that is above my pay grade by many, many rungs on the ladder. >> and by the way, that phrase "swing a cat," if you swing most cats, you get scratched, you know. >> well, i may do that right up here with the front row. [laughter] go ahead. >> robert -- >> i'm getting a little warm so i may change here in a second. go ahead. >> looking ahead to this ohio stuff on monday, is there going to be a retooled message? will there be a -- like, more of a sense of urgency in the closing days? what can we look for there? >> look, i think you'll hear the president -- i think the president will spend time hitting a lot of the themes that he hit on wednesday and on last monday: going through why reform is important, going through what it will do the minute he signs the legislation

on behalf of millions of americans, discussing what happens, again, if we decide now is not the time. and i think he'll reiterate again what i said earlier, in the fact that we're doing this not because it's easy, we're doing this not because the president is concerned about or looking to the next election, but looking to the next generation. and i think he'll reiterate that it's the important thing to do. >> one housekeeping question. as mike mentioned, you made this trip announcement on twitter this morning. it still hasn't shown up on any of our usual vehicles through your office officially. is twitter now going to become your vehicle of choice to tell us major things -- >> part of the reason -- part of the reason i did that, i bet some of you got emails that i sent you several hours after i actually sent them to you because there were some email

issues here at the white house and we felt like it was important to get a confirmation of that out. i would say twitter is a quick medium to get information out, and we'll probably use it more often. >> you know, there are about 20 or 25 other robert gibbses on twitter -- (laughter) -- some of them who deign to use your picture -- i don't know why presidential seal or the podium. are you concerned that one of these guys is going to hijack your message and, you know, maybe burn you at some point? >> no. i will say this, i mean, again, i think if you go to -- i don't know how many robert gibbs there are, but if you go to @presssec, you'll see that there is a verification for -- >> there is, indeed. >> so obviously -- >> several of them use that -- use a formulation with "presssec" in it, too. >> they're very funny. >> i think some of them are quite humorous. i would, again, look for the verification, and of course we only make big announcements in hockey jerseys.

so i'd say look for that. yes, sir. >> on the fed announcements, you mentioned there are three that are leading contenders. does that mean there are lagging contenders? how big is the pool? >> i wouldn't get into characterizing. i would just -- i put a few monikers on those names to describe where they are in the process. >> but there are other names in the process? >> there are other names, sure. >> and what does it mean to be a leading indicator? does that mean they -- >> a leading contender. >> a leading contender. >> it means you've done well in your weight class, you've done -- no. i would say -- i would put those at the top of the president's list.>> have they spoken to the

president? has the president offered them the job? >> when we have official announcements, we'll put them on twitter. [laughter] i'm joking. i'm joking. i'm joking. i'm joking. come on, i'm wearing a hockey jersey, for god's sake. [laughter] go ahead. >> well, it makes it funnier, i guess. >> it does. >> is it fair to say, robert, that next thursday and friday the president will devote almost all of his attention to dealing with health care -- the votes and the pending conversations he may be needing to have with house democrats? >> major, i'm sure he'll dedicate a good -- a portion of his day -- look, understanding that the -- there's not a shortage of things that we could spend time with the president on that are very pressing. the president starts -- generally starts each day with a daily intelligence briefing, almost always has an economic daily briefing, a series of meetings with senior advisors. again, i assume he'll spend certainly a portion of his day dealing with the issues of health care, but i have no doubt that we'll -- we'll put on additional meetings on other topics that are of importance, whether they're the economy or whether they're national security. >> and the meeting yesterday, senator graham represented afterwards that he told the president face to face that if reconciliation is used for health care in the senate, that will kill any hope of putting immigration on the agenda as a doable item for the remainder of this legislative session. does the president have any reaction to that? >> i have not talked to him

directly about that statement. i doubt the president would have agreed with that. >> why? >> as we've talked about in this instance and about this issue before, reconciliation is something that has -- is a legislative tool that's been used on many, many occasions, particularly as it relates to things like health care. and we talked about the fact that the children's health insurance program was done through reconciliation, the cobra program was done through reconciliation. i don't know that senator graham believed that -- >> so would it be the president's perspective that that would be an alarmist --

>> well, hold on, let me -- i don't believe that -- i don't believe that senator graham thought that it would do damage to the legislative priorities of a president when in 2001 and in 2003 tax cuts went through reconciliation. so i wouldn't characterize it except to say i doubt the president agrees with it. >> okay. one issue that's come up for luis gutierrez, who i believe attended the meeting with the president yesterday with the congressional hispanic caucus -- >> i don't have a list of the -- we had a list of -- i think we put out a list of invitees. i do not know who was there. i can certainly check and see if representative gutierrez was there. >> okay. one issue he raised today -- he still remains concerned, and he was when he voted for the house bill, about restrictions in the senate bill, which of course is the underlying legislation, and there are no known fixes being proposed on immigration that i'm aware of -- please tell me if i'm wrong -- that the senate language is simply too restrictive and it doesn't allow undocumented workers, even with their own money, to purchase in the health exchange system, and would keep them -- prevent them from doing that for five years. he now says publicly he will vote no. is that a concern to the white house?

is there something that the white house is open to in dealing with that issue in fixing the legislation? or is that something that needs to -- >> let me check with legislative affairs. i know that -- i don't know the degree to which -- i was not in yesterday's meeting so i can certainly try to check on that. >> robert, yesterday you said some of the president's big priorities after health care are financial regulatory reform and the citizens united case. what did you mean by that? in other words, what can you do specifically about that ruling? >> well, the legislation right now with senator schumer and congressman van hollen that would address some of the things that were opened up as a

result of that supreme court ruling. we've certainly looked at that legislation, and i think counsel and others are evaluating that and other vehicles in order to address -- to address what the supreme court opened up in their ruling. >> one more question while you have the usa sweater on there. i draw your attention to a web site that's posted a letter to "barack the red" -- not what you think it means. >> do i need to get my canadian jersey back? >> no. [laughter] they write, "these are trying times. unemployment is in double digits audacity? check out number eight, alexander ovechkin. hope? this season has found the capitals with better postseason prospects than any other year." they plaintively write at the end here, "the capitals bandwagon is filling up quickly, but we need a leader." [laughter] will the president commit to going to a washington capitals game this season? >> i can't say -- >> it would be his first hockey game ever, right? >> i can't say -- no, i think he's been to -- i'll check and see if he's been to a game in chicago or not -- less so in hawaii. i will check on whether he's been to a game before. i don't know whether he'll do that before march 18th, but -- >> he's got a couple extra days now. [laughter] >> come on, guys.

it's friday, for god's sakes. [laughter] look, i think he would very much enjoy going. obviously the last time he ventured out to a sporting event, georgetown looked like they did yesterday, not like they did in the previous several weeks. so, look, i know he enjoys going out there. i know that -- i think we've gotten invitations from the owner to go. and i know he'd be -- he can borrow my jersey. yes, ma'am. >> robert, i wanted to ask you about the afghanistan meeting today. did the issue of reconciliation -- not health care -- (laughter) -- but the reconciliation with the taliban come up? officials have said in the past that they think that the u.s. should only do that from a position of strength. >> i will say, helene, i left with about two or three minutes

to go in the meeting. they were just getting to -- or i should i say i left when i thought two or three minutes were left in the meeting. i will find out if there were additional conversations. this was something the president was bringing up as i left the meeting after about an hour and a half. so let me see if there's any additional information on that. yes, sir. >> thank you, robert. two questions on pennsylvania. first, last week both major parties chose candidates for the western pennsylvania seat of the late john murtha. the president campaigned for bill owens in new york last year and for ms. coakley in massachusetts. does he plan to campaign for mr. critz? >> i don't have any scheduling information on that, and i can certainly check with political affairs. the other thing, indeed have an answer yet on sestak's charge? >> i don't have any more information on that. peter. oh, i'm sorry, i'm sorry -- go ahead. >> robert -- thank you, robert. when all is said and done, isn't it really more for image that the president -- are you going to take off your -- >> yes, it's getting a little warm in here, and it's not just me. >> looks pretty good. >> go ahead, i'm listening. i can do two things at once, guys. >> absolutely.

when all is said and done, isn't it really a good argument that the president is going to go to -- going to postpone his trip really for image and not really for substance? you said before that he does have a telephone -- a cell phone on the plane, he's in touch with everybody, he could do it here. but, frankly, there's a lot of heat i think being generated that he's away from maybe some people think he should be here. so how do you respond to those kinds of concerns? >> look, the president shouldn't go at all? >> no, not that -- yes, you've made the point it's a good trip. but -- >> well, no, it's an important trip, right. >> an important trip. >> maybe i don't -- i'm failing to understand -- give me the first part of your question. >> the president is now not going -- now postponing his trip. couldn't the argument be made that it's more for image, that he really can do everything, as you've said before, on the trip that he can do here, and now he's reversing course? >> no, i -- look, i -- as i said, certainly the plane comes,

in many ways regrettably, with all that equipment that would allow him to be in touch. i think everybody believed that him being here was more important. the trip -- we didn't postpone the trip for any image sake. i think the -- in the discussion that the president had with the speaker and the majority leader in the senate, it was agreed upon that, quite frankly, we could do -- we could give a few extra days here to what they needed as well as keep -- and i will say our scheduling guys have done a heroic job of keeping the trip intact in an important region of the world. so this is not done for anything other than a few extra days to work on getting health care reform through the process, as well as keeping that important trip. >> has he got a few people that he's specifically earmarking to talk to that he thinks might be able to change their minds, those who voted for and now

might vote against, or people he thinks he might be able to -- >> look, without getting into a lot of names, i think we've all seen folks that have said they want to take a look at what the new legislation is. again, i think people are rightly waiting for an evaluation from cbo as a way of answering some of the questions that they have. i think the president certainly will talk to people about, again, why he thinks the bill is important and why he thinks it does so many good things on cost and things like that. peter. >> thanks, robert. on immigration reform, will the president work to round up more republican co-sponsors for the bill that schumer and graham are working on? >> let me not get ahead of the president's evaluation process of the framework that they walked him through some yesterday. >> and also, do you expect that the president may give a public statement or a speech of any kind on immigration, maybe before the rally in washington on the 21st? >> let me check with scheduling. i know the -- look, i will say this, i know the president

committed to senators schumer and graham, to the hispanic caucus, and to activists, as i think you read in his statement yesterday, the importance of and his strong belief in getting comprehensive reform done. he's a supporter of that, and obviously it is our strong hope that we can make progress on this. >> robert, there's talk on the hill about putting the president's student loan proposal into the health care bill. what does that have to do with health care, and why would that go in there? >> i don't think any final decisions have been made. obviously one way of getting important reforms through the legislative process would be in this vehicle. i think this is -- these are reforms that are good for students, they're really good

for taxpayers, they're bad for special interests. i don't think -- again, i don't think any final decisions have been made on capitol hill. i would point you up there. i know the president is a strong believer in a reform system that would cut out the middleman on borrowing money for millions of kids to go to college. >> is it because -- i mean, but it also would save money. is it because it would bring down the overall cost of the package, including the health care part? >> i don't have anything on that. again, i know this is an important reform for the president. yes, sir. >> thank you, robert. on afghanistan and the meeting this morning, as general mcchrystal -- is he satisfied with the nato involvement in the marja offensive -- the british and the canadians were involved. and knowing that nato hasn't been able yet to reach the goal of several thousand nato soldiers on the ground, has the president or does the president intend to reach to nato leaders, and the canadian prime minister in particular, on this topic?

>> nato came up in the sense of discussing their contributions and in walking through the commitment that we need, quite honestly, from all of our partners, particularly in the realm of training. we did not discuss in the meeting any additional steps that the president might take. again, the president and many on the team understand the importance of what we have to do in -- not just in force contributions. as i mentioned, general mcchrystal believed that the pace of force flow from what the president had asked for was on schedule. but we have critical improvements that have to be made as it relates to an afghan national army and critical improvements that have to be made in an afghan national police and the importance of getting additional trainers

from nato countries to afghanistan as quickly as possible. we are -- in these meetings, the president has gone through and looked at monthly recruitment and retention goals because at some point we're going -- we're not going to be there forever. and the afghan national army -- and in many districts not only are we going to need improved governance but we're going to need a police force that can keep the peace. so that came up, but there were no -- there was no discussion of additional calls by the president. yes, sir. oh, stephen, you didn't have -- i thought you had some. >> actually, just on that subject, will the president

perhaps make a new request to australia during his trip for more help in afghanistan for perhaps trainers rather than combat troops? >> let me check with nsc on that. that was not discussed. yes, ma'am. >> robert, back on the issue of the public option, now that it's off of life support and it's now one of the casualties of the fight for health care reform, is the president looking at passage and then possibly going back after the passage to tweak it? and the reason why i ask that -- some members of the congressional black caucus who were for the public option and now are saying, okay, there have problems before when we passed something and we've come back to tweak it, like on medicare, social security. is that the president's mindset as well, and did he talk to them about that? did they have that kind of discussion yesterday? >> i will check with folks that -- i was not in that meeting because that was taking place during my briefing. i don't know whether that was something that was discussed. i know that the -- again, the president is focused on the legislation that we have at hand and in trying to get that

through and i think that's what, again -- >> so he's not looking down at the road at re-tweaks. he's just looking -- >> right now we're focused on -- we can't re-tweak anything that we can't get passed, and that's what our focus is at the moment. >> robert, as you know, you had a little bit of a hiccup there at the end with the confirmation of ben bernanke at the fed. neither one of these three potential appointees seem to have a lot of small business experience, they're fairly mainstream folks from the financial world. five senators have just put out a letter to the president requesting that these three appointees have real-world experience, experience with the middle class and small business owners. do these three folks have that kind of experience, and how do you respond to those concerns?

>> i'm happy to look at the letter. i think that these are strong contenders. they have strong credentials. they have good experience. i'm happy to look at the letter and maybe have a better comment on it then. george. >> boehner and mcconnell have put out their names for the deficit commission. do you have any reaction to those names? and when do you hope that commission gets up and working? >> well, look, i think it's a positive development for the commission that while there was some concern about whether republicans would put forward names they now have, and i think that's an important and a positive development, we think and hope that the rest of those names will be coming forward soon. look, i think the president believes that this is an important -- an important commission to look at all of the

aspects of what this government spends money on and to evaluate its sustainability in the future. obviously you've got many -- many of those choices have put forward, in the case of congressman ryan or in others, their own plans in the past, and i'm sure that will -- that will govern many of the recommendations and advice that some of those members have. again, our strong hope is that in the next few weeks, not only will the commission be filled out but we'll have staff in place and that the commission can meet soon in order to generate recommendations, hopefully that congress can act on quickly. ken. >> robert, my understanding is that they're going to start marking up the reconciliation bill at the same time that we're going to be dealing with

trying to get the senate bill passed. what's the white house role in that? and also, won't that be a little bit confusing to be working on sort of two tracks of health care at once? >> no, no, look, i think the -- obviously the house will take up the measure. the budget committee has to take up in the house reconciliation, begin that process. i think the speaker has said that that will be posted on the internet for some period of time. i don't think it will be confusing because i do think that, at this point, people understand that this is a -- this is a two-step process that has to get done before we can wrap health care up altogether. thanks, guys. have a good weekend. >> coming up next on c-span, a

state department briefing on the situation in somalia. that to be followed by discussion on the growth of islamic radicalism in the united states. after that, our prime time meeting gets under way. >> tomorrow, chief justice john roberts talk about the confirmation process and whether the supreme court justices should attend the state of the union address. he spoke earlier at the university of alabama. you can see this, and saturday at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> obama and his socialistic ideas. this is a life lesson improv fish right now for conservatives. >> michelle easting, founder and president of the boothe luce policy institute.

sunday night on c-span. >> an update on the situation in somalia. we will hear from the assistant secretary of state for african affairs. they discuss u.s. policy for the country including the assistance being offered to those being displaced by the fighting between government back troops and rebel forces. this is about 35 minutes. >> good morning. we are here for a special breeding by johnny carson and ambassador to the world through program -- food program in a row. they will speak to as of u.s. policy in somalia. >> thank you. thank you all for coming today.

i want to take this opportunity to address a number of press reports over the past week characterizing our policy in somalia. specifically regarding our assistance to the government. these reports have not accurately reflect it or portrayed our policy position and what we are doing in that country. today i will take a few moments to set the record straight and to place our policy in proper context. u.s. policy in somalia is guided by our support for the djibouti peace process. the djibouti peace process is an african led initiative which enjoys the support of the enter governmental authority on development, egad. it a

also enjoys the support of the african union and the keepsake in the region. the to do the peace process has also been supported by the united nations, the european community's common the arab league, and the organization of islamic conference. the to the peace process -- to bit puts together a somali government. it shows the importance of the history and this of plan relations that have driven the conflict in somalia for the past 20 years the traditional federal government builds on in the progress made during the establishment of the djibouti peace process. extremist elements such as al- sabah of the have chosen to

reject the peace process and have waged a violent campaign against the pfg and the people of somalia in order to impose their own position for the -- vision for the future. the united states and the international community and, un, and our european allies have chosen to stand with those people. we have provided limited military support to the transitional federal government. we do so in the firm belief that they seek to end the violence in somalia that is caused by owlish above and other extremist organizations. the united states does the cl nn the military operations.

we will not be providing direct support for any potential military offensive. we cannot providing the military advisers for the pfg. there is no desire to americanize the conflict in somalia. we are aware of the recording of the somali monitoring group with concerns about the diversion of food and assistance in somalia. the state department has received the reports. we are reviewing it carefully. i will not comment on that. we have a representative from our bureau who can answer those questions. we are concerned about the allegations that are contained in that document. the somali people have suffered tremendously throughout more

than 20 years of conflict. somalias turmoil destabilizes that only that country but the region and some aspects of the international community. the u.s. recognizes that any long-term solutions. they will participate in the hard work of stabilizing the country for the benefit of somalias population. i would now like to recognize and ask ambassador cousin who is in rome whether she would like to add your comments. thank you. >> thank you very much. i would also like to thank the members of the press for your

interest in covering these important issues related to somalia as johnny carson city, they have suffered tremendously during the 20 years of conflict. the monitoring group, more commonly known as the sng, c and it did their report to the u.n. sanctions committee. -- submitted their report to the u.n. sanctions committee. the report directly to the security council on implementation of the somalia sanctions regime. we take the work of the somali munching a group of very serious. -- monitoring group very seriously. . .

consensus was reached by the board to ensure that all practices of the wfp in -- wfp team in somalia are in line with the organization's policies and procedures. we will continue to work to ensure that the generous contributions of the american people to support the work of the world food program are managed in an accountable and transparent manner. we express our gratitude to the

wfp staff for their commitment to meet humanitarian needs in the most difficult of circumstances. the united states remains strongly committed to meeting the humanitarian needs of the people of somalia. we continue to seek ways to ensure that the somalian people receive the assistance they require. i'll end here, assistant secretary, and look forward to any questions from the media. thank you. >> before we get to the questions, i would like to make a correction for the record. i described ambassador cousin's -- one of her official duties rather than her official title, which is -- ambassador to u.s. mission to the un agencies in rome is her official working title. as we call on you, please identify yourself and which ambassador you would like to speak to. matt. >> matt lee with ap. ambassador carson, you mentioned at the very top -- you were talking about a number of recent press reports. can you be specific about what these reports said?

i'm not asking you to identify whatever organization they were responsible. but what did they say? and what is wrong -- what was wrong with them? secondly, you said that the djibouti process was supported by igad, the au, and all the countries of the region. but that's not entirely true, is it? i mean, there is one country that doesn't support it. or has eritrea changed their position? and then --those two very briefly -- but then on the military aid that you talked about the several tons of weapons that have been provided to the tfg. are there any concerns that those weapons may be leaking out in the same way that the food aid was described as leaking out to insurgents? >> let me say, the most prominent article was one that appeared approximately a week ago in the new york times, written by jeff gettleman, and i think co-authored by one of

his colleagues, which asserted or carried the assertion that the u.s. government had military advisors assisting and aiding the tfg, that the u.s. government was, in fact, helping to coordinate the strategic offensive that is apparently underway now, or may be underway now, in mogadishu, and that we were, in effect, guiding the hand and the operations of the tfg military. all of those are incorrect. all of those do not reflect the accuracy of our policy, and all of those need to be refuted very strongly. i think my statement clearly outlined what we are doing and why we are doing it.

you indicated that one state in the region has not joined in, and that is absolutely true; that is eritrea. but eritrea, in fact, stands alone. what my statement said was that all key states in the region, all the important states in the region -- and i would include among them kenya, ethiopia, uganda, and other members of igad -- >> you're not planning to meet up with president isaias anytime

soon, are you? >> whenever an opportunity presents itself to engage president isaias in a conversation that will lead to peace and a cessation of eritrean support for spoilers in the region, i will do so. with respect to military weapons, we try as best we possibly can to ensure through a number of mechanisms that any assistance, any assistance that we give to the tfg, directly or indirectly, is accounted for and audited through mechanisms that we believe are very good. >> are you aware of any concerns that weapons have -- may have gone to insurgents? >> there are allegations out there. but let me say that because of two decades of conflict and instability in somalia, the country is awash with arms and, in fact, is an international arms bazaar. weapons can be acquired very easily on the black market and they can be sold very easily on the black market.

we undertake, through a number of mechanisms, including one that we have intentionally put in place to monitor any support that we give, to ensure that every possible effort is maintained over the handling of any assistance we provide. >> andrew quinn from reuters. i have one question for ambassador cousin. i was hoping you could talk a little bit more about what the practical results will be of this consensus you spoke of with regards to the wfp activity in somalia and the u.s. role in providing some of the food aid there. is that going to -- if it's stopped, is it going to resume? what happens now? and for ambassador carson, i was wondering -- and you're talking about the inclusive -- hoping for an inclusive resolution of the situation.

do you -- does the u.s. foresee or encourage a sort of afghanistan-style reintegration effort, reaching out to members of al-shabaab and so on to bring them perhaps back on board with the tfg or other sort of more centrist elements? and secondly, what does -- does the u.s. have a position on the au's calls for un peacekeepers in somalia? where do we stand on that one? >> ambassador cousin first. ambassador cousin, please. >> thank you. the board will continue to work with wfp to ensure that all the policies and procedures of wfp are followed in somalia, just as they are in other countries where wfp partners with the u.s. and other countries in the delivery of food assistance. we, the united states, as well as the board continue to be committed to supporting the food security needs of the people of somalia. >> ambassador.

>> on the issue of inclusiveness, we believe that the long-term solution for somalia's conflict is to be found in a political reconciliation. we believe that it is important for the tfg to reach out to broaden its base as much as possible, to bring in as many clan and sub-clan groups as possible, to include among its rank other moderate islamist groups and somalis who were not a part of that group. i would think that any moderate islamists who are seeking peace, who are denouncing al- shabaab, and who want to be a part of a peace process should, in fact, be considered for inclusion in a tfg government.

with respect to the call by the au for a un peacekeeping force in somalia, i think that it is important at this point that amisom do the job that it has committed itself to do, that more african countries step up to participate in the amisom force, along with the ugandan, burundian, and djiboutian troops who are already on the ground.[1] the force was -- for amisom was originally supposed to be 8,000 men. it is only slightly over 5,000. we hope other african nations will come forward to make contributions to the effort in somalia. the africans, as i've indicated, have recognized the

importance of stabilizing that country. this has been recognized in igad, in au resolutions, and the commitment by african countries themselves to put troops on the ground. this is essentially an african effort, an african-led effort that does deserve the support of the international community. but it is important that amisom do the primary work of trying to establish peace in that country. >> thank you. we'll go back to the third row, then we'll come back to the second row. yes, please, sir. >> i have three small questions.

the first one is: i know you stated very clearly that united states is not coordinating or involving any impending military offensive by the tfg. but has the tfg requested any military assistance, specifically aerials and military strikes, from the united states government? and if so, what was your response or your reply to them? and the other question is: have there been any military advisors from the united states government or any sort of covert military presence in somalia, in mogadishu during the past few months? because in mogadishu, the talk is that there is a very strong feeling that there are some sorts of military advisors from the united states government in mogadishu. so can you confirm whether there has been any visit, any sort of visit from the united states government, military advisors to somalia?

and the third and final >> as you said, you do not want to americanize the somali tfg military operations. but in september 2009, we know that an operation by the united states government killed one of the al-qaida leaders in east africa in somalia. so how does these two arguments go along? >> let me respond to all three questions. i have not, in my office, received any formal or informal request from the tfg for airstrikes or operations in support of the offensive that may be underway right now. i have seen newspaper comments of tfg leaders responding to questions that have been posed to them about whether they would be willing to accept outside support.

but we have not received any, i have not received any, my office has not received any requests for airstrikes or air support or people on the ground to assist the tfg in its operations. the tfg military operations are the responsibilities of the tfg government. i will reiterate what i said in my statement: we do not have any american u.s. military advisors on the ground assisting the tfg in its operations. it should be very clear: we do not have any american u.s. military advisors on the ground. we are not planning, coordinating any of the tfg's military operations. it is for the tfg leadership to

determine how its military operates on the ground. finally, the issue of americanization of this. this is not an american conflict. this is a conflict among somalis that africans and members of the international community recognize as being extremely important for somalia, for the region, and for the international community. it will be up to the somalis to ultimately resolve this conflict. the u.s., along with others in the international community, can contribute in a supporting role, which we do and acknowledge, but not to become

directly engaged in any of the conflict on the ground there. >> just to follow up on that, the somali government itself is saying that the conflict is not a somali conflict anymore; there is the clear affiliation by al-shabaab with al-qaida on the other and u.s. military operation last year in the south of somalia. and in 2000, there were at least three other airstrikes. so it's not a somali conflict anymore. your take on that? >> that is a misreading of somalia's history, its culture, and its long period of internecine conflict inside the country, as well as in the region itself. somalia has been torn apart by internal strife for more than two decades.

that two decades supersedes many of the terrorist activities and events that you would like to associate with somalia. somalia's problems are the result and absence of a central government, constant tensions between various regions among the five major clans and many sub-clans that exist. there are indeed individuals who have more recently come in from outside of the country to take advantage of some of the chaos and disorganization that exists there, but somalia's problems are to be resolved by somalis by recognizing the

reasons and causes of the conflict in their own country. somalia's people have to work together to bring peace to their country. >> thank you. as our time is limited, let's try and limit the follow-ons, please. yes. >> catherine herridge of fox news. how would -- ambassador, how would you characterize the relationship between al- shabaab, which appears to be growing bolder every day, and al-qaida in yemen, and what that will mean for the united states? >> there is no question that some individuals, mostly in the senior leadership of al- shabaab, are affiliated either directly or indirectly with international terrorist groups. some would like to be even more affiliated. but it is important to recognize that al-shabaab, which

no doubt is carrying out many terrorist activities in that country, is not a homogeneous, monolithic, or -- group that is comprised of individuals who completely share the same political philosophy from top to bottom. >> but just to follow up on that, because certainly, what the -- it's not an american problem. i understand what you're saying there. but certainly, there are very significant american interests involved, given that al-shabaab is actively recruiting americans of somali descent in this country to train in the camps there. and just this week, al-shabaab has said that it's not afraid of any american intervention in

that country. >> the young somalis who were recruited in this country to go back to somalia to fight went back to fight against the ethiopian incursion that occurred in that country. they did not go back to protest or to fight against the -- any kind of a u.s. policy in that country. and it's very clear that they went back for somali nationalistic reasons. they went back to fight ethiopians who -- >> but we were backing the ethiopians. was the u.s. not backing the -- >> they went back to fight against ethiopians. the united states was not in somalia. >> charlie. >> ambassador carson, charlie wolfson from cbs. can you just give us a dollar

figure here of how much aid? and maybe to the ambassador in rome, cousin -- ambassador cousin, how much money is the u.s. giving for this effort either on the food side or totally? >> i'll let ambassador cousin speak to the food issue. but with respect to u.s. support for amisom, the united states, as a member of the contact group and as a member of the international community, has provided something in the neighborhood of $185 million over the last 18 or 19 months.[2] and that is in support of the amisom peacekeeping effort -- uganda, primarily, but burundi and djibouti as well. funding going to the tfg from the united states has been substantially smaller, and that number is approximately $12

million over the last fiscal year.[3] so the amounts o. that we are talking about are really relatively small. i'll let ambassador cousin speak to the food issue. >> thank you. our food aid, our food assistance budget for somalia is approximately $150 million. but at this time, the wfp is not operating in the southern region of somalia, and our operational and food aid support to somalia is limited to the northern region of somalia only. >> charley, then david. and i think that's about all we'll have time for. charley. >> please, sir.

charley keyes of cnn. you've spoken several times about what u.s. military assistance is not, but can you be any more specific about what u.s. military assistance to somalia is? >> well, let me just say the united states government in support of amisom, largely through programs run by the department of state, has, in fact, provided assistance to amisom. we have supported the acquisition of non-lethal equipment to the governments of burundi and to uganda, in particular. we have provided them with military equipment, and this ranges every -- from everything from communications gear to uniforms. we have supported the training of tfg forces outside of

somalia, mostly in uganda but also in djibouti. we have paid for the transportation of the troops back from their training places abroad into the country. we have also paid for specialized training given by ugandans to the djiboutians to deal with such things as improvised explosive devices, training for the protection of ports and airports. but this has been done by the ugandans, not by any u.s. government military officials. so those are some of the things. and everything that we have

done, we have reported, as required, to the un sanctions committee. >> thank you. david, final question. >> dave gollust from voice of america. you keep reading that the transitional government, like, controls a matter of blocks in mogadishu, that it's very weak, it's very threatened. what is your take on its survivability? >> i think the tfg has demonstrated in an enormous capacity to survive. when sheikh sharif took office as the head of the tfg approximately 16 months ago, there were individuals who predicted that his government would fall within a matter of months and that he would not be able to reside and govern from

mogadishu. that has not been true. almost a year ago, in may of last year, al-shabaab mounted an enormously large offensive designed to break the back of the tfg and the will of amisom. they failed to do so. the fact that the tfg remains standing is a reflection of its resolve and the commitment of its leaders to stand up against al-shabaab. and they are demonstrating their capacity to do so on a daily basis. there is no doubt that the tfg is still fighting very hard to regain control over most of mogadishu. reports that it controls only three, four, or five city blocks are erroneous. what the tfg does control is the main port of mogadishu, the two main airports, and all of

the central government buildings. it has clear control over a third of the city. and probably two-thirds of the city, some of which is controlled by al-shabaab, remains largely contested territory. we hope that as the tfg builds up its military forces, that it will be able to provide more security, exert more control over the city, and demonstrate its capacity to protect the citizens of the country. we also hope that it will also be more inclusive, reach out to other clans and sub-clans, and to expand its political

influence, and also to be able deliver services. but again, i want to emphasize, these are the responsibilities of the tfg. this is a somali problem primarily that has affected the region and, to a certain extent, the international community. the united states believes that the somalis and africans should not -- should, in fact, remain in the lead. this is not an american problem and we do not seek to americanize the conflict there. >> assistant secretary carson, thank you. ambassador cousin, thank you very much for appearing with us today. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. that concludes today's briefing. please stand by for the regular daily press briefing, which should begin shortly.

x tomorrow, of washington journal, the lending services that are not affected by services. and then, our guest, michael:. -- our guest, michael cohen. washington journal, with your phone calls and emails live, every morning, starting at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> c-span, our public affairs content is located on television, radio, and on line and you can connect with us on a twitter, casebook and youtube. >> up next, a discussion on growth of islamic radicalism in the united states from today's "washington journal," this is about 30 minutes.

emerson is the executive director of the investigative project on terrorism. mr. emerson, if you could start by telling us what that is. guest: it's an organization i founded in 1995 to track the activities, investigate the operations of radical islammist groups on american soil and their ties to international terrorism overseas. it followed the production and broadcast can of a documentary that i had done in 1994 for pbs called "jihad in america." the investigative project on terrorism, now 15 years old, has amassed a repository of close to five million documents , 50,000 hours of reported video and audio of radical islammist groups gathering conference, as well as many other types of data. host: why did you start this project in 1995 or start 9 documentary in 1994? guest: good question. i had been a reporter for cnn in 1993.

and right after the first world trade center bombing in february of 1993, cnn asked me to do a documentary on the roots of that bombing. i already had some prior knowledge of the extent to which radical islammist groups had morphed from being anti-soviet jihad groups in the u.s. to being anti-american groups, like hamas, like islammist jihad. i proposed back to cnn that we do a documentary about how the radical groups had morphed into legitimate groups under false names. so hell has no fury like a journalist scorned. i quit, i took my documentary to public television. they gave me some seed money. i ratesed the rest of the money, and i did documentary called "jihad in america" that had a lot of video of

undercover radical islammist gatherings in the united states from boston to california calling for jihad. and after the film was done, i realized that there was nobody tracking these groups. the f.b.i. wasn't tracking these groups. they were all below the radar screen. and if they weren't doing anything illegal except calling for the death to america, there was nothing that they were doing that was violating the law. so i formed this organization to track them, and we see now that many of the groups were formed out of the muslim brotherhood, which was an organization that was created in 1920's in egypt that believes in the imposition of the code of islammist law. host: how long have you known about colleen larose? guest: i've known about her a little bit before it was announced in the papers that she had been arrested.

it was only disclosed this past week that she had been arrested and charged with, i think, seven counts, including one count of material support, another count of conspiracy and murder, another count of false documentation and lying to the f.b.i. aim sort of plugged in to a number of other groups that tracked islamist, radical islamist activity on the internet. host: so did you know about jihad jane? had you been tracking her at all? guest: we had not been tracking her. we've known about her and some other names of people that are quite open and amazingly open on the internet in terms of soliciting support. some of them could be fake names, designed by law enforcement to illicit would-be jihadists. others are real. so we've tracked or at least followed some of those names.

host: and there's an article this morning in the "los angeles times" that says internet making it easier to become a terrorist. do you agree with that and how so? guest: i think it's true. i think that it's the reverse of the global village. you can bring in the actual ability to communicate with any terrorist overseas right into your living room, to your computer. you can raise money by offering to become a jihadist. the internet really has made this instan tains ability to raise funds, recruit, become part of a conspiracy without ever leaving your home. of course, at some point, if you're going become an active jihaddist and carry out an act of terrorism, you're going to have to leave your home as jihad jane did when she traveled once to ireland and once to sweden to track the activities of the swedish cartoonist who she volunteered to help assassinate.

host: has home-grown terrorism grown in the u.s.? guest: good question. absolutely. there's no doubt that home grown terrorism not affiliated -- i mean, there's home hand terrorists, ones that are directed externally by al qaeda, others, like the most recent arrest of the man who was going to blow up himself on the new york city subway system, or others like daniel boyd out of north carolina or jihad jane who are not affiliated at all with external groups, but become mobilized and radicalized in the united states. in 2009, there were 15 successful or unsuccessful terrorist attacks by jihadists. nine of the 15 were carried out by non-al qaeda, home-grown terrorists, the largest number we've seen since 9/11. so we're definitely seeing a

rise in home-grown islamist terrorism. people that are not affiliated, but get radicalized either through the internet, through local mosques, through videos, or through charismatic jihadists who prevail upon them to carry out acts of terrorism. scommoip in fact, eugene robinson, in his column in "the washington post," says forget about plain jane and says that any efforts to profile airline passengers, for instance, would be failures, and colleen larose is an example. guest: well, one thing he's right about is definitely having an american passport is definitely key to being able to travel overseas without engendering the same suspicious as you would engender if the a yemene se or other passport. i will say this, still 95% of

the home grown jihadists still fit a certain type of profile. and while jihad jane did not because she was white, a white convert, 46 years old, she escaped that stereotype, but the other ones did not. and so profiling, which is a law enforcement technique that's gotten a dirty term, but used all the time, you look for the common denominator. so the common denominator last year of the 15, let's say holm grown spots were male between the ages of 19 and 36 and muslim. and that would be sort of a law enforcement profile. you would obviously include other factors such as the visit overeast, whether they went to gaza, whether they went to nigeria, whether they came from nigeria, whether they went to yemen. you don't want to use only racial profiling as a means,

but you want to include that criteria to help give you more insight into who might be a jihadist. host: steve emerson is our guest, director of the investigative project on terrorism. called have been up. st. louis, missouri, pat, republican, hi. caller: good morning. mr. emerson, i've seen you many times, and i admire your work and your dedication to bringing this out to the open, because i think too many americans just assume if you're islamic, you follow the islamic religion, you're peaceful like christianity or any other religion. but there's a component of it that doesn't promote peace. and i think it's important that people realize this, and i think a lot of us do, but because of political correctness, society we live in, we can't voice our opinions. and early one time you were talking about how the f.b.i. was handstrung and could not get into mosques to investigate some of the imams who preach

this hate. i think anybody in this country who preaches heat, destruction of america, or killing of innocents should be kicked out if they're not american citizens. guest: well, i tell you, the fact is that preaching hate and, let's say, calling for death to america or death to jews or death to christians, that is protected speech. that's not something that's actionable by the f.b.i. so, in fact, that's one of the reasons why my organization, the investigative project on terrorism, was created, so we could track the rhetoric, the extremist hate rhetoric coming out of various islamic leaders, but the f.b.i. could not track, could not use, could not correct because it was protected speech. the f.b.i. can only get involved if there's a conspiracy to carry out acts of violence. and it's my belief that we need to track some of the statements made by some radical leaders in order to show that they're not

as peaceful as they would be portrayed in the regular american media when they make statements that were against terrorism, but behind closed doors, they make other statements that are totally contrary to that message. host: how much of your work is done on the computer? all of it? guest: no, no, we're operational. i'd say we collect a lot of material from the internet, and we do a lot of analysis on the computer, but to be honest with you, the real material, the heart and soul of the material we collect is done through undercover operations in which we send people in to actually tape record or video record islamic radicals making speeches calling for death to america or support for terrorism. there's a need for going into the field. you can't avoid that. of course, you can buy videos

and audio on the internet, but generally speaking, those living in america, especially some of the savvy militants, and i'm not including the entire islamic community. i'm talking about islamic militants. they're savvy enough to know they shouldn't be putting out stuff that's radical on the internet. they do, however, say things behind closed doors. in fact, just yesterday in the virginia house of delegates there was an imam who convened the opening of the virginia state delegates assembly. he was reported by us as calling for the bombing of power plants and other bombings in israel and also in 2004 he made a statement at a mosque, where he is an imam, saying that islam will reign supreme. we felt that was important to get out, because he was being portrayed as this wonderful, peace technical foul, interfaith dialogue, but in

fact, he had made radical statements, including defending a known islamic terrorist. host: do you work with law enforcement? guest: yes, we do. we are not -- we have no financial ties to them. we're totally supported by the american public. we don't take a dime of money from the government, but we do work with law enforcement agencies. host: when you say the american public, you mean by donations, not tax dollars? guest: donations, absolutely. host: landover maryland, tony, i understand pnt line. please go ahead with your comments for steve emerson. caller: i do have a comment. i ask you don't cut me off, because this is a very important topic. let me just say, the whole entire campaign of terrorism, every action that was taken in the name of terrorism has been based on blatant lies. let me just make that clear. every single action. do your own research sense you're researching things, research that. every action on terrorism has been based on lies. every time before this campaign

on terrorism, before a terrorist act was committed, they always have some kind of practice. it happened on 9/11 when they had the practice of garbage for it to actually happen, that's why they couldn't respond. host: tony, given that you think that this is based on lies, why do you think that that process happens? guest: because this is a part of new world order to incriminate american citizens to make the entire american citizens distant. you have that law passed to say the president can assassinate any american citizen for any good reason. you also have a law -- host: all right, tony, we're going to leave it there. we got the idea. guest: well, let me just say this. this is a conspiracy quefment i reject it entirely in the same way that i would reject the notion that members of the ku klux klan were arrested because they were put up to it in some type of fabricated way. there's absolutely no question whatsoever that terrorism exists. it's not limited necessarily to

it's not limited necessarily to radical is lamists. -- timothy mcveigh was a terrorist. over the past eight years, 95 percent side of terrorism carried out against the united states has been carried out by radical islamists and have not been manufactured or anything. they do it because they believed that they need to be punished for a variety of reasons. host: do you worry about your safety? guest: that is an interesting question. i experienced a major problem about a decade ago when i was subject to an assassination plot. now, i live under false cover in the washington d.c. area. i watch my back a bit. we typically get tips by terrorists. we are careful.

it has not deterred us. host: next call for steve emerson, new york, noel, republican, hi. caller: how you zphoog i've been an airline pilot for years and years, and the one thing i do know is that el al, you never hear about them having a problem. of all the people that should have it, they don't. the reason? they profile like it's going out of style. boy, rock on with the profiling. i think it's a great idea. this country sticks its head in the sand and it doesn't want to acknowledge the obvious, which is that profiling works. and until we start getting that through our heads, we're going to have more and prisoner problems and it's just going to continue, and that's the way it is. thanks. guest: after the christmas day would-be bomber plot, there was a lot of discussion, which i participated in, about profiling and what i called for

is smart profiling, that is, you don't just pick somebody out because they're muslim, but because of religious identity, but you include that factor into a larger mix of information, such ads visas, such as where they were coming from, such as the school they may have graduated from, such as any other factors in the database. so you have a large database to include on which you can make your judgment about who gets the visa and who gets secondary treatment at an airport and you even get the airline ticket. that's what the watch lists are all about. the question is how much data do you include? you include religious factors into that mix to help you make that decision. doesn't always work, because we see with jihad jane, she walked around without showing that she had converted to islam, she

would never have been included. however, there may have been more information about her conversations on the internet with known jihadists that would have helped somebody make a decision, let's not allow her to -- let's not allow her to make a trip to sweden in order to carry out the assassination of a swedish cartoonist. host: do you think it would be politically feasible to include religion on a passport? or in the passport information? guest: no, no. i don't think so. host: but that's what you would like to see, you said. guest: no, no, no. i'm not saying that i want to see religion included on the passport. i'm saying that if we know someone's religious tendencies in a database, then we can include that into a mixture of how we decide information on which we decide whether someone gets secondary inspection.

but i do not believe you should include religion on the passport. host: do you think that american passports should be harder to get? guest: well, if you're an american and then you marry somebody from nigeria, your spouse then gets an american passport. and in fact, with jihad jane, she offered to marry someone from africa apparently who was going to be a participant in the conspiracy to carry out the assassination t. he would have gotten an american passport. so should we tighten up some of the regulations? yeah, i think we should probably tighten up some of the scrutiny of those who are getting passports. host: next call for steve emerson, david, new york city, democrat. caller: good morning, gentlemen. how you doing? i'm having a problem with the way that white americans are classifying terrorists, because, you know, i'm a history buff, and i realize that this land was stolen from

the native pool. they were terrorized by the americans, christian americans. and then we had the african people who live here today and they're being terrorized on a regular basis by people like the gentleman, timothy mcveigh, skin heads, ku klux klansmen, and actually police officers in america. i live in new york. and there was a gentleman who was shot over 50 times by police because he was standing on his stoop. this doesn't happen in any other country but america. so when i hear white males talk about profiling people who are terrorists and then you give examples, i say why isn't it that the gentleman who flew the plane into the i.r.s. building isn't classified as a terrorist when, in fact, he is? host: david, we got the point. mr. emerson? guest: i don't think one negates the other. no doubt i believe that the person who flew the plane into

the office building should have been classified as a terrorist. but it doesn't mean that we should not classify radical islamist, the fort hood shooter. in fact, surprisingly so, the obama administration wouldn't allow the patriot act to be applied to the fort hood prosecution, which is really stymied prosecutors. they're not charging him with terrorism, and i believe that act, in which he killed 13 individuals at fort hood, was predicated on his belief that radical islam mandated him to do so and that was an act of islamist terrorism. host: sasha, you think jihad jane needs to go to gitmo? mr. emerson? guest: i'm sorry? host: do you think jihad jane needs to go to gitmo? guest: no, i do not believe she needs to go to gitmo. i think that the evidence that

they've collected so far, retreevering all the email messages, her itinerary, her passport, her computer provides a substantial enough evidence to convict her in a civilian court. host: how sophisticated was her operation? guest: very unsophisticated, let's just say. there are people following her long before i was following or even got information about what she was doing, number one. and number two, ship didn't hide at all her wishes and her desires to carry out jihad, to recruit money for jihad, to recruit men and females for jihad. carrying out an act of terrorism overeast. i mean, it was blatant. she only hoped the avalanche of so many people on the internet would have hidden her identity and make it more difficult to retrieve her as a known terrorist, but she certainly was not sophisticated at all. host: next call for steve emerson, flip in tarrytown, will you please will you, independent.

caller: it's not so much with what this man says, it's what he does not say that expose the real agenda. what he does not say is documents show that the homeland security was set up begins americans. what he does not say is reports show that they were set up against americans. guest: where are the leaked documents coming from? caller: well, the reports are coming from police chiefs -- host: what is that? caller: they leaked them out that shows that the whole theme is set up, in homeland security was set up not for jihadists, not for the muslims, but for against the americans. guest: no, i disagree.

homeland was set up to protect the homeland. it doesn't make a distinction between white supremists or jihadists. that's number one. number two, and this is the point i should have said before, there are two types of jihad that we track. one is the violent jihad, those that carry out violence here in the united states, and the other is the self jihad, which is the jihad by which radicals insinuate themselves, infiltrate and penetrate u.s. government institutions, academia, journalism. and that i know that sounds conspiratorial, but based on documents we have posted on our website and came out during the hamas trial in 2008, it was revealed that there was a muslim brotherhood plan starting as early as 1991 to basically have a civilizational jihad process in the u.s. to infiltrate institutions of power to create a situation in which radical muslims would

have much more power politically without having to carry out violence. host: have you been accused of being a conspiratorialist in the past? guest: i've been aculesd of many things. that may be one of them. so i don't make judgments on the basis of theories or concoctions or presumptions. i base it on documents. so the documents that we have, which were released during the holyland case, show a plan to establish a state. they show a radical islamist muslim brotherhood plan in the united states. not all of it's been realized, but we'll be coming out with a documentary in the next couple of months that will reveal the documents and will have enter views with f.b.i. officials and are muslims who will talk about the stealth jihad and how they penetrate or tried to penetrate institutions of power in the u.s. again, i'm not a

conspiratorialist. i deal with the facts and we have a website set up which will have the documents in black and white for anyone to scrutinize. host: after 9/11, there was a professor, i think it was southern florida university, what's his status? guest: he was a professor of engineering at the university of south florida in tampa. i profiled him, or at least i interviewed him in my documentary in 1994, and concluded that he was head of the islamist jihad in the united states. after 9/11, he was indicted. a trial was held, and the trial -- in the trial, half of the charges that he was acquitted on, the other half it was a hung jury. he ultimately pled guilty to one count of material support. he served his time, and now he's being held under house arrest in virginia for refusing to testify before a grand jury investigating islamist terrorist ties in the northern virginia area.

host: why in virginia? guest: because there is an organization called the islamist international institute of islamist thought that has a whole labyrinth of islamist charities in which the department of homeland security issued an affidavit back in 2002 saying that they were supporters of radical islamist terrorism, including al qaeda and hamas, and so this grand jury was convened in order to examine and investigate the ties between this group in northern virginia and other radical islamist groups such as the group headed by him in florida, when was islamist jihad. host: huntington beach, florida, republican line. you're on with steve emerson. go ahead. caller: what about groups that say death to arabs? you shouldn't even have the position you have. you are very anti-semitic. i'm of middle eastern descent.

i am semitic. you are semitic, ok? and i'll tell you about the trial. khalid scheck mohammed, they don't want to try him in new york because he'll tell the truth. the motivation behind neil was for our support of israel and the oppression of the palestinians. and if you knew -- and you know what our money is doing over there. guest: some of the conspiratorials are coming out. khalid sheik mohammed was part of 9/11. he was the mastermind. they carried it out because they wanted to destroy or at least hurt the united states. and again, my agenda here is to root out the radicalism that affects the united states, either by terrorism or through legal insurgency. look, i could have had an operation that looked at all types of terrorism, e.t.a., animal rights terrorists, echo terrorists, japanese red army. i don't have the funds to do

that, and there are other groups that do, you know, southern policy law center looks at the ku klux klan. so we decided to created a group that looks at radical jihadists. we've done a fairly good job. in one goes to our website, which i have to mention it, it's www.investigativeproject.org. scommoip we've been putting it up on the screen. steve emerson is the executive director of the investigative project on terrorism. mr. emerson, we have three or four very sincere callers who you labeled or could be labeled conspiratorial. what do you say to them? they were very sincere in their beliefs. guest: let me give you an example of the problem. after 9/11, i spoke at a law school, and at the law school, i was being heckled. i didn't know what to do because of the speakers, you're heckled, so you can't speech. so i took my speech, ripped it

in half. in half. i got everybody's attenti -- how many believe that osama bin laden carried out 9/11 and half of the 1000 people raised their hands. and then i asked how many thought that israel and the cia carry out 9/11, the other half raised their hand. i am never going to get behind the reality that 9/11 was a conspiracy by the cia. i can try to convince them and i can present facts, but if someone is stuck on a conspiracy, nothing i can do will change their mind. >> thank you for being on the washington journal. >> you are welcome. >> tonight, on c-span, house speaker nancy pelosi, followed by the house debate on health care and then the white house

news briefing. . .

and now we're moving closer to passing historic health care legislation. this cdo -- cdo did come out with the report yesterday on the senate bill. -- the cbo did come out with a report as today on the senate bill which passed on christmas eve. what was positive about it was that it showed over $100 billion in savings for the first 10 years of the bill and one trillion dollars over the second 10 years. -- and $1 trillion over the second 10 years. that is what we hope to do with the reconciliation bill -- to sustain those numbers. the fact that what started -- the fact that we have started in a good place is very positive. we await the final word. then we will be able to send a

bill to the budget committee. the budget committee will pass that out. it will go to the internet. we will discuss the specifics of the legislation. we'll take whatever time is required for us to pass the legislation. again, i feel very exhilarating by the caucus we have this morning, in terms of the questions that members have. we spent a good deal of time on substance, but then some on the process as well. we stand ready to stay as long as it takes to pass the bill. i think members are eager to pass a bill. it will not be long before we are making a real difference in the lives of the american people. in terms of the house -- again, as i said, the cbo -- the substance, in terms of the agreement between the house and senate and what the senate tells

us they are prepared to act upon -- and then the action of the house. i am delighted the president will be here for the passage of the bill. it will be historic. it would not be possible without his tremendous, tremendous leadership, his persistence, his concern for the american people -- always guided by his statement that, "we will measure our success by the progress being made by america's working families." this legislation not only makes history, but will make progress for america's working families. questions? >> are using by march 21 you will pass this? >> we will take the time we need to pass legislation. i am hoping it will be in that timeframe. our clock cannot start ticking until we get that cbo score. >> will it be easier to get

votes for health care by attaching the student loans to it? >> thank you for that question. from the start, our budget construction was about to bills that would be reconciled -- one was health care and one was education. if i may step back for a moment, this goes back to our budget bill that was passed in the house 100 days after the president was inaugurated. in that bill, the president had a blueprint for lowering taxes, reducing the deficit, creating jobs, stabilizing our economy well into the future around three pillars. investments in education and innovation, which go together. investments in energy and climate change. investments in health care. we have passed all three of those bills. two of them -- the education bill and the health bill -- will

be part of reconciliation. the budget bill we passed in the spring. the budget construction we received in the fall was about reconciliation dealing with those. education reconciliation would bring us more savings. it would cost the taxpayers less. it would cost the students less for their student loans. that has always been part of the plan. there was some question as to whether this would prevail in the senate, until the senate parliamentarians -- yesterday morning, i'm losing track of time -- they announced it must be part of the reconciliation. that is why it has emerged again as a subject of more public view. it is really important. i do not think it would make any difference in our house about passing the bill. it will make a difference in

community colleges, pell grants, minority-serving institutions, k through 123 schools -- 12 schools. the amount will depend on what we hear from the cbo and senate. [unintelligible] >> senator durbin said this morning that if you include the public option in your version, with more than 40 senators thought is that something you're considering? >> let me say this -- and iw thn this room. i have supported -- when i support, signs in the street, advocacy in legislation -- i have supported single-payer for longer than many of you have been -- since many of you have

been going and you have lived on the face of the earth. i have always thought that was the way to go. the public option -- it is with sadness that i view it is not in the bill. in fighting for the public option, which was in our bill, we improved what is going to be in the final product. while we may not have a public option, we have the purpose of the public option served by the exchanges and what they allow, by rate reviews, which we insisted upon, and by saying that insurance companies, should they raise rates between now and the onset of the exchanges, they will be prohibited from participating in the exchange s. i believe we have a very strong

bill that will increase competition, lower cost for the american people, and accomplish some of the same goals, though it does not produce some of the same savings. that is what we were fighting for. the goal had to be served. what we will have in reconciliation will be something that is agreed upon in the house and senate that we can pass and they can pass. i am not having the senate -- which did not have a public option in this bill -- but any of that on our doorstep. we had it, we wanted it, and they did not have it -- it is not in the reconciliation. it has nothing to do with whether we initiated. we did. they did not. [inaudible] >> we are talking about something that is not going to be part of the legislation. why do we not talk about what is

going to happen? i am quite sad that the public option is not in there. it is not because the senate is working against it, it is because they do not have the votes to have it in the, or they would havere in there to begin with -- to have it in their, or they would have had it in there to begin with. >> how troubling is what the parliamentarians did regarding the president's signing the bill before they do anything? but it is not very troubling. it is more of a -- >> it is not troubling. it is more of a visibility issue. when we pass the senate bill, it is enacted. you do not have to wait for the president to sign it. stop me if that is the case -- it is important to note that what we're doing is reconciliation. we're dealing with a very few points.

affordability for the middle class, equity for the states to correct the nebraska fix, closing the doughnut hole for seniors -- i am finding out that a lot of people do not know what that is. making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors. expanding the accountability in insurance reform. in addition, on the pay-for side, changing the pay-for from the excise tax to another paid for -- another pay form. that is largely what is in the bill. it must be central to the budget -- nothing incidental or poor rural to the budget. -- peripheral to the budget. we will be acting upon the senate bill which has changes

from the house bill reflected in the reconciliation. in order to have the the senate bill be the basis and build upon it with reconciliation, you have to pass the senate bill. otherwise, you're talking about starting from scratch. we will pass the senate bill. once we pass it, whether the president signs it or does not, if people would rather he waited until the senate acted -- the senate parliamentarians, as you have said, said, in order for them to do the reconciliation based on the senate bill, it must be signed by the president. it is not going to make any difference, except maybe to move -- except maybe the mood of people are in. once we pass it in the house, it is going to be the law of the land. >> the rank-and-file still not

trust the senate. >-- still do not trust the senate. >> they are committed to making insurance more affordable to the middle class, having reforms that would end the prohibition on the denial of coverage based on pre-existing conditions, and to the goals of the legislation. there are strong enough to do it, regardless of when the bill is signed. we will have already passed the bill. >> the cbo says $9.70 trillion would be added over 10 years. do you intend to preside over a balanced budget ever? when was that be? -- when would that be?

>> let's reflect on where that deficit came from. we had two wars that were paid for supplementals. we had tax cuts to the wealthy which were a major contributor to the deficit in the bush years. having said that, it is our responsibility to reduce the deficit. for that reason, i am very pleased that the senate has now agreed to have pay-as-you-go, which became rule in the house as soon as i became speaker. it became law of the land when the senate agreed they would abide by pay-as-you-go. [inaudible] the second point is that we have commissioned that the president has, by executive order, put forth to take under consideration everything -- revenues, expenditures, entitlements, the rest -- and

that has a short fuse. it will be a this-year phenomenon. the president has asked for a freeze or cut in the appropriations bills as we go forward. what i say to members when they have an idea or suggestion for legislation, or amendment for a bill, is does it create jobs? does it reduce the deficit? that is the course we have to take. when the president -- under pay- as-you-go under president clinton -- the last four clinton budgets were either in- budget or in a surplus. we were on a trajectory of $5.60 trillion, going in a positive direction. after president bush's reckless economic policies and tax cuts to the wealthy, engaging in wars that he did not pay for, but added to the deficit -- even

before all of that, the trajectory changed to about $6 trillion in deficit -- a swing of about $11 trillion -- the biggest in history. we know how to turn that around. president clinton did it following the bush-reagan deficit. we have to turn it around now and that is our commitment to do so. >> on the assurances from the senate -- i realize that leader reid cannot give you ironclad assurances because of the rules of the senate. what assurance is have you gotten that they will probably take up the reconciliation bill to ease your members' fears? >> we have sent a number of bills to the senate which not yet been acted upon. that is largely because of the obstructionism of the republicans there, requiring 60 votes on every bill. senator reid has had the votes, but has not had the time

to address each one of these issues. the concern that they had was about what has happened in the past, based on the 60-vote rule. under reconciliation, the simple, a constitutional majority -- members are much more comfortable about the fact that this reconciliation will happen. nonetheless, there are assurances they want and we will get for them before i ask them to dig the vote. we are at a very good place. our numbers are -- what we're seeing from cbo is positive. we want it to be certified, so that we can go forward with this bill as soon as possible. again, any hesitation anybody might have is offset by the great vision they have for health care for all americans, and that we will be able to do it in a reasonable amount of

time. it will take faith. what we do always does. can we do one more? >> use said yesterday that he would give your members one week to look at all -- you said yesterday that you would give your members one week to look at the legislation. >> i said we would have one week from yesterday. i hoped we would have the cbo scores as soon as possible so we could go to budget at the beginning of the week. thank you. thank you. [inaudible] it is an independent agency. i wanted them last friday and hope that we get them today. thank you. thank you. >> today, in the u.s. house, majority leader steny hoyer and minority whip eric cantor talked about the health care bill and there disagreements on the issue. this lasts about half an hour. the gentleman. madam speaker, i think it's been well reported that the

majority plans to try and use the reconciliation process to ram through a health care bill through this house and the one across the capitol, and we also know from the reports that it is imperative that this house and the house majority, the members of the majority must first pass the senate health care bill before any other action on a reconciliation measure is taken. the gentleman has announced, madam speaker, that all this will take place next week. and i'd wonder if the gentleman could give us a little bit more clarity as to the schedule and perhaps the need for members to keep their schedules flexible through the weekend and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. first, let me say, no matter how often the gentleman and his colleagues want to say so, we are going to ram through something, no matter how many times the press and public may

be misled by that assertion, we're not ramming through anything, i tell my friend. we are following the rules of the house and following the rules of the senate that have been decades in existence. which have been used when they've been used 72% of the time they've been used, 72% of the time they've been used, i tell my friend. your party used them. they are the rules. we're going to follow the rules. both bills that are pending before the congress of the united states have been passed with over a majority. and in fact, the senate by was passed by a 60% majority, i tell my friend, not ram through. after a full year of debate and discussion, scores of hearings, hundreds of witnesses, thousands of hours of consideration. i tell my friend that you can say we are ramming something

through as much as you want and it will not make it through. no matter how often it is said by your side of the aisle who in my opinion want simply to stop the legislation in its tracks. i tell my friend that we're going to be in the regular order as we have been on these bills since they were introduced. we're going to be in the regular order in terms of considering the passage of bills that was received in both houses. and as i say again, the senate bill has received a 60% majority in its house. now, the american people frankly expect when we vote on bills they expect things to pass by a majority vote. they do here. they unfortunately don't in the other body. so you are going to have 69% to give children health care and

children don't get health care. so i say to my friend, we're going to, as i said, the expectation is we'll consider passing health care legislation this coming week. we think it's long overdue. we expect the budget committee to mark up a reconciliation bill as the committee did when the republicans were in charge on 16 occasions out of the 22 that reconciliation has been used. 72% of the time, as i want to reiterate, because i frankly get a little impatient with this assertion that somehow a process that you utilized 72% of the times been utilized, which means we used it 28%, that somehow when we're using it it is somehow now not consistent with the rule. my friend knows it is consistent with the rules and we are pursuing that process. the committee, i suspect, will mark up on monday.

i expect them thereafter the rules committee to meet as is consistent with the rules to prepare a reconciliation bill to report it to this floor. i expect them to report a rule, to consider that reconciliation bill, and i expect that reconciliation bill to be considered. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, all i asked was whether the members should be prepared to be here over the weekend, and i yield. mr. hoyer: you said a number of things before that which is what i was responding to. but, yes, members should be prepared to be here next weekend. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. and, madam speaker, without having to delve back into the debate on what makes this health care different, health care bill different than the other times reconciliation was used, i think the american people are those that see the obvious. but i would ask the gentleman, since he says we will be employing regular order here,

in response to the president's request that there be an up or down vote in the house, could the gentleman give us some enlightenment as to the suggestions surrounding something called the slaughter solution and whether in fact members can have an up or down vote, a clean up or down vote on this bill or whether there will be some procedural maneuvering, self-executing rule deeming the senate bill passed, if he could give us some indication of what we may be able to expect next week, and i yield? mr. hoyer: well, of course, as the gentleman knows, the gentleman's party has used that process as well, as i'm sure the gentleman knows. but in any event, we will follow the rules. we will have a vote on the rules, consistent with the rules. i have not talked to the chairwoman of the rules committee at this point in time so that i cannot give you a

specific response and have not heard -- this is the first time i heard something referred to in the terms you just referred to it as. but we will provide for a rule for consideration of the senate bill for reconciliation. and the process of doing so will be consistent with the rules. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. and, madam speaker, i'd like to ask again, consistent with the president's request that there will be an up or down vote on the senate bill itself, can we expect an up or down vote on the senate bill itself, and i yield? mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. what the president was referring to, of course, an up or down vote was the majority vote. one of the problems we've had in the senate, as the gentleman knows, and experienced as well when his party was in the majority, it's difficult to get an up or down vote when the majority of the senate is for something. they got together an extraordinary majority, some 60

votes, before they can bring a bill to the floor. that process, obviously, thwarts, does not facilitate a vote by the majority. in fact a minority in the senate on a regular basis thwarts the will of the majority. that's what the president was referring to. that he wanted an up or down vote on that, and i expect we are going to get an up or down vote in the senate. why? because in the senate they have rules that we are going to follow, as did you in 16 out of the 22 times, that allow for an up or down majority vote in the united states senate. we have to have, as you know, a majority vote in the house, and we consistently do have measures that can fail or succeed, depending upon the will of the majority as opposed to the thwarting by the minority. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman, madam speaker. and i know the gentleman would like to speak to the senate. we're trying to focus on the

house here and what the vote will look like. and since the gentleman has indicated that the president and he and all of america would like to see a vote up or down in this house as well, i'd ask the gentleman whether we can expect an up or down vote on the health care bill itself or not and i yield. mr. hoyer: i tell the gentleman that nothing will pass here without a majority vote. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i take that to mean that there's a likelihood that we will not see an up or down vote on the senate bill itself and that perhaps these reports of a concept called the slaughter solution in which the majority will deem passed the senate bill in some type of procedural move that maybe the public can expect that to happen. i know that the gentleman does not think that that represents the kind of vote that the american people expect, but i

take that to mean that certainly is a possibility. madam speaker, i'd ask the gentleman whether he expects the house to have 72 hours to review whatever legislation comes to the floor next week, and i yield. mr. hoyer: i expect the house to have very significant time to consider the proposals that will come out of the budget committee and/or the rules committee. and this bill, of course, has been -- either bill, the house bill or senate bill, as proposed, has been on the -- online for some 2 1/2 months. otherwise known about 75 days. so there's been ample time to review the bill. whether it's the senate bill or the house bill. so my friend is well aware of

what's in the senate bill or the house bill. as well, the president put online his proposed compromises between the house and the senate which have been the subject of great discussion, including the bipartisan meeting that the gentleman and i attended at the white house, an extraordinary, historical meeting which the president invited leaders from both parties and both houses to come and discuss what he believed to be an historic opportunity to provide health care for -- accessibility for all americans. so i say to my friend that we will certainly give as much will certainly give as much notice as possible, but i'm not i am not going to say that 72 hours is owned the mill -- is going to be the litmus test, because that which we have voted on already in the house and senate, has given members months of notice and the american public months of notice on the subject of the propositions before us.

>> i bank the gentleman and i am a little bit taken aback that now the 72-hour rule has been completely cast aside. no one has had an opportunity to see what is in the reconciliation bill. at least, i speak for the members on our side of the aisle that have not had an opportunity to see what is in the reconciliation bill. i imagine it has some of the provisions that the president, in his plan, not the legislation, put up online at part of the -- prior to the blair house meeting. it is disturbing, madam speaker, that the 72-hour rule has been done but the cast aside. >> will my friends yield? >> i yield. >> i thank you for yielding. i did not say we were casting aside any role or that we might have more than 72 hours' notice. you may well have more than 72 hours' notice. what i said was i am not going to commit myself and then have 70 hours as opposed to 72 hours,

and thing that i have violated some representation i have made. much notice as we possibly can. this has been a very difficult discussion, as you well know, members on your side of the aisle in the other body have indicated they're going to do everything in their power to stop passage of this legislation. so we need to get about this business and engage, if you will. mr. cantor: well, i thank the gentleman. i guess the gentleman may begin to understand why it is that some on our side of the aisle, including yours truly, depicted this ramming the bill through. i mean, if we can't even get a commitment that he -- that the gentleman as well as the speaker had indicated prior that we would have 72 hours to review -- mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: legislation to come to the floor. i think that's consistent to the depiction that there is a

ramming through going on. i yield. mr. hoyer: the gentleman had 72 days, i tell him, to review the bill that he refers to. 72 days, not 72 hours, 72 days in final form to review the bill. now, you can keep saying this, you can keep telling the american public that somehow we're ramming something through. you have had, i tell the gentleman, and you know you've had 72 days at least to review the bill as it stands today. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i tell the gentleman again, we are expecting, as he has said, to see a new bill, a reconciliation bill on the floor next week. that bill no one on our side of the aisle has had an opportunity to see. perhaps the congressional budget office has had 72 hours to see it but we haven't. no one, i believe, has had 72 hours in this body to see the reconciliation bill. that is the bill that i'm speaking to.

mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank you. let me repeat the process that i'm sure the gentleman knows well. the budget committee will meet. they will report out the bills that are to be reconciled. the rules committee will then take them under consideration shortly thereafter and will present a reconciliation bill. we will all see it at that point in time. it will obviously do exactly what the instructions that we adopted in the budget a year ago instructed it to do and that is to reconcile these bills and we'll have a fiscal positive effect, in my view. i haven't seen it finally, but my expectation will have a positive fiscal impact and we will all see that, but it will simply will be following the instructions that the budget committee in which the budget passed -- a majority of the house did vote for it. i know that the other body

doesn't like the majority will. maybe that's not the case here, but i will tell the gentleman that, yes, he's going to see the reconciliation bill. and as i said, the reconciliation bill, which will be drafted by the rules committee after the budget committee reports to it the process that you followed on a regular basis when you utilized reconciliation, we will hope to have as much notice of that particular piece of legislation as possible. but i tell my friend again, when he refers to the health care bill, the senate bill or the house bill, you have had months to review the substance of that bill. you don't like it. we understand that. you're going to oppose it. we understand that as well. but the fact of the matter is you cannot say that you have not had notice of each and every one of its provisions for over two months. . mr. cantor: i thank jt, madam speaker. again it seems as if we are not going to get an up or down vote on the senate bill in the

house, but we will be voting on reconciliation measure. and the instruckses that were included in the budget -- in the budget bill are not legislative text. that is my point, madam speaker. since we are not going to -- since we cannot be guaranteed of a 72-hour period for review, madam speaker, nor can the american people realize their right to know during the 72-hour period, i would ask the gentleman whether the reconciliation package will contain the house language referred to as the stupak-pitts lang wadge. i yield. -- language. mr. hoyer: i don't have knowledge of that at this time. as my friend does know that that language or any other alternative language may not qualify for reconciliation. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would just like, madam speaker, read a recently reported statement by the gentleman that -- in which he said it is clear that the

matter of abortion cannot be dealt with, per se, in the reconciliation bill. so we are pretty much going to have to deal with it as is at this point in time. i ask the gentleman if that is a correct translation of his remarks having said today. i yield. mr. hoyer: it wasn't a translation. it was an accurate reporting of what i said. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i take that to mean the stupak-pitts language will not be in the reconciliation package. i yield. mr. hoyer: as i said we don't believe any change in that language because the gentleman is well aware reconciliation needs to deal with budgetary impact. we don't believe that that can be dealt with in reconciliation. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. i would say to the gentleman that there was, and i'm sure he has seen a letter that has been signed by 41 senate republicans in which they indicated they would oppose any effort to

waive the so-called byrd rule during the senate's consideration of the reconciliation bill which means to me, madam speaker, it is far from certain that the senate will actually pass the bill when the house sends it to the senate. and in fact call that to the gentleman's attention that we stand ready to continue to work in another direction, but it seems to me very much in doubt. mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: i'm glad you brought it up because you brought it up in juxtaposition of the issue of the stupak amendment. what the letter said even if you send over the stupak language, we agree with the stupak language, we will not waive the byrd rule. even though they agree with the polcy, they won't waive the byrd rule, why? they want to defeat the bill. we understand that. that's what the letter said. i think americans probably if

they knew enough about the process and can't take the time to do what you and i do, follow this very closely, they know what's going on. and very frankly it's ironic that 41 senators would say notwithstanding the fact that they may agree with the proposition that we put in the bill and send it over to them, that they would not waive the rule to adopt the proposition with which they agree for procedural purposes of defeating the bill. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman. i would indicate that in that letter there is no specific language that directly relates to an abortion provision or any other. and the gentleman i know agrees that this country has had a long-standing tradition of denying government funding for abortion services. that is the very important issue behind the stupak-pitts language and in fact 45 senators voted in favor of that

language. just as a majority of this house voted for that language, which is why it is so important, i think, that the members as well as their constituents understand that you will not be including the stupak-pits -- stupak-pitts language, the protection that will guarantee no government money goes towards abortion services. which is why i bring the point up. mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield? mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. because as the gentleman knows the language in the senate bill specifically provides for no government funding. i know there is a dispute because there is a contribution towards policies, but as you know the senate drew language very carefully to ensure that no public funds were spent for or participated in purchasing insurance for abortion services. in fact, as the gentleman i'm sure well knows, the senate

language specifically provides that if those protections are going to be purchased, they must be purchased by separate payment with non-- either subsidy dollars or government dollars. that they must be spent out of an individual's personal pocket. mr. cantor: madam speaker, i say to the gentleman if that's his interpretation and belief that this language in the senate bill protects that long-standing tradition, that may be. however the u.s. catholic bishops as well as right to life have strongly, strongly opposed the language in the senate bill as not having the adequate safeguards to deny government funding of abortion services. i think -- mr. hoyer: will my friend yield? mr. cantor: i yield. mr. hoyer: this is an extraordinary issue difficult

-- difficult issue not only for congress but americans. there is a dispute. as he knows, neither side likes the language in the senate bill. one side, the pro-choice side if you will, for simplification, believes that the language goes beyond the hyde language. the catholic bishops believe it is short of the hyde language. there is a difference of opinion on that. i think the gentleman understands that. there are other groups which believe that in fact the language that is in the senate bill does, in fact, do as i have projected it does, precludes any public dollars from being spent which is consistent with the hyde language.

i tell my friend that from our perspective on this side of the aisle there is no intent nor objective of changing the hyde language in any health care legislation that is adopted. the president's indicated that's his intent, that's our intent. and that's where -- why we are proceeding in the mapper we are. -- manner we are. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for the clarification of his intent. i would say again the catholic bishops as well as the right to life organizations seem very much in opposition to this language. i stand with them. i would ask the gentleman, madam speaker, that the parliamentarian in the senate has ruled that the senate cannot take up the reconciliation package until the senate-passed health care bill is signed into law. that is the bill, madam speaker, that contains provisions such as the cornhusker kickback. i would ask the gentleman if it is his position that that would

be the case, that this house must pass the senate bill first, it must be signed into law before the senate can even take up the reconciliation package? i yield. mr. hoyer: i think the gentleman correctly states the senate parliamentarian's position. and therefore i think the gentleman is correct. on that observation. i might say to him that while i do not know the entire thrust of the reconciliation bill, i can guarantee him this, the reconciliation bill will take out that nebraska provision which offended him, offended me, and i think offended people across america. not because it advantaged nebraska but because it advantaged nebraska unequally. i think the gentleman's going to be pleased that nebraska will be treated like every other state, and in fact every other state will be advantaged to the same extent that the senator wanted to make sure that nebraska was advantaged. but the nebraska provision to

which the gentleman speaks and which all of us felt was inappropriate will be changed. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. in closing, madam speaker, i look forward to working with the gentleman in trying to the gentleman in trying to refocus the issue of this house the gentleman indicated there would be further action in what he is calling a drop agenda. that did not happen today, as we are here, already having finished the legislative business of the day and only having considered a bill dealing with algae. 52% of americans do think that jobs and the economy are the nation's top issues. by contrast, only 13 resign of americans think that health care is our nation's top priority -- only 13% of americans think that health care is our nation's top party. i thank the gentleman for his

willingness to get americans back to work. >> will yield? >> iran. >> let me say to the gentleman from virginia that maryland, virginia, and other states think that the bill we passed on algae is critically important to the chesapeake bay. i am sure the gentleman shares that view. it is critical to the health of our bays. the gentleman's state feels that as the bay is a major asset of his as well. i know he is pleased we pass thed that. we're here to make sure we have time to get ready to pass a major, historic piece of legislation that teddy roosevelt set us on the path to

accomplish over a century ago. so that we have accomplished, i think, a significant piece of legislation today. let me say that in addition to that we believe the jobs agenda is very important. we passed a bill through here last week, the senate passed a bill over to us. we are in the process of considering those bills. and i want to say to the gentleman that i share his view, that we look forward to working together to try to get americans back to work. i won't go through a litany of how we got here. the gentleman has heard it before. but i will tell the gentleman this part of it, that -- in the four months of the last administration, he well knows, we lost over 700,000 jobs per month. during the last four months here we lost 27,000 jobs per month. that's a 95% reduction in the

loss of jobs. surely anybody who is fair-minded would say that's progress. it is not success. we need to create jobs. we have lost eight million jobs over the last two years. people are hurting in america. families are hurting in america. we need to get people back to work. we are going to keep continuing to make sure that when they can't find a job because they are not available, that they don't go hugery -- hungry. that they can support themselves and their families not to the level that they would have if he were working but certainly support themselves in a way we think is humanitarian. so those are included in those bills as the gentleman knows. but i will tell the gentleman that we feel keenly that the pain of the american public confronting this historic, great recession, the deepest recession we have seen in 75 years, the gentleman knows that

in the decade of the 1990's we saw the best economy that you and i have seen in our lifetime. and i of course am very substantially older than you are. that's an admission against interest but nevertheless it's true. so i yield back to the gentleman saying we share your view. we want to continue to work on this jobs agenda. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman for the his -- his view of history. i also would like to say to the gentleman, madam speaker, i share his commitment to the preservation of the chesapeake bay. i do, however, think that the american people are most interested in seeing us get back on to the business of focusing on the economy. that is why i raise the issue of our being here today not doing anything today to promote job creation. as far as any karl we may have with history and why we got or how we got where we are today, i would just like to quote to the gentleman in closing,

winston churchill's speech to the house of commons, june 18, 1940, he said, of this i am quite sure, that if we open a karl -- quarrel between the past and present we shall find we have lost our future. >> the house will pick up the health care bill next week. the budget committee will work on it on monday. on wednesday, the rules committee will set the rules for the floor debate, with the debate possibly happen on thursday and friday. following a congressional -- followed the congressional action on our website where you can read drafts of bills and what hundreds of hours of video. that is at c- span.org/healthcare. coming up on c-span, today's white house briefing is next.

and then, the seal of health insurer humana - the ceo of humana talks about health care reform. later, supreme court justices ginsberg and sonia sotomayor speak. >> sunday, your chance to talk to grow world, live on "booktv." the former -- your chance to talk to crawl perovo -- carkarl rove, live on "booktv." they will be interviewed by congressman john lewis. we have live coverage of this year's tucson festival of books.

>> health care dominated the questioning at today's white house briefing. robert gibbs also fielded questions about afghanistan, pakistan, and israel. this is about 50 minutes. >> lets get a few pictures. what was that wrong for? do not worry, we will do a couple of serious announcement in this. >> was up with this? >> i am, as you can tell, not in my normal attire. this is casual friday.

[laughter] i am making good on my aspect of my wager with the my canadian counterpart, who is somewhere at several hundred miles north of us laughing. i am little bit of warm. the no. 39 is for ryan miller, who was the united states boldly in the tournament -- united states goalie and tournament mvp. we have made the arrangements to deliver one case of -- two cases of what we wagered on to the prime minister's office today. i am sure my counterpart will take most of that home and consume it. let me do the week ahead and then we'll get back into more so

many -- more semi-serious attire. i thought we were doing this on the metric scale. [laughter] what is the exchange rate? the president has no scheduled public events this weekend. on monday, as you know, the president will travel to ohio where he will deliver a speech on health care reform. on tuesday, meetings here at the white house. wednesday, the president will leave withhost officials at thel st. patrick's day reception held in the east room. it will be pooled press. on thursday and friday, the president will be here in washington, d.c. and we will have a chance to talk about the trip in a few moments.

let me get a little bit organized. no offense to my canadian friend here, we could not have done this without -- [applause] also, let me put my specks back on. this has 2010 on it for -- this has 10 for it for 2010. it is smaller in size, which i think they did on purpose. [laughter] that's rahm, the chief of staff. [robert laughing] 2010, usa. i do not think i should take any

questions wearing this. we'll take a couple. go ahead. >> now that the trip has been delayed, how will the president use those extra days? >> he has met and talked with many members of congress over the past several days. i anticipate that he will talk with ththe leaders and members f congress. they will talk about the benefits of passing health care reform. i anticipate that kind of thing will happen. this came about as the result of a conversation that the president had with speaker pelosi, majority leader reid, where they agree that it would be helpful to have a few extra days here, talking to members. they also agreed that this was an extremely important trip for the united states of america -- for the president to go to indonesia. >> congress will be around for a

week after the president leaves -- is the 20 if now the new 18th? -- 20th now the new 18th? in terms of deadlines? >> he will leave for the trip at 10:00 a.m. on the 21st. >> is he okay with congress' continuing discussions -- congress continuing discussions? >> i think the president wants members of congress -- and members of congress want -- a vote as soon as possible that will lead to improved health care for millions of american. >> does the president expects to leave having that done? >> i will leave deadlines up to the speaker. >> if congress fails to get this across the fishline or very close to its bid for -- the finish line or very close to it before next sunday, is there a trance -- a chance that the trip

could be delayed again or canceled altogether? >> in speaking with speaker pelosi and majority leader reid, all of them agreed that it is an important trip for the president to make. the asian pacific region is tremendously important to united states for a number of reasons. we're going to visit indonesia -- the world's largest muslim population and emerging democracy. the president will follow up on his speech from cairo in a speech in indonesia. a key partner in our counter- terrorism efforts. he will travel to australia -- a very important trading partner and an important ally in our efforts in afghanistan. as the president said in tokyo,

for years, the united states has been absent from the asia- pacific region. we are -- we cannot lead in this region of the world without strong bilateral relationship with indonesia and australia. they are key in our ability to keep our country safe and our ability to grow our economy through increased exports. they are key in tackling big challenges. indonesia is the fourth largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world. they are incredibly important to international agreements on climate change. the president believes it is important to give the issue of health care and the effort to get votes on health care a few more days, but also believes that it is important to keep this trip on the schedule. >> what other issue -- can you confirm that janet yellen is the

leading candidate for nominee of fed vice chairman? will he make the announcement before or after the trip? >> she is obviously somebody who -- former chair of the council on economic advisers, and somebody with great expertise in macro at -- macroeconomic issues. the current president of the fed in san francisco. she is a leading contender for that nomination. as you know, we are hoping to fill the vacancy of the vice chair in time for the end of the current term, which is june. i would say that sarah raskin

and peter diamond are under strong consideration for additional vacancies. i do not have the timing announcement on any of those. >> a matter of weeks? >> i do not want to speculate on the timing, except, obviously, for janet yellen, is under strong consideration. anybody appointed to the vice chair would need to be done -- our hope is to get it done before the end of the current term. >> is she the leading candidate? and she is a leading contender. -- >> she is a leading contender. >> if i showed this to the viewers of abcnews, there will be confused about why you are wearing a health care jersey -- they will be confused about why you are wearing a hockey

jersey. >> would you feel more comfortable if i switched? . . >> what difference will it make? >> i think the president would use the time, as i said earlier, to speak individually or in small groups with members that may be, at this point, undecided on how they will vote.

the president, i think, will take the opportunity to once again reiterate his case for why this reform is so important -- why it is important to do this now, why it is important not to stop or to start over, why we are dealing with dramatic spike in health insurance right now, and why we have to deal with this problem. >> why do you think so many members -- members of the house who voted for it in november are still a majority. why do you think so many of them are having second thoughts? >> i think some of them are likely waiting for a finished cbo score. i think that is a natural thing to wait for. i think they will have time to evaluate that score and to evaluate the legislation in full. again, i think the president believes that he can make a very

strong case for why this is important to do right now. >> as you know, a lot of house democrats are distrustful of the senate democrats. they are worried that with the way the parliamentarian has ruled they are going to be tracked, somehow, into passing the senate bill and the senate will not pass the fixes. there will have been tricked into passing a senate bill that a lot of them do not like without those fixes. is president obama reassuring the house democrats that if the reconciliation fix does not pass the senate bill, he will not sign that bill? >> i mentioned some of this yesterday. i think -- i do not want to wade into the parliamentary politics on capitol hill except to say this.

the president is talking not just with members of the house on the boat they are going to have to make but also with members of the senate, to ensure that the corrections that the president sees as important -- and not just the house, but the president sees are important -- are acted upon. this is a dual track. it works together. the president is working on both of those issues. >> is it possible that one would happen -- that the senate bill would pass but the fixes would not? that is what house members are worried about. >> they are concerned. that is why the president is spending time dealing with senators to ensure that they are supportive of those legislative fixes on their side of it. >> thanks, robert.

rep dryer is referring to the president -- he said, "we know they are doing everything in their power to twist arms and encourage everyone to vote for something that is unpopular and that would be devastating for the economy." why do you think americans are having a difficult time buying the president's plan? >> i would probably tell mr. dreyer -- people in his state are getting the letters we have talked about here for the past several weeks, the letters that say, "i know you have paid your premiums, i know you have not gotten sick, but you are in the individual health insurance market and your rates are going up 39% next year." that is what we are dealing with. that is what we have to take on. we have to provide the ability for a small business in the state of california, or in his

district -- a family struggling with the high cost of health care -- to get them some help. the president is doing this because he believes that this is the right thing to do for our country, to have a health care and health insurance network that works not just for health insurance companies but works for average, every day, working americans. that is why he continues to pursue this. that is why he will see it to passage soon. >> is the president frustrated that he has been making this big push, pointing out what the insurance industry has been doing -- does it frustrate him the message is not getting through? >> i think the president is -- i

think the president feels some momentum on this issue. i think the president believes that while many thought this issue was going to go away or was dead a few weeks ago, it has gotten new life, i think largely because we have seen in jurors send out the letters i am talking about. >> can you tell me more about that meeting? >> let me give you a quick read out. the president met with the national security team as a part of regular updates on afghanistan. this was part of a monthly teleconference. the next one is scheduled for april 16. the meeting began with a briefing from general mcchrystal, who noted the continuing progress in the marja offensive and the strengthening partnership with afghanistan's security forces. the discussed security and

governance. the president received a briefing from ambassador patterson in islamabad about our security cooperation with pakistan and our support from pakistan. it is of note that general mcchrystal told the group, including the president, that we were on schedule on our force flow in getting additional forces approved by the president into afghanistan by the end of the summer. they discussed, surrounding marja, that we were largely through the clearing phase and were rapidly moving to a phase of hold, which puts a premium on good governance. we spent a good bit of time discussing the afghan national security forces, the army and the police forces, the training

and adjustments that the president and the team have been working on or around recruitment and retention of police and army forces, dating back to the president's original meetings in the situation room prior to his decisions. >> is the administration pleas to with this pakistan government, or does pakistan need to do more? >> we have enjoyed an almost unprecedented level of cooperation with them, dating back probably almost a year now. two extremist movements that threatened pakistan alerted them to many of the concerns we have long had. we feel like we are making progress each and every day.

i think in the update that he got from ambassador patterson that was the case. >> i thought it was against international law to an ex an occupied land. why do we keep giving ironclad commitments to israel? it violates international law. the president says our relationship is unshakable. how can that be? >> we enjoyed a strong and important relationship with the country and the people of israel, and we are -- >> even when it violates the law? why should they be -- and get this reprieve? >> again, we enjoyed a strong relationship with the country and the people. we are committed to their security in a very important and

dangerous -- let me finish my answer. they are in an important region of the world. i think the vice president could not have been clearer. as i said and the vice president said, both the timing and substance of the announcement that was made during this trip -- we have asked each side to refrain from the type of announcements that would shake the trust needed to sit down together and make some decisions on moving forward on a peace process. i think the vice president was extremely clear on his trip there. the president looks forward to speaking with the vice president. he will get back very early tomorrow morning. i anticipate they will either -- they will likely talk either later in the weekend or first thing on monday about what the

vice president saw, not just in israel but in the region, as we try to move things forward. >> there is a violation on the part of one party. what is he going to do about it? >> the vice president was extremely strong in condemning what the israeli government announced during his trip. >> you said the president is feeling momentum on health care. the congressman who has long been urging the president to get involved says that as a result of the president's increased involvement there is now a title change in the last 72 hours. -- a tidal change in the last 72 hours. do you agree? >> again, i have probably said this a thousand times, but i will add another one to it. i doubt the president -- i doubt we would be where we are in

health care if the president was not personally invested in -- from the very beginning -- on getting this done. as the president said at the state of the union, it is pretty clear by some of the polling numbers we are not doing this for sheer political gain. there are -- you do not have to -- you can swing a cat in this town and get somebody that believes the president should just give this up for political consideration. the president, i think, has been pretty clear about why he has made decisions during his time as president, not because they are easy, not because they are in the next day's political interest, but because they are the right thing for the country. i think what has provided health care with the most momentum in the past several weeks are the insurance company rate increases.

i think they have crystallized for many across the country what happens. we have seen report after report from wall street about what happens if reform fails. they all agree that insurance companies like the ones that raise rates are likely to be the big winners out of this. >> delaying the trip -- to what degree was that because of pressure from democrats in congress? did nancy pelosi specifically asked him to do this? >> the president talked to the speaker and the majority leader. they discussed what would be most beneficial for this process and agreed to gather -- agreed together to move the trip back a few days. as i said earlier, the majority leader and the speaker believes it is important the president goes on this trip. it is an important region of the world. if we do not help lead, other people will. it is in our national interest

to have strong relationships with emerging democracies like indonesia and important partnerships like australia. why does the prison have to do this? if there is not some big multilateral conference he is attending -- as i said, we have long -- for quite some time, we have been absent from this important region of the world. we have important partnerships that lead to increasing our security, increasing our economic growth, and increasing the likelihood that we deal with important problems. having strong bilateral relationships with places like indonesia and australia -- >> is there a central reason delaying this trip was the thing to do? >> to give a little more time on health care. >> you said earlier the president was not calling individual members. >> he was not at that point.

>> he is now? >> he has talked to -- he has had meetings with -- there have been events other individuals have been here for. on monday, he had talked to members who had visited for a reception or things like that. he has made individual calls now. i anticipate he will continue to do that. >> does he spend a good portion of his day doing that? >> he spent part of his day. the afghanistan/pakistan meeting was scheduled for 60 minutes and the meeting went 90. >> you said the president was leaving at 10:00 a.m. on sunday. is that regardless of whether the house has voted? >> the president is leaving on a trip on the 21st. >> regardless of whether the house has voted? >> the president is going on the 21st. >> announced on twitter this

morning -- the first family would not be joining. can you share light on why that decision was made? >> in terms of scheduling, the way the trip sits in the week is not as good for two young girls who have to go back to school at the conclusion of that trip. i will say this. this was -- i should have said this yesterday, chip, to your question. even in the older itinerary, the president was not expecting to stop at the house he lived in, nor was he scheduled to go to the school that he attended. i should have said that yesterday in answer to your question. the way the trip sits in the week, it is not as conducive for them to go. i will say you will get a renewed itinerary. you will see a brisk trip. >> last week, he told them that success on other high priority

legislation was predicated on health care -- energy, emigration. does the president believe people have a diminished chance of passing other items this year if health care has not passed through congress? >> i have not spoken directly with the president about what you have heard said. leaving aside what it does for any other issue, i think the president believes strongly in the desire to see progress on an issue we have talked about for decades, to do something positive on behalf of those who are struggling with high costs and dealing with insurance companies on pre-existing conditions. "immigration groups -- the leaders appear yesterday said they pressed the president for a bill in the senate by the end of april. does the president what a bill in the senate by the end of april? >> in addition to meeting with

activists, in addition to meeting with the congressional hispanic caucus, the president met with senator schumer and gramm, pleased to get an update in their proposal to fix our immigration system. they asked the president and he agreed to review their framework. we are in the process of doing that now. >> isn't it more important for the girls to go on this trip and miss a few days of school? >> is a decision i would lead to the parents -- it is a decision i would lead to the parents. having a six year old, i think it is important that also spent some time in school -- lord knows we have enough snow days. that is above my pay grade by many many rungs on the latter.

>> [unintelligible] >> i may do that with the front row. [laughter] >> looking ahead to this ohio stop -- will there be a new message, more of a sense of urgency in the closing days? what are you going to look for there? >> i think the president will spend time hitting a lot of the themes he hit on wednesday and last month, going through what reform is important, going through what it will do the minute he signs the legislation on behalf of millions of americans, discussing what happens if we decide now is not the time. i think he will reiterate what i said earlier. we are doing this not because it is easy. we are doing this not because there -- because the president is concerned about are looking to the next election, but

looking to the next generation. and i think he will reiterate that it is the important thing to do. >> one housekeeping question. you made this trip announcement on twitter this morning. it still has not shown up on any of our usual vehicles through your office, officially. is twitter now going to become your vehicle of choice? >> part of the reason i did that -- i bet some of you got e-mails that i sent you several hours after i actually sent them to you. there were some e-mail issues here at the white house. we felt it was important to get a confirmation out. i would say torture is a quick medium -- i would say twitter is a quick medium to get information out. we will use it more often. >> some people deign to use your

picture or the presidential seal on their blogs. are you concerned one of these guys is going to hijack your message and maybe burn you at some point? >> no. i will say this -- i do not know how many robert gibbses there are. there is a verification. >> several of them use a formulation -- >> i think some of them are humorous. i would look for verification. we only make big announcements in hockey jerseys. i would say look for that. >> are there lagging contenders? >> i would not get into

characterizing. i would put a few monikers on those names to describe where they are in the process. there are other names. >> what does it mean to be a leading contender? >> it means you have done well in your weight class. i would put those at the top of the president's list. >> has the president offered than the job? >> when we have official announcements, we will put them on twitter. [laughter] i am joking. i am joking. i am wearing a hockey jersey, for god's sake. >> is it fair to say that next thursday and friday the president will devote his attention to dealing with health care and the conversations he may need to have with house democrats? >> i am sure he will dedicate a portion of his day -- understanding the president --

there is not a shortage of time -- a shortage of things the president could spend time on. he starts with a daily intelligence briefing, almost always has an economic briefing, a series of meetings with senior advisers. i assume he will spend a portion of his day dealing with the issues of health care, but i have no doubt that we will put out additional meetings on other topics that are of importance, whether they are the economy or national security. >> yesterday, senator gramm told the president face to face that if reconciliation is used for health care in the senate that will kill any hope of putting immigration on the agenda for the remainder of the legislative session. any reaction to that? >> i have not talked to him directly about that statement. i doubt the president would have agreed with that. as we have talked about in this

instance and about this issue, reconciliation is something that has -- that is a legislative tool that has been used on many occasions, particularly as it relates to things like health care. we talked about the fact that children's health insurance program was done to reconciliation. the cobra program was done through reconciliation. i do not know that senator gramm believes -- i do not believe that senator gramm thought that it would do damage to the legislative priorities of the president when in 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were through reconciliation. i doubt the president agrees

with him. >> what issue has come up with louise "heiress -- with luiz gutierres, with the hispanic caucus? >> i do not know. >> the house bill about restrictions in the senate bill -- there are no known fixes on immigration i am aware of. the senate language is too restrictive and not allow undocumented workers into the help exchange system and would prevent them from doing that for five years. he says publicly he will vote no. is that a concern of the white house? is there something the white house is open to in fixing the legislation? >> let me check with the state of affairs. i do not know the degree to

which -- i was not at yesterday's meeting. >> yesterday, you said some of the president's priorities after health care are financial regulatory reform and the citizens united case. what do you mean by that? what do you know specifically about that ruling? >> the legislation right now with senator schumer and congressman dan holland -- vanholland -- we have looked at that supreme court legislation. council and others are evaluating that and other vehicles in order to address what the supreme court opened up in that ruling. >> one more question why you have the usa sweater on. i draw your attention to a website that has posted a

letter. >> do i need to get my canadian jersey back? >> these are trying times. unemployment is in double digits. we hope the capitals will have better postseason prospects. we need a leader. will the president committed to going to a washington capitals game? >> i cannot say. will see whether he has been to a game in chicago -- less so in hawaii. i will check whether he has been to a game before. i do not know whether he will do that before march 18. it is friday paria. i think he would enjoy going. the last time he ventured to a

sporting event, georgetown looked like they did yesterday. i know he enjoys going out. i think we have gotten invitations from the honor to go. he can borrow my jersey. >> i wanted to ask you about the afghanistan meeting today. did the issue of reconciliation -- not in health care but with the taliban -- come up? officials have said in the past they think the u.s. should only do that from a position of strength. >> i left with about two or three meetings to go in the meeting. i should say i left when i thought there were that many minutes. i will find out if there were additional conversations. this is something the president was bringing up as i left. let me see if there is any additional information on that. >> thank you, robert. last week, both major parties

chose candidates for the western pennsylvania seat of the late john murtha. the president campaigned in new york last year and for mxs. coakley in massachusetts. does he plan to campaign for the seat? >> i do not know. i do not have anymore information. >> when all is said and done, is it more for image -- are you going to take off your thing? it looks pretty good. >> i can do two things at once. >> when all is said and done, is it good that the president is going to postpone his image? -- postpone his trip? is it more for image? he has a cell phone on the

plane. he could do it. there is a lot of heat being generated that he should be here. how do you respond to those kinds of concerns? >> that the president should not go at all? >> it is a good trip. >> it is an important trip. i am failing to understand. give me the first part of your question again. >> the president is postponing his trip. couldn't the argument be made it is more for image, that he can do everything on the trip that he can do here and is reversing course? >> as i said, the plane comes, in some cases regrettably, with all that equipment that would allow him to be in touch. i think everybody believed that him being here was more important. we did not postpone the trip for

any image sake. be a conversation with the speaker and the majority leader in the senate -- it was agreed upon that we could give a few extra days here to what they needed as well as keep -- i will say our scheduling guys have done a heroic job of keeping the trip in tact -- the trip intact in an important region of the world. we are getting health care done as well as keeping that important trip. >> are there people with your marks who might change their mind? -- are there people with earmarks who might change their minds? >> we have all seen folks who want to take a look at the new legislation. i think people are rightly waiting for an evaluation from

cbo as a way of answering some of the questions that they have. i think the president certainly will talk to people about why he thinks the bill is important and why he thinks it does so many good things on cost and things like that. >> on immigration reform, should the president round up more republican co-sponsors for the bill? >> let me not get ahead of the evaluation process or the framework they walked him through yesterday. >> the president may give a speech on immigration before the rally on immigration? >> i will check the schedule. i know the president committed to senators schumer and gramm, to the hispanic caucus, and to

activists. he has a strong belief in getting comprehensive reform done. he is a supporter of that. obviously, it is our strong hope that we can make progress. >> you have talked about putting the president's student loan proposal into the health care bill. what does that have to do with health care? why would that go in there? >> i do not think final decisions have been made. one way of getting important reforms through the legislative process would be this vehicle. i think these are reforms that are good for students. they are really good for taxpayers. they are bad for special interests. i do not think any final decisions have been made on capitol hill. i know the president is a strong believer in a reform system that would cut out the middleman on borrowing money for millions of

kids to go to college. >> is it because -- it also would save money. is it because it would bring down the overall cost of the health-care part of the package? >> i do not have anything on that. i know this is an important reform. >> on afghanistan, the meeting this morning -- general mcchrystal -- is he satisfied with nato involvement in the marja offensive? knowing that nato has not been able yet to reach the goal of several thousand nato volunteers on the ground, does the president intended to reach to nato leaders, the canadian prime minister in particular, on this issue? >> nato came up in the sense of discussing their contributions and in walking through the

commitment we need from all of our partners, particularly in the realm of training. we did not discuss any additional steps the president might take. again, the president and many on the team understand the importance of what we have to do, not just in forced contributions. as i mentioned, general mcchrystal believed that the pace of force flow from what the president had asked for was on schedule. we have critical improvements that have to be made, as it relates to an afghan national army, and critical improvements that have to be made in and afghan national police. the importance of getting additional trainers from nato countries to afghanistan as

quickly as possible -- in these meetings, the president has gone through and looked at monthly recruitment and retention goals. at some point, we are not going to be there forever. the afghan national army, in many districts, not only are going to need improved governments but a police force that can keep the peace. that came up. there was no discussion of additional calls by the president. steven, i thought you had something. >> will the president perhaps make a new request to australia during his trip for more help in afghanistan, perhaps for trainers rather than combat troops? >> let me check. that was not discussed.

>> it back to the public option. now that is one of the casualties of health care reform. is the president looking at passage and then possibly going back afterward to tweak it? the reason i ask that is members of the congressional black caucus were for the public office. they are saying there have been problems before we have passed something and conduct to tweak it, medicare, social security. is that the president's mindset? >> i will check with -- i was not in that meeting. that was taking place during a briefing. i do not know if that was something that was discussed. again, the president is focused on the legislation we have at hand in trying to get that through. "is not looking down the road at tweaks? >> we cannot tweet anything that

we cannot get past. -- we cannot poltreakweak anythg we cannot get passed. >> you had a hiccup at the end of the confirmation hearings. these are clearly mainstream folks from the financial world. five senators have just put out a letter to the president requesting that appointees have a real world experience as small business owners. do these people have that kind of experience? >> i would have to look at the letter. i think that these are strong contenders. they have strong credentials. they have good experience. i am happy to look at the letter and have a better comment. >> gaynor n. mcconnell have put

out their names for the deficit -- baynor and mcconnell have put out their names for the deficit commission. when do you think that will get working? >> i think it is a positive development. there was some concern about whether republicans would put fourth names. they now have. that is an important step. we hope that the rest of those names will be coming forward soon. i think the president believes that this is an important commission to look at all of the aspects of what this government spends money on, and to evaluate its sustainability in the future. obviously, you have got many of

those choices, in the case of congressman ryan and others -- many have put forth their own plans in the past. that will govern many of the recommendations that some of those members have. our strong hope is that in the next few weeks not only will the commission be filled out but we will have staff in place and the commission can meet in order to generate recommendations, hopefully that congress can act on quickly. >> if they are going to start marking up their reconciliation bill at the same time we are dealing with trying to get the senate bill passed, what is the white house role in that? won't that be confusing, to be working on two tracks of health care at once? >> obviously, the house will

take up the measure. the budget committee has to take up reconciliation, begin that process. the speaker has said that will be posted on the internet for some period of time. i do not think it will be confusing. i think at this point people understand that this is a two- step process that has to get done before we can wrap health care up. thanks, guys. have a good weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> up next on c-span, mike mccallister, ceo of health insurer humana, talks about the u.s. health-care system. we interviewed congressman bob goodlatte of virginia about his proposed health care amendment. justices ginsburg and sotomayor speak at the association of women judges. on tomorrow's "washington journal," proposed financial industry regulations. michael cohen, president of the group achieved, will talk about education standards. and a look at a youtube channel explaining the details of the federal budget.

that begins at 7:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span. >> our mission is to make the world more open and more connected. we do that by providing people a free tool whereby they can share information with anyone, anywhere, at any time. >> with more than 400 million users online, it is the fastest growing network in the world. the director of facebook, saturday, on." "the communicators." >> rising costs in the health- care system in the legislation making its way through congress. mr. mccallister speaks for about 45 minutes. [applause] >> thank you. as the presiding officer, i have been asked to do two things. one is to give a brief

reflection on the history of the detroit economic club and then introduce our speaker. when i reflect on the 75 year history of the detroit economic club, i think of my father, a son of detroit, a self-made man, and a member of the detroit economic club. my father was put in an orphanage when he was 5. he ran away at 13. that ended his formal schooling. he got into the peacetime navy, got out, and the only work he could find during the depression was in alaska, keeping a two- mile section of the railway between anchorage and fairbanks a free of snow. during those long winters, my father took out every book in anchorage and fairbanks

libraries. he took out every record. he taught himself english literature, mathematics, physics, and to enjoy opera. when he got out of the navy, he took advantage of the gi bill and tested out of all of high school, most of college, became a civil engineer, and was the assistant superintendent of the department of public works. he built the infrastructure, the sewer and water infrastructure, that this area has today. one of the proudest times of my life was when i had my first health-care executive job. my father brought me to the detroit economic club, to a meeting, to listen to the important issues of the day.

so when i reflect on the 75 year history of the detroit economic club, i think of my father, a man who struggled against absolutely impossible odds to become a success. he is a son of detroit. he is a member and was a member of the detroit economic club. he is what this region is all about, a beacon of hope in what we can all do together. thank you. [applause] now, it is my great pleasure to introduce mike mccallister, the president and ceo of humana. humana's president and chief executive officer, mike mccallister has led the humana

to a leadership position in the health benefit industry. during my tenure history as ceo, and over 30 years in the company -- i believe he started when he was 3? he has helped humana gained a reputation as the leading consumer company, leveraging processes and technology to deliver lower costs and a superior health-care experience for humana's 10.3 million members nationwide. under his direction, a humana is helping people achieve lifelong well-being. it is designed to empower employees and consumers to choose, finance, and use their health benefits with confidence and success. mike is ranked among the 100

most powerful people in health care by "modern healthcare." he was also named as one of the five ceos whose stock has posted the largest total return in the past five years by "business week." at the world economic forum summit in switzerland this year, he was chosen as the founding chairman of the new world while the alliance. -- the new world welfarlness alliance. he holds an m.b.a. from pepperdine university in malibu, california, and a bachelor's degree from louisiana tech university. i am sure he has a crystal ball about health care reform and is going to tell us all about it. [applause]

>> dottie, someone lied to you. i will start by saying that no one has a crystal ball. somewhere in this country, the president is speaking on the same subject. i guarantee he is attacking me as we stand here. but that is ok. we are big boys. the eggs for having me today. it is a pleasure. i am not going to try to walk through bills or proposals. nobody knows where this is going to end up over the next few weeks. some of the things being proposed are obvious. others are still to be determined. i will talk about some of the things driving where we are from a health-care perspective and

some structural things that might make a difference. i think it is basically trying to find a different approach to reform. we started talking 16 months ago about reform. now we are talking about insurance reform. things have changed. march 2000 was the first time i got in front of a group like this. i sat before a business group like this and said my industry did not like it much that health care was broken and that health insurance was broken. fundamentally, we have to change this system or the lack thereof if we are going to solve the problem. what is the problem? the problem is health care costs too much and is rising too fast. it is impossible for us to keep doing what we have been doing. it is not all the system. there are other things going on. something we have tried to live

with is that ultimately we, as consumers, are driving these costs in terms of how we interact with the system, what we know about it, how we treat ourselves, and how we treat the system. this concept of behavior change, which is very difficult and powerful, is at the heart of what we have to do as a nation to fundamentally fix this situation. in the rest of our economy, consumers control 70% of its. we are powerful consumers. and bad products and that services get crushed. in health care, it never happens. we are watching this now in an industry close to your heart. if you think about the implications, the automaker that has had the problem with accelerator's -- what consumers have done to deal with that product offering in the marketplace, whether it is right or fair, it is irrelevant. through the knowledge there is an issue, consumers have

responded. if i said your chance of dying from a bypass surgery will differ fivefold depending which hospital you choose, would you choose differently? we know from all of our evidence as consumers that we would, but we do not have that information. therefore, we cannot make that decision. we are not healthy. chronic illnesses represent a huge percentage of what we spend in health care. every single one of them is preventable. our own behavior sets up a scenario where costs are going to be impossible to slow down. two-thirds of americans are overweight. one-third are obese by definition. when you add the demographics of baby boomers entering that. in their life, costs are going to increase. we're approaching a problem much worse than today. we watch 142 hours of television

a month as americans. which are not moving very much. the cdc reports that seven chronic illnesses account for $1.10 trillion annually in this country. our weight is killing us. people have been before you before and said that if we lost weight would be great. it may be oversimplifying, but it is true. for someone with a bmi of under 25, the annual spending is about $3,500. if you are over 40, it is $7,600. it just keeps going. for someone with a high bmi, their costs are going to be 90% higher than somebody with a low one. it does matter. the question is what you do about it. it keeps growing faster and faster. you combine that with a lack of health literacy. people do not know much about health.

you will hear web folks talk about the incredible volume of people who go to the internet to seek out help information. what we know about all that is people go to seek information, but reading through what is good and trust the ball is totally -- good and trustable is impossible for the average person. we do not understand it. the data tells us that. we're talking about 90 million people who have difficulty understanding something simple like what it means to read a pill bottle, what doctors orders mean. they do not understand. from our perspective as a medicare player, we look at people readmitted to hospitals, people over 65. inevitably, there is a misunderstanding. one out of five people in the medicare program and up back inside the program inside -- end up back inside the hospital

within 30 days. they do not understand what they're asked to do. they do not take their medications properly. they do not have transportation. their social setting is unable to support them. it is all linked to this idea of understanding and being able to respond to non-methods for taking care of your health. we find it is a serious problem in the over 65 population. only 12% of people have proficient understanding of health information. we are overweight, we are gaining weight, we know what drives health care costs, we do not understand help literacy -- how are we going to manage our health if those are the drivers? we get higher costs and poor results. study after study will tell you that is the case. something must be done. what is normally the obvious answer is the wrong one.

for 40 years, everyone in this room has known how to be healthy. stop eating so much. get some exercise. stop smoking. quit drinking so much. we know what we are supposed to do, and yet we do not do it. preaching is not it. getting up and talking about it is not it. our behavior does not change. we have been doing it for generations. we have to find a way. this is going to be a long-term thing. we have to get people to happily choose a different approach. what gets people motivated to change their behavior? is it money, incentives, rewards, information? we do not yet know what it is. we have to find a way to get people to pursue this. the company has put our flag in the ground about this idea of well-being.

there is a lot of research out there which say there are five big buckets of well-being -- financial, health, a community. we can get there. it is a long haul. if we do not change this behavior concept, nothing we do in washington, nothing something like us would do -- nothing someone like us would do is going to make a difference. we need transparency of price and quality. if you knew what things cost, you would have a shot at getting better value for money. there is not one of you that can get up from this table and have the surgery somewhere in detroit -- would you be able to find that the price and quality of that service, the experience of the physician, the infection rates? that is not readily available. you cannot do it. that is not unique year. that is everywhere.

price and quality transparency is critical. how do you get that? we have to connect the system, make things easier to get at, make information actionable, make it interesting and fun to use. what that represents is the idea of consumer engagement. we are engaged as consumers elsewhere in our lives, but not in health care. we do not know how to do it. we are intimidated. at this point, what i would say to you is there is a combination of things. it is about as changing how we do things. it is pursuing technology. pares have a unique opportunity which we have failed to deliver historically. we sit in the middle of the data. we're the only participant that has a broad view of what happens to you as you move around health care. whatever you may do, it passes through the financial system,

which is us. we have a tremendous view into everything going on. we are in a good spot to help. we of not many useful in the past at making that data powerful. -- we have not been very useful in the past at making that data powerful. we are the only ones who can do that. if down the road we end up with a national connected system, that would be terrific. i do not know how that can be done. in the meantime, we are in a position. we have a responsibility to do better there. . .

>> we have introduced programs instead of our company. one thing we have an advantage of this we are in a position where we contest things ourselves. before we go to the marketplace, we have a huge population of people so we can put pilots together that work. weight management, for example. our own people, 30,000, and it's

very short period of time, we have had people drop absenteeism but we are trying to connect the dots by about 10%. more than half of these people have lost weight since the program began. talking about this and developing the environment to make a difference. 64% of people in stress reduction program reduced stress and the very first month. 71% of people and nutrition programs have changed the way they eat and just the first 30 days. we have also tried other things. this may sound strange but one problem is our children are overweight, as well. we thought might try to meet these kids were there are. what do kids do? they played a lot of games but to sit on the couch. there are connected to the internet. the question is connecting the idea of health and wellness to the things they do already rather than bringing them someplace else. we introduced an idea called

america's hp charge -- challenge. we took 2000 kids around the country and got them and a program connected into the internet or the work as teams and individuals to score currency by activity. they had an internet game that kept them together in a competitive environment. the results of that are remarkable. these kids got into it. activity shot up. the ones that benefited the most were the ones that were doing nothing. there are opportunities to do more of that. by the end of six months, these kids had walked or run 30,000 miles, twice around the equator during that period of time. it can be done. a survey after the program reflected that not only did they enjoy it, they kept it up. i am not ready to declare

victory but it looks like there is an opportunity through these techniques to produce sustainable behavior changes. the next thing we tried was bicycles. we took 1000 bicycles to the democratic national convention and 1000 to the republican national convention. we are bipartisan. that was remarkable. when those conventions were going on, castling was $4 per gallon. exercise, wellness, outdoor activity, carbon footprint, all of these things were out there. at the end of the day, we had people doing seven dozen 500 rides put up 41,000 miles put 1.3 million calories were burned. bikes are not different. they're not new. what is new is data capture. the fact that you can measure what somebody has done ties to

an individual and gives you some hope that through that, you can then begin to get some behavior change on the same things that drive us every day. i bet every single one of you has a frequent flyer card in your pocket. i'd bet that all to have gone out of your way to make sure you use that airlines because of that card. that is a behavior change based on data collection and ever board system associated with flying that you somehow decided it was in your best interest to participate. the question is, how might that concept applied to health care? whether that is through bites, pedometers, whatever it might be. it is bringing back to health care that gives us some chance that we can signal behavior change over time. lastly, i will talk about what the industry needs to do about cooperation. if you look at banking, which can all walked into a bank in rome and get cash.

or alabama, or detroit and get money. why is that possible? it is because the banks cooperated on the standardization of technology and application and that opportunity in a way that make it convenient and easy to do business with them. in health care, we need to do the same type of thing. some years ago, we met with our biggest competitors in the state of florida. we came to a quick agreement that we were going to totally eliminate the nonsensical transactions. we developed a single standardized approach, offered it free to providers, the business model was basically built on the idea that we save as much money on our side that would allow us to pay for this. it is now moving across the country. virtually 100% of doctors and hospitals and for that use this put a 700 million transactions went across the platform this year. it is now going into texas,

mexico, and elsewhere. that is absolutely critical long-term. people like us step up to that and work together. we eliminate as much nonsense as possible. it has been a combination of things. working together, thinking differently, trying to use data, seeking out permanent behavior change. all of those things, i believe have the opportunity to begin to turn this thing around. in the meantime, we will fight to fight a ground the political system and how we provide financial protection. i will finish by talking for a second on this concept of wellness. it has been for the employers, you have an ambivalent attitude toward what does. is it worth it? does it pay back?

this wellness' alliance is going to spend a lot of time basically targeting that question. there are a number of believers among us. i am one of them. investing in our people does work if it is done smartly. i think these returns will be enough to save on a pure business perspective. i will help my people down this path. there is big upside and have great companies we are working with. i am looking forward to pursuing that and driving that agenda. i know i have questions here that will be specific which is fine. we can answer those. i want to make sure that we understand that whatever happens in washington for the next six months does not change the course of where this is going. we have to seek out other things. it is critical. they have long-term implications but if thank you for having me here today. [applause]

>> thank you. this is a nice softball question. thus the health-care sector generally have the same viewpoint on perform or do companies greatly differ? >> i can talk about the health insurance sector. we spend about a year and half before the last election asking us -- asking ourselves as an industry what our position will be. we knew there would be change needed. the health-insurance industry has reached a credible consensus around a number of very specific things that have to be done to fix the system. where were actively involved in the conversation to last year. the answer is yes, we are reasonably well united around the basic ideas of what has to be done. there are other components of the system that might disagree with us. our group, at least, is unified. >> is it now or never for health-care overhaul? >> if history is any guide, if

we do nothing, it could be a while before return to this. if nothing happens, we can come back. that might be the right idea. it is very difficult to get comprehensive things of the scale through the political process in this country. if this comprehensive thing does not happen, and other comprehensive thing will be impossible for quite a while. that does not say we cannot come back into other things. i think we are going to have to get this big thing does not happen. we have to do other things because we cannot do nothing. >> some actuarial said that medicare is to bring to the bankrupt by 2015 or 2017. what are your thoughts on that? >> i do not have to speculate. the math is straight forward. medicare is $38 trillion underfunded. we are having this big debate about medicare advantage and how we should be paid. i would argue, and i say this all the time, our medicare

program must have the best known management methods from the private sector applied to the population. whether we ultimately have to change our commitment to people over 65 is another question. policymakers will have to deal with that. we cannot have out control medicare programs continue on the track they are on. this will bring significant value to hoping rationalize all that. without question, and the future is very bleak. it is pure math. >> a corollary to that question, what happens in 10, 15, or 20 years if no health care reform is enacted? >> i have said all along, the path we are on is unsustainable. you are business people. how much of your business can you have consumed by this cost? i am a member of the business roundtable pulled every quarter, when we are asked our biggest

challenges, number one is always health care. the answer is that we cannot stay on the track we are on. the solutions are not lending themselves to quick answers or simplistic political answers. it is going to take an awful lot. some things i described are very difficult. it will take a while. they must happen for some of this to be solved. there has to be a combination of how we finance this, what is our intent, or we try to finance all of health care or provide insurance? it is a combination of the financing, rationalizing the delivery system, and others. and the amount of waste is mind- boggling. it is somewhere between 10% and 50% of all health care is no value added. we have structural issues. we have demographic issues. we have behavioral issues driving all this. we have been unable to drive

productivity. i use those terms a lot which are not terms to hear a lot in health care. productivity does not pop up. that is exactly what we are talking about. we have to drive productivity. >> a bit more granular. if you were a hospital, what would you do to prepare for health care reform? >> i used to be a hospital administrator for 20 years. i have a lot of friends on that side of the table. i would suggest this idea of productivity becoming front and center. at dulles and any part of the delivery system, i would ask myself how do i drive higher productivity and how the wind by doing that? the idea of same old activities is not going to work. we have to find higher productivity put up to the

extent that there is some waste or abuse and side of the hospital system, how you get that out? what is the economic model so someone is incentivized to do that? there are conversations around that are directed at that. you may have heard the concept of a aco. that is a baby step toward driving incentives. that will at the end of the date drive productivity. >> reflecting on the u.s. national transportation investment rules and regulations and restrictions, why can we not force commonality into the process these -- processes? >> i guess we could put him there was never enough political courage to do such a thing. when i give you an example of

this technology availability, that is exactly what that is. that is a recognition that we need a standardized approach to at least the non value added things in the industry to make them as efficient and low-cost as possible. whether there is a role for the federal government, we think there is. we have been saying for years that the government should help us with i.t. standards. there is a significant amount of money in the stimulus program toward i.t.. that will drive some of the standards and move the ball up the field. on health i.t., i am reasonably optimistic. >> let's shift back to the other end of the spectrum and go back to the wellness area you are interested in. well this is great but there is no money in it. -- wellness is great but how we

to make sure it could be paid for quest or >> that is where i was going. one of the things i keep working on is if i can find a business model consist every time i dropped somebody's bmi by one point or a population's bmi by one point, that isx s, we have yet to find a solid business model for that. body mass index. pick a white -- take your weight and height and figure out where we are. we have two sets of data to work with. we have the bmi on everybody that works for us. you can look at medical spending inside our company based on that bmi measure. it is predictably like i described. in my own company, the people that people abmi about 30 spend almost all the money.

-- about 30 spent almost all of the money. i am spending a couple hundred million dollars a year on health care. as i can lower the body mass index of my people and know that it by doing so i could take $25 million out of my health care spending, i would be all over that. i do not know how to do that yet but that is what i am working on. i will be back to report on that. >> there is a lot of research that indicates that there are obesity problems and a lack of understanding of the nutritional value of food or food products we eat. where does nutrition education fit into your wellness agenda? >> i have a couple of schools i am working with to try this idea. i am a big believer that people learn how to do these things the very young. the school district where our home office came to us and wanted to know if we would work with them on health the magnet schools.

we started working on curriculum. what would it mean to have to help the school? one thing that is part of that is a very comprehensive approach to everything. if you were going to teach math, cannot teach how for a car or train goes over time. teach the content of a piece of pipe versus a piece of bread. build it into your math curriculum. that kind of thing, we are also trying to drive this idea. kids are going to go into mcdonald's. when they go in, did they know what to eat? meet people were there are. kids especially. figure out how they live their lives, where to eat, what do they eat, and can you make them make better choices? the last part is that the parents come in and teach parents how to cook so that at home, whatever to do at school is relatively irrelevant at that home to experience something completely different. i think it is doable. this is heavy lifting.

i will be back to report on that, too. >> back to health care reform. what percentage of health care costs are administrative? how can this be reduced by insurance companies rather than being passed on to the consumer, providers and consumers? >> it varies quite a bit by product line. we can probably think 85% goes to direct health care and 15% is tied up in the system. there is a real debate right now whether that 50% is a legitimate no. and what we spend the 50% on. if you read the newspapers, to see it all profit. we only had a profit of 2.5%. we spend a fair amount of money on disturbing products and administering claims and doing things that would not surprise anyone. there is also a piece that is spent on an act of getting it to $85.

that is where the debate is. if i have a coordinated care system and other programs around trying to rationalize health care, is that administration or medical spending? do we spend it on administration or not? i would push back generally against a lot of the critics that set all of this stuff is not created equal. some of these dollars we do want spent. they are putting into -- they are being put into data aggregation. there is productivity possibility. one i described here. you all watch monday night football. i know you have a team. is it any good? never mind. [applause] >> out. that was low. we have a great hockey team. >> you do. where was i?

i actually did forget where i was. [applause] >> i used to have a building with my name on top of it you could see on monday night football driving this technology solution, there is not a single command a person in that building. that is the level of productivity that can be gained through self-service and all- time connectivity. there is much more opportunity like that. we have work to do to drive it down. we have to be cautious about drawing any conclusions about how that concept of how that money is spent. some of that is being directed at the big problem. >> we would not be doing our job if we did not talk about universal coverage. why does every developed nation have universal health care except the united states? >> i think we know the answer to

that. they have taken a different approach to how they are going to do it. we have had some exposure to some of the systems. we have looked at them for a long time. it is true that in most places outside the u.s., everybody does have some basic level of coverage. there is some sort of government think that provides a safety net of some sort. in most places, there is a private sector on top of that that is improving services, filling holes, whatever it might be. that is the standard model outside of this country. we have not gone down that path. it is not how people have chosen to do it. we have 40 some million people that are outside of the system. some are voluntarily, some are not. there is some question about those 40 million people and how we can deal with the nine to 10 million who are eligible the to not sign up. we do have a gap. it is because of our structure and how we have treated this

since the 1940's. i think the concept of universal coverage is critical. it is actually very critical to fixing some of the things that bother the public. people hate the pre-existing conditions. the reason they exist is because we are in a voluntary health insurance market where everybody is not covered. that is what you have seen all throughout this year the connection between universal coverage and some sort of mandate that says everybody has to have coverage. those things have to be linked together to eliminate some of the insurance practices that are the result of the voluntary market. i am not sure exactly how we got here or if it was decided that this was a good place to be, probably not, but the effort toward getting everybody into the system is critical. people receive care. there just not insured for it. that means you get lower productivity because access to the system through emergency rooms and other places where we know that is not the most efficient place to have it done. >> would you describe the

difference between universal coverage and the public option? >> i do not know the exact number of the top of my head. there's something like 1300 participants in the u.s. somebody like us, of varying sizes and stripes and structures. the fundamental question that there is not competition is geographic-specific. there is a lot of competition. some states, not so much. the debate over compensation -- competition gets a very weird. those that are pushing the idea of a public option believe this is one way to force competition to markets where competition does not exist. the debate gets really ugly quickly when you ask what will be the business model of a public option. we do have a couple of public option today called medicare and medicaid.

this year alone, it is estimated that the cost of those programs into the private sector is about $90 billion. if there are hospital folks, they know this but they did not get paid for the cost of servicing medicare and medicaid people adequately. they must drive that revenue from somewhere else. as the public option debate was moving forward, those that are most aggressive about wanting that were aggressive about using medicare payment rates for the payment system for a public option. i would argue that completely destroys what is left of the private-sector and probably takes every one of the hospitals under in the process. i'm sure there are hospital people, if everybody is coming to the door was paying medicare rates, how long would to be in business? probably six months, at best. that is why it gets ugly fast. >> this is the last question.

what is your involvement in michigan and please comment on your commitment to our state. >> i love michigan. [applause] [laughter] >> despite being in arizona cardinal fan. i just left the office this morning. we have a serious commitment in terms of people and resources. it is a growing market for us but a tough market. you have some serious players in this space that we confront every day. we have all the products. we believe we have to look at a marketplace in total. we are the biggest advantage player in the state at this point and we will continue to grow dramatically there. all of the different commercial lines of business we're in, special the products, it is all out there. our general approach is we cannot look and declare our success or failure on one product, which look at the entire business we do. we are optimistic. we appreciate those of you who are customers. we look forward to a good

customer. -- report to a great future. >> please give mike mccallister the warm thank you. [applause] >> thank you if so much. that was really very informative and very well delivered. what a pleasure it has been having you here today. many of you in the audience know that we have been doing health care related programming. the timing today could not be better. ladies and gentlemen, we know also that you are busy people. thank you very much for joining us today. we appreciate it. do not forget that 75th anniversary festivities but see how you can get involved. thank you so much and have a great day. this meeting is adjourned. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> the house will take up the health-care bill next week. the budget committee will work on it on monday. on wednesday, the rules committee will send the rules for floor debate with the debate in both possibly happen thursday and friday. following congressional action on our website. watched hundreds of hours of video. it is all that c-span.org /healthcare. >> obama and his socialistic ideas for the government to run the banks and decide salaries, this is a life lesson in progress right now for conservatism. >> sunday, michelle easton, founder and president of the policy institute on her work to promote conservative women in

leadership roles. sunday night on c-span. republican congressman bob goodlap talk to us on washington journal. it is about 30 minutes. congressman bob goodlatte is on your screen. for some reason, the balanced budget amendment has come back into play in congress. why is that? guest: i think it is because the american people are demanding attention on these enormous federal deficits and the accumulating national debt, probably the biggest threat to the economic security of our country and to the future of our children and grandchildren. quite frankly, if these huge deficits continue on the path where they are now where there is no foresight whatsoever for a balanced budget, that inflation, higher interest rates, and so on are on the horizon.

host: this has been talked about for 40 or 50 years in the congress. why has it never been able to pass even when republicans had control? guest: it actually has been going back to the founding of our country. thomas jefferson, who was not among those writing the constitution, he was ambassador to france at the time, said afterwards his biggest regret about the constitution -- of course, it is a wonderful document -- was there was not a limitation on the ability for the federal government to borrow money. so this is@@@@@@@ @ ::r::z)'::rr

expending to get it passed? guest: i'm working hard to coast the -- sign up co-sponsors from both parties. we have a new task force, a caucus that was just formed around this legislation, introduced it on the first day of the congress, house joint resolution no. 1, balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution. congressman mike kaufman and jim marshall formed a bipartisan caucus to help in the rate of movement -- in the recruitment. we already have 176 co-sponsors, a lot more republicans than democrats and we will focus on bringing with democrats on board. it requires a 290 vote, two-

thirds majority, to pass it. host: congressman goodlatte, walk us through -- if there was a balanced budget amendment, how would something like health care reform, which would cost money, or any other money program, get passed? would be tax increases, cuts in other areas? guest: this would require a balanced budget within five years. initially wanted passes and is ratified by the states, there would be five years to bring the balanced budget into effect. so legislation that calls for massive new federal government spending like the health care reform bill on the table today would probably not be considered in its current form. instead, the kind of reform i think most americans want which would be incremental reforms of things like -- a lot of people buy insurance across state lines, medical liability reform, a lot of people forming into large pools to get the competitive rates large

corporations get off -- those kinds of things would be examined first because of the fact they did not cost taxpayers any money. where is the president's bill -- there is a great debate about the cost -- but many believe it will cost $200 billion a year at a time we are already projected next year to spend $1.60 trillion more than we would take on an ravenous. so, the congress would be forced to set priorities that they don't and have not done, regardless of who has been president and who is in control of congress. the priorities that need to be set have not been set. members of congress say -- we will do it all, and then they will kick the can down the road. but that can is being kicked at our children and grandchildren. host: the iraq war began in 2003. 800 or $900 billion later, how would that have been funded? guest: well, the amendment allows for an exception in time of war and an exception when

there is a super majority vote, a 60% vote in time of national emergency. so, the issue there would be was there a time of war since there was no declaration? i would argue there would have had to of been a declaration of war in those circumstances -- would have had to have been a declaration of war. and but downturn last year, but congress could have voted -- and the downturn last year, and the congress could have voted, that is one year the budget would not be in balance. but quite frankly, over the last 50 years, the budget has been dallas four times. the late 1990's when you had a republican congress and a democratic president. and i think -- and i think most americans think -- it should be the other way around. in the last 50 years there might have been four occasions when a national emergency or time of war called for the budget to be out of balance and then in all the other times of good economic

growth, the budget should have been in balance. it will be a matter of great sacrifice on the part of the government, just like families and businesses and local and state governments have all had to tighten their belts. in some instances, quite severely, because of the economic downturn. that same kind of structure should be imposed upon the federal government. and it will be a difficult thing to do, no doubt about it. host: besides tightening the belt of the government side, would you advocate tax increases to get to a balanced budget? guest: i would not advocate tax increases. we have grown the size of the federal government enormously. the average american -- not talking about the wealthy americans -- the average american today spends more than 40% of their income on taxes at all levels of government -- federal, state, and local. when you consider they have to take the other 60% for all the basic necessities -- food,

clothing, shelter, health care, education -- that is a tremendous burden to carry, with an additional 40% going to taxes. i would be looking at spending cuts of all times to accomplish this. host: let us hear from the viewers. the numbers -- congressman bob goodlatte, republican from virginia, is our guest. michigan, independent line. caller: good morning, congressman. first of all, the health care bill is budget neutral. you know, we are not drawing cash from the treasury to support the health care bill. second comment -- the crown achievement of the republican party in the 1990's, the impeachment of a bill clinton. then we have the bush and eight years of bush and the

republicans controlling the congress and the white house and you spent us into oblivion. now we have to pull a rabbit out of power had with the stimulus package which got us back even. right now jobs are picking up in michigan. guest: first of all, let us look at the so-called budget neutrality of the health care bill. this is a bill that provides for six years of health care benefits with 10 years of tax increases and cuts in the medicare program, $500 billion in cuts in the medicare program. unless nobody gets sick for the next four years, he can't say that this is a budget which will bill when for four years of the next 10-year cycle that they are going to be collecting taxes on and cutting medicare programs on, you will not be providing any benefits. no one believes that. secondly and, medicare, which is a major government program, is

growing now had a dramatic rate, both in terms of the increase in cost of health care and in terms of the number of people becoming eligible because of baby boomers, those born after world war ii, start retiring this year. and we are going to have to reform the medicare program, but the savings that come from that reform are going to have to go to make the program worked for a far larger number of people. so to try to take the money out of that program and put it into a new federal government spending program is simply not right. those are just the two major points of many others that most people believe make this health care bill highly unlikely budget neutral proposition. host: yolanda, miami beach. democrat. caller: my problem is traditionally would have always been talking about the republicans. -- the republicans have always been talking about the democrats

be in tax and spend whereas the republicans have traditionally been borrow and spend. in my opinion, i will pay any day higher taxes so that people can get health care whereas my paying high your taxes because the rich are not paying taxes and essentially we all will have to pay for the taxes they are not paying. guest: the most important thing to talk about with regard to the balanced budget amendment is in order to accomplish it has to be bad for -- bipartisan and it has to be a great national debate about what the priorities should be. certainly part of that debate would be how much spending do you cut, how much the increase in taxes. as i indicated earlier, my strong priority would be for cutting government spending because i think the skies and -- size and scope of the federal

government and the areas it has gotten into relative to what had been the tradition of responsibility of state and local governments has grown far far too much. but this is a requirement that would simply say that congress has to set priorities, like 49 out of 50 state governments do, including my home state of virginia where, in richmond, they have agreed to battle each year about what their priorities going to be. will they cut spending, will they raise taxes? but each year they balance that budget. and as a result, while the states are in fiscal stress right now, their problems are really very minuscule compared to the enormous problem of a national debt that now is approaching $13 trillion. and the public portion of that debt, in other words, money borrowed by the government from individuals and businesses and foreign countries and so on, that portion of the debt is expected to triple in the next 10 years. it is simply unsustainable.

it is going to cause us to face hyperinflation or extraordinarily high interest rates which will have damaging effects to people of all backgrounds, but particularly people on fixed incomes and lower incomes, they will be dramatically hurt. so it is very, very important we bring fiscal responsibility to washington and i think the balanced budget amendment is one of the best tools to accomplish that. host: leaving her assessment of republicans as borrow and spend is fair? guest: i think anyone who criticizes overall actions of the congress, whether democrats are in control or republicans and control -- saying that we have spent too much money and grown the size of the federal government is a good criticism. each congress -- i vote for the tightest budget offered, and i have done that in the recent congress as controlled by democrats, i did it in the previous congress as controlled by republicans.

and each congress we would get me behalf of the republicans and none of the democrats to vote for these very tight budgets, no where near the 218 votes needed to pass the legislation. in part because people could make the decision to kick the can down the road. and so, congress is controlled by both part -- congress's controlled by both parties have barrault tremendous amounts of money but it has taken a dramatic turn for the worse in the last few years. before two years ago, the highest deficit we had run in a given year was about $450 billion. which is a staggering amount of money. but in last year's budget it was $1.20 trillion and this year it is expected $1.40 trillion and next year the budget offered by the president projects $1.60 trillion and at no time in the 10-year horizon, as far out as a project, doesn't get the low $800 billion. almost double the highest it has 74 in our history. that is simply unsustainable.

this is one of, i think, several tools needed -- disciplines needed in the congress, no matter who is in charge, to force them to make these priority decisions. host: todd, michigan. independent line. you are on the with tom goodlatte. caller: whenever a republican gets out there he says, well, the majority of the people want this and the majority of the people want that. yet the majority of the people voted for a democratic house, and democratic center -- senate and president. so, i don't understand your logic. number two, your party has always been for the rich. if you had your way you would not have paid my unemployment, which will run out in two weeks and i still have not got a job because of your policies sent all of our jobs overseas. some might question for you is, when do you guys develop a conscience and commit suicide?

guest: well, that as a friendly comment on your part. let me just say that the fact of the matter is when it comes to the future of our country, i think those who are concerned about the fact that families and businesses and governments of any level can't continue year after year after year to spend more money than they take in is the party that is looking out for the people. but a balanced budget amendment to the constitution will not take place, and it certainly did not get passed through the house of representatives, without strong bipartisan support. that is why i am very pleased to that is why i am very pleased to have a number of democrats who we're going to need a lot more and we think we will get a lot more because people across the country are working up to this reality. with regard to what the priorities are of the country, each represented official needs to listen to their constituents and paste it decision -- and

base a decision on that fact and the people are hearing from constituents, never have before. when i asked my constituents with the number one priority is, by overwhelming margin, they say out of control government spending. jobs are also very much ever prior to put health care reform is and should be a priority. the number one answer i get it the concern that the federal government is biting off more than they can chew and we need to change that. >> host: if republican from japan's bird pennsylvania. > . i understand he said on the agriculture commitee. my question is, i understand blanche lincoln has a family farm in arizona and she has gotten tons of subsidies@@@@@@rr

>> did not hire people because they continue to receive millions and millions of dollars in agriculture. host: what is your question? caller: are those cut subsidies to farmers when the subsidies were first set up, we needed the subsidies. host: you are asking about cutting subsidies? guest: that is a very good point. in the last farm bill that was just written, the subsidies for a larger farms were curtailed. were curtailed, not enough, in my opinion, but we made some progress in that regard. a balanced budget amendment to the united states constitution would again force the congress to review all of these programs

and decide which one are our highest priorities. i have no doubt that we would in necessity -- there would be of necessity is significant curtailment. i represent the shenandoah valley of virginia, the largest agricultural producing area of va. it is an area where livestock is the primary agricultural livelihood. it does not receive the kind of subsidies that a number of the crop programs receive around the country. we are much more free-market oriented. and my constituents are much more accepting of the idea that agriculture should be free market oriented and we need to move much more rapidly in that direction then we have. host: balanced budget amendment. does it say that the budget process, the budget making process in a capitol hill is broken or needs to be reformed? guest: i think it doesn't need to be reformed. because it is a constitution -- i -- idoes -- i think it

doesn't need to be reformed. -- does need to reform. what the president submits to the congress each year is not something adopted and then sent back to his signature. the budget is simply handled by the congress. we asked for and i think the law requires the president to submit a budget. this would require the president to submit a balanced budget, but the congress, which has the constitutional responsibility, has to adopt a balanced budget. it just like 49 of the 50 state legislatures go through and do each year. and so their problem, when they have an economic downturn, is basically a one-your problem. they have to figure out how to balance the budget to get to next year. if the economy grows, the pressure on the state government eases off. but with the federal government, because we piled up the debt year after year after year, if

interest rates spike up, we are going to see a dramatic increase in the amount of money the government is going to have to either borrow or cut in other areas or increase taxes in order to meet that huge obligation because the government cannot afford to default on this huge amount of money. interest rates have been low in recent times. when they go up again, that portion of the federal government that has to be devoted to paying the interest on the debt is going to go up pretty dramatically pared -- dramatically. host: there have been base closing provisions of that has taken some responsibility from congress. does congress not have the discipline to make the funding choices without this amended -- amendment? would this act as a base closing commission? guest: i will talk about that. there is an idea before congress that desert -- deserves careful examination. it does make congress set priorities. they have not set priorities.

we will do what we are able to based on revenues coming in and we will worry about that next year and next year. and next year never comes. so this is, i think, a long term very constructive told the congress should put in place and should put in place as soon as possible. in terms as -- of re- calibrating, there is a proposal by congressman frank wolf of virginia, the state commission, that would establish a bipartisan commission that would examine government spending, government taxes, the entitlement programs and how they operate, make a replica -- recommendation back to the congress and the congress, like me brac commission would be forced to have an up and down vote. i think to do that long term would be an abdication of congress's responsibilities, but to do it once, have the reset button and do this. calibration and have a decision

on what the commission recommends would be a good day -- way to start the process of having a balanced budget every year. host: milwaukee, robert, a democrat. you are on with rob goodlatte. caller: good morning, representative goodlatte. it seems like the republican party, a kind of reminds the of the taliban where upon everything that you want you have to -- you are fighting against the norm. the party of yes, yes, yes during the bush administration -- yes do they cheney energy program, yes to the wars, yes to the big prescription drug program and then we lost all of those jobs at the end of the bush administration, 727 or some like that among and then they blame barack obama for everything that occurred during the bush administration.

guest: first of all, the massive job losses due coincide with the end of the bush administration and the beginning of the democratic majority in congress which, of course, was in the majority for the last two years of that administration and have now been in power for three years and virtually all of the job losses have come during that time. if your suggestion is that republicans are to blame, i would reject that. if your suggestion is that there is bipartisan blame to be had -- i mean, i voted against the tarp legislation, but that was something -- and that was something by president bush and his secretary of treasury and i think there were mistakes made in the bush administration, absolutely, and mistakes made by republican congresses, but the solution has to be a bipartisan one and the first thing to do is develop a tool that requires the congress, no matter who is in charge, republican or democrat, that they have to set priorities and make decisions about what

the limited resources of this government and of the taxpayers are going to be devoted to. that, to me, is the first step toward avoiding a future disaster that will wreak havoc upon everybody in this country, no matter what their political affiliation might be. host: chris tweets in -- guest: well, and this amendment does not take a tax increase is off the table. i am just simply expressing my preference that when i vote on a budget i will be voting on a budget that looks at the enormous size of the federal government and looks at the fact that the growth in government spending has just been off the chart compared to what families in, have grown and, quite frankly, the growth in the percentage of what the average american family has to spend on taxes at all levels has grown as well. so, the idea that we can have an

unlimited path of tax increases to address society's problems and still have families able to take care of their basic needs is a faulty assumption, in my opinion. host: carl, independent line. springfield, missouri. caller: i have a few comments on the budget. when president reagan assumed office, the government had gone to the point where they have a balanced budget. first year in office we actually had a surplus. the 10-year projection showed a $6 trillion surplus and at the end of 2010 -- guest: you mean president bush. caller: i mean bush. i have a comment about prisoner reagan next. and at the end of 2010 the public debt was down to zero, so the only thing the government would really know was the social security, medicare, railroad

retirement -- host: you are going to lead to get to your question -- going to have to get to your question. caller: what happened was the big tax cuts and the wars is responsible for the current deficits. you guys like to pretend it is due to spending, and it is not. host: we got the point, thank you. guest: it takes a lot of spending to spend on the military operations that took place. the point that i would make is that when you make these decisions, you ought to bear in mind there is a limited amount of resources and whether you are in favor of spending more on military and defense or whether spending more on health care, you have to first set down and figure out how many resources you have available to accomplish these goals. many people do remember that the 1990's when republicans first got the majority in

congress, the confrontation they had with president clinton. we had a government shutdown at that time. and the result of that was that the president reached accommodation with the republicans about the rate of increase in government spending and that, coupled with a strong, growing economy, resulted in a balanced budget at the end of the 1990's and into the year 2000. that generated $500 billion in surplus that was used today down a portion of the public portion of the national debt. then during the early years of the 2000's, we have the 9/11 attack, which knocked one trillion dollars out of our economy. we had a recession and we did have the beginning of the wars in afghanistan and then in iraq. my concern was that after we got those things addressed and the tax cuts that president bush and

congress put into effect started to the economy growing, we did not take those resources and use them to provide for a title -- tighter budget. . host: plane can be cast with a wide net. no matter who's in charge, they should be fiscally responsible. >> about 10 minutes ago, you said the balanced budget amendment would not work. the next question is, what are you doing it? second thing is i agree that people that make a lot of money in california, it approaches half of within make being taxed.

i think they can afford that stuff. in the last thing is the cuts. my mother is on medicare and social security. she paid in to get that stuff. so did my father. i think they should at least be able to get some of that back. guest: i do not believe a balanced budget amendment would not work. i said it would be very difficult and require a lot of sacrifice on the part of government. if i even intimated such a thing, i want to make it very clear that i think it would work but that is absolutely essential that our government continue to work in an effective fashion. you simply cannot continue year after year to borrow unbelievably large sums of money if i might, let me give an example of this. i have spoken to high school classes and i have asked them how much is $1 trillion?

the president says it costs $1 trillion. republicans and others would say it cost more than that. $1.40 trillion. how much as $1 trillion? they know who is responsible for paying it back. they are going to have to be responsible for that. it is a shame that we might leave them with that type of burden. let me give you a starting point. if you have a stack of $1,000 bills, freshly printed, you would have $1 million. how high would that stack of $1,000 bills be to total $1 trillion? they had no idea. some say it 12 inches. some said 20 feet.