i will be back to report on that, too. >> back to health care reform. what percentage of health care costs are administrative? @@@@@@w [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] we spend a fair amount of money on distributing products and administering claims and doing all the things that would not surprise anyone. there is also a piece in there that is actually spent on trying to get at the $85. and that's where the debate is.

if i have coordinated care systems and disease management programs and all these sorts of things 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 anniversary festivities but see how you can get involved.

>> michelle easton on her work to promote conservative women in leadership roles sunday night on c-span's "q mpped a." >> we provide people a free tool where by they can share information with anyone at any time. >> with more than 400 million users online, it is the

fastest-growing web site in the world. tim sparapani today on "the communicators" on c-span. >> yesterday in the house steny hoye are and whip eric cantor talked about their debate on the health care bill and their differences on the issue. this is a half-hour. e 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@@@@@@@ @ @ @ p in response to the president's request that there be an up or down vote in the house, could the gentleman give us some enlighten the to 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 the senate bill passed, and i yield to the gentleman. >> the party has used that process as well, as i'm sure the gentleman knows. 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. this is the first i've heard something referred to in the terms you've 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. >> i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, i would like to thank again consistent with the president's request that there 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. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. what the president was referring to, of course, in reference to an up or down vote, was a majority vote. one of the things the gentleman knows and experienced when his party was in the majority, it is difficult to get an up or down vote when the majority of the senate is for something, and they have to get an extraordinary something, send 60 -some votes to get a majority to the floor. that does not facilitate a vote by a 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 suspect we're going to get an up or down vote in the senate. why? because in the senate they have rules that we're going to follow as you did in 16 out of the 22 times that allowed for an up or down majority vote in the united states senate.

we have to have an up or down majority vote in the house, and we consistently have had measures that can fail or succeed depending on the will of the majority as opposed to the thwarting by the minority. >> 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. 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 would ask the gentleman whether we can expect an up or down vote on the health care bill itself or not, and i yield. >> i tell the gentleman that nothing will pass here without a majority vote. >> i thank the gentleman. i take that to mean that there is a likelihood that we will not see an up or down vote on the

bill itself and that perhaps the reports of this concept called the slaughter solution in which the majority will deem past the center bill in some type of procedural move, that maybe the public can expect that to happen . i know that tag the gentleman does not think that that represents the kind of votes that the american people expect, but i take that to mean that that certainly is a possibility. madam speaker, i would 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. >> i expect the house to have very significant time to consider the proposals that come out of the budget committee and or the rules committee. and this bill of course has been -- either bill, the house bill and senate bill, as proposed has been online for some 2 1/2 months.

otherwise known as about 75 days. so there has been ample time to review the bill, whether it is the senate bill or the house bill. so my friend is, i'm sure, well aware of what's in the senate bill and what's in the house bill. in addition to that, the president butt online his proposed compromises between the senate and the house, 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 in which the president invited leaders from both parties in both houses to come and discuss what he believed ton -- to be an historic opportunity to provide health care access yibblet to all americans. so i say to my friend that we will certainly give as much notice as possible, but i'm not

going to say that 72 hours is going to be the litmus test per say, because that which we have voted on already in the house and senate have given members months notice and the american public a month of notice on the subject of the propositions pending before us. >> i thank the gentleman and again i'm taken aback the 72 hour rule has been completely cast aside since no one in this house has had an opportunity to see what is in the reconciliation bill. at least i speck for the members on our side of the aisle that have not had an opportunity to see what's in the reconciliation bill and i would imagine would have some of the provisions that the president in his plan, not the legislation, put up on line prior to the blair house meeting. again, it is rather disturbing, madam speaker, that the 72-hour rule has been completely cast aside. >> will my friend yield?

>> i yield. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding. first of all, the 72-hour rule, i didn't think that we were casting aside any rule. nor did i stay that we may not have more than 72 hours notice. we may well have more than 72 hours notice. what i said is i'm not going to commit myself and then have 70 hours as opposed to 72 hours and then think i violated some reputation on me. we want to get as much notice as we possibly can. this has been a difficult discussion, as you know, and as you well know, the members on your side of the aisle in the other body have indicated that we're going to do everything in our power to stop the package of this legislation, so we're going to get about this business and engage, if you will. >> i guess the gentleman may begin to understand why it is that some on our side of the

aisle, including yours truly, depicted since ramming the bill through. if we can't even get a commitment that the gentleman as well as the speaker had indicated prior that we would have 72 hours to review the legislation that comes to the floor, i think that is consistent with the depiction that has going through. i yield. >> the gentleman has had 72 days, i tell the gentleman, to review the bill that he refers to. 72 days. not 72 hours, 72 days in final form to review the bill. can you keep saying this, you can keep telling the american public that somehow we're ramming through. you have had, i tell the gentleman, and i know you have had, 782 days at least to redwsh 72 days at -- you have had 72 days at least to review the bill as it stands today. >> madam speaker, we are

expecting 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 to see the reconciliation bill. that is the bill that i'm speaking to. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i yield. >> let me repeat the process, as i'm sure the gentleman knows well. the budget committee will meet. they will report out the bills that are to be wreck siled. the rules committee will then take them under consideration shortly thereafter, and will present a reconciliation bill. we will all see at that point in time. it will obviously do exactly what the instructions that we adopted in the budget a year ago ininstructed it to do -- instructed it to do, and that is

to reconcile these bills, and it will have a fiscal positive effect. i haven't seen the final, but my expectation is that it will have a positive physical impact, and we will all see that, but it will be simply following the instructions that the budget committee and the budget that was passed, i don't think the gentleman voted for it, but nevertheless, a majority of the house did vote for it. i know the other body doesn't like 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 that will be drafted by the rules committee, 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 had 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 each and every one of its provisions for over two months. >> i thank the gentleman. madam speaker, and again, it seems as if we're not going to get an up or down vote on the senate bill in the house, but we will be voting on eye reconciliation measure. and the instructions that were included in the budget bill, are not legislative text. that is my point, madam speaker. since we cannot be guaranteed of a 72-hour period for review, madam speaker, nor can the american people utilize their right to know during a 72-hour period, i would ask the gentleman whether the reconciliation package will contain the house language referred to as the stew pack-pitt language. >> i have no knowledge of that

at this point in time, so i can't give my friend a definitive answer, but as my friend does know, that language or any other alternative language may not qualify for reconciliation. >> i thank the gentleman. i would just like to, madam speaker, read a recently reported statement by the gentleman, in which he said it is clear that the matter of borgs cannot be dealt with per se in the reconciliation bill so we have to deal with it as it is at this point in time. would would ask the gentleman if that is a correct translation of his remarks having said today? and i yield back. >> it was president just a translation, it was an ak accurate reporting of what i said. >> i take that to mean that the stupak language will not be in the reconciliation language? >> we don't believe there is a

need for change in that wlang because the gentleman knows that needs to deal with budget theory. we don't believe that can be dealt with in reconciliation. >> i thank the gentleman. i would say to the gentleman, and i'm sure he has seen a letter signed by 41 senate republicans, in which they indicated they would oppose any effort to weigh 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 house senate. and in fact, just 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. >> will my friend yield on that? >> yield. >> that is an interesting

question, because you brought it up in juxtaposition to the stupak amendment. what it says is even if we agree with the stupak language we will not waive the byrd rule. why? they want to defeat the bill. that's what that aletter says. and i think americans, if they knew enough about the process and can't take the time to do what you and i do, follow this very closely, but they know what's going on. and very frankly, it is ironic, 41 senators would say notwithstanding that they would agree with the proposition that they put in a 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. >> 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. 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 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 language, the protection that will guarantee no government money goes toward funding goes toward abortion services, which is why i bring the point up, madam speaker. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i yield. >> 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 you dispute that because there is i -- there is a contribution toward policies. but you know, the senate drew language 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 substantive dollars or government dollars. that they must be spent out of an individual's personal pocket. >> madam speaker, if that's his interpretation and believe 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. so i think -- >> will my friend yield? >> i yield. >> this is an extraordinarily difficult issue not only for the congress but for americans generally and for individuals. there is a dispute on this language. >> he is correct. >> as he knows, neither side likes the language in the senate bill. one side, the pro-cheist choice side, if you will, for simplification, believes that the language goes beyond the hyde language. 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 has indicated that's his intent, that's our intent, and that's why we are proceeding in the manner that we are. >> i thank the gentleman for his clarification of his intent. i would just say again, the tath lick bishops as well as the right to life organization are very much in opposition to this language. i stand with them. i would ask the gentleman, madam speaker, that the parm 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 that contains provisions such as the corn husker 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. and i yield. >> i think the gentleman correctly states the senate palimentarian's position. while i say i do not know the entire thrust of the re reconciliation bill, i can guarantee him this, it will take out that nebraska position 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 will 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. >> i thank the gentleman. in closing, madam speaker, i'll look forward to working with the gentleman in trying to refocus the issue of this house on getting americans back to work. the gentleman did indicate that there will be further action in what he is calling a jobs agenda. certainly that didn't happen today as we are here already having finished the legislative business of the day and only having considered a deal with

algae. i mention this because 52% of americans do think jobs and the economy are the nation's top issue. and by contrast, only 13% of americans think that health care is our nation's top priority. this was according to a cbs/"the new york times" poll. so i thank the gentleman for his willingness to get america back to work. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i yield. >> first of all, let me say to the gentleman from virginia that maryland and virginia and a lot of other states think the bill we passed through this house on allergy -- allgae is critically important to the health of the chesapeake bay. i'm sure the gentleman shares that view with me. critically important for our bay and rivers. i happen to live on a river, and

we feel the chesapeake bay is an asset of his and every state. so i know he is pleased that we passed that bill. it is an important bill. we are here trying to make sure that we have the time to get ready to pass a major historic piece of legislation that teddy roosevelt set us on the path to accomplish. that -- and many over a century ago. we have accomplished, i think, a significant piece of legislation today. 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're in the process of considering those bills. 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 the litany of how we got here. the gentleman has heard it

before. the last administration, as he well knows, we lost over 700,000 jobs in the last four months here we have lost 27,000 months. surely, anybody who is fair-minded would say we need to -- we have -- people are hurting in america. families are hurting in america, and we need to get back to work. we need to ensure that people can support themselves and their families, not to the level they would if they were working, but

certainly support themselves in a way that we think is humanitarian. we feel the american public in this historic recession is the deepest we've seen in 75 years. the gentleman 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 substantially older than you are. that's an admission against interest, but it nevertheless is true. so i will yield back to the gentleman saying we share your view. we want to continue to work on this jobs agenda. >> i thank the gentleman for his view of history. i also would like to say to the gentleman that 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

onto the business of focusing on the economy. that is why i raised the issue of our being here today, not doing anything here today to promote job creation, and as far as any quarrel we may have of history and why we got or how we got to where we are today, i would just like to quote to the gentleman in closing, winston churchill's speech to the house of commons in june of 1940, and he said, of this i am quite sure, that if we open a quarrel between the past and the present we shall find we have loft our future. with that, madam speaker, i yield back. >> now house speaker nancy pelosi's weekly news briefing. she talked to reporters about health plans to work on health care next week along with student aid and the fiscal year 2011 budget. this is 15 minutes. ooofofñoffmoffmofmfmffffffno:

>> good morning. each day we move closer to narrowing the differences, and each day we move forward to finally putting something in print and on the internet. but the c.b.o. did come out with a report yesterday on the senate bill. mind you, the senate bill passed christmas eve, but there was a c.b.o. score going into the vote, but this addressed as

amended. what was positive it had $1 trillion over the second 10 years. that is exactly or better what we hoped to do with the reconciliation bill to sustain those numbers. so the fact it was started in a good place for us is very positive while we are awaiting the final word from them. when we do, we will be able to send a bill to the budget committee, and the budget committee will pass that out, we'll go to the internet with that, and discuss the specifics of the legislation with their members and we'll take whatever time is required for us to pass the legislation. again, i feel very exhilerated by a caucus that we had this morning in terms of the

questions that members have. we spent a good deal of time, but then some on the process. we are ready to stay as long as it takes to pass the bill. i think members are eager to pass a bill. again t. won't be long -- again, it won't be long and make a real difference in terms of the lives of the american people. so, the c.b.o., the substance is between what the house and senate tells us they are prepared to act upon. i'm delighted the president will be here for the package of the bill. it is going to be historic, and it would not be possible without his tremendous, tremendous leadership, his persistence, his concern for the american people. always, always guided by his statement that we'll measure

sour our success by the progress being made by america's working families. this legislation not only makes history, but it will make progress for america's working families. any questions? >> you say by march 21 you will pass health care reform? >> i said we will take the time that we need to pass the legislation. >> you just said -- >> i'm hoping it will be in that time frame, but our clock can't start ticking until we get the c.b.o. score. it increases the process will be here. >> do you think it will be easier to get votes for health care by attaching this student loan provision through reconciliation? >> right from the start our budget instruction was about two bills that would be reconciled. one was health care and one was education. if i may just step back for a moment, this goes back to our budget bill that we passed in the house 100 days after the

president's inauguration. so calculate that in the spring of last year. in that bill the president had a blueprint in the budget for lowering taxes, reducing the deficit, creating jobs, and stablizing our economy well into the future around three pillars. those three pillars were investment in education and innovation, which go together, investments and energy and climate change, and investment first among people in health care. we have passed three of those bills. two of them, the education bill and the health bill were to be part of the reconciliation. the budget bill we passed in the spring, the budget instruction we received in the fall was about the -- that reconciliation would deal with those. reconciliation is with education would bring us more savings and, of course, cost the taxpayers and the students less for their student loans. so that has always been part of

the plan. there was some question as to whether this would prevail in the senate fm until the senate parlimentarian until the senate announced it must be part of the reconciliation. that's why it has been -- that's why it has emerged as a subject of more public view. it is not there to -- no, i don't think it would make any difference in our house about passing the bill. what it will make a difference in is community college, support for community colleges, pell grants, minority-serving institutions, k through 12 school construction. those are the kinds of things that will receive funding. the amount will depend on the amount that we hear from the c.b.o. and from the senate.

>> let me say this -- and i know i can say this with assurance in this room -- i have supported -- when i say "supported" signs in the street, i have supported single payer for longer than many of you -- since you have been born, and you have lived on the face of the earth. i think i have always thought that was the way to go. a. b, the public option, it isn't with a little sadness that i view that it is not in the bill, but in fighting for the public option, i take the position, that we had it 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 service of a public option served by the rate review, which we insisted upon, and by saying that insurance companies, should they be raising rates between now and and the set of exchanges, may be prohibited from participating in exchange. so we -- i believe we have a very strong bill that will increase competition, will lower cost for the american people, and accomplish some of the same goals. it doesn't produce the same savings, and that's why we were fighting for it. the goal had to be served and we wanted more savings, but it did not prevail. what we will have in reconciliation will be something

agreed upon, house and senate, that we can pass and they can pass. so i'm not having the senate, which didn't have a public option in its bill, put any of that on our doorstep. we had it, we wanted it, they didn't have it, it is not in the reconciliation. but it has nothing to do with whether we initiated it here. we did initiate it. they didn't. [question unintelligible] >> we're talking about what is not going to be part of the legislation. why don't we talk about what is going to be in there. we're talking about -- it isn't in there because they don't have the votes to have it in there or they would have had it in there to begin with. yes, ma'am, you are next. >> how troubling is the ruling that the senate parlimentarian

did yesterday on the president signing the bill before they can do reconciliation? >> not very troubling. it is more of a visibility issue. but the fact is, once we pass the senate bill, it is enacted. that remains for the president to sign it. maybe more on this other thing than you want to know, so i'm sure you'll stop me if that's the case, it is important to note that what we are doing is reconciliation. we are dealing with a very few points. affordability for the middle class, equity for the states to correct -- closing the doughnut hole for seniors, which means making prescription drugs more affordable for seniors, and expanding the accountability,

the insurance reform. changing the pay from the exize -- excise tax to another pay form. that's largely what is in the bill. and there are more things that go with that. all central to the budget. nothing incidental or peripheral to the budget, central to the budget, that's what it is. the bills that have passed -- ours was 220 in the house, theirs was 60 in the senate -- will be acting upon the senate bill with changes in the house bill reflected in the reconciliation. so in order to have the senate bill be the basis and build upon it with the reconciliation, you have to pass the senate bill, or else you are talking about starting from scatch. so we will pass the senate bill. once we pass it, the president

signs it or doesn't, people would rather wait until the senate has acted, but the senate palimentarian said in order for them to do an enactment, it must be signed by the president. so it isn't going to make any difference except maybe the mood that people are in, but the fact is, once we pass it in the house, it's going to be the law of the land. >> there are so many in the rank and file that they don't trust -- >> that's going to be a difficult thing, but the fact is, they are committed to extending insurance to 41 million more americans, to making insurance more affordable to the middle class, to having reforms that say we end the prohibition on denying insurance to those because they have a preexisting medical condition. they are committed to the goals

of the legislation, and they are strong enough to do it regardless of if the bill is signed on monday or if it is signed on friday, because we will have already passed the bill. >> the c.b.o. came out with their newest budget number that $9.4 trillion would be added to the budget deficit. do you intend as speaker ever to proid preside over a balanced budget like hasstert or gingrich did? >> first of all, let us reflect on where that budget deficit came from. we had two wars which were done on supplemental not pay-as-you go, and we have deficits from the bush years. but having said that, it is our responsibility to reduce the deficit. for that reason, i am pleased

that the senate has now agreed to have pay-as-you-go. it became the rule of the house the day i became speaker. it became the law of the land only recently when the senate agreed they would provide by pay-as-you-go. secondly -- excuse me, i'm answering the gentleman's question. the second point is that we have a commission that the president has, by executive order, put forth to take under consideration everything, revenues, expenditures, entitlements, the rest, but to talk about. and that has a short fuse. that will be a this-year phenomenon. then the president has asked for a freeze or a cut in the appropriations bills as we go forward. so what i say to members when they have an idea or a suggestion for legislation or an amendment to a bill, does it create jobs? does it reduce the deficit? that is the course we have to

take. but let me remind you, once the president -- under pay-as-you-go under president clinton, the last four clinton budgets were in budget or in surplus. so on a trajectory of $5.6 billion going in a positive direction, after president bush's wreckless economic policies and tax cuts for the wealthiest and engaging in wars that he did not pay for but just added to the deficit, we -- but even before we got you will of -- got all of that, in a couple years the trajectory changed from about $6 trillion to a swing of $11 trillion, bigger than has ever happened in history. we know how to turn that around. president clinton did it following the reagan-bush deficits. we have to turn it around now, and that is our commitment. >> on reassurances from the

senate, i realize leader reid can't give you iron-clad assurance yses -- >> why not? >> because of the rules of the senate. but what assurances have you gotten to promptly take up these bills so they will ease your senate's fears? >> we will have a number of bills sent over to the senate which have not been acted upon yet, but let me say that is largely because of the obstructionism of the republicans. they are requiring 60 pothse votes on every bill. as i said to you before, senator reid has had the vote, he just huhn't -- hasn't had the time to address each one of these issues. so the concern he had was about what had happened in the past based on the 60-vote rule. under the reconciliation, the simple majority, the constitutional majority, i think members are much more comfortable about the fact that this reconciliation will happen. nonetheless, there are certain assurances that they want, and

that we will get for them before i ask them to take the votes. but i think we are at a very good place because our numbers are coming. what we are seeing from c.b.o. is positive. we want it to be certified so we can go forward with the scored bill as soon as possible, and again, any hesitation anybody might have about the interest of the senate is off-set by the great vision that they have for health care for all americans and that we would do it all in a reasonable length of time. it will take a little faith, but what we do always does. >> on timing you said yesterday you would give members a week to look at the legislation? >> i said we would have a week from at least from yesterday before we would have a vote. i would hope that we would have the c.b.o. scores as soon as possible so we can go to budget on the beginning of the week and

then go on the internet and take a vote. thank you. thank you. >> the scores today? >> it is an independent agency. i wanted them last friday. i would hope that we have them today. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> c.q. today is reporting that the house will -- the budget committee will work on it on men, and then on wednesday, the rules committee will set up the debate, with a debate in both possibly happening thursday and friday. follow congressional action by visiting our health care hub web site where you can watch hundreds of hours of video. it is all at c-span.org/health care. >> sunday, your chance to talk to karl rove live on book-tv. he will take your e-mails on hs

new memoir, "courage and consequence. " then wife janet on -- all this weekend, live coverage of this year's tucson festival of books. find the entire schedule at booktv.org. get the latest updates on twitter. >> coming up this morning on c-span "washington journal" is next, including your phone calls. later, secretary of state hillary clinton talks about the state department's annual human rights report. and later part of this week's debate on the war in afghanistan. .