through. we know the benefits. in the late 1970's a state of california enacted tougher energy policies. over the next three decades these policies helped create almost 1.5 million jobs. and today, californians consume 40% less energy per person than the national average which over time has prevented the need to build at least 24 new power plants. think about that. california producing jobs, the economy keeping pace with the rest of the country and get the have been able to maintain their energy usage in a much lower level than the rest of the country. so that's why we took significant steps in the recovery act to invest in energy efficiency measures for modernizing federal buildings to

helping american families make upgrades to their homes, steps that will create jobs and save taxpayers and consumers money. and that's why i've asked secretary chu to lead a new effort at the department of energy focusing on implementing more aggressive efficiency standards for common household appliances like refrigerators and ovens which will spark innovation, save consumers money, and reduce energy demand. so today we are announcing additional action to promote energy efficiency across america. actions that will create jobs in the short run and save money and reduce dangerous emissions in the long run. the first step we are taking sets new efficiency standards on fluorescent and incandescent lighting. and i know lightbulbs may not seem sexy, but this simple action holds enormous promise because 7% of all the energy consumed in america is used to

light our homes and businesses between 2012 and 2042 these standards will save consumers to $4 billion a year, a concerted of electricity to power every home in america for ten months. reduce emissions equal to the amount produced by 166 million cars each year and eliminate the need for as many as 14 coal-fired power plants. and by the way, we are going to start here at the white house. secretary chu has already started to take a look at the light bulbs and we will see what we need to replace them with energy efficient light bulbs and if we want to make the economy run more efficiently we have got to make our homes and businesses run more efficiently and that's why we are also speeding up a 346 million-dollar investment under the recovery act to expand and accelerate the development, deployment and use of energy-efficient technology in residential and commercial

buildings which consume almost 40% of the energy we use and contribute to almost 40% of the carbon pollution we produce. we are talking about technology available right now or will soon be available from relating to windows, heating to cooling, smart sensors and controls. by adopting these technologies in our homes and businesses we can make our buildings up to 80% more energy efficient. or with additions like solar panels on the roof or geothermal power from underground even transform them into zero energy buildings that produce as much energy as they consume. progress like this might seem far fetched but the fact is we are not lacking for ideas and innovation. all we lack are the smart policies and political will to help put our ingenuity to work. and when we put aside the posturing of the politics and put aside the tax based less on

evidence and on ideology a simple choice emerges. we can remain the world's leading importer of oil or we can become the world's leading exporter of clean energy. we can allow climate change to rec on natural havoc or we can create jobs utilizing low carbon technology to prevent its worst effects. we concede the race for the 21st century or increase the reality that our competitors already have. the nation that leads the world in creating a clean energy economy will be the nation that reads the 21st century global economy. that's our choice. between a slow decline and renewed prosperity. between the past and the future. the american people have made their choice. they expect us to move forward light now at this moment of great challenge and state our claim on the future. a stronger, cleaner and more prosperous future -- recent

nuclear test and missile launches and the threats they pose to the asian-pacific region. that's life from the atlantic council 5:30 on c-span. madoff was sentenced 150 years in prison for engineering a $65 billion fraud scheme. manhattan federal court judge called the fraud unprecedented and staggering and said the message must be sent mr. made of's crimes were extraordinarily evil. and the state department secretary hillary clinton addressed the military's overthrow of the country's president over the weekend. in a briefing with reporters, she stated the action taken against the president should be condemned by everyone. she went on to say that honduras must embrace the principles of democracy and respect constitutional order.

how is c-span's fonted? >> publicly funded. >> donations may be? i have no idea. >> governor? >> c-span gets its funding through the taxes. >> a public funding thing. >> maybe, i don't know. >> how is c-span's fonted? 30 years ago america's cable companies created c-span as a public service, a private business initiatives. no government mandate, no government money. next, a discussion on health care hosted by americans for tax reform and the media research center. south carolina senator jim demint and georgia congressman tom pryce among others discuss what they see as disadvantages to president of hamas health care plan. this is about an hour and a half. [inaudible conversations]

>> i want to welcome you today to a discussion how to improve health care in the united states without raising taxes, without reducing people's choices and leading people free to make their own decisions and work directly with their doctors. we have, and senator both of whom have innovative legislation to this effect and then a panel of experts who have worked on this issue for years as you know a major american corporation is making a rather sizable contribution to the obama campaign come to the government controlled health care by giving them free airtime over at abc. we felt that since an infomercial is being corporately financed that we would offer to the american people a real conversation about real health

care reform reducing the cost, not increasing it, reducing taxes, and not increasing it on health care. i'd like to first call to the podium representative tom price from georgia, the chairman of the republican study committee. [applause] >> thank for your leadership. it's a privilege and honor to be with this group today and to address an issue that is near and dear to my heart in addition to the republican study committee and representing the sixth district of georgia. i'm a former physician after 20 years took care of folks broken bones and battered bodies on the north side of the land of sali come to this discussion with some experience about what it means to take care of patients and i think that oftentimes lost. i would mention at the outset many of my constituents and folks across the land believe this administration and congress are putting in place policies

that truly endanger the future of the nation. i share those beliefs in some areas, but i do know one thing if the fourth estate in this nation remains in the tank for this administration, it does indeed endanger the future of the nation so i want to commend each and every one of you who are here working diligently to get the word out across the land about this most important subject. i believe there are three to the quality of health care that are incorporated in the house bill that came forward last week. one of them is a public auction and government run program and would be changing the dynamic in the private sector and makes it such that the private sector can't compete. we heard about it yesterday in the committee and education and labor when it was presented. it makes the referee and player the same person. when the referee and apply year are the same person, or on the other team and lewis. the problem is in this instance

the person loses the team that loses the patients all across the nation. what's a public auction, with the government run program look like in the united states? it looks like medicare part deal that has a 97% market share and crounse everything else out of the system. there are high-quality reports that would give evidence to 110 to 120 billion americans being crowded out of their private personal insurance if the government isn't in place. some get to the american polity of medicine is any mandate either individual or employe year and the reason for that is not just because it is a mandate which is a bad idea in the first place but it's because when congress mandates something wittman dates is the definition of health coverage, health insurance. what would qualify as health insurance and again we see from the house bill all of the dynamic things out there in the marketplace like savings accounts and medical savings accounts and deductible catastrophic plans, all of those

will not only be on available they will be illegal and that's why a mandate would be for american medicine and finally ceding the definition of quality of the federal government through the healthy choice administration or the comparative effectiveness research council. whatever it is if it isn't patients and their families and making the decision out what treatment administered at that weight in time for that individual and the unique patient than the quality of an american health care plummet's for each individual not just in this room and this city but across the land. think about the principles you have for health care whenever they are. i've got six of them. accessibility, affordability, quality, responsiveness, innovation, choices, whatever your principles or i would suggest none of those principles are improved by the intervention and increased involvement of the federal government, not one. accessibility already in many of the programs the federal

government has a hand in accessibility is decreasing including medicare. affordability, all of the programs have overrun their cost estimates by sometimes 100 times. so there's no way the federal government can keep a hand on the cost of anything. quality i would suggest respectfully that the quality of health care has provided a federal government gets involved it's worse, not better. responsiveness and innovation, federal government, you make the decision i am not sure the federal government has anything to do with responsiveness and innovation in anything it does. and choice is clearly the federal government need to make choices. so there are positive solutions we have put on the table and will put on the table and they involve making certain patients and families along with doctors are able to make health care decisions making certain individuals have an opportunity to be able to afford and purchase the coverage of their choice, not the government's choice but there ridgway's and that they own and control their

health coverage and health policy so that the dynamic between insurance companies and patience becomes one that is responsive. so the insurance company has to be responsive. there's a patient centered way to do it and government center we to do with and we believe the patient centered way is the right way. thank so much. [applause] >> thank, congressman tom price. we are now joined by senator demand from the status of carolina with introduction of the health care freedom act. [applause] >> thank, grover. i want to thank everyone at the table and the groups represented here. the only way we are going to stop the government takeover of the health care system is if americans are informed and engaged and hopefully outraged and they contact their congressmen and senators and talk about a better way to do this, so i think all the group's -- thanks for your ads on tv but

we need to move from just criticizing what the democrats and obama are proposing to actually proposing a solution that would work. i welcome this debate on health care because it is time we give fair treatment to all americans. if you work for someone that offers health insurance, your employer can deduct the cost of that insurance and the employees exempted from paying taxes on the benefit and that is the way that we ought to keep it but we ought to give fair treatment to the americans who don't get their health insurance through the employee years. encouraged the individual market by giving every family of $5,000 certificate which basically equals what the benefit will be in the workplace or an individual $2,000. now, just think about is as common sense. if you think about what works and health care today, what works the best is when an individual has health insurance they can pick their own doctors and they can decide what their

health care will be. the part of health care that is working very well or the government plans and care, medicaid, tricare come schip, these are the plans that don't pay doctors the cost to see patients. so every year or cost is shifted to those who try to buy private health insurance. these are the plans that are trillions of dollars in debt and these are the plans that offer americans no choice. if you're retired on medicare, you don't have a choice. and that's the end game of every government plan. the last thing we need to do now is expand those plants that are in debt not paying doctors enough to see patients and basically take away all of your torso read as a common sense solution you look at those americans who are uninsured and i'm talking about americans, i'm not talking about illegals, i'm not talking about the folks who can sign up for medicaid and don't or sign up for schip, we

are talking about 20 million may be between 20 or 25 million americans who need help. we don't need a multi trillion dollar government takeover to make this happen. we could do is we could take t.a.r.p. mauney which is $700 billion pay for this plan by proposing over the next ten years. no new taxes, no new cost, no one loses anything from their employer or government plan. if you like we've got you keep it. if you want to buy health insurance yourself you can get 5,000 for a family plan or 2,000 as an individual. there are other things this bill does. it allows an employer if they would like to contribute to a health savings account for the employee and the employee could use that in addition to their health care certificate to pay for a premium. right now we don't let americans use of savings accounts to pay for health insurance premiums. we also create more of a

national market for health insurance and more competition by allowing people to buy from any state in the union so if their state has so many mandates their plans are expensive they could look on the internet or go to an independent insurance agent and by some in the country where it is certified. and we provide grants to states to help with those that have pre-existing conditions, an intolerable conditions to make sure previous health or health situations and also keep people from buying health insurance. we require more transparency from physicians and hospitals about pricing and if rick talks today how you can simplify the pricing and save money everybody comes out as a winner. we just need to have more disclosure there and we do have some of lawsuit abuse reform in this bill, too but all in all it's a simple. you like we've got, you keep it.

if you want to buy health insurance yourself you get a $5,000 a ticket for your family and we make it more competitive to buy insurance policies. folks, we need to advocate a plan that helps people get insurance. we don't need to compromise at all on the expansion of government health care. there will be no private insurance market if the government expands any more than it is right now. already exist with an additional cost on the private market that it has a hard time functioning. so let's work together and get behind plans that help people get health insurance. thank, grover. [applause] >> if you and the congressman wants to stay here we will take questions from the congressman and move on to the panel. any specific questions perhaps on the plan? >> introduce yourself.

>> cnnnews .com. [inaudible] [inaudible] in your opinion, is that just another form of control for doctors and price controls -- [inaudible] >> when you have to do is look at the current government and see exactly how this is coming to work. we don't pay doctors enough to see patients. it takes years to approve new technology, so new things that come on line that can save money or delayed. they have thousands of codes that physicians and hospitals

have to get in the system because if they do with the patient needs only they're likely not to be able to make a living so i have been to a number of physicians and there's always a breakout session as the title coming for profit. they have to gain the system we've been place and we could greatly simplified this if we move to more consumer and health care and allow people to buy most of their primary care from health savings accounts and eliminate the third-party administrator and so you get more serious and expensive things. but when obama is talking about isn't true. a government auction will replace private health insurance. there is no question about that. we do not pay doctors enough to see patients. it will shift more of the cost on to private health insurers and so the competition there will basically eliminate those who are trying to operate in a

free-market. what the administration and democrats are saying now i think is misrepresenting the are creating a crisis. they are trying to exaggerate the number of people. they are talking about government plans that can do things no government plan has ever done. it's really freedom that works, choices that work, competition that works. we know what happens in america and government doesn't. [inaudible] >> let me just expand on that very briefly. and i would echo the sentiments of senator demint. clearly a government running anything crowds private sector out of the market. as i mentioned the health care looks like medicare part d and other things for example the

housing market looks like fannie and freddie. it is a public auction. it is a disaster. that is what happens when the government gets involved in these kind of things that the private market can run better. i want to point out one thing the president said yesterday and again i would echo the senator's comments and that is at this point president hasn't been telling the truth about his proposal. yesterday he began to march down a road that more represents the truth. when he was pressed on the notion that he says if you like your plan, you may keep it. in fact that isn't what the bill says that was introduced in the house and frankly that is and what the president ordered. what he clarified yesterday before the press was if you like what you have the government that will not move you out or force you into another plan. what he didn't complete the sentence with is the next clause which is but the government may institute rules and in fact will institute rules that will force you out of your plan and that is

the crowd out that happens when the government gets involved in health care whether it's medicare, schip or any other program. if you like your current coverage and current plan it is very likely that you will not be able to keep it under the president's proposal. >> jennifer. senator and congressman, cbo did a markup on one version of the bills that came out over a trillion dollars. can you talk a little about where your colleagues in the house and senate intend to find that money and what the sounding is to pass this. >> as you know now the federal government is spending and borrowing at unprecedented levels. i think the interest we pay on the debt is about 150 billion this year. by the time we get to the end of obama thank -- obama's budget is

800 billion. the ability to pay this back and the value of our currency. a multi chile and other health care takeover is an extraordinary proposal in light of where we are. we don't have the money. we know we are printing a lot of money now and we've doubled our money supply. the federal reserve appears out of control. but we are in very dangerous waters as a country. we don't need to be expanding government any further and borrowing money. we can recapture money that is already on the table in this t.a.r.p. and get over 20 million americans in short in half the time the obama administration is talking about and not spend new money. so, we have got to look at proposals like this that don't put this further in debt. we don't have the money they are going to pay for it with new taxes or borrowing which will make america more expensive place to do business which means more jobs will go overseas. >> this notion that you have to

introduce a new government program to solve the challenges that we have that are real in their health care is just falling. it simply isn't true. there are wonderful ways to improve the system and utilize the money that we currently spend on health care to have a much more efficient system. if you talk about cost drivers they are no different than the cost drivers had any other industry. they are taxation, litigation, regulation primarily. and if we truly have appropriately and robust liability we can save hundreds of billions of dollars currently in the practice of defensive medicine. if we had appropriate regulatory reform we could save hundreds of billions of dollars just and how patients are cared for in the marketplace and if we have real tax reform we could also save hundreds of billions of dollars allowing individuals the kind of health care the desire, patients and their families to sawyer, not the kind of health care speaker policy, harry reid and prisoner obama design. >> question in the back.

>> david with daily -- [inaudible] could you talk a little bit about how much the plan's cost, how much it would cost over ten years? >> the plant cost is invested in the legislative language suggests the t.a.r.p. money should be back in flight years. if we don't capture and spend it on something like this it would be spent on some new government program. i think we know how that works. so instead of keeping it as a permanent fund for treasury -- what we could find quickly once every american has health insurance policy the cost of health care and health insurance can go down dramatically. the plant was the opposite way. >> the planas political representatives rollin and nunes, it is budget neutral.

it doesn't cost any more money over a. of time and that is because if we as a society reform our health system in a positive way in a way that provides the appropriate incentives in the system and allows for the appropriate competition and the appropriate decision making authority for patients and their families than you save extraordinary amounts of money. so that again, this sense that you have got to have another trillion dollars spent by the federal government in order to save the health system is just simply not true. >> continuing, philip with the american spectator. what happened -- i guess first can you talk about whether the way that the t.a.r.p. language was initially written? it would allow you to say that it's terminated after five years or would banks say no, we didn't originally agreed to this when

we accepted the t.a.r.p. money and also what is the way to finance it wants the 700 billion t.a.r.p. runs out after ten years or however long? [inaudible] after ten years i fink we just to see where we are going. but the point here is after you get everybody in short and make information transparent and simplify pricing the cost of health insurance is going