basically receive a cut in their part b benefit. these seniors, this group, already has a higher premium because it's income related and pay taxes on their social security benefits which some of the lower income beneficiaries do not. . also we hold harmless some lower income beneficiaries who payments are made by medicaid and therefore if we didn't pass this, some of the states who were already having severe problems with their medicaid would have an extra burden for that small group. the bill is paid for out of a medicare fund which we set up some years ago for just this kind of program. it's a fund where we set aside

some money each year in the event we needed dollars to solve a problem. this is a problem we foresaw coming up for a diverse group of our beneficiaries, and it seemed to be a fair way to not disrupt their financial planning and to provide a level playing field so that all the beneficiaries receive the same treatment and some were not subsidizing others. it's a bill i hope will have broad bipartisan support and i think it will serve our social security beneficiaries well. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: i yield the ranking member, the gentleman from michigan, the ranking member of the ways and means committee, mr. camp, the remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from michigan is recognized. mr. camp: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the majority wants you to think we're here today to help seniors. this will will help some seniors and i intend to vote for it. but seniors shouldn't sleep well tonight for they're facing massive cuts in medicare and legislation proposed by the president. that's what i want to talk about today. the reality is the majority's health care bill will slash bills for millions of seniors and the administration is abusing its regulatory powers to keep that fact from seniors. this week we learned that the centers for medicare and medicaid services has initiated an investigation into one provider for medicare programs for accurately informing its enrollees that medicare cuts proposed in pending health care legislation could alter their

benefits. c.m.s. has since banned all medicare advantage helicopter plans from providing information to beneficiaries. let me read this to you, i quote if the proposed cut becomes law, seniors could lose many programs that make medicare so valuable. this is government intimidation, pure and simple. the seniors know the president's cuts will affect their programs. the congressional budget office confirm this is. but when health care plans try to share that information with their enrollees, the administration slaps a gag order on them. it's an abuse of power, plain and simple. so while the government is intimidating medicare health care plans, no such order has been done to those who support

the president. aarp has directly communicated with its members via email and website. however, it's receive nod scrutiny from the administration. c.m.s.'s use threltens our democracy and their action is in direct conflict with its own guidelines established under the clinton administration. the director at that time instructed health plans, quote, prohibiting such information would violate basic freedom and speech and other constitutional rights of the medicare beneficiary as a citizen. as long as member materials that discuss the rights and responsibilities of the member and the h.m.o. with regard to h.m.o. membership in the context of this article we see

no reason for prohibiting the distribution of information. this is also at odds with supreme court decisions in the area. we need to get to the bottom of this and make sure all americans, especially seniors, know the facts about what the president and the congressional health care bill will mean for them. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. >> i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from new york, mr. hager. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. hager: i rise in strong support of h.r. 3631. for nearly four decades, m.d. care has improved the quality of life for our senior citizens. because of it, americans no longer live in fear of not having health care when they

retire. under medicare formula, most seniors see no increase in their premiums. however, unless we act, some will. our economy is beginning to turn around but is not yet fully recovers. we must ensure that next year, seenors living on a fixed income are not forced to pay more for the medicare they depend on. h.r. 3631 will make sure the premiums won't increase for doctors visits and imaging scans. i urge my colleagues to support this legislation and keep the promise of quality, affordable health care for american seniors. i thank you and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california has 30 seconds remaining. mr. herger: i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. >> i'm delighted to yield one

minute to the gentlelady from nevada, ms. berkley. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. berkley: i want to single out and say how much i appreciate the work of congresswoman deana titus from the state of nevada and chairman rangel and chairman waxman on this very important issue. the economic turndown has hit many parts of this country very dramatically, no more so than in the state of nevada and the southern part of the state i represent. i have 100,000 social security recipients in my congressional districtmark of whom will be impacted by the increase in the medicare part b premiums next year. since this increase is not going to be offset by the normal cost of living increase in their social security checks, i think this is a very important way and a very

necessary way of helping to keep my seniors who rely on social security and who will be harmed with this additional payment, keep them whole. so i want to thank my colleague again and join with her in protecting the seniors in the state of nevada and throughout the country. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. >> mr. speaker, i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from maryland, the majority leader of the house, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the majority leader is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first of all, i want to congratulate congresswoman titus for her leadership on this issue. she's an extraordinary member of this house, very able, and as congressman berkley, her

colleague from nevada, just indicated, this will be directed at helping a lot of seniors. i rise in opposition to this suspension bill. i have for a number of years spoken about how difficult it will be for us to get a handle on entitlements. if we don't get a handle on entitlements, my friends, we will be spending nothing more in another 50 years than money on entitlements and payment on the national debt. and our children will not be happy. they will not congratulate us. now there is no speaker who will speak today who will not speak on behalf of those seniors who, as my colleague, shelley berkley, just referenced, rely on social

security. to support themselves. we anticipated that concern when we adopted the legislation relating to this subject. as a result of anticipating that, we said if there is not a cost of living increase, we will exempt approximately 3/4, actually 73%, of seniors from any premium increase. why? because we rightfully concluded, as many speakers on this floor have observed, that those seniors would be put under stress because of no cost of living increase, but having an increase in their premium. now ladies and gentlemen, i don't know how many of you go to sleep at night worried about whether ross perot can pay his premium, but this will freeze ross perot's basic premium from

going up. this will affect every premium payer, including those who make individually $85,000 or more. and as a couple $170,000 or more. now the problem with doing that is not that we don't have some empathy for those folks, by the way, every one of us who votes on that bill fall in that category. we may not be 65 or above as i am, but we're in that category. now the issue is, at a time of stress, of fiscal challenge, do we say to ross pe low rowe, we feel your pain? so we're going to exempt you from an increase? hear me. we've exempted all of those $85,000 and below under present law.

my friends, i think that as well-meaning as this legislation is, it is not about poor seniors. it's not about those who are less well off, who are having greater stress, because they're taken care of. there are four categories of people who weren't taken care of under present law. first of all, there are some 2.1 million who are the $85,000 and above crowd. there are a lesser number, $1. -- a lesser number, 1.3 million, who are medicare newly eligible folks. they've never paid a premium, their premium won't go up, it will be what it is. there are 7.3 million who are dual eligibles.

dual eligibles, of course, won't pay anything more because that will be the responsibility of the states. is this an additional burden on the states? it is. we'll either borrow the money or the states will pay it. our children will pay off our debt. but the law anticipated that if this is the case, the 7.3 million dual eligible the states would pick up the difference. people say what if the states don't pick up the difference? the states have an option. i understand that. we could control that we could change the law and say they don't have an option, but we haven't done that. then there are some 850,000 who did not participate in social security. there are the four categories. and be because they didn't participate in social security, they're not covered here, and they get a state pension. i tried to get the average of the state pension or board of education pension or whatever, i don't have that.

i haven't been able to get that information. this bill was considered by the committee yesterday. reported out today. do i stand here happy that some seniors around the country will say steny hoyer was against them? i'm not happy about that but i felt it my responsibility to come to this floor as someone who speaks about entitlement, as someone who believe wevs got to exercise fiscal discipline. as someone who believes we ought to take care of the less well off in our country, which is taken care of by the present law, 73%, under $85,000. we take care of them. that's an individual. $170,000, couple. at some point in time, my friends, we have to buck up our courage and our judgment and say, if we take care of everybody, we won't be able to

take care of those who need us most. that's my concern. if we take care of everybody, irrespective of their ability to pay for themselves, the ross perots of america, frankly, the steny hoyers of america, then we will not be table take care of those most in need in america. 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. stark: i'd like to yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from oregon, mr. blumenauer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. blumenauer: thank you. i appreciate the gentleman's courtesy. i reflect on what the distinguished majority leader just said. i agree with much of what he advanced, but my concern i guess is that what we have done symbolic of how we have sort of

jury-rigged the system. we have the entire burden fall upon 20%, 27% of the population. some of whom perhaps can afford it. others who may not. and we are at a time when there is great stress on a number of these 27%, they will bear the entire burden. i would hope that this would be the last time that we are dealing with a fix of this nature that is surgical, trying to deal with the inherent complexity that we have. one of the reasons i am supporting comprehensive health care reform and medicare modernization is so that we can tease out these anomalies. that we can provide an underpinning for all, not just our senior citizens, but for all our citizens. i agree this is suboptimal, but from my vantage point, this is the best we can do in an

unpleasant situation at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california has one minute remaining. mr. stark: i'd like to yield that one minute, mr. speaker, to the distinguished gentleman from michigan, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. levin: i think this debate has framed the issues very well. i very much share the concern of our majority leader about entitlement reform. i think part of that will have to be consideration of this issue. but let's look what the impact of a failure to act will mean. for the states, they will carry a large bulk of because of the dual eligibles. so essentially by doing nothing we would say to the states, when you are in unusual circumstances, we are doing nothing. and for the many new eligibles,

they would regardless of income bear the weight here in times of real stress for them. these are unusual circumstances for the states and for those who are receiving the benefits and i think we have no choice now but to vote for this bill and tackle the issues of reform of our entitlements in the future. so i urge support of this legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time has expired. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3631. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: i request the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. those favoring a vote by the yeas and nays will rise.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. members will record td

nevada memorial hospital. it's now called university medical center. when i started my job there, 40% of every senior that came into that hospital had no insurance. and we had an aggressive plan to go after them and i mean maybe not them but their father, their mother, their brother, their sister -- whoever signed for them. well, mr. president, that's no longer the case with medicare. virtually every senior that comes in that institution and all institutions around the country have insurance to cover their hospitalizations. it's called medicare. so by the time i left that job, medicare had come into existence. the fact is that ever since republicans opposed the creation of medicare, they spent the last 40 years on the wrong side of history when it comes to helping seniors. mr. president, they were wrong then and they're wrong now.

and, mr. president, i don't carry much in my wallet. i have a few -- i have three credit cards. i have a few dollars. but one thing i always carry with me is something i think is pretty important. let's see if i can find it here. i hope i haven't misplaced it in some way. here it is. mr. president, i've carried this for years. you can see how wilted. i carry it with me. i've done it for many years, because i want to be able to quote accurately what i'm talking about here. republicans have hated medicare from the very beginning and they still hate it. i was there fighting the fight, one of 12, voting against medicare because we knew it wouldn't work in 1965. robert dole.

the speaker pro tempore: the nays are 18. 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the reconsider is laid upon the table.

the speaker pro tempore: the house will come to order. members please clear the well. take conversations outside, take conversations outside, please.

the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. do any members seek recognition for one-minute speeches? for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into the following members may be permitted to address the house revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material. these members being mr. poer for five minutes.

mr. jones for five minutes. mr. burton for five minutes. mr. deal for five minutes. mr. forbes for five minutes. and ms. fox for five minutes. -- ms. foxx for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the congressman from illinois rise? >> mr. speaker, i also ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any other special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, revise and extend their remarks, and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey from california. ms. kaptur for five minutes. mr. defazio for five minutes. mr. spratt for five minutes. and of course mr. quigley for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered.

under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. woolsey from california to start. >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to take the time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, the american people should have serious questions when it comes to the war in afghanistan. i believe we need answers before we ever talk about sending additional young men and women into that conflict. general stanley mcchrystal told us this week he needs more troops in afghanistan or else our mission there will likely result in failure. but there seems to be some confusion over what that mission is. question one, are we building nations or hunting terrorists? the administration has stated that its primary goal is preventing al qaeda from operating. but general mcchrystal has stated that his mission is to protect the afghan civilians and

establish good governance. these objectives are related but they are not the same. as the president has stated, we must first define our strategy and then we will determine how to resource it. question two, how many troops will we need? the figure being discussed is an additional 40,000 to 45,000 more troops on top of the 68,000 already in afghanistan. experts such as the general put the figure for successful counter insurgency for several hundred thousand. the greater our footprint over there the morer it looks like an occupation to a people who have violently resisted occupations for centuries. question three, are restretching our army to its breaking point? many of our troops are on their third and fourth tour. that has an impact on families and communities. many of our national guard units have left equipment over there and face recruitment problems over here. question four, how long will

these troops be there? it's not enough to decide if we can manage it for another year or two with greater employment without a specific end date, a decision to increase employment today means more troops next year and the year after that. question five, where will we get enough troops with the experience needed in afghanistan? the military needs more i.e.d. experts to defuse roadside bombs. however, it takes 11 months to train a bomb specialist and these specialists are already on short supply. we also need translaters, medical officers, and other specialties that require a great deal of training. yet we continue to kick out such specialists because of the immoral and extraordinarily shortsighted "don't ask, don't tell" policy. question six, how many nato force can we count on and how will we maintain an effective command structure?

we are told this cannot be a go-alone mission. but resources in other nato countries are limited. an instance such as the german air strike show the dangers of coalition warfare. question seven, can we count on the government of pakistan to remain with us in this fight? pakistan has a great deal of trouble controlling the tribal areas and our continued presence is causing more unrest in the cities. question eight, is it worth american lives to prop up the government of afghanistan? the government faces serious charges ever election fraud and corruption and appears to be losing control over much of the country as the taliban moves in. question nine, is this the winnable war? general mcchrystal's recent report he states that although the situation is serious, success is still achievable. we still don't have a definition of success. final question, is the war in afghanistan really the best approach to protect the american people from terrorism?

our focus needs to be on protecting the people of the united states and stopping the international spread of terrorism. if this war is not the best way to do that, we need to leave. we cannot send more troops to fight for an undefined amount of time. in an undefined mission and for undefined success. thank you. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. poe of texas. >> i ask unanimous consent that i might take his time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. >> mr. speaker, this year i introduced h.r. 268, a bill to make sure that our military chaplains of all faiths and religions are able to close a prayer in any way they see fit. america was built on religious freedom and that is why i am truly disturbed by a letter that was sent to secretary gates from the freedom from religion foundation. this organization has taken

exception to the fact that while speaking on the anniversary of d-day in france, u.s. military chaplain thomas mcgregor closed a prayer in the name of jesus christ. this is just another example of how this country's judeo-christian values have been under assault. as i think my colleagues know, i am a man that respects all faiths whether it be christian, jewish, muslim and i would be just as upset if a chaplain from a nonchristian religion came under the same attack. i respect the rights of nonbelievers just as i respect the rights of believers. it is a sad day in america when a military chaplain is criticized for closing his prayer in a way that is true to his faith. in closing with our young men and women fighting for religious freedom for people overseas, it is our duty to protect our own military chaplains and respect the faith of each of them. mr. speaker, before i do close, do i this frequently on the floor of the house because my

heartaches for those over in afghanistan and iraq. i ask god to please bless our men and women in uniform. i ask god to please bless the families of our men and women in uniform. i ask god in his loving farms to hold a family who gave a child dying for freedom in afghanistan and iraq. and i ask god to please bless the president of the united states with wisdom and strength and courage to do what is right for america. i close three times, god please, god please,

anniversary, our congress and our president would have passed a commemoration supporting poland's struggle for liberty and its recent democratic advances. you would think that our nation, a nation that owes so much to poland for inspiring our own struggle for freedom at our nation's founding, and to its great general, chief engineer of

our continental army, and the man who saved the life of general george washington. that we would have risen to phrase the 10th anniversary of poland's admission into nato and our current military engagements in the war on terror. this year poland will mark one decade as a signature of nato, an intrinsic part of united states strategic foreign policy. september 17 should have been a reverent commemoration of of an extraordinary effort that cost so many lives, but seated and bequeathed a power sense of freedom and democracy inside the nation of poe lapd that ultimately yielded solidarity and strikes that began in 1956 until the final solidarity strictry in 1989 and the collapse of the berlin wall. .

september 17 should be a day that commends the valiant people of poland for their his foric struggle against fascism and communism and commemorates the sacrifices made by the polish people, including those who have sense become american citizens. but on that day, our president should have called for strength and partnership in the nato organization, the north atlantic treaty organization, our european alliances and continued friendship with our polish allies. we should have honored the hi toric ties our two great nations have fashioned over two centuries. instead on september 17, on the very an verse arery date of the heinous communist invasion of poland, our government and the

obama administration chose to withdraw support of the antiballistic missile shield in poland and the czech republicans -- czech republics. whatever one's views of the merits or demerits of the defensive system, the choice of that date to announce this historic withdrawal is truly an insult to the nation of poland and to the people of poland. our nation not only owes poland an apology we owe her affirmative support. the united states has had diplomatic relations with this region since they were first established in april, 1919, after being wiped off the maps of europe for over a century, with the then newly form poldish republic. while our two nations have enjoyed consistently warm, bilateral relations since 1989. the polish government has been a strong supporter of continued american military and economic presence in europe and our important, shared love of

freedom of democracy and they have supported our global war on terror, operation enduring freedom in afghanistan, and our coalition efforts in iraq. why did the administration do this? poland cooperates closely with american diplomacy on such issues at demok rayityization, regional cooperation in central and eastern europe and u.n. reform. now is definitely the moment for this congress and the administration to restore a level of credible relationship with poland in order to continue an abiding friendship that should not be smeared by this really tactless decision to announce this consequential defense decision on september 17 that hearkens back to some of the worst memories poland has as part of her history. i beseech this congress, in

talking to the leadership and the administration to correct a great mistake. i yield back my remaining time. the speaker pro tempore: mr. burton of indiana. for what purpose does the gentleman from nebraska rise? >> to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so order. >> thank you, mr. speaker, i rise today to discuss an issue not at the fore front of debate here in washington but will impact many areas of our country and our lives. i'm talking about the need for skilled veterinarians across america. this may not be a topic that makes the house floor very often, but it's important. our veterinary work force is on the forefront of food safety and animal safety yet it's facing a critical shortage.

to make matters worse, the problem son the rise. large animal veterinarians are integral to small, rural communities but in many of these communities, communities with few people but large numbers of animals, we are seeing a distressing trend. let me show you. on this map, this is a geographic display of total food animals by county in the united states. the dark gold areas have particularly high concentrations of animals per county, more than 250,000. states such as iowa, nebraska, colorado, texas, california all have extremely high concentrations of counties with 250,000 or more food animals. now let's take a look showing total food animal veterinarians by county. areas of dark green have 35 or more food animal veterinarians

by county. certainly quite a difference. finally, let's take a look at a map showing food animal concentration per veterinarian. i want to draw your attention to the red flags that drop the -- that dot the map, particularly the red flags. red flags mean danger or hazard ahead. the red flags on this map indicate counties without one single food animal veterinarian but which more than 25,000 food animals. several counties across the country. according to the most recent data from the sumbings sd asks, one county in thinkmy district, cherry county, as 135 food animals per veterinarian. fillmore county has 112,000 food animals but not one food animal veterinarian. it's important for animals and farmers and ranchers and

hobbyists to have access to veterinarians. i have introduced the veterinarian services investment act which authorizes the secretary of agriculture to fund grants for veterinarian and veterinarian technician recruitment, expanding and establishing practices in high-need areas, establishing mobile, portable clinics and televet services and accredited veterinarian education programs, including continuing education, distance education and faculty recruitment. eligible applicants must carry out activities that will substantially relieve shortages throughout the country. these include entities such as veterinary clinics in underserved or rural areas.

state, national, allied or regional veterinary organizations and veterinary boards, colleges or schools of veterinary medicines, state, local or tribal government agencies. more than 30 of my colleague, democrat and republicans, have joined me as co-sponsor os h.r. 3519. it's been endorsed by the american veterinary association, south dakota veterinary medical association, the iowa veterinary medical association, nebraska, minnesota as well, the farm bureau, the animal health institute, the national association of veterinarians and the cattlemen's beef association. veterinarians make a difference every day. unfortunately too many rural communities don't have the necessary support. the veterinary services investment act will go a long way in the right direction. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the chair recognizes mr. defazio of

oregon. mr. defazio: i thank the chair. earlier today, the house passed a bill that will give relief to about a quarter of the nation's seniors on social security by not having them experience a medicare premium increase this year. that's all well and good, herer tos you, times are tough. but it doesn't go to the other 3/4 of the nation's social security recipients and doesn't get to the bottom line that there is, for the first time, since we had a regularly adjusted social security cola, used to be into the 50's and early 1960's, before we placed in place a cost of living adjustment, they would get one in election years strangely enough. and congress would wake up, notice that seniors were out there, give them some sort of

an increase. now, we fixed that problem many years ago by saying, social security benefits would be automatically adjusted. but the measure that is used is incredibly flawed. it was not only flawed to begin with, what the cost of living index is calculated on is a lot of things seniors don't buy. things that have gotten cheaper in the bad economy, like giant flat screen televisions and computers and cell phones and other things that are not consumed to any great extent by our nation's senior. but if anybody has checked the price of pharmaceuticals or medical care or basic utilities and many other must-have expenses, they haven't gone down. in fact, they've gone up. but seniors, some of whom are living only on a social security checkmark who are

principally dependent on that social security check, because it's faulty. it was tampered with by the republicans and alan greenspan, that great guru, the guy who almost helped destroy the world economy through his deregulationist philosophy which became so embedded wall street ran wild. greenspan always hated social security and tried to find ways to go after it. he convinced a republican congress that the cost of living index actually overestimated inflation and should take away one point before you give a cola to seniors on social security. the republican congress did that now, here we are today. we have a democratic congress. we're being told that there's no inflation. seniors won't get a cola. the obama administration said probably for two years they won't get a cost of living adjustment.

that's 23409 right. the things they buy are going up in price, dramatically. they're having tremendous difficulties making ends meet, living on a fixed income. i've had a bill for a number of years that would put in place a new cost of living index called a cpie, elderly to look at the things they have have to buy to live and get by. that hasn't gone anywhere, but i'm still pushing that idea. while we're working on developing a true index that would really look at the costs for seniors, we should pass a one-year cost of living adjustment. we can do that without borrowing the money, with no impact to the social security trust fund, very simply. we would just say that those who earn over $250,000 a year, up to, the estimates are we'd have to go to $359,000, that's between $250,000 of income and $359,000, they would pay the

same rate of social security tax as every normal wage earning american who earns less than $1 of,000 a year. if you earn less than $106,000 a year, you pay on every cent of your income. but you don't pay after $106,000 every year. so we would have people pay the same rate of social security tax as every other american that would pay for a one-time cola for seniors to help them make ends meet. we must act and act soon to get this done before this injustice happens next year. i thank the chair. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. the gentleman from texas, mr. paul. >> ski permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gohmert: i wish to address the issue of credibility that is so critical.

i want to follow up on what my friend was just discussing with social security. you know what? these seniors would be flush with cost of living increases, the money would be there, if we did one thing, the one thing that's not been done in the entire history of social security, and that is put the tax that provides for social security into the social security trust fund. it is -- it has never been done. it's always had i.o.u.'s go in, as the money comes in, it goes out the other door. that ought to stop. what it would create is the need to control the outrageous spending that's been going on. the $770 million we passed for wild horses, the $25 million for rare dogs and cats in foreign country the $25 million for rare cranes, 80% of which are in other countries. those are the things that would

need to stop. when it comes to the issue of our nation's credibility, you can go back historically to 1812, there were banks and merchants in england that had loaned the united states money, when we went to war with england in 1812 as a nation we made the commitment that we will still stand good for our word because even though we'll be at war, our word, our credibility is too important to do otherwise. that opened the door for the united states to become an economic power house because people around the world said, this is a nation that can be trusted. their word is good. with the way vietnam ended under president nixon and the carter years, our credibility around the world was devastated, as we went back on commitments we had made. and it took the years of

president reagan, former president bush, former president clinton, former president george w. bush to build our credibility back on the other nations that you may not like our position but when we give our word we're going to stand good for it. and now in nine months' time that is all in jeopardy again. we heard in the campaign the noble promises that we will not go at it alone on anything, we will not be that arrogant, we will consult with the other nations, and we had an agreement with eastern europe with regard to missiles. and a missile defense shield. and there are leaders in eastern europe that took great political risk and it cost them politically in mighty ways to work in agreement with the united states but they did it because they believe they could trust the united states at its

word. whether you believe in the propriority of the missile defense shield in eastern europe, that's one thing, but to unilaterally go against the word that was provided that we will not do that, that we keep our agreements and unilaterally announce we're going back on our word on the missile defense shield shatters credibility even to those who didn't care about the missile defense shield but who are thinking about reaching agreements with us. and after the u.n. speech yesterday, all of the promises that had been made by this administration both before and after its election that that was the critical war we could not afford to lose, we're going to stand with them. now after the speech yesterday people are wondering, why, are they going to back out and go against this nation's word yet again already in this nine-month period? it's not just the afghans wondering.

can we trust these people when they say they're going to help us? this is our nation's credibility at risk. that affects everything. there were pledges made to israel during the campaign by the people inhabiting this administration, and now we're telling them, you're going to have to go back to the lines that existed before 1967 because you cannot occupy land you achieved during warfare. my goodness, we're going to have to give back california. we're going to have to give back utah. nevada. colorado, wyoming. this is ridiculous. we are hurting our credibility nationally regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the prior administration, please do no more damage to this nation's credibility. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. spratt. mr. moran. mr. bishop from utah.

mr. franks from arizona. mr. deal from georgia. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. deal: i thank you. congress recessed on july 31 for the beginning of the august recess. on that day house resolution 3200 passed out of the committees that had jurisdiction. that is the health care reform bill. it passed out of the energy and commerce committee on which i serve late on that friday evening the last day in july. and everybody in this house went home for the august recess . during that period of time, i held town hall meetings, as did many of my colleagues.

there were tea parties. there were freedom rallies. the american public spoke out as they have not done in a very long time. and much of their frustrations centered around the bill h.r. 3200 that at that point in time had passed all of the committees of the house and was ready for action on the floor. but the american public sent a message, a message that they don't like the runaway spending that congress has been engaged in. they don't like many of the programs that they think are jeopardizing the future of their children and grandchildren in terms of the repayment responsibilities. but more than anything else, they sent the message that they do not want their health care tampered with and taken over by the united states government. now, surprisingly, that message

apparently has not been heard on the floor of this house. yesterday, in the committee of primary jurisdiction that has h.r. 3200, the bill was in effect reopened for further amendments. now, you would think that if the bill is going to be revisited that we would have heard not only from the american people but we would have heard from the president of the united states, who on september 9 spoke right here on the floor of the house. at the time he anunsiated issues that he was in favor of. republicans agreed with many of those things. but the question we had at the time was -- where is the bill that embodies the things that you say you're in favor of? we did not see a bill then, and

unfortunately, we have not seen one since that time. so yesterday, in the committee of primary jurisdiction, you would think that we would have seen a bill that would have embraced the principles that the president said he was in favor of, even though it was not embraced in the bill that was the only bill before the house when the president was actually speaking. you would think it would have embraced many of the issues that the american public said they were concerned about. republicans attempted to offer a bill that would have embraced those issues where there should be bipartisan support. but we were not allowed to have a vote. now, there are many issues that are encompassed in this debate. one that i have supported for a very long time is that if we are going to use taxpayer money , we should verify the citizenship of individuals who are going to receive the

benefits of that taxpayer money. because unless that is verified there is no validity to simply saying that we are not going to spend taxpayers' money or people who have violated our law and are coming into our country inappropriately. so the question remains -- where are we on health care reform? the rumors now abound that speaker pelosi is about to introduce a bill that purports to address the issues she's concerned with. we haven't seen the bill. i would ask the question -- is that bill going to come before the committees of jurisdiction? is there going to be a hearing on it? are committees going to have the opportunity to amend it, or is it going to go as so many other things have gone in this body during this last few months, straight to the floor of this house with very little, if any, opportunity to have an

input from the representatives who are the elected representatives of the people of this great country? those are the questions that still remain. they are still unanswered, and i would conclude again, if there is something that we have gained from what we've heard from the president and more particularly what we've heard from the american public during the august recess, where is the bill that puts it in writing? we have yet to see it. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. mr. forbes from virginia is recognized.

mr. forbes: thank you. mr. speaker, across this country there are many people today who are worried and they're concerned and they're even fearful about a number of those things. but two of those things consistently work their way to the top. the first one is the enormous amount of debt that this country is incurring and this administration is imposing upon our children and our grandchildren. but secondly, the lack of transparency of where dollars are going. if you look at the millions of dollars that have gone to acorn, no one in this administration can tell you where they went and account for them. we've got millions of dollars going to banks that no one can account for. billions of dollars in the stimulus package that no one can account for. billions of dollars in welfare benefits that no one can trace and account for. and we have czars popping up all over the place with no

accountability. so we look at these people across the country who are fearful and concerned and sometimes we say, why are they assembling themselves together and why are they using some of the language that they are using, but what are their options? and let's look at one agency, the department of defense. many of us have been concerned that these huge expenditures are for the first time putting us in a position where our budget is driving our defense posture as opposed to our defense posture driving our budget. this year when the defense budget came to the armed services committee, the secretary of defense was required by this congress by law to submit two things with that budget. first of all, a plan about the number of ships that we have, a shipbuilding plan so that we can look at that plan and see how it matches up to threats we have around the world. and the second thing was an

aviation plan, it just makes sense you have a plan and know how many planes you're building and where they can be so we can defend this country. as the ranking member on the readiness committee, i felt it was important that we know those risk factors. the law says specifically in 10 u.s. code 231 that the secretary has to submit a shipbuilding plan and certify that this budget will meet it. the law also says he has to submit an aviation plan and certify that this budget will meet it. this year he simply refused to do it. and, mr. speaker, when we then said, well, what are our options? we thought first of all, let's just be polite. and so we wrote a letter -- i wrote it as ranking member of the readiness subcommittee, the armed services committee, asking him to submit those plans. you know what we got? this is what we got. absolutely nothing.

and so then we decided, let's work in a bipartisan manner to see if we can correct that, so the armed services committee issued a congressional inquiry demanding that the secretary of defense comply with the law and simply give us the plan and get -- for shipbuilding and aviation and certify that this budget would meet it. and, mr. speaker, this is exactly what we got, nothing. every member of the armed services committee unanimously agreed that that information should be submitted by september 15 and issued that in the congressional inquiry. and to date, the secretary of defense has refused to turn over those dollars, those figures, that certification and those plans. and, mr. speaker, i just ask you this -- how can the secretary of defense look our men and women in uniform and say, we expect you to follow the law, to follow the statutes

that congress has passed and the president has signed, but they apply to you and not me? so i don't know what options we have, but i know this, mr. speaker, that i'm going to continue to come on this floor day after day after day until the secretary complies with the law and gives the armed services committee what he's supposed to give us, a shipbuilding plan and an aviation plan and the certifications that our budget will meet those so that we're defending the united states of america. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: i thank the gentleman. ms. foxx from north carolina. mr. shimkus from illinois. without objection, so ordered. mr. shimkus: thank you, mr. speaker. a national missile defense. i am aghast at it being dropped by this administration. first of all, we have a missile defense program, and that

protects the west coast against a launch by a rogue nation, namely, north korea. the national missile defense site proposed plan for europe was designed primarily to defend our eastern coast against a rogue attack by iran. that's why i rejeck the arguments by this administration, this administration citing concerns in europe. the benefit of the national missile defense site was that we got a two-fer from this. not only did we get a system, again a system that's already in application on the western coast, we have a system in place to protect our eastern seaboard from a launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile armed with a nuclear warhead by iran against our eastern coast. but it also gives coverage to

our allies and friends in the vast majority of europe. our allies, the poles and the czechs, worked hard to educate their public, bring together consensus and support the two sites, one being a radar site in the czech republic and the other being an interceptor site in poland. what do they do, based upon the negotiations with us? what is our response to them? our response to them is to now reject and turn away from this site. now the launch sites in poland are a few interceptors. not the hundreds of offensive missiles placed in russia. the interceptors were never a threat to russia. however this administration now vows that the totalitarian

regime in russia and at the rejection of our friends and allies in the democratic countries in eastern europe. our friends, the poles and the czechs, who have worked hard, who have solid democratic institutions, support the war on terror, our allies in the battles of freedom. we side with the russian against our eastern european friends and neighbors. russia may have been successful in causing this administration to back away from its commitment, but i want them to understand that there are many, many members in this chamber who will not kowtow and bow to the threats imposed by a re-emergent russia. russia has meddled in the affairs of eastern european countries long enough, most recently in the invasion of georgia, meddling in the ukraine, trying to destabilize their neighbors on the borders. we will continue to fight for those freedom-loving democ

we will not allow a re-emergent russia to try to build a new sphere of influence to deprive them of freedom. this battle on national missile defense is the first victory for russia in, again, attacking the credibility of the leadership of our country and causing us to back dowto commitments we made not only to our citizens on the eastern coast, but also our allies and friends in europe as a whole and particularly the eastern european countries. the eastern european countries for years have been called the captive nations, these were the

countries under the totalitarian regime, under the old soviet socialist republic system, had been deprived of their freedoms for decades and that's the desire of the new emergent russia is to bring them back into that sphere. it's disappointing that this administration didn't stand strong in support of freedom and democracy to keep the movement on the national missile defense forward and we look forward to continuing this debate. i want to send a message to our friends in europe that you will not be forgotten. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: thank the gentleman. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from minnesota, mr. ellison, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader. mr. ellison: i'm keith ellison, i'm here to claim the time, i need about 10 seconds to get my board straightened out.

mr. ellison: mr. speaker, the progressive caucus message hour, which comes to the house floor every week, week after week, with the progressive message, will be short tonight. we want to let our republican colleagues know that. but tonight, though short, will be very potent and effective message because it's a progressive message. obviously, everything these days is health care. health care is a crucial issue. but it's important to understand that from a progressive standpoint, health care reform is part of an overall package of reform for middle and working class people in america. how are you doing with your family budget when you see over the last 10 years that health care premiums have increased,

deductibles increasing, you've seen co-pays increasing. how sit going when you see your neighbors foreclosed upon and the neighbors in the houses in your neighborhood are seeing the reduction in value? that's real wealth you're losing with this foreclosure crisis. in a progressive vision of this world we see middle class people, working people, people at the -- who even make only a little bit, minimum wage, actually seeing their wages rise, seeing their health care costs level off and go down, see their home values go up, and see the doors to the university remain open so that young people can have a real opportunity in this america. we have a vision where everybody counts, where everybody matters, where we're not constantly looking for the next person to throw under the bus. we know with the progressive vision that it doesn't really matter what your economic station is in life. you still have an opportunity to do well in america.

you still should have that opportunity. you should still have an opportunity to have your civil and your human rights respected and we believe that as we move forward in this health care debate, that we must remember from a progressive message standpoint, that it is a part of a network of things that american middle class and working class people need, people of all colors, people of all culture, people of all faiths. the progressive message, we don't believe that it makes sense to rail against and demonize people who are born -- come from other countries. we welcome new americans and think it's a good idea and immigration has been good for the united states. a progressive message that says we believe that everybody in the united states ought to be covered and that your health should not be a commodity bought and sold on wall street, bought and sold in commodity markets in which people basically look at you and your health as an economic entity to make themselves richer and

wealthier. it is with that opening remark that i talk about our short presentation tonight from the progressive message to talk about health care. it's in this context that we talk about health care. we talk about not so much the technicalities of health care at this point, but we really focus on health care reform, patients before profits. we believe in this. 36 other nations in this world provide some form of national health care. our country doesn't. we have -- we're the richest country in the world. we have a g.d.p. bigger than any other country in the world by double, and yet, and still we say we don't have enough to go around to cover the 49 million who are left uninsured and to make sure that we have pulled prices down and have quality care for the 250 million who do have employer-based health care and golvet health care but who are seeing their premiums rise.

tonight, we are here to say that though our friends on the other side of the aisle that constantly bang on government and talk about government-sponsored health care we say that government is a good thing. there's nothing wrong with government from a progressive standpoint, we say that yes, government must be efficient, yes, government must be effective. yes government must not be too intrusive. but to make blanket statements about how government is bad, this is not part of the progressive vision. we know the g.i. bill is part of government. medicare is government. medicaid which covers the poor is part of government. we know social security is government. we don't look at the government as the enemy in a country that is by, for, and of the people the government is us. so what are people talking about when they rail on government-run health care as if it's some horrible thing? the fact is that we're theer stand up and stand out for real health care reform as a part of

an overall package to make middle and working class people better off, higher quality of life, more opportunity for themselves and their family. so as we discuss this issue and we keep it in context, it's important to also bear in mind that a key element of reform, an essential element of reform is the public option. the public option is an essential element of reform and i want to talk to you about it tonight. for just a few minutes, because we're not going to be here long. we're going to be here for a while. but most doctors support a public option. this blue -- this chart here, i hope i can get a nice wide camera angle, both the public and private options, 63% of all doctors, they call doctors providers nowadays, but they're really doctors, 63% of doctors support both the public and private option.

63%. that's a lot. now you have another 10% of doctors that say, you know what, get profit-based health care out of our american system. we want public-only options. if you put all the doctors who believe in both public and private and doctors who believe in public-only options, that's 73%. of doctors. doctors say they know the public option is better. you might have some folks who are accountable to, you know, industry interests in the insurance industry who don't want a public option, but you don't have doctors saying it. doctors are for the public option. 63% plus more. and i'm very pleased to be joined right now by my dear friend from the state of new york, anthony weiner. how are you doing today? mr. weiner: i'm an honorary member of the progressive caucus, i'm not a member of the

caucus, but i'm interested in work you do on this issue. i want to pick up on a point you made. part of the reason doctors understand the need for the public option, they every day deal with insurance companies. you and i when we get sick, god willing, that's not often. our constituents when they get sick, they have to deal with their insurance companies. they deal with them every day. they've got six or seven different inboxes on their desk, got about 20% of their overhead is dealing with insurance companies. i don't mean dealing with them, hey, how are you doing, let's have a coffee together. sitting on hold, getting approval, find out when they'll get reimbursed, months and months waiting for insurance companies to give them money for services they've provided. so when doctors look at this debate they say you know what, having some level of competition is help to feel them as well. and just so we understand the context of this, you know, we swing wildly between people who say, the public option and this

health care debate is going to transform the world, and people who say, it's not going to really do anything. somewhere in between is probably right. when this health care plan go into effect under the present proposal we have in the house, for most americans, they're not going to have the ability to go sign up for the public option because they get health insurance at their work, they decide to leave their employer, they're going to leave whatever their employer is putting into the kitty, so they're not going to do that. they're not going into the public option. if you're on medicare, medicaid, the v.a., department of defense, you're not going to be even eligible to go into the public option. the people who are going to benefit are a small group of people, an important group of people, they are underinsured, the employer doesn't provide them the the basic health insurance they should, or they don't have health insurance at all. even for those people, it's going to take a while for the public option to get up and running.

the reason it's so important is we should have at least some experiment with how it might work. so that -- someone to which we can look at the lens and say, here's a private insurance company paying for advertisements, paying bonuses, probably the public option, the c.e.o. of the public option will probably make $190,000 a year, whatever it is. someone who's going to be going out there, versus an institution, a public option, which might say, maybe we can do it for less. we don't have to look out for shareholders that sliver of competition has the insurance companies mortified. and the question is, why? why are they so afraid? because at the end of the day, i say to my colleague from minnesota, at the end of the day, it could just be that these insurance companies say, you know what, if i'm going to compete, maybe i have to turn a little bit less other to profits, to advertising and

bonuses. for them, that might not be so good. but for the rest of us and for the country as a whole, that is actually probably a pretty good thing. but -- mr. ellison: if the gentleman would yield briefly, i want to throw this out there. i propose this. that the people who support the public option and people who oppose the public option do so for the same reason. one is that the public option will be competitive and because they don't have to funnel moneys into these things that don't really go to care, will be able to provide a cost-competitive product for people to be able to purchase. mr. weiner: let me make one other point you made that observation, great minds think alike or average minds think alike, i wrote an op-ed a month ago and made the same point that two sides agree on this. what's interesting about my republican friends who fought against this at the end of the day, we're introducing another market player, ok, that is -- you always want more market

players. that's where competition somes from. we're introducing another one. we've tied its hands behind its back more than i would have liked,y introduced another market player. it's fascinating the argument seems to be, wait a minute if you give my constituents choice, they might take it. it's fine, we apparently believe our colleagues are -- our constituents are smart enough to choose us to be their representatives, but oh, no, we can't trust them to be smart enough to choose the health insurance plan that's right. by the way irk already see the tv commercials, you don't -- don't go with them, you don't want government-funded health care. the companies will do everything to compete in that way but at the end of the day, we're prying to -- trying to introduce market forces whether they don't exist today. i'm taking too much time but let me make one final point. we hear all the time from the other side, let the marketplace work. there is no marketplace for

health care as a commodity the way we know it. if i have an appendix burst right now standing here, i'm not going to say, you know what, i'm not going to get an appendix, i'll shoop for laver instead or i'm not going to say, i'm going to wait, appendix go on sale in december. i'm going to wait. i don't have the ability to say, i'm going to buy some books and learn how to sew up my own appendix. if i'm like 80% of all people that get insurance from an employer, i have one option. my employer walks in and says, congratulations everyone here at the supermarket, we have blue cross or we have oxford and here's the coverage. i don't get to say, hey, boss, uh-uh, give me my money i'm going to shop around a little bit more that doesn't happen. so the idea that we have some kind of a free market, guaranteed choice, doesn't exist. we're introducing a little bit here, but at the end of the day, this is not a commodity like a suit of clothes that you can say i'm going to buy or

not, and it's also true when people say, why should i have to get smurns, i'm not sick? you might not be sick today, but if god forbid you get hit by a car and you have $170,000 worth of insurance -- of health care costs, and $100 in your pocket you know who is paying, mr. ellison in you and i are. some the idea of -- the idea of us making free choices, the right of your choice where it starts impacting me. as my father would frequently say to me when he was explaining the law, the right of my fist stops at your nose. and you can't have this conversation that -- but if you really believe in the marketplace, introduce more players. and that's what mr. ellison is talking about and that's what the progressive caucus is talking about and that's the overwhelming number of americans and doctors are talking about. if you're interested in making sure that we have a marketplace

that is not just dominated by the idea if you can afford to pay you do, andet me make this final -- i know i keep saying final point. i have made the point that insurance companies at the end of the day for health care are not like insurance companies in any other walk of life. your car insurance company, since we all have automobile insurance coverage, they're apportioning risk. they are trying to figure out how to spread risk around the world. health insurance doesn't do that. they are not covering anyone over 65 or a pre-existing condition. unfortunately, my father couldn't get it. they are not doing that either. so then the question becomes -- what are the insurance companies doing? they're taking our money and giving it to doctors, giving it to hospitals, giving it to clinics. but they're putting 20% in their pocket. so why don't we if we're trying to figure out savings, not that i have -- insurance companies are not eventually people.

they are doing what -- what we've allowed them to do and they've risen up for natural reasons. let's start with that 20%. let's start with that $350 billion or so out of a $2.5 trillion pot and let's put that back into health care, let's put that into other services. frankly, that's the thing on the public option. it's 4% overhead compared to the health insurance plan i have which has about a 25% overhead. i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. ellison: oh, yeah, we have the gentlelady from florida, debbie wasserman schultz, i yield to the gentlelady. ms. wasserman schultz: thank you very much. i'm just asking for you to yield for a brief moment so i can -- for the purposes of making a motion. mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 7 of rule 22, i present a privileged report. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: conference report to accompany h.r. 2918, an act making appropriations for the legislative branch for the fiscal year ending september

30, 2010, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: report is ordered printed. the gentleman may proceed. mr. ellison: well, tonight we are short here tonight. we're going to be handing it over in a little while. i want to explore this issue about competition with the gentleman from new york one more time. now, you pointed out how we have real problems with competition. we have real issues with flexibility within the market because when you need the operation you need it. there's not much opportunity for shopping around. but what about the number of health care insurance companies that are in markets as they exist today? as you look around the cities of our country, are we seeing health insurance companies proliferating throughout these cities where you have multiple companies to choose from, or are you looking at large markets being dominated by one to five actors? i believe 75% of all the major

markets are dominated by no more than five actors. so even if you could go shop around for that policy, do you have a lot to choose from? mr. weiner: it's an interesting point. one of the most common things we hear from people who oppose this comprehensive health plan is they pick a read of information and say, why don't we do this? why don't we let all insurance companies around the country compete in every market? well, i'm open to the idea but i got to tell you, they don't seem to want to. we have 50 states with 50 state insurance commissions and you can knock on the door on any one of them and say i want to apply to provide service here in minnesota or new york. you know we have a grant total of zero applications from insurance companies in new york want to operate in maine. i tell you why, mr. ellison, for an obvious reason. if you're an insurance company in new york, you don't know any of the doctors in maine. and what your patients and customers will want is my doctor in your network. so they have to go organize all these doctors, create a whole new network. it's hard to do.

i honor health insurance companies for trying to do it -- they make a lot of money. maybe it's because they were able to do that. but you want to know there is one insurance entity that has been able to do it for the entire country. it's called medicare. not only have they've been able to do it, but they've been able to do it at 3.5% overhead compared to a 30% overhead. mr. ellison: isn't this a government administered program? i yield back. mr. weiner: not long ago on this floor my colleagues on on the republican side of the aisle all voted for it. not all of them. most of them voted for it. they're the defenders of medicare. well, that's a single payer, government funded, government controlled health care. there's one thing that needs to be clarified. it's not socialism. and i tell you why. socialism means that government controls the means of

production. government doesn't run the doctors or the hospitals any more than objectionford, blue cross or aetna -- oxford, blue cross or aetna does. hardly ever to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle actually try to figure out the literal sense of what they're saying. it's not that. it is in a way trying to figure out a way that we as a society figure out how to deal with the society problem. but the problem that we have here is the private insurance companies pick and choose markets the same way they pick and choose customers. you don't -- i got to tell you something. we can pass a law tomorrow saying that everyone can compete all over the 50 states, you won't have people apply going to idaho or in minnesota. we have in new york a pretty rich because we have a lot of customers, a lot of senior citizens, but we also have some of the toughest regulatory regime because of many of the abuses that we've seen.

look, i want to tell you something. it is my view, we should have something like medicare for all americans. we should treat health care like we treat the fire department. we hopefully we don't need it very often. we all pay taxes so when there's a fire they'll come and put out the fire. that we -- that it's good for our economy, that our neighborhood shoe store should worry about selling shoes, not health care. under a vote that i'm going to be offering and i think it will have your support -- mr. ellison: absolutely. mr. weiner: we'll take the shoe store guy and say we have a financing problem, like all health care does. actually, the health care like it is for medicare is not as severe as it is for private health insurance. that's the way we should do it. we should make it less expensive, not more expensive for citizens. we are not going to say your state taxes will go up, your hospitals will close. we are going to run it the way

we run medicare which is efficiently and we're going to provide it as a service. putting that aside for the moment. at the very least if we're going to continue having insurance companies be the primary place to go it. how about a tiny read, a tiny sliver of competition? and if you don't do it because you think you should have choice, do it because you think we should save money. the congressional budget office says that if we take a public option and we link it to medicare plus 5%, we will save another $100 billion. so if you're a fiscal hawk, you want the public option. if you want choice, you want the public option. if you're a deprr, you want a public option -- doctor, you want a public option. if you want insurance you may not know it but you want a public option too. i thank the gentleman just about every day talking about these important issues. mr. ellison: i want to thank the gentleman for being as eloquent as he's been. we turn on the tv screen and the gentleman's been on national news talking about these critical issues. from a standpoint of the numbers, the logic, but also

from the standpoint of the person who really, really needs to change. so, you know, congressman weiner, you've done a great service. i told you on the floor one-on-one how pride i am of the work you've done. i think you're going to keep doing it. you can count on me to support the weiner amendment which is sangle payer amendment. take 30 seconds to talk about the weiner -- as much as you need. mr. weiner: maybe we can do it at another time. how much time do we have? mr. ellison: we have plenty of time. mr. weiner: very briefly, look, what the single payer -- consider it medicare for all. ask your neighbor if you're not old enough to have medicare ask them how their service is? every year they do a survey of all medicare beneficiaries. 96% say they're satisfied with it. which for a government program or any business would be glad to have that. they also ask the providers, the hospitals, the doctors, rate on a score of one to six. last year a score was 4.5. that's essentially an a-minus.

it says, look, we are not going to have overhead. we're not going to pay you bust out top of the market, but every single person, you're going to get prompt payment, everyone's going to be covered. you are going to have customers all around the neighborhood. and we're going to try to do some smart things to contain cost. now, make no mistake about it, the kenard that's raised -- medicare is a successful program. we all like it. the costs is high. it's true. we have more older people. to some degree medicare's success is why it's having trouble financially. we're living 10 years longer today than when medicare was passed. by the way, mr. ellison, we get 10 years at the end of life when we have more medicare costs. if we want to solve a problem in medicare, you call your congressman. you get on the phone. the taxpayers employ those people. if you want to fix your private insurance, if they shut you down, they kick you out, you go on an 800 number or get shares in their company. those are two ways to influence it.

we need to have an efficient model, let's have a model with a lower cost. if you don't think it works, ask our republican friends why they keep voting for it over and over again? i see my colleague from the judiciary committee but the energy and commerce committee i said, you don't like single payer health plan, put your money where your mouth is and i offered an amendment on the day of the 44th anniversary of medicare to eliminate the program. they say they don't like government-run health care, eliminate the program. not a single one of those people, and i'm prohibited on the floor for calling them phonies, not a single person voted yes -- voted no. we love medicare. we love medicare. you like medicare if you're 65 but not if you're 64? not if you're 60? not if you're 45? why? what's the intellectually honest explanation of that? if you believe the program that you're going to fight and defend, you should have it when you're 65, what's magical about that? when my dad retired at 60,

wasn't eligible to get medicare and he went on the private insurance market, they said fine for $15,000 a year, retired guy, why not give that guy medicare? and then maybe in a couple of years we give -- we give younger guys medicare and we get down to the 20's where you are, you know, we give you medicare. the point is we know what works. you want simple we have simple, medicare for all americans. you want inexpensive and low overhead, medicare for all americans. you want something that every doctor accepts, medicare for all americans. you want complete 100% choice of what doctor you go to, medicare for all americans. now, one thing it doesn't do. it doesn't skim off 20% for profits. you won't see tv commercials, you know, with people sitting in rocking chairs saying, boy i'm glad i got medicare. no. they're going to put that money in health care. does it need some fixing? yeah. we'll put $900 for someone to be in a hospital bed, we won't

pay $50 po put up a handrail when one third of all seniors get into hospital emergency rooms because of slips and falls. we do some dumb things. we need to fix it. as a member of congress representing 660,000 people in brooklyn and queens, i would rather fight with c.m.s., fight with the federal bureaucracy which i get far fewer complaints about them than i do about private insurance companies than having to hope that i get a good response from my insurance company. so that's basically the philosophy behind the single payer thing. and i -- and i have to take exception to one thing the president said in his speech. he said some people in this chamber want a single payer system like they have in canada. no. i want a single payer system like we have in the united states of america. i want a single payer plan that my father has. i want a single payer plan that my mother has and one that took my grandparents whose generation had a 30% poverty

rate before medicare and now is at 8%. that's the american single payer plan. so don't let people distract you by oh, it's europe, it's socialism, it's canada. it's the united states of america. we know how to do health care in the united states, and it's called medicare. the democrats created it, the republicans now embrace it, it got bipartisan support. let's expand it. and i appreciate -- and let me just yield on this point. i appreciate it. i'm not many of the progressive caucus. i never could -- the final stage of the application, as you know, is the talent competition and i was never able to make it through that last threshold. but the fact that you and our long locks have real thoughtful conversation, the present excluded, that explore the actual facts and the underpinnings is exactly why this has been a proud moment in our civic life. you put aside people calling people names, you put that

aside for a moment, americans see through the lens, they feel very passionate about it. i ask people watching today and all the people here othering this debate, ask someone about their experience with medicare and you'll see it's a pretty good ambassador for a government program that works pretty well that we should try to expand to more americans. i thank you very much for your kindness today. . mr. ellison: this will be the conclusion of our progress caucus. with anthony weiner who is doing such a fine job. we'll be back next week, everybody. this has been keith ellison with the progressive message. we yield back. the speaker pro tempore: thank the gentleman. for what purpose does the gentlelady from north carolina, ms. foxx, rise? ms. foxx: to address the house for five minutes, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. next month allegheny county, a beautiful rural mounty county in

northwest north carolina that i represent will celebrate bob dauton day and mark the beginning of the celebration of the 75th anniversary of the creation of the blue ridge parkway. congressman bob taughton was an allegheny county native from the town of laurel springs who is fondly remembered for the instrumental role he played in the passage of social security and the creation of the blue ridge parkway. congressman daughton who was sometimes known as farmer bob served in the house of representatives for 42 consecutive years from 1911 -1953. according to his congressional biog graph if i, he was educated in the public schools of laurel springs in sparta in allegheny county. he began his career as a very successful allegheny county farmer known for raising excellent cattle. he also worked as a banker and was the owner and president of the deposit savings and loan

bank of north willings bear until 1936. he launched his political year as a member of the state board of agriculture from 1903-1909. he was later elected to the north carolina state senate in 1908 and 1909, and was finally elected as a democrat to the 62nd congress in 1910. for six years he chaired the committee on expenditures in the department of agriculture and then later he rose through the ranks to chair the powerful ways and means committee for nine terms. he also served as chairman for the joint committee on internal revenue taxation for two terms. he retired from congress in 1952 and died about two years later at the age of 90, on october 1, 1954, in his hometown of laurel springs. he had a remarkable congressional career chairing the ways and means committee for 1 years. through some of the most

tumultuous years of the 20th century. in his final year in congress he became the longest serving member of the house preceding congressman sam rayburn as wha is known as the dean of the house, in 1952. as we mark the 75th anniversary of the blue ridge parkway, which is the most visited park of the national park system, it is very appropriate today to stop and remember this influential north carolina lawmaker whose vision helped create this beautiful scenic highway. i yield back, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009,, the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority leader. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. very much appreciate you

recognizing me to address the house of representatives and you today. as we near the close of this week, and i listened to the emphatic presentation of the gentleman from new york and the more low key but i think equal conviction presentation of the gentleman from minnesota, it caught my ear that the gentleman from new york gave us a definition of socialism. he said socialism is when the government controls the means of production. i'm going to tell you that i believe that is a closer definition to communism than it is socialism. and yet i think the people who are the self-professed socialists in this country know who they are and i think we should know who they are. they are the members of the democratic socialists of america. the website, d.s.a. -- dsausa.org is the central source, most important influential source of socialist

thinking in america. they write in there, and i have a whole series of documents that i have downloaded since the gentleman made the statement about what socialists are, i have spent a little time probing around in this website location. and i find out some things in there that i think the public should know, mr. speaker. it tells about the organization and it says that we are socialists because we reject an international economic order sustained by private profit. socialists reject private profit. now, that didn't seem to be what i heard the gentleman from new york say. they also reject alienated labor, race and gender discrimination which i certainly also reject, environmental destruction and brutality and violence in defense of the status quo. we are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and

market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources. meaningful work and a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and nonoppressive relationships, like having to work for the man. these socialists have a difference. on the website, dsausa.org there is a link that opens up and it says, we are not communists. i've always been very suspicious of any group that would start out with, i'm not a communist, but the democratic socialists of america, that's how they start it. they say we are not communists. communists want to control everything. they want to nationalize everything. they want to nationalize not only the major corporations, the energy industry, and the energy refining industry, the automobile manufacturers, the banks, insurance companies, lending companies. communists want to do all that and they want to nationalize small business. the butcher, the baker, and

candlestick maker, to keep it simple, mr. speaker. that's communist by the definition of the socialists. on dsausa.org, that website, for the democratic socialists of america. they also contend on those website links that they are a political party and they do support candidates but they just don't actively ask them to carry around with them the socialist labor. -- label. you'll find at the website, dsausa.org that the people who are their candidates are labeled themselves and by the socialist website as progressive. that would be the blue posters we saw within the last hour. the progressive caucus. we wander -- wonder what progressives are, they are socialists. they have a far bigger influence on this congress than the public is aware. there are 75 members of the

progressive caucus that are listed on their website. now, there was a time that you could have gone to the socialist website and opened up the link and read down through the list of the members of the progressive caucus who are every one of them a democrat in this congress, and every one of them is claimed by the socialists as being the legislative party and arm of their political activism. you cannot disconnect progressives and socialists, you can't give them a different definition, and if you wonder about the heritage and the genesis of progressives, their website was hosted by the socialists up until a few years ago. when it became known publicly that the socialist website was actually managing the progressive's website, and you can go down the list marxist, leninist, mowist, stalinist, communist -- maoist, stalinist, socialist, progressive you see where i have gone.

it's less egregious to be a progressive than a socialist. so they took another step away. socialists took a step away from communism because communism has a bad name. they stepped away from it and they defined themselves differently and put it on their website. they said, we are not communists because we don't want to do all these things. but they also say, progressives are socialistses -- socialists, they are people. they used to help their website. now the progressive caucus does their own website. but they advocate directly from the legislative agenda from the socialist web sy. facts, easy to find, dsausa.org. what does a socialist do that's different from a communist? that's the question. communists want to nationalize everything. they want to control the means of of all production. they want to nationalize the corporations because the corporations around running consistent with their belief, and they want to also nationalize the butcher, baker, and candlestick maker small business. that's communist. socialists right on their

website speaking for -- presumably for the progressives as well, that they are anti-corporate. they don't want to nationalize the small business because they believe that small business can actually function ok without being repressive of the worker and produce -- can produce hair cuts inset a beer up on the bar and maybe hand you sandwich out through the deli without them having to be involved in the government in any means except to tax the profits that come. if you set up a sandwich store and it turns out to a sandwich chain and gets big enough, then they are going to want to nationalize it. that's what socialists do. they want to nationalize corporations, large corporations and it's all in the website. it's not a mystery. we have to do our reading. dsausa.org. that's the socialist website. when the gentleman from new york says there is a different of socialists -- they are not socialists because they are not calling for controlling the means of production, well, i

have to say, gentlemen, your names are on the list. i read it in the website. it's there, it exists, it's a matter of fact. and when you're anti-free enterprise, that puts you in the camp of the people who are on the hard core left. it's a philosophy that's been rejected by americans. by the way, you can also go to this website and read in here, dsausa.org, the people who advocate and who support the progressives in this congress and have not been repudiated by any progressive that i know of, you can also go to that website and you can see the agenda that they have about nationalizing the major corporations in america. the nationalization of the fortune 500 companies, for example, is written about on the website. and they say, though, they don't have to do it all at once, not in one fell swoop, it can happen incrementally. so you have an active political party with 75 members in the

house of representatives and one member of the united states senate, a self-professed socialist, bernie sanders, senator bernie sanders, who are part of a movement to nationalize major corporations in america. and now we have elected the most liberal president in the history of the united states, and what has he done? he has in the term that he has had so far, this is only september, he has nationalized three large investment banks, a.i.g., the largest insurance company in america, fannie mae, freddie mac, general motors and chrysler. eight huge entities, nationalized, now under the control of the white house, and how did he do that and what brought it about? the economic crisis. the crisis that rahm emanuel said we should never let go to waste, the president and others utilized the crisis to nationalize the largest entities that they could get their hands on. .

i recall looking at a picture of president obama standing next to hugo chavez and they asked what i thought. i said, well my reflection is that there's two nationalizers here. hugo has been nationalizing right and left in the past 30 days. he nationalized a rice plant, a minnesota proud privately held company. and nationalized that rice plant down to venezuela and just simply said, i don't like running your rice plant. now it's mine. i'm running it. and they decide what the production is, what the people get paid and they'll take their margin out that it goes to run the government of venezuela. well, what is going on with general motors and chrysler and fannie mae and freddie mac and the largest investor banks? you're paying back tarp funding, that's one thing. but you got the president of the united states involved in or at least his direct

appointees involved in the day-to-day management, for example, of general motors. the president fired the c.e.o. of general motors, don't forget. he hired his c.e.o. of general motors. he put in place all but two of the board members of general motors. and then appointed, well, in the middle of all of this, appointed a car czar who didn't hold up to the standard, apparently, because he never made a car or sold a car and i suspect he'd driven and ridden in them. but the car czar didn't quite meet the standards, so he appointed a new car czar. and the c.e.o. of general motors admitted that he was on the phone with the car czar sometimes multiple times a day. it's not what you call disinterested. i wish the president took as much interest in acorn like he does in general motors. maybe we could get a public comment on acorn after we watched this saga unfold from across the country, the films

on acorn that have emerged in baltimore, here in washington, d.c., brooklyn, new york, and san bernardino, california, and then san diego, california. the pattern that we've seen. people posing as a prostitute and a pimp walking into acorn's headquarters in each of those five cities and help them set up a house of ill repute so they can funnel teenage girls from foreign countries with the strong implication that it would be unlawful entry in the united states, funnel them into child prostitution. and what did the acorn people do in each of those five cities? they helped facilitate this. they helped facilitate child prostitution, setting up a house of ill-repute and on top of all of that, this promotion of prostitution of children, and in the first film i saw that was in baltimore there were two women that were telling the young girl who was

posing as a prostitute and the fellow posing as a pimp how they could best circumvent the law in order to get it done, how they could best circumvent the tax laws all in this process telling them how they could qualify for the earned income tax credit. if you make $96,000 a year just report $9,600. then you'll get the earned income tax credit which is a check from the federal government out of the pocket of the working people in america into the pockets of somebody running a prostitution ring. advocated by acorn. and they tell them, if you're going to have 13 prostitutes, you should claim three of them as dependents. if you do that then you can qualify for the child tax credit which is $1,000 a year. so that counseling at acorn that came about spontaneously after they rumaged around through their records and had to come up with the right kind of label for these young girl

prostitutes and call them performing artists, and that would fit and you could game the federal government, circumvent -- that would not only defy the law, break the law and not only turn your house into a house of prostitution, drawdown funds from the federal government. these are very effective people at taking our tax dollars, mr. speaker. when it comes from them as a matter of instinct how you game the system, how you cheat the federal government, how you avoid taxes and how you reach into the federal coffers, the people's money and draw that down for your own, what a corrupt demonstration was taking place in baltimore and in the other cities. but in baltimore, the women who were working in there, the two woman -- women working at acorn telling the young girl how to bring in young girls, 14-year-old girls, plus or minus a year, how to bring them

in, how to get this done and how to game the system, these women, i don't know if they were mothers, the ones working for acorn, but i could hear children playing in the background in the tape. as if they were right behind the wall. the door was opened behind them into presumably another office. and you could hear children playing in there. could it be that in the middle of raising children we have people who are advocating for child prostitution? could it be that the children who were making the noise that we could overhear on the tape, could they have been the actual children of the women who were advocating child prostitution? as represeatives of acorn? i suspect that that's the most likely scenario, although i haven't confirmed it. that is a part that bothers me perhaps as much as anything else. that a worker for acorn that could be a mother that had children within earshot could be advocating for child prostitution. and what will be the difference

between bringing a girl in from el salvador, bringing in a baker's dozen in from el salvador illegally, putting them in hews of ill repute with money borrowed from the advocacy and brokership of acorn, acorn housing, we presume, to help fund and set up the capital base and the loan that would be a business enter price, and what happens when those kids from the other side of that wall that we could hear playing, what happens when they get to be 13 or maybe 12 or 14? do the acorn workers just turn around and funnel them right into that house and put them to work? this is -- the lack of outrage on the part of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle, the people who have for years railed against child labor and have pushed so hard for child labor laws, they don't -- 75 of them voted continuing to fund

acoorn. 75 members of the house of representatives voted tg funding to acorn even though tapes in five cities confirmed absolutely that there is a culture of that type of corruption, child prostitution within the doors of acorn. who could imagine that out of 120 cities where acorn has the presence that they were able to do this sting operation on all of them that -- for helping facilitate child prostitution or susceptible to doing that? i can't imagine they went to 115 other locations and the people at acorn said, that's it, get out, i don't want anything to do with illegal behavior and, by the way, i am going to call the police, we don't have evidence that happened anyway except bertha lewis. mr. speaker, i think america needs to know she's the c.e.o. in effect of acorn known formally as acorn's chief

organizer, and we have a great big problem in this country. and the biggest part of this problem in my view that undermines our country the most is not the child prostitution component. that's the most repulsive, but the problem that's the biggest is acorn's involvement in corrupting our election process. they have for election cycle after election cycle been complicity in -- complicite in fraud voter region tration. they had 1.3 million voter region stration. -- registration. the document that they're using as a fundraiser, we register 1.3 million voters and we need you to write a check so we can go in and try to intimidate people who are trying to stand up for the rule of law. that's how i produce it.

the number comes down to less than half a million. but they did produce by their own admission over 400,000 fraudulent voter registration forms. false or fraudulent, to be more precise, voter registrations turned in. now, imagine the integrity of our vote. if someone -- the franchise that every voter has is predicated upon the integrity of the voter registration rolls. that's why we register voters. if we didn't care how many times people voted we wouldn't care. go ahead and go vote, if you think you're an adult go in and vote as many times you like. we do care. one person, one vote and that's all that can be allowed and we can't allow the process to be corrupted. and we can't allow people to vote in multiple jurisdictions. one person, one vote per election. that's why you have to declare your residence. that's why you have to register. that's why we have to go through the voter registration

rolls and verify that they're legitimate registrations that are there. by the way, if you don't care about that, if you don't care about the integrity of the election process, you might be, mr. speaker, among those kind of people that would advocate for things like motor voter registration. or if you go in and get a drivers license and they say, do you want to register to vote and that person may say, no comprende, sign here, now you're registered to vote. it happens people get a drivers license, whether or not that's legitimate, and they're asked to register to vote and they're registered to vote, all they have to do is ascent to that. there is a little check box that says, are you a citizen? if they can't understand the language, how do they know they're checking the right box? and how could they know if they're guilty of personal perjury? i suspect the number is a lot larger than tens of thousands. but why would an organization

promote fraudulent voter registration, and i'm talking about acorn, mr. speaker? and why would they brag about it? and i can only come to this conclusion. if you could corrupt the voter registration rolls so badly that they didn't have any value anymore, that anybody could vote and the election process would be who can ever herd the most people through the polls the most times, that's kind of the logical progression of it. but who could imagine that with over 400,000 fraudulent voter registrations that we didn't have a fraudulent vote take place in america? acorn would tell you that. well, we may have gotten overzealous in our registrations but we didn't have any fraudulent votes. please. 400,000. why would you spend millions of dollars if there was no advantage? if you didn't think you could game the system? i'll submit that they benefit from confusion, especially in close elections, and i believe

they benefit also from fraudulent votes. and when you have a fluid registration system, then you could have people on buses that go back and forth across state lines, jurisdictional lines, county lines and vote multiple times. and once the ballot is cast, there isn't a means by which you can go back and prove it unless you have a video camera sitting in the polling place and you can show the full act of someone walking into the polling place and acknowledging their name and their address, going in to vote and seeing the same thing take place with the same face in another place. this is almost a perfect crime. and in the means of trying to actually catch them. you really need confessions. and as we went through the election process in the year 2000 when there were all kinds of allegations that were made, mr. speaker, i sat for 37 days and drilled down into this and chased every rabbit trail i could find on the internet. and i was on the phone and i

had -- i had a network of communications on my email, and i found example after example of stealing elections. it happens to be the title of john funds book who will be speaking in this capitol shortly. i found example after example. 400,000 fraudulent voter registrations turned in by acorn and still we can't pass a law that requires the person that hands those registrations over to the voter region strar and my state will be the county auditor, we can't require them to identify themselves so at least when it turns out to be fraudulent you can go back and say, well, that was sally smith or joe jones that did that, and here's their address and here's their identification document when they turned this? and it's because there's been a concerted effort to undermine the integrity of the ballot box. it's not every democrat but that's where the core has come

from, that's where the arguments coming from. it's not motor voter that took place in the 1990's. we have same day registration taking place in many, many states, including mine. same day registration. my governor, governor culver was secretary of state and in the middle of an election when he was secretary of state had -- he advised people, if you don't know what precinct you live in, if you didn't get around to voting or changing your registration if you moved, if you just moved in, don't worry about that. go to a polling place wherever you can find one and go in there and vote. . we'll sort the ballots out later. can you imagine? we have three million identifyoians -- iopans, don't know the total number of votes, thousands of them went anywhere that was convenient and asked for a provisional ballot and cast it. and the ability to sort that all out and argue over the integrity of them was -- it overloaded our

system. i come from a state that is first in the nation caucus. we have the great privilege of america to whom we would like to see nominated for each political party, democrats and republicans. first in the nation caucus. it's a high responsibility to matain a high level of integrity. we were first in the nation caucus, last in the nation to certify the vote. because our then secretary of state now governor gave information to the voters all across the state that they could just vote anywhere, further corrupting and confusing the system. add this up. motor votor registers anybody that will agree when they are asked do you want to be registered to vote? who is going to say no? especially if you think you're in the country illegally. you don't want to say no. you might think it's a responsibility to registration. so we've got motor voter registration, same day registration where somebody can drive across the border into name your state.

iowa, minnesota, wisconsin all come to mind. drive across the border, walk in, register to vote, and vote on the spot. you don't have to prove residence to speak of. you maybe have somebody attest to who you are. there's a limit to the number of people that the bus driver can bring in and attest for. but it corrupts the process, mr. speaker. so i'm watching this country, this country that i love, this country that i was raised from the standpoint of eat your cold mashed potato, there are people starving in china, you have been born in the greatest nation of the world. you hit the jackpot because god chose to have you born here in the united states of america and i'll say especially in iowa from my perspective. a nation that had never lost a war, stood proud, stood for freedom. that had the blessing and gift of the founding fathers and the declaration and constitution and the rule of law and all the pillars of american

exceptionalism. this great nation that went through manifest destiny from the atlantic to the pacific ocean, settled a continent in the blink of an historical eye. we did it founded upon the values in our declaration, constitution, values of faith, and work ethic with these unlimited natural resources, low or no taxation, no regulation, americans settled this continent and we built a culture and civilization built on, i'll use the superman term, truth, just t. and the american way. now i'm watching it corrupted in the electoral process by an organization like acorn. 400,000 voter registrations turned in and still they count them when they brag about how many they registered. they count the fraudulent ones, too. it's like saying i made $2 million last year not bothering to mention you stole $1 million from the bank. that's the equivalent of of their brag. now, we saw what acorn did in

five cities when confronted with child prostitution rings and illegal immigration. they promoted it. and they said game the system. you can get a check from uncle sam in the process. we have seen what they have done to corrupt the voter registration process and the election process. we have seen them get involved politically as a partisan organization over an over again. nobody in this country believes that acorn is out here to get out the vote for republicans. they are a partisan organization that gets out the vote for democrats. they are the machine. they are the foundational machine across the country that gets out the vote for democrats. we don't know that. they can't really be challenged. so as i look at their activities and i understand that they say, i guess they changed their definition a little bit, 501-c-3 that's what it says on a press release i just picked up, mr. speaker, released that there is apparently some intention that the i.r.s. is going to take a look into acorn.

the first thing the i.r.s. needs to do, mr. speaker, is take a look at acorn's corporate filings and verify that they are a 501-c-3. 501-c-3 is a not-for-profit status. if you violate that then your income becomes taxable. so i'm suggesting -- i'm stating flat out acorn is a partisan organization. a get out the vote organization for democrats. they take millions of dollars and use them for partisan purposes. they were hired, an affiliate was hired by president obama to get out the vote for him at the cost if i remember the number exactly, close to $832,000. there's strong evidence that the president's fundraising list once people maxed out to him was handed over to acorn so they could use it to raise money. we know they have drawn down at least $53 million in federal tax money that will be posted on the

990 form as grants from government. $53 million since 1994. i suspect the number is a lot larger. but if anybody would like to come down and defend acorn, i would welcome you to come down and do that. if anybody thinks anything i said here is even marginally factual let's fine-tune it. i'm standing on the solid ground of fact. the facts are this. 501-c-3 organization self-professed, in the press release that has to do with the i.r.s. now talking about investigating similar organization, not specifically acorn, but if you're not-for-profit it also means you are nonpartisan and barred by law from participating in partisan activities. partisan activities would be, mr. speaker, advocating for a particular candidate or political party. so, working in a campaign, putting up yard signs, door

hangers, running ads that advocate for candidates, especially by name, would all constitute violations of the not-for-profit status and make their income taxable. well, mr. speaker, i have here an interesting little picture. the good part of this picture is that i don't have to wonder about the source. this is a picture that i took. this picture was taken early july before the fourth of july, this is a picture of acorn's national headquarters. they are at 2609 canal street, new orleans, louisiana. i walked up to the door. the door looks like a jail cell. it's got a blast business door entry behind it, but it's black bars and welded steel with an outdoor lock on the outside. this is the most fortified building in the neighborhood. this is the second or third story where you see the bars

here. the second or third story. mr. speaker, right behind the glass at the national headquarters of acorn, is a poster here. and it says, obama 2008. a campaign poster for president obama proudly displayed in the front window of acorn's national headquarters. i don't know how you could get anymore definitive evidence that it's a violation of the 501-c-3 not-for-profit no partisan ack aivity. if you are going to hang a partisan campaign sign in the window and leave it there, let's see, eight months after the election, it's still there. does anybody imagine it wasn't there before the election? by the way, if anybody wonders if this is real, you can see over on the right-hand side, this hangs outside the glass, this is the acorn banner. the acorn logo.

their logo on there. they fly that flag like we fly old glory. so here's the flag, the glory of acorn, and here's the obama poster. there are other posters behind there. i can't verify they are obama posters. doesn't matter. this one's in the window. they are advertising for a political candidate. it's clearly a violation of the law. and it's blatant and opened and curiously it's unnecessary. how sloppy can they be? and so i think i have tied together the corrupt election process. the corrupt promotion of child prostitution rings and also illegal immigration which out of the san diego office especially when the acorn worker said, you got to trust us. we have to work with mexicans. i can bring people in through tijuana who will help set this up for you. child prostitution, violations, and in clear violations of voter

laws and in fact there have been as many as 70 convictions for voter registration violations of acorn employees. acorn as an entity is under indictment in the state of nevada. and the last couple of weeks they have put out in the state of florida 11 warrants for arrest to pick up acorn employees for voter registration violations. they did pick up six of the 11, the last i saw the news there, were five still on the loose. and while that was before the prostitution emerged from the film that was taken by the two intrepid reporters whom i'm quite pleased and proud they have done what they have done. and that's not all, mr. speaker. if we continue on with acorn, i would say here's another major concern of acorn's involvement. and that is the practice of shaking down lenders, especially within the inner cities. back in the 1970's, either 1977

or 1978 congress passed an act called the community reinvestment act. it was an act that recognized the practice that i reject, practice of redlining, they called it, taking an ink pen and drawing a red line around a neighbor in a city, or several neighborhoods, bangs that were loaning money for real estate, home mortgages, and commercial property identified that property that had its value going down. and they defined it and it happened to also be inner city property often one could index race with that declining value of property and redlining. if it turned out it was a racial conclusion, it was utterly wrong. if it was a business conclusion, purely t. could be justified. but congress passed the community reinvestment act that set the stage so that banks were then given a incentive to make loans into those communities

where they had previously been not making loans. that was the direction of congress to try to fix an ill that i believe at least was in significant part a wrong that needed to be corrected. but acorn exploited this. they were founded in 1970 community reinvestment act, and they began seeing the opportunities with the community reinvestment act -- i don't know their involvement in getting the legislation passed. i suspect they were there at the table when it happened but i don't know that. but i do know they went in and shook down lenders and demonstrated outside the banks and intimidated the bangs into giving money -- banks into giving money to acorn. not just the first round. this wasn't give loans to the people in the inner city, it was write a check to acorn and we'll go away. sometimes they would go into the lender's office, push his desk off over to the wall, surround that lender, and intimidate him,

yell at him, shout at him, and make demands. and eventually the intimidation tactics work because banks wanted them to go away. so sometimes they wrote the check and sometimes they went away. oftentimes they came back after a passage of time and began the process all over again. now, one demand was the shakedown that compelled -- gave a strong incentive for lenders to write the check to acorn. that helped fund acorn. you also heard of this taking place from other organizations. rainbow push comes to mind. they wrote the check to get acorn off their back. then acorn went away. then they came back and they did that over and over again. and at a certain point acorn then demanded that the banks loan money into the neighborhoods that acorn specified. they did their own redlining. they drew their red line around and said, you loan money into these neighborhoods or we'll come back and we'll protest your customers can't get through the

door. so banks began loaning money into those and showing their records to the acorn represent ives and now they are influencing a business practice. that's stage two. stage three is the lenders in order to get acorn off their back after they came back over and over again and escalated this, demanded money, demanded loans be made into acorn's red line district, then the next one was, to grant acorn a block of funds to be brokered into the communities of their choice. giving them more and more power. this kind of shakedown undermines the free enterprise system. and it gives power to people through intimidation rather than market principles or moral principles. in fact it's utterly corrupting in a society and i can't draw a moral distinction between an acorn shakedown and a mafia shakedown or a shakedown that might come from hugo chavez or some strong man in some other country. you will pay the protection or

you will not be in business. i wonder if cargill refused to pay protection in venezuela and that's how come chavez nationalized the rice company in about april. this is some of the pattern of acorn's activity, mr. speaker, and it isn't by any means all of it. in fact, there's -- wade rasky, the founder of acorn and was the c.e.o. until about a year ago has a brother named dale. dale embezzled $948,000 in change from acorn. . it's a matter today of public record. they covered it up for eight years. covered up a crime, a felony for eight years. and in order to solve the bookkeeping problem they took money from donors and money

from pension plans and backfield the hole in the accounting that was created by the embezzlement of the broth of the c.e.o. who helped cover up this crime. and finally it blew up to the point where wade rafky that was pushed to the side of acorn. he and his brother are both engaged in, let me say, community organizing. activist community organizers, people who read the book from salle olinsky, people who read cloward and peven and now people who are writing their own book -- writing their own book, the rafky brothers. we need to clean up this mess that's acorn. this congress has a responsibility. we know it now.

i offered an amendment to rid acorn in 2007 that had not a lot of support at the time. today we've seen that congress vote on acorn and we've seen 75 members, everyone a democrat, vote against unfunding acorn. we know what our duty is. our duty is oversight. it's our constitutional responsibility, mr. speaker. and we need to use all of the tools that we have in this congress to drill into acorn, to get to the bottom of it, to bring the truth and the facts out. that will require with all of these resources we have in the house alone, and i call upon the senate as well to engage in this, but in the house alone we must have full committee investigation and hearings on the judiciary committee taking a look at the voter registration fraud that we know exists and look at it on a national scale. and from this we need to drill into acorn and pull out of the

rotten aprilles that are in there -- apples that are in there. and if there's anything left that has integrity, and i don't know any company that's not stained by this, but the judiciary committee has an obligation to investigate where there are violations of the law. and whether violations of voter registration and election fraud. that's our responsibility in the judiciary committee. government reform, and it's been headed up very well in government reform by congressman issa of california. needs to look at this from the standpoint of how is government tied to this and what does it do to corrupt our government, and what about all the tentacles of acorn that would reach into government? how many places are they working in cooperation with the government? and let's sever all of those relationships. that's the government reform component of this. and to the extent that we can overlap and cooperate, we should do so committee by

committee. we need to go into the financial services committee. chairman frank needs to come all the way around to cleaning up acorn. he was not here for the vote that would have unfunded acorn. he had a couple of different announcements, but the most recent announcements is he would have shut off funding to acorn. well, we can speculate if we like, but, mr. speaker, to verify the position of the chairman of the financial services committee, we'll have to see what he does with acorn. will chairman frank investigate? will he use the powers of the fwaffle and the staff that he has -- gavel and the staff that he has in financial services and will he work with the ranking members and investigate acorn, the people that set up the scenario by which acorn still today -- let me say it this way. up until the vote -- still today, acorn is looking at

categories of as many as $8.5 billion that they could tap into federal tax dollars, our tax dollars, mr. speaker. $8.25 billion in categories altogether, that's money that's within community development block grant, low-income housing grant and the stimulus package. those three add up to $8.5 billion. acorn, as far as anything that's been signed into law today, would still qualify to go into those funds. the chairman of the financial services, mr. frank, has been involved in setting up the language, setting the stage. and it's not a practice of just this year. it's the practice of each year that i have been aware since i have been in this united states congress, mr. speaker. and so let's see if the chairman of the financial services uses his gavel to investigate and provide procedure oversight and with all the resources that he has at his disposal, working in full cooperation with the

republicans on our side of the aisle and our staff working together. let's see if that happens. judiciary committee needs to do a full investigation in hearings. financial services committee needs to do a full investigation in hearings for acorn. that's acorn and all of its affiliates, 361 of which have been identified by the government reform committee and the report that was put out july 23 by the government reform committee and ranking member darrell issa. investigate all acorn and all of their 361 affiliates. judiciary committee and the government reform committee. we also need to ask the ways and means committee, mr. rangel, who i recognize has his own problems in this congress, but this is an opportunity for mr. rangel to redeem himself as chairman. the chairman of the ways and means committee needs to commence a full all-out, full

court investigation of acorn and all of its affiliates and use his tools and the power of the gavel and the power that that committee has to bring in acorn and examine their taxes and also to turn the pressure up and direct the i.r.s. to do a complete audit of acorn and all of their affiliates. the only way to get a clean bill of health is to put them all through, let me say the fiscal physical, and that is a -- that is a complete analysis of all of the funds that come into acorn and all of their affiliates. chairman rangel can bring that about, and certainly he needs to work in cooperation with the ranking member on the ways and means committee. and i'm pushing very hard that we get this done. now, i've named three committees. and the fourth -- let's see. we have judiciary, ways and means, government reform committee, all of them need to commence their investigations. we need a house admin to work

in cooperation with the voter election laws. those are the ones that were brought about the help america vote act. they need to be involved in this and work in cooperation with the judiciary committee. we bring to bring the appropriations committee into this. we need to examine every dollar that's been appropriated that may have gone into the coffers of acorn and their affiliates. and how did that money get used and was it matching funds and how does this go down to the states? all of this needs to happen in this congress, mr. speaker, and we need the i.r.s. doing a complete forensic audit of acorn and all of their affiliates. and we need the department of justice doing more than just an i.g., an inspector general's investigation to see if they've written checks to acorn and their affiliates. i mean, that would be -- if the limit of scope of justice is is

if they were using it for partisan purposes, that's pretty narrow. acorn wants to examine themselves and audit themselves. that's a -- that's laughable that we should accept the idea that acorn has appointed someone to audit themselves. it's a joke. but we do have the justice department who has said, we want to audit ourselves too with respect to what money we might have sent to acorn so that they find it before someone else finds it and then they can make their press release and said they've cleaned it up and washed them off and sworn their hands of acorn like the census bureau did. they put out a press release a couple months ago saying we won't be hiring acorn to do our sense us. and we turned up some more -- to do our censu sumbings. and we turned up the heat more that we've severed our relation sthip with acorn. well, you have to do something

twice who would believe you did it the first time? and then if you do something once, who's going to believe that that actually got done the first time? they do it over and over again. but just wants to look at it and wash their hands of acorn, but i don't see them moving towards a complete investigation of the department of justice which we must have, mr. speaker. and the scrubbing that's taking place on the census and now the u.s. treasury and the treasury has said that they will no longer want to work with acorn with acorn helping out with tax forms. so maybe they are going to rely on turbo tax instead. but they no longer want to have the relationship with acorn. it's because they're too hot a political potato. these aren't things that these departments didn't know before. i've known this for months and much of it years, and yet we couldn't penetrate into the minds of the census bureau until we beat on them through

the media. we couldn't penetrate into the department of the u.s. treasury until the prostitution films came out, and the department of justice only wants to examine far enough to determine whether they've written checks to acorn and what those checks were for, if they were legitimate or not. it doesn't look to me, mr. speaker, like this administration is determined to do this forensic analysis. in fact, if you would draw a line down through the middle of the piece of paper, you could draw it figuratively down this side of the aisle, democrats on this side, republicans on this side, democrats as a party beneficiaries of acorn, republicans on this side a lot of whom are not here are victims of acorn's partisan activities. they've already lost their elections. they aren't here now and many of them aren't coming back. but that same line can be this. who has consistently called for the cleanup of the corrupt

acorn, the criminal enterprise acorn and all of their affiliates? it's been people on the republican side of the aisle that have done that. the survivors. and who has finally made some little mouse noises about cleanup of acorn? well, it's been democrats. and it's been people who have redirected. it would be mr. frank, charmse frank and conyers who called for -- chairmans frank and conyers who called for a c.r.s., congressional research services to take a look at acorn and write a report. well, crfment r.s. doesn't have the authority to go in -- well, c.r.s. doesn't have an authority to go in and do a tax audit. they don't have the authority that these chairmen have themselves. if they want to get to the bottom of it, they call for hearings and an investigation and they levy their subpoena power and they do that. but instead they like to redirect the american people into believing that calling for a c.r.s. report is somehow a substitute of congressional

investigations. it's not. the justice department that should be doing a complete thorough criminal investigation working hand in glove with the i.r.s. should instead simply announce that they're going to take a look and see if they've written checks to acorn and then react accordingly. and the u.s. treasury finally takes a position that they don't want to cooperate, don't want acorn cooperating with them and helping out with taxes. these are all the weak things on this side. these are redirections. these are strawmen. they are red harings. they don't have substance -- red herrings. they don't have substance to accomplish what we need to do which is clean up acorn. on this side we've called for substance for a long time, and we haven't cracked through because the people on this side hold the gavel. and they were determined to protect and defend acorn until the political heat got so hot that all but 75 of them voted to stop federal funds from coming into acorn. that's what's taken place, mr.

speaker. those are the facts that cannot be denied. and by the way, we need to ask some questions about why the chief organizer of america has not had a statement to say about acorn except for his statement to in the sunday news, on the sunday talk show circuit when asked about this, he said, it's really not on my radar screen, it's not important to america so i'm not paying much attention to acorn. really, mr. president. this is the -- this is the star of acorn. he's the lead chief organizer. he is the person who told the people at acorn, i will invite you into the -- and we will be setting the agenda for america

even before he's inaugurated as president of the united states. this is the man who worked for acorn. he's the man who was an attorney for acorn. he's the man who trained acorn's workers. remember when he said before the election to his people, get in their face, get out and get in their face, does that sound like what's happening around the lenders' desks when they were capitulating to acorn's intimidation of the shakedown? acorn's activists got in their face. the president said, get in their face. headed up project vote and -- project votes integral to acorn. you can't separate the two and there are people who are labeled project vote at acorn who concur with that. then on top of that, the president of the united states as a candidate hired acorn to get out the vote.

then, the evidence exists that his donor list was transferred over to acorn, once it was maxed out and they couldn't write another check in the presidential campaign, the list went over so acorn could raise money on that. this man's not interested in acorn? he's ambivalent about it that's what he told us last sunday. curious. he could inject himself into the police operations of a professor at harvard, officer draw lee and professor gates, he could inject himself into that and have a beer summit but he can't pay attention to what's going on when things are melting down around him? this man stands at the top of acorn. he's the man that directed the census be pulled out of the department of commerce and put into the white house. this is a man who hired acorn to help hire individual ares to work for the census. and he's not paying attention? do we think rahm emanuel is running the country or

president obama? or is it just chicago politics? i think it's all those things, mr. speaker. the president cannot deny knowledge of what's going thofpblee united states senate voted 83-7 to shut off funding to acorn housing. senator johan's amendment from nebraska, that sent a resounding message, i bet even charlie gibson knows about that one. shortly after that, the house acted and we had a motion to recommit which if it works the way we'd like to shuts off funding to acorn. 345 members of the house voted to not fund acorn. 75 defended it. chairman frank changed his mind, he wasn't here, had a good excuse he got to change his vote.

chairman conyers said, whatever side he voted he tried to vote the other way. i don't get to use that excuse, maybe once in a career, not multiple times in a single issue by multiple members of congress. but this man, mr. speaker, has a deep, abiding involvement in acorn. his history goes back to it. you cannot go back and start at the beginning, at the genesis of president obama's political life, there he stands with acorn. and he walks with them all the way through. it isn't my supposition, it's his own assertion that acorn was with him from the beginning, he's been with acorn all the way through and one of the affiliate he is headed up was project vote. there are still 360 other affiliates out there. we need to audit project vote and the other affiliates. we need all the tools of the

i.r.s. and the department of justice. we don't need a lame little announcement justice is going to look and see if they wrote a check to bad people, and they'll correct that. we need to have them drilling into everything and we also need every committee that has jurisdiction in the house of representatives doing the examination of acorn. i yield to the gentlelady from minnesota. mrs. bachmann: i'm so pleased with the gentleman from iowa, one thing we've seen from a recent gallup survey, today at the highest level ever, more people believe the government is wasting money than at any other time in modern times. today the people believe the government wastes about 50 cents of every dollar. as if these activities weren't bad must have, -- bad enough, the gentleman was speaking about it, the stunning steve

king of iowa, one thin -- one thing we recognize is that the american taxpayer should not be paying for these activities. this is stunning, this is a stunning feature, that you have an organization that's been the recipient of about $53 million since 1994, and off photo, i noticed, a poster of the president, with an acorn emblem on his shirt, since president obama, who formerly was the attorney for project vote, yet one of many affiliates of acorn, since that time, he has made available to his patron to acorn, he's made available to them $8.5 billion. if a bill that went through this house actually passes, that would be $10 billion that are available to this organization, who we have seen has been furthering the traffic, trafficki of illegal aliens, minor girls, into childhood prostitution and child abuse. this is unconscionable. this same organization has been

educating individuals that they should take their money, bury it in a tin can in the back yard, rather than paying taxes. and we're giving this organization $10 billion in tax money? how could this be? no wonder the american people are saying, at the highest time ever, that they believe 50 cents of every dollar is wasted. we need an investigation, i believe intoork that fact. do we know how much of our tax money is being wasted? the american think it's 50% of every dollar. perhaps it is, if you have $10 billion going to an organization like this i yield back to the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: reclaiming my time, i thank the gentlelady from minnesota, i'm looking forward to future comments with this as well. the waste that's there is a significant part of all this. but another one is just the lack of conscience and using federal funds to do something of a partisan nature and do so

with impunity in a completely cynical approach that we've known for years were designed to produce this result and i see that the gavel has fallen. mr. speaker, i appreciate your indulgence, i ask unanimous consent to introduce the dsausa documents into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. king: i do so and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? mr. arcuri: i send to the desk a privileged report from the committee on rules for filing under the rule. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title. the clerk: report to accompany house resolution 772, providing for consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill h.r. 2918, making appropriations for the legislative branch if the fiscal year ending september 30, 2010 and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore:erered to the house calendar and

ordered printed. under the speaker announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from minnesota, mrs. bachmann, for 60 minutes. mrs. bachmann: mr. speaker, i thank you. the focus of my remarks over the next hour will be on the issue of health care. this is the issue that has really captured the attention of the american people over these summer months, and well it should. this, for many states, is one of the top spending priorities in their states and here for the federal government as well. we've learned as we've looked through the budget this year, since president obama has assumed the presidency, under his leadership, we have seen the federal budget increase 22% at a time when the american economy is contracting in one quarter alone we saw a 5% contraction rate. the private sector is contracting in this current economy and what's government response? government is on a party, it's growing. growing to the tune of 22%.

that's almost 1/4 level of increase. imagine if any of us, mr. speaker, in our own lives in our own businesses, in our family situation, would increase our spending 22% when our income had fallen 6%? none of this would ever -- none of us would ever consider treating our own finances in that way. no business could consider treating its own finances that way. it's only a government who looks to our pockets and to our resources to finance its party, only a government that's out of control, that's capitulated to practically fiscal he donism, fiscal he donism to run up bills that are unconscionable for the next generation. i think we are looking at a time, mr. speaker, unlike any other in the history of the united states, and that's why this health care date plays into the center of where our economy is at. mr. speaker, i'm a former

federal tax litigation attorney, and i have den a study when i was in my post doctorate program at william & marry law school in williams pittsburgh, virginia, in the late 1980's, at that time a study came out that said, the kids who are today about 22 years of age, when they get to be in their prime earning years, knowing what we know about the current demographics, the number of people who will be 65 or older, eligible for medicare, those who will be 62 and older, eligible for social security, we know approximately how many americans we have to support who will be age 62 when today's current 22-year-olds will be in their peak earning years. what this study shows, mr. speaker is those now 22-year-old children, those born back in about the year 1987, will look at an unprecedented debt load out of their paycheck. here it is. those kids will be looking at

spending approximately 25% of their earnings, just for social security. so imagine, 25% of your earnings goes just to pay for social security. what else do we know? we know that medicare is also an obligation that the federal government has made, a promise, if you will that we have made to america's senior citizens. medicare costs exceed those of social security. so if, then, america's young people, now 22 years of age, in their peak earning years, have 25% of their income taken to pay -- to support social security, and if we know that medicare is more than social security, those two components alone would consume 50% of the average person's paycheck in just a few years. 50% of the paycheck. just going for social security and medicare.

that doesn't even contemplate medicare part d which is the pharmaceutical portion a relatively new entitlement, that's been put before the american people. so let's say that consumes, let's be very conservative and say 5% of that young person's paycheck. that would be 25% for social security, government would take another 25% for medicare, now we're up to 50%. let's say another 5% for medicaid part d and that's very conservative. now we're at 55%. but what about the federal income tax? that doesn't even contemplate what an individual would pay in federal income tax. federal income tax could easily be another 30% of that young person's income. now we're up to 85% of an american born in 1987, we're up to 85% of their income check going to the federal government just to pay for entitlement

programs. mr. speaker, that doesn't include the state income tax program. in minnesota, the state that i'm from, that could well be an additional 8%. which would add up to 93% of an american's paycheck, an american born in 1987, when they get in their peak earning years, could be looking at minimum at 93% of their paycheck going to pay just social security, medicare, medicare part d, federal income tax and state income tax. but mr. speaker, that doesn't include property tax. mr. speaker, that doesn't include sales tax. so property tax, sales tax, gas tax, every time you turn around tax. there won't be enough money, mr. speaker, in the next generation of young people that are only now just beginning to earn their first w-2 wage

withholding, those young people are looking at a burden no other yen ration has ever yet contemplated. and in the middle of this financial crisis that we're looking at, mr. speaker, now comes forward the health debate. and what is the solution put forward by president obama? and by the two majorities that control the house of representatives, the democrat majorities? we have one party rule in washington, d.c. one party controls every lever of power. and what's the sluelings? let's just have government take over the rest of health care, as if we already haven't obligated ourselves on health care, now the proposal being advanced is that the government would take over the rest of health care. what would that mean. ? we know at minimum, according to the congressional budget office, $900 billion, perhaps

$990 billion, according to president obama's figures. what were the initial figures we were given when we were told and talked to about the government takeover of health care? it was $2 trillion. upwards of $2 trillion, according to the congressional budget office. why do we think that this isn't stretching things, $2 trillion? because we know, when president obama -- when president johnson implemented the modern welfare state in 1965, president johnson and those here in washington, d.c. estimated that the cost of medicare, to americans, would be about $9 billion adjusting for inflation by 1990. what was the actual cost? the actual cost was $67 billion. the federal government only undershot its estimate by a factor of seven. it wasn't just on medicare. it was on medicare, hospitalization insurance, it

was on, you can go down the list. one new revision of medicare after another, undershot the true cost to the american people of what medicare would cost them down the road. sometimes by as much as 17-1, the federal government was off by that much. what has that done to our budgets? that's caused us to go into a deficit mode so severe that now the chinese are lecturing americans, chinese communists are lecturing american free marketers on our out of control spending and our debt. why? because china owns so much of our debt. mr. speaker, what are the options, if you will, that the federal government has in front of itself when it comes to pay for these government programs? there are three. the federal government can either increase taxes or they can increase borrowing from countries like china, countries a lot more reluctant to purchase

our debt. when we were a producing country, when we were making washing machines and irons and cars and we were a producing country, other countries were only too happy to purchase our debt. but now that our new industry is producing more welfare, countries like china aren't quite so interested because they know we aren't actually producing a good. we're providing government welfare benefits. now china's not quite so interested in purchasing our debt. so we can raise taxes on the american people, that's not going to work in a down economy. or we can issue more debt, that's not working when china is calling for throwing over the american dollar as the international currency and means of exchange and now china, now the u.n., now russia, now brazil, now south america, now country after country is calling for a new international one

world currency. this is a new event, mr. speaker. this is a new happening. why? because the greatest country that has ever been in the history of man in 5,000 years of recorded human history there has never been a country greater or freer or more powerful than the united states of america. that is our richness and that is our legacy. but now for the first time we're hearing a call for the replacement of the u.s. dollar as the international means of exchange, replaced with a new international one world currency probably regulated by a world regulator, perhaps under the international monetary fund. what would that mean for the dollar? what would that mean for the stability of our country economically? what would that mean for america's senior citizen who are dependent upon the federal

government now for their health care through medicare and for their social security retirement? what does that mean for our senior citizen? here's the third option that's available to government, mr. speaker, when it comes to dealing with finances. again, government can tax our people. ouch, that really hurts government is already whacking us a lot with our taxes. then we talked about the area of borrowing. well, other countries aren't too keen on that right now. what's the third option, mr. speaker? it's this. governments as a last resort can do what the myanmar republic did in the 1920's, they can print money that's basically worthless. in some sense the paper is worth more than what's printed on it and what that is, mr. speaker, and what that represents is the good faith and the hard work and the years and the toil of the american people. mr. speaker, just this afternoon

i did a call to some constituents back in my district and one man named richard told me that he was thinking about moving to singapore. richard said the reason why he's moving to singapore, mr. speaker, is because he spent his whole life working. he worked so hard and he took his american dollars and he put them in the bank and now he sees what our government has done. our government has flooded the money supply with money that they've printed. one gentleman told me from one of our leading financial papers that we had about $1 trillion in currency in circulation. we had about $1 trillion u.s. in circulation here in the united states and last year the federal reserve pumped an additional $1 trillion into the currency. what does that mean? if you had $1 in the bank that meant when your government flooded the money supply with an additional $1 trillion on top of the $1 trillion we had, with no more goods and services backing

that money up, that meant, mr. speaker, that an american's dollar was only worth 50 cents. well that's was -- that's why richard was upset. he said to me, congresswoman, i don't want to hold onto american dollars if my government is going to inflate its way out of this current problem. because if they do that to pay their bills, to pay their medicare bills, to pay their social security bills, then we're all poorer. we're not richer, mr. speaker. we're poorer. and that brings us to the context, mr. speaker, of our debate in health care. and that's why i believe we are seeing the american people soundly rejecting the federal government taking over health care. yet one more area where it seems that it's wasting money. again, a gallop poll was just released that showed that for the first time the american people believe that this

government wastes 50% of every $1 it gets. which is why we should have an investigation. truly, what amount of money does congress waste and what actually goes to a true and beneficial purpose? what are the alternatives for us as we look at health care? today 85% of americans have health insurance. and they like it. they enjoy it. one of our democrat colleagues was on the floor here earlier this afternoon and he said, and i quote, the majority of doctors in our country support government takeover of health care. only he didn't call it government takeover of health care, mr. speaker, he called it the public option, which is government takeover of health care. well that isn't true. that isn't what doctors in this country believe. surveys were sent out. there's a survey sent out that was reported for the last seven days by "investors business daily."

they received surveys back from 28,000 physicians in the united states. they sent it out to all physicians and physicians responded back. 28,000 physicians. of those physicians, 2/3 of the physicians said that they believe that the government takeover of health care will lead to diminished care, diminished care in the united states. they believe that senior citizen will be worse off, mr. speaker, if the government takes over their health care. and that's exactly what i'm hearing from my constituents as well. senior citizen who aren't for political reasons, they don't care if it's a republican plan or democrat plan, they don't care, all they know -- they're very smart, mr. speaker. america's senior citizen are very smart. they're watching this debate carefully. they're watching, they're paying attention, they're listening to what the conversations are because they know they have the most to lose in this system.

why? president obama said, he was here speaking to the 535 members of congress in a speech to the joint session of congress, and i spoke to all of america when he said he will be cutting the medicare advantage program. that's about $149 billion out of medicare. and he also said that he will have about $500 billion in savings for medicare. what does that mean? $500 billion that america's seniors will no longer be able to count on. that's not what we want to do to america's senior citizen. we can do so much better than this. we have a great option, great plans, that doesn't put the government in charge. and that's one thing, mr. speaker, that i would say to america's young people, to america's middle aged and to our senior citizen, ask yourself this question, mr. speaker, in the middle of the debate on

health care, americans really need to ask one question and it's this, once this health care bill goes through and is passed, will it give more power to the government and more control to the government over my health care or will it give me more control over my own health care? will i have more options or will i have less? every plan put forward so far by the democrat majorities that run washington washington, d.c., whether it's our -- washington, d.c., whether it's our democrat president or the democrats that control the house and the democrats that control the senate, they've all run to the left, to the liberal option and they've all said there's only one way to handle this health care problem, me. you need me. you need more government. that's what the liberals are saying in congress. that government needs to be the one to take this over. well, i don't think so, mr. speaker. the american people don't think so.

they think this congress wastes 50 cents of every $1 and, mr. speaker, they may be right. because the american people are some of the sharpest people in the world. and they know when they've been had. but we don't have to go down that road. there is a positive alternative that we can embrace, that can immediately bring down costs because, again, 85% of the american people already enjoy health care and they enjoy their health care that they have. for those who don't have health care today, a large percentage are illegal aliens. we have no business as american citizens being forced to subsidize and pay for the health care for illegal aliens, for people who are in our country against our law. we have no obligation to pay for that health care. we also have a large segment of our population, mr. speaker, who make over $75,000 a year. they could purchase their own health care, they simply choose

not to. they choose to spend their money on other items. it's not their priority. and we have a huge segment of our population that makes over 50 -- $50,000 who also choose not to purchase health care. many people in that category, mr. speaker, are between the ages of 18 and 35 and they're perhaps without health care maybe for four months and so they roll the dice and say, maybe they'll be healthy for the next four months, they don't need it. mr. speaker, i have been in that situation. my husband and i have been in that situation when we had children. we had a few months where we didn't have health care coverage. and we simply can could not afford the very -- we simply could not afford the very high rate that we'd have to purchase by ourselves to cover us. so we rolled the dice. a lot of americans do that. but there is a segment of our population had who truly can't afford health care and we have safety net after safety net after safety net that this body has put into place for people who truly, through no fault of

their own, can afford to purchase health care and there are people in that category. we will always have that safety net, but what can we do? we have a positive alternative. it's very simple and this is what we can do. every american can purchase and own their own health care. today it's not that way. but we could be. today we have american employers owning most people's health care. so it's either our employer that owns our health care or it's the federal government. or the state government. one of the two. it's either government or an employer that owns our health care. very few americans, mr. speaker, actually own their own health care, but they would like to. the same way they own their car insurance, the same way they own their homeowners insurance, the same way that they go out and purchase any other item, they would would -- they would like to be able to prosecute -- purchase their own health insurance. we start with letting every

american purchase and own their own health insurance coverage. how do we do that? we allow americans to band together with anyone they want to, maybe people who live in their community, maybe it's all teachers, maybe it's farmers, maybe it is realtors, but you can band together, or other senior citizen, you can band together to have a large purchasing power or like a credit union would act, people in a geographical area, maybe you live in a rural area, mr. speaker, people could band together and they could purchase as a pool health insurance. they own it, they purchase it as a pool together in a big large group so that they can have better purchasing power, just like if you go to sam's club or costco, they're able to offer cheaper prices because they buy such a large volume of the product. let's let american citizens do that. if it's good enough for sam's club, why can't it be good enough for the average american person?

so you band together with whoever you want, buy your own insurance and then, mr. speaker, we let people buy whatever level of coverage they want. maybe they want to buy a policy that is expensive, that has all the bells and whistles on it, or maybe, mr. speaker, they only want a small amount of coverage. maybe they only want hospitalization, so in case something happens to them, they have to go to the hospital for a heart attack or for cancer treatments or they get laid up somehow and they have to go to the hospital, they only want catastrophic coverage, truly catastrophic, that would be a very inexpensive plan. why don't we allow people to do that? in my home state of minnesota, mr. speaker, we are the most, if not the most, we are one of the most heavily mandated states in the country. in other words, our state legislature, where i used to be a state senator, we have about 70 different mandates. in other words, 70 different requirements before any

insurance company can sell an insurance policy. an insurance company might say, i want to sell this low cost, throw frills insurance plan, i think maybe i could sell it for $60 a month. in my state, an insurance company can't do that. why? they're prohibited by law. because my state mandates that we have to have -- an insurance company has to have 70 different requirements before they cancel the policy. in other words, they have to sell a cadillac policy rather than a kia. no offense to kia owners. no offense to cadillac owners. but the point is this. we should allow insurance companies to sell truly a wide variety of products. isn't that what president obama said when he was here in this chamber? he said he wants choice he wants competition. well, his words don't line up with his actions. there's a little problem here. with what the president has

said. how is it choice and competition if government is the choice? and if after five years' time as the house bill has said, all insurance plans have to look exactly like the government plan? you could have 45,000 different insurance plans, but so what if they all look exactly the same, and if the federal government controls what you would spend on premiums for that policy. this is nonsense. and the thing is, mr. speaker, the american people are too smart, they are seeing through the rhetoric from the president and from tremendous the majorities that dominate this congress. that's why, mr. speaker, the american people are embracing our plan, which is rested on the groundwork of freedom, which is about the american people, owning their own insurance policy, banding together with whoever they want to, to purchase whatever level

of coverage they want from any state in the cubtry, and i will tell you, mr. speaker, you will see states all across this great country change the number of mandates that they require on insurance policies so their state can be the go-to state for issuing insurance policies and from there, as a former tax lawyer, i would recommend this. i would recommend every american be able to set aside, tax free in an account, money that every american believes that they want to set aside to pay for their own health care. it's completely tax free. no taxes paid on it. and if they have a catastrophic event where their expenses outgo their tax-free money they can fully deduct the cost of premiums, of their co-pays, of their medicines, of medical devices of course their surgeries of their hearing aids, chiropractic care, acupuncture care, whatever it is, they would be allowed to

fully deduct that on their income tax return. in other words, truly own and take responsibility for your own health care. from there, finally, true lawsuit reform. when you ask a doctor what do we need to do? lawsuit reform. without a doubt. 83% of all doctors sued in this country today are found not liable for the alleged problem. what's happening? we're seeing now today people filing lawsuit after lawsuit and rather than go through the hassle and worry about a jury award, doctors are settling, mr. speaker, when they don't want to settle. when they know they're innocent. when they know they didn't do anything wrong this isn't helping anyone, not anyone, mr. speaker. not even the trial lawyers. because why? it's bringing down this great country. we truly do have the finest health care that has ever been

offered to people, ever, in the history of the world. from my state of minnesota, we are a leader in medical devices, we have med tronic, boston scientific, we have great companies in minnesota that have contributed mightily to medical advances and breakthroughs and now what? now the government wants to impose a 10% tax on these medical devices? why would we do this? who gains? who gains from all of this? we have a positive alternative, rather than the government taking it over, rather than the government ramping up expenses, rather than taking away choice from america's most vulnerable citizens, we could instead embrace a positive alternative where americans own their own health care. band together with more people so they have purchasing power. purchasing any level of care they want, from anyone they want in any state they want.

putting aside tax-free money, deducting on their income tax return their orthondture, their eyeglasses, finally getting rid of these leavell lawsuits eating up smotch of america's substance. this is a positive alternative. it won't break the bank. when our country is functionally bankrupt now, this won't break the bank. it'll cause our country to turn itself right side up so we can get back on track, give , get people back to work. we want to be able to see this positive alternative. right now, mr. speaker, i'm joined by two great physicians here in our body, one is dr. john fleming, and he's a new member of congress, great ideas, another member in our congress is dr. phil gingrey, who we are just so proud of for his courage he offered an amendment in his committee that

would keep illegal aliens from having access to taxpayer subsidized health care. president obama told america that illegal aliens will not receive taxpayer subsidized health care. that was after the democrats in this body rejected dr. gingrey's amendment that would have denied taxpayer subsidized coverage to illegal aliens. we have a lot we can talk about, i want to turn over to my colleague, john fleming. mr. fleming: i thank my colleague, gentlewoman bachmann, for providing leadership in this hour and particularly on this subject of health care. you know, mr. speaker, there's really a fundamental economic that i think we always have to go back to. i practiced family medicine for over 30 years, still practice from time to time. there's something very important that we all need to learn, that is that, yes,

medicare and medicaid is government-run health care. if you ask the average person who has medicare, they will say they're happy with it. there's a very important reason why they say this. medicare currently pays a fraction of the actual cost of the delivery of medicare care. so who pays the rest? the rest is paid for by private insurance. private insurance today subsidizes medicare and medicaid. if you ask the average physician in practice, he or she will tell you that they can only have a certain number of medicare and medicaid patients in their office, otherwise they become insolvent. so when the president says, we need to have this government run option to pull the cost of private insurance down, that really defies reasoning. it's really upside down from what economically is going on. what's happening is, when you

make your private insurance payment to the tune of about $1,800 per family per year, what you're really finding is that that is the subsidy that goes for medicare. so if you enlarge medicare or government-run health care in general, and you artificially depress the price, which is what the president in h.r. 3200, our colleagues on the other side of the aisle call for, what will in fact happen is you'll cause the cost of health care, private insurance premiums, to actually accelerate. so under this plan, the employers are given the option, they can pay either 8% as a fine, if you will, or a tax, and dump their employees into this plan, a government-run option, or they can continue to try to keep up with the growing cost of private insurance and over time and through competition, employers will be forced to dump their employees

into an enlarging, if you will, black hole of private -- excuse me of public option or government-run medicine system of what we end up with at the end of the day is a very small flange if you will, of private insurance, that that we all know and appreciate today, and everyone else, of course, is in this large, government-run system. so who will be left in the private insurance market? well, it'll be the very wealthy, it'll be the elite, and of course members of congress. i proposed -- excuse me, house resolution 615 and i have many of my colleagues now who have signed on it and over 1 million americans who have signed in support of it, that simply says if a congressman votes for the public option, he or she should be willing to sign up for it themselves.

so far, i've not had one person on the other side of the aisle who has signed up if that. -- signed up for that. in closing let me say that, we also need to focus on who the insured group is. you've heard this number, 46 million americans who are uninsured. well, who is that group? about 10 million of them are actually not americans at all. they're illegal immigrants. 10 million to perhaps 17 million are young, healthy adults, what we call the invincibles, who've opted out of insurance, who have decided it's not worth the money because they're healthy anyway. we also have a number who are eligible for medicaid but simply don't sign up for it. what we have is 10 million americans who qualify for health insurance as americans, but they can't afford it because of pre-existing illness or current illness, the expense is too high, perhaps they own a small business or they're

employees of the small business, and because the risk pool is so small, they can't afford -- conditioned find affordable insurance. all of that is fixable for the 10 million americans who want insurance but can't buy it. instead, mr. speaker, what our colleagues on the other side of the aisle want us to do is totally dismantle the best health care system in the world and put in place a u.k. or canadian style medicine form of medicine, form of health care, which provides universal coverage, but not universal care. what do i mean by that? certainly i think we can all agree that care delayed is care denied. in america today, those who are uninsured still can go to the emergency room and by law be treated for whatever ails them, even if they don't have the ability to pay for it. in fact, we are not allowed to ask them, as providers, whether they can afford that. if someone has a needed surgery

or need to be admitted to the hospital for a life-saving treatment, it's going to be done. you take the u.k., can dark and much of europe, yes they have coverage, but what good is coverageit tes four years to get treatment? the average waiting time in canada today is a year to get an m.r.i. scan and after the scan is done, you get in line for the needed surgery. talking in my district, a lot of folks in my district have relatives back in canada. one lady said, well i, my brotherer to his rotator cuff but it took a yore to get an m.r.i. -- it took a year to get an m.r.i., and by the time he saw the doctor it was too late to fix it. in canada, elective surgery is one that's not life-saving.

i think we have won this today, 56% versus 2% of americans say the current health care we have today is better than this obama care or the government-run option. the problem is, we still have members of congress, members of the senate, and even the president who insist ongoing down the road an taking 1/6 of our entire economy and reforming it into a socialist, government-run system. i think if we look back on what the government is doing today and what it's done in the past, whether you're talking about the post office which has a $9 billion deficit, whether you're talking about medicare itself, which ill will run out of money completely within eight years and all the fraud, waste, and abuse that exists there and the $350 billion that our president says he's going to save out of that, when after 40 years, not one single politician has been able to find the solution to that problem. i think it's really the wrong

decision to make to have more government control of our health care. so with that, i appreciate so much my good friend, michelle bachmann, for inviting me and allowing me to participate in this discussion today. mrs. bachmann: i want to thank the gentleman so much for his remarks and his comments. it's tremendous credibility to be able to come here on the floor and speak as a physician. you had years of service treating and heeling patients across the united states. you look into the eyes of your patients and know the fear they feel knowing that they my may lose some of the finest health care ever, and we don't want to see our physicians have their hands bound. as a matter of fact, i want to refer to again "investors business daily"," which did a seven-part series, that said 45% of american doctors may leave the profession if government takes over health care. as a matter of fact, doctors more than anyone detest the current status quo and the role-played by insurance

companies. they want to see us change up health care, which we agree, but this is not the route to go and physicians are telling us that. in fact, 2/3 of practicing physicians said senior citizen care will suffer under the government's plan. they also, three of five doctors think that drug development of new drugs will also be thwarted and also they see that fewer doctors will be entering the new profession of medicine. before i hand this over to my colleague, dr. gingrey of georgia, i would like to just add, something that we saw happen, there's an article in "the wall street journal," this just happened, now we have a directive last week from one of our senators, mr. bachus. he has ordered medicare regulators to invest -- investigate and likely punish humana for trying to educate their enrollees in their advantage plans about the fact -- the medicare advantage.

this is very concerning. we're seeing a united states senator calling for an investigation of a company is communicating with -- a company that is communicating with its enrollees in its company. they're communicating material and now a company is given a gag order by government? well this didn't occur with the aarp. the government isn't telling the aarp, which also offers medicare advantage plans, they aren't putting a gag order on them. this is really concerning, mr. speaker. because we can't have the federal government engaging in censorship. that's what this is. pure and simple. the obama administration and democrat senators are calling for censorship. they want to stop insurance companies from communicating with their customers about what government takeover of health care might mean for them. this is unconscionable.

who would have ever thought we would live in a time when government would be calling for censoring a company because the company is not communicating the message that government wants it to communicate? with that i want to hand the next few minutes over to my colleague from georgia, the great dr. phil gingrey, who courageously has offered amendment after amendment after amendment in committee to try and make it clear, no bureaucrat should ever come between you and your doctor. and also that no illegal aliens should ever receive taxpayer subsidized health care. these issues were all brought up by the president in his speech to us in his joint session speech. dr. gingrey put members of congress on record and that's why the american people are concerned and rightly so. dr. gingrey? mr. gingrey: mr. speaker, i certainly appreciate the gentlelady from minnesota for carrying this hour of important information in regard to the health care reform proposal, h.r. 3200, and also my good

friend and colleague, physician colleague, from the great state of louisiana, dr. john fleming, as the gentlelady has said before coming to congress from the state of georgia, i spent something like 31 years practicing medicine, 26 as an ob-gyn physician. and the physician members in this body and there are about 17 of us, five on the democratic side, 12 on the republican side, probably have over 400 years of clinical experience combined in regard to health care. so, you know, we bring to this issue, i think, a fund of knowledge that needs to be listened to and listened very carefully to. not that we're necessarily the experts or the last word but i think we are a very important word. as mrs. bachmann, representative bachmann, was saying, the

president right here, mr. speaker, two weeks ago, as he spoke to the nation about the need for health care reform and he had a joint session here, the senate, the house of representatives, his cabinet, the supreme court justices, the president was talking about promises that he had made to the nation in regard to health care reform. you remember, mr. speaker, that was when one of the members on our side of the aisle in a moment of extreme passion and emotion suggested that the president was guilty of serial disingenuity but as we look at the speech and we look at the things that the president said about health care reform, and you go through it almost line by line, certainly there are some statements that need to be questioned and we will continue to question and i think the american people will continue to

question, mr. speaker, and they deserve answers. they deserve straight forward and accurate answers. i have a little chart, mr. speaker, that i want my colleagues on both sides of the aisle this afternoon to pay close attention to. it's called the obama health care test. and this is just sort of an abstract really of a much larger test, but i think it gives you the members and their constituents an idea of where this test is going and what the likely grade would be. the president said, and i quote, the reforms i'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. well, quite honestly, mr. speaker, h.r. 3200, that bill that has passed three committees of this body, including the committee that i serve on, energy and commerce, h.r. 3200 fails in regard to the

president's pledge that the reforms would not apply to those who are here illegally. because in this bill, while it says no one in this country illegally will be eligible for any government subsidies in this health reform plan, to help them purchase health insurance, it takes out the provision that currently exists in law that says, if you are going to be a beneficiary of a safety net program such as medicaid in the 50 states or the chip program, the children's health insurance program, a great program, but it's heavily federally funded with taxpayer dollars. in those programs you have to show verification, a social security card, a verifiable number. in some cases in some states, a

photo identification. all of that is taken out in h.r. 3200. so quite honestly that first statement the president makes, h.r. 3200 fails on that pledge. the second quote i would like to have my colleagues be aware of, the president said in his speech two weeks ago, nothing in the plan requires you to change what you have. h.r. 3200 fails miserably in regard to the president's pledge of if you like what you have you can keep it. that certainly is not true for those 10 million of our medicare recipients, that's 25%, by the way, of everybody that's on medicare, that gets their coverage through medicare advantage. and they pick medicare advantage because it covers so much more. and i think john fleming, dr. fleming, spoke about that.

under traditional fee for service medicare you can't even, mr. speaker, go to the doctor for a routine annual physical and have it paid for other than that first entry level when you turn 65. but under medicare advantage, certainly you do, and you can on an annual basis. you don't have to be sick to be seen. and you can get coverage for things like hearing aids and you have the opportunity when you get your prescriptions filled that a nurse will call and make sure that you're taking those medications. so wellness and prevention, two aspect it's of improving health care in this country -- aspects of improving health care in this country that the president, the democratic majority, has continued to stress, that is a huge part of medicare advantage. that's why we created medicare advantage and that's why 25% of our seniors choose that as the delivery care -- the delivery

system that they get. and in this bill to help pay for it $500 billion, mr. speaker, $500 billion are ripped out of the medicare system and $170 billion from medicare advantage. that is a 17% cut per year over the next 10 years, each and every year, cutting that program by 17%. it's estimated now by the congressional budget office that at least three million people, that's 30% of those who are on medicare advantage, will lose that coverage because of the plan to pay for this massive new government takeover of our health care system. so, again, going back to the test, nothing in the plan requires to you change what you have, that is just absolutely, mr. speaker, not true. h.r. 3200 fails on that account. i'm going to skip down to the last question on my little mini

test in the interest of time and the president says, i will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit. i will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficit. well, again, mr. speaker, let's go back to what the nonpartisan congressional budget office says and the director is chosen by the speaker of the house and by the democratic leadership and he says, this bill is not fully paid for. in fact, $260 billion are not paid for. that's a little bit more, mr. speaker, than one thin dime, isn't it, $260 billion? so i could go on and on and on but the obama health care test, quite honestly, my colleagues may have trouble seeing this, but we have a grade up here in the left-hand corner and it's a

big old fat f and the american people understand that and the american people are not happy with it. they're not happy with this idea, also, of a public option that they know and that we on this side of the aisle know is going to lead to a government takeover. and i'm going to close out, mr. speaker, so i can yield the time back to the gentlelady from minnesota so she can yield to other speakers, but i'm going to close out with this, in our committee yesterday as we continue to mark up some amendments to h.r. 3200, one of the most powerful members of that committee on the democratic majority side made this statement, and i quote, when there is a market failure in this country the government must step in. now let me repeat that, mr. speaker. one of the most powerful members

of the most powerful committee drafting and writing this health care legislation made this statement, and i quote, when there is a market failure, the government must step in. i guess just like they did with government motors, just like they did with a.i.g., just like they want to do now with health care. that's not the american way and i don't think the american people want that. we should be -- have the freedom under our constitution to succeed our failure and not have the government come in and take over. that sounded like some other country -- sounds like some other country that thank god i was not born and raised in. i yield back to the gentlewoman from minnesota. mrs. bachmann: thank you to the gentleman from georgia. i yield to the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: i thank the gentlelady from minnesota and the gentleman from georgia. dr. gingrey, i wanted to just step in and reinforce your statement in looking at your

poster. i want to reinforce the analysis you've laid out especially on that first point, the president said the reforms on proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally and h.r. 3200 not only has it been the vote in your committee, a vote of 29-28, that voted down the deal amendment which would have required proof of citizenship, which has been a consistent is it standard in federal law under medicaid, that pattern is played out here. democrats want to fund illegals in this program and many others. there is also the vote in the ways and means committee that is consistent, that was a straight party line vote on a very similar amendment that would have required proof of citizenship, and the third piece of proof that you were right and your critics are wrong and my critics are wrong would be the congressional budget office's estimate of the cost of funding illegals in this and their estimate leaves as many as 5.6 million that would qualify under the language of h.r. 3200. 5.6 million illegals.

and the forth reinforcement of your statement would be congressional research services who have reached a similar conclusion although from a different approach and a little bit different language. so there's four ways that this bill will fund illegals. the president has denied that and now he wants to simply legalize the illegals in order to be able to maintain his statement that he's not proposing anything that will fund illegals. that's a pretty deft maneuver if you can get by it but this is a modern world and we see it happening. then i drop down to the statement that the president said which is, i will -- i will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits. all i need to say is that the president said he won't sign a bill that has earmarks and we know he's signed bills that had thousands of earmarks in them, so i don't take that statement at face value and i don't make allegations about labels of the president. no federal tax dollars will be used to fund abortions. we know if there's not a specific prohibition, federal funds will be used to fund abortions 3rks00,000 of them in

the first couple of years -- 300,000 of them in the first couple of years alone. nothing in the plan requires to you change what you have. no, problem not specifically requiring you to change what you have, but there's certainly many threats as to the viability of the health insurance companies and the exist eptence of the policies after the new health choices administration czar gets done writing new rules. . mrs. bachmann: i thank the gentleman from iowa and that is something we ought to consider when the president spoke here. he made it clear there were some large details that had yet to be worked out and essentially what that is the president saying to the american people, trust me. trust me. not only the american people, but to the senators and the members of congress that were here serving as representatives of the people in this chamber. trust me.

because the details aren't worked out. there are so many things -- we don't know how the bill will be paid for. trust me. the president says. then the president talked about various commissions that will be set up. we know another health care czar will be set up in the bill. a czar? the american people are already saying that the government is wasting too much money. the american people's opinion is that 50% of every dollar we spend is wasted and we are supposed to give authority to a health care czar to basically write the bill over a four-year period because as the current bill 3200 is written, it's very interesting. who is the enforcer of this bill? none other than the internal revenue service. the i.r.s., that's the enforcer of this bill. loads of new taxes onto the backs of the american packser. loads of new taxes.

enforced by the internal revenue service. my goodness, mr. speaker, could we add insult on top of injury to the american people and the taxes are scheduled to go into place january 1, in just a few months, the taxes will go into effect on insurance companies, on individuals, on businesses, the taxes go into place january 1 of 2010. what about the care? what about all the new care that people are going to get? that doesn't go into effect three, four years down the road? what? we are paying this in 2010 and then the care comes down? and then we are supposed to trust this administration, we are supposed to trust this democrat majority that they'll figure it all out and somehow it won't cost any money and we won't have to worry about -- we're going to bring another 47

million people into the system and not add doctors and actually cut costs. that's like saying you can eat a chocolate cake and you won't get added calories. this doesn't add up. there is no credibility in the government takeover of health care, which is why our colleagues, dr. gingrey, offered this very simple amendment, put up or shot up. will illegal aliens be covered or not? oops. democrats think they will. will abortion be covered by taxpayers? well, our colleague, joe pitts put that amendment in. oops, i guess it will. what about bureaucrats, will they be able to substitute their decisions for that of your doctor? that was offered by dr. gingrey. oops, i guess it's up to a bureaucrat now, not a doctor. there's a reason why the american people are panicking on

this issue and we're right there with them because we think you deserve better than that. mr. speaker, this is the american people's money and because, mr. speaker, this is about life and death and that's why we have such a great alternative. that's why we say to the american people, you own your own insurance policy. you ban together with whoever you want to buy that policy. you buy it from anyone you want to buy it from. you buy it in any amount you want to buy it and you buy it anywhere in the united states. and that's why we say, buy it with your own tax-free money and deduct the rest on your income tax return and then let's have lawsuit reform. that's 95% of the problem, done, just like that. what does it cost the treasury? i guarantee it doesn't bankrupt it not like this will do. that's why we are here this afternoon because we have a

positive alternative to the government takeover of health care. we can do far better and i yield to the the gentleman from georgia. mr. gingrey: i thank the gentlelady. i want to refer back to the other night in the president's speech and the issue of whether or not illegal immigrants were covered. that was the point at which my good friend, mr.âwilson, joe wilson from south carolina made his comment and kind of upset the apple cart, if you will, a little bit. mr. speaker, maybe after the speech was over with and the president was back at the white house -- i don't know, maybe talking with rahm emanuel or david ex ell rod and went through h.r. 3200 and said, mr. president, the gentleman from south carolina was a little bit on the rude side, but maybe he

was a little bit on the right side as well and we need to do something about this verification because if we don't, then illegal immigrants are going to be able to take advantage of our hard-working taxpayers across this country. and the president in subsequent speeches, on sunday morning, he was on a number of shows, as my colleagues know and continuing to give speeches and did make the comment. he said, you know, we absolutely do need a verification system, very similar to what we currently have with our safety net programs i referenced earlier, medicaid and the schip program. the president is certainly paying attention and maybe getting a little bit more careful about understanding and reading those how many pages are in the bill? 1,200 did we say, my colleagues? and then the other thing, of

course in regard to -- and i want to spend a few minutes before yielding back to my colleague -- we're about done? i yield back to the gentlewoman. mrs. bachmann: i thank the gentleman from georgia and the gentleman from louisiana and the gentleman from from iowa. the american people know we can do better. so i yield back now, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. mrs. bachmann: i make a motion to now adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those

>> d. you have any idea from your town meetings? >> i think there's a difference between understanding a premium and the general cost that comes from emergency room care and other kinds of care. obviously, i have a very intelligent constituents. >> i live in michigan 14 years. >> but there certainly is a

difference between the awareness of paying out of pocket for premiums and what happens in directly all the time. >> we will still be paying for the emergency room visits of uninsured native americans, people with religious objections, and illegal immigrants. why is it ok for some and not others? >> i would just say that you raise a very important pieces of this. this is a very tough issue. if you cannot solve all that, do not solve any of it? is the status quo ok? i don't think it is. >> [unintelligible] >> i would not say this will

kill the amendment, but it is morally wounding it. it says no shared responsibility for individuals. that is going to undermine it. it makes insurance even less affordable in an exchange. if we want this to work, we can make it more difficult. all those in favor of the amendment please signify by voting. call the roll. >> no.

no by proxy. >> mrs. lincoln. >> no. >> no. >> mr. schumer. >> know by proxy. >> ms. cantwell. >> no. >> mr. menendez. >> know by proxy. >> mr. proxy. >> no by proxy. >> mr. kyle. >> aye. >> mr. roberts. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. corn in. >> aye. >> mr. chairman. >> no.

>> the clerk will tally the vote. >> the final tally is 9ayes and 14 nays. >> the amendment fails. >> i want to thank the chairman for working with me on this. i made a fairly heartfelt and lengthy segment yesterday about the way medicare reimbursements are done to providers, to hospitals, etc., etc. i suggested that it was a frivolous exercise and that there were too many lobbyists in gold and it is very difficult if you have a lobbyist that comes

in that should not be end gains enormous advantage by getting an increase in reimbursement rates for oxygen or for something else. i think the congress has made an earnest effort. but it did not think it has been a successful effort in view of the overall purposes of trying to make reimbursements more intelligent way, maybe reduce costs by doing it more intelligently,. overall, these are decisions that should be made by a professional. people that are not lobbyists

and are not necessarily sitting congressman or centersenators. as i indicated, [unintelligible] obviously, there's a lot of talk about government involvement. this will not be without government involvement. i think it will be a good compromise. and it goes bing to paris about it. government should be involved. -- and i think i was being too purest about ipurist about it.

government should be involved. who would be picked by the speaker of the house and the majority or the senate, ideas coming from others to them? they would present those ideas. there would then be put before the president of the united states. he would make a selection. then they would have to be approved. >> that is true. >> which means baez, in this committee. >> -- that means a by us, in this committee.

the purpose, obviously, would be to make wise decisions. as i indicated yesterday, this so-called lead pa medpac was pue us in 1997 by the republicans and it was accepted. it has been beautifully put out every year, but knowing that they have no authority or power to do anything about it, they have made suggestions about how reimbursement should be done, who gets what, what did geographic factors, with income factors, what urban factors. it is a very difficult decision for an individual congressman and senators to make. it is a constant study.

nobody would be built to serve on this that was not fully involved. hhs, cms, and health care, they would be on that if approved by us. medicare is too important to let it be done in an ad hoc manner, depending upon who has and then -- a particular interest in this or that. it should be done at a distance, by 10,000 feet, by individuals and of the business. i give an example of someone who is a [unintelligible]

i do not know she would be interested. but the point is that a professional in health care public policy who knows the problems of the country and has been all over the country in many capacities to study what the needs of medicare might be for reimbursement purchases, hospitals, providers, etc., it is very important. it is very important that hospitals and doctors and other providers really feel that they are being treated fairly with an even hand. i think this amendment begs the cooperation of the chair of this committee and it is a very fair way to do this. i think it is bipartisan. it has the executive branch involved. i didn't think they will be entirely happy with this because they wanted to be a branch of

the executive government. i don't think that is necessarily the case here. we make the decisions on these things. with the chairman and i are suggesting is the right way to go. it is enormously important. i cannot think of anything more important that we will do for the long-term history. the chairman was also good enough to remove the three-year sunset or five-year sunset so that the medpac will stop at that point. that means that people have confidence in it. it will be a long-term thing that you will be living with. they have confidence in the ongoing process. then they make their decision. then they come before -- in their decision comes before the

congress, both houses. then the houses have a chance to review. the chairman foresaw this already. they have a chance to review for 30 days the product of these commissioners working long and hard for the full period of a year. there would have a chance to review that. it is a good amount of time. they would have a chance, if they were displeased, to override the suggestions by a two-thirds vote. that provides some discipline on the legislature, but it also provides the legislature an opportunity to really make a difference.

i think this is a game-changer. it is in large idea. it has large consequences for the future. there will not only be looking at paying people, but quality, accountability, outcomes, recidivism, and the rest of it. i put that to my colleagues with the hope that they will find it imposed -- important and satisfactory. >> thank you. you have been an early champion of this concept. you talk to many of us some time ago. the president refers to this concept many times. i think it is a great idea. the cbo also gives it a good

score. it will save about $23 billion, which is not a bad thing. this is one of the major [unintelligible] we'll talk about bending the cost curve. but there are not many provisions that will actually do it. i can think of three or four now, but this is one that definitely bands of the cost curve. you're making a very valuable contribution to the country with this concept and procedure. we may not see the benefits of a for quite a few years. but i hear a comment from the peanut gallery. i do believe we will see it in our lifetime.

[laughter] thank you very much for what you are doing. >> thank you. >> may i ask a question? i heard the distinguished senator from west virginia saying how the commissioners would be selected. but i didn't see that in the amendment itself. maybe i missed it. >> it is in the margin. >> this amendment is basic improvements upon provisions. >> i would like to sponsor a question regarding the congressional procedure. what has been removed from the chairman's remarks? it would be reported to the floor and then the senate would have the opportunity to develop an alternative plan by august 15?

is that entire process removed from congressional oversight? >> no. it is all part of it. [no audio] [no audio]

and maybe more. they have made their suggestions. >> it would be the same time frame? the report would have to be approved by congress? >> yes. the chairman hinted at this. this will not take effect until the year 2014. that is important. it will take that kind of time to prepare. they may need to have more staff, more resources. they have been doing this for 12 years, knowing what they say is not quite have any effect. belt they know that it will most likely have a fact. -- now they know that it will most likely have a feffect.

[no audio] it will change from time to time.

>> is the membership of the commission changed in any way? >> no. it is not. those three main people are added on. first is cms and hhs. >> and the other is selected how? >> by the majority leader and the speaker. but not by them alone. they will be flooded by suggestions by us and others. >> there will be appointed by the president. >> i heard you describe one where did the walk-through about this commission that you compared it to the barack

procesbrack process. the commission got set up and did its work and then it was over. why would we need, in this case, to continue it? once they made the recommendations and way decided to vote or not to vote them where to put them down, i do not understand why we would need -- >> of the process to reimburse people in a fair and proper manner based on a whole variety of criteria continues. >> but the brock commission has always been a false indicator.

those who it does affect fight mightily against it. then we make a vote. that is that. >> the comparison was a fair comparison, i thought, in that it was created because the congress did not have political will because these are very difficult political votes. but if they came basically for up or down votes, it may be easier to get at a bipartisan agreement to where we say, you know what? it is for the good of the country. let's do it. >> that does not change. >> my question about eliminating the sunset here is that in the brack process, we had to pass

around to. would it be reasonable to have this commission and say, jeez, it did work. if it worked the first time, we decide in five years to do it again, instead of creating another permanent bureaucracy, why would we not do that? >> we have that bureaucracy. this does not have that authority. >> you raise a good question, 74. -- senator. we did not know that we needed a second background. after the first run, we set it up again. we can avoid having this commission making any recommendations to the congress, frankly, if it works. it is up to us. we have when airpower --

quickly -- we have within our power -- >> we all understand that. >> in the st. matthew's passion, jesus says, thou sayest. >> we are making a big change in medicare in the formula process. is there anything in this amendment that would affect that? under the amendment, the commission would have latitude in the types of payment reforms it could recommend to congress. it would have little incentive to suggest a repeal of the amendment because it is consistent with the purposes to promote high-quality care.

>> so you say it has no impact. >> yes. >> the leaders would each present recommendations. however, in no way would they limit the president's responsibility to provide congress with qualified nominees. does the staff read that as entitling the president to ignore the recommendations made by the members of congress? so the president could ignore the recommendations of the members of congress and present totally different names. >> let me jump in here.

this is a charter decision. the president has to make the appointments. and this committee has the authority to confirm or not confirm the appointments. but the minority makes recommendations to the president. i don't know that many presidents to do not accept the recommendations. sometimes, but very rare. >> i don't think that the charter prohibits the congress from legislating along the following lines. the commission shall be comprised of 15 members, three members appointed by the house, three members appointed by the minority leader, etc. in other words, we can create commissions with membership that we create or that the present creates or combinations.

-- or that the president creates or combinations. >> these are executive branch cuts. to do that, it has to be a presidential appointment. your commissions, hypothetically, would be fine. for example, cutting medicare reimbursements is a presidential thing. >> if one situation pertains and maybe the staff can respond to this, the power of the purse is in the united states congress. not only is in -- not only is it a legislative function, the house of representatives stuffs and we pass the bill to the president. he signs the bill or he can veto it. but we appropriating money. if we're going to cut that, that

is not an executive decision. congress is the one who decides how much money is spent on things. you don't need to have the president appointing with an unlimited executive power members of the commission to make recommendations about what congress ought to legislate. " i am questioning here -- >> yes, we are doing that. >> there is a vote on the floor. >> but this needs to be cleared up. we have commissions. we have all kinds of commissions. look at the national gaming commission. i know that they did not have rescission power, but, what he is saying, is that we have the power of the purse.

>> the majority of this congress can create a commission which says that the president can individually nominate all members of the commission. yes, weekend that. i see that that is what senator rockefeller says we are doing here. >> no. >> congress will approve or disapprove the nominees, but the president alone has the responsibility of providing the names. >> if we decide not to approve the secretary of state -- >> i am sorry. i am being a little creek. >> i know. but if the secretary of state, if congress says, we do not approve them, that person is not approved. that is advice and consent. in this case, the president can ignore our recommendation. >> we do not confirm after he

appoints. >> the chartered decision requires us [unintelligible] i am saying to you that that is not correct. >> i don't think you are accurate. >> are there any lawyers on the staff that can verify this is the only way we can do this. >> yes. >> would any of them like to volunteer an answer? >> if we can wait for one minute. we will get an -- for one minute, we will get a lawyer to verify that. >> i can read it to you. >> explain the requirements. >> the comptroller general

cannot make the support cuts in the alw because congress has the ability to remove the comptroller general from office. this is an analogous situation. this commission will have the authority to make cuts unless congress passes a law to stop those cuts from going into effect. for this commission to be constitutional, the president has to have the authority to appoint. this will also involve congress in the suggestion of nominees to the commission as well as the confirmation process. >> the comptroller could not do it because congress could remove him? >> that is right. >> ok. what you're saying is that, even though the individuals on this

commission would be appointed by the president, how is the comptroller of the currency put into office? >> he is also appointed by the president and removable by the congress. >> so these individuals would not be. >> that is right. >> all right. i do not understand why, whether they are removable or not, that that affects whether or not the president has to appoint all members of the commission and none can be appointed by the congress. >> the supreme court -- >> the congress is not making appointments in that case. >> in this case, the supreme

court had. congress was too involved in an executive branch decision on how to make these across-the-board cuts. that's why they ruled that unconstitutional. we responded in congress by granting power to omb to make those cuts. >> i think that clears it up. we're going to vote. >> mr. chairman, we have another question. >> i am good to call the vote. >> i ask for a roll-call vote. >> call 0. >> mr. rockefeller -- >> called the roll. >> mr. rockefeller. >> aye. >> mr. bingaman

>> aye. mr. lincoln. >> pass. >> ms. cantwell. >> aye. >> mr. menendez. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. grassley. >> past. >> mr. hatch. >> no. >> miss snowe. >> i am sorry. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. kyle. >> pass. >> mr. crespo.

>> mr. corn anin. >> mr. chairman? >> aye. >> tally the vote. >> mr. chairman. >> i apologize, committee.

i thought we were in the middle of the vote. the vote has not been called. who succeeds recognition? >> mr. chairman, remember, last night, in regard to amendment c9, i asked to put it off to see if we could work out something because it was creating a mixed emotion on both sides of the aisle. so i put it off with hopes that we could work out a compromise. we have not worked out a compromise. but i am going to offer a modification of c9. in other words, less money from people that to get more than 300% of poverty.

there would be less resources to help in the case of pediatricians and the children's hospital, etc., under the program. so i will go through and explain. the original amendment provided additional $40 billion in payments to providers. it was paid for by reducing the subsidy in the bill by a little less than 10%. my amendment was supported by the american academy of pediatrics, the national association of children's hospitals, and other pediatric groups. the debate ended last night with a suggestion of working it out. sometime after midnight, i had my staff make a compromise offered for which i am modifying my amendment. we can provide $10 billion of grants to states to provide

additional payments to pediatric providers and, in return, all we have to do is reduce subsidies to people above 300% of partpov. the $40 billion now becomes $10 billion. the little less than 10% now becomes 2%. i know it is still a tough choice for some people. this bill is about making tough choices. we all know that there are limited resources. we have to pay for the bill. we have to bend to the growth curve. when you write a bill like this, the trade-offs lead to some tough choices. our group of six was not able to reach an agreement on all of these tough choices. i know some of you were extremely critical of chairman

baucus for tough truces he made in the bill up to this point. it is easy to sit outside and criticize when you do not have to make tough choices. so this amendment gives us all an opportunity to make tough choices on the record. there are 39 kids who can benefit from improved medicaid access. there's only 1.5 million people who will benefit from subsidies above 300% of poverty. remind my colleagues, that is $66,000 a year for a family of four all the way up to $88,000 a year. so the question kind of comes before us with my amendment as modified, do you vote so that kids of a single mom making minimum wage can see a doctor or provide subsidies to a family of four making anywhere from $66,000 to $88,000 a year?

30 million or more kids in poverty will get access verses 1.5 million people with income above the national median getting a subsidy. that is my amendment. i hope that it will be considered a good faith effort by reducing the 25% of what i was or originally attempting to accomplish. >> as i indicated when the distinguished ranking member brought this before, i and empathetic -- i am sympathetic to what he is trying to do. i am supportive of what you're trying to do. once again, we're going after middle-income families. in this income, they're having a tough time making it. this takes away tax credits for middle income families. i would love to work with you to be able to do this.

i absolutely agree with what is being proposed and appreciate the hard work of the ranking member. at the same time, for me, again, we're going right to middle income families and they think we should also be concerned about whichwhat is happening for them across the country. i cannot support it. >> i asked for a roll-call vote. >> this is a tough choice. this is a very, very tough choice. your have kids that are doing pretty well and take away from middle income folks, middle income kids or not? i certainly want to help kids, but i don't detect where from middle income families. i am reluctant to propose the

amendment. the roll-call vote. >> mr. conrad. >> pass. >> mr. carey. >> no. >> mrs. lincoln. >> pass. >> mr. schumer. >> no. >> ms. cantwell. >> aye. >> mr. nelson. >> no by proxy. >> mr. mendes. -- mr. menendez. >> no by proxy. >> mr. hatch. >> aye. >> miss snowe.

>> no. >> mr.crepo. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. enzi. >> aye by proxy. >> mr. chairman. >> no. >> mrs. lincoln. >> no. >> mr. nelson uno and mr. carbone no.

>> the final tally is 10 ayes and 13 nays. >> the amendment fails. the next amendment. >> may ask a question of the chairman? we have a lot of votes coming up here. i assume -- is the line to work friday, saturday, sunday? i go to iowa every weekend. f5 work, i obviously cannot go to iowa. [laughter] >> that sounds like a country song. [laughter]

>> we will work today and into tomorrow and assess where we go from there. >> it is difficult to make airplane reservations. >> you can make them. [laughter] >> they have a limit of two. >> would like to offer an amendment. -- who would like to offer an amendment? are you leaving at 2:00 p.m. tomorrow? [laughter] >> it reminds me of a good russell long story. >> you can leave the profanity out and tell the story. >> [unintelligible] okay, other amendments.

>> i have an amendment, but i can do it quite ready yeyet. we are waiting for some data. >> we have to amendments. we're waiting for some sponsors. -- we have two amendments. we're waiting for some sponsors. we're working on it. >> mr. chairman? >> yes. >> may i ask unanimous consent that senator kent will be a minute -- be added to my amendment -- met as unanimous consent that senator cantwell be added to my amendment c3? >> yes. >> how many amendments to we have left, mr. chairman? >> apparently not very many.

no. what -- nobody wants to offer them. >> if you're not going to offer an amendment, may i ask the chairman in question? i do not expected to enter without some clarification from staff on this. may i proceed? >> yes. you could ask staff. >> but i would like to have you join in on this. i am seeking clarification with respect to the intent of one particular portion. as i understand it, the bill would allow for an insurance plan. national plans would be insurance plans to establish by private insurance companies. there would be sold across state lines in all 50 states. they would preempt state enacted benefit laws and consumer provider protections.

with respect to the minimum set of uniform benefits and services to be included in these plants, these plans would have to meet a new set of federal standards that would be determined by the national association of insurance commissioners. again, as i understand it, the national association of insurance commissioners develop standards in terms of what services and benefits are to be included in the national plan. they should reflect whether a particular service or benefit is available in the majority of states. in other words, if a particular provider of service or benefit is available in 26 or more states, by virtue of some forms of state-connected mandates or consumer provider protection, then those benefits and services should be covered and available as part of the minimum benefit

package in all of the national plans established under the bill. is this the clear intent of the german da -- of the chairman? [gavel] >> please keep conversations to a minimum. >> it was started in my state and it is very much a concern of the people in my state. who can answer that? >> yvette? >> yes, sir. >> i hope it is simple as yes or no. >> the market says taking into consideration how the benefit is offered in the majority of states. is your question whether anything mandated in more than 26 states would be amendemandatd

in the national? >> yes. >> i don't think it specifically says it would be mandated in the national plan. it should be implemented taking into consideration how it is done so in the majority of states. but it does not necessarily mandate that to be included as part of their model for minimum coverage. >> in the case of chiropractors, if they are mandated in 46 states, they're not necessarily it assured of being included -- should the association include them, there would not be mandated in the national plans? -- they would not be mandated in the national plans?

>> yes. i believe that is correct. if lisa the discretion of the neic that definition, taking into consideration those benefit mandates and more than 26 states. -- that leaves the discretion of the neneic that definition, taking into consideration those benefit mandates in more than 26 states. >> if that is true, mr. chairman, and you agree with what she said, then someplace along the line, i think i want to clear up some of these things in regard to what is mandated. >> what do you have in mind? >> i thought the