bachus. it's a good amendment. expedited screening services are provided to frequent flyer travelers and registered travelers at our nation's commercial airports all the time. yet our service men and women, many with metal items such as combat boots, medals, badges, often need additional screening. our brave service men and women are on the frontlines in the fight against terrorism. surely some kind of expedited treatment at an airport scheck point is the least our country can do for them. currently there is no formal t.s.a. requirement or process in place to screen our service men and women in any expedited fashion. at some airports transportation security officers may escort members of the armed forces to the front of the checkpoint, but at other airports no such special treatment is given. so mr. bachus' amendment is an excellent one. it's just common sense that a formal checkpoint screening process should be established for service men and women who sacrifice so much for their country. finally these men and wom

. >> special thanks very much and i'm honored to be here with the ranking member spencer bachus and the senior members of the financial services committee. as we unveil as a conference a road map for word to address the number one issue that's on the minds of most americans which is the economy, and we all know economic recovery is going to be predicated upon resumption of normal credit conditions so that we can see expansion start to happen again as far as jobs are concerned in the country and we hear a lot and there's a lot of coverage about the heavy hand of government right now in the financial markets. to me it is a heavy hand of the obama administration. who could have told we would continue to find ourselves in the world of continued bailouts, handouts. we wake up one day and we are the proud owners of two of the largest car companies. it is this type of uncertainty and continued reached by government this plan tries to react and say we do have a better way. we don't believe the government should be picking winners and losers and we want to see market for six return under a set o

senator bachus wouldn't have signed on to this if it was going to eliminate jury trials. so the jury trial issue is not there. in order for any person to even participate in this, both the patient and doctor have to agree to going through this process and on page 4 they can opt out and voluntarily withdraw from participating in the alternative, that's a requirement of it. so that's a false stocking horse there. trial by jury can happen under this bill. we're not going to eliminate trial by you're if they want a trial by jury. now, what i tried to do when i worked with the senator bachus on this bill and what i'm trying to to do now is point out that there is a problem of medical liability driving up costs, otherwise i don't think the president would have made that comment to the american medical association this week. you know, he doesn't just make a lot of extra statements. and that's something they were definitely interested in and it was something he said we would provide. i'm just trying to come up with, i hate it use the word, a very liberal way of doing it. you know

bachus and other members.am pleased to testify on behalf of the securities exchange commission so i may share our thoughts on the topic of executive compensation. as an initial matter it's important to note as the landscape of compensation practices continues to change the commission is committed to keeping disclosure rules we administer up-to-date so investors have the information they need to make informed investment in voting decisions. as we all know in recent years to issue a fixed compensation has started sicced at the cannes public attention as revelations about executive compensation come to light claims have been made bonuses and severance packages at companies have been exorbitant. indeed expected of compensation has been a lightning rod amplied by the recent financial crisis with concerns about accountability and responsiveness of some boards of directors to the interest of the shareholders. we believe in order for the public markets to function properly it is crucial shareholders, the owners of the

bachus. >> thank you, and i appreciate all my ranking member comments. i appreciate the leadership of being here. yesterday, i met with leader boehner and several representatives from different groups to outline some of those programs, and we -- i think there was a pretty unanimous agreement that this was a comprehensive and sound approach. at this time i want to take questions. now, we're going to pass out -- this plan is not a plan of talking points. it is actually a substantive plan several pages long, single-spaced type written. a lot of it -- the questions you'll probably ask now, you would probably have answered just by reading he0by this plan. but at this time, we will -- we'll take questions. >> when are you planning to introduce the legislation and what kind of response are you getting from the chairman on the proposal? >> i'll take those in reverse order. [laughter] >> chairman frank has called twice today asking for a copy of the plan. and we -- we have just sent him a copy simultaneous with this press conference so i have not heard from him.

i thank the ranking member, spencer bachus. of course i thank mr. barney frank. i also would like it to thank the housing subcommittee chair who has worked closely with me on this project, representative maxine waters. mr. speaker, the question may be posed in the mind of someone as to why we should pass the homes for heroes act. i'd like to answer this question. we need to pass this bill because, while many of us are sleeping in the suits of life, too many of our veterans are sleeping in the streets of life. we node to pass it because while many of -- we need to pass it because while many of us have homes and jobs, too many of our veterans are homeless with no jobs at all. we must pass this piece of legislation because america can't continue to be the home of the free and the land of the brave if too many of our brave veterans continue to be homeless. mr. speaker, the statistics are shocking. they literally shock the conscience. veterans are % of the population and more than 25 -- 9% of the population and more than 25% of the homeless. on any given night, 131,00

barton: i want to yield one minute to our expert on derivatives, spencer bachus. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. bachus: like what robert shapiro said under the clinton administration, we are going to create a multitrillion dollar derivative overnight. these will be based on carbon offsets. these projects, most of them we anticipate will be in underdeveloped countries or foreign countries. almost all of them. and when you start a project, a clean coal project in china or india or you plant trees in about a zill, who pays for it? -- brazil, who pays for it? the american taxpayers. does it discharge pollution there? no, it absolutely you to discharge carbon dioxide here in the united states. before you vote for this bill, ask yourself, if the subprime lending market was hard to police, how do you police a derivative market based on projects in china and barnio? ask yourself. am i going to stick my constituents with the cost of clean coal projects in china? go home and explain that to your constituents. go home and explain how

want to respect where senator enzi is going and also the extensive work he's done this with senator bachus. i'm just apprehensive about what a health court does. so let's continue that this afternoon. >> i may suggest 12:30, my intention is to take a break and come back at 2:30. let me just inform our colleagues. of this is the eighth amendment we've considered over the last couple of hours, some of them were agreed to obviously early on. >> why would they agreed to? >> well, it's -- i never suggested this was going to be at warp speed. obviously, this going to take time. and there's some 20 amendments i point out earlier that are in consideration. of the 59 that have been offered to this title so taking those numbers together, we could arguably get almost to half of the amendments on this title of the bill. and that's not bad progress, it's not great, but it's not bad at all, i appreciate my colleague's attendance, by the way. we can't move on this unless people are here to have the necessary votes to consider and dispose of these ideas and suggestions and i certainly encourage member who

speakers at the siege and include financial services ranking member spencer bachus and republican whip, eric cantor. this is about half an hour. [inaudible conversations] >> thank you for coming. i am joined byub

line in the situation where i have this letter from senator kohl addressed to senator kennedy, enzi, bachus and senator grassley. so, i would recommend we not vote on the colburn amendment but referred to the judiciary committee. and with admonition, with the admonition that we really are supportive of the policy roles outlined in the committee. >> mr. chairman, my comment would be if we come through that legislation all the provisions outside of the scope of the committee i think it would be a lot smaller than it is so i suggest we then go through the bill, find those provisions outside the scope of the committee and eliminate them as soon as possible. >> senator mccain, there's only one committee without bumping against and that is the finance committee. >> there are numerous provisions outside the scope of the committee and i would be glad to identify them to the chairman. >> i don't want to get into that. the fact is they view this as judiciary. what is the thinking of you and senator enzi on this? >> mr. chairman, i am not familiar with our work committee doing for referring. i know th

i know spencer bachus and chairman frank does too. hopefully we find the bottom and move the american people in a positive fashion forward. thank you. ms. waters: thank you very much. i do appreciate your comments and i value them because of your experience. mr. speaker, i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. mr. miller: i have no further speakers and i would be willing to yield back the balance of my time. ms. waters: thank you very much, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back her time. ms. waters: we have no other speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the question on the floor, will the house spuned the rules and agree to house resolution 502? those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, with 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the resolution is agreed to, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from

former community organizer, wrote, sent yesterday to the chairman of the senate finance committee, max bachus, and the chairman of the senate health, education, labor and pensions committee, senator edward kennedy. he wrote, quote, i strongly believe that americans should have the choice of a public health insurance option operating alongside private plans. this will give them a better range of choices, make the health care market more competitive, and keep insurance companies honest. and the other thing he could have said is that it's also going to save us money by helping to reduce the costs all around for health care. in fact, there's been estimates that over 10 years, about $3 trillion can be saved because there will be this choice of this health care option. and it is about time that the united states joined the rest of the industrial world and said, yes, our people are going to get the health care they need. that it's going to be a right, not just a privilege for those who can afford it. let me just tell a couple of stories before i yield back, quick ones. the other day, a friend of min

that is likely within health care, does the perform but when we look at hatch-waxman, soon to be the bachus waxman act, everything deals and plants, the clintons screwed up with-- for years and years they are not going to give back-- >> guest: the issue of iatrogenic illness is legitimate. the reader brings up something every medical student learns about and it is basically an illness that is associated with a treatment. sometimes for example in the world of cancer therapies, these iatrogenic illnesses are like wiping out your bone marrow are virtually inevitable when the patient understands it. sometimes it is a totally unexplained or unexpected side effect of a particular drug and sometimes it is an error that has been made in one would have to call that iatrogenic as well, so it sounds like the caller has had a difficult time with a particular drug and i think that all obviously that is something that has to be dealt with in this sounds like you have done so, but i think the broader issue that you are bringing up is that drugs are dangerous medical therapy is dangerous. doctors are deali

but it is interesting that senator coburn had it in his bill and obama, bachus, everyone else and the house has, and i think you're bipartisan thing has that said there is at least across party lines and agreement that market as it functions is dysfunctional and needs to be reformed. and something maybe later could be built around that so maybe it doesn't all have to be done and one chunk, but i cannot imagine that nothing would happen this year that wouldn't happen. >> great. thank you for your perspectives. let me go with the first question which is given the urgency, how quickly do you think medicare payment physicians and hospitals will be changed? it doesn't have a name but mark, i'm going to start with you because you probably know more than anyone about this question. >> there are changes taking place now and we talked to some of the demonstration programs and steps medicare is taking on their payments now that are for reporting on quality of payment coming for not just having health i.t. in your office or in your hospital but actually demonstrating that your using it to improv

. >> chairman frank, ranking member bachus and distinguished members of the committee is a privilege to testify in this form today. my name is g.w. verret. i am a senior scholar at the mckay dissenters financial markets working group. i also direct the corporate federalism initiative, a network of scholars dedicated to studying the intersection of state and federal authority and corporate governance. before i begin i also want to say it is a particular honor to testify on a panel with professor bebchuk to was my mentor and without his guidance i would not be a law professor today. today want to discuss compensation proposals currently under consideration. i will also highlight a wall street norm of issuing and feeling pressure to meet, quarterly earnings guides which is a central cause of short-term tunnel vision for wall street's it is. the roll executive compensation plays in the current crisis is in fact unclear. there is little difference, and this is key, there was little difference between the executive compensation approaches of banks healthy enough to repay their t.a.r.p. fun