north korea over the past month. there was a hard negotiation with them over iran, but they helped us. they have become better actors in sudan than they were before. rather than devalue, it's gone up by 6% in the last six months. that's beyond the target we were aiming for. i think in a lot of areas, we've seen a lot of the benefits come out ahead of time in terms of the real actions steve raised. i absolutely agree this has to continue after the summit. it can't build to it and say we got there, now let's back off.

you have to follow through on this. i was pleased to see some of the public rhetorical reflections of these shifts in the chinese position in some of the language that came out in the summit. >> host: we'll have some of those in the course of the 90 minutes. boeing has $45 billion in invoices by u.s. companies to china. >> guest: there's no question, but that is part of a historical pattern, and one, it's very, very good for those companies and those employed. i don't have any problem with their interest in pursuing that, but with an economy with the size of ours and china's, benefits to one company however large really is a way of hiding behind maybe some of the structural issues that have to do with needing more balance approach and better development approach in the united states. i think one of the troubling things in the u.s.-china dialogue has been america needing to focus more about being competitive as america.

a balance u.s.-china economic relationship comes about by americans being serious about competitiveness, not because the chinese bought a bunch of boeing aircraft. good for the company and people who maintain the parts, that's fine, but it isn't beginning to change our unemployment figures in a measurable way, and it isn't really going to rebalance the trade relationship in a way that would take away the concerns that built up over a lot over recent years. >> host: on the day and week in which so much focus is on u.s. relations with the state dinner, we want to focus on the future 30 years after the first state visit with then president jimmy carter. he is in attendance by the way tonight at the state dinner. he arrived yesterday, today's ceremonies at the white house. tomorrow president hu traveling to capitol hill and back to chicago and back in beijing on friday. here's how the day began on the south lawn of the white house as

the president and first lady greeted the chinese leader. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

>> host: the ceremony on the south lawn was followed by a series of high-level discussions with u.s. business leaders as he is greet the by president obama and the customary honor guard. our phone lines are open tonight. 202-737-0001 for republican, and you can join us online at twitter.com/c-span. jim who worked in the obama administration, they are keen on protocol and customs. what goes into an event like this? >> guest: you know, the chinese have a detailed, detailed record of every protocoled visit and work end

lessly to make this visit special in some fashion. >> host: why is that important? >> guest: well, you know, face is really important in china, so things that convey a since of respect and status are just critically important. in the u.s. we are concerned primarily with what happens in the room, but the chinese are concerned with that, but also extremely concerned with what happens on the way to the room and how it looks, and who is walking first and how will the people be positioned and what kind of music is being played and so on. it is just utterly extraordinary, but in their culture it signals a lot more than is signals in american culture. they take is seriously. >> host: we heard from congress secretary gary locke when it came to trade, and there was a speech last friday by hillary clinton really outlining the dimensions of the relations between the u.s. and china.

was that unusual to have that build up in the state dinner? >> guest: i think every administration tries to have things like this, but this was extraordinary in the number of cabinet members who gave high profile speeches. add to the list the secretary who took a high profiled trip to the region. it was unusual to have the secretaries of state, defense, treasury, and commerce all giving these remarks in the runup to a state visit, but it's also important to remember there are not but a handful of state visits in any term in office, so you are really only talking about at most three or four in the average term of office. president bush had even fewer state visits, and so there isn't exactly a large record of how many speeches there would be in the runup in this modern media

era with lots of outlets. kevin yates who served with bush and cheney and hillary clinton at the state department outlined the dependences of " about the rise of china and the future to have u.s.-china relationship. some here at home see china's growth as a threat that will lead either the cold war-style conflict or american decline and some in china worry that the united states is bent on containing china's rise and constraining china's growth. a view that is stoking a new streak of assertive chinese

nationalism. we reject those views. in the 21st century, it does not make sense to apply zero sum 19th century theories of how major powers interact. we are moving through unchartered territory. we need new ways of understanding the shifting dynamics of the international landscape. a landscape marked by emerging centers of influence, but also by non-traditional, even non-state actors and the unprecedented challenge and opportunities created by globalization. this is a fact that we believe is especially applicable to the u.s.-china relationship. our engagement, indeed, i would say our entanglement, can only be understood in the context of this new and more complicated

landscape. said when first went to china as secretary of state early in my tenure, that there was an old chinese saying that when you're in the same boat, you to row in the same direction. we are in the same boat. commeny this leading up to the state visit of president hu jintao. let many ask you about u.s. businesses complaining that china has not opened doors enough. >> guest: there's no question that u.s. businesses at the forefront of the u.s.-china relationship especially large multinationals for two decades now have cooled quite a bit. they are concerned about china's future policies and future openness to large-scale u.s. business activity in china. they seek policies surrounding what the chinese call indigenous innovation. there's a larger state sector, a

continuing weak intellectual property rights regime. you put these and regulatory issues together, and they are much less enthusiastic. at the same time, they are scared. they are scared because if you cannot sell on the scale that china alone now offers, they fear they will not be competitive on a global basis. they, on the one hand, want to do well, but on the other hand, they are worried. what president hu is tried to do is provide reassurance and win back that support of the community by promising to do better on things like not requiring that technology be developed in china at the chinese government when they procure that. we'll have to see what the follow through is, but it's a very, very important issue. >> host: 225 people tonight, and the state dinner includes not only the state dining room,

but the blue and red room to accommodate the overflow crowd and the head of the mote roll la, disney, microsoft, what do you take from that? >> guest: it's not unusual. usually there's a pocket of people who are senior administration officials, senior political leaders in dc, and then you'll have people who are friends of the first family that they may choose to bring in. it is not unusual to have friends who are in the corporate sector or have expressed a particular interest in the country or a relationship. what struck me about the lists is that for the ceo. largest cooperation on earth, the united states, the president has a relatively small dining space actually to keep it only to 200-and something. i think america would be surprised at how small the space

is. it's 20 tables of 10. that's not many people. it's a very, very exclusive group, but almost always a blend of high profile figures. you have to accommodate people in the chinese delegation. you have jackie chan come in and others with social appeal, but at least in my view, this is part of a pattern that dates back to the 90s and probably before. >> host: they will dine on maine lobster and ribeye steak capped off with the president's favorite, apple pie with vanilla ice cream we're told. the traditional toast that took place in the state dining room, we were unable at the white house to carry this live. it did happen just a short while ago. here's more from the state dining room. [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> good evening, everybody. please have a seat. on behalf of michelle and myself, welcome to the white house. thank you for joining us as we host president hu and the chinese delegation and as we pay

tribute to the bonds between two great nations and two proud peoples. [speaking in chinese] president obama: there are too many distinguished guests to mention all of you tonight, but i doment to acknowledge -- do want to acknowledge a few who have championed regulars between our nations. first of all, president jimmy carter and his wonderful wife rosalyn carter are here. [applause] as well as president bill clinton and my outstanding secretary of state, hillary

clinton. [applause] president hu -- [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] president obama: president hu, we have met today in a spirit of mutual respect. the united states, the oldest democracy in the world and china, one of the oldest civilizations in the world. [speaking in chinese] speaking in chinese] president obama: and while it's

easy to focus on differences of culture and perspective, let us never forget the values that our people share, a reverence for family, the belief that with education and hard work and with sacrifice, the future is what we make it, and most of all, the desire to give our children a better life. [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] president obama: let's also never forget that throughout our history, our people have worked together for mutual progress,

and we traded together for more than 200 years, we stood together in the second world war as chinese immigrants and chinese americans help build america including many who join us here tonight. [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] president obama: chinese and american people work together and create new opportunities together every single day. mr. president, today we've shown that our governments can work together as well for our mutual benefits, and that includes this

bit of news. under a new agreement, our national zoo will continue to dazzle children and visitors with the beloved giant pandas. [applause] [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] president obama: i'm told that there is a chinese proverb that says if you want one year of prosperity, then grow grain. if you want ten years of

prosperity, then grow trees, but if you want 100 years of prosperity, then you grow people, and so i propose a toast -- [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] president obama: to our people, the citizens of the peoples republic of china, and the united states of america, may they grow together in friendship, may they prosper together in peace, and may they realize their dream of the future for themselves, for their children, and for their grandchildren. cheers.

[speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] [applause] [applause] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [speaking in chinese]

[speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] >> translator: president obama

and mrs. obama, ladies and gentlemen, family, and friends, good evening, i'm delighted to once again come to the united states and pay a state visit at the invitation of president obama. setting foot on this beautiful land, we have received the gracious hospitality of the u.s. government and people. this evening, president obama is hosting this welcoming dinner for us and has just made warm remarks. on behalf of my colleagues and in my own name, i want to express heart-felt thanks to president and mrs. obama and other american friends for today. i also wish to convey through you the best wishes of the chinese people to the friendly american people and e tend thanks to people from various sectors of the united states who have given care and support to the growth of u.s.-china relations.

.. [speaking in chinese] >> translator: the purpose of my visit is to increase mutual trust, friendship, deepen cooperation positive corporate and comprehensive chinese relationships for the 25th century.

in recent years particularly over the past two years since president obama took office chinese-u.s. relations have made strong headways thanks to the joint efforts of both sides. we have increased exchanges and cooperation in a wide range of areas, maintained close communications and coordination on major international and regional issues and played a positive role in promoting peace, stability and transparency in the asian pacific region and the whole world. [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese]

>> translator: under the current circumstances our two countries share broader common interests, showed their bigger common responsibilities and face more severe common challenges than at any time in history. as a result, it is more important than ever for us to maintain the long-term sound and steady growth of our financial relations. this is the reality we face and it should be recognized by both sides. [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese]

[speaking in chinese] >> translator: president obama and i had an in-depth review on china relations and international use of common interest and we reach important interest. we agreed a two country should increase contacts at the top and other levels, strengthen strategic mutual trust through dialogue and communication, intensify exchanges and cooperation in all fields and step up communication and coordination on international and regional issues. we agree that the two countries should respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and the development interests.

properly handle differences and friction and work together to build a china-u.s. corporate of partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefits. [speaking in chinese] [speaking in chinese] >> translator: china-u.s. relations have traveled an extraordinary journey in the past 32 years since the establishment of diplomatic ties. a review of the history of our relations shows that we have far more common interests than

differences and cooperation for mutual benefits has always been the mainstream of our relations. this has reinforced our confidence in further pushing forward our relationship. today, both china and the united states are confronted with the arduous task of sustaining steady economic growth and achieving economic transformation, and we both need to tackle the various challenges brought i economic globalization. this has added to our need and desire to enhance cooperation. [speaking in chinese]

[speaking in chinese] >> translator: we should pursue our relations with a stronger conviction of broader vision and more proactive approach. we need to take solid steps and make pioneering efforts to fully test the potential of cooperation and strive for new progress in china-u.s. relations. i am confident that these joint efforts china-u.s. partnership will yield comparable suit -- for is for the greater benefit of our people and make new and bigger contributions to the noble cause of world peace and development. [speaking in chinese]

>> translator: to the health of all friends present here to the stronger friendship between the people of china and the united states and to the steady growth of china-u.s. relations. cheers. [applause] from the dining room a truce between our two nations with a portrait of abraham lincoln was president hu jintao of china and present a barack obama. by the way if fewer interests at our web site has the full guest list, 225 people in attendance and the dinner menu tonight includes poached maine lobster, ribeye with buttermilk onions and double stuffed baked

potatoes. dessert will be pie and entertainment will take place in the east room with herbie hancock, diana reese and members of the month just in to do. one of our twitter comments says the u.s. has gone too far in debt to china, which gives them power over us, cautious approach is needed now. our guests here in the studio is someone who served in the clinton administration and stephen yates veteran of the bush white house. how would you respond to that sentiment? casco by always cautious approach but i think when it comes to american dead in china there are a couple of layers of perspectives that are necessary. it is true that china is the largest foreign holder of u.s. debt, but close behind it are countries like japan and holders like taiwan and some others. china does not hold the majority of our foreign debt, and the total foreign holdings of u.s. debt is a minority.

american people hold the majority of the u.s. debt. >> host: let's look at some of the economic numbers. the u.s. of course the largest economy in terms of gdp followed by china, japan, germany and france. >> guest: let me add a note on that issue if i can. steve is absolutely right the chinese don't have the majority of our foreign debt. indeed they have less than 10% of our sovereign debt in less than 10% of our agency debt, fannie mae and freddie mac so they have put a very large part of their foreign exchange holdings into our debt instruments but they are relatively small part of the overall debt that we have sold. so in a sense we have a lot of leverage over them. the reality is both of us have a huge interest and each of us managing our respectful economies as well. >> host: steve is joining us from boston. good evening to you. >> caller: good evening. i appreciate you taking my call. and i just want to start by

saying i'm a business owner, so the state and health of the u.s. economy is very important to me. that being said, i also want to say that i studied in jinsheng university in the '90s. i worked in china for several years. i am very familiar with the way that the chinese operate. especially in terms of their disregard for intellectual property and complete disregard for life and human rights. although i am focused on the state of the american economy, i have to say this trip is very disturbing to me. even if it means america needs to suffer economically at little bit, personally i think that i am glad, i'm glad that you play the tape of the secretary of state clinton, because i do not think that this type of competitiveness across cultures is relevant to a communist

country. >> guest: steve let me guess in. what is the alternative? do we have relations have not give this platform? >> caller: let me be clear. this is a country with decreased disregard for human life, country that allows organ harvesting and persecution of falun gong practitioners and i for one did not want my country to sell its soul to china, even if it means our economy has to suffer little bit. we are an industrious and brilliant nation and one that can come back from anything without selling our soul to a communist country that persecutes people like falun gong. >> host: thank you for the call and the president addressing this issue in the east room earlier today at a press conference taking questions from u.s. and chinese reporters. here's here is more from today's event. >> i have been very candid with president hu about these issues.

occasionally they are a source of tension between our two governments. but what i have believed is the same thing that i think seven previous presidents have believed, which is that we can engage and discuss these issues in a frank and candid way, focus on those areas where we agree solid knowledge and there are going to be areas where we disagree. and i want to suggest that there has been an evolution in china over the last 30 years, since the first normalization of relations between the united states and china and my expectation is that 30 years from now, we will have seen further evolution and further change. >> host: the president earlier today in east room of the white house. ken lieberthal to steve's.from boston the president's, and

human rights earlier today, your response? >> guest:you know hillary clinton and her first trip to china secretary of state said we have several baskets of issues with the chinese that are extremely important for us, for china and for the rest of asia and the world. one of those is human rights and one of those is the security basket and another is an economic basket. dividing them into these different things and the fundamental point was we have to pursue each of these very powerfully. we cannot let any single one of them disrupt our entire relationship. each of these has huge consequences. if we get it wrong, and lot of people suffer. she was criticized for that. she was criticized for not may keep human rights the number one issue. frankly i don't know any american who thinks china does the right thing by human rights so i don't want to suggest that i think they are doing it right, i don't. persecution and that kind of thing is obvious in this system, but i would disagree with the

caller in the implication that we are selling our souls to the chinese, and that we ought to in some way you know, completely distance ourselves from them until they change their system and the way it works. frankly that won't change their system in my view. that would have consequences in the korean peninsula, and southeast asia, in the global economy and in a vast array of areas that would have tremendous implications for the lives and well-being of very large numbers of people, so to my mind those are also in their own fashion and human rights issues and i think we have to balance these things. it is not pleasant to do so but i think we have to do so. >> host: we are talking with ken lieberthal they china director of institutions and serving the clinton administration or as the senior director for asian affairs at the national security council land stephen yates the present of the d.c. advisory consulting

firm. he served in the first term of the bush administration is a senior adviser to vice president dick cheney on asian affairs. writing is joining us from murray kentucky on the democrats line. go ahead please. >> caller: thank you mr. scully and thank you for c-span. i have to agree with mr. lieberthal in several different points but i will make it very brief. our two countries are not always going to agree on issues with regard to human rights, the environment and intellectual property that what we have seen here today is the continuation of the building of a framework that started 39 years ago, and i am looking forward to the communiqué that comes out of the summit. i think the president is right on track, but he did raise the issue of human rights violations today in a very subtle way. i don't think he should back away from that when it comes to cooperation with regards to nuclear arms proliferation, when it comes to conflict and certainly the crucible about

north korea and iran we will need the cooperation of the chinese. >> host: thanks protocol. as you point out the white house issuing this nine page joint statement on u.s.-china relations. which is typical with these types of evidence. they outlined diplomatic trade human rights and other issues between our two countries. president hu also responded to the issue of human rights at today's news conference from the east room at the white house. here is his response. >> president obama and i already met eight times. each time we met, we have an in-depth exchange of views in a candid manner on issues of shared interest and issues to each other's concerns. on the issues we have covered we also discussed human rights. [speaking in chinese] >> translator: china is always

committed to the protection and promotion of human rights, and in the course of human rights china has also made enormous progress, recognized widely in the world. [speaking in chinese] >> translator: china recognizes and also respects the here human rights and at the same time we do believe that we also need to take into account the different circumstances bank counter in the universal value of human rights. [speaking in chinese]

>> translator: china is a developing country with a huge population and also a developing country and a crucial stage of reform. in this context, china still faces many challenges in economic and social development and a lot still needs to be done in china in terms of human rights. [speaking in chinese] >> translator: we will continue our efforts to improve the lives of the chinese people and we will continue our efforts to promote democracy and under the rule of law and our country. at the same time we are also willing to continue to have exchanges and dialogue with other countries in terms of human rights and we are also going to -- we are also willing to learn from each other in

terms of the good practices. host -- >> host: president hu jintao, like you at the white house on this wednesday evening wear president obama is hosting the chinese leader. ken lieberthal, did he make news on the issue of human rights? >> guest: the phraseology used was more forward leaning than he is used in the past. his premiere, wen jiabao used similar terminology and in fact he was never played in the chinese media. is really quite extraordinary. premier wen and a western interview made some comments in new york city about human rights that were quite strong, repeated those comments when he was in hong kong and mainland chinese press censored the premiere some comments. now hu jintao has made similar remarks. i am interested to see tomorrow whether the mainland press picks this up and this becomes a new mantra because frankly he is moving a little further

especially in the exquisite recognition that human rights are a universal issue. they aren't an american issue. they aren't a western european issue. they are a universal right. that is what he commented about today. to my knowledge he has never used language like that before. >> host: hu jintao has been a member of the communist party since 1964 in the chinese president since 1963. he will leave office next year. you were at the state department earlier for a luncheon that followed immediately after the joint press conference between president obama and president hu jintao. news came out of the van today. what happen? >> guest: they announced that the two vice presidents, vice president biden who is cohosting a lunch with secretary clinton and vice president jay peng on the chinese side will exchange of visits, official visits during the first half of this year. that is significant in more than just a diplomatic fashion because in a sense it gives american recognition to the fact that she shouldn't peng is a hu

jintao's successor. he was expected to be hu's successor but in china makes a difference to have the u.s. government really recognize this man as the second most important man and the one coming up now, so i think that was, wasn't earth shattering but a little bit of news. >> guest: it also follows the model of what we did when hu jintao was succeeding him. one of the handicaps we have in dealing with china is that there are actually quite a lot of top leaders. in the united states there is only one president but in china they have a group leadership that is mostly unknown to americans and when that leadership successions come up, it is not necessarily certain someone will come through. in the history of the trc, several examples of people who thought they should be the successor and did not succeed. but in 2002, as far as i can

see, the smoothest of the transitions thus far, this one seems to be following a similar pattern. another similarity was in 2002, 2003, very few americans know anything about hu jintao. they knew what his bio, was. they knew he observed that few people had a good read on what kind of a leader he would be. we have invited countless experts to come and to try to get inside and to give us a sense about who is this person, what will we be dealing with? i would imagine the administration is doing something similar with regard to peng now. >> host: president hu jintao came to the white house in 2006 to a luncheon hosted by van president bush. whether the ceremony on the south lawn would in fact take place, temperatures warmed up and so the pomp and ceremony that is typical of the state of rival took place with the president and first lady greeting the president of china for the south lawn ceremony.

the public in attendance as well. we will show you some of that as we listen to this call from philadelphia. maurice's on the phone. go ahead please. >> caller: thank you mr. scully and thank you c-span. i wanted to direct a couple of questions toward the panelists but first of all certainly can't forget how nixon was so forward leaning and reaching out to the chinese back in the 1970s. all the way up to a point now where we have the chinese speaking about actions in terms of human rights and industry as well as working with the bush family and doing various activities as well. one of the questions i was trying to work through was an opportunity to find out from the two panelists, how do you see john husband's inner workings with the next generation of chinese leaders and how he has been bringing him along to do some of the things that some of the older leaders seem to be doing now in terms of leaning forward on human rights? second of all, the competition we seem to be having now with

china and africa and african nations. where is the state of play with that now? how will we deal with the chinese in terms of working with human rights and business aspects they are and where is that going to leave us in terms of global competition as well as global partnership? >> host: thank you for the call and we should point out one of the architects of architecture henry kissinger among attendance night. who would like to take that question? >> guest: i would be delighted to take the question and maybe steve would take the africa question. i think john huntsman is a national asset. he speaks chinese excellently. he has all the skills and of a polished politician. he left the governorship to take this position with a 70% approval rating at the time that he resigned in order to become an ambassador to china. he has had diplomatic experience in the past that it just shows, i've seen them a number of times in china in different settings.

this man is a natural. he deals easily with people on the street. he deals easily with people at various bureaucratic levels and he is quite a -- to hu jintao and whinge about. so i can't say specifically how effectively he has cultivated the next generation but from what i have seen i would say he is doing a superb job of bridging the united states in china during what was a very difficult year this past year. and i would be very surprised if you are not building good ties in the next generation of leadership. >> host: in fact president of mom was asked about john hudson hudson -- huntsman. the persons responsible as he is not sure working for president obama would help him and a republican primary. >> guest:that was a good light to get out of the difficult question. and the virtue of being true. >> host: what about african trade? >> guest: first i would say one of john huntsman's greatest qualities is he was a missionary in taiwan. i followed in his footsteps along with his brother which is

a personal connection that is quite -- quite treasured and a shaped both of our lives. again, john has for a long time thought about doing exactly this job. and so he is a tremendous opportunity to do a lot with it. africa, you know, i think africa for china was seen as a place to extract resources and to get u.n. votes to keep the security council where it is, brushoff human rights resolutions at the u.n., and they think they were somewhat taken aback, recognizing the systemic problem of going in there and trying to extract resources, bringing your own workers to do that and that is tremendously sensitive clinically, that they did not accurately gauge the sensitivity of doing work in places like the sudan and i think that they were quite shocked by that.

over the years the bush administration that was raised tremendously, think that sort of was coincident with china really expanding its outreach and engagement in major economic ways. but the people of africa have had reactions as well. and it has been an interesting learning curve. many chinese corporations when they go into these projects don't actually consult with the chinese government. they go into their project and when problems arise, the problems go to the government, and many problems came up over the course of the last decade. my sense is that they are getting better about dealing with this, and there have been some excesses in africa where relations were quite strained with the government and they seem to have worked through. >> host: i want to put on the issue of currents and let me remind our audience or to guess, two experts on u.s. and china relations, kenneth lieberthal who is a veteran of the clinton administration and stephen yates who served in the bush administration. shone as joining us from iowa city.

welcome to the conversation. good evening. >> caller: thanks guys. i would like to say to my fellow americans that it might be a good idea to give china a little bit of leeway on human rights issues right now, to remember that the united states had a long history before we came to the point we are at right now. my question is an independent, i like democrats and i like republicans and at certain times one might be better than the other. to steve gates, what do you feel it would have been like if john mccain was president right now and do you guys feel they might be talking about taiwan behind closed doors or did you hear anything about that? >> host: thanks john. >> guest:. >> guest: it is an interesting thought. there was a brief moment in the 2008 campaign where it seemed like john mccain might have a chance of being president. it was but brief. my senses he had become president they would certainly be in tense relations with china

just because when we deal with many issues of consequence, you run into china's interests at play too and they would need to be a serious effort to try to achieve cooperation. we can come to different assessments of how much cooperation is likely but john mccain, like barack obama, would have had to try. interesting but impossible to prove whether it president mccain would have had a full state visit on the bush way with a working business but at this point we are where we are. >> host: twitter.com/c-span is our address if you want to send us the tweet. we have one from, making your enemy powerful as always a bad policy. how do you respond to that sentiment? >> guest: at face value it sounds correct. if we know someone is our enemy wouldn't make much sense to make them stronger. with china the way i would frame it is, i have a relatively skeptical view of where chinese

power is going. i feel that the burden of proof is on their side. it clearly accumulated a great deal of power and influence economically and militarily. they deserve a degree of respect for what they have accomplished but at the same time there is an open question of what do they intend to do with this power? it is very clear that they seek development of their country. is very clear that they seek to influence things in the world, but a lot of that content is not filled out. it will have to fill it out if it is their choice but until they do i think it is fair to have some concerns about which way it could go. secretary gates got a pretty clear dose of that and going through china. the headlines out of his visit were mixed. he went to military-to-military relations ahead of the summit, and yet for reasons that escape many people, the chinese military chose to show off a new technology. the extent of it and what one can know from videos aside in a

country where web sites can be taken down pretty quickly, they stayed on her a long time, and so clearly there is some mixed message there about wanting to show strength and i think it is reasonable for people to ask. ..

a lot of the future of china is not clearly determined. maybe better for us, may not be so good for us. but i would say that time is going to become more powerful regardless of what we do. we may make it a little more difficult for a slightly easier, but the fundamental drivers that produce overall chinese development are not under the control of the united states. secondly, if we treat like china it will become one. so will be much better off working to see whether we can derive better outcomes from both from it because there were so many issues of vital concern for us that if we work in reasonably parallel fashion, we'll do better on that. if working cross purposes, all of us will do worse. >> host: china's economy and its currency, tim geithner speaking about this last week at the johns hopkins school of washington d.c. here's a portion of his remarks on the china currency issue. >> when you think about competitiveness and the effects

of what you see in the exchange rate, you really have to look at inflation and use the completion accelerating, running at a much higher rate than inflation. and at that rate of inflation combined with the exchange rate that affects competitiveness. and if you look at the amount it is on the relative acceleration and chinese inflation over the last six months or so, the exchange rates are appreciating as an exchange rate of about 10% a year. so if that appreciation was sustained over time, it would make it very essential difference in correcting what the major distortion for the chinese economy and the global economy. we're probably at the end of the first quarter to use the sports. end of the second inning if you want to use the sports comparison. that is changing. it has to happen because the fundamental forces that are pushing chinese productivity

growth in pushing inflation higher will bring about the necessary adjustments and exchange rates. >> host: secretary baker last week at john hopkins university in washington d.c. the entire event at the white house are all available on our website at espn.org. explain the currency issue. what is china doing and what impact it would have been in u.s. businesses? >> guest: welcome in the chinese are basically controlling the value of the chinese currency vis-à-vis the u.s. dollar. they let it effectively change in relative value vis-à-vis all other currencies as the u.s. dollar changes in that relative evaluation. but they are willing to expand a lot of chinese money in order to buy enough dollars or sell enough dollars at any given point so they can affect the markets and have the market come out at an exchange rate that they control. i think it is widely fallen and

corrected they keep the chinese relevancy cheap vis-à-vis the u.s. dollar. it will go up in value before fully marketed. >> host: let's turn them into the trade deficit number to show you from 1992 where we are today. in 1990 the trade deficit with a $10.5 billion. the u.s. trade deficit with china. localities increased over the years to $83.8 billion in 2000 according to the most recent figures, almost $253 billion. >> guest: that is very little to do with currency frankly. there reflects a lot of things, including our being in a washing consumer credit for a number of years after 2002. if you look at our trade balance, it actually was pretty much imbalance until about 2002 mike 2003 and then it went way out of whack. but we floated around economy liquidity. we finally creasy, bought on

credit. chinese became very good at exporting and so we thought their exports and ran up a huge bill in the process of doing that. more importantly, the chinese -- our trade imbalance with china reflects a lot of dimensions of the chinese economy and frankly are unfair trade practices paired semi-legitimate economics and some are simply unfair. the currency misalignment has a huge impact locally, but i would argue has a low impact on u.s.-china trade and its very little because as it leaves china it's only about 15% on average of the price we pay for good at a store in the united states or the rest is transportation insurance markets and so forth. if you look at goodstein ascends to the united states, two thirds of the value of each of those items on average, china imported from elsewhere in asia. it assembled them in china and ship them out to the u.s. so if we increased -- of the

chinese increased by 10% vis-à-vis the united states, the shift in price here would be miniscule. it would be increasing by 10%. only 15% of the final goods, so that's 1.5%. two thirds of that would've made up by importing more cheaply since it is stronger. at the end of the day if half of a percent difference. so it doesn't read the trade balance in any serious way with the u.s. even though politically on capitol hill in this scene is absolutely key to the trade balance. post over focusing on u.s.-china relationship as president of a host president hu jintao at the white house. if you want to watch more of the event, all available on our website at c-span.org. including the guest list and menu. to run the chinese president will travel to capitol hill and meet with his misleaders are it also an event that the u.s.-china business council in the u.s. visit will conclude with a stop in chicago before

the president of china hits back to beijing. steve joining us from boston. good evening. >> caller: good evening. thank you for taking my call. i just like to preface my first by saying that i am an american phone practitioner who has traveled to beijing in 2003 and was illegally, unlawfully detained and arrested by the secret police. and just for speaking openly to a citizen who felt scared and turned me in judea or reduce about the persecution of fallible. and while i was being interrogated, i was with a friend of mine who speaks fluent chinese. and the secret police in china had no idea that he spoke chinese. and the topic of their conversation was that we were fbi or cia sent to beijing to see how they treat balin golden

practitioners. and my point is that those chinese government looks set to following code is more vague dread of the u.s. government. >> host: your question, steve. >> caller: that leads me to my point which is why we don't hear the u.s. government and actually the u.s. media really criticize or focus on chinese human rights abuses because right now i believe there is a movement in the u.s. -- it's actually an intelligent, the chinese intelligent friends over scholars who study at our major universities, not to steal our high-tech information, but to influence our scholars. >> host: i'm going to stop you there so we can get a response. thank you for the call. >> guest: i think they're many of us who have had the awful personal experience of witnessing in the pews, having

been treated rather roughly by chinese security services. and it is a profound reality in china. it is not all glitz and glamour, sky races in nightclubs and that companies in china. there is a profound and ruthless elements to the government control there. i personally find the approach to falun gong unconscionable and not justifiable. but it dates say something about the system of government that it would find profoundly fearful, an organization of people who are able to operate virtually out of sight of the government detection, able to practice the least that the government opposes and basically get away with it and grow inside china. for a long time and actually was getting rather large numbers. persecution increased.

these people moved overseas and still organize. i think it's a sign of weakness in the system of government to see this kind of organization as a threat. without passing judgment on what they believe and other elements of what their personal life would be. i think it's an important element of what this current china is. it's important for people to remember this current china is not 5000 years of china. this current china is the prc. and there's nothing in my view consistent with chinese culture and civilization in taking this kind of an approach to these kinds of groups. >> host: i'm going to put another issue in the table. you talk about secretary gates to travel to beijing. in both the first administration and the clinton administration in an event at the nixon center in which he touts about the military to military relationship between our two countries. here is part of a statement.

back in the upper talking about multiple relationships as though it can somehow resume to deal as an equal under these circumstances with the world's best come without losing face. much of what you described is what you would expect from somebody who hasn't yet proven themselves. the chinese navy has been a coastal defense force. now they are over there in the gulf of aden, but they're getting miniscule experience. their senior leaders are largely what we would call potential in terms of their world outlook because they haven't had the exposure for the contact with the advanced militaries of the rest of the world that you would expect. so my own defenses if we want this military to military relationship to develop, we can have a great leap forward. we have to make incrementalist types. we have to deal with each other

in ways so that they can gain confidence that they can do what does in the types of dialogue we would like to have without losing face because they are constantly demonstrating that they are not the two are standards in of understanding what we want to talk about. >> host: , the former u.s. ambassador to china, stapleton roy in an event sponsored by the nixon center. in the communicator tonight a couple points were addressed. first of all come and prove it to enhance communication and coordination between our two countries. secondly, the realization that without nuclear weapon and finally the u.s. and china agreed on the critical importance of maintaining peace and stability among the korean peninsula. >> guest: i think the security side of this discussion over the past 24 hours have gone fairly well. on korea we got anymore -- we got a tougher chinese statements

on north korea and its nuclear program than we've had before. and that has potential consequences. it looks like over the past month or so they've put a lot of pressure on north korea to back down and stop their provocations against the south and the negotiating table and if you're too earlier agreements. i do think that the issue that stapleton was talking about in engaging a serious, sustained, pragmatic, in-depth set of discussions with the chinese military, having chinese military offers coming to the u.s. economy for national defense university have our officers go there, establishing a really diverse, sustained set of relationships between our two militaries is absolutely critical. >> host: use the word saving face. >> guest: i used the word earlier saving face and he used the word saving face. this is approximate and the chinese military is in the early

stages of getting comfortable with exposure to a much more cosmopolitan military establishment. when i go to international conferences, everyone speaks english. very few chinese pla officers command english. so they feel very comfortable about being there. but this is not easy to pull off, but it is vitally necessary that we keep promoting this kind of an exchange. i find on the occasions when i'm with chinese uniform military as my audience or around a conference table, it feels as if the u.s.-china relationship were as if that were 20 years ago. the rest of the relationship has moved forward in the wake we do with each other on a much deeper basis of mutual understanding. the military sight is impaired and that frankly is dangerous. so i think we really need to push those and kind of mood chinese forward as rapidly as we can.

>> host: matthew joining us from baltimore. good evening. >> caller: good evening. thank you for a call in in your panel. thank you for your public service and championing american values, the public. to distinguish a moment from the clinton administration, if you could list some of the hot issues that is -- poses a challenge for america dealing with china negotiations, other than the economic situation and the human rights issue, are there any others that are hot topics of issuance. enter the gentleman gentleman from the distinguish gentleman from the bush administration, while earl would the public to play in advancing and promoting the american priorities in china? >> guest: thank you for the call. this is the scene from earlier tonight at the north portico of

the white house says the president and first lady are greeting president hu jintao for the state dinner. tonight these point. >> guest: well, the will of the american public is important of course. and in many ways, the way the future between our two countries is determined by our peoples more so than our leaders. i think that sort of, to use a cheap current phrase, that sort is so last century to talk about having two leaders get together and somehow move the world forward. we have an enormous number of young chinese people who have come to the united states to be educated to work. we have an increasing number of americans going abroad in interacting with equal in china. i think it's really the strength of our peoples in those exchanges that will move things forward. i'm not so sure it will be so kind to the current structure of china's government with expanded access to information, paper and ideas, higher demands by a more capable young population, but i

think there is a robust role, whether it's in academia, professional realms that in mind you, beat a limited government person i think it's actually more important than what our government does. >> host: we've listed some of the guests at the dinner tonight. former diplomat, henry kissinger and madeleine albright, christiana report from abc news and business executives who talked about from walt disney, goldman sachs as well as members of the diplomatic community. former governor jon huntsman. what stands out from these 225 people who are in the list for tonight's dinner and what does that tell you about our relations with china? >> guest: actually i think, as steve mentioned earlier, this is a fairly typical list. your cultural luminaries, often people -- jackie chan is on here. a popular figure. >> host: barbra streisand.

>> guest: barbra streisand well known in relations -- you have big business people. some are friends of the president and others are just there because of their major roles in china. so jeff and now from ge. ge has an enormous set of businesses in china. yet some people from the u.s. administration to deal with china. of course you have a lot of chinese who are at the dinner. what struck me and this is a minor point come but what struck me as there are no former u.s. ambassadors to china with the exception of winston board who served in the administration of bush one. there are not former china people -- people who manage china and earlier administrations, republican or democrat here. are normally are a few of those and i was thunderstruck or the absence of those on this list, but that's a very minor point. jedi that stands out for being which you would expect. >> host: i have to ask you because it is in the state

dining room, but there's additional in the blue room in the bedroom which is one of the reasons why the white house does not allow us to have the toast late tonight. but if you're in this additional rooms, is there any protocol between those people were not in the state dining room? >> guest: you know, haven't seen that happen so i don't know the answer to your question. >> guest: they have been extracted view. if i were invited to the state dinner, i would sure like to be in the state dining room. i can tell you that. >> guest: they'll go to the east dining room and others will be posted on a website. charlie is joining us from california. good evening. call co-good evening. thank you for taking my call. and i really believe the political institution in china is evolving in human rights because we really should look at our whole institution. all political institutions from

1776 until the early jacksonian time it was a political institution for white slave owners only. and after the 1800s, until the 1900, we have a true democracy with all of the human rights for all our peoples. so it took us more than -- almost 160 years. and they got 30 years. and i really believe, you know, eventually they will have not our type of democracy, but they'll have the people who speak up with freedom of press and with the freedom people to choose their own leaders. because it took us almost 150 years. you see what i'm saying? >> guest: charlie, thank you for the calling. let me point out to take us back

to 1972 when richard nixon first traveled to china nearly 40 years ago. from that point to a charlie was talking about and where we are today, what about the last four decades? >> guest: that's a long walk in a lot of issues to cover. there are a couple of serious questions and looking at the situation versus what we're dealing with today. when nixon's motivation and approaching china, i would wager to say has nothing to do with human rights except in the broadest sense of the free world sit during the cold war for human rights and the rise and threat of communism with a definition have been bad. but otherwise it was a geostrategic move to tilt the cold war in a different direction and create space for the withdrawal from vietnam. and both are major top-tier

national security interests of the united states. we've gone through two wars in the last decades with high casualties, healing in comparison to the casualty rate of vietnam war. sleep get a sense of how important it was to find a new way forward in that world order. and so the nature of china was not seen as important as the broader geostrategic landscape. china at that time had a terrible internal order, a tragic order that resulted in not just persecution, but that and just held back the chinese nation in a profound way. and so, flash forward to today, one of the challenges, i think, is that it is very hard to see movement on the international security issues, quite the way you could even under that extremely in the context of the cold war and the vietnam war.

were talking again with north korea. counter proliferation may be, so different context. when it comes to human rights and progress, it's come up in a couple of the questions. no one can run away from what america had done poorly in the past, injustices in the past. in america tended to be first in the world in improving and addressing a lot of these things. people can debate how far or fast. there is no reason why another country would need to take 200 years to get to where we are today. there's endless opportunities for people to do better, faster. the hope for the chinese people to have this kind of freedom to speak out, challenge government were necessary, like their leaders, wonderful. but that not today. and we don't have a clear sense of what tomorrow is. >> host: expertise of the last two administrations to the bush

and clinton administration. seven u.s. presidents have done with chinese leaders, including a former customer for president george w. bush spoke about among other issues current team trade in the 2007. we want to show that to you to give you a benchmark to see where you are just a few years later. here's former president bush in the rose garden may 24, 2010. >> one of the issues i emphasize to mind when she as well as the delegation was that we're watching very carefully as to whether or not they will appreciate their current fee. and that's on the context of making it clear to china do we value our relationship with the $233 billion trade deficit must be addressed. one way to address it is the currency valuations. another way to address is for them to help convert their economy from savers to consumers. and that's why secretary paulson worked very assiduously with the strategic dialogue group to

encourage openness for capital markets, that china must open its capital markets to allow for different financial institutions from around the world to go into the country and not only would it be beneficial to the united states, we think it will be beneficial to the chinese economy for the consumers do have different options when it comes to savings on purchases. >> host: that was president george w. bush in may 2007. kenneth lieberthal, your response. >> guest: the whole conversation we've had highlighted the reality dealing with chinese complicated. none of the fact that very easily. china's currency is undervalued. it has been the fastest-growing export for the last seven or eight years there've been no export more than $100 billion a year worth of goods to china and that is increasing very rapidly. overall, fundamental reality is

our interests are intertwined by secretary clinton said in an earlier clip, we are entangled with each other. we differences. we have tough issues to manage. this in both its interest to learn how to manage them better so we don't become enemies. we become countries that can cooperate mutual benefit were necessary and can at least manage the differences and prevent them from becoming catastrophic where we really can't agree on issues. but nature of the game here. postcodes deviate, final thought. >> guest: i'm impressed by the degree of continuity between the last administration and this administration doing to china. even though i served, i didn't agree with everything the president did on this relationship. but what's unchallengeable is the invested an enormous amount of his personal time in the frequency of communication, the

quality of communication between the leaders of the united states and china expanded exponentially during his time in office. president obama has shown no slowing down of that kind of interaction. i fear -- i hope ken is right in a statement on security and things like that each result. i fear there is tension ahead if our american congress and public aren't able to see results that they deem to be of value. if they depart for the obama administration to produce, but they're in office they set the standard. is the way the game goes. >> host: steve yates consulting firm and kenneth

the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 1c of rule 19 prork seedings will now resume on h.r. 2, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 2, a bill to repeal the job-killing health care law and health care related provisions in the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010.

the speaker pro tempore: when consideration was postponed on tuesday, january 18, 2011, five hours of debate remained on the bill. with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader o their designees. minutes equally divided and controlled by the chr and ranking minority member of the committee on education and work force. 90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on energy and commerce. 90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking member of the committee on ways and means. the chair recognizes the gentleman frominnesota. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i risen support of h.r. 2 and i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for such time as he may consume. >> for 20 consecutive months, 20 million americans have been unemployed. as much as we'd like to solve this problem, the federal government cannot legislate our way to job creation.

we can, however, foster economic certainty that will encourage businesses, families and entrepreneurs to spend and hire. that is what we will try to do today. mr. kline: almost a year ago, the democrats launched a $1 trillion government takeover of health care that increases spending by $500 billion over 10 years. the 2,6700 page law led to more than 4,000 pages of new rules and regulations and the law is only 10 months old. the uncertainty of what this all means for individuals and businesses today and in the months and yrs to come is having a chilling effect on the country's job creators. a number of provisions of the law will undermine job creation and economic growth but perhaps none is as alarming as the employer mandate. for the first time in the nation's history, employers with more than 50 workers are

required, are required, to provide government-approved health care coverage. those who do not or cannot afford to will be forced to pa a $2,000 penalty for every worker beyond the first 30. if you are a small business owner with 50 workers and you cannot afford to provide government-approved health insurance to your workers, adding one additional employee in the payroll will result in a $42,000 penalty. some refer to the employer mandate as shared sacrifice. they argue that expanding coverage to every individual means everyone must pay. but the cost of this provision will result in more than lost dollars and cents. hiring new workers will be more expensive, creating a disinctive for job creators to put americans back to work. the employer mandatesn't the only challenge facing employers. last year, the administration released a regulation on the grandfatheprovision, a

provision intended to protect the current plans against the law's complex and costly requirements. it is also central to the president's promise that, quote, you like your current health care plan, you can keep it, close quote. unfortunately the regulation falls far short of the president's promise. by the administration's own estimates, up to 69% of all employer plans and 80% of small business plans will be denie grandfathered status in just two years. one estimate indicates 87 million americans will face changes to their current health care plans. instead of keeping what they have, they will ha to pay more for something new and unfamiliar. the more costly it is for employers to provide coverage, the more likely existing health plans will be eliminated and the need for government assistance will grow and as the rolls for governme assistance expands, the cost to taxpayers will skyrocket. at a time when every job creator

should be encouraged to grow and hire, the government's health care plan forces them to choose between rising health care costs and government penalties. it is time to end the uncertainty d time to push obama cashe aside so america's job creeyoit -- creators both large and small can move forward with the confidence they need to hire new workers. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> i yield myself four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. miller: i rise in strong opposition to h.r. 2 the republican patients bill of rights repeal act. the question is fundamental, whether or not people will be able to have control over their health care needs and health insurance needs or whether or not we will go back to the chaos of the previous system that is dictated by the insurance companies where people are thrown off of policies willy nily, where people are n reimbursed for costs willy

nilly, giving excuses, paperwork back and forth, where young people arehrown off their parents' policy at the age when they graduate from high school and whether or not they'll hav insurance or not. or whether people will have the freedom to make the choices to have insurance that will cover them, that will get rid of the pre-existing conditions that eliminate their coverage, that will get rid of the lifetime caps so those people who contracted cancer or other chronic diseases find out they've run out of insurance at the exact moment they need it, no longer will that be the case under the current law. the choice is to repeal that law and to make it more difficult for small businesses to provide insurance. since the enactment of the tax credit under this law, we now see that hundreds of thousands of employees have been extended health insurance by small businesses employeing 50 workers or less because of that tax credit. a tax credit that is scheduled to increase. so we already see the hundreds

of thousands of employees that did not have aess to insurance because they worked for small bunesses today have insurance. that's not the reporting of the vernment. that's the report 240e6ing health insurce companies where people and businesses are making application for insurance. so what we see now is young people are once again covered and can have the security that they'll have health insurance while they go to school or while they start a new job that may not have health insurance with that coverage. we now see the people who may have had a bout of cancer early on know that will not disqualify them from having insurance as they go out and continue to work to provide for their families. to provide for their families. we see that after 2014, when people change eir jobs or lose their job, they will have insurance so they will not have to go to the poor house because of the insurance costs that they will not be able to provide for because they're unemployed. they will not be locked into a job they don't want.

they will be able to be entrepreneurial and be able to go out and seek a new job, knowing they'll have insurance. that's the certainty of this legislation. we can now choose the chaos of the current insurance system. we can choose the chaos of people getting a letter saying, you no longer have insurance, gettg a letter saying, your child is no longer covered. getting a letter saying, your premiums are 59% as they did in california. we've seen the costs jump and over the last decade we've seen more and more businesses shed coverage for their employees. republicans want to believe there's certainty in that. reblicans want to believe that that's a comfort to the american working family. the republicans want to believe that that's a comfort to grandparents who see their grandchildren thrown off their children's policy. that's not a comfort. what is a comfort is the freedom to know that never again will you have to contest the arbitrary ruling of an insurance company about your pre-existing

condition, about the coverage of your child's health care. never again will you have to contest whether or not you'll get help paying for your pharmaceuticals if your senior. never again will you have to pay for preventive medical checkup to try to keep you healthy if you're a senior. that's the certainty that this legislation presents. last night, i had a telephone town hall meeting with over 1,000 seniors in my district and all of them, almost all of them, there were three or four in the call, almost all of them wanted the certainty of knowing they were going to get help with their pharmaceutical payments. they suggled with the doughnut hole and were appreciative of the $250 check they got last ar and they're appreciative for the help they'll get paying for their pharmaceuticals this year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expyred. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. . the gentleman from minnesota.

mr. kline: at this time i'm pleased to yield a minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. petri. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. mr. petri: today i rise in support of h.r. 2, legislation which wod repeal the health care law passed last year. even it's unlikely this bill will pass the senate, i think it's important for the house majoty to state its position in the clearest possible terms to encourage a general re-evaluation of the new law. make no mistake, my colleagues and i support health care reform which would ensure that all americans, including those with pre-existing conditions, have access to affordable coverage. howevethe health care law that passed last year takes a fundamentally wrong approach to achieving that goal and will only make worse ourkyrocketing health care costs and federal deficits. my state of wisconsin is the leader in terms of providing efficient, high quality care, and i have been meeting and will continue to work with medical providers in my state as well as my colleagues on both sides of

the aisle to develop proposals which would reward high quality, low cost medical servis instead of simply giving government more control over our heal care. only by implementing proposals that rein in out-of-control health care costs will we be able to make affordable coverage available to all aricans. i look forward to working with my colleagues on this important issue. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield four minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for f four minutes. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. spear. i thank the chairman for yielding. as we sit here this morning there are millions of americans sitting in front of computers or the want ads desperately looking for their next job. 15 million unemployed americans. the quesquestion they are askin this congress is, why don't you work together to help small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs for our country? the answer t majority gives

them is, we'll get to that someday. what they are doing today raises some real questions as well. a mother of two 4-year-old twins diagnosed with leukemia. the twins are. tries to buy health insurance, the insurance company says we won't sell it to you because your children have leukemia or we'll charge you five times as much. we say, that should be illegal. and the law today the majority trs to repeal says differently. a yes vote for repeal means she's told sorry, no insurance. a person who's faithfully paid his premiums for years and suddenly needs a quadruple bypass heart operation receives a tter from his insurance company, says sorry, we are resippeding your coverage -- rescinding your coverage. we say and the law says that should be illegal but a vote for

repeal says sorry, you are on your own. a pregnant woman who has a very difficult pregnancy and diffs birth to a child with severe impairments that costs hundrs of thousands of dollars each month. the law says and we say that the insurance company should be legally obligated to pay her bills as long as she and her baby needs it. no lifetime policy limits. t a vote for repeal says, she's on her own. a senior citizen who runs out of prescription drug coverage the fourth of july or lab day, the law days and the bill says they should get some help to continue to buy their prescriptions for the rest of the year. a vote for repeal says she's on her own. we are all on our own in paying the debt, our president's meeting with the president of china today, and as we do that

the majority is adding over $1 trillion to the national debt with this vote. ladies and gentlemen of the house, this bill doesn't create jobs for the middle class, it creates pain for the middle class. the right vote is no on this repeal. the right course is get back to the jobs ofreating jobs for the american people. vote no. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield to another member of the committee, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. wilson, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson:thank you, mr. chairman, for your leadership. mr. speaker, one of the many threats of this unconstitutional health care takeover is the unfunded state mandates. in my home state of south carolina newly inaugurated governor has correctly warned that the palmetto state cannot afrd the health care mandate. governor haley even went so far as to ask the president to opt

out of this unfunded mandate. the reason is because the health care takeover calls for an additional $1 billion in new state spending. the takeover will take over small businesses. a recent study by the national federation of small businesses, america's largest organization of small businesses, has indicated that the men date will lead to the elimination of 1.6 million jobs. this law imposes burdens on all americans. it's a threat on senior citizens and it will lead to waiting lists, deferral service, and rationing. it's a threat to our nation's youth in that it burdens them with excessive debt. mr. eaker, the liberal health care takeover destroys jobs, limits freedoms, and expands big government. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from california, ms. woolsey, a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. woolsey: i ask unanimous

consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. woolsey: mr. speaker, i rise to speak out in emphatic opposition to h.r. 2, the repeal of the affordable care act. mr. speaker, one of my sons, the husband of two, and a wonderful father, came home last week from 6 1/2 weeks in the hospital he has many, many more weeks of recovery ahead of him, but i can tell you that this family that still has a huge challenge ahead of them would not have a chance without health care. the health care coverage that they have. this bill, by the way, goes in precisely the wrong direction. just when we should be strengthening the historic reform we passed last year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle want to tear it apart.

have you never experienced another person that had the needs that my family has today? even if it wasn't in your family? repeal we know would leave millions out in the cold, stripping them of access to affordable health coverage. in fact, blue shield of california recently announced a rate increase ofs much as 59%, 59%. for some 200,000 policyholders. does the majority not see the problem with run away costs that are passed on to middle class families already burdened by a deep recession? do you not -- do you want to return to the broken health care system that has people crying out for reform in the first place? the claim cutting government spending is the most important of all flies in the face of the

c.b.o. that has concluded that their bill would add $230 billion, your bill, the republican bill,230 billion to -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's timhas expired. ms. woolsey: to the debt by 2021. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has exred. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank youmr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to my friend and colleague, member of the committee, the gentlewoman from north carolina, ms. foxx. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from north carolina is recognized for one minute or two minutes? two minutes. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. i thank my friend for yielding me time. i rise today in support of h.r. 2 which repeals the job destroying government takeover of health care. voters rejected the government knows best philosophy in november. in contrast republicans believe that american innovation and reduced government control are keys to successful health reform that reduces health care costs. for instance, it's estimated that 1% of the most seriously

ill account for more than 25% of all health care expenditures. what if we could improve the care of these patients and at the same time reduce costs? we c. we can by harnessing the power of innovation in health research in fields le regenerative medicine. it develops technologieso replace or regenerate organs and tissues using the patient's only cells. these treatments could reduce the costs of chronic diseases by $275 billion a year. consider the fact that dr. anthony, the institute for regenerative medicine at wake forest university, ha surgeries from the recipient's own cells. despite several successful bladder transplants, the f.d.a. insists he go through additional clinical trials on animals and spend millions of dollars in testing that's clearly unnecessary based on his success with the human transplant surgeries. the federal government's regulatory burden is stifling innovation in america and the govement takeover the health care passed by the ruling

democrats last year will imse more job and innovation, destroying regulations on health research. therefore i urge my colleagues to vote in favor of investing in new health technology and research by voting yes on h.r. 2. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yield back. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: yield to the gentleman from texas, mr. hinojosa, a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? mr. hinojosa: i ask unanimous consent that the entire statement be made part of the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hinojosa: mr. speaker, i rise today in strong opposition to h.r. 2. over 1/3 of my constituents in the 15th congressional district of texas are currently uninsured. with passage of the affordable care act, that number which has risen year after year is finally coming down. i project that the percentage of uninsured individuals could drop to only 10%. right now thanks to the affordable care act, children who are 26 and under can stay on their parents' policy as they

finish school and search for a job. with the passage of health care reform in 2010, seniocitizens who hit the dounut hole are now going to receive rebates. small businesses have received their taxes cut. all a result of the affordable care act. if the proposed health care act reform repeal were to pass, i will destroy this progress i have seen in my district and in my state. the families and businesses in my district cannot afford more uncertainty. they cannot afford to go back to the old health care system that was not working for millions of americans and whose spiraling costs were driving our federal dget into the abyss. right now the affordable care act is extending affordable health care insurance to millions of americans. however, here in congress the marity party is asking the house to repeal the law we passed without holding hearings and without offering a meaningful alternative to the

american people who are working -- who are presently without insurance or who have pre-existing medical conditions. those americans were strgling to pay for hefty premiums to insurers. if there are some things that need to be fixed in the present law, we can fix them, but throwing out all the progress that's made is not the answer. the focus of this new congress should be reducing the staggeringly high 9 1/2% unemployment rate. instead we have a bill before us today that makes it harder for businesses to provide benefits to the employees that eliminate the hundreds of thousands of new jobs -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's me has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. now i'm pleased to yield five minutes to a physician on the committee, the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for five minutes. mr. roe: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today in support of h.r. 2, the repeal of obamacare. for the past 30 years i haven't

been a politician but physician treating patients and delivering babies in rural east tennessee and i can say without hetation we have the finest health care system in the world. health care should not be a partisan issue and i personally have never operated on a democrat or republican canser in my life. you can't spend $1 trillion and have a bill over 2,500 pages long and not have something good come out of it. this bill is not, however, good medicine for our country. the repeal of obamacare doesn't mean we aren't for health care reform. quite the contrary. what i discovered in my own practice was in 30 years health care was becoming more and more unaffordable for our citizens and we had a group of patients, citizens, who dn't have affordable health insurance coverage. this we need to address. this bill does increase the number of people who have insurance but does nothing to control the costs. the other side says that if we repeal obamacar it will increase the costs and decrease access. let's take a look.

decrease cts. let's take a look at three government-run plans. one is tenncare, my state's medica program, the massachusetts care, and medicare. in tenncare we had a plan that are competing interests, compete for your business, supposed to hold costs down. we saw our costs in tennessee from 1993 until 2004 and 2005 go from $2.6 billion to$8 billion. it tripled. what we found w was that half the people who went on the government plan had private health insurance and dropped it and got on the government plan. this plan took up almost every new dollar our state took in. . we balanced this on the backs of college students. we have lessighway patrolman now in our state even though we have 20 million more people. it limits the access -- we ended

up limiting the access to physicians to eight visits a year. let's look at massachusetts where there's a mandate. you're required to buy a good or service and the government decides what is the right good or service, what happens, it hasn't helped the cost there either. they have the highest health care premiums in america in massachusetts. emergency room visits are not down, and why is that? same as tenncare. the plans don't pay for care, shifting more and more of the costs. the second thing it does is it empowers lobbyists. you'll see lobbyists come to us, the politicians, say, we want this medicine or this device on our plan. these are the people who write the checks to politicians. you're empowering them. let's look at med care, that started in 1965 as a $3.5

billion program. they said in 10 years' time it would be a $15 billion program, today it's over $400 billion. we have three examples where costs are out of control in the government-run plans. the senior citizens understand this. when you take $500 billion out years we add 36 million seniors, three things are going to happen, you'll have decreased access, you'll have decreased quality, and you'll have increased costs. that's a given. so we have had the president say last year that i will go over this bill line by line, i've read this bill, i wanted to go over it, i wanted to have meaningful health care reform but was denied that privilege. without exception, our states are almost broke. every one of them. we're adding another unfunded federal mandate to require them to pay and implement a plan that's already breaking them,

the expansion of medicaid, which is an entitlement. businesses get it also. if this is such a great plan, why did -- why have, to date, 222 businesses opted out, including mcdonald's and of all people, the seiu, the government employees'nion, who fought for this and then opted themselves out. i find that ridiculous when you see that. the doctors get it. the doctor fix, the s.g.r. fix is not in this bill a cost that was hidden and as doctors are squeezed they cannot see patients that cannot pay the cost of the care. malpractice is not in this bill. i can tell you as an ob/gyn doctor, it's over the top, it's almost unaffordable for us. the american people get it, the people of tennessee get it, we as elected represent i haves get it, we got that in the election of november 2. i want to encourage my colleagues to vote to repeal obamacare and i urge my colleagues to do this i yield ba the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield myself 30 seconds. it's universe lally recognized that there is no worse-designed plan than tenncare. there was no pay-fors, it nearly bankrupted the state and it's recognized that nowhere has the cost gone up fagger than in the private sector, much faster than medicare. there's not much in the way of cost containment, you just reimburse for the cost. this legislation has cost containment, that's why c.b.o. says if you repeal it, you'll drive up thehort-term deficit $230 billion, the long-term deficiters 12k4r.2 billion. -- deficit $1.2 trillion. >> i rise today in opposition to h.r. 2, a bill that would repeal the affordable care act.

the affordable care act signed into law in march of 2010 is an important first ep in reforming our health insurance system. mrs. mccarthy: the affordable care act puts in place important consume brother texts and reduces our country's deficit. this new congress was elected promising a transparent process with input from all members. this repeal bill, however, has not even been considered by a single committee in the house. members are also being shut out of the process. i co-sponsored four amendments submitted to the rules committee, none were accepted. i co-sponsored an amendment to ensure that women continue to receive the protections provide -- provided in the affordable care act. the republicans did not allow the amendment to come to the floor. i co-sponsored an amendment to ensure that alleniors will continue to receive the increased benefit in medicare

and the doughnut hull will continue to be closed. the republicans did not allow this to come up for a vote. i co-sponsored an amendment to ensure that we keep the tax cut, the republicans didn't allow the amendment to come up for a vote. co-sponsored an amendment to prevent this repeal bill from adding to the deficit and the republicans did not allow it to come up for a vote. th republican congress ran on a campaign of reducing the federal deficit. however this would raise taxes on small businesses and individuals and add $1 trillion to the deficit. just to be clear, a vote for this bill will be a vote for higher taxes and increased deficit. though there's an effort to bring this repeal to the floor today what is being proposed in place of affordable care? nothing. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired.

mrs. mccarthy: please vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: before i yield to the gentleman from michigan, i yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from tennessee, dr. roe, respond to the gentleman from california's comments. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. roe: just to address my colleague from california, i would argue that tennessee has thought this plan well out. the problem with this plan is that when you have more services chase fugger dollars, you're going to create waste and you're going to create in a situation where we've shifted the cost you talked about that private health insurance costs going up, that's true. inknow ration, -- innovation, a lot of reasons for that. but one of the main reasons is an over-promise by government programs that shifts cost. we saw that in our state and we can do better. when you say that, we look -- i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: now i'm pleased to yield one minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from michigan, mr. walberg.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. walberg: i rise today in support of the repeal of the government takeover of health care. we're well aware of how the health care law create hundreds of billions in new taxes while doing littology drive down costs and causing millions to lose access to coverage. even more concerning is our howe the law grows government. when this law was passed the democrats said it would create four million new jobs. instead we got over 2,000 new pages of job-killing new taxes and less choice. this law was clearly an overreach of government control. in place of government run health care, true form can be achieved through multiple patient-centered alternatives including expanding h.s.a.'s, association health plans and allowinghe purchase of health insurance across state lines. americans agree. a gallup/"usa today" poll shows that only 13% of americans

supporthe law. the american people want this law repealed and so do i, as i promised. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield twminutes to the gentlewoman from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. mrs. davis: thank you. thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, my mother always told me if you have your health, you have everything. which is why i've always believed every american should have access to the care they need to be healthy. now, my colleagues want t repeal health care without an alternative. it's easy to say you reject something but it's harder to come up with solutions. americans deserve to know how my colleagues' plan protects patients. women should not be denied care bad on gender, nor should they

need a permission slip to see an on gin. the 22 million americans without insurance need access to coverage. insurers shoul't deny children covera because they've been sick. medicare should be kept solvent over the lonte and seniors should have access to affordable prescriptions. americans shouldn't face outrageous annual premium hikes such as the 59% increase many of my own constituents are looking at today. the health care reform bill addresses each of these problems and many more. it'srresponsible to repeal without a plan to fix the issues in our health care system. further, thanks to governor schwarzenegger's efforts before leaving office, california is leading the way in implementing reform. already authorizing health insurance exchange marketplaces to buy affordable insurance.

repeal will cripple health reform efforts in my state and leave it without direction going forward. i can't support legislation that does not offer solutions and goes backwards. so let's focus on creating jobs and not taking away health care from patient the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield one minute to new member of the committee, the gentleman from new york, mr. hanna. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hanna: i rise in support of h.r. 2 to repeal the health care law from last year. we know that the current law raises premiums, we know that it cuts medicare by more than $500 billion. that's unacceptable to the over 120,000 seniors in my district who rely on medicare benefits. we know it raises taxes, imposes

costs on small businesses, and will substantially burden new york. tomorrow, i will vote to instruct committees including the edation and work force committee to produce a thoughtful and improved legislation. i look forward to support regular forms that lower premiu through competition, allow feeks with pre-existing condition access to affordable health care, reform the medical liability system, preserve a patient's ability to keep their own plan and expand incentives to encourage personal responsibility for health care coverage and costs. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jerseymr. holt, a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recnized for two minutes. mr. holt: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the budget-busting legislation that fails to create one new job and

returns our health decisions to insurance companies rather than doctors. repealing the health reform law would be a big mistake. instead of focusing on job creation or retirement security or fair taxes, we're debating repealing a law that protects americans from insurance company abuses prorkvidse fairer and more acceptable health reform for children, for veterans, for seen orrs r employees, for employers. the law saves the avage taxpayer money and saves the insured money. on monday, we celebrated dr. martin luther king jr. day. dr. king fought for an america where everyone, regardless of race or class background, had access to the american opportunity. he said, of all the forms of inequaty, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane. today, the new majority is trying to repeal the health reform law that we enacted just one year ago.

that historic law provides secure health insurance coverage to almost all americans and lowers the deficit. the days of, you're on your own, are past now. the law ensured that health insurance companies actually have to provide health insurance. not just in name but it requires that they spend your premium dollars on actually providing health care. if this reform law were repealed and -- anna's 24-year-old son in kendall park, new jersey, would become unsured. todd in eatontown would not be able to get insurance because of a pre-existing condition. thousands of seniors would not be able to afford life-saving prescriptions. mathew from windsor wrote me, i ju graduated from college, i'm working in a job with no health care. he's grateful he can be on his parents' health plan.

he said shockingly, i would be without coverage for a pre-existing condition if this law were reversed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i'm pleased to yield one minute to another member of the committee, mr. aki . the speaker pro tempore: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. -- the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. achy ta: -- the people of jinn sent me to washington, d.c. with very specific instructions, get the government out of our lives. . every person in this kuwait knows it doesn't solve the problems. it wants to replace it with more government controls, loss of prnl freedom, and trillions of new cost to taxpayers will fail.

let's not forget there are programs already in place that are supposed to do many of the things that the president has talked about his law doing. we should start with reforming those. also health savings accounts, insurance across state lines, covering pre-existing conditions, and subsidizes the private policy should be implemented. health care is not a right. and if we are not careful, the feel good, empty promises made in this law will bankrupt our country and leave our grandkids to pay for it. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: the gentleman from arizona, mr. grijalva, a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the ntleman from arizona is recognized for two minutes. mr. grijalva: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. miller. i rise today in opposition to a regressive and unfair piece of legislation, h.r. 2. we must protect the american people from the republican no-care agenda. their agenda for america is simple. no care if you lose your job.

no care if you or your child has a pre-existing condition. no care if you are a senior in the doughnut hole. care if you are under 26 and on your parents' plan. no care if you get sick and your insurer drops your covage. no care if your insurer hikes your premiums hier than you can afford. no care for indian health care services re-authorization. no care for community health centers. no care for closing the disparity gaps in america's health care delivery system. i urge my colleagues to vote against this repeal, to take away the -- that would take away the progress that we are making to protect our constituents. i urge my colleagues to stop protecting insurance companies and finally, finally take a step toward empowering the american people. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. now i'm very pleased to yield

one minute to another new member of the committee, a physician, the gentleman from indiana, dr. bucshon. mr. ucshon: i rise today in support of h.r. 2, the repeal of the affordable care act. i consider this one of the most crucial votes in this congress. as a surgeon i can speak on the perfect spective of a physician who has dealt with the growing needs for health care reform in our country. we all know there are too many uninsured, too many underinsured. but government solution is the wrong approach. this law does nothing to address the critical issue inealth care today and that's the rising cost of health care. now, let's touch with my patients, 60% to 70% of my patients are in medicare. a $500 billion cut in the funding of medicare and decreasing reimbursement for physicians, for hospitals, an

other providers over the course of time will lead to what it's led to in every oth country that has a government health care system, rationing of health care for some of the most vulnerable people in our society, our american seniors. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: thank you. i yield two minutes to the gentleman from virginia, mr. scott, a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you, mr. speaker. it's important that weocus attention on the substance of the debate on health care. not just calling repealing health care reform, obamacare, or calling it job killer, it will actually create jobs, o even calling it government takeover when it doesn't even include a public option constitutes discussion. t we need to talk about what's actually in the bill and what's actually going to be repealed because we need to talk about what's going to happen to those

under 26 that are now able to stay on their parents' policies. repeal will kick those off those policies. we need to talk about what's going to happen to those with pre-existing conditions. what's happening to those who can now get checkups and -- annual checkups and preventive care with no co-pays and deductibles. we need to talk about the fact we are digging senior citizens out of the doughnut hole and repeal will keep them in the doughnut hole. insurance reform, no rescission, no cutting off insurance in the middle of a treatment. we need to talk about what we are doing for -- for unreasonable increases. that's what you ar going to be repealing if you repeal health care reform. affordability. all americans under health care reform in 2014 will be able to afoord health care -- afford health care, be giving tax credits to businesses, to encourage them to provide health care. this bill will create jobs, you'll be destroying jobs. and you say nothing about the

deficit. the c.b.o. has already calculated that you will significantly increase the deficit if this bill passes. mr. speaker, health care reform is a matter of life and death. the republicans want to repeal health care they ought to be clear and tell the public what will actually happen to young adults. those with pre-existing conditions, senior citizens, what's going to happen to the doughnut hole or insurance abuses or the future of affordability of health care. we should not just be resorting to labels and slogans. we have to be clear of what we are doing to the public. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield one minute to another member of the committee, the gentleman from south carolina, mr. gowdy. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for one min. mr. gowdy: thank you, mr. speaker, mr. chairman. the constitution of the united states has limits and surely one of those limits must be that congress cannot compel a private citizen to engage in a private commercial transaction. surely the congress of the

united states cannot compel a person to purchase life insurance because generational debt is a bad thing. surely the congress of the united states cannot compel someone to purchase vision i -- insurance or dental insurance. the constitution of the united states places limits on congress and it is time that this body honored those limits envisioned by our forefathers and to ask for self-restraint or respect for the constitution should not invite challenges to our humanity or accusations of moral aqui essence. i'm from the upstate of south carolina and every time i go home, i hear about the need for health reform and the fear the ople have with respect to pre-existing conditions. but i support a solution that is patient centered and not government centered. i support a solution that's affordable and not generational. and i support a solution -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. tierney, a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from massachusetts is recognized. mr. tierney: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker prtempore: without objection. mr. tierney: mr. speaker, it is deeply disappointing that following last week's near universal call for unity and cooperation, we saw the calls to lower the temperature of political discourse and move to working together to solving america's pressing issues, the new republican majority is moving full steam ahead with an attempt to repeal the anordable care act. e health care -- affordable care act. the health care law will not be perfect. that prospect will certainly be open to debate and suggestions on how it might be improved might also be open to debate. instead of working together and building on the work that's been done and progress made, we find ourselves here today debating and voting on a bill which while it may pass the house most certainly will never become law nor should it. some call it political catharsis, some pure theater, plain and simple, let's be clear. the positive impact of the existing health care lee form law is having on millions of residents and families in all of our districts is very real. and the the common sense

consumer protection are popular. this misguided legislation will spell the end of one meaningful consumer protection which i fought to get into law. this protection holds insurance companies accountable and ensures consumers are receiving health services which they are paying for. in 1993 many private companies routinely spent $95 -- 95 cents of every dollar on health services. by 2008, many reduced the spending on health services to below 75%. some less to 60% of those dollars. that meant that coanies could spend up to 43 cents of your premium dollar on executive salaries, advertising, lobbyists, bonuses, dividends, and other administrative costs instead of using it for what you contracted for, health care. to keep their excessive profits up, you may have been charged ever higher premiums or denied care through a number of anti-consumer gimmicks. you might have been denied coverage because you or your family member had a pre-existing condition or coverage capped

annually or lifetime, stoppg coverage when it was most needed. as a parent you were refused coverage for your children under 26 even if they were still unemployed and were working someplace -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. tierney: would reverse that. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: may i inquire, mr. speaker, how much time is remaining on each side? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota has 26 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from california has 22 minutes. mr. kline: i thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm very pleased to yield one minute to another new member of the committee, the gentlelady from alabama, mrs. roby. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from alabama is recognized for one minute. mrs. roby: thank you, mr. chairman. mr. speaker, i rise today to stand with my colleagues in support of h.r. 2 that will repeal the health care reform act. sadly this law is about providing health care for all citizens and the law is less

about providing health care for all citizens and more about expanding federal government. it translate into substantial costs over $500 billion that must be paid by hardworking tax paying americans. in economic hard times it is our responsibility to ensure that this does not occur. if we do not repeal this law, our inaction will be nothing less than gross irresponsibility. this must not happen. i want to tell you about the owner of the pizza hut who will be forced to close his doors due to the costs associated with this law. then there is the gentleman that owns pharmacies throughout the southeast who told me he has the ability to create o jobs but cannot do so because he doesn't know what the federal government's going to do to him next. just like our forefathers answered the call to right wrongs, we, too, must answer the call. the citize in r district have spoken and in their words we must repeal this law. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes

to the gentleman from new york, mr. bishop. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized for two minutes. mr. bishop: i believe it is time this congress does what president obama called on americans to do last week, approach our debates and differences with civility and honesty. we appear to be doing reasonably well with regard to civility, but less so withonesty. once again we tackle health care and the debate is fighting back to one line attacks and misrepresentations instead of the new health care law's parents or impact on real americans. the affordable care act has been referred to as a job crushing law. this is simply not honest. as my colleagues across the aisle disregard the fact that since it was signed into law last march, over one million private sector jobs have been added to the economy with 207,000 of those jobs coming from the health care sector. some speak of the repeal would have no meaningful fiscal consequences. this, too, is not honest. the congressional budget office has estimated full repeal would increase the deficit by $230 billion offer 10 years and another $1.2 trillion in the

following decade. some argue repeal will reduce the deficit. if this is true, why have we yet to see a positive score that affirms such a point? repeal does nothing. absolutely nothing other than leaving families with real health insurance -- real health issues no place to go for help. what do i tell the parents of the 9,000 children in my district with pre-existing conditions who will be unable to access coverage because of the ban on discrimination against children with pre-existing conditions is repead? when insurance companies can claim cancer or pregnancy as a pre-existing condition, what will survivors and mothers do for health coverage? what will the 126,000 s affected individuals on eastern long island do? what will the 2,400 young adults who have been able to stay on do if repeal is successful? what do the 112,000 medicare beneficiaries who can now receive free cancer screenings and other preventive care do? what about the 8,500 prescription drug plan recipients who can no longer count on the doughnut hole being

closed and will once again pay higher drug cost it is repeal is successful? simply replacing the positive impact it has had on families -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: at this time i'm very pleased to yield two minutes to another new member of the committee, a physician, the gentleman from nevada, dr. heck. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nevada is recognized for one minute. mr. heck: mr. speaker. increasing access to high quality health care while reducing costs. that was the goal of the recently enacted health care law. but no matter how well-intentioned, very few now stand by that law in its entirety. the new health care law will cost money that taxpayers don't have and will st jobs we can't afford to lose. now is the time to re-examine this misguided law before young families are fced to buy something they can't afford or face fines from their government.

before seniors are forced to find a new doctor or lose the kind of insurance plan they enjoy now. before small businesses shed jobs or are forced to close its doors due to budget busting regulations. more aess, lower cost. it's safe to say that every american supports that idea. as an emergency medicine doctor, i know that i do. and working on the frontlines of health care, i have seen what works and what doesn't. forcing people to buy insurance or fining them, eliminating seniors' access to medicare advantage, burdening small businesses with onerous taxes, don't work. what the american people want are solutions that don't cost more taxpayer money and don't prevent small businesses from hiring new employees. . making sure people don't los their coverage once thaw get sick. letting dependent children stay on their parent's coverage until they're 26.

making sure anyone who wants to buy insurance can purchase a policy, rerdless of pre-existing conditions, and allowing consumers choice while creating incentives to purchase insunce that fits their needs works. some of these solutions are there but there's more wrong with this ll than right. let's repeal this law that doesn't work. let's repair those pieces that could work. let's replace it with patient-centered solutions that will work. and let's give the american people the health care they deserve. i eld back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from hawaii, ms. hirono, a member of the committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for two minutes. ms. hirono: i ask unanimous consent to place my full statement into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. hirono: democrats' top priority is creating jobs, we want to work with republicans to achieve this goal. but instead of focusing on jobs

and growing the economy, the new leadership has decided to star by debating h l. 2, which will repeal patient rights, put insurance companies back in charge and add to the deficit. yesterday, the democratic steering and policy committee held the only hearing congress will have on this bill. we heard for from families from maine to florida, real people, real stories. freedom was a common thread in their stories. because of health care reform, these families are free from worrying abbeing denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, free from worrying about escalating debts because of lifetime caps on their insurance plan. these companies have security and peace of mind. through the landmark health care act, our families have largely been protected from some of the most insurance company plaquetieses but health care

reform is still helping thousands of people across my state. a mother in my state contacted me to say she can ad her 21-year-old son and 24-year-old daughter to her work-sponsored plan. she used to pay $900 a month for just her daughter's health insurance and prescription drugs. now she pays $300 a month to cover both of her under her company's plan. they used to spend $10,800 a year for one child. now they spend $3,600 a year for the entire family. i recently heard from a senior who referred to her $250 medicare doughnut hole rebate check as a blessing in these tough economic times. let's be clear, the patients' rights repile act will hurt, not help middle class families and small businesses in hawaii and across our nation. i urge my colleagues to join me in voting against h.r. 2.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: i'm pleased to yield one minute to another new member of the committee, e gentleman from florida, mr. ross. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. ross: today i rise in support of replacing the recently enacted health care law that nationalizes nearly 1/6 of our country's gross domestic product this past november, the american people sent a resounding message to congress and this administration, that they do not want to pay higher taxes for one-sides-fits-all healthare systemhat replaces doctors with bureaucrats. instead the american people want complete control of thr health care dollars and health care decisions and they want to be able to take their policies with them from job to job without being penalized by the federal government. americans need pvatized health care that forces competiti in order to achieve affordability, choice and innovation. as a small business owner, i

understand that adding $104 billion in taxes and compliance costs for unstable job market creates a massive burden on our taxpayers and is not the best way to encourage economic growth. imposing new regulations on small businesses -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. ross: -- mr. kline: the i yield the gentleman 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ross: one common sense reform is to allow for interstate sale of health insurance policies ascross state lines. allow consumers choice, allow the market to determine the affordability and availability of policies. mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from connecticu mr. courtney. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. courtney: thank you, mr. speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. in 1986, over 66% of america's employers provided retiree

health insurance. in twine, that number has collapsed 29% -- in 2009, that number had collapsed 29%. we set up a tried and true method of insurance we use for flood insurance, terrorism insurance to ensure -- to insure the nuclear industry. this will cost share and cost spread the high claims of older 5rk5-plus americans, is a program that employers have stampeded into. over 4,700 employers have spored this measure. some of these companies are here. they are voting with their feet. s that program that works. mr. speaker, public employers are also taking advantage. this map shows yellow states who have not entered the program. no yellow states have not entered the program. all 50 states with republican governors, democratic governors

have entered this program. states who are sui the federal government to overturn the health care bill, they know a program that's going to work to make sure that their health care costs are going to be controlled and spread. this means that police officers, teachers, people working at corporations who were 55 and uh up can retire with confidence, opening up opportunities for young americans which the clearly the prior system was not going to allow. mr. speaker,hibill will blow up this prram which employers are voting with their feet says will work. that is not creating jobs. this program creates jobs. it lowers costs for employers and provides an avenue for young people to have a future in this country. we should vote no on this legislation, let's grow america's economy, let's preserve the early retiree insurance. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to

other fission, the gentleman from louisiana, dr. fleming. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. fleming: repealing obamacare is an imperative for four reasons. one, while it increases numbers under coverage, it will sharply reduce access to care. like canada and britain, socialized medicine will mean carrying an insurance card that will entitle you only to less choice, longer waits and rationing. second, while the health care system is now hard to navigate, under obamacare it will be a nightmare. with over 150 new mandates and agencies controlled by unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and i.r.s. agents, to whom will we turn when the system fails us? third is yet another entitlement program financed through a disney fantasy of accounting, it will add to the current entitlement fiasco in washington, exploding the budget for many generations to come. finally, with higher taxes and

more constrictions on businesses, employed -- employed americans will continue to decline or become an endangered species altogether. let's repeal the worst legislation in a generation, obamacare. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i think i'starting to understanthe physician shortage in the country, most of them are in the congress apparently. i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. tonko. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. tonko: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i have committed to working with my colleags to create jobs but here we are debating repeal of health carreform instead of focusing on job creation. health care reform was a good start. its enactment in march of 2010, private sector job growth has grown by some 1.1 million jobs. among those, other 200,000 jobs were created in the health care sector alone.

that is why my top priority remains job creation and growing our economy, not obsessing on repealing a bill that is working. if my friend on the other side of the aisle are successful, then seniors, young people, and small businesses in the capital region of new york would be hurt. take my state tim, from albany, new york, for example. he is forced to dig into his pocket to pay for prescription drugs even though she a retired pharmacist on medicare. however, health care reform prosides tim extra stens in paying for his prescription and ensuring this -- ensures the so-cald doughnut hole payment will be no more in the near future. the spker pro tempore: the ntleman's time has eired. the geleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i am really pleased, following the comments of the gentleman from california, to yield one minute to another physician, a new member of the committee, the gentleman from tennessee, dr.

dejar lay. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. desjarlais: as a practicing physicians for two decades in tennesse i stand before you as a witness to failures of a government-run model. obamacare takes the problems i've seen in my home state and expands them to a national level this bill raises taxes, increases spending and will add $701 billion to the federal deficit. most importantly, obamacare will ultimately end up restricting patients' access to quality health care by placing washington bureaucrats between patients and their doctors. moving forward, we do offer solutions. we must work toward reducing waste, fraud, and abuse in medicare. instituting meaningful tort reform, thus reducing the practice of defensive medicine. we can accomplish these -- we can't accomplish these goals without -- we can accomplish these goals without a giant new

bureaucracy. by voting to repeal this unnecessary health care bill, we'll effectively put a stop to the creation of a massive entitlement program that we did not want, do not need and can't afford. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mrs. miller: i yield one minute to the gentlelady from california, ms. bass. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. ms. bass: i rise in opposition to h.r. 2. in survey after survey, the number one issue facing our country is jobs. last year, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle said the number one issue we should be working on is jobs. well the health care reform act is a jobs bill. in the 1970's and 10's, i worked in several hospitals in the los angeles area. during those years, there was such a shortage of health care prociders that hospitals recruited nurses from canada and the philippines. right no there's an estimated shortage of 400,000 nurses

nationally. right now, there's an estimated shortage of 50,000 doctors. right now, there are waiting lists of several years to get a slot in nursing schools and other allied health professions. so if there's a shortage of medical personnel right now and health care reform expands coverage to 30 million people, then can someone explain to me how health care reform is not a jobs bill? thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: at this time i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the gentleman from indiana, mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. pence: i thank the gentleman foyielding and ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: i rise in strong support of h.r. 2, repealing the government takeover of health care passed by the 111th congress. now, i know my colleagues on the other side of the aisle and many of their supporters in the mainstream press don't like us to use that term but let me

defend it for a moment. when you order every american to buy health insurance whether they want it or need it or not, that's a government takeover of health care. when you order almost every business to order government-approved health care or pay hher taxes and send their employees through government -run health insurance programs, that's a government-takeover of health care. when you pass legislation that makes it all run with higher taxes, mandates, burach sis and public funding of abortions against the will of the overwhelming majority of the american people, that's a government takeover of health care and the american people know it. last year, house republicans pledged that the american people gave us a second chance to lead this congress, we would repeal and replace their health care reform with health care reform that focuses on lowering the cost of health insurance without growing the size of government. we're keeping that promise today. now, some in the cynical, political class are saying thi is a gimmick.

it's an empty gesture. we have another term for it on our side of the aisle. it's a promise kept. house republicans are here to stand with the american people and say with one voice, we can do better. we can do better than their government takeover of health care. we can pass legislation that will be market-based, patient-centered but it all begins with today. i urge my colleagues to join us in repealing this government takeover of health carbefore it ever takes effect and then work with us as we build health care reform that is worthy of the american people. the speaker pro mpore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield 30 seconds to the sgrelt from new jersey. . mr. andrews: thus far there are hundreds ever thousands of seniors who got $250 rebate checks for prescription drugs. i would ask anyone on the other side, what does the legislation say about whether or not the seniors will have to repay those checks to the government?

i would yield to anyone who could answer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. payne. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. payne: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. payne: mr. speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the pasheents right to repeal act. proponents of this bill contend that the current health law will deroy jobs, but c.b.o. estimates that $230 billion support the fact that it the repeal being debated today not the health care law that would harm jobs and drain funds from potential job building appropriations. potentially that is being repealed and the protections afforded to taxpayers through the recently enacted health care legislation, therelief given to

the american taxpayers who were for so long paying the bil for uncompensated health care which we never hear mentioned over there, and the progress our country made last year to come out of the dark ages as one of the only three developed countries in the world that do not provide universal health care. 4,800 seniors in my district and over one million seniors in the country were relieved last year by the daunte hole repate. nearly 44% of elderly constituents in new jersey, 134 million americans nationwide, have pre-existing conditions. repeal would reintroduce the hopelessness that americans found in the past had coverage denied and stalled their ability to access quality health care repeal. would remove nearly 1.2 million adults from their parents' health care, including my grandson, who is 23 and on his mother's plan. and remove their ability to take

preventive medicine now to avoid becoming a burden. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. payne: i urge defeat of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. . kline: thank you, mr. speaker. before i yield to the gentleman from pennsylvania, i take about 10 seconds to respond to my friend, the gentleman from new jersey, about the $250. it's not contemplated in the legislation nor is it our understanding the scoring that there is any intention of that $250 being -- mr. andrews: would the gentleman yield? mr. kline: i yield now two minutes to the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania venged for two minutes. mr. thompson: mr. speaker, ask permission to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. thompson: as a health care professional for almost 30 years, i sat and read 2,000 pages of the bill, as i read it i became alarmed at the level of coroover an individual's health that would be vested in the federal vernment. i spent my life working with those facing lifeltering disabilities and diseasings. i have been quick to point out while we have the best health syem in the world there must

be iroments. that is why i'm supporting the repeal. patient protection and affordable care act. i believe there are pent of reasons for my -- plenty of reasons for my colleagues to join me. a mandate that the president opposed on several occasions when running for office, as a result on failing to live up to this promise, t justice department is now attempting to defend the mandate on the grounds it is a tax. according to the nonpartisan medicare actuary, because of the law national spending will increase by more than $310 billion over the first 10 years. the law will not lower health care costs despite numerous claims that we have heard. according to the congressional budget office analysis, it will increase for family. this comes tea spite promises of lower premiums. if this law remains in place up to 35 million people could lose health care access. according to the former c.b.o. budget director, the health care law provides strong incentives for employers with the agreement of their employees to drop

employ year sponsored health insurance for as many as 35 million americans. the national taxpayer advocate issued a report that bugs 40 million businesses will be impacted by the new i.r.s. 1099 filing requirements. this will require vendors and small businesses to do paperwork on any transaction over $600. in addition, the taxpayer advocate does not believe this will result in improved tax compliance. this provide is so unrealistic that even the president's small business administrators call for its repeal. mr. speaker, we must repeal and replace this law and continue together as the entire congress not just two parties and move forward with the commonsense ideas that will include better access, affordability, quality, and promote patient choice. enqurge my colleagues to join me. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield one minute to the gentleman, mr. cohen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. cohen: thank you, sir. i'm going to cite two republicans to give two reasons to oppose this legislation and keep health care reform.

one of the new republicans when he didn't think he was going to get his insurance immediately said, what am i? not supposed to have health care? if the practicality. i'm not going to become a burden for the state because i don't have health care and god forbid i get into an accident and i can't afford the operation. that can happen to anyone. he succinctly summed up the reason why everyone should have the same opportunities as members of congress have to have health care. but more importantly and mor intentional way, one of the most revered doctors in the world, former republican majority leader, senator bill frist, said yesterday that he urged the republicans to drop the charade and build on the legislation. he said, if he would have been here he would have voted for the bill and it was important to consider the bill the law of the land and move from there. it is the platform, the fundamental platform upon which all future effts to make the system better for the patient and family will be based and that is a fact. if has strong -- the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. mr. cohen: i support dr. frist, thank you. the spker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased now to yield one minute to a member of the committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. platts. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for one minute. mr. platts: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the gentleman yielding. i rise today in support of house bill 2. this simple two-page bill seeks to repeal the new unconstitutional health care law that will create a massive new entitlement program, cost taxpayers more than $2 trillion per decade. increase taxes, and impose job destroying mandates on businesses, cut medicare by hundreds of billions of dollars, and further increase health care premiums for individuals by more than 10%. the goal is not only to repeal the new health care law but also to replace it with real reforms debated openly through the ordinary legislative process that are truly about reducing health care costs. reforms such as allowing small businesses and individuals to join together in national group plans to cut premium costs. allowing individuals to purchase health insurance across state

lines thereby increasing competition for the businesses. and enacting medical malpractice liability reform legislation. i will continue to push for commonsense reforms that are focused onruly reducing health care costs for all americans. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield one minute to the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. peters. the eaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. peters: mr. speaker, with unemployment in michigan at over 12%, i'm not going to support a bill that raises taxes on small businesses. let us be clear, voting for the patient rights repeal act will eliminate the small business health care tax credit. small businesses have faced outrageous increases in their health care costs over the past decade. this tax credit helps reduce that burden and is already making a real difference. the "l.a. times" reported that small businesses are signing up for health care coverage for their employees despite the bad

economy since the tax credit took effect. amonfirms with three to nine employees there has been a 46% increase in the number offering health benefits, but this bill would put a stop to that. "the detroit news" reported that last week more than $6 small businesses in michigan would lose the tax credit under thi bill. the last thing that small businesses in michigan and across the country need right now is higher taxes. but that's exactly what this bill would deliver. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to vote no and join me in standing up for our small businesses. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to a new member of the committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. barletta. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. barlet: i rise today in support of refeeling -- mr. barletta: i rise today in support of repealing the health care act. the law passed last year makes

health care less affordable. it diminishes the quality of care. it forces seniors out of their medicare drug coverage, and prevts small businesses from getting americans back to work. in my district, we have the highest number of seniors in pennsylvania. and 206 billion in cuts in medicare advantage will cost 7.5 million seniors to lose their retiree drug coverage by 2016. small businesses face a $2,000 fine per employee if their plans do not meet a bureaucrat-approved standard. at a time when the unemployment level in my district is over 9%, congress must not discourage job creation by placing mandates and levying penalties on those who will get us back on track towards a more prosperous nation. i urge my colleagues to vote yes on h.r. 2. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from oregon, mr. wu. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from oregon is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. wu: thank you, mr. speaker. while america desperately wants more and better jobs, washington republicans want to waste time today debating a health care repeal charade. but let's look at what health care reform repeal would actually do. in my congressional district alone, repealing this law would allow insurance companies to deny coverage for up to 350,000 individuals with pre-existing conditions, including up to 45,000 children. let's mend this act. don't end it. a repeal would eliminate health care tax credits for up to 19,000 small businesses and 164,000 families. mend it, don't end it. a repeal would eliminate new heth care coverage options for 3 sks 100 uninsured young adults. it is time to mend it and not end it. in 50 years, mr. speak, health

care reform will stand beside social security, the g.i. bill, and medicare as a pillar of american health care and humane values. the people of that time will not understand why it was hard to pass in the first place or why we are spending time today rehashing old business. it's time to f health care reform's remaining deficits and mend it and not end it. i yield back the balance of my time. mr. miller: how much time is available on both sides? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 8 1/2 minutes. the gentleman from minnesota has 15 minutes. the gentleman from minnesota is recognized. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to another new member of the committee, the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. keller. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. keller: i thank the gentleman for yielding time. mr. speaker, last week the federal reserve chairman said

the economy cannot begin to recover until small businesses has pros ferd. with the overreaching and burdensome requirements of obamacare will hurt 1345u8 businesses and their benefits e not certain. small companies which account for half the private sector economy are more likely to struggle. if i followed the plan described at my dealership, i would have lost the business my father started 57 years ago. we need to address the yearsof hard work and spirit of entrepreneurship that will be destroyed under this law. small employers have limited autonomy over obamacare. they punish him for expanding their operations or paying their people more. the choices for small businesses under obamacare are provide government mandated health care and face ruinous costs or drop the coverage and pay fines to keep those folks employed. if we burden small business requirements set forth in this law, we hamper the recovery of

the u.s. economy and damage the spirit of free enterprise that has made america great for over two centuries. obamacare should be replaced. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i understand an effort to balance the time here we have an embarrassment of riches and numbers of speakers, what happens in november, so at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to a member of the committee, the gentlelady from illinois, mrs. biggert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from illinois is recognized for one minute. mrs. biggert: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i rise today to voice my support for h.r. 2, repealing last year's misguided health care law. whether it's dropped coverage, higher costs, lost jobs the unintended consequences of the administration's plan has piled up. i don't think the law is salvageable. we must craft a bipartisan replacement that actually lowers costs and expands access to care

without raising taxes and slashing medicare. americans want consensus minded reforms to expand coverage for pre-existing conditions and prevent insurers from imposing unfair caps and canceling policies. they want reforms that provide more choice over how to spend their health caredollars like purchasing health insurance across state lines and expanded health savings accounts. and they want commonsense legislation to curb junk lawsuits and to stop costly practices of defensive medicine. i urgey colleagues to join me in fulfilling the wishes of voters and repealing obamacare. we can work together on reforms that deliver the high quality, low cost care the american people deserve. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempe: mr. speaker, at -- >> mr. speaker, at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the chairman of the financial services committee, the gentleman from alabama, mr. bachus.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bachus: thank you, mr. speaker. the first rule of a physician is do no harm. the government takeover of health care does a lot of harm and the damage will get worse. just on pure economics it's a bitter appeal. small businesses are facing tax increases, higher costs, they're dropping coverage, they're holding off on new hires. the federal government is taking on a new open-ended entitlement it can't afford and that at a time of historically high deficits, annual deficits, and a national debt. washington yetgain is building a new bureaucracy to tell people what to do. the federal government has no business making private medical decisions that ought to be between you and the doctor. it violates the principles on which this country was

established, american exceptionalism. america is not europe. our system is based on the individual, on choice, on freedom, on individual initiative and competition. the mandate asking individuals to buy health insurance is an intrusion on our personal liberty and a violation of our constitutional privilege. and finally -- the spker pro tempore: yielded anitional 30 seconds. mr. bachus: thank you. mr. miller: i yield to the gentleman from california, mr. mcnerney. mr. mcnerney: mr. speaker, i rise today in support of the health care law in opposition to its repeal. the health care reform which was signed into law last year is clearly not perfect and could be improved. however, the law as enacted will have significant benefits to millions of erican citizens, businesses to local governments and to the country as a whole.

the benefits to individuals in need of health care with pre-existing conditions, to seniors, to young adults under 26 years of age and many other groups are well known and will be missed if the laws repealed. but most significantly the law will drive down the cost of health care by encouraging and incentivizing ality care and good outcomes in health care treatments instead of encouraging potentially unnecessary procedures. it rewards quality rather than quality of health care. this will ultimately reduce the cost of both public and private of health care in this country. because of these reasons, i strongly oppose repeal of health care reform. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota mr. klein: thank you -- mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. royce. thspeaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. royce: thank you, mr. speaker. the claim that this new health care law will somehow cut our

budget deficits is proof that logic does not always prevail here iwashington, d.c. this is a $2 trillion additional entitlement and just like past entitlement programs, this one will be far more costly than projected. as a result our budget deficit is going to increase unless we repeal this. it's going to increase our dependence on china and japan to finance our debt. the credit rating agencies say we are on the verge of losing our triple a credit rating that debt, you see it, it's continuing to spread across europe. let us take this important step, repeal this $2 trillion fiscal train wreck and begin work on mark-based solutions that will actually lower health care costs. this will give us some hope in

the future of bringi that budget into balance and not speeding that fiscal train wreck. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. speaker, now i am pleased to yield to a new member of this body, the gentleman from wisconsin, mr. duffy, one minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from wisconsin is recognized for one minute. mr. duffy: mr. speaker, americans have wanted health care reform for some time now. but they don't want what passed last spring. this is a 2,000-page bill that gives us more mandates and more regulation, it doesn't accomplish the goal of reducing cost and increasing access. and it puts our health care decisions in the hands of bureaucrats. not in the hands of patients and family members where it belongs. there is a better way. with today's repeal, this is the first step. tomorrow we begin thprocess of replacement. with commonsense, market-based solutions that are going to

bring costs down. solutions like competition across state lines, portability, price transparency, tax parity and allowing folks who have pre-existing conditions to obtain coverage. i look forward, starting tomorrow, to working not only with my friends here on the right but also my colleagues on the left to craft a bill that's going to work for the american people. thank you very much. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? mr. miller: i yield one minute to the gentleman from washington, mr. larsen. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington has one minute. mr. larson: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to speak in opposition to this patients rights repeal and deficit explosion act. the bill before us today according to a nonpartisan c.b.o. is going to add $230 billion to our national debt. we should not stand for that. the bill before us today is going to repeal efforts that we put in place to be sure that young adults can get onto their parents' insurance plans. if we repeal this it's going to

knock 20,000 adults in washington state alone off their parents' plans. if we repeal this bill today it's going to take away help from 45,000 seniors in washington state who are rely on the efforts that we have done over the last couple of years to be sure we're closing the medicare doughnut hole. repeal of this health care reform law is going to put those folks back into the doughnut hole. and finally, we ought to oppose repeal of this bill because of a simple fact that there's a young woman in my district who has severe mental health illnesses and her family was able to take her onto their health care plan because of the provisions we put in there about pre-existing conditions and that family is saving $10,000 a year out of pocket. i'm asking folks to oppose the repeal of this bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: mr. speaker, could i inquire again as to the time remaining on each side, ease. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota has 10 minutes. the gentleman from california

has 6 1/2. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. then at this time i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from missouri, mr. long. mr. long: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 2. in this country we have the finest doctors, the finest nurses, the finest protocols, the finest facilities in the world. that's not a government-run system. i swore to uphold the constitution two weeks ago today in this, the people's house. the people have spoken and they don't want washington bureaucrats coming between them and their doctor. they'd like to make their own desions. you can't make a silk purseut of a sow's ear but that's exactly what the majority tried to do last year by using 10 years of taxes to pay for a six-year program. increasing spending by $2.6 trillion and that's not what i'd call affordable when it's 1/6 of

this nation's economy. when i think of the 2,000-page bill, i think of a big block of cheese out there, pretty tempting looking. while the americans i hear from, they don't want that cheese them. want out of the trap of government-run health care. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has exped. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: i yield one minute to the gentleman from virginia, mr. moran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized for one minute. mr. moran: thank you, mr. chairman. i appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from california. so, we have several dozen new republican members of this house and as a result the first thing we're going to do is to attempt to repeal health care. let me review what has happened. these new members came into office and they were all given the opportunity to sign up for coverage for their own families. and unless thehad better coverage, most of them took that opportunity.

but now in the very first legislative act of this new congress they're going to deny that opportunity for coverage for their own constituents. so their children are covered, their children are covered, but what about the children of their constituents? what about their loved ones? what about their businesses? now they have full employment now, but what about their constituents whose employers will not be able to provide coverage for their own constituents because they repeal this law? i think it's the height of hypocrisy. do unto others as you would do unto yourselves. treat your constituents as you would treat yourself. thank you, mr. chairman. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr speaker. now i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from illinois, mr. dold. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from illinois is recognized for one minute. mr. dold: thank you,r. speaker.

today i rise in support of h.r. 2. and what we've heard today on both sides of the aisle is how this is going to affect small business. well i run a small business. that's where i came from. and let me tell you that this is going to have a devastating impact for small business. what this law did is it addressed access to insurance. it does not address cost or quality. these are the thgs that we need to address. my heah insurance rates for the people that i work with each and every day last year went up 44%. 44%. there is no estion that we need reform. we need a healthy debate. we need openness in this body to actually discuss what needs to be going forward in health care. what we had last year was anything but. there was no bipartisanship in at happened last year. the only bipartisanship in last year's bill was the opposition to it. i welcome the opportunity to reach ross the aisle to

members on the other side, to work with ne them to craft a bill. one that will talk about malpractice reform, one where the government will not come between a decision you make wi your physician. and one that -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. kline: i yield an additional 15 seconds. mr. dold: i appreciate that, mr. chrman. we have an opportunity here, an opportunity for real reform. we want that, we need that, the american people have demanded it. from american businesses and people all across the united states, they demand it. and from the other side that said, we came in and had health care reform, i did not take the congressional plan. we know we can do better and i ask -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. who seeks recognition? mr. mill: we have two remaining spears. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you. we're in that time of tryi to balance here. at this time i will yield one

minute to the gentlelady from florida, mrs. adams. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from florida voiced for one minute. ms. adams: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today in support of repealing the government takeover of health care and replacing it with commonsense reforms that will duce the cost and increase the access to put quality, affordable hlth care, especially for my constituents in florida. the american people have soundly, soundly rejected the developments' flawed takeover of health care and it's time to show them that their voices have been heard. the existing health care law moves this country in the wrong direction, raising taxes, cutting medicare, restricting private sector jobs from creation and putting power into the hands of washington bureaucrats rather than into the individuals themselves. individuals want to make their own health care decisions. they don't want government making them for them. repealing the current health care law is the first step

towards keeping our pledge to the amican people that we are serious about cutting spending, creating jobs and limiting, limiting the government's role in our everyday lives. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from minnesota. mr. kline: thank you, mr. speaker. now i am pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from florida, mr. southerland. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida is recognized for one minute. without objection, so ordered. mr. southerland: i thank the gentleman from california for yielding my time. i rise in support of this legislation. as a third generation small business owner following in the footsteps of my father and grandfather, i understand how crushing the tax burden is going to be upon small business. the nfib estimates that $1.-- 1.6 million jobs will be lost by 2014 due to the insurance

mandate. 66% of those job losses will occur in small business. like james eden, the owner of eden's heating and cooling in tallahassee stated to me that he will not hire, he cannot hire additional staff due to the uncertainty. repealing this legislation will provide much-needed certainty to small businesses around this country, allowing them to hire and invest into their employees. thank you, mr. chair, and i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's me has expired. the gentleman from -- who seeks recognition? mr. kline: i thin we are getting down to twos on each side. at this time i be pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. runyan. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. runyan: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise in support of h.r. 2, to

repeal the 2010 health care legislation. the law that we seek to repeal today has not -- is not the best way to provide effective, quality health care for all americans. i support enacting incremental reforms such as enabling individuals to purchase coverage across state lines, allowing small businesses to pull together to purchase more affordable coverage, and providing insurance companies -- prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 2, let's work together on reforms that truly reduce costs and provide quality health care. i yield back the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. miller: how much time do i have remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the time remaining is the gentleman from minnesota has five. the gentleman from california

has 5 1/2. mr. miller: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new jersey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for three minutes. without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: thank you, mr. speaker. so in the hours that we spent thus far during this debate, we could have been debating ways to help small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs for the american people, but we did not. instead we have gotten the slogan, job-killing health care bill. slogan vest very much -- slogan's very much at odds with the facts. the private sector has generated 1.1 million new jo. the fact is that the chief economist for bar clays -- barclays says he believes the economy is on track to add many, many jobs this year, probably 200,000 or so per month is his projection.

we have heard about protecting the children and grandchildren of the country against mounting debt. you know for years there's been an understanng here that the referee in budget disputes is the congressional budget office. through republican and democratic majorities, republican and democratic, independent, they are the referees who decides what the rules are. so the congressional budget office was asked by speaker boehner to score this repeal and it came back a said, well, mr. speaker, this is going to add over $1 trillion to the national debt over the next 20 years. so the majority didn't like what they said so they chose to ignore it. make up the rules you go along. but what they haven't done as they have gone along is still answer the fundamental answer we started with this morning. when a mother of two 4-year-old twins goes to buy health insurance and the health insurer says i'm sorry, we won't insure your family because your 4-year-olds have leukemia, should that be legal or not?

that's the question. the law the president signed in march said it should be illegal. this repeal says let's go back to the good old days where the insurance companies made that decision. we are not going back. we should go forwa as a country to create jobs for our people and end the charade we have seen on the house floor here this >> today the house bill will construct several committees to draft legislation to replace the 2010 law. live coverage begins at 9:00

a.m. eastern. china's president hu jintao is visiting the white house this week. a news conference was he will. last night there was a state house dinner for the laider. that's next on c-span. and on this morning's "washington journal," topics include the repeal of the health care law and later a report on health issues and race. "washington journal" each morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. on friday, former british prime minister tony blair will appear for a second time before the iraq inquiry into the iraq war. live coverage begins at 4:30 a.m. eastern on c-span 2.

>> the c-span networks, they provide coverage of politics, public affairs, non-fiction books. all available online and television and social media networking sites. and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local content vehicle. bringing resources to your area. c-span now available in more than 100 homes. created by cable. provided as a public service. >> now a news conference with president obama and china's president hu jintao. the two leaders talked about human rights, trade and the fight against intellectual property rights. this is about an hour and 10 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states and the president of the people's republic of china. [applause] >> everybody, please have a seat. good afternoon. s the my pleasure to welcome president hu jintao to the white house and to return the white house and to return the hospitality he showed when i visited china last year. this is our eighth meeting. together we've shown that the united states and china, when we correspondent -- corporate -- when we cooperate can achieve substantial benefits. it's good for the united states. we just had a very food meeting

with the business leaders from both our countries an they pointed out that china is one of the top narcotic frs one of america's exports. we are now exporting more than $1 billion a year in goods and services which supports more than half a million american jobs. jobs. in fact our exports to china are growing twice as fast as our exports to the other parts of the world keeping america competitive in the 21st century. cooperation between our countries is also good for china. it's lifted hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. and this is a tribute to the chinese people. but it's also thanks to decades of stability to people in asia. by strong trade with america, and by an open, international, economic system championed by the united states of america.

cooperation between our countries is also good for the world. along with our g 20 partners, we've moved from the brink of catastrophe to the move towards global economic recovery. we've worked together to decrease tensions on the korean peninsula and we welcome china's support for the referendum in southern sudan. as we look to the future, what's needed, i believe is a spirit of cooperation which is also frently competition. areas -- also friendly competition. competition. areas in which neither nation can achieve alone. a healthy competition that

spurs both countries to innovate and become even more competitive. that's the kind of relationship i seyfert united states and china in the 21st century and the kind of relationship we advance today. i am very pleased that we've completed dozens of deals that will increase exports and increase china's investment in the united states by several million dollars. from machinery to software to agriculture, these will support some 235,000 american jobs. and that includes many manufacturing jobs. so this is great news for america's workers. i also did stress to president hu that there has to be a level playing field for the trade. trade has to be fair. so i welcome his commitment that american products will not be discriminated against and i

appreciate his willingness to take new steps to cop bat the theft of intellectual profit. we are renewing our corporation in science and technology which sparked advance ins agriculture and industry. we're moving ahead with our u.s.-china clean energy research center toward cleaner cole. -- cleaner coal. i believe that as the two largest energy emitters of greenhouse gases, i believe china rand the united states have a responsibility to build on the progress of copenhagen and can coon and showing the way to a clean energy future. we discussed china's progress in moving towards a more market-oriented economy and how we can assure a strong and balanced economic recovery. we agreed in china this means boosting domestic demand.

it means spending less and exporting more. i told president hu that we welcome the currency but also that the r &b remains undervalued and that this can be a powerful too for china boosting domestic demand and reducing pressures in their economy so, we'll continue to look for the value of china's currency to be driven by the market to ensure no nation has an undue economic advantage. so advance our shared security, we are expanding and deepening dialogue between militaries which increases trusts and decreases misunderstandings. with regard to east asia i trust china has a fundamental interest in respect for international law and the peaceful resolution of differences.

i welcome the progress that's been made on both sides of the taiwan straight. we hope this progress continues, because it's in the continues, because it's in the interest of both sides, the region and the united states. indeed i reaffirmed our commitment to a one-china policy based on the three china communiques and the taiwan communications act. we agreed that north korea must avoid further provocations an also said that north korea's nuclear and other program is an nuclear and other program is an increasing threat to the united states and our a lies and agreed to pair mount goal noub cop meet to -- to complete the denuclearization of the area. and -- with respect to global

security, i'm pleased that we're moving ahead with president hu jintao's security idea. to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, we aagreed the sanctions on iran must be fully enforced. along with our partners, we'll continue to offer the government of iran the opportunity for dialogue and integration into the international community, but only if it meets its obligations. i reaffirm the universal rights to all people including freedom of speech, the press, of assembly and association and demonstration and of religion. rights that are recognized in the chinese constitution.

as i've said before, the united states speaks up for these frim freedoms and the dignity of every human being. not only because it's part of who we are as americans, we do so because we believe that we believe as upholding these, all nations even china will be more prosperous. so today we've agreed move ahead with our dialogue on human rights and to advance the rule of law. and even as we, the united states, recognize that tibet is part of the people's republic of china, the united states continues to support further dialogue between china and the representatives of the dolla llama. finally, we continue to expand partnerships between our people. especially our young people. today my wife, michelle, is

highlighting our efforts to increase the number of students studying to n china to 100,000. and i am very pleased president hu will be visitting my hometown of chicago. president, you are brave to visit chicago in the middle of winter. i have warned him the weather may not be as pleasant ases the here today. but i know that here in the students and business people you meet, you will see the extraordinary possibilities of partnerships. i hope we've helped lay down the foundation for decades to come and my chevy and i look forward to -- -- and michelle and i look forward to hosting a dinner tonight. >> friends from the press, ladies and gentlemen, good afternoon. first of all, i want to express

sincere appreciation to president obama and the government and people of the united states for the warm welcome to me and my colleagues. just now i have had talks with president obama in a candid and pragmatic and constructive atmosphere. we had in that exchange of views and we reviewed the development of china and u.s. relations in the last two years. we positively assessed the progress we made in dialogue, coordination and cooperation in various areas. the chinese side appreciates president o'bpaaa's commitment to a -- president obama's commitment to a stable and

growing chinese relations since he took office. both president obama and i agree as mankind sbrs the second decade of the -- enters the second decade of the 21st century, there's a growing number of global challenges. china and the united states share expanding common interests and show increasing common responsibilities. china-u.s. corporation -- cooperation has great significance throughout the country and the world. the two sides affirming to the right direction of our relationship. respect each other's sovereignty, territorial integrity and developing interests. promoting steady growth of china-u.s. relations and make

greater contributions to promoting world peace and development. we both agree to further push forward the positive, cooperative and comprehensive china-u.s. relationship. china-u.s. relationship. and commit together to build a partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit. first to benefit people in our own countries and the world over. we both agree to strengthen cooperation in economy and trade, energy and the environment, science and technology, infrastructure and construction, education, non-proliferation and law enforcement and other areas for us to achieve mutual benefit. us to achieve mutual benefit. during my current visit to the united states, the relevant departments and institutions

and enterprises have -- reached agreement on a series of new cooperation projects. these will inject fresh moment you mean into our bilateral cooperation and create job opportunities for both countries. we discussed some agreements in the economic and trade area, and we will continue to appropriately resolve these according to the principal of mutual respect and consultation on equal footing. the president and i agree that china and the united states need establish a pattern of high-level exchanges featuring in-depth communications and candid dialogue. president obama and i will stay in close contact through meetings, telephone calls and letters. the two sides believe that the expansion of exchanges and

cooperation in our militaries droibt deepening mutual trust between our two countries and to the growth of our overall relationship. we also agree to encourage all sectors of our society to carry out various forms of exchange of activities. in particular, we have high hopes on the young people hoping they will better understand each other's country and be more heavily involved in the people-to-people exchanges between the two countries. president obama and i believe the world economy is slowly recovering from the international financial crisis, but the -- they are due their fair amount of unstable factors and uncertainties. both sides greed agreed to activityly pursue greater cooperation in this process. the two sides support the g-20

playing a bigger role in economic and international affairs. we agree to push forward in the international system and improve global economic governance. oppose protectionism and hope the round of negotiations can make early and sub stan sieve progress -- and sub stanl progress. progress. president obama and i exchanged thoughts on the climate change and other issues. we agreed to strengthen ore issues, ensuring peace in the region and in the world. china and the united states will work with the really vent parties to maintain peace and stability on the peninsula,

promote denuke lahrizeization on the practice nins lei and we will work with the united states and other countries to effectively address global challenges such as meeting the climate challenge, terrorism, transnational crime, energy and resource security, food security, public health security and natural disasters so as to forge a bright future for the world. i say to the president that china is firmly commitmented -- committed to the peace development and win-win strategy of opening up. china is a friend and partner of all countries and china's development is an opportunity for the world. that's all. thank you. >> ben stellar with the associated press. >> thank you very much. i'd like to address both leaders if i may, president

obama you've covered the broad scope of this relationship, but i'd like to follow up specifically on your comments about human rights. can you explain to the united states how the country can be so allied with a country so repressing their people? do you have any confidences that will change and on an that will change and on an unrelated topic i would like to know your speculation on the man in front of me running against% against you no n 20 12. and how do you justify china's record and do you think that's any of the business of the american people? >> well, first of all, let me just say, i think ambassador huntsman has done an outstanding job as an ambassador for the united states to china. he is a mandarin speaker. he has brought enormous skill,

dedication and talent to the job. and the fact that he comes from a different party i think is a strength and not a weakness, because it indicates the degree to which both he and i agree part sonship ends at the water's edge and so i couldn't be happy with the ambassador's service and i'm sure he will be snuff whatever endeavors he chooses in the future. and i'm sure that him having worked so well with me will be a great asset in any republican primary. [laughter] let me address the other issue and a very serious issue. china has a different political

system than we do. china's at a different stage of development than we are. we cop from very different -- we come from very different cultures with very different [inaudible] as i said before, and i repeated to president hu, we had -- we have some core views about certain rights, freedom of speech. freedom of religion. freedom of religion. freedom of assembly that we think are very important and that transcend cultures. i have been very candid with president hu. with president hu about these issues. occasionally they are a source of tension between our two governments. but what i believe is the same

thing that i believe seven previous presidents have believed which is that we can engage and discuss these issues in a frank and candid way, focus on the areas where we agree. while acknowledging there are going to be areas in which we disagree. and i want to suggest that there has been an e lution in china over the last -- an evolution in china over the last 30 years citizens first normization in relationship between the u.s. and china and my expectation is 30 years from now we will have seen further evolution and further change. and so what my approach will continue to be is to celebrate the incredible accomplishments of the chinese people, their of the chinese people, their extraordinary civilization, the multiple areas in which we have to cooperate not only for the

sakes of our countries but also for the sakes of our world, acknowledge that we're going to have certain differences and to be honest as i think any partner needs to be honest when it comes to how we view many of these issues. and so that frank and candid assessment on our part will continue. but that doesn't prevent us from cooperating in these other critical areas. >> the translator is now

trancelating the question back into chinese.

>> i po apologize. i thought we had simultaneous translation there. translation there. i would have broken up the answer into smaller bites.

[speaking in a foreign language] >> i'm from china central television. >> there is an old saying in china that a good relationship between the two people holds the key to a souvend relationship between states. -- a sound relationship between states.

[asking question in chinese] >> for the strength and public support for the development of this relationship it's also very important to the sustained and steady goat of our relation, so -- steady growth of our relation, so hu, what do you think needs to be done to increase the relationship and understanding betw