text:
- Font:
- +
- -
August 17, 2009
Guests: Rep. Jim Cooper, Rep. Phil Gingrey, Charles Cook, Brett Lieberman,
Susan Page, Clarence Page
CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: To be or not to be.
Let's play HARDBALL.
Good evening. I'm Chris Matthews in Washington. Leading off tonight:
Death to the public option. Is it dead? Over the weekend, President Obama said the public option, quote, "is not the entirety of health care reform." He had two of his lieutenants, his secretary of health and his press spokesperson, both imply it was dead. Then he wrote a 1,200-word op-ed piece for "The New York Times" and never once mentioned the words "public option." And then Sen. Kent Conrad said yesterday that there aren't enough votes in the Senate for a public option to pass.
So what happens now? Senate Republicans won't vote for a plan with a public option. Will enough House Democrats vote for one without one? That's the "to be or not to be" question right now. Will there be a health care bill or won't there?
August has been a cruel month for President Obama. Republicans are
making the case he's going too far in expanding the role of government in
our lives. Liberal Democrats and the folks on the netroots-they say
he's not going far enough. Well, the party in power generally loses many
seats in the mid-term elections, and Nate Silver, who's a pretty smart guy
he's on 538.com-he's saying that there's ample reason for Democrats to be very worried about next year's elections, perhaps deeply so about those 2020 (SIC) results.
He calls it a 1 in 4 or perhaps 1 in 3 chance that the Dems will actually lose control of the House of Representatives and that a Republican will be elected Speaker of the House. Could the prospect of losing their seats next November cause many Democrats this November to vote against health care?
And we have a very American story to tell you tonight about a true patriot named William Cahir. As his friends describe him, he always wanted to be out there defending his country. That's why he became a journalist. That's why he ran for Congress. And that's why he became a Marine. It was as a Marine that William Cahir died last week while out on patrol, another terrible loss in a war being fought largely under the radar. We'll look at William Cahir's life and at the war he died fighting.
Also, I think one story that's been overlooked recently is Hillary Clinton's terrific work in Africa. We're going to give her the credit she's due in the "Politics Fix" tonight.
And dancing with the hammer? Can you believe Tom DeLay is going to be "Dancing With the Stars"? That's right, Tom freaking Texas two-step DeLay. That's in the HARDBALL "Sideshow."
But we begin tonight with the fight for health care reform. U.S. Congressman Jim Cooper of Tennessee is a Democrat and U.S. Congressman Phil Gingrey is a Republican from Georgia. They're both members of the all-powerful Energy and Commerce Committee.
I want to start with Jim Cooper. Jim, I watched you over the years be the moderate Democrat from the middle part of the country, from Tennessee, and I watched the role you played back in '94, trying to craft a more moderate version of health care up against the Clintons. I saw the Clintons go down to terrible defeat. They lost dozens and dozens of House seats, as you know, in '94. They blew it, you could say. I watched Ted Kennedy blow it back in the '70s when Nixon wanted to push through a complete employer mandate, a much more radical health care bill than we're even talking about right now.
Democratic liberals keep saying, We want it all. They keep losing it all. What's going to happen this time?
REP. JIM COOPER (D), TENNESSEE: I think we can get a good health reform bill done this year on the president's timetable. I think this dispute over the public option really depends on how you define it. I think we can get a good public option through that even the U.S. Senate would think is a good reform.
But it's very important that we define it carefully so that it appeals to folks in all 50 states. There's a lot of unnecessary concern about it today because a lot of folks think there would not be a level playing field. It's very important that the government plan not have any unfair advantage. I think we can construct one that does the key thing, and this is the most important issue and President Obama stressed it again and again, keep the insurance companies honest. We can put together a good public option that does exactly that.
MATTHEWS: And you believe it could pass with 51, or rather 60 Democrats in the Senate, perhaps 60 including a couple Republicans, and get 218 in the House? Could we get a bill?
COOPER: I think we can.
MATTHEWS: This fall?
COOPER: This fall. The key hurdle, though, is 60 votes in the Senate because reconciliation will not apply to any real health care reform bill, so you've got to really be aiming, as Tom Daschle said in his confirmation hearings, for 70 or 80 votes, but you at least have to get 60. and that means it's got to be bipartisan to have a health care reform bill become law.
MATTHEWS: Well, you're talking against Kent Conrad, who's chairman of the Budget Committee. He ought to know on the Senate side. He says you can't get a public option through the Senate.
COOPER: But it depends on how you define it. He's said that a co-op might work, and that's a real public option if you define the co-op carefully so that it protects consumer rights. And the key thing is not only keeping insurance companies honest but also benchmark pricing, so you know what a fair deal is on a good health insurance policy. Today, a lot of Americans don't know that.
MATTHEWS: Let me go to Congressman Gingrey. It seems like the Republicans talk alternatives when the Democrats have a health care bill, but you don't get anything through when you guys are in charge. What's the story?
REP. PHIL GINGREY ®, GEORGIA: Well, Chris, I can tell you this...
MATTHEWS: Is there a free-standing Republican approach? Is there a Republican plan for health care?
GINGREY: There is definitely a plan for health care, and I can list about six items that we are in favor of, and I think the Democrats, I'm sure Jim Cooper, a strong Blue Dog and a good fiscal conservative, would agree with our plan. But the one thing that we do not agree on is this idea of a public option, and that is what the American people are telling the president, telling Democratic members across the country, you know, We don't want this. We do not want the government taking over health care.
And why do we have to have a government option keeping the health insurance industry honest? We want the same thing for the automobile industry or every industry across this country, the government's to be in there to keep corporate America honest, the steel industry, for an example? You pick one and name one.
But the American people are saying, You know, we want health care reform. The Republicans are saying, We want health care reform, but we don't want a government takeover. We don't want socialized medicine and national health care.
MATTHEWS: OK. OK. Those words are frightening to a lot of people. Let me ask you this about a moderate form, what Congressman Cooper just mentioned. What do you think of a co-op?
GINGREY: Well, Chris, I'm not sure we know what that co-op is. I mean, Kent Conrad has talked about it. All the machinations going on in the Senate Finance Committee, it's all been kept close to the breast (SIC). I don't think the American people really know what this co-op would look like. I mean, I want to look at it closely. And certainly, I will take-just like Senator Shelby said on Sunday, let's take a look at it and let's make sure. I think anything is better than this government option that's in there...
GINGREY: ... competing with an unfair advantage on an unequal playing field.
MATTHEWS: OK, let me ask Mr. Cooper, Congressman, would you try to sell Mr. Gingrey right now on live television on a co-op, some sort of modified public plan that would not offend people concerned about socialism?
COOPER: Well, Phil is a good friend of mine, but he's tough to sell on these things. A co-op is really used over three-quarters of the land area of America so we buy our electricity that way. It's a creature of the New Deal. It's worked really pretty well over all of the country for 70 or 80 years. It's owned by the customers, it's not owned by the government. It works. It works real well.
There are good ways to solve this problem. I think the key is to be open-minded, to not use alarmist rhetoric, to focus on the real problem of 47 million uninsured Americans today, unaffordable health care for virtually everybody, and really, a runaway health care system that's not providing the quality that we deserve here in America.
So we can solve any problem we want to in this great country. Let's put our minds together and let's calmly and rationally solve this health care problem. It's eluded every president for 60 years, but we can do it and we can do it without a big-government solution.
MATTHEWS: OK. Mr. Gingrey, your response?
GINGREY: My response is that I agree with Jim. I mean, things like association health plans, equalizing the tax treatment, making sure that people that get their insurance through a small employer or individual market get the same tax benefit, tax break, discounted insurance, making sure that we create statewide high-risk pools so that people that have pre-existing conditions don't pay-certainly don't pay more than one-and-a-half to two times the standard rates, and they also get an opportunity to get a subsidy, if they need that, from the federal government if they're low-income, say below 300 percent of the federal poverty level.
MATTHEWS: Any chance, Congressman...
GINGREY: So I really do believe...
MATTHEWS: Do you think there's any chance of a compromise? I mean, seriously, if we get something that's-if it's just something that's-suppose the bill has the following elements, gentlemen. It basically tells young people who are healthy, Hey, you got to get some health insurance. You got to share some of the costs and risks of health insurance. Employers, you'll get some encouragement to do-have a health care benefit. You won't be forced to, but you'll get some encouragement. Poor people have to do their bit and kick in what they can afford for health care, but you'll get some kind of subsidy. Some general approach that basically gets everybody on the road towards coverage.
Congressman Gingrey, could you support that, or would you still basically take a free enterprise approach and not really want the government even to go that far?
GINGREY: Well, Chris, I could support that. And quite honestly, I believe I could sit down with Jim Cooper, people like us on a bipartisan basis and we could work this out. You talk about young people, wanting to encourage them to have health insurance, but at the same time, why would we do something like destroy these high-deductible low-premium policies combined with a health savings account, the very thing that the young people want and need so they have catastrophic coverage. According to HR 3200, we would actually be destroying that and creating more in the ranks of the uninsured, not less.
MATTHEWS: OK. You know, I understand there's a left and I understand there's a right, and I understand people really disagree, Mr. Cooper, but let me ask you this. You spoke about it this weekend. You come from the center part of the country. We know the issue of the 2nd Amendment. It's part of our law. It's part of our Constitution, part of our heritage. We live with it. It can be dangerous, but we prefer rights over control of people's lives.
OK, that given, why has the gun issue come into this? Why are people toting firearms to these-in a couple of cases, more than a couple cases now, people are bringing loaded revolvers to these town meetings. One showed up the other day-we had him on the show-at a meeting with the president in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. You mentioned it this weekend. Why do people who care about gun rights, which seems to me somewhat separate from this issue, getting involved in the health care debate?
COOPER: Well, Chris, it's a free country, and under our Constitution, the 2nd Amendment is just as important as the 1st Amendment or any other amendment in our Bill of Rights. So that's the way that it is, and we need...
MATTHEWS: But why are they bringing it up here in this health care debate? Why are people showing up armed and ready...
MATTHEWS: And I'm serious. It's not funny. It is-because one of these times, somebody is going to pull one of these guns out. I don't know what their rules of engagement are, but if you bring a loaded gun somewhere, sooner or later, somebody's going to use one because they're going to get provoked. And I just wonder what you think the connection is between the 2nd Amendment, which we accept under the Constitution, it's there, it's a right in the Bill of Rights-why is that an issue in the health care debate?
COOPER: Well, all I know is there's a lot of emotion right now, and if everyone would just be calm and rational and fair to each other and listen to both sides, we can solve this problem and any other problem. The key is clear communication. America is the greatest country in the history of the world. We just got to allow our great citizens to talk clearly to each other, and we can do that.
MATTHEWS: Congressman Gingrey, the same question to you. What's the connection between the 2nd Amendment and health care? I mean, this happened again today. This isn't something cooked up by us. This is people bringing guns to these public meetings. Why?
GINGREY: Well, Chris, they have every right to do that. These may be...
MATTHEWS: We know that.
GINGREY: ... off-duty police officers. They...
MATTHEWS: Well, that's...
GINGREY: You don't know. But if they've got a permit to carry, then absolutely, they can show that and prove that they have the right. If they're coming into a...
MATTHEWS: But why would you bring a gun...
GINGREY: ... school, they may...
MATTHEWS: ... to where the president was speaking? Why would you bring a gun-anybody-I know it's a right. But why would you do it? Under what conditions would you choose to use it? You don't bring a gun somewhere...
GINGREY: Well, I...
MATTHEWS: ... you don't intend to ever use it, so why would you bring a gun into a situation like a public meeting? I've never seen this in my life before, people coming armed to public debates about health care?
GINGREY: Chris, it just so happens these very people would take that same weapon anywhere they go, anywhere where they're permitted to carry a concealed weapon. They have the right to do that, and I agree with Jim...
MATTHEWS: They're not concealed.
GINGREY: ... the right under the 2nd Amendment...
MATTHEWS: We're looking at it right...
MATTHEWS: OK. OK, look, we're looking right now, gentlemen-I have an advantage on you. I'm looking at gentlemen here that have guns on them, on their holsters. They're not concealed. They're basically displaying their weaponry, armed weaponry at these public meetings. I'm just asking why is it going on? What do you think? You're political experts. What's going on in the country? You first, Congressman Gingrey, then you, Congressman Cooper, then we got to go. Why are people coming armed to public meetings?
GINGREY: Well, Chris, if they have the right to do that, I have no fear of it. And I've had already five town hall meetings. I have six more planned. I don't plan on wearing a bulletproof vest. In fact, I usually get standing ovations...
GINGREY: ... when I come into these meetings...
MATTHEWS: Would you discourage...
GINGREY: ... so I have no fear.
MATTHEWS: OK, how about this. Would you discourage Americans, regardless of race, color, creed, or political identification, not to come armed to public meetings? Would you discourage them from doing that?
COOPER: My answer is yes.
GINGREY: No, I would not-yes.
MATTHEWS: OK, Congressman Cooper says-he's a moderate. I guess by today's terminology, a moderate is somebody who says, Please don't come armed to public meetings. Mr. Gingrey, your opportunity. You can say what you want. Do you think people should come armed to public meetings to discuss health care or not?
GINGREY: I would think that they should exercise their rights under the 2nd Amendment.
MATTHEWS: OK, thank you very much. You made yourself clear, Congressman Gingrey. Good look, Mr. Cooper.
COOPER: Thank you, Chris.
MATTHEWS: Last time around, you played a big role. I hope you can find a compromise. I think nothing is worse than doing nothing. That's my view.
Coming up: Should Democrats be concerned about the 2010 midterm elections? Wait'll you see-we think they do have something to worry about, and maybe that worry will cause some of them to vote no on this health care bill just out of fear.
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL. Ever since World War II, the new president's party has lost seats in Congress the first time out in the congressional elections coming up the year later. Some notable years, 1966 when President Lyndon Johnson lost four Senate seats and 47 House seats. In '94, Bill Clinton lost eight Senate seats and 52 House seats. Will the trend continue for President Obama come 2010 next year?
Joining me to look ahead to next year, MSNBC political analyst Pat Buchanan and "The National Journal's" Charles Cook, who's editor of "The Cook Political Report." Well, this is a bit for political junkies, but we have some who watch who just want to know what's going on. The reason I think it's topical, I think a lot of members of Congress, especially from swing districts who managed to get in by 52 percent, 53 percent, are thinking next year and they're thinking how they should vote.
So Charlie Cook, are you along with this-are you with those who think that there's a real possible chance, 1 in 3, 1 in 4, that the House could go Republican next time?
CHARLES COOK, "COOK POLITICAL REPORT," "NATIONAL JOURNAL": I think that's too...
MATTHEWS: They'd have to lose about 30, 40 seats.
COOK: Forty seats.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
COOK: I think that's too high. I mean, it's-obviously, it's possible. I mean, we saw it in 1994, but I think it's pretty unlikely. But I think the odds of them losing, say, 20 seats, getting their margin cut in half is-that's a very real possibility. What political scientists...
MATTHEWS: Well, that would still give them control. That would give them 236 seats with about, you know, an 18-seat majority.
COOK: Yes...
COOK: And arguably the people they would lose, a lot of those are some of the Blue Dogs...
MATTHEWS: Who are not voting with them anyway.
COOK: ... who are not voting with them anyway. But the thing is, it's-you know, you like to have that cushion, and it would reflect on the president.
MATTHEWS: What's your gut tell-I know you don't like to make too many predictions, but at this point, nobody's going to remember you made it, so...
COOK: Well...
MATTHEWS: Is your sense this is going to be a typical off year?
COOK: Yes, I think it's going to be fairly typical. I mean, right now, we have Democrats losing about nine seats. But my guess is it'll get up to, you know, 20 or so.
MATTHEWS: George Bush, Sr., lost 9.
COOK: Yes.
MATTHEWS: So that's about an average.
PAT BUCHANAN, MSNBC POLITICAL ANALYST: Reagan lost...
MATTHEWS: And he was pretty popular.
BUCHANAN: Reagan lost 26 in bad economic times in '82, but I think George W. Bush...
MATTHEWS: I had a hand in that one!
BUCHANAN: George W. Bush gained seats in 2002...
COOK: In 2002.
BUCHANAN: ... which is astonishing.
MATTHEWS: Well, because...
MATTHEWS: ... he did a brilliant job-I don't like it. It's realpolitik. He forced the Democrats to vote on the war before we went to the war.
BUCHANAN: I agree with Charlie, though. I think you're talking 20 to 25 seats. I think Obama's in trouble. He's got a couple of problems, Chris. The tremendous black turnout, 13 percent, is going to fall back. The white turnout, which was depressed last time somewhat, I think is coming out. You got these populist folks out there very angry. I think that's going up...
MATTHEWS: So anger drives the voters.
BUCHANAN: Yes, anger drives the-also, Bush was a tremendous weight on the Republican ticket. He's going to be gone.
MATTHEWS: Do you think he's forgotten in terms of-you don't think the Democrats can drag out the wet cat again and try again...
BUCHANAN: No, no. People...
MATTHEWS: ... and whack them again?
COOK: They can try.
BUCHANAN: I think that's-they'll try. They'd be very foolish. I think their real-they got real problems. Chris, I think people have handled these-these crowds out there terribly. Do you know 40 percent of Democrats say they think these protesters are behaving properly, 64 percent of moderates think? These are the swing voters. They're the Hillary Democrats that Obama...
MATTHEWS: OK, let me-let me-let me ask. Television can be selective, as you know, in the pictures we take. But you've seen the pictures we've seen, not just the guys, the few guys with guns, but these people really manically yelling at congresspeople.
BUCHANAN: Some of them are very angry, but most folks-you know what most folks are saying? By almost 2 to 1, they identify with them! People are angry, especially the white working middle class in particular.
MATTHEWS: Yes.
don't condone the way they do it, the screaming, the yelling, the getting in the face, the waving the fingers, and all that.
But the thing about it, for the Blue Dogs, those are their constituents. I mean, you know, this was giving, I think, the left of the Democratic Party a little window into the lives of these...
MATTHEWS: But they never get that lesson.
COOK: Well, I'll tell you what.
MATTHEWS: They never learn. I have worked with politicians.
The trouble is, the guys from the big cities and the women from the big cities, the minority congresspeople, don't know what a general election looks like, do they?
COOK: No, I...
MATTHEWS: The suburban guys, the guys from rural areas, who manage to squeak in with 52 percent, are always thinking about that 3 percent they need to hold.
COOK: I think it will be easier for President Obama to dump the public option because of those town meetings, because it will be easier-
I mean, it's sort of like it's a-it's a dose of-it's a bucket of ice water on the heads of the liberal Democrats.
MATTHEWS: That's pretty smart.
Pat, do you agree with that? That's pretty smart.
BUCHANAN: I-I do. And I also think dumping the physician counselors, AKA death panels...
MATTHEWS: That's gone. That's gone.
BUCHANAN: It's gone. I also think...
MATTHEWS: Because of the way it's been interpreted by its enemies.
BUCHANAN: Look at Specter. Look at Specter up in Pennsylvania. There's going to be no provision for health insurance, free health insurance for illegal aliens. All these things...
MATTHEWS: Did he say that?
BUCHANAN: Yes, he did. All these things set those folks off. If you're get something, get all of that out there. And I think the way you were talking...
MATTHEWS: Well, let-well, let me tell you one thing.
One reason you and I-we don't agree on many things, but one thing you can say about national health insurance, if we can have it, you have got to have an I.D. card. You got to claim-you have got to be who you claim you are.
BUCHANAN: Yes.
MATTHEWS: The idea a person is going to get free national health insurance without identifying themselves personally is crazy.
MATTHEWS: There's not going to be a door where you walk in...
COOK: ... immigration reform.
MATTHEWS: I mean, that's right. There's going to have to be some identification of people.
BUCHANAN: Right.
MATTHEWS: They can't come in and B.S. their way into free health care.
MATTHEWS: They have to be here legally or not.
BUCHANAN: Exactly.
MATTHEWS: So, this idea that you're going to free...
MATTHEWS: But, Pat...
BUCHANAN: ... bring in the driver's license they get in all these states.
MATTHEWS: But, Pat, but-well, that's the point.
BUCHANAN: Sure.
MATTHEWS: I don't think most people believe you should get anything free if you're here illegally. Your kids do.
BUCHANAN: You should have your Social Security card.
BUCHANAN: And then you should run the card through the system.
COOK: Verify.
MATTHEWS: But you have a sense-listen, here is my sense. The president is sitting there with Rahm Emanuel right now looking at next year's election, looking at what we're talking about now, saying, look, it's time to drop the baggage, and go with what we need to get across the finish line, some kind of individual mandate that says young people have got to be part of it. We have got to get everybody in health insurance in some way, some kind of encouragement to employers, not a law, but some kind of-not like Nixon wanted to go, with a-a mandate, but something that gets employers to kick in.
MATTHEWS: No.
MATTHEWS: And, third, some kind of subsidy for working people...
MATTHEWS: ... who are willing to do their bit, but don't have enough to pay health insurance, all right, and then clean up this crap about preexisting conditions and portability and all that stuff.
A bill like that, to me, would be historic. And that could pass the Senate. And I think it could pass the House.
COOK: And I think Obama would be tested. Can he sell that as-as a victory?
MATTHEWS: Who does he have to sell it to?
COOK: Or will it come across as a loss?
MATTHEWS: Who does he have to sell it to?
COOK: Well, the thing is, the conservatives will...
MATTHEWS: Who won't take that as a victory?
COOK: A lot of people will say it wasn't for a lack-he tried to get government control. Now he's scaling back. It wasn't for a lack of trying.
MATTHEWS: The people who say that wouldn't vote for him in a million years.
BUCHANAN: Chris, I agree with you. Look, I agree with you.
BUCHANAN: And I can't see how liberal Democrats, if that rolls over there...
BUCHANAN: ... are going to vote against something like that, which does 60 percent of what they want done. How can you vote against this?
COOK: Oh, I think the left...
MATTHEWS: What's this 100 votes that are going to vote against the bill that doesn't have the public option?
COOK: Oh, that-that's-that's baloney.
MATTHEWS: I think it's posturing. And we saw Jim Cooper on today.
He's a moderate.
BUCHANAN: Right.
MATTHEWS: He was positioning himself as a guy who wants the public option, because you know why?
BUCHANAN: Why?
MATTHEWS: If they don't get the public option, he won't be blamed for it.
BUCHANAN: He's going to call the co-op public option. That was what that fellow's doing.
MATTHEWS: Did you notice that?
BUCHANAN: Sure.
MATTHEWS: Isn't politics amazing?
BUCHANAN: And he...
MATTHEWS: Let me ask you. You-you don't like making predictions, but I have to do it here.
COOK: No, I'm...
MATTHEWS: Will there be a health care bill?
COOK: Oh, yes.
MATTHEWS: Will there be a health care bill?
BUCHANAN: I think there will be one.
MATTHEWS: We will have a signing ceremony, and will it change anything?
BUCHANAN: Let me say I'm not sure.
MATTHEWS: Will it be good for the country?
BUCHANAN: I'm not sure, because I think the Republicans got the taste of blood. And I think they're really going after this. And I think things are-there's so much rage and anger. And this co-op is so confusing, there might not be. But I think any Republican who thinks...
BUCHANAN: ... this thing is completely dead is mistaken.
MATTHEWS: OK. I think Kent Conrad is right. Sixty votes are hard to get. You can't get it from public option.
You are going to end up getting 61 votes, probably, for health care in the senator, because Senator Kennedy is ill and can't make the vote.
COOK: Yes.
MATTHEWS: Bobby Byrd is always tricky, but he will make the vote. I think they're going to get Olympia Snowe and they're going to get Mike Enzi from Arizona.
And that's going to be enough to get 61.
COOK: Wyoming.
BUCHANAN: Wyoming.
COOK: Wyoming.
MATTHEWS: Huh?
COOK: Wyoming.
BUCHANAN: Wyoming.
MATTHEWS: In Wyoming.
COOK: Yes.
MATTHEWS: And I think that's going to do it.
In the House, they're going to end up getting 218, because they can lose-you know how many they can lose? They can lose about 40 and still win it. So, you get to 218 in the House.
BUCHANAN: Well...
MATTHEWS: You get to 61 in the Senate, and you pass the thing.
BUCHANAN: Well...
MATTHEWS: That's what I think. Don't you agree?
BUCHANAN: That's my feeling, that they can do it.
MATTHEWS: Is that your feeling?
BUCHANAN: I'm not saying they will do it.
COOK: It will.
COOK: And the thing about it is, it will be seen as a fraction of what he tried...
MATTHEWS: OK. Look, I think we're going to...
COOK: Yes.
MATTHEWS: I think politics work. I think these crazy town meetings help. I think you're right.
MATTHEWS: That was a brilliant assessment, Charles Cook. It's why you're so good. In a weird way, the guys even with the guns have probably helped them. They have shown the virulence of the critics.
COOK: Which will make them suicidal.
MATTHEWS: OK. We will be back.
MATTHEWS: Well, I give it-I take it back. You're not that brilliant.
MATTHEWS: Pat Buchanan, Charles Cook.
Up next: House Majority Leader Tom DeLay has been called the Hammer,
for good reason. Now he's the dancer. Can you see this guy do the cha-cha
cha, the tango? It might be the Texas two-step. But we're looking at this guy. Does everyone want to be-everybody want to be on the stage?
You're watching HARDBALL, only on MSNBC.
Mr. DeLay is coming back.
MATTHEWS: Back to HARDBALL. Time for the "Sideshow."
First, a sugar plum for the ages. Guess-go ahead, guess-who has just joining the cast of "Dancing With the Stars.? Mr. Tom DeLay. That's Tom DeLay to you. The former House majority leader, the 62-year-old Texas hard-as-nails congressman and soddy-buster to the nth degree, a guy so tough they called him The Hammer.
DeLay says he's been working out like crazy to compete next month with 15 other reality contestants. He will be on HARDBALL tomorrow night to talk about it. We are going to ask him how that Texas two-step is coming. I dare not even talk about his possible cha-cha-cha.
Next: the blooper heard around the world. That's what "New York Times" Paul Krugman is charitably calling this latest piece of misinformation from the right-wing editorial board over at "Investors Business Daily."
The newspaper was looking to make an example out of physicist Stephen Hawking, who is paralyzed. In an editorial entitled "How House Bill Runs Over Grandma," the business daily took a shot at the government-run British health care system, writing-quote-catch this-"People such as scientist Stephen Hawking wouldn't have a chance in the U.K., where the National Health Service would say the life of this brilliant man, because of his physical handicaps, is essentially worthless."
Well, here is the skinny. Hawking was born in the U.K. and has lived his entire life with health care from the National Health Service in Britain. So, now the newspaper has printed a correction. And Hawking put out his own statement praising the British national health system for what he called its high-quality treatment, saying he wouldn't be here today without that health care system in England."
Well, isn't the truth breathtaking?
And, finally, a shout-out today to the mayor of Milwaukee. Mayor Tom Barrett was leaving the Wisconsin State Fair this weekend when he heard the screams of a woman he discovered was trying to protect her baby granddaughter from a young man in what's being described by police as a domestic dispute."
After Mayor Barrett tried to help the woman protect her granddaughter, the man involved hit him with a lead pipe. The mayor fought back, and the guy fled the scene. Result: The woman and baby are fine. The guy was arrested. The mayor, now a hometown hero, is recovering with just a fractured hand and other injuries at a local hospital.
Time now for tonight's "Big Number." And it has got some bad news for the president.
In a new "USA Today"/Gallup poll, how many people say they don't believe the stimulus package is working? Fifty-seven percent, a solid majority. Fifty-seven percent of Americans don't believe their stimulus dollars are going to work for them. That's tonight's "Big Number."
That said, as my hero, Winston Churchill, put it, there are two kinds of success, initial and ultimate. Let's see how this recovery works out.
Up next: the story of a true American hero whose changed-whose life changed on September 11, a journalist who joined the Marine Corps with the hope of making a difference. He just died in Afghanistan-when HARDBALL returns.
AMANDA DRURY, CNBC CORRESPONDENT: I'm Amanda Drury with your CNBC "Market Wrap."
Analysts have been saying the markets are due for a correction, and that may be exactly what we're seeing today, all the major markets losing at least 2 percent, the Dow Jones industrials down 186 points, the S&P 500 finishing more than 24 points lower, and the Nasdaq falling more than 54.5 points.
Well, financials led the way lower today, despite indications that the number of credit card defaults is stabilizing, after a sharp climb.
A disappointing earnings report from the nation's second-largest home improvement retailer, however, was no help. Profits at Lowe's fell a worse-than-expected 19 percent in the second quarter, and Lowe's shares down more than 10 percent on the day.
Investors also shrugged off some encouraging data on the manufacturing sector. The New York Fed says they're seeing regional growth there for the first time since February of 2007.
That's it from CNBC, first in business worldwide-and now back to
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I said, when I announced this strategy, there will be more difficult days ahead. The insurgency in Afghanistan didn't just happen overnight, and we won't defeat it overnight. This will not be quick, nor easy.
But we must never forget, this is not a war of choice. This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven.
MATTHEWS: Welcome back to HARDBALL.
That was President Obama this afternoon talking about the war in Afghanistan at the VFW's convention in Phoenix. And, of course, his warning of difficult days ahead ring true for the family of Sergeant William Cahir who was killed in Afghanistan last Thursday.
Sergeant Cahir enlisted in the Marine Corps Reserves after 9/11. And it hit him so hard, 9/11. He served two tours of duty in Iraq before his deployment to Afghanistan. Sergeant Cahir was also a journalist. And, last year, he was a Democratic congressional candidate up in Pennsylvania, his state college. That's where Penn State is. His wife, Rene, is expecting twins. There she is.
Brett Lieberman is a close friend of Sergeant Cahir. They both worked together at the Newhouse News Service.
You know, you-we don't do this enough. This guy was like us, in a way, but better. I mean, he was a journalist. He was-ran for office.
Tell me about your friend, this guy who just got killed in Afghanistan.
BRETT LIEBERMAN, FRIEND OF SERGEANT WILLIAM CAHIR: Yes.
I mean, Bill wasn't like us. You know, he-in the sense that he didn't like to be on the sidelines, because, everything he did, he wanted to change something, be involved. He didn't want to just cover the news at a school. He went to work on the Hill. He wanted to change things. He worked for Harris Wofford, Ted Kennedy there. He became a journalist.
He serves his-the communities-he really cared about the communities he covered. He was just completely dedicated to the facts. After 9/11, like a lot of people, he was touched by the-what happened, wanted to make a difference. But he didn't want to just cover it. He wanted to be-actively make a difference, and felt the best way to do that was join the Marines. And he was 34 at the time.
MATTHEWS: He had to push the age thing, didn't he?
LIEBERMAN: Yes. He needed to get a waiver. He needed to get permission. And, you know, he had to give up a career.
I mean, he was able-he was a reservist. He was able to go back, but, at age 34, he was in there with kids half his age. Drill sergeants, you know, gave him a tough time. He was a college graduate. He really gave up a lot, but that was part of the commitment that Bill had.
MATTHEWS: Did he know-I mean, nobody knows going into battle what the outcome is going to be. Did he know what he was facing?
LIEBERMAN: He knew.
This past time, before he deployed, I got an e-mail. And my wife actually just reminded me about it this morning. He wrote that, a lot of people say, oh, no, when they heard you're going for a third deployment. And he said, you know what? I knew what I signed up for it. This is what I committed to.
MATTHEWS: And he was like 40, right, the last...
LIEBERMAN: He's 40 -- turned 40 last December. But he felt like, you know what? This is an honest job. He actually wrote that in the e-mail. And he wanted to make a difference. And he felt this is the best way he could do it.
MATTHEWS: And he left his beautiful wife behind and pregnant with two
with twins.
LIEBERMAN: Yes, twins are due later this year.
MATTHEWS: Look, I don't usually do this, but this isn't the usual situation. What should we do about this?
LIEBERMAN: We started a fund. It's the Bill Cahir Memorial Fund.
It's just launched online today, billcahirmemorial.org.
Anything you can do to help out the family, just, you know, whether it's, you know, later on, baby gifts or stuff like that.
And it's Bill Cahir.
MATTHEWS: So, this will help pay for their kids growing up.
LIEBERMAN: Growing up, college, you know, clothes, you name it. It won't make up for, you know, the loss, but it will help, and it will help them keep the memory alive.
MATTHEWS: Well, I hope everybody sees that.
We don't do this enough. We talk about wars around here, and we talk about politics of wars. And we disagree with some wars. And I think Afghanistan has been recognized as a war of necessity by everybody. And that's where the enemy came from on 9/11. That's where he went and fought, and that's where he died.
LIEBERMAN: That's why Bill felt it was important to go.
MATTHEWS: Thank you very much, Brett Lieberman.
LIEBERMAN: Thanks, Chris.
MATTHEWS: What a pal you are. What a good guy you are.
We're going to come back and talk politics. We have got a lot to talk about today. We're going to talk about-there it is, by the way-thank you-the fund that's been set up for Sergeant Cahir's family. Donations can be sent to Bill Cahir-C-A-H-I-R-Memorial Fund at Burke & Herbert Bank, care of Mark Ragland at P.O. Box 268, Alexandria, Virginia, 22313.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, HHS SECRETARY: They have been more focused on a co-op, not for profit co-op, as a competitor, as opposed to a straight government-run program. And I think what's important is choice and competition. And I'm convinced, at the end of the day, the plan will have both of those, but that is not the essential element.
MATTHEWS: Well, back-time for the politics fix, with "USA Today's" Susan Page, who is elsewhere in Washington. And there she is. And the "Chicago Tribune's" Clarence Page.
Let me ask you both about these headlines. Here is today's front pages, of course, it's the "New York Times." Quote, public option in health plan may be dropped. That's right at the top.
The "Washington Post," key feature of Obama health plan may be out.
Of course, Susan's paper, "The USA Today," public insurance gets iffy.
Well, Susan, it seems to me that these are the ways that the administration has chosen to do this. They're going with what they believe they need, I think, an individual mandate, people have to participate in health care, a subsidy for working people, some kind of push for employers to insure people, and reform in terms of pre-existing conditions and portability.
In other words, they're going for a health reform bill rather than a big, big bill that would have a big public program involved, a public option. It looks like it. Still a possibility of a co-op. What do you think is going to happen?
SUSAN PAGE, "THE USA TODAY": You know, I thought it was surprising this morning when we heard about Tom Delay being on "Dancing with The Stars." I thought it was not surprising that the administration is backing away from the public option. There's been a lot of signals that that is not what they consider to be critical. That's not something that they go to the mat for. And it's probably not something they can hold onto if they want to get the support, not just of Republicans, but of some conservative Democrats.
So I thought we saw this was kind of a reality check on what the final package is likely to look like.
MATTHEWS: Clarence?
CLARENCE PAGE, "THE CHICAGO TRIBUNE": That's true. They never had the votes in the Senate for the-
MATTHEWS: They never had the 60.
C PAGE: Exactly. And I think the administration decided it's time to let everybody know what reality is, especially on the left, because they are going to get hammered for that. Some folks already-some of the Congressional Democrats are already saying, well, what's the point if you haven't got a public option?
But nobody knows what is a co-op is exactly. I think they're going to try to package something that comes close without being government-run. A co-op is run by the members. But, you know, it's a nice squishy concept right now that they're hoping will cushion the blow they're going to get.
MATTHEWS: Maybe, Clarence, my friend, you might be to my left on this one. But that's a safe place for me to be. And Susie, you don't take any position, but it seems to me, if you can walk away at Thanksgiving time, if you're president of the United States, and say, for the first time in American history, young people, healthy people who think they're immune to sickness, are now going to have to participate in the health care system, to share the costs and risks of high health care with everybody, you're going to have a system of subsidies for working people, to help them afford health insurance, you are going to encourage employers to pay for health insurance, and you're going to solve these problems, like portability and pre-existing conditions, you get all that and you sign it, that's better than nothing.
C PAGE: If they can get all that, that's better than nothing indeed. Nobody knows how it's going to work. That's the question. It's not as simple of a concept as the public option, which would be in general something like Medicare for everybody. That's easier to say and explain than something that's going to be kind of a hybrid between Medicare and a rural co-op or-
MATTHEWS: Medicare is free. Medicare is absolutely free for the richest people in America. It's still absolutely free. Once you have worked after a couple years of retirement, all the contributions you have made. It doesn't take long. Then the rest of it is free for life. No plan is ever going to be that good, is it?
C PAGE: No plan is perfect.
MATTHEWS: Go ahead, Susan.
S PAGE: I was going to say, the hospital portion of Medicare is free. But you do pay for Medicare Part B and you pay a premium for Medicare Part D. So it's not entirely free. But it certainly is a system that seniors are pretty happy with. I actually think that one helpful thing for the administration from these raucous town halls we've seen is that, you know, liberals who might be very upset by losing the public option may think that health care is in some trouble, because it is getting a lot of push back, and may be more willing to accept, you know, a co-op instead of a public option, as opposed to getting nothing at all.
MATTHEWS: So it's kind of like a rope-a-dope situation, in a weird way-without stretching the comparison between Mohammed Ali getting hit until the other guy finally runs out of juice. The idea he's getting hit so hard teaches the left, if you will-the left is a good enough term for me-that maybe they're lucky to get a bill.
S PAGE: And, of course, Democrats really want to get a bill. Think how-think what a big issue this was last year in the campaign and how long Democrats have been trying to do this, since the Clinton years, since the Truman years. Pretty close now-I think this is the argument President Obama is trying to make. We're pretty close. We just need a little bit more to get us over the finish line, for some kind-
The bill they're going to get this year is not going to solve every single health care problem. What they're aiming to do is get something you can build on, that has maybe an individual mandate. That would be a critical part-
MATTHEWS: I think he is going to be George Akin and declare victim. Take a look at this. Here is the president's poll numbers as this debate has heated up. His approval is going down. Look at that black line. His disapproval's going up. They're about to converge.
Here's the question. Is it better for him to get a health care bill or not?
C. PAGE: He's got to do it. I wouldn't call it the Waterloo, but this is a defining issue.
MATTHEWS: Susan, you agree that he has to get it?
S. PAGE: He's got to get it. To lose on his biggest initiative, that would be really bad for him.
MATTHEWS: Here's the question. You're a rural Democrat. I imagine you're a Congress person from, oh, Iowa, anywhere in the country, anywhere besides the big cities where people tend to be automatically Democrat, anywhere outside that safe Democratic zone. Are you better off with a bill that you have to defend or better off with a bill that's going down?
S. PAGE: If you're a Democrat in a rural area? I think if you're a Democrat, you're better off with a bill that says we promise to tackle this issue and we did this. I don't see where any Democrat gets an advantage if they don't succeed. For goodness sakes, they've got 60 votes in the Senate and a big majority in the House, and the White House and they can't get a bill through on their top priority? That is not a great selling point for a Democrat to be making.
MATTHEWS: Let's take a look at the president, and then Clarence. I want to see if you agree with it. If that's true, then they ought to all vote for it. We don't know how they think. Here's the president today. Let's listen.
OBAMA: Since there's been so much misinformation out there about health insurance reform, let me say this: one thing that reform won't change is veterans health care. No one is going to take away your benefits. That is the plain and simple truth.
We're expanding access to your health care, not reducing it.
MATTHEWS: Clarence, Susan and I crafted the question. If you're better off having voted for a bill and the bill having passed, why wouldn't most Democrats, in fact almost all Democrats, vote for it? It's better for them politically.
C. PAGE: Most of them will. The Blue Dogs are the difficulty here. They don't want a bill that's too far to the left. But the fact is a majority of the public-
MATTHEWS: They ain't going to get it.
C. PAGE: Obviously not. Most of the public does want some kind of health care reform. How do you define reform? That's the question. It's better to have a specific bill to defend than what they've got now, which is just a lot of rumors floating around.
MATTHEWS: I'll tell you, back at '46 when they passed the Employment Act, and they committed this country to full employment, so we would at least try every year to do that, that was a plus. You got to do that with health care, at least get the commitment.
We'll be right back with Susan Page and Clarence Page-that's interesting.
C. PAGE: Married, but not to each other.
MATTHEWS: You are both happily married, separately. I have to tell you, I want to talk about Hillary Clinton. No jokes. Let's get serious about Hillary Clinton, what she did over there, because I think it is important. We're watching HARDBALL. In fact, we're doing HARDBALL here on MSNBC. Come back and watch about Hillary and what happened to her in Africa.
MATTHEWS: Clarence page and Susan Page with the politics fix. Let me start with Susan. It seems to me that Secretary of State Clinton went to Africa and spent 12 days in some unpleasant countries, countries at war, countries that have dangers posed, in fact, to her as visitor, talked about blood diamonds, talked about women's rights, which are not honored in that part of the world, many places.
She got no credit for it. All she got is the cheap shot because of
what she got when she lost it a bit with that question from that kid about
what she thought was a question about her husband's thinking, not hers.
What do you make of all of this?
S. PAGE: I'm sure it was very frustrating for her, because it was a long trip focused on issues that Americans and American diplomats often don't pay that much attention to in places like Congo. But it is true that it was-her husband was getting a lot more attention in North Korea, and that one incident at a news conference sort of is the thing that the public will-the information the public got about the trip that she made. I'm sure that's disappointing.
MATTHEWS: You know, I was just over there on a family trip with my wife. I have to tell you, I met a kid out in the middle of nowhere who was totally consumed with Michael Jackson. Just to make the point-the papers are covered by Obama stuff. There are always-these millions and millions of Africans are watching us all the time. They want us to show some respect and interest in their concerns. They know they got them.
Here's a person, the first person in a long time, who says, I'm going to give you 12 days.
C. PAGE: Right.
MATTHEWS: Your thoughts?
C. PAGE: Well, she was very-well, for one thing, the Clintons are very much respected, very much liked in Africa. That particular place where she was where that incident occurred, she was getting more pointed questions and comments there than in most places. But they were right on point, for the most part, dealing with women's issues especially, which she's very strong on. As you know, problems, rape, AIDS, et cetera, have been very serious in Africa. And she was raising the profile on that. But then she got upstaged.
MATTHEWS: Yes, but it's serious business. You've got the blood diamond trade, where the whites of the world are involved in it too. A lot of people-the money over there, the bloodshed that goes on, the killing; the old tribal disputes have always been there, but they're getting worse because of the fight over diamonds. The AIDS thing isn't going away. Thank god George Bush took an interest over there, Susan, and he gets credit for it over there.
But I'll tell you, the American people-a lot of us Americans came from that part of the world, and we all ultimately came from there, no matter what the anti-evolutionists think. We all come back to Lucy in some day. You're thoughts again? Hillary Clinton, how's this shaping up? What I call the coalition between the Clintons and the Obama faction.
S. PAGE: You see a little bit of a coalition with Bill Clinton as well as with Hillary Clinton. You saw him not just do the North Korea trip, but also go to a Netroots convention the other day in Pittsburgh, where he advocated strongly for the Obama health care plan.
You know, there's a certain amount of scar tissue from last year's campaign between the Obamas and the Clintons. But Bill Clinton does offer Barack Obama some credentials with some more conservative Democrats, maybe some Democrats in the south, that-where Obama could use maybe a little bit of a boost.
MATTHEWS: He's going to need a bigger boost next year. My theory is that the Clintons are really going to be necessary to this coalition come next November, when Bill Clinton's got to help with the white working class.
C. PAGE: Notice how often the Clintons are important to Obama in the clinch. During the campaign last year, against McCain; now at this point, Bill Clinton speaking out for the health care reform last week. And Hillary Clinton-they've both been very good soldiers.
MATTHEWS: I think it's a hell of a coalition, a strong phalanx within the Democratic party. Thank you, Susan Page. Thank you, Clarence Page.
Join us again tomorrow at 5:00 and 7:00 Eastern for more HARDBALL.
Right now it's time for "THE ED SHOW" with Ed Schultz.
Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research. User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user's personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed, nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion that may infringe upon MSNBC and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyright or other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal transcript for purposes of litigation.>
Watch Hardball each weeknight
at 5 & 7 p.m. ET
Transcription Copyright 2009 CQ Transcriptions, LLC ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
No license is granted to the user of this material other than for research.
User may not reproduce or redistribute the material except for user's
personal or internal use and, in such case, only one copy may be printed,
nor shall user use any material for commercial purposes or in any fashion
that may infringe upon MSNBC and CQ Transcriptions, LLC's copyright or
other proprietary rights or interests in the material. This is not a legal
transcript for purposes of litigation.>
Watch Hardball each weeknight at 5 & 7 p.m. ET


text:
|Compliance Clinic: Overdraft Q&A;
More help with new overdraft rules
As July 1 approaches, key questions answered by ABA experts
•Scope of Coverage
Q. Does the rule apply if the bank does not have an automated service for paying overdrafts but on a daily basis reviews the non-sufficient funds reports and makes the decision to pay or return for each transaction?
A. The rule applies even if a bank does not have an automated program for paying overdrafts and makes decisions to pay ATM and one-time debit overdrafts on an ad hoc basis. In addition, there are no exceptions to the prohibition against charging an overdraft fee to a customer who has not opted in. Moreover, in its clarification of the rule announced on May 28th, 2010, the Board has deleted sections 205.17 (b)(4) and has revised the related comment 17(b)(1)(iv) to clarify that the prohibition against charging an overdraft fee for customers who do not opt-in applies to all institutions, whether or not the bank has a formal program. In addition, the comment explains that institutions that have a policy and practice of declining ATM and one-time debit transactions that would overdraw a customer's account are excused from only the notice and opt-in requirements of the rule.
Q. Does this rule impact non-sufficient fund (NSF) fees, that is, the fees imposed when an item that would overdraw the account is returned?
A. No, the rule does not cover fees imposed when an item is returned. However, Congress is currently scrutinizing the amount and frequency of overdraft fees and may well turn to NSF fees if it perceives those fees are too high or frequent.
Q. What about banks that have a "courtesy" overdraft program that applies to all items (checks, all debit card transactions, and ACH transactions), but whose core processor cannot allow some customers to have debit card overdrafts paid and others not? In other words, the core processor only permits the bank to provide debit card overdraft protection for all customers or for no customers. Must the bank discontinue its program?
A. If the bank's core processor does not permit it to make a debit card opt-in available on a per customer basis, the bank will probably have to discontinue the overdraft service for one-time debit card transactions. In effect, this is what banks previously did—denied authorizations if the account had insufficient funds at the time authorization was requested. However, the bank may continue to offer overdraft protection for non-debit card transactions such as ACH and check transactions.
Q. Does the rule apply to all accounts, including savings, money market savings, or payroll card accounts?
A. Yes. The rule applies to all accounts covered by Regulation E, including savings, money market savings, and payroll card accounts to the extent that they may be overdrawn by an ATM or one-time debit card transaction and a fee will be imposed.
Q. What about daily overdraft fees and negative balance fees? Must customers opt-in to this fee before the bank may charge it for covered debit card transactions?
A. The Commentary to the final rule states that any fee charged for an ATM or one-time debit card overdraft is subject to the opt-in requirement, including but not limited to a per item, per occurrence, daily, sustained overdraft, or negative balance fee (sustained overdraft fees). Moreover, in its clarification of the rule, released on May 28, 2010, the Board adopts new comment 17(b)-9 to address the treatment of sustained overdraft fees, stating that an institution may charge a sustained overdraft fee if a negative balance is attributable to "mixed" transactions—i.e., both check, ACH, or other recurring debit card transaction and ATM or one-time debit transactions—for customers who have not opted in. However, to be able to charge a sustained overdraft fee for mixed transactions, an institution must be operationally capable of determining whether the sustained negative balance is attributable solely to non-covered transactions. The comment also provides an "alternative approach" for those institutions without a deposit allocation policy or otherwise not operationally equipped to determine what is causing the continuing negative balance. In this instance, the institution may not assess sustained overdraft fees when mixed transactions have caused a continuing overdraft in an account for which a customer has not opted in.
Q. What is the difference between a one-time and a recurring debit card transaction?
A. Recurring debit card transactions would include, for example, debit card transactions used for payment of monthly or other recurring bills. One-time debit card transactions include point-of-sale (POS) transactions, as well as the periodic payment of a bill via on-line bill pay. The rule requires that banks provide opt-in prior to imposing fees for paying ATM and one-time debit card overdrafts.
Q. How will the bank know that a debit card transaction is recurring or not?
A. Merchants are supposed to code debit card transactions to indicate whether or not the transactions are recurring, but many do not. Accordingly, the Commentary to the regulation provides a safe harbor: banks may rely on the code supplied by merchants. Thus, if the transaction is coded as a recurring debit card transaction—even though it is a one-time debit—the bank may treat the transaction as recurring and is free to charge an overdraft fee. However, to take advantage of this safe harbor, bank processing systems must be able to recognize this code at the point where it makes the decision to pay or reject the transaction.
Q. What if a combination of transactions (e.g., ACH transaction, check, or recurring debit card transaction) causes the overdraft and the customer has not opted in. May the bank charge a fee?
A. The bank may impose fees for check, ACH, and recurring debit card overdrafts. The bank may also want to review its payment order policies. If it is obligated to pay certain transactions, such as debit card transactions, it might consider paying them first so that it is not the debit card transaction that overdraws the account. However, even if the bank does not knowingly pay debit card overdrafts, they may still occur, and the bank may not charge an overdraft fee unless the customer has opted in.
Q. Our bank offers overdraft lines of credit covered by Regulation Z and linked savings accounts for overdraft protection purposes. We understand that the Regulation E prohibitions on charging a fee for one time debit and ATM transactions do not apply to fees associated with overdraft lines of credit and savings account transfers. If a consumer overdraws an account over and above the credit limit or the available savings account balance, will the Reg. E overdraft rules and prohibition on charging a fee for one time debit and ATM transactions apply? In other words, do they have to opt in before we may charge a fee for covering the debit card overdraft?
A. Overdraft lines of credit and savings transfer services are not subject to the rule. (See §205.17(a) (1-3).) When consumers sign up for these products, they have an effective opt in—but it is separate and unrelated to Regulation E's required opt-in for overdraft services. If the consumer exceeds the credit limit, savings account balance or transfer limitations, the bank may deny the transaction, or return it and charge an NSF fee. However, any ATM or one-time debit transactions that overdraw the consumer's account must be handled in accordance with the Reg. E prohibitions on charging a fee unless the consumer has opted in. Nothing would prevent the bank from obtaining the consumer's opt-in in case this scenario should occur, but it does seem to be a riskier transaction for the bank. The consumer has not only exhausted his or her line of credit and any savings available, but is now looking for additional funds to cover overdrafts. This is something the bank should consider carefully before implementing.
Who gets notice
Q. Does the rule apply to fees for overdrafts paid from an overdraft line of credit or by a transfer from another account such as a savings account?
A. No. The rule does not apply to fees related to overdraft lines of credit or services which transfer funds from another account to pay overdrafts.
Q. Does the opt-in requirement apply to all customers, including existing customers, or only to new customers?
A. The opt-in provision applies to both new customers and existing customers. New customers may receive the notice at account opening or some other time. Existing customers must receive the written notice and unless they have opted in by August 15, 2010, the bank may not impose a fee for covered overdraft transactions after that date.
Q. What is meant by the term "existing customer?"
A. These are customers who opened an account prior to July 1, 2010.
Q. Must a bank send the opt-in notice to all of its customers or may it send it to particular categories of customers, for example only those customers that have used overdraft service in the past?
A. First, remember that the rule does not apply to business accounts, so these accounts should be excluded from your communication plans. Second, nothing in the rule prescribes with whom the bank communicates. It is permissible for a bank to choose to mail the opt-in notice only to customers who have used the bank's overdraft services in the past. Bear in mind, however, that although banks may rationally choose to concentrate outreach efforts on particular groups, banks should be careful not to appear to be applying undue pressure on any customers. To do so risks unwanted media and regulatory scrutiny as well as the possibility of litigation or legislative action.
Prohibition against conditioning the opt-in
Q. May the bank condition the payment of overdrafts for checks, ACH transactions, or recurring debit card transactions on the customer opting-in to the payment of overdrafts for ATM and one-time debit card transactions?
A. No, the rule prohibits such an "all or nothing" choice for customers. The rule requires banks to use the same criteria for declining or paying non-covered overdrafts, such as check and ACH transactions, whether or not the customer has opted in.
The rule also prohibits banks from conditioning the payment of recurring debit card transactions on a customer opting-in to the bank's ATM and one-time debit card overdraft program. This means that the recurring debit card transactions of those who do not opt in, must be treated in the same way with regard to overdraft payment decisions as those of customers who do opt in. This may present operational challenges.
Q. May a bank vary payment order or hold practices based on whether a customer has opted in or not?
A. No. Section 205.17(b)(3) makes it very clear that banks must provide to customers who do not opt in the same "account terms, conditions, and features" that it provides to those who do opt in. Funds availability and payment order fall within those categories.
Q. Is it permissible for an institution to provide an incentive for a customer to return the model opt-in form, regardless of whether the customer chooses to opt-in or opt-out of the overdraft service?
A. Clearly, the bank may not vary account terms, conditions, and features depending on whether the customer has opted in or not. However, the rule does not expressly prohibit incentives such as gifts. Nevertheless, banks should be cautious as incentives will invite attention and possibly lawsuits as well as new regulation or legislation.
Inadvertent payment of covered debit card overdrafts
Q. If the ATM/debit card network is temporarily off-line, goes to stand-in mode, and authorizes transactions without checking account balances is the bank only allowed to charge the overdraft fees on overdrafts for customers who have opted-in?
A. Yes, there are no exceptions to the rule that banks may not charge overdraft fees on covered transactions unless the customer has opted-in. This includes overdrafts paid when using a stand-in processor to authorize the transaction because the card network was temporarily off-line.
Q. What if there were sufficient funds when the bank authorized a debit card transaction, but there are insufficient funds when the actual transaction is presented? May the bank charge a fee?
A. If the customer has not opted-in, the bank may not charge a fee, even if the bank is not in a position to avoid the overdraft. The Board understood that there would be instances when this would happen. For example, it may happen if a merchant fails to obtain approval for a small dollar transaction or it may happen if a deposit is returned after the debit card transaction has been approved or paid. However, because such instances would be rare and pose limited risk and because it would be confusing to customers to be told they would not be charged debit card overdraft fees and then have one imposed, the final rule prohibits charging a fee in these instances unless the customer has opted in.
Q. May the bank pay a covered debit card overdraft if the customer has not opted-in?
A. Yes. The bank may pay the covered overdraft. It simply may not charge the fee if the customer has not opted-in.
Denial Fees
Q. May banks charge a "denial fee" for denied ATM withdrawals and denied POS transactions?
A. Although the rule does not address such fees, the Supplementary Information to the final rule discusses "declined transaction fees," warning banks that the imposition of "such fees could raise significant fairness issues under the FTC Act, because the institution bears little, if any, risk or cost to decline authorization of an ATM or one-time debit card transaction." That being said, banks may incur network costs associated with a request and denial. In addition, legislation has been introduced in Congress that would prohibit such fees.
Opt in notices
Q. Are there requirements about the form and content of the opt-in notice?
A. Yes. The notice must be in writing and may be given electronically, if the customer agrees. The notice must be segregated from all other information and may not contain any information not specified or permitted by the rule. If an institution offers alternative ways to cover overdrafts, the notice must describe these alternatives. [See new comment 17(d)-5] The final rule includes a model opt-in notice.
Q. Must the customer's consent to opt in be in writing?
A. No. While the regulation specifically requires the bank to provide written notice of customers' right to opt-in and written confirmation if they do, it does not require that the consent be in writing, although it may be. The Commentary specifically provides that reasonable methods of consent include those made by telephone. For example, if the bank has provided written notice of the opt-in and a customer calls in wanting the bank to pay the dinner bill at the restaurant, the customer may opt-in over the phone. The bank must then, however, provide written confirmation of the customer's consent prior to charging the customer an overdraft fee.
Q. If a customer has more than one account for which overdraft services are available, is it necessary to provide a separate opt-in notice for each account?
A. The rule requires a bank to provide a customer with the opportunity to affirmatively consent to overdraft services and to document his or her consent to opt-in with respect to each account. However, as new comment 17(d)-4 states, a bank may use any reasonable method to identify the account for which the consumer submits the opt in notice. Accordingly, a bank can use one notice and consent form, assuming that the notice makes it clear that the opt-in decision must be made for each account and the model consent form is modified to provide a check box clearly indicating the customer's choice for each account. In addition, the written confirmation will need to include a confirmation for each account. Modifying the model form in this manner is permissible under the rule without losing the safe harbor.
Q. If an institution charges a maximum of five overdraft item fees per day, may the institution state only that the maximum limit of five fees will be charged per day or does the maximum dollar amount need to be stated as well?
A. The rule requires disclosure of the maximum fee, the maximum number of fees per day, and if there is no maximum number of fees per day, that fact. Specifically, it requires that the opt in notice state the dollar amount of any fees or charges assessed. The model form suggests the following language, "We will charge you a fee of up to $___dollars each time we pay and overdraft." In addition, section 205.17(d)(3) requires that the notice include "The maximum number of overdraft fees or charges that may be assessed per day, or, if applicable, that there is no limit."
Q. Assume that a bank has complied with the rule and has given its customers the opt-in notice. If a customer does not elect to opt in until a year or two later—and in the interim the overdraft fee has increased—must the bank provide the customer with a new notice before the customer can consent?
A. Section 205.17(b) only requires that a bank provide the opt-in notice, a reasonable opportunity for the customer to affirmatively consent, and written confirmation prior to charging an overdraft fee. In addition, section 205.17(f) permits a customer to opt in "at any time." Thus, strictly applying the rule a bank is not required to provide another notice.
However, if as in the scenario you describe a significant period of time has passed between the issuance of the notice and the customer's decision to opt in, to avoid any challenges or complaints, it may be prudent to re-issue the notice. After all, the notice is intended to ensure that customers are fully informed about their overdraft protection options and understand what they are consenting to; re-issuing the notice will demonstrate that a customer has been given this information.
Timing of opt in notice
Q. Is it permissible for a bank to begin communicating with customers early and to provide the opt-in notice before it will be operationally prepared to recognize the difference between one-time and recurring debits?
A. Banks may send the notice early, even if they are not yet operationally ready, but there are some risks that must be considered.
There is nothing in the regulation or the commentary that says that a bank may not send the opt-in notice before the bank is operationally able to handle a customer's choice to decline debit card overdrafts as long as it is very clear that the service and choice will not be effective until the designated date. Section 205.17(c) provides that for existing accounts, the bank may not assess a fee for covered debit card overdrafts unless the bank has complied with the requirements and the customer has opted-in. The commentary to that section states that the bank may obtain the consumer's affirmative consent—that is opt-in—prior to July 1, 2010, as long as the bank has complied with the requirements (provided written opt-in notice, opportunity to opt-in, etc.) Neither the regulation nor the commentary addresses the question of effecting an "opt-out" decision.
That being said, the Supplementary Information states that if a notice is sent early and the customer responds by declining the service, the Federal Reserve Board staff would "expect" a bank to honor that choice not to opt-in. While we do not believe such a gratuitous statement that was not actually incorporated into the regulation or commentary requires such a customer response to be immediately implemented before the regulatory deadlines and requirements in the rule, it may open the door to litigation risk. In addition, there may be customer relations issues for those banks with customers who wish to opt out before the bank is able to do so. Thus, banks that choose to send notices before they are operationally ready to permit customers to opt out should state clearly in the notice and consent form (and the written confirmation), the date when the opt-in choice will be effective. They might also delete the opt-out choice from the notice. This may minimize the incidence of customers asking to opt-out before a bank is operationally capable of implementation. The bank might also want to be prepared to respond to any customers seeking to opt out; front line employees should be prepared to explain that at the current time, due to operational limitations the bank can only honor the request by refusing to pay all overdraft transactions and that the bank will do so until system limitations are overcome.
Letters accompanying the opt in notice
Q. Does a letter sent with the model notice—a letter that explains why the bank is communicating with the customer and further explains the bank's overdraft options—be considered "promotion" of our overdraft program, triggering additional Reg DD disclosure requirements?
A. It depends. Section 230.11(b)(1) provides that advertisements promoting the payment of overdrafts must also disclose certain other information such as the overdraft fees. For purpose of this section, "advertisement" means a "commercial message, appearing in any medium that promotes directly or indirectly the terms of or a deposit in, a new or existing account."
Thus, if the letter is promoting the overdraft service and providing details, it will trigger additional disclosures. However, Section 230.11(b)(2) provides exceptions to the disclosure rule, including:
(vii) disclosures required by federal or other applicable law;
(xi) informational or educational materials concerning the payment of overdrafts if the materials do not specifically describe the institution's overdraft service and
(xii) an opt-out or opt-in notice regarding the institution's payment of overdrafts or provisions of discretionary overdraft services."
Thus, the opt-in notice itself does not trigger additional disclosures. In addition, if the letter is merely informational in tone and doesn't describe the specifics of the bank's overdraft service, it will not trigger additional disclosures. Note; in the supplementary materials accompanying the Board's May 28th clarifications, the Board addressed the marketing of opt-ins, reminding banks that to the extent that "additional materials promote the payment of overdrafts under Regulation DD, they may be subject to additional disclosure requirements under 12 CFR §230.11(b)" However, the Board did not provide additional discussion or guidance as to what would constitute "promotion."
Model consent form
Q. Does the line "I do not want [Institution Name] to authorize and pay overdrafts on my ATM and everyday debit card transactions" have to be included on the model consent form?
A. No. As explained by Federal Reserve Board staff during ABA's telephone briefing on the overdraft regulation, the opt-out option was included only because consumer testing showed that some consumers want to be able to check a box to indicate their choice to decline to opt-in. It is not a required element of the notice and indeed may confuse some customers into thinking that they must return the notice if they don't want the service. [See new comment 17(d)-3]
Joint accounts
Q. For joint accounts, is it necessary to obtain affirmative consent from all of the account holders?
A. No. If one account holder opts-in, the bank may honor the request and pay all covered debit card overdrafts for the account and impose a fee.
Q. What happens when one joint account holder opts in and the other opts out?
A. The last communication from one of the account holders governs.
Q. Under the rule, customers must be allowed to revoke their consent at any time in the manner made available to the same consumer for providing consent. Does that mean if a customer opens an account online the bank must have a method immediately available to allow the customer to revoke it electronically?
A. The regulation provides that a bank must provide a means for a consumer "to revoke consent at any time in the manner made available to the consumer for providing consent." However, the words "at any time" should not be read too literally. It seems unlikely that the Board intended to require banks that permit accounts to be opened online to provide the opportunity to opt-in and then immediately follow that with an on-line opportunity to opt-out. In fact, that would unnecessarily confuse consumers—a result the Board was working hard to avoid. The intent of the language quoted was to ensure that banks make it just as convenient for a customer to revoke consent as they make it for a customer to opt-in.
Q. If a bank allows customers to opt in over the phone or through internet banking between now and August 15th, must it also be able to let them revoke the opt-in through the same channels?
A. Section 205.17(f) states: "A consumer may also revoke consent at any time in the manner made available to the consumer for providing consent. A financial institution must implement a consumer's revocation of consent as soon as reasonably practicable." Thus, the bank cannot offer the right to opt in through multiple channels, but not permit revocation through the same channels. The means of revocation must be as available and easy as the means of opting in.
Q. If a customer that previously opted in to overdraft services for ATM and one-time debit card transactions later expresses a wish to opt-out of the service, does the customer need to make the revocation in writing?
A. No, section 205.17(f) states that a bank must allow revocation in the same manner made available to the consumer for providing consent. So, if a bank allows customers to opt in by telephone or electronically, it must accept a revocation the same manner and cannot require a written revocation.
Q. May customers opt-in and out at their convenience and discretion?
A. Yes, the rule requires banks to provide a continuing right to opt-in or out at any time in the manner described in the opt-in notice. The rule also states that a bank must implement the consumer's revocation "as soon as reasonably practicable" after receiving the request. However, revocation does not require the bank to waive or reverse fees assessed prior to receipt of the revocation request.
Q. Do banks have to disclose the "privilege" amount?
A. The rule does not address disclosure of "privilege" amounts. However, when disclosing ATM balances, including the "privilege" amount as part of an undifferentiated available balance has been considered as unfair or deceptive by the banking agencies.
Electronic communications
Q. The rule permits banks to send the opt-in notice and written confirmation electronically, if the customer agrees to electronic delivery, but how should a bank document that a customer has agreed to electronic delivery?
A. How the bank obtains the customer's consent to receive the notice and confirmation electronically is basically up to the bank. Footnote 32 to the Supplementary Information states that disclosures made under this rule do not have to comply with the E-SIGN Act, but using the bank's E-SIGN procedures is one option. Another option is to add a check-box on the consent notice indicating that the customer agrees to electronic delivery.
Confirmation requirement
Q. Assume a bank's system is set to generate a written confirmation the same day that it receives notice of a customer's decision to opt-in. However, depending on the time of day that a customer opts in, the confirmation notice may not be able to be mailed until the next day. When may the bank charge an overdraft fee?
A. The Board addressed this timing issue in its clarifications announced on May 28, 2010. Basically, the rule says that the bank may not impose a fee for a covered transaction unless three things occur:
• The written opt- in notice has been provided (it may be provided any time prior to the fee and must be provided only once),
• The consumer has consented ( which may be orally), and
• The bank has "provided" written confirmation.
The Board's May 28th clarification states that a bank may not charge a fee until it has mailed or delivered the confirmation; however, it does not have to wait for the customer to receive it as there is no way for a bank to know when someone receives mail. In addition, the Board expressly states its concern about possible circumvention of the fee prohibition by institutions that might pay a transaction into overdraft before the confirmation has been sent and then wait to assess a fee. As a result, new comment 17(b)-7 states that fees may be assessed only on transactions paid on or after the confirmation has been mailed or delivered.
Finally, addressing concerns about operational and litigation risk related to tracking compliance with the opt-in requirements, in its supplementary materials, the Board states that an institution that adopts and follows reasonable procedures designed to ensure the written confirmation is mailed or delivered before the fees are assessed "complies with the rule even if on rare occasion, notwithstanding such procedures, it assesses a fee before the confirmation is mailed or delivered."
Thus, depending on a bank's process, a bank could receive an oral opt-in request, (assuming the opt-in notice has been sent), send the confirmation immediately by email or regular mail, and immediately thereafter approve an overdraft transaction and impose a fee. However, if the mail doesn't go out until the next day, the bank would have to wait until the mail has been sent before imposing a fee. This would mean that if a customer calls to opt in – say he or she has just finished a meal at a restaurant and doesn't want to do dishes—the bank would have the choice to: (1) send the confirmation electronically and then approve the transaction; (2) approve the transaction, but forego the fee for this transaction; or (3) not approve the transaction.
ATM notices
Q. Some banks allow customers to overdraw at the ATM. Customers may receive a warning on the ATM screen that proceeding with the transaction will cause an overdraft and an overdraft fee. If the customer has opted-in, must the bank disclose the amount of the fee on the ATM?
A. Federal regulations, including recently amended Regulation E, do not require such a notice on ATMs. However, in the 2005 Interagency Guidance on Overdraft Protection Programs, the federal banking agencies suggested that providing such a notice would be a best practice. The Guidance provides:
"When consumers attempt to withdraw or transfer funds made available through an overdraft protection program, [banks should] provide a specific consumer notice, where feasible, that completing the withdrawal may trigger the overdraft fees (for example, it presently may be feasible at a branch teller window). This notice should be presented in a manner that permits consumers to cancel the attempted withdrawal or transfer after receiving the notice. If this is not feasible, then [banks should] post notices (e.g., on proprietary ATMs) explaining that transactions may be approved that overdraw the account and fees may be incurred." Click here for full text.
Q. Does the final rule permit customers to opt-in at an ATM?
A. Nothing in the rule prohibits a bank from permitting a customer to opt in at the ATM, assuming that the bank complies with all of the requirements of the rule. That is, the customer must be provided with the model opt-in notice, be given a reasonable opportunity to opt-in, and be given a written confirmation of the opt-in decision. Some of these may present operational hurdles. In addition, while the opt in notice may be provided beforehand, the ATM would have to permit the customer to consent – and revoke that consent. Next, the ATM would need to communicate this decision to the core processing system. Finally, there must be a means to provide written confirmation of the opt-in decision before the fee is charged. The confirmation could, for example, be provided on an ATM receipt or be provided by e-mail or by text message, which may also pose operational issues. The alternative is not to charge for that overdraft transaction.
[This article was posted on June 4, 2010, on the website of ABA Banking Journal, www.ababj.com, and is copyright 2010 by the American Bankers Association.]
Comments (0)
Write comment
| TechTopics Plus
| For the director who wants to stay on top of the job

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Thank You for visiting our site. We have a large selection of CD Roms and Programs for your enjoyment. Select a menu item to view our CD Rom and Clearance titles, Download our FREE Catalog, view Specials or Check Links. Our web page features secure on-line ordering, FREE catalog with Discount Coupon, Great Links and More. The catalog lists +1000 IBM HAM Radio, Education, Family, Games, Business, Finance, Spiritual, Hobby, and Other Software, Cd Roms and Shareware Programs for you to choose.
Our FREE downloadable catalog package includes a special HAM Radio edition with an additional +1000 great HAM Radio Shareware and Freeware programs. Hope you enjoy your visit, come back soon because we are always adding items and please tell a friend. Checkout our NEW Guest Map. If the Java script Menu does not appear at the top of the page please use the bottom links to navigate our site. Thanks...
Mom 'N' Pop's Software
P.O. Box 15003
Spring Hill, Florida 34604
| Top | CD-Roms | Clearance | Catalog |Guest Map |
| Weather | Postage | Links | Awards | |
12,758,180 Hits 1999-2019


text:
You can reserve several different classroom spaces for discussions, lectures, or presentations as part of a class visit to the Museum. These classrooms are equipped with chalkboards, digital projection equipment, and seating for up to twenty-five people. Because they are available on a limited basis, classrooms should be requested at least two weeks before your visit.
To schedule use of a Museum classroom, contact:
- Charlene Shang Miller
- Associate Educator for Academic Programs
- firstname.lastname@example.com
- 413.585.3109


text:
Pete Rose, on NBC's Today show Thursday said Lance Armstrong admitting to cheating will "take a load off his shoulders."
Rose said that when it came to his admission to betting on baseball, he said, "I waited too long. ... I'm glad he's coming forward. I hope it's not too late for him."
Asked by show host Matt Lauer if fans might forgive the cyclist, Rose said "most of the time they'll give you a second chance. ... But they have to know you're sincere."
Rose, when asked if Armstrong should be allowed to compete in triathlons, said he doesn't know the details of what Armstrong will admit to. But, he says, "You don't dominate any sport when you're over 40."
Rose, on the show to promote his TLC reality show Hits and Mrs., told Lauer he wants the series to show he's no longer "knocking people down" like he did as a player. "I don't play ball no more. ... But if you were trying to make a double play, Matt, I'd still knock you on your tail."


text:
To many city-dwellers, the mention of 4-H conjures images of the county fair: kids chasing greased pigs, chicken cages with red ribbons, white and black cows towering over smiling youngsters. While this perception of the century old organization is partly true, the history and current mission of 4-H (Head, Heart, Hands & Health) is much more expansive. 4-H clubs started in Ohio in the late 19th century as the USDA's Cooperative Extension System were beginning to disseminate new farming technology through land grant universities and regional offices. As it often happens, older farmers were less keen on experimenting with new "advances" in their field (literally). So clubs were formed to attract the younger farmers-to-be to learn about leaderships skills, local economies, and, of course, agricultural innovations.
Nowadays the scope has widened to encompass a number of community activities to help students to learn leadership, citizenship and life skills. Here in San Diego a 4-H club member could be participating in activities from veterinary sciences to marine biology to animal husbandry to ham radio. (Here's a full list of 4-H activities in San Diego).
Not to say that the agricultural side of 4-H has been abandoned: Slow Food Urban San Diego had the pleasure of working with Henry Kraus, a local 4-H student committed to raising his pigs organically. He is learning about leadership, economics, and agriculture in his community in a big way: bucking the "conventional" model amongst the pressure of adults and peers to raise his pig non-organically must not have been easy! But he stuck to his guns and raised a beautiful healthy pig that fetched a price tag well above the conventionally raised pigs in his midst. As everyone who attended last months Pig Picking at Roots Community Kitchen, the outcome was delicious! Henry, leading by example, is in turn helping to educate other local farmers (or farmers-in-training) about the benefits of raising livestock organically. The four leaves of the 4-H clover (head, heart, hands, and health) are certainly being grown and nourished by such an effort.
Through the support of local 4-H programs here in San Diego we can assist our youth in fulfilling the 4-H pledge and subsequently set the stage for a healthier, kinder, and more educated foodie/farmer community:
I pledge my head to clearer thinking, My heart to greater loyalty, My hands to larger service, and my health to better living, for my club, my community, my country, and my world.
For more information about 4-H, check out their website.


text:
Main Content
After the Expedition - November 5, 1806 through March 1807
November 5, 1806. Lewis and Clark and their entourage arrive at the Falls of the Ohio (Holmberg, Brother, 117).
November 8, 1806. Jonathan Clark, Lewis, and William Clark attend a family celebration at William Croghan's Locust Grove estate (Holmberg, Timeline).
circa November 11, 1806. Lewis and most of the party, including two Indian delegations, leave Louisville for Washington (Holmberg, Timeline).
circa November 11, 1806. Lewis and Chouteau with a Mandan chief and a group of Osage chiefs arrived in Frankfort, Ky. November 13. Lewis left for Washington via the Old Wilderness Road November 15. Chouteau headed east through Lexington, Ky.
Frankfort (Ky.) The Palladium, November 20, 1806.
December 2, 1806. Jefferson revises his Annual Message to Congress to report on the return of the Lewis and Clark expedition (Jackson, 1: 352-53).
circa December 15, 1806. Clark, probably with his slave York, leaves Louisville for the East (Holmberg, Timeline). See January 22, 1807 letter.
January 22, 1807. William Clark to Jonathan Clark
"I arived here [Washington] on Sunday evening and Sence that time have been engaged in formal visits to the heads of departments and partakeing of the Sumptious far of maney of the members . . . . my old western friends do not forsake me and appere happy that they have it in their power to pay me much respect which appers to be the general disposition of every member of Congress with whome I have become acquainted. . . . a Commite is appointed to bring in a bill giveing Compensation to the Party on the late Expedition. I think the Comite will report 2 Sects. of Land to Capt. Lewis and my Self each, and half a Section and half pay to the men, the most of the members appear favourable to a liberal appropriation . . . .
. . . I most probably will return to your house in Public Servece, but what Situation I Shall be in is not yet deturmined on" (Holmberg, Brother, 119-20).
February 28, 1807. Jefferson nominates Lewis to be Governor of Louisiana Territory and Clark promoted to Lieutenant Colonel. Clark's promotion is not approved. However, in March, Clark is appointed superintendent of Indian affairs for Louisiana Territory and brigadier-general of militia for the territory (Jackson, 1: 376).
March 3, 1807. Act passes U.S. House and Senate compensating Lewis, Clark, and their men with land and double wages for service on the expedition (Jackson, 2: 377-78).
After March 3, 1807. Eight of the expedition members sign a petition to Congress asking that their warrants be acceptable immediately for land in Indiana Territory or Louisiana Territory where several of them already reside (Jackson, 2: 378-80).


text:
Constanta is a long-term project. We did start this project in May 2018. It's the bleeding heart of our CEO Daniela. More than 1 Million views in just one month are a good result in Google maps. For the moment our agency presents 80% of the Google Maps trusted 360 photos in Constanta.
This project includes close contact with the local Authorities. We did meet for example to prepare this project private a local Radio moderator.
Watch a short sequence of our discussion (360 ቪዲዮ – Move arround).


text:
Step Brothers [Movie Trailer]
In theaters July 25, 2008. For info about this movie visit www.myspace.com/stepbrothersmovie. An Official mixtape with Will farrell coming soon. Shout out to DJ Woogie
Please click the "Report" button below if the video on this page is not working properly.
Comments will only be displayed by verified emails. No Spamming or Racism.


text:
So right before you disperse the cure or don't, you have to tap 2 hammers to summon the Thresher Maw. Now right before that, I was attacked by a brute, so I started shooting at him and before I knew it there was another brute.
Now after dodging and weaving a third brute came, killing both my squadmates at which point, I started to run as fast as I could. After getting to the first hammer, I was surrounded by at least 5 brutes... now my question is can you kill them all and go do the tapping at peace? Or do they just keep spawning and the point is to keep running?


text:
- Certified by Recycling Association
- Best Deals On The Market
- Licensed and fully insured
- Amazing Daily Deals
Know just what to expect
To put together the best judgments concerning Chimney Cleaning in Badger, CA, you've got to be informed. You should not go in without understanding it, and you want to understand what to expect. You won't face any unexpected surprises when you do business with Chimney Cleaning Pros. Begin by discussing your job with our customer support reps when you dial 800-870-1242. We'll resolve your questions and set up the first appointment. We will work with you throughout the entire process, and our team can arrive promptly and ready.
Chimney Cleaning Pros is going to be there for all your expectations involving Chimney Cleaning in Badger, Wyoming
Many reasons exist to consider Chimney Cleaning Pros when it comes to Chimney Cleaning in Badger, CA. We have the best customer service scores, the highest quality materials, and the most practical and successful cash saving solutions. Our company has the skills you will want to meet all of your goals and objectives. Dial 800-870-1242 to connect with Chimney Cleaning Pros and go over all your expectations about Chimney Cleaning in Badger.


text:
SDSU Course Design Institute Goes Virtual
The SDSU Course Design Institute has extended into the virtual realm. The program's blog is becoming the program's virtual hub to Faculty Fellow Portfolios, a YouTube Channel and conversations about Course Design.
Now in it's 2nd year, the CDI has evolved from the successful faculty development program pICT, funded by the Qualcomm Institute for Innovation and Educational Success.