and on top of it all, they want a government lab -- unquote. why do they want that? medicare is a government plan. for all intents and purposes, it is very well-intentioned, but it's $38 trillion nun funded liability, as we said here, mainly because the government is runninrunning it. the federal government. if the state governments ran it and we had 50 state laboratories, i doubt seriously that we'd be in this terrible fix that we're saddling our children, grandchildren, and great-grandchildren with. so what's their answer? we're going to take $500 billion -- $464 billion, i guess it's closer to -- but almost $500 billion out of medicare and we're going to put it into making sure that we -- that our plan is deficit-neutral. well, they've used every accounting, every budgetary gimmick they can to get this plan below $1 trillion because they charge taxes from this day on -- the day -- from the day on once it's passed, but they don't implement the man for four years -- complement the plan for four years, until 2014. that way they can kind of indicate to the american pe

unquote. the important words there happen to be limits. no one likes limits, least you will all politicians with grand plans and aggressive agendas. it is tempting to ignore or forget the limits that the constitution imposes on us by pretending that the constitution means whatever we want it to mean. but we take an edge to support and defend the constitution, not to make the constitution support and defend us. the constitution cannot limit government if government controls the constitution. in april 1992 during a debate on welfare reform legislation, the senior senator from new york, senator moynihan, with whom i served, made a point of order that an amendment offered by a republican senator was unconstitutional. here is what senator moynihan said: "we do not take an oath to balance the budget, and we do not take an oath to bring about universal peace. but we do take an oath to protect and defend the constitution of the united states." now, applying that sage advice today, we do not take an oa

-- vain that build it, unquote. i firmly believe this and also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of babble. we should be divided by a little par shall local interest. our projects will be con founded and we ourselves should become a reproach and a biward down to future age and what is worse, man kind may here after this unfortunate incidence despair of establishing government. by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. i therefore beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of evidence and its blessing on deliberations be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business and that one or more of the clernly of this city be requested to officiate in that service. his motion was seconded and then ben franklin's motion was adopted unanimously and from that day to this day we do not begin congress in this body without a prayer to begin. now, for those who say ben franklin obviously was a die

unquote. saved medicare. doesn't it seem like an enormous step backwards when we talk about reform, when really what we're doing is cutting a program that serves people so much in need and yet saves money in our medicare program. home health agencies in nebraska have been very successful in doing exactly what we want, keeping people at home and out of the hospital and nursing home. of special interest are patients with congestive heart failure. one nebraska woman turned to home health after facing a big stack of hospital bills for rehab. since then, she has been able to remain at home safely at a fraction of the cost. this home health agency can see a person for 60 days at a cost of about $2,500. 60 days. one hospital admission, by comparison, would cost medicare conservatively $20,000 to treat a patient with chronic health failure -- or chronic heart failure. so, again, home health care costs a fraction of hospital care, about ten times less. there are so many stories from patients who are alive today who lo

throughout the health care debate we've heard the president pledge not to -- quote -- "mess," unquote, with medicare. unfortunately that's not the case with the bill before the senate. to be clear, the reid bill reduces medicare by $465 billion to fund a new government program. unfortunately seniors and the disabled in the u.s. are the ones who suffer the consequences as a result of these reductions. everyone knows medicare is extremely important to 43 million seniors and disabled americans covered by the medicare program. throughout my senate service, i have fought to preserve and protect medicare for both beneficiaries and providers. medicare is already in trouble today. the program faces tremendous challenges in the very near future. the medicare trust fund will be insolvent by 2017. the program has mor more $37 trillion in unfunded liabilities. this will be saddled with our children and grandchildren. the reid bill will make the situation much worse. why is that the case? again, the reid bill cuts medicare to fund the creation of a new government entitlement program. more specific

civilian military agricultural strategy to restore afghanistan's once vibrant agriculture secretary, unquotehaving visited one of the national guard's agricultural development teams in july when i was last there and saw you, and thank you very much for hosting our delegation, i believe that redefining and growing the afghan economy will be key to stabilizing the country and eventually allowing our troops to come home. does the president's strategy entail an expansion of the number and the location of these adts, these agricultural development teams? >> congressman, i would like to get back with you on that. i'm not sure what the projected growth of the agricultural development teams are. i will say on the department of agriculture front, though, there's a very substantial increase that's going on. we started with very few on the ground this year, and over the course of the next several months, we will have about 65 department of agricultural experts, 5 working in the minister of agriculture, all of the rest out in the field aligned with general mcchrystal forces. >> the number i had was 60.

the army is basically paying the taliban not to shoot us, unquote. and then the taliban uses that money to shoot at our troops. what a racket. are we in afghanistan to fight or to fund the taliban or both? the speaker pro tempore: the time of the gentleman has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. smith: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. smith: madam speaker, abc, cbs and nbc are the winners of this week's media fairness caucuses highly uncoveted lap dog award for the most glaring example of media bias. the networks took two weeks to devote any coverage to the scandal on their evening news programs. we all know that prominent scientists were so determined to hide contradictory tempts data. but for two weeks, none of the networks gave this scandal any coverage on their evening news programs. and when they finally did cover it, it was largely sla

that's unquote. ask unanimous consent to that this report from the national iranian council be submitted for the record. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. kucinich: i have an analysis that's done for americans for peace now, which is a strong group in support of israel, at the same time they did an analysis and summary of concern about h.r. 2194. one of the points that they make is that, quote -- this is a quote --, the crippling of refined petroleum sanctions leads to the very problematic conclusion that the u.s. is seeking to inflict widespread suffering on the iranian people in order to force them to put pressure on their government. if is an approach few believe will achieve the desired goal and many believe could well backfire to the benefit of the regime and so anger at the u.s., not the iranian government, unquote. i ask unanimous consent to submit this analysis for the record. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered . mr. kucinich: in the legislation that we are presented with, it speaks t

that's unquote. i ask unanimous consent to that this report from the national iranian council be submitted for the record. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered. mr. kucinich: i have an analysis that's done for americans for peace now, which is a strong group in support of israel, at the same time they did an analysis and summary of concern about h.r. 2194. one of the points that they make is that, quote -- this is a quote --, the crippling of refined petroleum sanctions leads to the very problematic conclusion that the u.s. is seeking to inflict widespread suffering on the iranian people in order to force them to put pressure on their government. if is an approach few believe will achieve the desired goal and many believe could well backfire to the benefit of the regime and so anger at the u.s., not the iranian government, unquote. i ask unanimous consent to submit this analysis for the record. the speaker pro tempore: so ordered . mr. kucinich: in the legislation that we are presented with, it speaks

the question is whether he can get 60 votes in the senate where they don't appear to be 60 quote-unquote pro life senators. >> senators landrieux, carter and schumer are working on something, right? >> they're working on a range of thing, the public option, affordability, of course the democratic caucus agreed to let this bill get on the senate floor but several of those moderate or conservative democrats like nelson, like landrieux, said they won't support the bill coming off the floor if the public option remains cat ehad taken it upon himself along with chuck shouper to find a compromise version of something called the public option or something that functions like the public option, we're really -- the function is one of policy, the democrats believe that private insurance needs some competition to hold prices down. but it's also a political one. the democratic base strongly favors the public option but there aren't 60 votes for it. harper is trying to find a way to preserve the spirit and maybe the name public option in a way that lets democrats deliver for their base but also deliv

unquote. so what's the bottom line? more taxes, more spending, and bigger government. let me take a moment to talk about the so-called abortion compromise in this bill. the language to prevent taxpayer dollars from being used to fund elective abortions in the reid amendment is completely unacceptable. the new abortion provisions are significantly weaker than the amendment i introduced with senator ben nelson of nebraska to ensure that the hyde amendment which prohibits federal dollars from paying for elective abortions also applies to any new federal health programs created by congress. the hyde amendment has been public law since 1976. the nelson-hatch-casey amendment which is almost identical to the stupak amendment in the house, was included in the house-passed health reform bill in early november by a vote of 240-194. it is important to note that it was supported by 64 house democrats. let me repeat that. the stupak amendment was supported by 64 house democrats, and despite that vote and t

now, i find it quite hard to understand how there can be -- quote -- unquote -- "broad agreement" on something when they don't know what's in it. and, of course, i hope that we'll see details very soon. something like health care reform affecting 306 million americans and restructuring 1/6 of our economy is something that should not be done in secret, and when so-called compromises come out, i would expect we would have the same 72 hours on the internet for the public and the 99 members of this body other than the leader to review them in the totally transparent way that we have always been promised. and as this 2,074-page bill has been transparent as well as all of the amendments, because this is one of the biggest and most important pieces of legislation that i have worked in -- worked on in all my years in the congress. so i hope that senator reid is not planning to keep the details of his compromise under wraps and then ask us to vote on it. this piece of legislation is going to touch the lives of every single american from the cradle to the grave, so we owe it to our constituent

they're not the type of people to, quote, unquote, crash a party, let alone a white house state dinner. she's beside herself right now. >> larry: i would imagine. i look forward to talking to them. we don't have an agenda on this program. i would like to learn what this was all about. matthew, are you concerned -- they're kind of innocent. are you concerned of the security breach? >> i'm starting to think there needs to be an internal investigation, if it's going to be looked into further. we need to identify the problem and look at what's important, that is, of course, the security of our commander in chief, our president. >> larry: well said. thank you all very much. we'll be doing a lot more on this. we look forward to meeting the couple themselves. you could bet jesse ventura's got something to say about party crashers. see what he thinks, next. ust kn. announcer: finding the moment that's right for you both can take some time. that's why cialis gives men with erectile dysfunction options: 36-hour cialis or cialis for daily use. cialis for daily use is a clinically proven low-dose

i just think it's -- it's criminal quote unquote to not really do what we should be doing or the justice department doing what it should be doing by investigating all these things that are obviously illegal. and the president appointed the attorney general, and the attorney general's not going to do anything without the president's approval. and there we sit. and i think it's really unfortunate. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. one last question before closing. as we've gone through the thousands and thousands of pages we recently got from san diego, we're picking up new information and perhaps a new pattern. and ms. moncrief, you perhaps could shed light. this document i have in front of me is only from this year from a san diego resident. but it appears as though -- and if you can't answer i'd understand -- but it appears as though information comes from banks to acorn saying, please reach out and help these people. and as they're reaching out, they're turning into members. is this happened during your watch with other banks? this bank probably wouldn't be. it's in california. b

i think it's an amazing window, larry, into the psyche of tiger woods, that even as he is, quote/unquote, apologizing, you wonder, and i hope i'm wrong on this, you do wonder if in fact he felt worse about getting caught than he does about cheating on his wife. for those who say let him have his private life. for the many days that the tabloids were going crazy, i was trying to ignore that and go with the fact. picture this, he's always on his website, the family pictures, the beautiful image of him as a family man. well, now, we know that's a charade. and i think it's fair that a man who asks for the money from all of the endorsements gets and wants you to buy his products and wants you to cheer for him on the golf course, but then he wants to us shut him out completely, i don't know that you can have it both ways in today's society. >> larry: ricky. >> beyond that, this is a guy that runs a school. this is a teaching experience. i thought it was wrong for him to stonewall everything. plus, it's dumb. this is the age of the digital posse. if you say they're not going to get you, they're

unquote, congressionally directed spending items. rule 44 applies to floor amendments like the pending managers' amendment. rule 44 requires the sponsor of the amendment, in case senator reid -- in this case, senator reid, to provide a list of these narrow provisions. senator reid has not provided the list. we just received the several hundred page amendment yesterday morning. republican staff have performed a preliminary review. that review finds that some items that might -- and i repeat might -- be limited tax benefi benefits. there are press reports about narrowly crafted exceptions to the insurance fee. and i would ask unanimous consent to insert in the record a copy of the dow jones article dated december 19, 2009. without objection. mr. grassley: likewise, the single state medicaid provision might determined to be congressionally directed spending items under rule 44. the determinations are not made by the minority staff in order to ensure transparency of narrow provisions, the burden is on the sponsor to provide the list. so,

more complicated cases those with industry wide implications in favor of those seen as more routine, unquote. mr. khuzami, this is the test case. this is the case with industry wide implications where what is at issue is the performance of the attorneys and interpreting the nation's securities laws strictly or permissively. here's the case where the -- where at the s.e.c. shapiro breaks with the s.e.c.'s christopher cox. mr. khuzami, is the s.e.c. widening its investigation to include the issue of bank of america's failure to disclose to its shareholders the mounting losses at merrill lynch, known or knowable by mid-november, 2008, weeks before, weeks before the shareholder vote on the merger? >> congressman, we have been and are looking at all aspects of the activity with respect to the proxy statements including the fourth quarter losses of merrill lynch. >> is that a yes or a no? >> that's a yes. >> if it is a yes, then the work of this committee has been worthwhile, because you now have a chance to do your job because we have done ours and the information that we have uncovered should fa

president carter goes on national television that very morning to announced a, quote-unquote, major breakthrough a lot of you will remember. and he unexpectedly wins the wisconsin primary at a time when people thought kennedy might pull it off. and there was no major breakthrough. and there was never an explanation why there wasn't a major breakthrough. i still remember david broder, the grand old man at the "washington post," wrote a piece, a column just eviscerating the president and basically accusing him of no uncertain terms that he was using the plight of the hostages to advance his political fortunes. and that actually there was polling data that came out in october of 1980 that said the american people by a vast majority said if we had to make any concessions, whatsoever, to the iranians to get the hostages back it would be better for them to stay there than to make any concessions. they'd actually become more hawkish on the issue than even reagan was. >> okay. one last question for you. as we all know history shows, i think, president reagan took 44 states and was victorious in that ele

you are going to die soon, unquote. well, if you want to know what fear mongering is, that's the best example i can give you. so, you know, i decided to go back and look at the past congressional records and i thought, have republican spoken like this over the years every time we tried to do some health care? every time we try to make life better for people such as social security. and i'll let you be the judge. in 1935, on the floor of the house of representatives, during the debate on social security, republican congressman jenkins of ohio said a social security bill. remember it hadn't passed. quote, this is compulsion of the righteous kind. don't be misled by the title. the title says quote, old-age benefits, unquote. shame on you he said for putting such a misleading and unfair title on such a nefarious bill. old-age benefits? gigabit ethernet. zero what a travesty. mr. chairman, what's the hurry? no one will get a dime out of this until night and 32. and if you listen to some of my colleagues, you will hear the sa

we get back here on some examples of some of that free money quote-unquote that went out. in my home state of oregon, we have actually five -- count them on one hand here -- five congressional districts. that's one, two, three, four, five. and yet on this fancy new website that's supposed to track all this, news media organizations said, wait a minute, there isn't a 00 district in oregon or a 14th or 60th. and this is transparency and accountability in a record amount of money that's being spent? now, frankly, being an oregonian and having five sdricks, i kind of like the notion that we are going to add congressional districts. even the people that live there, that gives us -- gets us cloudier in the congress and that's ok with me. you are talking about taxpayers' money here and it's not creating jobs. now, they went on to say that we are not certifying the accuracy of the information. so you have the vice president who is telling us, man, this website is going to blow you away, we got to make sure people know where the money's going, everybody has to be accountable. this

chief os 2000 report philip musgrove called the numbers -- figures many madeup numbers and quote, unquote, unranked. the deputy general of the journal health affairs said that he was hired to edit the report text, but didn't fully understand the methodology until after the report was released. once -- one said he left the world health organization, he -- once he left the world health organization, he wrote an article in 2003 for the medical journal lancet, criticizing the rankings as quote, unquote, meaningless. the u.s. health system spends more than any other country per capita and was ranked 37th out of 191 due to that spending alone. prior to considering how much we spend, the united states was ranked 15th, not 37th. the dominican republic, costa rica more racko ranked 34, 35, 94th before justing for spending levels. after ranking for spending levels, they ranked above the united states, 35th, 36th, and 29th respectively. the united states ranked first in responsiveness. that means respect for persons and prompt attention. americans understand and appreciate that this quality -- this

throughout the health care debate, we've heard the president debate not to -- quote -- "mess" -- unquote -- with medicare. that's not the case with the bill before the senate, h.r. 3590, the patients' protection and affordability care act. an interesting naivment the reid bill cuts medicare by $465 billion to fund a new government program. unfortunately, our seniors and the disabled are the ones who suffer the consequence as a result of these d deductions. med compare is very important to the 43 -- med compare is very important to the 43 million seniors covered by the program. i fought to protect and preserve medicare for both beneficiaries and providers. medicare is already in trouble today. the program faces tremendous challenges in the very near future. the medicare trust fund will be insolvent by 2017 and the program has more than $337 trillion -- almost $38 trillion in unfunded liabilities. so we're going to take $500 billion more out of medicare? it doesn't make sense. every senior in this country ought to be up in arms about it. the reid bill is going to make a bad situation much

unquote.the nonpartisan congressional research service said -- and i quote again -- "that noncitizens held in the united states may be entitled to more protection under the constitution than those detained abroad." unquote. this means that they could be afforded extra rights which are available to american citizens. they could include protection under the fifth amendment due process clause which would cover how they are confined, or they also may raise claims regarding religious practices. furthermore, while the obama administration may not have the intention of releasing any detainees, their wishes to be overruled by a civilian judge. guantanamo detainees who are cleared for release have in fact petitioned the court to be released into the united states. last year a federal judge even approved such a request before being overruled by an appellate judge. the reason the higher court sided for overturning the ruling was that the government could not be forced to accept someone into the united st

captain prater, you described fatigue, you used the term "dire" unquote.your sense of whether there should be one standard or two? or as mr. voss suggests and i understand why he suggests it. i have difficulty agreeing that we should move in that direction. he says it would be more difficult for the smaller regional carriers to comply to more comprehensive rules. >> well, let me begin with -- i'll restate. we believe that there should be one set of strong underlying regulation that creates the foundation regardless of the size of airplane or the cargo behind the cockpit door. that would be the first. the second level then would say how do we enforce that and how -- and i think maybe bill was alluding to how can we improve upon that level of foundation? but the first foundation, the regulations, should apply to all equally. it doesn't matter whether you've got one passenger or 500 in the back of your airplane. the frms would allow us to look at specific situations, just take one case. the ultralong-range. if i get in a 777 and go from newark to hong kong it

question is whether or not nelson can get 60 votes in a senate where there don't appear to be 60, quote-unquote, pro-life senators. >> what's happening behind the scenes, landrieu, carper and schumer are working on something. >> they are trying to work out deals on a range of things. the public option on affordibility. senator carper of delaware is so far one of the lynch pins on trying to find a compromise on the public option. we've been hearing a lot about it and, of course, the democratic caucus agreed to let this bill get on the senate floor but several of those moderate or conservative documents like nelson or landrieu said they won't support the bill coming off the floor if the public option remains. so carper has taken it upon himself in cooperation with chuck schumer, who's sort of a bridge into the leadership for carper to find a compromised version of something called the public option or something that functions like the public option. we're really -- the function is one of policy that democrats believe that private insurance needs some competition here to hold prices down. but it's

i just think it's -- it's criminal quote unquote to not really do what we should be doing or the justice department doing what it should be doing by investigating all these things that are obviously illegal. and the president appointed the attorney general, and the attorney general's not going to do anything without the president's approval. and there we sit. and i think it's really unfortunate. i yield back. >> i thank the gentleman. one last question before closing. as we've gone through the thousands and thousands of pages we recently got from san diego, we're picking up new information and perhaps a new pattern. and ms. moncrief, you perhaps could shed light. this document i have in front of me is only from this year from a san diego resident. but it appears as though -- and if you can't answer i'd understand -- but it appears as though information comes from banks to acorn saying, please reach out and help these people. and as they're reaching out, they're turning into members. is this happened during your watch with other banks? this bank probably wouldn't be. it's in california. b

now, secretary gates reportedly said this weekend, quote, we are in this thing to win, unquote, whenalking to our men and women in afghanistan. and i certainly think that's right and i certainly hope that's the message that we are portraying to the men and women that we're sending over there, that they're going over there to win. and i guess my question to you is is there some guidance from somewhere to all of you that says we can't use the words when or victory? >> not that i have received. >> okay. outstanding. i'm very pleased to hear that. because i don't -- just amaze we got into this parsing business. i would have been perfectly happy to see success and victory and win until i started discussions with people who preceded you in the panel and you and those words win and victory don't come out. you say at least we're helping the afghans win but i really hope there is no -- there is no direction or command or guidance that says we can't use those words because i think it is important for our men and women in that uniform to know that they're going to win. and then finally, because

so in order to make this quote, unquote, "budget neutral," we steal a half of a trillion dollars from medicare -- health care for seniors where seniors have paid in -- we raise taxes, which is going to increase, not decrease, the cost of insurance. when we tax pharmaceutical companies, when we tax the providers of medical devices, what happens? they pass those costs right along to the citizens. so not only are we stealing from medicare, not only are we raising taxes, which is going to get passed on to citizens, now we're going to tell the states we're going to increase medicaid. and we're hearing this secret deal that's been put together behind closed doors -- you know, now -- at least we're getting some friends that are in the dark because now a lot of democrats apparently don't know what's going on either and they're scrambling around trying to figure out what the deal is. but the deal apparently is going to put more of a burden on the states. and i want the american people to understand -- and i know that my friend from nebraska knows this, being a former governor -- is that when y

announced that approximately 75 of the detainees are, quote, too dangerous for trial or release, unquote. they are to be held indefinitely without civil or military trial. it is illegal under our constitution for the executive to hold a person inside the united states indefinitely without trial. question, how will the president suspend our constitutional -- our constitution's writ of habeas corpus once he brings these detainees to the heartland? the american people should know right now. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? mr. yarmuth: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. yarmuth: some of our republican colleagues are trying to raise the specter of 1994 when we are talking about health care reform saying, oh, the democrats are going to lose control of the house if they pass health care just like they tried to do can hillarycare. well, there is a difference between 4-and 2009. -- between 1994 and 2009. premiums had not nearly tripled in

received $141,000 in campaign contributions from companies that received earmarks from the law makers, unquote. here we are today, madam speaker w. a backdrop of investigations into the irk circular fundraising, but we are poised to pass a defense appropriation bill that contains more than 500 no-bid contracts for private companies. in mid july of 2010 we will see a quarterly report from the office of congressional ethics that will shed light into their investigations, thereafter it's likely our own ethics committee will have to provide additional notice of their actions related to the p.m.a. scandal. if the future is anything like the past, additional canls will spring from the earmarks that we approve today. we are surely as the poet said, traipsing down a flower strewn path unpricked by thorns of reason. i should note that circular fundraising is not a partisan issue. both parties engage in it. and the cloud that hangs over this body rains on republicans and democrats alike. it's fair to ask, what about the dignity of this body? are we appropriately concerned that the words pay to play, qui

now, i find it quite hard to understand how there can be -- quote -- unquote -- "broad agreement" onhen they don't know what's in it. and, of course, i hope that we'll see details very soon. something like health care reform affecting 306 million americans and restructuring 1/6 of our economy is something that should not be done in secret, and when so-called compromises come out, i would expect we would have the same 72 hours on the internet for the public and the 99 members of this body other than the leader to review them in the totally transparent way that we have always been promised. and as this 2,074-page bill has been transparent as well as all of the amendments, because this is one of the biggest and most important pieces of legislation that i have worked in -- worked on in all my years in the congress. so i hope that senator reid is not planning to keep the details of his compromise under wraps and then ask us to vote on it. this piece of legislation is going to touch the lives of every single american from the cradle to the grave, so we owe it to our constituents to make su

no consumer ops and typically on an overdraft to provide as a quote unquote courtesy by the bank. consumers don't apply for these loans. they don't get caught disclosures. they did not get a contract tha the bank promises to cover overdraft up to a certain limit. they do not get a warning when the transaction will trigger an overdraft and their credit worthiness is not a evaluating. these loans are for small loads of money. the study released last week found a typical debit card purchase overdraft was just $20. so banks are charging $35 to loan $20 for a few days. and the typical overdraft did not exceed $78 in the fdic study. these small loans, with astronomical costs. and bank fees up to $39, the highest we found in a most recent survey. banks pile on extra fees if you don't repay in a day or two. the majority of the largest banks charge of sustained overdraft fees, you can be charged $35 for your first 5-dollar overdraft if you don't pay that back in five days. at no cost you $70. and these overdraft loans are taken out of the next deposit consumer banks account making the ban

and chrysler were defined as quote-unquote financial institutions under the tarp statute so therefored can be taxed under the gentleman's amendment. is that smart? is that fair? the answer is no. this is yet another tax to go on capital. you can't have capitalism without capital. and so we have $150 billion tax for the revolving bailout fund. we have an unlimited tax by the new czar to ban and ration consumer credit products that can touch small businesses throughout our nation. every time you increase the cost of taxes on capital, you get less lending, you get less credit, more expensive credit, and less credit is fewer jobs. i would think, i would think at a time when our nation has the highest unemployment rate in a generation that this is an institution that would be trying to create more jobs, trying to create more capital, trying to have small businesses access pools of capital, and all we do is see more legislation and more amendments to make capital less available and more spencive to our small businesses. this -- expensive to our small businesses. this amendment must be rejec

captain prater, you described fatigue, you used the term "dire" unquote.what's your sense of whether there should be one standard or two? or as mr. voss suggests and i understand why he suggests it. i have difficulty agreeing that we should move in that direction. he says it would be more difficult for the smaller regional carriers to comply to more comprehensive rules. >> well, let me begin with -- i'll restate. we believe that there should be one set of strong underlying regulation that creates the foundation regardless of the size of airplane or the cargo behind the cockpit door. that would be the first. the second level then would say how do we enforce that and how -- and i think maybe bill was alluding to how can we improve upon that level of foundation? but the first foundation, the regulations, should apply to all equally. it doesn't matter whether you've got one passenger or 500 in the back of your airplane. the frms would allow us to look at specific situations, just take one case. the ultralong-range. if i get in a 777 and go from newark to hong

spending, quote, is a direct drain on the economy, reducing efficiency, slowing growth and costing jobs, unquote. contrary to popular assumptions, massive spending for war does not create jobs, it costs jobs. it is capital intensive, not labor intensive. war creates unemployment. the current plans to make extension of unemployment benefits contingent on congress passing the war spending bill raises serious questions about economic policy. not to mention basic decency and common sense. we're telling people that as long as we're at war they'll get their unemployment benefits and, of course, as long as we're at war there will be more people unemployed. instead of unemployment benefits people need work. instead of war people needs work. war takes money away from job creation. war results from unemployment. war is a weapons of mass destruction. -- war is a weapon of mass destruction. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, in the afterm

we have to keep in mind that the bonds which are in the quote-unquote trust funds are backed by the united to principal and interest. they won't default, in my view. if you look on that basis, total debt to g.d.p. is 85%. by the end of next year will be 9 % and headed up. you know, we are the only ones that i know that have these fictional trust funds. we didn't have moneys sitting in these trust funds back at the end of world war ii at 122%. we were largely pay as you go. i think people ignore trillions of dollars worth of debtÑi whic is real. i think people ignore trillions of dollars worth of debt which is real. it mite not be a current demand on the economy. a current crowding out effect. but we owe it. and i think therefore we need look both debt held by the public and total debt. and -- >> >> finally, senator conrad mentioned the importance of everything being on the table for the fiscal future commission. and i agree with that approach as opposed to the more narrow approach recommended by some of our colleagues. on the other hand, c.b.o. has clearly warned us that to sustain the cur

captain prater, you describe fatigue, you use of term quote, dire, unquote.ere should be one standard or two? as mr. voss suggests, i understand why he's suggesting it. i have a difficulty degreing that we should move in that direction. we says it would be more difficult for the smaller regional carriers to comply to more comprehensive rules. >> let me by again with -- i'll restrait. we believe that there should be one set of strong underlying regulation that creates the foundation regardless of the size of airplane or the cargo. that would be the first. the second level then would say how do we enforce it, and how -- i think bill was eluding to, how can we improve on the level of foundation. the first should apply to all equally. it doesn't matter whether you have one passenger or 500 in the back of the airplane. the frms would allow us to look at specific situations, just take one case. the ultra long range. if i get into a triple seven and go from newark to hong kong, it's going to 16 and a half hours. that proceeds the current regulation. with frms, we co

unquote. mr. president, this is a high-risk venture. this shouldn't be about taking our best shot. this is -- this should be about getting this legislation right. thank you. the presiding officer: the senator from connecticut. mr. dodd: mr. president, let me, if i can, again address a couple of points. first of all, i made this point yesterday but it deserves being repeated. the point that this legislation doesn't provide any benefits to anybody until 2014 is untrue. i could spend the next few minutes describing the things our bill does immediately on the enactment of this legislation. there are tax breaks immediately for small business to be able to rediewts duce the cos -- to rede cost of health care. under our bill you're actually seeing a premium cost reduction in the small business market as well as the large group market. our legislation provides immediately closing a good part of that doughnut hole, which is an immediate benefit in the cost of prescription drugs for the editorial he will. that doesn't happen four or five years from now. it happens immediately. immediately, t

but shows you that in the most two previous examples, 1990 and 2001, when the quote-unquote recessionwasn't the bottom of the jobs picture. again, just gives you a sense of the type of problem in employment that we have facing our country, why the president believes we need to take strong action. plus i just wanted to use the board. go. >> two questions. the first one on the bipartisanship issue. i mean, you have the president coming out saying that he wants to work together but just moments later you have republican leaders coming out saying that the white house just wants to blame republicans, saying that this administration just doesn't get it. i mean, how do you move forward together if that's the climate coming out of this meeting? >> well, i think we've come together understanding this. look, the men people have watched for decades -- the american people have watched for decades the blame game. if the blame game put people to work we'd all be rolling in money. the blame game -- i'm glad some people want to continue playing the blame game. that doesn't work. that doesn't get anyb

regulations and funding, when all you want to do is make a difference in someone's life is exhausting, unquote. mr. president, this is a high-risk venture. this shouldn't be about taking our best shot. this should be about getting this legislation rights. thank you. >> senator from connecticut. >> district president, if i can let me address a couple points. i said this yesterday but it needs to be repeated. somehow this bill doesn't provide any benefits until your 2014 is just untrue. i can spend the next 40 minutes describing the various things that our bill does immediately. on the enactment of this legislation, there tax breaks immediately for small businesses that will recruit the health care were small business based on average 18% more for health care premiums and other businesses do. as pointed out by the cbo on our bill you're actually seen premium cost reduction in the small-business market as well as the individual markets in the large group markets. our legislation provides immediately a closing good part of that donut hole, which is the immediate benefit for prescription drugs for

unquote. that moment is here and we must vote for freedom and against this bill. the chair: the gentleman from massachusetts. the gentleman has 14 1/2 minutes. mr. frank: i yield myself such time as i may consume. first i have to deal with some of the misstatements we've heard. there's nothing in here that rations credit. there isn't even anything to refute because there's nothing they could even misinterpret, madam chair, about the rationing of credit. now some are particularly upset because we established a consumer protection agency. in the first place, as far as the banks are concerned, that entity gets no new powers. it takes powers that are already there in the bank regulators that haven't been used very well. if by -- if my friends on the other side want to go to the american people and say, here's one of the differences between the party, we think you consumers have been adequately protected and you don't need to improve that manner of administration, i'll take that debate to the american public. they tell us that this is bad for small business. the indepe

unthinkable to me that consumers would be placed in the dark in regard to their creditworthiness, unquote. i'm proud to say the manager's amendment levels the playing field for consumers. i urge my colleagues to support the manager's amendment and the underlying bill. thank you. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. who seeks time? mr. frank: i will now recognize -- i now yield 2 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from new york, mrs. mccarthy: who wants to engage me in a colloquy. the chair: the gentleman is recognized and the gentlewoman is recognized for the stated amount of time. mrs. mcyarty: i would like to thank the gentleman from massachusetts to engage in a colloquy. i would like to clarify the analysis of systemic risk would be applied by the financial service oversight council and fund assessment. is it the chairman's intention that the factors used for identifying companies subject to strict standards should be allied in light of the more detailed and balanced risk matrix set out in the bill? mr. frank: the gentlewoman knows. there was a clerical glitch at the last minute

access to women who already have it by encouraging insurers to, quote, drop coverage in all markets, unquote. that is not the status quo. the stupak-pitts language is unfair, unnecessary, and unrise. the senate rightly rejected it last night. it cannot be part of health care reform. women will not be forced back to back alleys. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, this week debate continues in the senate over a massive health care overhaul. what's at stake for seniors? many seniors will probably see their benefits cut or higher premiums. the senate bill cuts more than $135 billion from hospitals serving seniors. it cuts $40 billion from home health agencies, $15 billion from nursing hosmse, and nearly $8 billion from hospices. all important services our seniors depend on. seniors deserve to know how washingt

we have to keep in mind that the bonds which are in the quote-unquote trust funds are backed by the unitedanteed to principal and interest. they won't default, in my view. if you look on that basis, total debt to g.d.p. is 85%. by the end of next year will be 9 % and headed up. you know, we are the only ones that i know that have these fictional trust funds. we didn't have moneys sitting in these trust funds back at the end of world war ii at 122%. we were largely pay as you go. i think people ignore trillions of dollars worth of debtÑi whic is real. it may not be a current demand on the economy, you know, a current crowning out effect, but we owe it. and, therefore, i think we need to look at both held by the public and total debt and shell both. >> thank you. finally, senator conrad mentioned the importance of everything being on the table for the fiscal future commission. and i agree with that approach as opposed to the more narrow approach recommended by some of our colleagues. on the other hand, c.b.o. has clearly warned us that to sustain the current projected spending levels would r

this quote segregation unquote of funds actually violates the heideman meant was provides funding of abortion in not only underfunds but under state matching funds within the same plan. simply put, today federal and state medicaid dollars are not segregated and so that's the difference. now, if the distinguished senator from pennsylvania believes that the current language in the reid bill meets the qualities of the hyde language. why not put it in once and for all. since it's been law since 1977. it's important to note today there is no segregation of the federal funds in any federal health care program. for example, the medicaid program receives both federal and state dollars. there is no segregation of either the federal medicaid dollars or the state medicaid dollars. for that i know i have some colleagues who asked to have time to speak. so i'm going to yield the floor. >> will the senator yield? >> i yield the floor. >> senator from utah has not yet answered the question. >> senator from louisiana. >> thank you madame president. i strongly support the senator from utah's effort a

more complicated cases those with industry wide implications in favor of those seen as more routine, unquote. mr. khuzami, this is the test case. this is the case with industry wide implications where what is at issue is the performance of the attorneys and interpreting the nation's securities laws strictly or permissively. here's the case where the -- where at the s.e.c. shapiro breaks with the s.e.c.'s christopher cox. mr. khuzami, is the s.e.c. widening its investigation to include the issue of bank of america's failure to disclose to its shareholders the mounting losses at merrill lynch, known or knowable by mid-november, 2008, weeks before, weeks before the shareholder vote on the merger? >> congressman, we have been and are looking at all aspects of the activity with respect to the proxy statements including the fourth quarter losses of merrill lynch. >> is that a yes or a no? >> that's a yes. >> if it is a yes, then the work of this committee has been worthwhile, because you now have a chance to do your job because we have done ours and the information that we have uncovered should fa