>> a different side of the nation's capital, tonight on "q&a". >> the new c-span video library is a digital archive of c-span programming, from barack obama to ronald reagan and everyone in between. over 100 duties 7000 hours of c- span video, now available to you. -- 157,000 hours of c-span video, now available to you. . .

>> there is no prospect of a big bipartisan deal, but democrats can coalesce around a big package, on messy process of passing the senate bill and using reconciliation to fix it. with your pulse on the democratic caucus, the you have the stomach to go through some of the messy process that is hard to explain to people, how you do all of this? do you have the stomach to get it done? some members told me on friday that they do not think that members are ultimately will be willing to vote for this. >> i think the members will vote for this. i think they understand the historical position that they are and, that this country has struggled with its health care system over the last years, some

people get very good coverage and some others don't get any at all. you've halt -- you've heard all of these discourages -- descriptions of bed, and more insurance companies dropping people from their roles, employers drop in the coverage they provide their employees. it becomes difficult for individuals and families and for our economy. the process will not be long remembered. it is going to be passed by majority vote in the senate. and that it will be set to the president -- and that it will be sent to the president. i think our members understand the need to do this. we of listen to economists from the right and from the left and they have told us that if we do nothing, it can bring down the

government in terms of our ability to take care of that needs and priorities. it will mushroom that deficit for things like medicare and the rest of the health care system. >> one of the things i've heard from some of your more skittish democrats who say, look, this big 2000-page bill, it looks like it's going to have to be something like that, but they prefer something more peace mel that starts on a smaller basis. you had success with the antitrust bill and a big bipartisan vote, why not do those incremental planes instead of having a big bill? >> because at the end of the date you do not really get the savings or the efficiencies, the restructuring of health care that the economist, the providers, the people who are experts in the field tell us you

need to have if you are needing to go forward and if you're going to have a chance to slow down growth in health care cost of a the next 10 and 204;n;çó y. you cannot do in church reforms if you do not have everyone in a system where they have -- you cannot do insurance reforms if you do not have everyone in the system where they have coverage. that is why john mccain was for an individual mandate and now barackñi obama is for an individual mandate. theñr system does not work witht that. politically you can argue with any way you want, but when you get down when -- to america and its economy, and you need this comprehensive reform. we've had the most expensive system in the world and it is one of the most least efficient. a lot people take great health care, but the huge price is not sustainable. >> on their some issues that are

tangential -- are there not some issues that are tangential, like them -- abortion? how do you tellñi members who do not like those provisions, and a lot of members on both sides weaker, how youñi tell them to push off those concerns? >> i don't know that they have to push off their concerns. ññiin÷úóxdñr theiçów38  probably be passed asñr part of this process. there is no money, no federal moneys for abortion. that was the test in the house and that is the test in the senate. i think that that will work. and there is no money for illegals to get benefits under this plan, in the senate or house bills. and then we have the struggles

and the appropriation process over abortion and immigration. many people who are deeply concerned about the use of federal dollars for abortion, many people voted for the senate bill and for the house bill, and we can assure them that that will be the situation. >> whatever the democrats view on the policies, the republicans have done a good job of framing the health-care bill. how'd you make it seem as a simple majority instead of changing the senate rules? >>ñr well, e)re going to pass e bill. in sports,ñr if you want to quit the house, score some points. one of the things we know, the polling data there is a substantial majority that does

not want us to give up. and the more people learn about the bill, about what is in this legislation for them, their families, thehp children, their small businesses, the more that they like the bill. the republicans have done a good job of arguing process. they did not really want to say they wnéed to make the medicare about your system. or that people needed to consider -- continue to have pre-existing conditions. process is easy to argue. people do not understand it. but we passed the bill and we take it to the country and you explain the bill to people, this is what they need for their small business and for their families and for their children. >> on friday afternoon, if you and other house democratic leaders met. tell our viewers at a time line for when they can expect this health care bill, when will we

get to the president? >> i don't think we forget the time line. we talked about the forum summit that we had with the president, and suggestions that were made by different republican members in the senate and house, which of those suggestions could be incorporated or not. we asked the staff to take a look at selling insurance across state lines, controlling waste, fraud, and abuse and ways to help help there. there are a couple of others that were touched upon that we ask the staff to look at and we will get together next week and see whether or not they can be incorporated. that is what the president asked us to do before and after the summit, and they are going to the comments in the various proposals. it is very clear that the president was very familiar with the republican bills that have been proposed.

there has been a lot of time discussing that. it was a fairly short meeting. ñi>> deal expect the revised bil from the president to reflect those things from the health care summit? ñii don't know if you have an expectation on the excise taxxda cadillac tax? >> moving to or rolls-royce. >> it seems a big problem for you guys. >> it is a veryñi se@imus probl. the president has since modified it. the president believes that the principles of that tax will help you and the long-term health care costs, keeping them down. that is why it is in the bill. it is not as robust as it was but when we get done with the cbo scoring, it will still have the same impact over the 10-year

and 20-year range. i think that there is probably many people concerned about it. when you are in serious negotiations, and you end up ought to move on. a lot of members understand that visionçó -- when this and n dental or taken out, that provides more room for what we would call could middle-class health care plans. >> you expect the revision 7? >> he put out a set of principles that we are responding to come of the senate bill and the house bill, this is the way forward for him. clearly after the senate, he will ask for modifications of that, modifications of where we

left off with the white house between our discussions. i think the senate is doing the same and we hope over the next three days to combine the sap -- the staff of the senate and house to come together on that. i think that will continue of this weekend and be over at the end of next week. >> the jobs bill that passed this weekend approved by the house in december, can you talk about that difference -- some republicans even voted for it. some said that this bill will not create any jobs. do you agree with that? will this bill not do a lot for job creation? >> i think it will go up paramount for jobs. not as much as i would liken it is not the end of the story with the senate. they're going to be a series of bills coming forward for jobs. we have one bill that we sent in

december and we're looking at other proposals. not everything we proposed was accepted and not everything that the senate does is accepted in this particular bill. it also has the authorization of the highway bill, a transportation bill. that is about $40 billion in expenditures to be made, and the state of california has $5 billion of programs that will move forward. that is just one portion of the bill for jobs. there's also the extension of transportation which allows that money to go forward. it is not as lean as some people were led to believe. that is about $40 billion. those expenditures can now go forward when we pass the extension. >> i sense a lot of frustration from house members that i talk

to. last year you had a $787 billion package, robust, some wanted it even larger, and now we're attacking on $15 billion, $40 billion -- they think it should be more like the house package. if seems that the senate is playing the small balkan. is this election year maneuvering? or do you think you can get another million jobs? >> the answer is, i do not know. we're doing the best that we can. as long as the senate sticks with the 60-vote role, it is destructive to the process. we need to get rid of that so that we can move forward and deal with these other majority votes -- however you want to describe it. but we are not yet dared get. we spent over $145 billion, and

there's another proposal to deal with what will happen to cities. last year they led off 150,000 employees. we want to try to avoid that. that was with the stimulus bill helping them, the recovery at putting money into the community. that is now in its second year and as it starts to wind down, we will see that cities and local governments are still in trouble. can we provide some assistance so that we do not know -- do not lose those jobs and dampen those economies? we have to do everything we keep kids -- but we can keep people in the jobs that they have and find new jobs for people. this is the scenario where a budget of the cities are in trouble. they are not spending a lot, they are not buying new automobiles, so local governments are in trouble with the revenues and states are taking money from local governments to keep the state afloat. you can get away but

unemployment from local governments all across the country that could offset the economic process that we're making. there is a lot of;or effort beig made here -- which ones will work and in whatñfi sequence thy will work? i do not know. >> we have 10 minutes left here. i want to bring one issue -- you had legislation that passed in the house. what is the status of that legislation and what will it do? double if the legislation is the president's proposal to move from the federal student loan program to a direct loan program. under the federal loan program,i we loan -- they make the loans we guarantee about $9 billion a year. with a credit market crashed,

the became clear that it was not even available to a government guaranteed loan. we directly gave the money to the lenders. that really makes no sense. so what the president has asked us to do is to take that $8 billion in subsidies that we're essentially giving to the largest banks and the sallie mae and recycle the money on behalf of students and their families and institutions. we will put $40 billion into pell grants for students, a significant number of people returning toñr school to get new skills for new jobs. that was $40 billion for those people that need that. they are relatively low-income individuals. we put money for the first time to help rebuild the college structure, pick -- the corqggaty college structure. xdwe putñi about $10 billion ino their. we will put the money into

school construction but that the k-12 -- both at the k-12 level and at the community college level to help expand their capacity. we also learned that children exposed to high quality of early childhood education do better in the fourth grade, and fourth grade is an indicator of the decisions they might make about continuing their education. it is really an effort to take subsidies now going to the banks and putting it on behalf of families and our education policy in this country. i think it is very important. the house has passed it and it is in the reconciliation bill. i assume that it will come out as part of the reconciliation package for health care. the senate hopeful it will put it in. i think the votes are there to

put it into that package and pass it and send it to the president's desk. there is a lot of lobbying from the bigger banks and sallie mae. but most economists understand that when you are trying to make every dollar count, it is better to go to the direct loan program. >> it is part of the health-care package? >> it would be part of the same reconciliation process. we were instructed by the budget committee -- you can do that with this program and they're still about $700 billion in deficit reduction in that package. we were instructed to save that money and so it will be part of our reconciliation package that goes to the senate. >> any chance to put anything else in the reconciliation package, things like jobs legislation? >> it is really difficult to do under the rules. i don't want people to go to sleep on this program in explaining the rules of reconciliation. >> it is very difficult. you have to save money.

>> go ahead. >> the republicans passed a big reconciliation bill in 2006. a lot of people and the senate did not like it. the past in the middle of the night, i remember. there was a lot of money for all kinds of programs, those subsidies, various ways to get votes. are you putting in some kind of jobs package and there to try to complement the health care package? >> we had preliminary discussions among for so ago, probably a month ago, about that. we were exploring that and i have to say at the not know where that inclusion was, whether there were things that we could do with reconciliation and some other bills that we have, whether they would qualify or not. >> one of the of the things you are working on. >> thank you for reminding me of that. >> no child behind -- one thing

i found interesting that you put out a press release with your republican ranking member saying that we would work together on a new beginning. is this the subject matter that lends itself to bipartisanship? no child left behind was a bipartisan bill. kennedy and bush getting together, or is there something that you have learned of the past years as the chairman that this is maybe the better way to start out by sitting down with your republican colleagues? >> it is the better approach. i had that experience with president bush and senator kennedy and others, top political fighters, getting together with no top left behind. at the education and labor committee, we try to start on a bipartisan track and go down that track as far as we can. but a lot of times we do.

the former chairman of the committee and myself put together our discussion track about how to revise and no child left behind. the former chairman brady has come up to the hill and met with senate democrats. we had discussions with senator harkin and myself, lamar alexander my ranking member. >> jon klein. >> yes, and we met with leader boehner about this. the joint staff of the senate and house, bipartisan, and the administration working together on the basic architecture of it. that is the route that we would prefer to go. and in consideration of that act, we have the opportunity

because what the president and the secretary laid out in terms of race to the top, the kinds of things that they want to encourage in terms of professional development for teachers, data systems that are very important to tell the house schools are doing, and the promotion of charter schools -- there was a lot here for republicans and democrats who supportñi the issue to come together around. >>çó it seems there is a controversial bill. with bonds supported it originally and now wants to scrap it -- roy bluntçó support% it originally and now wants to scrap it. >> we think we have an opportunity to do it in a very different way. we're looking at whether or not to some extent we can put in the ingredients for high-performance goals, put in these systems so the states are competing for braced of desktop -- race for the top, to see house teachers and students are doing i think

that holds out the possibility of the federal government backing out the day-to-day management that you had undq no top leftñi behind. no job left behind, the performance of the schools was invisible. we did not know how poorly minority children was doing. we knew that they were doing poorly but we did not have any evidence. we have those years of evidence and now can we get to the next generation, really about better testing, better assessment, putting resourcesñi behind teachers, making sure that teachers have the professional development and are effective teachers. it is really about the next generation. that was important all the last eight years, and now we have an opportunity to go to another place. >> a couple of minutes left. perry beckham. >> a lot of discussion about congressman rangel. talk about whyñi he's -- some

calls for him to resign already. what you think he should stay if you think he should stay? >> it is tough. justice. the politicalñi system, if you n come up with all the reasons why any member who embarrasses another member should get out of my life. the series of actions before the ethics committee, that is on process and it will arrive at a put our report dealing with the question of trips -- did he and other members of congress take come on and there is a form of punishment and the congressional system, and that money be repaid because it was improperly financed by some corporations. i don't know all the details. i have not had the chance to read the report yet. and then there are other complaints undergoing the

investigation. he is entitled have that investigationñiñrñt"?ñdñ)ñd com. members uncomfortable but at some point, and i understand that this is a political system, not the perfect justice system, but you have to do the best you can within those conference. >> the speaker said today that the report talked about his staffers knew it did should not be taken and he did not know and so. >> i am not read the report. my characterization is that we are responsible for a lot of things that go on around us but we do not know -- we do not have full knowledge. i have not read the report. i could answer that question that i had the report. >> politically it would be better for democrats for trawler rental the step down? the bottlers -- for charlie

rangel to step down? >> i could make a case why he should step down but also make a case that he is entitled to a day in court. our process, it may not be perfect, but it is the ethics committee. i would hope that they would wrap up their work as quickly as possible and as fairly as possible, and then make a decision. that is what people should be entitled to. >> his chairmanship -- you'd think he can continue to be effective in that position? >> and makes it difficult, there is no question about that. he and the members of his committee in the leadership will have to discuss this. this all happened on friday and i think we have to visit that. the leadership needs to reduce debt. we're trying to do the right thing and sometimes the right

thing in a heated political environment is very difficult to do. >> chairman george miller of the education and labor committee. thank you for coming. >> thank you for the opportunity. >> steven dennis and perry bacon, what did you learn from the chairman? >> i think he reinforced what we have been hearing. they are ready to go forward and use whatever roles that they can come of this process called reconciliation, or you only need 51 votes to get the bill passed. they're focused on that. they are doing what they can to move forward in the next month. he was very emphatic on that point. >> anything about the ad on stealth care? >> is going to be interesting to see -- anything about the add- ons on health care? >> he is talking about this new student loan bill which is a

squeaker for a lot of bill. there's reconstruction money here and a lot of good things here. it is possible -- he left the door open to get some jobs- related items into this package. the republicans did a big reconciliation package in 2006 and it had all kinds of committees and their subsidies, there were lots of different kinds of things that people wanted and got votes. this is going to be down to the wire. it is one to be a very difficult road and very messy. he made it clear that he thinks they have the stomach to do it. i certainly talk to members today and on friday who do not think that their fellow members are going to be up to a messy month or two months of really messy procedural soup. before you can get to that final package.

ñihe seems to be gung-ho about doing that and we will have to say. >>çó he did not have a timeline floor. >> that's right. speaker pelosi talked about that ;well. that had dated a timetable, but they are trying to get this done by april said they can move toward jobs and the real elections. >> on jobs, what did you hear? >> it sounds like a split right now, for house democratic leadership are fine with having a series of bills, but never convicted the senate, they want to start climbing some victories. but a lot of rank-and-file members, especially liberal members and members of the congressional bank -- the congressional black caucus, they tend