senator sherrod brown, ohio. and former house speaker newt gingrich discusses the republican party in the 2010 elections. "washington journal" starts now. guesthost: a few of the north lf the white house on this friday morning, july 24. those were earning minimum wage, your hourly salary goes up today to $7.25. three cabinet members in question today on the stimulus this morning. the former fed vice chairman rights and "the wall street journal" that the economy has hit bottom and that it is an uphill climb to get out. at the white house, president obama meeta with vice president biden.

the president and his education secretary unveiling a new federal effort for public schools. that is our first issue on this friday morning. the plan includes in excess of $4 billion on federal funds. we want to ask you if that will equal better schools. 202-737-0002, that is our line for democrats. 202-737-0001 for republicans. and for independents, 202-628- 0205. we'll hear from white house press secretary robert gibbs later in the hour. health care, front page above the fold in the post. "health reform deadline in doubt." 1 essence of that story is that not only with the senate not be -- not meet obama's time for passing a bill, but across the

capitol, -- more on that later in the morning, but the front page of "the washington post" has a story, the reporting of michael shear, $4 billion push for better schools. "president obama is leaning hard on the nation's schools, using the promise of more than $4 billion in federal aid in the threat of withholding it to strong arm the education establishment to accept more charter schools. if you go to "the washinton post" web site, there is an excerpt of the interview conducted by michael chiroux. "we are in the midst of a serious crisis and we are doing everything we need to do to do with the immediate short-term crisis, but there is a slow rolling crisis that was taken place before the financial crisis hit, and that was a health care system that was a drag on our economy, a lack of serious energy policies that would free ourselves from dependence on foreign oil, and an education system that used to be, bar none, the best in the

world and no longer is. so this is one of those foundation stones for long-term economic growth and we cannot afford to ignore it." let's hear from scot this morning, from taxes on the republican line. good morning. gcaller: good morning. i believe increased spending will help build new football fields in gyms, and the brick and mortar will be looking good. as far as s.a.t. scores, it will have not have one iota of effect on them. with all the spending on public education in the last 30 years, we have doubled it and we are still 14th and 17th in math and science in the world. competition is the only thing that is going to fix it. i do not care how much money you throw at it. host: how do you create competition in the school system? caller: vouchers. led the money follow the child

instead of the child following the money. host: joining us know is press secretary robert gibbs. guest: good morning, how're you. host: we will hear from the present this afternoon. when is this all about -- from the president this afternoon. what is this all about? guest: this is an incentive for school districts to get involved in the reform effort that the president and secretary duncan have been spearheading since coming to washington. i third you heard that last caller talk about something the president believes in. reform cannot just be about more money, it cannot be an either /or. we need to provide incentives for people that we all know will improve our education system. host: questions come from a number of white house reporters is whether or not this president is taking on two month -- too much with education dominating

the headlines. how do you respond to that? guest: if some went like to tell him what he should give up thinking about coming improving our education system, getting our economy back on track, worrying about nuclear-weapons in the world, how'd we make sure that health care is affordable for families -- if somebody could point out an issue that they think is not that important that he is working on, he would certainly be happy not to do it. but, steve, the real thing is all those issues are playing a big part in people's everyday lives. it is all about our safety and security and our long-term economic growth. that is what the president is focused most on. host: let me turn to the headlines this morning. "of the politico" saying, "blown deadline, blown chance?" there is been a lot of talk that the month of august could derail efforts as lobbying efforts

against the president could change the dynamics on all this. guest: look, steve, for 40 years, the special interests have beaten back efforts to make our health care system more affordable for working americans. i do not anticipate this august will be any different, but i do not think it will be any different from this july or this april. we know the forces aligned against making sure that people can get affordable coverage, aligned against making sure that families do not see their premiums double every nine years. we know what those forces are. we know the forces that discriminate against people that have a pre-existing condition that cannot allow them to get health insurance. the president, though, is focused on ensuring the american people know what is at stake because it is important for the american people to understand that this is what we get if we do nothing on health care, ok? you risk losing your health insurance, you risk being discriminated against if someone in your family has a pre- existing condition.

your premiums will go up, and they will double in nine years. so if people are comfortable with doing nothing, then that is the status quo, and obviously you have seen reports in the media of people on capitol hill that are seemingly comfortable with rising health care premiums, people getting kicked off, and people getting discriminated against by insurance companies. the president has a different idea and he will fight throughout august and the remainder of the fall to the reform. host: we are going to hear from some of our viewers on these issues, and then i want to talk about your own background and your job as white house press secretary. ryan is on the phone from seattle. caller: my question might seem silly, but it is very serious. there is a movement right now of hundreds of colonels and ex cia- officials who are demanding that the obama administration live up to its promise of transparency and let the american people know the truth

about the existence of ufo's. dr. mitchell, an american hero who walked on the moon, came out in the past year making some statements that he had it confirmed to him that the rossel crash indeed was not from -- the roswell crash was indeed not -- when are you going to -- will you please, on behalf of all the citizens and americans ask obama and talk to him about making a statement and addressing this issue? host: we will get a response. robert gibbs? guest: i.t. to question seriously not simply because of the topic but also because if -- i take your question seriously,

not simply because of the topic, but also because if you are in seattle is just a little after 4:00 in the morning there. i have not been briefed on whether or not there is the existence of u.s. those -- of ufo's. i know the president is deeply concerned about ensuring that we have transparency in government and the american people have faith in what its government is trying to do. host: we will hear from syria joining us from illinois. good morning to you. -- from cecelia. caller: i worked for a year for the campaign from getting mr. obama elected, and i was just wondering -- i was wondering -- i spent 10 months trying to figure health care reform, and over $500 billion committee savings that they could do as far as overhauling medicare and medicaid, the gas tax, that

would be 1.2 trillion -- a 1.2 trillion dollar savings. between $600,000,000,000.599 $20 billion, and if you'd do increase taxes on billionaires', that is another $310 billion, which would be more than enough to provide people with health insurance, as well as give subsidies for small business. to pay for health care for their employees. host: robert gibbs come up on that point and just the larger issue of how you pay for this health care reform, her specific suggestion of tax increases -- what do you think? guest: let me thank her for her work in the campaign and helping

us get to where we are and also to talk a little bit seriously about the issue that she is clearly dealing with, and that is a lack of health insurance in this country. 14,000 people lose their health insurance every day, and 46 million americans are currently uninsured in this country. what she brings up is how do we get to a system where we can offer affordable, quality health insurance for each and every american? the first thing that the president is doing, that is looking for a long-term cost savings in the system. we cannot simply continue to fund year after year after year a system that we know is not working for the american people. the best statistic the president uses is our country, unlike any other developed country in the world, spends twice as much on health care for less quality. nobody in their right mind would pay twice as much for a car that was not working as well if they could do something differently, so we have to look for savings in the system, primarily in

medicare and medicaid, while ensuring the quality of benefits that have been promised to our seniors. secondly, there will be some revenue that has to be raised in order to pay for comprehensive health-care reform. the president has laid out a series of ideas including changing taxable deductions for the very wealthy to a rate of where it was under the reagan presidency. he has to ensure that this is an effort that should not be funded by the middle class through additional taxes, and that is why he will not raise taxes on those making $250,000 and less. host: there is an editorial from "the wall street journal." one part of it reads this way, "mr. obama is backing himself into a corner by insisting on the false political dilemma of either doing nothing or putting the u.s. health care into government hawk.

-- into government hock. failing to pass anything and damaging his presidency. guest: you have to give it to the writers of the "wall street journal" editorial page. they would get an a for creative writing. look, it is hard to address so many myths that are crammed into one jammed, run on sentence. but i think obviously this president understands that if we do nothing -- and let's understand exactly what i mean by that. for 40 years we have had this debate, steve. the president spoke to the doctors in chicago a couple of months ago or six weeks ago and talked about an article that was in a magazine discussing health reform in the 1960's. they were having the same debates we are having today because the special interests -- and this is what "the wall

street journal" knows -- the special interests are trying to ensure that health reform does not happen. let's understand what doing nothing does. it is what i said a minute ago. it means your premiums will go up. it means that your deductibles will go up. it means you risk losing your health insurance. if you change your job, you will not be able to be guaranteed that you can take an insurance with you. god forbid if you were to lose your insurance with your job, if somebody was sticking your family, you might not get health insurance through your next employer because the insurer could say that was a pre- existing condition. none of those things make any sense in a country that we call america. the president is looking to reform that. host: the president was in chicago last night. what time did you get back this morning? guest: idot back to my house at 1:00 a.m. -- i got back to my house at 1:00 a.m.

we landed at about 12:30. the president got back to chicago, which he has been to only a couple of times in january. we were later than normal because he'd stop -- because he decided to stop by his house and have dinner with a couple of friends inside of it. i think he got nostalgic for his home in chicago. host: what is the schedule like for you. you got back at 1:00 and are here with us at 7:00 this morning, which we appreciate. guest: i was at the gym a little earlier, then doing some reading before i came out here. my night will probably and rte. 7:30 or 8:00 tonight before i go home -- around 7:30 or 8:00 tonight before i go home for a tradition with my son for pizza and movie night. host: janet is on the phone from michigan. good morning, with robert gibbs,

white house press secretary. good morning, janet. caller: good morning. guest: good morning, how are you. caller: i would like to address the education problem to the president always speaks of choice, and yet his own children have a choice. they go to a private school. the voucher system has proved to be extremely successful. many, many parents choose the voucher system to send their children to a charter school, and now our president no longer wants us to even have a voucher system. why do we not have the parents -- the parents and children do not have the choice. they are stuck with a public school system that is not good. host: we will get a response. guest: let's talk for a second. your caller mentioned needing a voucher to go to a charter school. there are thousands of public

charter schools all over this country, and there are many in illinois based on the efforts of state senator barack obama to institute and expand the number of charter schools in illinois. something he liked to see throughout this country. the question we have to ask ourselves when it relates to vouchers is, are we going to give somebody $1,000 voucher for a $10,000 education? that is simply not going to work. we should not be taking all of our resources out of public education. we should figure out how to fix our public education system so we can compete in the 21st century by having a work force led by students that have received the best education in math and science as anybody has in the world. host: sherry is joining us from kansas city, missouri, on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i just had a couple of

statements and a question. i have a good insurance, but i am getting killed by copays. i am a professional but i am in the mental health field, so i do not make much money. i need health reform. a couple of these other people calling in about the system with medicare -- well, that is a government program. but the question i have is, we need to really let the public know the amount of money the private insurance companies are making. i think it was nation-something in sharon's, an enormous profit. -- insurance -- an enormous profit. there is no competition. and the republicans keep quoting

a group that is a subsidiary of the insurance companies, so it is a biased report. we need to let people know they are being scammed. thank you. host: thank you for the call. robert gibbs? guest: i think she touched on a problem that faces, in all honesty, the majority of americans. they are lucky enough to have health insurance. it is just that every year there out of pocket expenses in the money they pay just to be insured goes up three times faster than their wages go up. that is why their insurance premiums double every nine years. what the president wants to do is put in cost containment, work with the stakeholders to ensure that we do not see skyrocketing costs for families and small businesses. she mentions insurance companies now are doing well. a lot of them are announcing big profits, and a lot of them are

also announcing greater increases in those premiums and deductibles. we have to make sure that health insurance and our whole system works for everyday, average working people that do not see their premiums skyrocket every year. host: we have the tweet. by the way, are you personally tutoring? twittering? guest: know, for some reason, twitter is blocked on white house computers. i think people have a good sense of what i am doing,-twittering. host: how do you prepare for the daily briefing? guest: i have a great staff of people that work for me. there is an assistant press secretary who is probably sitting at his desk right now going through newspapers and puts together a new book on all

of the pressing issues of the day. we have a series of staff meetings to bring you up to speed on what is going on in the administration, and then usually about midmorning, mid to late morning, we spend a couple of hours with the health-care team, with the supreme court team if that is something that is going on, the economic team, going through issues of the day, going to possible issues that could come up in the briefing. sometime in the early afternoon, we go out there and answer a few questions. host: your predecessor, michael curry, said you are -- your office is 50 feet from the briefing room and 50 feet from the oval office. guest: you are an advocate for the president of the united states as his spokesperson, but you are also an advocate for the working press in that building for those who work in the white house. so each and every day you have

to wear that dual hat. you have to be an honest broker for those that cover the white house, as well as you have to be honest about conveying to them information about the decision making that the president and his team are undergoing each time. host: we're looking at a view inside the office. is this pretty typical of the west wing offices? guest: hopefully most west wing offices are cleaner than mine, steve. i might be a little embarrassed that you came into my office and i had not had a chance to clean it. host: when did you first meet barack obama? guest: i met him in april of 2004. he had just one -- he had just won the democratic nomination for the u.s. senate seat in illinois, and he was interested in hiring a communications director, and i interviewed him here in washington. -- i interviewed with him here in washington. host: can you give our audience

a background on where you are from and how you got involved in politics? guest: i was born and raised in auburn, alabama. i got involved in politics largely because of my parents. some of my early political memories are my mother being a member of the league of women voters. i would tell you at that point my brother and i felt like we were being dragged from voter registration drive to voter registration drive. i had a renewed interest in politics when i got to the nc state in raleigh, north carolina, where i got a degree in political science. i didn't intend to put a congressman from my home district in it -- i did an internship with a congressman from my home district in north carolina. i decided i wanted to go into politics, public service, and try to work in washington. host: robert gibbs is the white house press secretary. thank you for spending a few minutes with us here on c-span.

come back again. the president will be outlining his specifics on the education plan later today. we of course will be covering that. we want to go back to that for the next half-hour, but we want to turn our attention to an issue that many of you have brought up, the issue of health care. that is what federal workers, specifically, what congress receives. there is a chart this morning inside "the washinton post" that looks for various options of federal workers and congress. we are joined by john from usa today. what do members of congress get, and who pays for it? guest: i think a lot of people are surprised to find out that in terms of health insurance, members of congress get exactly what federal workers get, which, you know, while good, it is not

some cadillac style plan. in fact, it is pretty much the same as what a lot of folks get across the country, and so in terms of health insurance, like a lot of employees who work for larger companies, every year they look at a range of different plans and sort of choose between them. these plans, like plants all across the country, have premiums that members pay -- like plans at all across the country, have premiums that members pay. in some cases, it is better. in other cases, it is not quite as good. for instance, nationally, the average that an employer pays for a premium -- in other words, the percentage of the premium that an employer pays is about 73%. in the federal plan, it is

about 69%. in some ways it is better, in some ways it is not as good. it is certainly not some cadillac-style plan. host: the chart in the washington post also points out that there are as many as 23 different plans that senators and house members can choose from. guest: he asked, it is a pretty wide range. that is exactly right. the office of personnel management, they say they do not keep track of how many members of congress are in each of these various plans. however, the plan that gets talked about the most in the plant that i think is pretty important because -- and the plan that i think is pretty important because of their standards, they are talking about a bluecross blueshield pp ago, called the standard plan.

while we do not know how many members of congress are in that, we know is by far the most popular of all the plans being offered. host: let me follow also again -- again, these are some of the questions from our viewers. the members of congress pay into the plan if you work for a private employer there is not only a copiague, but part of your paycheck goes to supplement -- host: pay, but part of your plan goes to supplement what an employer pays. guest: of the premium charged by the federal standard bluecross blueshield plant is about $12,000, if i remember correctly. that of course is going up every year. they pay again. they pay about 30% of that premium out of their paycheck. it adds a little bit less, but

it is about standard if you look at the national averages that are sort of figured out by the carter family foundation, which does a service -- a survey each year. a split of what employees pay and what employers pay. this federal bluecross blueshield plan is about in line with what folks are paying. they do pay into the system. host: we're talking with john fritze of usa today. finally, when our viewers say give us the same plan that you have as members of congress, is that doable on a federal level? guest: that is a great question, and i want to say one other thing before i go, and that is that there are, as one person described it to me, members of congress get what federal workers get, plus.

there are some perks as well. for instance, there is a doctor in the capital. members pay a small fee, i think it is a few hundred dollars a year for access to an on-site physician. they can visit whenever the need to without an appointment. they can walk in. and they also do get treatment at the medical hospitals around washington, the naval center in bethesda and walter reed. there are some additional perks, you know, as president obama noted during his press conference the other day. he has a doctor following an 24/7. members of congress cannot quite get that, but they do have some perks that are above and beyond just the health insurance plan, and that is what makes it a little bit more special. in terms of extending what they get across the country, you know, that is to be determined,

obviously. it is important to have a sense of what members of congress get not just because is interesting, but also because lawmakers are talking about setting standards in places, looking at what members of congress get. so it is an important issue to understand. host: finally, let me ask you about the news from yesterday, the story that you posted online, and it is also in "usa today." when asked about the arbitrary deadline in august, and the president saying, "that is okay, i just want people to keep working on it come to know what does that tell you about the deadline? guest: it did not seem to be a surprise to anyone. the fact that senate majority leader harry reid, the senate is going to obviously make news for everyone. it is troubling with this

deadline -- they have been struggling with this deadline for a long time, so what they say is they are going to take the next few weeks, the sort of ad time that they have now, and try to figure out -- no, first of all, whenever they are going to see out of the finance committee and merge it with the senate health committee, what it has already approved. i do not think it was a huge surprise that this happened. i heard someone say last night that the issue may have been that this sort of became president obama's deadline rather than just a deadline for members of congress. so it takes on an added significance. therefore. but we will have to wait and see what they will do over time. host: we have been talking to john fritze this morning. in "the washinton post," a look at members of congress, what

they receive in terms of health care. john, thanks for being with us. guest: thanks for having me on. de host: we want to turn back to the issue of education. the president and his education secretary, duncan, will be discussing at this afternoon later this afternoon in washington. the headline in "the washinton post, cote "a $4 billion push for better schools." "president obama is leaning hard on the nation's schools using the promise of $4 billion in federal aid, and the threat of withholding it to strong arm the education establishment to accept more charter schools and performance pay for teachers." there is also a related pieces morning in "the washinton post" by ernie duncan. the question is whether or not more money will equal better schools.

202-737-0002, our line for democrats. 202-737-0001 are lined for our -- are line for republicans. let's go to dave, joining us on the phone from michigan. good morning, on the republican line. caller: yes. before john kennedy got into the presidency, the nation was educated primarily with private schools -- catholic schools and other religious schools. and the public school was like a place where the bad kids went. but john kennedy got in and took away the tax breaks and everything that the private schools got, and we invested in the public-school system, and it has been a big failure. and mr. gibbs, the statement that it is the best science and math education in the world, is dead wrong. we are dead last in education in

the industrialized world. i felt that that, and needed to be corrected. i think that we would do well in thinking about investing our money back into the private school systems because when we did we went to the moon and we were very successful in our school system. now we are failures. host: thank you for the call. the story this morning also inside "usa today," the white house is calling this the race to the top fund. along with the $100 billion for stimulus funds for public schools and universities, to qualify, states must commit to 19 detailed criteria including academic standards, the rescue of struggling schools and establishment of more charter schools, and alternative pathways for aspiring educators

and performance-based pay. bill joins us. good morning. caller: i think the charter school system is simply designed to brighten the unions. i do not think it is as -- it has not proven to be as beneficial as what they claim they should be. i think it is simply to do that. one other thing i would like to add, though. in one county in virginia, tomorrow, this weekend, there is a non-profit organization that is holding a medical triage for thousands of people in the virginia area, west virginia area, and everything. and obama should go to that instead of going to a clinic in ohio where the people have

health care. these people do not have any access to health care, and obama needs to go and see these thousands of people being treated with health care the same as they would in the third world, because basically that is what is going on in rural virginia and west virginia, tennessee, is third-world medicine. host: bill, what is your background on this issue? guest: i heard about this on democracy now!, the only place you would hear about such a thing. the president really needs to go down to wise county, virginia, and checked himself because this is the backbone of our country, how they get their medical aid because there is no health care for them. host: we just heard it now here on this network, so things for passing them along to our viewers. charles is on the phone from richmond, virginia.

good morning, from the republican line. do you think $4 billion in federal funds will result in better schools? caller: well, the education thing depends more on the dedication of the teachers. you can put all the money you want into it. if you put it into your so- called private schools in your kids' grades will probably be higher because it is an artificial thing because, what they are going to do is make it look better. they will make the grades look good, and you can say, well, the kids are doing better because they are private schools. it will always look better there. i am an old guy, and i went to a segregated school back in the 1960's, and i will tell you what happened. we had teachers that were truly

dedicated to our education, and they always talked about what we had and what we did not have. we had old books. the point about books is that we did not worry about how old books are. we opened them and read them. politics are now so much involved until i was listening to public radio yesterday, and this guy who used to be in richmond -- right now he is in detroit and his school system -- i do not want to call his name, but he was in richmond. politics is so involved, and so is money involved. can i speak on one more thing, too? host: absolutely, go ahead, charles.

caller: i am also a retired federal employee. i still have my health insurance. i was offered, when i started drawing social security, for 80 bucks more, you get medicare and all this coverage. i elected not to because i already have might government insurance. we have a group, it is called a group. basically what happens is it is fairly efficient. the way that money is made in the united states is through waist. host: household, waste, though. -- how so, waste, though? guest: the waste of money is profit in somebody's pocket.

realistically speaking, i am a republican and i believe in the republican ideology. but the deal is democrats and republicans, the insurance companies have got a lot of money. we cannot compete with them. we can vote for these people, but the politicians need the money, so they have to walk a truck line. host: charles, thanks for the call for richmond. this week saying, "for performance pay in schools, can schools offered more two- parent?" caller: good morning. please give me the same credit to other -- to me that you give to other callers to make my point. i am a retired teacher. i want to state -- the charter schools have proven that their

test schools -- that their test scores are no better than our test scores. ok, that is number one. vouchers, number two. the vouchers -- certainly we need more money in the school, but when you get the vouchers, who takes advantage of it? the people who have money. what happens -- and i know what i am talking about because my sister in all work in one of these private schools. they raise their tuition. the tuition can be 4000, $5,000. well, the poor children cannot afford it. so what does it do? it helps the better off go to the schools. host: so what would you propose, then? caller: i propose -- it is really sad to say this, but we

need to have just qualified teachers, teachers in their field, and give the teachers the resources to teach the children. now, i was a lucky teacher because i talk to students in the public schools. my students scored outstanding. but what they do when they said they wanted merit pay for outstanding teachers -- no, that is not fair either because just like i taught better students, naturally, my students were going to score higher than the teachers that got the students that woere c's and d's. host: how many years did you teach? caller: 30 years. i was a high-school teacher. i could teach seventh 312.

host: "to every governor who aspires to be his state's education governor, this is our moment. president obama is to announce the draft guidelines for applying for the $3.5 billion race to the top fund, by far what he is calling the largest pot of discretionary funding for k through 12 education reform in the history of united states. he has a couple of points i will share with you. under the guidelines, to reverse the pervasive dumbing down of academic standards and assessments by states, raced to the top winners need to work toward adopting common, initially benchmark k through 12 standards that prepare students for success in college into arrears, and to close the data gaps for tracking growth in student learning and improving classroom instruction and the states will need to monitor advances in student achievement

and identify effective instructional practices." we will have coverage of the president's announcement later today. lee roberts with his tweet saying that "is $4 billion means the fed will the costs of mentioning special education kids, it will make a huge difference. palm beach, florida, good morning. caller: good morning. great. we really need to work on the education system because we cannot pare down the education system and make it easy for everybody to pass. that is very important. the teachers need to get paid properly in a system that attracts good teachers, also. you need to give them a reason to want to try really hard and be a good teacher. even things like -- this may sound ridiculous, but sports brings a lot of money to schools. host: sure.

caller: we need to create a real learning environment rather than having kids fly around and have sex and do crazy things. we need to control not just the environment in the school, but we need to teach our children and raise them and develop in a way that they want to go to school and learn and have that environment, and may be changing the schedule to make it easier for mom's or dad's out our people was working families to not hire so much baby care, child care, or babysitting to where the school can run the same hours as businesses. host: thank you for the call. inside "usa today," this photograph from the tomb of the unknowns at arlington national cemetery this is iraqi prime minister al-maliki meeting with the president on tuesday. as we said at the top of the

program, both secretary of state hillary clinton is back from her trip. and vice-president joe biden, who was in georgia, then a final stop in london before coming back to the u.s. today. he meets with president obama at the white house this morning. "afghan war is worthwhile, biden says in bbc interview." "mr. biden told the bbc that the lawless region along the afghan- pakistan border was a place that if it does not get straightened out, it will continue to wreak havoc on the united states. mr. biden said that in terms of the national interests of the u.s., the war is worth the effort we are making and the sacrifice that is being felt, and more will come. he did not comment specifically on the debate over british equipment being used in the war in afghanistan."

tom is on the phone from lake geneva, wisconsin. good morning. caller: i think our problem is most of our teachers in the inner city -- in milwaukee, they found out that teachers spend things on coffeepots, computers that they took home. i just wonder if we are just throwing bad money in for bad money and not just doing anything. are you going to be reporting on the police officer in cambridge? that is quite racial now, and the president mentioned it himself. i notice you have not read articles about that. host: it is " "obama, cop race storm." we talked about yesterday in terms of the president's response.

caller: it has become a lot more escalated since yesterday with the police officer saying that he is a professional man. he tried to save reggie lewis, giving him mouth to mouth resuscitation. he is a leader in teaching police officers about profiling. so what the president said just as not bode very well. it is almost like he is talking abofrom the -- h is " rich lowry and "the new york post," says, "how dumb for sticking his nose in this." caller: he is the president of all the people, not just one

race. thanks very much for your time. host: you brought up the issue, and the president did talk about yesterday, as "nightline" travel with him to ohio. here is what the president said to abc. >> i have to say i am surprised by the controversy surrounding my state and because i think it was pretty straightforward commentary that you probably do not need to handcuff a guy, a middle-aged men, who uses a cane, who is in his own home. now, what i do know is -- as i said last night, i do not know all the details to the case. i think i have extraordinary respect for the difficulties of the jobs that police officers do. bumy suspicion is that words whicwere exchanged between the

police officer and the professor. from what i can tell, the sergeant involved is an outstanding police officer. but my suspicion is that it probably would have been better if cooler heads prevailed. host: tom, from lake geneva, ohio, brought up the issue. so thanks very much. from new york, good morning. on the issue of federal funds, the president house plan that will be out later today. caller: i think $4 billion is a wonderful thing for people like bill gates, who will end up selling a lot of computers to better and up equipping the schools. my question is, does $4 billion in any way improve the quality of teachers? teachers these days are only spending half a year in school, spending half the day teaching.

then they pay more attention on getting their hair dressed on their brakes they getting steady time and so on. in new york city, where i lived all my life, it used to be a very stringent place. teachers used to have to speak english. you could not even be hired with an accent years ago. i certainly grew up in the public-school system where the teachers of that era were still of that quality. nowadays when i see teachers being interviewed on television, half of them cannot speak english. host: when you say without an accent, are you saying they could not teach a public schools? caller: if they had an accent, that is correct. an amusing story -- my mother was a graduate who was not

qualified to be a french teacher in the new york public schools. host: newt gingrich has penned an editorial called "fraud kaneing," taking aim at congresn henry waxman. and sherrod brown will join us to talk about health care and the economy. the editorial in "the national examiner," says "along, hot august for obama's health plan." "health plan stalls" on capitol hill. keyes joins us from los angeles. good morning. -- keith joins us from los angeles. caller: i do not think it is really going to help as far as what we really need to do.

i think it is the same when you look at how much money is spent on prisons and things of that nature. it seems like we do stuff backwards. instead of us taking -- i do not know an example -- a school system that works in another country or anywhere else, we are going to try to fix it. i know that there is a way that we can benefit from looking at education systems that are successful, and go ahead and implement that for the ones that are struggling. this throwing money out there is just throwing a lot of money held there. host: thanks for the call. this week from harvey caroled, jr.

perhaps halliburton can teach school. the front page of "the wall street journal," stocks recapture 9000 on a profit surprise. also this morning from the money section of "usa today," "rally hits optimist's versus the skeptics." and the perspective of alan blinder, the professor from princeton university -- he says, "the economy has hit bottom." "there is a reasonable chance, though not a certainty, that the second half of 2009 will surprise us on the upside. he also points out toward the end of his piece in the wall street journal, the bottom of the deep recession leaves the nation in a deep hole. it will take years of strong growth to return to full employment. so this conclusion from him.

"the good news is also the bad news. the economy is hitting bottom, but is a long uphill climb to get out." patricia is on the phone from alexandria, virginia, on the issue of $4 billion for education and schools. good morning, tricia. we will go to larry from east liverpool, ohio. good morning. caller: good morning. $4 billion for public schools defies simple logic. it will not help, in the simple reason is they have no -- and the simple reason is they have no competition. if you open up the market and let parents decide where and how they want their children educated, this post -- this puts the cost in. the former teacher from texas that cited the statistics saying that the private schools did not

do any better, i think that is kind of a dubious argument. when there is competition, that makes us spend our money better. with a school system that does not have any competition, they have no incentive to spend that $4 billion in a way that is going to produce better educated kids. host: which goes best -- which goes back to my question from before, how do you create an incentive? caller: open up the marketplace. it puts public schools and public educators into a position where they have to compete with other schools. that is how you would find out which ones are truly worth having the taxpayers' dollars. host: similar to what you are

saying, "schools will never get better until poverty is address." from richmond, virginia. good morning, welcome to the program. caller: thanks for taking my call. i would like to make a comment on one of the earlier issues concerning the situation that took place with the police officer and president obama. host: certainly. caller: it has everything to do with education. i think that being an african- american person and having dealt with some of the issues that they are actually dealing with with this particular issue, but would like to overcome some erroneous distinctions. first of all, it is not a black problem, it is an american problem because it affects not only blacks, but it affects

everybody when you have inequality, being exercised in the judicial system and also in our police system. so, that being said, it is erroneous distinction to say that it is a black problem. host: thank you for the call. this from sasha, who says, " public schools need competition, this is what health care needs -- public options." at asu, "cronkite mourned." the story this morning also inside the style section of " washington post," among those there, leading people from the

news. is available -- the services available on our website, c- span.org. lee is joining us from minnesota. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not think that $4 billion or $40 million is going to help our educational system. we have thrown money at this problem ever since integration when i was back in school in the 1960's. take the city that you are not in right now, for instance. washington, d.c., invested more money per capita, per student, and then anybody in the country, and they have the worst schools in the country. i am not sure that money has anything to do with this problem. mr. obama, i believe -- i hate to say this. i did not believe this when he ran. i argued with my wife about it because she believed this.

i believe mr. obama is a reverend wright in disguise. host: that is exactly what rush limbaugh said yesterday. you get that from mr. limbaugh? caller: no, i do not listen to rush limbaugh. host: that is the statement he made with greta van siste auster en last night. caller: i did not watched credit either last night. i watched c-span, -- i may be conservative, but i try not to look through the prism.

i try to be fair in my thinking. host: thank you for all of your calls this morning on health care and education, and a couple of calls on the situation in cambridge, massachusetts. i want to go back to the story on the front page of "the politico." . suddenly i find i cannot get

health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. and so, and going to have to close of my business and go back to doing something where i can get health insurance. those stories, everybody knows them. and one of the things i emphasized yesterday, the people do not maybe think about enough is, if all of that money is being eaten up in premiums, even if your employer is paying for them, guess what, that means that employer has less money to give you a raise. so you wonder why for the past 10 years wages and incomes have been flat. if you look on average, people have not gotten a raise. why is that? part of it is because it has all been taken up in increased health care costs, even if the companies were profitable. the group that understands this best for our folks who are members of unions.

the reason is, you guys go into negotiations, and your employer, even if they're well-meaning and want to cooperate with the union, they say, look, guys, i cannot afford to raise the hourly wage because look at what has happened to my health care rates. and your negotiation and sabine how much more of a -- ends up being how much more of a health care burden are you going to have to carry when you thought those benefits were locked interest that is why that is so important because it is taking money out of your pocket and is leading a lot of people in dire straits. >> center sherrod brown, democrat from ohio, we saw the president talking about the headlines this morning saying this deadline may be some missed opportunities. guest: the deadline the president set is that he wanted this bill in october, early november. we can still do that. a lot of us wanted to see it

passed each house in july or early august. frankly, the finance chair has not gotten his work done i think we passed a very good health insurance bill, a bill that protects what works in the system and fixes with broken. i think we are on the way. this is not a major setback. i wish we could move faster. and the people who have cautioned us to slow down are the same people that have killed health care for the last 40 years. they say slowdown, slowdown and if we wait until next year, it is that much harder because the interest groups way in more and more and there's a lot of money spent on lobbying after reinsurance and pharmaceuticals, higher than ever before. host: you have been around this town for a long time. will the amount efforts for what your side of the aisle is hoping for, some major changes? guest: there were going to mount those efforts in august anyway.

originally, they would try to pass it in july or early august and comeback in in september or october for both conferences to need and leaders in both houses meet and come up with a final plan. it always happens. the drug companies, the insurance companies, medical interests are much too pot -- powerful in this town. is going to the grass-roots activists, including people who were part of the obama campaign and a year ago who will be talking to their members of congress over august and september, too, and pushing us for a strong public auction, which senator white house and i wrote into the version of the bill a month ago. and other parts could put cost controls on this bill and all of that and i think we are on the way. host: part of the story is from the so-called blue dog democrats you serve with in the house of representatives. how much influence do they have on the house version, especially on the energy and commerce

committee? guest: is still a lot of unresolved questions -- there are still a lot of unresolved questions and how we pay for it, do they want to write the public auction? what do they do for employers who are not insuring their employees now? they might dump their employees on to the public auctiooption be republican party is a very narrowç ideological party, that is where they have such a small minority. the democrats are much broader. urban democrats and the northeast and california to more conservative southern democrats. if you look at the house republicans, more than 40% of them are from the old confederacy and border states. they're a much narrower party and they're always going to be disagreements with the democratic party. that is healthy and that is why

we win elections. it is difficult to govern, but nobody in the end -- i do not think anybody in congress who is a democrat wants to stand in the way of the most important domestic issue we have ever done in our careers. this is probably the most important vote i ever made was against the iraq war seven or eight years ago, but this is the second important vote i will likely ever cast, health care, because it is the most important thing we have tried to do since franklin roosevelt, really. host: put your own headline on this story? guest: my wife could do that. host: ok, a "billone deadline, blown chance" what is the story out of all of that? guest: very animated discussions within the caucus and in the senate -- in the senate, and i'm

sure there are the same discussions in the house. there's a much money at stake accurate there is so much history at stake, if you will. i think democrats all sense that. a better headline might be "deadline looms," because thinking of october to get to the president's desk will focus our minds. just like in school, ok, this test is tomorrow night and we have got to be ready. it is not a question of slowing down. we have been working on this, you could say, starting with roosevelt, certainly, with truman. johnson was finally successful. president clinton was not successful in the early 1990's, but it is something that we know well and have worked on and we have enough information. there is no reason to slow it down other than coming to agreement. i think we could have a bill to the president's desk in october

or early november. host: former congressman, current senator sheriff brown. we will get to your phone calls in just a moment -- senator sherrod brown. we will get your phone calls in just a moment. here is how a patient's rights are playing on the health care issue. >> some of congress's health care plans could squeeze you four ways. it could raise taxes by $600 billion, even taxing soda. it could have a trillion -- $1 trillion to the federal deficit. new rules could hike short interest premiums 95%. you still might end up on their government run health plan. tell congress you have been squeezed enough. say no to a government-run health plan. host: how would you respond to that? there is guest: nothing much to that. -- guest: there is nothing much to that.

what is always left out of this equation is what happens if we do nothing? what happens if we do nothing is small business continues to get overwhelmed by these costs. individuals lose their health insurance. 14,000 americans every day are losing their health insurance. 14,000 every single day, and conservative interest groups, funded usually by the drug companies and insurance companies and medical interest groups run ads like that, protecting their interests, protecting their profits. we end up continuing to spiral down in this health insurance ins -- health insurance system. taxpayers are spending twice as much as any of the country in the world per capita, get our life expectancy is not as good. our infant mortality and maternal mortality rates are higher than other rich industrial countries. the system is evidenced by the

president's trip back to cleveland. he could have seen that same kind of really good care. it is going to get worse if we do not do something and this really does give people a choice. nobody is going to be forced into a government-run plan. they would rather have increasing and -- increasing insurance at mastrodicasa @ 20% when -- administrative costs at 20%ç when it could be a 3%. we are giving people a choice. they can go into the public plan or any number of private plans. host: as part of the debate, this is a week from a regular viewer -- guest: no, there is no way this bill passes if it has -- if it taxes and insurance benefits. i will not vote for it and a number of members of both houses

who very much want health insurance reform will simply not vote for it if it taxes benefits. host: raleigh, n.c., mike is on the phone with senator sherrod brown of ohio. caller: what you just addressed was mining concern, the taxation of my health care benefits. so far, have not heard kathleen sebelius -- and i get e-mails from her because i'm very concerned about health care in our country, but there has not been a "no" by this lady on we will not do this. on the other side, i heard them talking about -- republicans were saying, choice, choice. my argument to that is, what choice do you have if you have health -- if you have no health care at all? guest: that is exactly right. first, kathleen sebelius, we met with her yesterday, a group of us. if she does not have a vote in

the senate or house, of course, and they answer is i will look you in the eye and look at the camera and say we will not tax health insurance benefits. i will not vote for a bill like that. a large number of -- a large number of us in both houses are saying that and doing that. there are other ways to do that. myrbc wife works for a newspaper and they just took a 12% pay cut at that newspaper. which means, they have gotten a raise from five years ago, basically. many people across the country have seen no raise in the past three or four years. we're not going to turn around and attacks their benefits so they have a loss in the last three or four years. -- and the attacks their benefits so they have a loss in the last three or four years. the congressman from virginia, he is the party of no. they are against everything. this is the same group that opposed the creation of medicare for years ago. if we had waited to get

republicans to pass it in 1965, we would have -- we would still be waiting. they do not think government should be involved. i think government has done a pretty good job with medicare. it is not prepared by a longshot, but everybody is going to get insurance and everybody is going to get a choice. if you're happy with the entrance to have now, keep it, and it will not be taxed. if you are dissatisfied and do not have insurance at all, you can choose at now or in ohio, you can choose a mutual medical or blue cross or any one of those. host: ann is on the phone from katy, texas. caller: i just have this comment. i am a republican. i am -- i am privately insured, but using the president's argument that those of us with private insurance or those of us

paying taxes, that we are already paying for those who are under insured and uninsured, i would just be more respectful if either party, republican or democrat, would come out and say the only reasonable, the only rational answer is the single payer. dennis kucinich -- i would not have even voted for dennis kucinich. he is the one that makes the most sense. there is no way that private insurance can continue to cover those who are underinsured or uninsured, or the fact that it is taxpayer dollars better -- that is paying for medicare anyway. guest: that is a good point. i do not disagree with you about that, but single payer or medicare is off the table. it is not being discussed. the president is not supporting it. it is barely debated. the other point you made, that you have private insurance --

you, three or private insurance and for your taxes are paying for people who are uninsured to go to the emergency room or hospital or whatever because somebody has got to pay for that, so they are cost shifting. the hospital needs to collect more money for it -- from you in order to pay for the uninsured. that is why insuring everyone makes some sense. everyone in the system and the insurance you have nowç is no longer paying for those who are uninsured. there will be some subsidies and all of that for those who are uninsured, but if everyone is in the insurance pool, it works better for everybody. that is why the president argues that if we do get everybody covered under his plan or the plan that we passed in the health committee, you end up able to stabilize, maybe even reduced, premiums for the -- for those who are privately insured. those who are no longer under your care help to pay for the care of others. host: diana e-mails in and says

-- guest: it is frustrating. it is frustrating if you're watching from the outside or if you are part of it on the inside. we had a major debate in my committee on something called biologics, the most expensive drugs, drugs that are $70,000 -- up to $70,000 per year for patients. their lives cell organisms that develop into very expensive and effective treatments for rheumatoid arthritis and cancer is an ms -- and cancer and ms and others. we always been the debate and

lose the vote on trying to rein those prices in. host: how they show their power? guest: they show their power -- every time we have tried, senator mccain had an amendment on real importation that would allow u.s. retailers to go on the world market, but go to countries that safely regulate their drugs to buy them because they are cheaper in those countries because they have a better group way of buying -- of negotiating with the drug companies. my amendment to allow generics to put competition into the sale of these biologic drugs, these $20,000, $50,000 per year drugs was defeated overwhelmingly in large part because of the power of pharmaceutical companies. they spend more money lobbying than almost anybody else. it continues to be a battle and it is frustrating from the outside, but it is also -- we still wrote a good bill and this

committee and we are still on track. if our bill would go straight to the president, if we get a bill like ours, i think people would be very satisfied with how we have reform in this house and -- health insurance system. host: but drug companies argue that they need that monopoly to pay back the investment in these drugs. guest: they make that argument all the time, but the only non- drug study shows that if you want to make your money back, you do not give a monopoly for 10 years. they do not get a full patent time because part of the time is approval process. but even if they get seven or eight years, they get monopoly protections that nobody can compete with them. nobody has the protection of that length anywhere in our entire economic system. not even the pharmaceutical companies on the so-called chemical drugs, let alone anyone else in any other industry. nobody has the kind of monopoly protection that congress is

trying to give to these biologic drug companies. it is outrageous. host: next is george from western kenya. good morning. caller: -- from west virginia. good morning. caller: good morning, what i'm wondering is if democrats have controlled the house and the senate and the president is on board with healthcare that we cannot get this passed? guest: that is a very good question. it is mostly because of the democrats do not agree at this point. we passed a strong bill in one of the committees in the senate. the other committee, the goal of the chairman is to get bipartisan support. i do not think he can get bipartisan support on a bill that the american people are one to want. to get bipartisan support you need to, frankly, if i can speak bluntly, he need to make too many concessions to the drug companies and insurance companies and other medical interest to get strong bipartisan support because of

the influence that the drug companies and insurance companies have with rank-and- file republican members of congress. not rank-and-file republicans in mansfield, but those that sit in the senate. every democrat is going to have to step up and say, we are one to doç this bill right. bipartisan is a great thing. i want to get bipartisan support, but the most important thing is to get a good, strong bill with a strong public option with class controls we do not keep overpaying insurance companies and drug companies. we write the rules strongly so no longer can the insurance companies gain the system with pre-existing conditions and the discrimination they do to push people that might be too expensive for them to cover out of the health care system. all of those things we need to do and democrats need to step up in the next six weeks. history is going to address the

president and a house on whether we write a good strong health insurance reform bill. we did it in the education and labor and pension committee with chairman dodd. the rest of the senate has not yet done it. the rest of the house is most of their, but not yet. but they're going to get there. host: let me put some numbers on the screen and discuss the economy. in june of last year, 6.4%. this year, 11.1%. the nationwide average at 9.5% and expected to reach double digits later this year. in your home state in particular, toledo with a -- an unemployed rate of 14.2% and cleveland and cincinnati with just over 10% will this be a jobless recovery? guest: i think people are concerned about this. we are not even close to recovery yet. i think we need to focus more on what creates jobs. to me, everything is about jobs, whether it is the climate change

billboard which i think can help us go in -- the climate change bill which i think can help is going to be much more successful with alternative energy. toledo has more jobs in alternative energy than any city in america. just off the coast of downtown cleveland there is going to be probably the first field of wind turbines of anywhere with fresh water in the whole world. there are some soft ones in europe, but i think the economy is better prepared 1980 -- then in 1981. -- is better prepared than in 1981, in that recession. if we had not have allowed the president bush asked for the autos, i think we would be in worse shape. we're beginning to see some good signs, but we're not where we need to be on jobs especially. host: karen is on the phone from

branford, conn., good morning, independent line. caller: good morning, senator. on health care, let me give you two examples -- so many people are on medicaid and that is going to bankrupt the states. let's say, i have a $1 million payroll and i have 20 employees and i'm paying 12 million -- $12,000 per year for health insurance for my employees. that is to order $40,000 per year in interest i'm paying. -- $240,000 per year in insurance i'm paying. under dodd's plan, there will be a penalty of 8% if i do not provide health care coverage for my employees. that is $80,000 per year. i'm paying to hundred $40,000 for my health care costs. why don't i just put them on the government plan that you are

going to have and i will save $160,000? guest: two things. one, the house bill has the 8% that came out of german dots committee and i think the german dodd day -- chairman dog did a great job of representing all of us -- chairman dodd did a great job of presenting all of us in his bill. what happened in massachusetts is that they did not dump their employees, even though the penalty was significantly less than 8% of payroll if they did not insure their employees. there are other reasons employers provide health insurance. some are going to do that. but most understand that it is good for morale to offer health insurance, to attract good employees. if employers would think in terms of dumping their employees, and they would have -- if they're offering and

decent health insurance, they would have a bit of a bull on their hands. there are softer issues rather than just the economic bottom line on white employers -- on why employers insure their employees. the experience in massachusetts shows that is not likely toc happen with very many people and for those that it does, there will be a decent government plan that gives them the option of private or public and they will still have insurance. the goal is a competitive economy where jobs are always the bottom line. and to offer -- but to offer one in this country health insurance. host: jim sent in a tweet that public auction = sin appeared on the route -- down the road. guest: that is not the truth. it is all exactly what they have said about medicare, about social security 75 years ago. the fact is, we will set up in

-- set up a public auction to keep the insurance companies on this. i know of almost nobody that does not have someone in their family or a close friend does not battle with the insurance companies at one time or another in their lives on health insurance. what putting in this public auction wiloption will do, oncep and running, they will pay back any federal dollars that they used to get it up and running and then we will not put any pay back into the system so that people choose public over private. but we know that private insurance companies are not used to doing all the things they do to keep from insuring people that might be expensive to them. but putting the public option in their will make them honest and make them compete. we are not pushing people into the public option. people have a choice.

i do not get it, i thought conservatives like competition. they do not like an -- competition? host: good morning from new york on the republican line. guestcaller: if you politiciansd pass tort reform, you could save 20% on health care. you speak about the pharmaceutical lobbyists. what about the yen iunions? the reason you would not vote for -- host: in the washington times, tort reform would save tens of millions of dollars. obama bree not a word about the issue in the full hour of his health care news conference.

guest: yeah, i hear eric say that you could save 20%. i've never heard that number. i've heard a lot of exaggerated numbers, but the fact is, is a small percent. some states have tried various kinds of caps and caps hurt most in the medical system. i simply do not think it worked and i do not think they are fair. i think there are some legal reforms we can do in this bill, there are things people are looking at. the second part of your question, about the unions, actually, you do not know me. you can make an action -- accusation like and it is simply not true. i mentioned to where my wife works and it has happened all over the country, people have seen the rich get richer and the people on top get wealthier and what -- wealthier. the broad middle class, a 90% below the top 10% have not seen a raise in the last bush years.

i know you do not like to see that as a conservative, but the fact is, in the last decade, people have not gotten races. i will be darned if people who have not gotten raises in the past 10 years of to have their health benefits taxed. it hits keep union members hard because they have given up wages today in order to have health insurance and pensions. that is where union negotiations have become, we will take less wages to date, but we want health care will retire -- health care now and health care will retire and we want a pension later. that is the deal that they made with their employer and we should not undercut that deal. but it is way more than the union members. is the broad middle class that has gotten squeezed because of the tax cuts for the rich, because of the iraq war, because of the deregulation -- conservatives were shoved at this altar of deregulation that got us into this -- were

shipped at this altar of the regulation that got us into this. host: besides the obvious, you are one of 100, vs. 435. what is the biggestç difference between each side of the capitol? guest: the biggest difference is that as a senator, your staff is big enough and skilled enough. incredible is what i see when i sit around our staff meetings once a week with a couple of dozen people in my office network in washington, and in ohio, too. we are able to address some in a different things at once because -- i am not complaining. i love this job, but it is a hard time to be in the senate and represent a state like ohio because every day in mansfield, my hometown there is the most efficient gm plant in all of north america and they say they are going to shut down. we're fighting it and every day there is an issue like that,

but through everything that is happening good and bad, we're trying to work with local people and partner with governor strickland and work with local groups and businesses. i have done about 150 round tables in each of the 88 counties talking directly to people where i do -- very little of the talking and they can tell me what we can do together in this state. it is an opportunity to pinch myself that i can work across the street from where the big dome is. i still get a thrill from seeing that big dome and that i get to do this. host: j. is on the phone from florida. caller: i do not know what all is taken out of the lottery', bt why can't more money be taken out of there to support health and also to support the school system? guest: that is a question i've heard my entire career, and i

know in ohio where will have a lottery, the proceeds under law for the lottery go to the state education funds as part of the state's education for primary and secondary education. not to higher education, if remember right. but it is a lot of money in terms of the whole state budget -- but is not a lot of money in terms of the whole state budget, i believe it is 10%. it goes there, but it does not answer nearly all the problems that we have in education, let alone anything else. but i think in most states, the lottery funds are dedicated usually to the schools, were mostly to the schools. but they fall short even on that. host: as the health care debate continues, what ultimately do think will happen? guest: i think we will get a bill similar to what happened in the house education and pension committee. everybody has insurance, strong reforms, and a public auctioopto keep the insurance companies on

this. the companies will pay if they do not insure their employees and i think allow much better cost containment where we don't have the kind of over testing, overbilling waste that this system has had. if you are in the system, you can still get good insurance and good health care, but even so, we spend twice as much as anybody else and the american people deserve a lot more for the money we spend. host: with the congressional budget office is, it will cost the nexus is over $1 trillion. you agree with that? guest: i agree in terms of an out light of dollars, but what is going to happen -- an outlay of dollars, board is going to happen in this legislation that senator harkin has big role in, we're going to see cost savings. the congressional budget office does not "secours" these

savings, but we're -- does not "score" these savings, but you will see a cutting down of patients being checked back into the hospital or cutting down on hospital infections and medical errors that kill people and make people sicker and cost us a lot more money. five or six years from now you will see that really taking off. plus, they're talking about a $1 trillion increase -- we now spend about $1 trillion on health care. it is an increase. we voted on a $60 billion defense bill last night. this is $100 billion extra over 10 years. -- per year over 10 years.

but i think we will save because we have not gotten enough for it in the past. host: thanks for joining us coming up -- thanks for joining us. coming up, newt gingrich. "washington journal" continues on this friday morning. we are back in just a minute. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> the economy and afghanistan. in his final news conference beforeament's summer break, sunday night on c-span. >> see an extended interview with the late frank mccourt talking about his pulitzer prize-winning book, "angeles ashes." at a saturday -- that is saturday on c-span on "book tv ." >> gynnae at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. this weekend on afterwards, using candid camera, author

harry stein tells how his life has changed since crossing the political spectrum from left to right. for the entire schedule, go to booktv.org. host: we want to welcome back new gingrich, former speaker of the house and author of his latest book, "wiehl change." that began with what was said in the washington examiner. a fraud and abuse cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars a year, more than enough to pay for high-quality insurance for every uninsured in america, but you say, for whatever reason, congress ignores this mass of pot of money, powerful help and insurance commerce committee henry waxman in particular. why so? guest: congressman waxman has been involved in these issues since the 1970's. all that time, there has never been a serious, methodical effort to approve -- and improve

the amount of fraud we have with medicaid and medicare. the "new york times" has estimated -- i am not talking about waste -- people who are thieves have stolen about 10% of new york medicaid. it is about $4 billion a year in new york alone, in medicaid alone. i will give you two examples. in new york state, there was a dentist who was following -- filing 982 procedures per day. nobody disputes that is theft. there was a dental office in brooklyn where somebody stood up front and said, if you will loan us your medicaid card for 30 seconds so we can do an imprint, we will give you a free dvd player. that is plain theft. in south florida, they found five pizza parlors which had applied to the federal government to be hiv aids transfusion centers and we're getting paid for hiv/aids

transfusions even though they were a pizza parlor. terry williams, the head of the center for medicaid and medicare services, told me in december about a case that he does run a cross -- ran across where a patient -- a doctor filed four colonoscopy is on vacation in the same day. i hope that is fraud. there is a new book out of the product and out and in hard cover in late august called "stopped paying the crooks" and it has 13, authors and it outlined systematically how we can save money on fraud and basically theft in medicare and medicaid. host: let me go back to that specifically because you take aim at congressman waxman in the together. -- in particular.

guest: start with a simple fact, when you hear someone telling you that the government is a very low-cost administrator, had been the cost of that, and in fact the government is the most administrator of health care in the united states. but what they do is they pay anyone who sends a claim inaccurate -- a claim in. the billions of dollars in fraud and they do not count that as costs. they say, we are really inexpensive because we write checks very well. that is true, but they don't find out whether the check ought to be written. second, we have outlined this at the center for health

transformation. we are at the middle of a dramatic revolution in our ability to deliver high-quality health care. this is why the mayo clinic came out against the plan that was in the house. that is where three former heads of the american medical association wrote an article yesterday opposing the plan in the house. we need a focus on best practices where we know if you can migrate the country to best practices, you will save billions, maybe hundreds of billions of dollars because the very best places in america deliver better care at a lower cost with better outcomes so people live longer lives more independently. that should be what we want to do. and at the center for health transformation, go to healthtransformation.net and there is an entire set of proposals. we would love to work with the president and get a positive bill through. and i think by going to a very liberal government tax model, they have made it very hard to

pass a bill. host: wayne is on the phone from connecticut. good morning, wayne. go ahead. caller: good morning, mr. gingrich. i do not know how you can lower costs and give 9 million people coverage. and the gentleman who was just on, i wanted to talk to him and asked him if his wife did not take a raise, congress voted themselves a raise. we're losing 14,000 jobs a day, supposedly. is that because the stimulus bill is not working? and in this bill that is going through, there is a billion dollars worth of earmarks supposedly in it -- there is $8 billion worth of earmarks supposedly in it. i have insurance through my work and it is 11 under dollars per person with insurance, paying for this -- $1,100 per

person with interest, paying for this, why can't we get health insurance for other people? guest: let me say first, i think the economy is in connection -- in continuing trouble. the federal reserve reported last week that they expect unemployment to be higher than the rich -- originally estimated, above 10%. they even more sobering lee reported that we could have a jobless recovery, which would not be a recovery in my mind, in which you could have basically no net new jobs for the next four or five years. they are projecting a% and 9% unemployment for four years. for us, passing a giant energy tax and health care -- and giant health tax is going to be very destructive behavior. it will make unemployment worse and poverty for employment and slower and lumber and weaker. i agree with you, the bill coming from the house is designed by the.

and frankly, the reason you're getting these set-asides and your art is in an effort to buy votes. -- and earmarks is in an effort to buy votes. this is a 600 page bill. they wrote a 300 page amendment that they filed at 3:00 a.m. to get just enough votes to pass it and they voted on at the next afternoon. virtually no one had not read the amendment before they voted on it. i suspect something like 1000 pages. maybe we will not get 500 pages of 5:00 a.m. to get enough votes, but that is a terrible way to legislate. this is not a game, this is not canned speaker nanci glos the ramp something true? these are laws that changed all of our lives over a very long time friend. we ought to be negotiating them and legislating them out in the open and carefully and with a lot of opportunities for people to have better ideas and to have amendments and to try to approve it before it becomes law. host: our guest is professor

gingrich. çhe earned his doctorate from tulane university and author of 18 books? guest: yeah, so far. host: [laughter] so far. we would go to maryland, good morning. caller: good morning, i'm very nervous. i had a kidney transplant last year at johns hopkins. i have insurance through my husband's job, plus i'm 67 years old, so i do have medicaid, medicare. my question is this, i feel the republicans, that is you, too -- do not care about the people out here. the poor people, that i consider myself poor and i was a nurse for 47 years. my husband is a teacher. but my point is this, you have your insurance, you are getting

a good salary, and you do not care about the average person out here. what did you do when you were in there? we have been talking about health care for over 40 something years and we cannot get this problem solved. guest: look, i think this is probably one of the most complicated problems we have faced as a country. when i was speaker, i chaired the medicare reform task force and we worked on making sure that everybody could continue to get medicare and it would not go broke within 10 or 12 years. when i was speaker, we also passed a bill to insure that -- to ensure that you could continue to get health insurance after you gave up your job during a time of unemployment. we also agreed held savings account to enable people to have a low-cost, high savings rate product that would allow small businesses and the self- employed to buy insurance. if i could have, if we would

have had the votes, we would have passed more reforms. when i stepped down as speaker, i helped form the center for health transformation. we are a membership organization that has people from all parts of the health system. we have a number a tremendous breakthrough ideas we are developing, including an alzheimer's solution project that will save millions of lives over the next generation. we agree with you, we think that there ought to be a health system in which all americans have the opportunity to buy health care, but we wanted to be a 300 million pairs system in which every american is in charge of their health care and has the right to choose their doctor and their hospital, not a bureaucrat. if you go to helptransformation.net you will see that we have a lot of ideas people like you. i have worked with the senators

for quality health care for the elderly who might end up in the long term facilities. and along with justice sandra day o'connor, will lead the alzheimer's -- wheat led the all-time citigroup that develops some very big proposals with halts -- we led the break there is the developed some very big proposals with alzheimer's. i was with governor pawlenty in minnesota about a week ago and we went to the university of minnesota, which has a world- class stem cells center, and we met with them -- this particular facility focus on diabetes and trying to find solutioa solutioo violent development. their exit taking cells from -- they're actually taking cells

and they are finding that they can get cells from newborn babies and no one is hurt. you take a small number of cells and it has become a very useful system. in addition, they took some cells from the skin of an 83- year-old woman. the reason is, they would like to be able to take a cell from you and grow into a stem cell. if they transplant-- this lady had trouble with her kidneys. if they could grow a kidney from yourself from your skin, that would lower the likelihood of your body rejecting it. it is an amazing breakthrough in research. i give governor pawlenty and a lot of credit for having supported the development of very reece -- barry and research facilities in minnesota. host: greg is on the phone from amherst, new york. caller: good morning, how are you? i have three things for you. one at a time?

caller: i have never bought one of your books, but give me quickly the reason you bought this particular book at that particular time? and i have one or two other quick ones. host: we will come back to you. guest: i wanted to outline the kind of changes we need to get us back on the right track and get as growing economically to solve our major problems. the new edition that just came out in paperback has an entire section describing the obama administration and bringing it right of today. host: and a list of books and some of the web addresses that he has been talking available -- talking about are available through newt.org. and your follow-up? caller: my name is greg laughlin, and from the beginning when he was senator obama rahman in the primaries -- running in

the primaries, i wanted to call c-span. senator obama, if he became president, i wanted to know what his attitude would be towards reparations, either pay -- payments or other programs or whatever. i was called a racist on television whenever i brought that up. and now, this issue with the president answer in cambridge, i want a fuller discussion of the president's attitude were, what he could do for the black community with the history of this country. we had very little discussion about that, and now, this president i'm afraid might have some problems with 1000 cuts. guest: this morning, there is a story about the president posey, i think, best initiative to help

african-americans and that is a very aggressive school reform program that he is working on and i have agreed to help it secretary arne duncan and working with revenue of sharpton because education ought to be the number-one civil rights in the 21st century. -- with the rev. al sharpton because education ought to be the number one civil right in the 21st century. we need to demand to know the quality of the teacher, the amount of students and the quality of this tthe school. r e duncan, i will tell you, he is a very aggressive secretary of education. nothing would do more to help african-americans that are currently trapped in poverty than to have the right kind of education system so they can go out productively, get good jobs, create their own businesses and have a better future. reparations is never going to happen and it is an impossible idea. it would make no sense at all. frankly, having a president

who's ties to africa -- from a first generation kenyan, who has zero relationship with slavery, there is no historical basis for hard you try to go about doing it. what i was speaker, i wrote a book about lessons learned the hard way, some of the things i wish i had not done looking backwards. the president the other night should have not said anything. he admitted he did not know the facts and then he went on to make a general comment. i learned painfully when i was speaker, that when you are a national leader, unilever has interesting ideas. everything you say becomes policy -- you know lager have interesting ideas. everything you say becomes policy. i think the president would do all of us a benefit if he would just relax and say, you know, i probably should not have said

anything. and we have learned a painful lesson and the move on. he is a young president, a new president, and it would be nice for him to be humble enough to admit that this is just one that he blew. let's get on with business. but it would be nice to know that he is comfortable enough that he could admit that this is something he should not have talked about. host: rich larry has pieces in the "york post" saying, how dumb for sticking his nose in this. guest: this is a guy who has come from being a state senator to be in hillary clinton for the nomination to being president in four years. and he is going to make some mistakes. in this case, it is just a boubou. in football, we like throwing an interception. in baseball, making an error. if he would just relax and say, you know, i should not have gotten involved, that is all he has got to say, and move on. everyone makes mistakes. let's get on to the new topic.

host: you tweet, don't you? guest: regulate. host: they're coming in regularly. guest: no, i think the democrats in the house have a liberal problem. it is not speaker nancy pelosi exactly. she has some weaknesses and is easy to caricature as a very strong personality, but strong speakers -- tip o'neill was that i, i was that way. if you are strong, you have people like you and people who want to be you. the real challenge is that the leadership is overwhelmingly on the left in a country that is a center-right country. the gallup -- gallup reported that the country is 40% moderate. in the democratic party it is 30% moderate and 22%

conservative. even among democrats by about 60 to 40, they are moderate and conservative, not liberal. but in the leadership of the democratic party of the house, it is about 100% liberal and that causes a problem when they are trying to write legislation that is compatible with the country at large. host: bonnie is on the phone from mississippi. caller: i have three comments. one, the fellow just before you that was talking about tort reform, the national commerce came out about two years ago and said, anyone wanting to start a plant or a job -- whatever -- in mississippi, do not do it because their lawsuit happy. which i thought was out of character. number two, i found that in the

stimulus bill, there is -- i can remember the man's name, but his brother is the one that brought our alzheimer's -- brought out alzheimer's patients. i'm 72. he was basically telling us, well, at your age, this is too expensive, that's too expensive. host: we should point out charles krofft amarah, -- charles krauthammer is saying that what obama is saying in part is sinking. guest: dr. john gill of texas is a great part of some legislation. in texas, they have passed some malpractice reform very decisively and they have had thousands of doctors move into the state. they have lower malpractice insurance costs and have much less defensive medicine. in the rio grande valley, they

have doctors that were underserved for 20 or more years. you see a dramatic change. oklahoma has just adopted that kind of reform based on pressure from texas. missouri has adopted not practice reform. if the president would put significant safe harbor malpractice reform in the bill, i think they could save probably $10 billion to $20 billion per year, has tremendous support from medical doctors and in a way that would improve health practices and get us to better practices. host: with about one minute left, and tweak on help -- on education -- guest: i personally favor vouchers. the president does not. but to his credit, the president and secretary duncan absolutely favor on limited charter schools where parents could pick where their child needs to go. if you have unlimited charter schools, and senator alexander

of ohio who used to be secretary of education, if you had universal tour schools and anyone who wanted to could get to a charter school had open information about what the students are learning, i think you would find it very dramatic performance. i still want to be fair. i think the president and secretary duncan are taking a huge gamble into the democratic party critic for them to have this much reform is a positive thing. i think we should be trying to help them get this legislation in every state. host: new gingrich, thanks for being with us. we will take you now to the floor of the u.s. house of representatives as a gallon for morning business here on c-span. washington, d.c., july 24, 2009. i hereby appoint the honorable earl blumenauer to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of

representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: lord god, who rewards the just service of your people and never forgets those who offer the ultimate sacrifice of their lives to protect others, we praise you and we thank you for those as service as capitol police here in the nation's capital. as we honor the memory of officer jacob chestnut and detective john gibson later today with a moment of silence, we now pray for all those who presently commit themselves to serve as a security force that shields government workers and the public from harm and danger. may their service never be compromised or be taken for granted by others. lord, protect, guide and

encourage all those women and men who give of themselves for the good of others in public service. reward them and their families with peace and security in this life, answer their prayers and all of the longings of their hearts for a better world in the future. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the pledge of allegiance will be offered by the gentlewoman from california, congresswoman capps. mrs. capps: please join me in pledging allegiance to the flag. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof.

pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches on each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? mr. kucinich: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kucinich: the health care debate ends up being a debate about the legitimacy of our political system. if this is a government by the people and for the people, then why do we not already have a health care system which meets the needs of all the people? is it because we have a market based for profit health care system? why do we have 50 million americans uninsured and another 50 million americans underinsured? why are most bankruptcies connected to people being so heavily in debt for hospital

bills? america faces not only a health crisis but a spiritual crisis. when health insurance and other interest groups stand between the people and their government, extracting the wealth of our nation and appropriating it to few at the expense of the many, placing the burden of illness and a brevity of life. it's time to break the hold these interest groups have on our government. when we do our nation will be more healthy and more free. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. kirk: thank you, mr. speaker. the worse states for health insurance is new jersey at $5,500 a patient. the best is california at ,500 each. the california -- california has lawsuit reform to reduce the need for expensive defensive medicine and larger insurance pools to lower average risks. for this congress, republican

moderates wrote a health care reform bill to repeat these successes, lowering the cost for all americans and expanding coverage. indications are we will not be allowed to vote on these commonsense reforms. instead, we will vote on a bill that is 1,000 pages long at $1 billion a page costing $1 trillion, raising taxes in the teeth of this recession to marginal rates higher than france. i urge members to reject this bill and put forward a commonsense set of reforms that will lower health costs wiout raising taxes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentlelady from california rise? mrs. capps: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. capps: mr. speaker, recently a constituent called me distraught. she has health insurance but that company is denying life-saving surgery for her daughter born with spina bifida.

why? because when this mother took a new job recently she got new health insurance and this health insurance company says they don't have to pay for her daughter's surgery because spina bifida is a preexisting condition. sadly, this is not an isolated story. every one of us here has constituents going through similar situations. these are the people i am fighting for. our health reform bill seeks to ensure the nearly 50 million people who don't have any health insurance but just as important is fixing the currently broken health insurance for people who have or think they have coverage. we will force insurance companies to change these policies, and we will guarantee that every american has access to a plan that will always be there for them. this can be a private plan or the public plan, but there will always be an option and that's why we need to pass this health reform bill and we need to do it now. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. for what purpose does the

gentleman from oklahoma rise? >> mr. speaker, i to speak to the house for one minute and to be able to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. lucas: on an already playing field exists between financial institutions and smaller community banks. president obama has decided to further our community bankers' burdens with this consumer financial protection agency. under this new agency, community banks who have continued to provide a reliable source of credit to their customers will be saddled with additional costs and regulations that could potentially drive many out of business. in addition, these increased costs will be past on to consumers with more bank fees and less credit. so exactly how is this supposed to help our current financial crisis? it appears as though once again in administration plans to force main street to pay for the mistakes made on wall street as they continue to follow their financial policy of too big to fail and too small to matter. reform is needed within our financial system, but that

reform cannot -- it cannot sacrifice the health of our small financial institutions. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cohen: thank you, mr. speaker. today, the federal minimum wage rises to $7.25 an hour. this congress is proud that the previous congress passed the minimum wage and it went up in stair steps. and in these tough economic times working people need help. they need help with all types of activities. this will put $1,100 in the pockets of working people. that means money for groceries, for rent, for school supplies, money that will help with this economic recovery. one of the first votes i took in this congress was to increase the minimum wage that have been held stagnant for decades.

this will help 40,000 people in my district in memphis and across the country. this congress should be proud of its support for working families but sad it took so long to get this minimum wage to where it is. we need to help the working people and we need to make sure we make this country a better country with health insurance for all. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? mrs. biggert: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. biggert: mr. speaker, tony marie's bakery in my hometown can fulfill your chocolate chip cookie cravings or make an elegant wedding cake for you, which they did for my kids. imagine if d.c. bureaucrats from a new federal consumer cookie protection agency require our bakery to use only a new federal cookie recipe and sell one kind of cookie, sugar-free with no flavor, and only certain customers are deemed healthy enough to buy it

so they stop going. what happens? the bakery is out of business. as crazy as it sounds, it's very similar to the democrats' solution to protect us from our future financial disaster. masked in rhetoric to simplify and improve our lives, it requires the new agency to tell every community, financial business across america which products they can and cannot offer to consumers. bigger government limits on choice will not restore confidence in our financial marketplace. our system needs a stronger, smarter, regulatory approach which our republican plan offers to empower consumers, protect against fraud and pursue consumer choice. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? mr. pallone: to address the house for one minute, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pallone: thank you, mr. speaker. president obama in his speech to the nation on wednesday night really brought home the fact that we need to act on

health care reform immediately before this congress adjourns for the august recess. and the reason is simple. costs continue to go up. the cost of health insurance, inflation is way out of line by comparison to any other developed country. and we still have about 40 million to 50 million americans that have no health insurance. so we need to do both. we need to cover everyone as best we can and we need to bring down the costs of health insurance. bottom line is that many of the organizations who opposed health insurance reform 15 years ago when i was here under president clinton now support a plan that the insurance companies, the a.m.a., the doctors, the pharmaceutical industry, all these groups have come together with president obama because they realize that we can't continue with the status quo. the time is now for health insurance reform, and we need to get together as both democrats and republicans to pass it. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman

from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, the president says incorrectly that if you like your health care coverage you can keep it under his plan. this has been refuted by many sources, including the white house, which has admitted that the president's rhetoric should not be taken literally. unfortunately, with mandates and new taxes on small businesses included in the democrat bill, the question should be, if you like your job, can you keep it? with estimates ranging from 1.6 million to 4.7 million jobs lost under the democrats' scheme, it is clear this plan will destroy jobs and weaken our economy. you cannot make health care more affordable for americans if you destroy jobs. republicans want to give the american people a leg up through tax relief and resources for small businesses to provide quality health care coverage. we have solutions that do not rely on tax hikes, mandates and big government bureaucrats

which lead to waiting lists and rationing. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, my constituents have given me the honor and the privilege of serving here in the house of representatives for 17 years now. and in all of those 17 years, coming from an area where health care costs have continued to accelerate each year, in all those years, i've come here, along with colleagues on both sides of the aisle seeking better opportunities for the seniors, those that are disabled, those that are without health care, and all we've done is talk. well, now the democrats have done something about that. we do have a plan that is before the american public. it allows for no more co-pays

or deductibles for preventative care, an annual cap on out-of-pocket expenses, keeping americans from financial ruin and an end to increases for preexisting conditions, gender or occupation, group rates of a national pool if you buy your own plan, guaranteed affordable health care and vision care. if we keep the republicans' plan in mind, costs will go up. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? mr. broun: to speak to the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. broun: thank you, mr. speaker. this morning on "fox and friends," one of my favorite golfers, phil mickelson, was talking about his wife and mother having breast cancer. he made an astonishing statement. he said that the treatment of breast cancer today is better than it was five years ago,

better than 10 years ago and he's absolutely right. mr. mickelson's hope in the cure for his mother and his wife's breast cancer, this devastating illness, is very high. but, mr. speaker, the american people need to understand if we pass the democratic health care reform bill that they are proposing, innovation in health care is going to quit or go down and be very little. the quality of care is going to go down. as a physician, i can tell the american people that the quality of your care will be worse a few years from now because of the democratic party's health reform plan. the american people need to stand up, mr. speaker, and say no to this and say yes to some of the alternatives that the republicans are presenting. we have a plan but it will not be heard unless the american people demand it. .

the speaker pro tempore: officer chestnut and detective gibson of the united states capitol police were killed in the line of duty defending the capitol. an an appropriate point today, the chair will recognize this tragedy by observing a moment of silence in their memory. for what purpose does the gentleman from iowa rise? mr. king: mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 2-a-1 of rule 9 i offer a resolution as a question of the privileges of the house. the form of my resolution is -- -- raising a question of the privileges of the house whereas the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, smithed an amendment to the committee on rules to h.r. 3293, the departments of labor, health and human services, education and related agencies appropriations act of 2010,

whereas the said gentleman's amendment would have required that none of the funds made available in this act be made available to acorn or any of its 174 known affiliates. since 1994, acorn, the association of community organizations for reform now and its affiliates have received $53,643,444.58 in taxpayer funds. the trust placed in acorn to act a responsible steward, acorn has proved itself to breaking or our laws and undermining our political process. during the 2008 federal election cycle, it mobilized its grassroots organization to effect through voter registration.

it is now under investigation in 14 states regarding allegations of fraud lept activities that were undertaken by the organization as part of its voter registration campaigns. whereas acorn was charged with voter fraud in nevada. it has admitted submitting fraudulent voter registration. whereas because of its behavior during the 2008 election cycle, it's important that acorn be prohibited from receiving any additional taxpayer funding. whereas the need to prohibit additional funding to acorn led the gentleman to submit this amendment to the committee on rules. whereas the gentleman's amendment complied with all rules of the house for amendments to appropriations measures and would have been in order under an open amendment process, but regrettably, the house democratic leadership has dramatically and historically reduced the opportunity for open debate on this floor and whereas the speaker, mrs. pelosi, the democrat leadership and the chairman of the committee on

appropriations, mr. obey, prevented the house from voting on the amendments by excluding it from the list of amendments made in order under the rule for the bill. now therefore be it resolved that h. res. 673, the rule to accompany h.r. 3293 be amended to allow the gentleman from iowa's amendment be considered and voted on in the house. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: under rule 9, the resolution offered from the floor by a member owner the masquort leaderor minority leader as a question of privilege of the house has immediate precedence only at a time designated by the chair within two legislative days after the solution is properly noticed. pending that designation, the form of the resolution noticed by the gentleman from iowa will appear in the record at this point. the chair will not at this point determine whether the resolution constitutes a question of privilege. that determination will be made at a time designated for consideration of the resolution. the chair will receive a

message. the messenger: a message from the senate. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to inform the house the senate has agreed to h -- h.j.res. and freedom democracy act in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? mr. hastings: by direction of the committee on rules i call up house resolution 673 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 673, resolved that any time after the adoption of this resolution the speaker may pursuant to clause 2-b of rule 18 declare the house in the committee of the whole house for consideration of the bill h.r. 3293 making appropriations for the departments of labor, health and human services and education and related agencies for the fiscal

year ending september 30, 2010 and for other purposes. the first reading of the bill shall be dispensed with. all points of order against consideration of the bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. general debate shall be confined to the bill and not exceed one hour equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranchinging minority member on the committee on appropriations. after general debate, the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. the bill shall be considered as read through page 134 line 12. points of order against provisions in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule 21 are waived. notwithstanding clause 11 of rule 18, except as provided in section 2, no amendment shall be in order except the amendments printed in the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution. each such amendment may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a member

designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report equally divided and controlled by the pro ponet and opponent and shall not be subfor demand of the question in the house or in the committee of the whole. those arising under clause 9 or 10 of rule 21. at the conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment, the committee shall rise and report the bill to the house with such amendments as may have been adopted. in the case of sun dry amendments reported from the committee, the question of their adoption shall be put to the house and without division of the question. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening motion except one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, after this division of the amendment specified in the first section of this resolution, the chair and ranking minority member on the

committee of appropriations or their designees may offer a pro forma amendment for the purpose of debate which shall be controlled by the proponent sm the chair may entertain the chair rise. and the chair may not entertain a motion to strike out the enacting words of the bill as described in clause 9 of rule 18. section 4, during consideration of h.r. 3293, the chair may reduce to two minutes the minimum time for electronic voting under clause 6 of rule 18 and clauses 8 and 9 of rule 20. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from arizona seek recognition? mr. flake: i do. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does gentleman seek recognition. mr. flake: the resolution violates section 426-a of the congressional budget act. it carriers a waiver of order against consideration of the

bill which includes a waiver of 425-a which causes a violation of section 426-a. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from arizona makes a point order that the resolution violates 426-a of congressional budget act of 1974. the gentleman from arizona will control 10 minutes of debate. after that debate, the chair wil put the will put the question of consideration. the chair recognizes the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i come here today completely baffled at this point. we have had in this appropriations season what best be described as martial law in legislative terms where we have had appropriation bill after appropriation bill come to the floor under a closed rule or modified structured rule where the majority party decides which amendments the minority party

can offer. and i suppose it was amusing at first. they claim it was an issue of time. and so some of us on this side that have amendments that were ruled in order asked unanimous consent to be able to substitute other members' amendments that had not been ruled in order, amendments that were germane that the majority party saw unfit for this body to vote on and debate. and 16 times that i have asked for unanimous consent, that unanimous consent has been denied. so it's not an issue of time at all. it's not an issue of time. as much as the majority party wants to stand up and say we have to get these finished because we have a time limit. it's a pretty sorry excuse. we do appropriations. that's what the congress does. we have the power of the purse and say we have to get these

done in one day for the defense next week and labor-h.h.s. today, but then we find out that is a ruse because if we agree to stay within the constraints they won't allow us to substitute the amendments we would like to offer. on this bill, because the majority party has seen fit to give me amendments to cut earmarks that they knew would not likely pass, i decided on this bill, although there are plenty of targets, i believe over 1,000 earmarks in the bill, i decided not to offer one earmark amendment. so surely majority party would see fit to hear my coletiono -- colleagues' amendments. so i didn't submit any. not one. our party submitted 12

amendments, 12 amendments and we were given five -- i'm sorry four. just four amendments, one was given to i think the chairman of the appropriation committee and several were rolled into the manager's amendment. i would love to hear and i will retain my time, but hear what the rules committee is thinking here or why they see fit to deny the majority party the ability to offer amendments. i retain the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserve? the gentleman from? mr. hastings: i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, my good friend for whom i have great affection began his remarks by saying he is baffled. i'm baffled and befuddled that

my good friend from arizona persists in bringing to the floor of the house of representatives. the distinguished chair of the appropriations committee will outline the particulars of the bill, but start with the fact that there are no unfunded mandates in this particular provision. so once again, this point of order is not about unfunded mandates, it's about trying to block this bill without any opportunity for debate and without any opportunity for an up or down vote on the legislation itself. i think that's wrong. and i hope my colleagues will vote yes so we can consider this important legislation on its merits and not stop it as my friend would try to do on a procedural motion. those who oppose the bill can vote against it on final passage. we must consider this rule and we must pass this legislation today. now, i have the right to close,

but in the end, i'm going to your knowledge my colleagues to vote yes to consider the rule and take one final moment to ask my friend to consider what he does when he persists, as is his right as a member of this body, in coming here repeatedly after every measure that he wishes put forward, what does he think he is doing to the legislative counsel of this office. there are 441 members that ought to be able access to that body and many of us find our legislation at the back of the track for the reason that we're coming here with what amounts to nothing but process motions that everybody has heard. we have an expression here and children use it frequently. i got the memo or i got it. we hear him on this particular subject. he can vote on it at any such time, but it is the rules committee that makes the determination as to what rules

are going to be on the floor of the house of representatives. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman and i think the gentleman does protest too much. we here on the unfunded mandate thing because it's the only opportunity we've got. we have been shut out about everything else. we offered 12 amendments, 12 amendments to a bill that typically has dozens and dozens and dozens and typically we spend a couple of days on, but we are told we have to get it done today and only allow four amendments and they are the four that we pick. what has this legislative body come to? i suppose the gentleman is referring to the 540 amendments that i have offered for the defense bill. i have offered 540 because that represents the number of no-bid contracts that this body is authorizing for private

companies in the defense bill. that's why there are investigations swirling around this body. and yet, we come to the floor and authorize 540 -- not authorize, we appropriate money for 540 no-bid contracts. so i make no apology at all for offering 540 amendments. but i knew i didn't want to tie up legislative counsel. that's something that we worry about. i said, what can we do without causing trouble and they gave us a template and we did it in our office. my staff was up all night last night making 30 copies of 540 amendments on our own, not taking the legislative counsel's time, just so we could do this body and this institution the favor of trying to actually vet some of the earmarks, no-bid contracts for private companies that come through this body.

and then we get scolded for that and to say you're taking up too much time. we have given you four amendments on this bill you should be happy with it, these crums that fall from the table, the appropriations committee and the rules committee, just be happy with it. go on your merry way. it is baffling. i don't know what else to say and i don't know what else we can do on this side. bad process begets bad policy and it will come back to bite at some point. this martial law on appropriation bills is not justified. you shouldn't do it just because you can. and i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you, mr. speaker. i stand duly chastised by my friend from arizona. i'm delighted that he took up

his time's office and not legislative counsel's times office to consider amendments. and perhaps i urge that he not waste his staff's time. but there are other times by virtue of the repetition the legislative counsel has been burdened, template or not. and there are members that have exercised that abuse of process and that is the use of privileged motions for purpose of legislating. assuming every member in this body wanted to use that prerogative, then we would never be able to get our work done. and, yes it is the responsibility of the majority to see to it that the business of the people of this country moves along. i again want to urge my colleagues to vote yes on this motion to consider so we can debate and pass this important piece of legislation today, and

i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from arizona. mr. flake: may i inquire as to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: you have 4 1/2 minutes. mr. flake: i thank the gentleman. if i was looking to waste time and to delay, i'd call a vote on this. this would take this body an extra half-hour or so. i am not going to do so. i know i am going to lose this. but somebody has to stand up and say we are not potted plants over here. we are in the minority, yes, but we do have some rights, i think. these amendments that i will be offering to the defense bill today are spurious, are spurious. i'd love to last year been able to offer some of these amendments, but i didn't have any ability at all. not one amendment was offered to earmarks in the defense bill. you know why? because it was a closed rule

completely. it came in at mini bus form and no amendments were offered. and that's happened to some extent over a couple of years. and what has happened during that time? earmarks have been awarded, no bid contracts to private companies that are now being investigated because money went out and individuals have already pled guilty to taking that earmarked money and spreading it around to some companies that did no work, none. and they've already pled guilty for it. and we're again, we're bringing to the floor next week a defense bill as if nothing's wrong, nothing's happening, no investigations are occurring. we're still going to award no-bid contracts to private companies. and, yeah, we might hide some language or put some language in the bill saying these things are really going to be bid out, but the defense department, if you ask them today, do you bid these things out, they say,

yes, we're required to, except when we don't, except when we issue a j&a. that is just unbelievable to me that we are accused of being spur yuss when we attempt to -- spurious when we attempt to bring earmarked amendments to the floor to vet in some way, shallow though it may be on the floor of the house, it's all we got because we only got a list of these earmarks last week, or this week, we're scolded and told that we're spurious for asking for some, just a smidgen of accountability here. for the sponsor of the earmark to stand up and justify why he thinks or she thinks that she has the ability to award a no-bid contract to a private company whose executives may turn around and give big amounts of money to that

member, that's being investigated in some cases by the department of justice. and we say we should be able to do it and no member should be able to question it. we shouldn't be able to raise it on the floor of the house. i just don't get it. i completely -- every time i think i've seen it all, i haven't, and today to be scolded for bringing amendments to the floor and then to have the majority party bring 12 and to be told we should be happy because they seem fit to choose four of those amendments, allow us to offer them that we should somehow be grateful and embrace this rule just blows me away. and i don't know what to say, mr. speaker. but i would urge this congress not to move ahead with this bill in this fashion. there is no requirement that we have to do this today. any more than you have to do health care this week or next week. we're a deliberative body, i

hope, and we should deliberate just a little bit more. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. all time for debate has expired. the question is shall the house now consider the resolution. all those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the question of consideration is decided in the affirmative. the gentleman from florida is recognized for one hour. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, for the purpose of debate only, i yield the customary 30 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from texas, mr. sessions. and all time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. hastings: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized.

mr. hastings: mr. speaker, the resolution provides for consideration of h.r. 3293, the departments of labor, health and human services and education and related agencies appropriations act of 2010, under a structured rule. the labor-hhs-education appropriations bill provides $67.7 billion for fiscal year 2010 and continue this congress' commitment to fiscal responsibility by coming in $52 million below the president's request and cutting 46 individual programs to ensure that taxpayer funds are used in the most effective way. this bill also includes $1.1 billion for activities to reduce improper payments, abuse and fraud in the departments of

labor and health and human services and in the social security administration, which could result in over $48 billion in taxpayer savings over the next 10 years. during these difficult economic times, it is more important than ever that we not only spend taxpayer funds prudently but that we take the necessary investments to move our economy forward. this bill provides $64.7 billion for the department of education to prepare america's youth for an increasingly competitive global economy and to ensure that all americans have access to the education needed to succeed. funds in this bill combined with the funds in the recovery act which will provide states with $4 billion in grants under

the school improvement fund which will target assistance to approximately 13,000 low-performing schools. this bill also boosts pell grants, which help approximately 7.6 million low and middle-income students pay for college each year. further, it provides $653 million to historically black colleges and universities, hispanic-serving institutions and other developing institutions, and nearly triples new loan guarantees for hbcu's. as we prepare for our youth for tomorrow, we must also protect and develop our current work force. this bill restores the department of labor's capacity to enforce laws that protect the wages, safety and benefits of workers. it also helps those who lost

their jobs during the course of this recession by providing $1.4 billion for training and supportive services. $50 million of these funds will be used to prepare workers in green industries, not only helping to provide americans with decent good-paying jobs but also helping the american economy be more competitive. this bill recognizing the incredible burden that this economic crisis has placed on countless americans also provides much-needed assistance to our vulnerable populations. it will help families stay warm through the winter by providing $5.1 billion for the low-income energy assistance program. it will boost nutrition, transportation and other

supportive services for seniors by providing $1.5 billion for senior nutrition and other services, and it will relieve some of the pressure placed on social security administration by providing $11.4 billion to help the agency process the rising number of claims and reduce its current backlog. finally, as we in congress work to pass health care reform in the coming weeks, this bill will help build the capacity of our health care system and provide funding for job training in the health care sector, one of the strongest and fastest growing sectors in our economy. my colleagues are well aware that a whole lot of people, well over 47 million people in our nation, are uninsured.

in the district that i'm privileged to serve, 25% of my constituents lack health care coverage. this bill provides $2.2 billion for community health centers, which provide primary care to 17 million patients, 40% of which are uninsured. while such centers provide a vital service, there are still far too many individuals that go without any primary care at all. endangering their health and increasing the burden on taxpayers by getting treatment when their illnesses have become serious and their care several times more costly. in my home state of florida, over 971,000 women are in need

of publicly supported family planning services. yet, only 35% of them are currently being met through public funding providers. while my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will throw and have thrown insulting accusations and deceitful claims, what we should be talking about today is how to further support the essential community providers such as planned parenthood during a provider shortage in this country rather than making it harder for women and families to access vital health care. . for eight years, the republican administration placed the needs of wealthy and the privileged before those of the middle class and poor.

and now, we are paying the price. i have listened to my republican colleagues for the past week beat the drum of fiscal responsibility. quite frankly, this is laughable at best. these are the same people who claim to be deficit hawks, but quite frankly, the real truth is, republicans instituted tax cuts for extremely wealthy people in this country and new spending programs that took our nation from surplus to debt. and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle participated in decreasing taxes for wealthy people at a time when we were at war, the only time in the history of this country when we were at war that we decreased taxes and then when we did it, we did for the best in our

society as far as wealth is concerned. the republicans lecturing us on fiscal responsibility is like al capone lecturing on the street. with our economy in turmoil, democrats are picking up the pieces of the bush administration and restoring this congress's responsibility to protect our nation's health and safety net to ensure equal access to education and competitive global workforce. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from texas. mr. sessions: mr. speaker, i appreciate the gentleman from florida yielding me such time as i may consume. you know, mr. speaker, let's just go to the words that people have, republicans cut taxes and employed people, 5.3 million new jobs.

the democrats put their spending plan on the floor and said we would have jobs and more jobs, and we don't. and so regardless of what the gentleman talks about with all these big tax breaks, they worked. it employed people. people had jobs. and in the scheme of things, mr. speaker, that's good for all of us. so i'll stand behind those tax cuts that employed this country as opposed to unemployment, the highest unemployment in 26 years by our friends, the democrats. mr. speaker, today, i stand about this structured rule and i stand in opposition. my friends on the other side of the aisle for the first time in history of the republic have shut down the appropriations process by placing extremely restrictive rules on every single appropriations bill that has come to the floor this year. chairman david obey of wisconsin

has set an arbitrary time line to finish the fiscal year 2010 spending bills which has forced this congress and the democrat-run rules committee to limit every democrats and republicans' chances to offer amendments on the floor. hundreds of amendments have been offered by all of my colleagues and they have been rejected in an unprecedented fashion. i ask once again, mr. speaker, what is the majority afraid of? why are we doing this for the first time in the history of this republic? why won't they allow for the open and honest debate that they called for just a few years ago? in order to operate under the short debate that my friends on the other side of the aisle have forced republicans to pursue, my colleagues and i offered 12 amendments to ensure a thoughtful and constructive debate could take place.

we helped manage ours before we came to the rules committee. yet, what happened? only four were made in order while the democrats had seven of their offered amendments rolled right into the manager's amendment. this democratic congress in unprecedented fashion continues to reject and silence the american public and to muzzle members on the floor of the house of representatives, not allowing their voices to be heard on the people's floor. mr. speaker, today, we are discussing health, labor and service and education appropriation bill for fiscal year 2010. it is my intent to focus on this huge increase in spending over last year's level and to discuss the majority party's destructive initiatives that continue to kill jobs and lead to record deficits. that is kill jobs and record deficits under control of

speaker nancy pelosi, the democrat-held senate and president obama. this is their policy that we are debating on the floor today. this underlying legislation is a 7% or $10.6 billion increase above the current year's spending levels and that's excluding the $126 billion in stimulus funding that these programs have already received. since 2007, funding for programs under labor, health and human services and education have increased a whopping 93%. this bill does not represent a commitment or any commitment to fiscal sustainability. we simply cannot keep doing this. but here we are again today. it will cost us jobs. mr. speaker, we will continue to ask where are the jobs?

with this legislation, congress only furthers and slows down economic recovery and increases the financial burden being placed on our children and grandchildren. mr. speaker, where are the jobs? the obama administration promised americans that unemployment would not go beyond 8%, that they would create and save millions of jobs if congress simply passed the stimulus. here wer months later, with a record 9.5% unemployment rate, the highest in 26 years. and two million americans have lost their jobs since the passage of this massive $1.2 trillion stimulus plan. mr. speaker, where are the jobs? earlier this month when discussing the stimulus, vice president biden said the obama administration misread how bad

the ecomy was. the obama administration got it wrong when it came to a $1.2 trillion of taxpayer spending by this democrat congress. the american people can no longer afford for this democrat-controlled house, senate and white house to get it wrong. where are the jobs? last month, my friends on the other side of the aisle passed the cap and trade bill. the top white house economic advisers have suggested could actually cost upo $1.9 trillion. raising prices on energy, goods and services forever american, an increase forever american back home between $1,200 and $1,600 a year. this legislation would kill up to two million manufacturing jobs. mr. speaker, we have to ask

again, where are the jobs? we are beginning to find out that they're in washington, d.c. mr. speaker, next week this democrat-controlled congress wants to pass sweeping health care reform that effectively will kill employer-based insurance marketplaces and force 114 million americans into a government-run program, a program where government bureaucrats will be choosing what doctors and patients' relationships will be and what procedures will be covered by that doctor. this $1.2 trillion package raises taxes on individuals and small business that do not participate in the government plan and up to $818 billion will be the cost. which, according to a model developed by the president's own economic adviser team will result in 4.7 million employees

losing their job. mr. speaker, we ask once again, where are the jobs? this is economic insanity. the american people know you shouldn't spend what you don't have, but that is exactly what mrs. pelosi and this democrat majority is doing. mr. speaker, we ask once again, where are the jobs? according to the congressional budget office, the obama administration is on its way to doubling the national debt in five years. mr. speaker, we would ask, where are the jobs? earlier this month, congressional budget office released a monthly budget review that states that the federal budget deficit reached $1.1 trillion during the month of june. as of june 30, the national debt

stood at $11.5 trillion. mr. speaker, we will ask again, where are the jobs? especially at a time of deep economic recession, congress should be promoting pro-growth policies that reduce spending, increase job growth and give americans confidence. mr. speaker, where are the jobs? the deficit has increased $1.7 trillion or 1,000% since the democrats took control of this house of representatives three years ago. mr. speaker, where are the jobs? it has gone from $162 billion fiscal deficit to a projected $2 trillion this year. mr. speaker, we ask, where are the jobs? in closing, mr. speaker, i would

like to continue to point out to our friends on the other side of the aisle that we cannot tax, spend and borrow our way out of this country's economic recession. our democratic colleagues need to get a handle on this out-of-control spending that once again they are bringing to the floor of the house of representatives today to pursue an ever growing american government size. rising unemployment and record deficits cannot be remedied with massive increases in government spending. mr. speaker, where are the jobs? huge energy and health care bills will raise taxes and kill jobs. mr. speaker, the american public understands this. they know that the republican party has better ideas. and that's why we're on the floor of the house of representatives today. i encourage a no vote, but will once again ask the question,

where are the jobs? i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. hastings: thank you very much, mr. speaker. i'm challenged to answer my good friend from texas before i yield to the distinguished chairperson of the appropriations committee. the answer i just heard from my colleague asks a legitimate question, where are the jobs. i can't attest to every place in the united states of america, but i do know this about the area that i'm privileged to serve. four months ago, 400 school teachers received slips indicating that their jobs were going to be lost. since that time, money provided from the stimulus package has come into the system. when i was home this past weekend, i was very pleased to read that 124 of those school

teachers have been called back to work and that it is expected that the next tranch will allow them to be called back to work. it is especially concerning to me because one of those young ladies worked with me when she was in high school. some jobs are being created, but i would not have the american public believe that the recession began when barack obama became president, the recession began in december and the job attrition was taking place then. we are in a transformational posture in this country of ours and we are going to see the kind of uptick in jobs at the time that the stimulus takes full impact. i would like to yield five minutes to the distinguishhe