until 2:00 p.m. today.

there is a session beginning at 5:00 p.m. at that will be live on c-span3. tonight, congressional reaction to the release of the national broadband plan. the guest will be the chairman and ranking committee. that is tonight at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span [applause] . >> the public affairs content is available on tv, radio, online, and on twitter and facebook. sign up for e-mails. >> senator john mccain joined us this morning with reaction to last night's health care vote and a look at the issue of immigration. it is about 20 minutes. host: senator john mccain, a ranking member of the armed

services committee joins us. guest: thank you, i'm glad to be with you. host: you are just returning from a trip to arizona this weekend. you have been meeting with people at town hall meetings. you just came back from arizona, with some folks up the town hall meetings. town hall meetings. the water you guest: anger, frustration. two town hall meetings, probably over 1000 people. little bit of fear and that they don't know what this legislation will mean to them. they are angry about the process as much as the product the chicago-style sausage-making. apparently, according to "the wall street journal" it went on all day yesterday.

there was this article, "inside the nancy pelosi sausage factory." everyone knows that an executive order is worth the paper is written on. host: the process moves to the senate. what do you expect to happen? guest: obviously, we will mount a big offense. so, the process moves to the senate. what are you going to do there? guest: obviously, we will mount a vigorous defense. the american people the need to hear debate. they need to hear about these sweetheart deals being cut. and i guarantee you, when they hear about them being cut out, is the foreman deal, going to be cut out? @@@@@@

the high end taxes on cadillac insurance policies. effect they have on social security, and whether it will be a legitimate parliamentary point of order. frankly, we will have this debate continue. i just saw a clip that they were drinking champagne last night in the celebration of the victory. i guarantee you, out in arizona the 1000 people who come to my town hall meeting and the people in my state including the governor were not drinking champagne last night. g the governor who says it is going to bankrupt the state of arizona were not drinking champagne last night. host: we are taking your calls on the various numbers.

guest: may i wickman -- may i make one comment? c-span has done a wonderful job for all of the years i have been around. c-span has given ordinary people, senators, congressmen the chance to interact with our citizens, but perhaps most -- as important, you have consistently covered both the boring and the not so boring process of how 11 slid of branch works here -- the legislative branch works here. i have always argued that you should have more coverage rather than less. i just want to put in a plug for c-span. host: thank you very much. before we go to the calls, tell us about the op-ed that you wrote this morning. guest: the "wall street journal"

asked us to submit this and basically, it is an update on what has been happening in iraq. as we have succeeded there, and the casualties, thank god, have been reduced and almost eliminated. not a single american service member has been killed in iraq in the last few months. it is remarkable. i thought it would be good to a of dating one that had a contested election. there is fierce -- are thought it would be good to update everyone on the contested election. there is fierce contention and rhetoric and comments being made. a but the fact is, it was a contested election. and it was fair. now we will see as the process continues to force the government. and there will still be terrorist attacks. there will still be suicide bombers, but i am convinced that they are far enough down the path toward a free and independent nation that we can view it as a great success.

host: our first call for senator mccain comes from fort valley, ga., milton on the line for democrats. caller: this is my first time calling and i'm a little bit nervous. i'm a veteran of the navy and i'm just surprised with this whole health care, the debate that is going on between republicans and democrats. we're all americans and it is not about death penalty or anything like that. senator mccain has, having beena pow, i cannot know how you can continue to defy this country with the republicans have been doing. they're often lies in its truest. -- and missed truths. guest: i would be very curious to find up with those lies in the streets are. -- what those guys and mistruths

are. i did not offer the cornhusker kick back, the $100 million deal for the state of nebraska to bayh senator nelsons a vote. i did not do the florida gatorade deal where people who are under medicare advantage a special deal. the 300,000 enrollees in my state better under medicare advantage have to pick up the tab. the list goes on and on of the unsavory sausage making that at least according to the "wall street journal" that was made as late as yesterday afternoon. the promise of the president was that there would be a change in washington. in fact, he said that c-span

would be present at health care reform negotiations. instead, it took place behind closed doors with a cutting of special deals for special people. it was out and operate. the american people do not like that. -- it was out and out bribery. the american people do not like that. host: let's take this call from new york, james on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, senator mccain. first of all, i would like to say i voted for you and i'm very sorry that you were not elected. guest: thank you. caller: i have right now in medical plan that furnishes me with hospitalization, physician's care, drugs, eyeglasses and dental. when this goes through, could i possibly lose my benefits from- my employer and will they be

taking it away from medicare? guest: i would have to know the plan and all of that, but it sounds to me like you have one of the "cadillac plans," in other words, a very generous plan. there is no doubt there would be taxes on your so-called cadillac health insurance policies that people have. that is just part of the deal. i would have to see your -- you know, have a little more information, but from the sounds of it, it sounds like it is one of those "cadillac plans" that would be subject to taxation. host: next up is frank from modesto, nevada. caller: actually, i'm from new york. i am disappointed with this health care bill, but i am also

disappointed with the senator mccain for several reasons. the first is that there would not be supplements available to americans. i am happy to be a healthy person and i take supplements and i see in this bill that he wants to take it off from the american public and make it a european-style thing. guest: if i could interrupt, we reached an agreement with several senators and if you look at that, we found that the people who are manufacturers are also supporting this legislation. you and i do not want people in justin substances into their bodies that could harm them and even kill them -- in jesting substances into their bodies that could harm them and even kill them accurate hos. host: several senators outlined

an immigration reform plan. your thoughts? guest: my thought is that the president of the united states should come forward with the lead on a proposal. this is a guest worker program, how that would be implemented. the unions and democrats are in opposition to it. we need a temporary legal worker program. but most important, we have got to secure our borders first. three american citizens were just killed recently in war as, mexico. the violence -- were just killed recently in juarez, mexico. the violence has escalated in mexico. we just have a colossal failure of the walls that are directed along the border. my goal would be to secure the borders first. host: next up is texas, on the

line for democrats. caller: i do not want to be cut off. i took a long time to stay on here with the senator. senator mccain, this is pointed right at you. my sister goes to arizona state university. she has cancer, we just found out a couple of weeks ago. she has no insurance. i've got to tell you, i used to release support you so much, but your a thorough disappointment. i hope your avoid it out of office. -- you are voted out of office. you have shown the american people your pathetic side in how politicians simply switch around for the nature of keeping their seats. now you are railing against health-care. the entire country watched you debate with the president on how you supported health care.

and all you do is show double sided faces to keep your seat in arizona. you need to be voted out of office. and i do not want to be cut off, c-span -- host: sorry, we only have the senator for a short time. guest: sorry to cut you off, but i think you made your point. republicans have proposed significant health care report -- reform, medical malpractice reform, which could save $100 billion a year. we have talked a lot about defensive medicine, allowing people to go across state lines to get the insurance policy that is best for them. there is outcome based treatment, a list of proposals that we have to try to fix health care in america. and as regards your sister, she will be in our prayers, but let me also say that we have a proposal that we would have state and federal government put money into risk pools for which

insurance companies can bid in order to treat people with "pre- existing conditions" and try to get the kind of treatment that your sister needs. and i'm glad you are in texas and not in arizona, but this is one of the duties of c-span is to hear directly from people and i respect -- one of the duties of c-span is to hear directly from people and i respect your views. host: next up is joanna on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, i'm a first-time caller. i wanted to express that my family supports you and everything that you stand for. we really appreciate all you have done in office, in contrast to what the last caller just said. i am also a student right now and of what i do not understand is, college students are offered a type of insurance when you are enrolled in college and why his

sister did not get that i do not understand. anyway, my husband is military and like a lot of people in my community, we actually did not know about the vote yesterday until we went to church and had a discussion. if everything passes, how does it affect our military health care? guest: it will not. the military health care will have to stay the same. i want to thank your husband and your family and you for their service to the country. but it will not change the medical health care. but i would point out that it could put the squeeze on the veterans' health care and particularly in that area because there are only so many dollars to go around. i worry very much about our

host: very quickly, sarah palin, you're running mate in the election is coming to arizona to help you there and arizona. what do you hope that she can do that maybe could not when you're running for president? guest: first of all, she did galvanize the party after she agreed to be my running mate, and the speech he gave at the convention. i'm sure she will do the same in arizona when she comes. we have had overwhelming response already. it will be a nice reunion, to have a chance to spend some time together with her. i'm grateful she would come to arizona. i do not take my reelection for granted. i will have to earn every vote. i'm sure some will be very happy to see sarah palin as they are all over the country. host: thank you very much,

senator john mccain, for staying on "washington journal" this morning. guest: thank you. >> schedule note, we will cover that rally for senator john mccain in mesa, ariz., and else he mentioned, sarah palin will join him there. his main challenger is a former congressional republican. the primary is august 24. what coverage on saturday of that john mccain rally. the u.s. house is in recess, back in about one hour. six non-controversial bills are on their agenda, all dealing with veterans issues. . .

>> this looking at possible constitutional challenges. the washington and lee university. he is here to talk about the challenges to health care. good morning. guest: good morning, thank you. host: what do you think needs to be challenged constitutionally regarding health care and the bills passed last night? guest: i do not think anything need to be challenged.

i do not think there are any real doubt that constitutional challenges to this legislation. congress is acting within its constitutional powers, granted by article 1 of the constitution in enacting this legislation. i think your listeners, the worst know there are a number of states -- 36 -- that are now considering legislation that would challenge the constitutionality of a single part of this legislation. two of the states, idaho and virginia, have enacted such legislations. the arizona amendment is a little bit different. under the constitution as it has been interpreted by the supreme court -- and that is really our constitution. everyone has their own interpretation.

but constitutional law is made by the supreme court. over the last 80 years, i do not see any serious problem with this legislation, and congress did not either. host: what are they trying to do in virginia? guest: if you will give a moment to explain the way in which this legislation works -- as everyone has heard, and get rid of the underwriting based on stun a spirited and get rid of pre- existing conditions. you cannot refuse someone insurance because they are healthy or not healthy. here you have 5% of the population consume a 50% of health-care. they are responsible for one perhaps -- one% of health care expenses. the way that insurance pools

work right now is you need help the people in there with the and healthy people. what they do now is they keep me really on healthy people out or charge them higher premiums. what this does is says they cannot do that anymore, so they will be dependent on having loss of helping people in the market. the one thing that the legislation does is says if you can afford insurance, you can buy it. i refer to this as the slackers position. everyone is responsible for themselves. if there are some slackers' that refuse, this law tells them that you have to buy it or you'll have to pay an extra tax. in is not a terribly onerous tax once fully phased in. about 2.5% of your income.

it does not apply to anyone who is under the filing limit, which i think is $12,000 for individuals, does not apply for people with religious objections. there is no criminal penalty for not paying the tax, but it is saying, be irresponsible citizen can get insurance. -- be a responsible citizen and get insurance. the virginia law says nobody can make our citizens by insurance. -- buy insurance. they can say that if they want to, but under to promise a cause, a state cannot tell the government what to do. host:, does the commerce clause bit -- play in to these challenges?

guest: that says congress has the authority to regulate commerce across the state. since the 1930's, but power has been interpreted very broadly. there was a case where a fellow was planting wheat for his own consumption and congress passed a law regulating agricultural production and the supreme court said, you can play it for your own use, but you might sell some of it and you will not be buying as much. cummers sort of flows together and that is part -- commerce sort of close together and not as part of doing business. there was a man arrested for throwing medical marijuana plants on his windowsill and the supreme court said under the control substances act, that was illegal. once again, even more now than

ever, commerce is the pivotal peace. who knows where that marijuana will end up? most recently, the partial birth abortion case in which the supreme court said that congress, under its commerce power can regulate medical practice. it can tell doctors what to do inside surgery. basically, the law now is if there is any kind of economic activity involved, congress has the power to regulate it. there are lots of laws regulating economic activity. the decision to buy insurance -- to buy in now when i am healthy or when i am in not ambulance on the way to the hospital? once congress has the power to do something under the supremacy clause, its walls are supreme to

the loss of the state. -- laws are supreme to the laws of the state. host: i am a 20-year-old full-time student. at the end of the day, i still find their way to make money and get insurance. last night was a market in history where we are no closer than ever -- this health-care bill is not something new. it has been pushed by the democratic party for 50 years.

for me, health care is not a right, a result of making good investments in the country. it is not a right of happiness, it is a privilege. i feel like the government has robbed us once again. host: professor jost? guest: first of all, the pursuit of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is not in the constitution but in the declaration. the constitution does protect fundamental interest, but it does also said where economic activity is involved, congress needs will need to show that its laws have a role at -- russian relationship to the intergovernmental.

a lot of people do not know anything about this other than what they have heard on fox news. this is a law that is based on basic republican principles. it is based on ideas that have been out there for four years primarily pushed by republicans. historically, democrats have called for a public health insurance system. that is not with this creates. this provides subsidies so people can go into the private health insurance system, organizes private markets through managed competition, and provides tax credits for people so that they can go into the market and purchase private health insurance. it is basically a private insurance-based system. there is nothing in the insurance provisions that changes the delivery system. it is simply a system to better

regulate and make it more accessible to people. i think if republicans would really read this bill instead of listening to all the roois representation -- misrepresentation, they would vote for the bill. host: next phone call. caller: as a law professor, looking for the best argument against the bill, particularly with the rehnquist bringing back the idea of restricting what the government can do to the states, in that light, what would be the best or most likely way that this could be found unconstitutional? guest: i think the one part of the bill that would be subject to challenge that is absolutely

not frivolous is the individual mandate, that people be required to buy insurance. the argument made there is congress has never before required someone to buy a product in the private market. you are right, we have an activist court right now. we have a court that has shown itself willing to overturn a long time precedence to reach goals that it find attractive. of course, that makes one a bit nervous. on the other hand, you are also right that justice rehnquist and to a lesser extent justice o'connor, emphasized states' rights in a way that the court had not in a long time. neither are on the court any more. there were a couple of cases, one in the 1990's, one in 2000,

where the court said congress's power is not limited when it gets beyond the economic activity. those were 5-4 decisions, decisions written by justice rehnquist to is no longer on the court. i have not seen the same kind of interest in protecting the state's rights with this current court. even then, some people who are supporting states' rights in this area point to a handful of decisions in recent years where the court has made noises about being more deferential to the state. each of those cases, what was involved was interpretation of the statute or court decision. not on whether federal statutes themselves orlov the land. -- are the law of the land.

ohio, on our line for democrats. hello? caller: i am calling in regards host: turn down your television. it will work a lot better. are you still with us? caller: is, i am. i am calling in regards to the fact that, first the want to talk about getting this passed. it is definitely needed. but do you feel that there will be anything unconstitutional in regards to this law? that they're going to figure out a way to try not to push it through? guest: well, the senate bill has

now passed the house. once the president signs it, and of course he will, it will be law. it will be the supreme law of the land. the only thing that remains to be done is to pass a reconciliation bill, which is a fairly short bill that makes some changes in the outlays in revenues under the bill, makes the subsidies a little more generous. actually, makes the individual mandate a little bit lost -- less onerous, and also raises some revenue and a few other things. it is long now. as to whether it will be challenged for not, i am almost certain it will be. there are some conservative legal advocacy organizations that are gearing up to challenge it. some of these states may try to challenge it. first, under establish block, states in themselves do not have the right to challenge the

constitutionality of the federal law. that is quite clear. the supreme court has held that they do not. individuals who are adversely affected by the law can bring an action challenging it. for example, if somebody decides and i would rather let everybody else pay for my health care and i will not buy health insurance, and they are assessed a penalty by the irs. they do not pay it, they can go to court to challenge the assessment of the penalty, and they can raise the constitutional issues. the constitutionality of those issues. however, the individual mandate does not go into effect until 2014, so until that point, no one will be adversely affected by the that law. so many challenges will be at least four years from now. i expect any challenges brought before them will be dismissed because they are now ripe yet and the people who are attempting to bring them will

not have any standing. but yes, i expect to see signs challenges. massachusetts has an individual mandate where it challenged the appellate court earlier. the court said basically that it was frivolous. host: professor jost, in this item on cnn.com, they might not the florida attorney general -- write that the florida attorney general sent a letter to 40 other lawmakers asking them to join him on a legal challenge against whatever emerges immediately on one. so you have the florida attorney general basically circling the

wagons, signaling that they are ready for a fight. guest: anyone can file a lawsuit. if you are state attorney general, you can have the state pay for the lawsuit. i am not sure that is a good expenditure of state funds. as the earlier caller said, we have a supreme court but has been open to looking at earlier precedents and reversing them if they do not like them. the state does not have standing to do this. under article 3 of the constitution, you have to be able to show some kind of actual injury to bring a lawsuit. since the law is not in effect, and that it does not affect the state, i do not see how they can chose standing. it is politically smart to show that you are going to do this, but it is not something that is going anywhere, legally.

i think all these laws are political statement, by the way. i would remind people, during the 1950's, 1960's, here in virginia, there was a campaign of resistance against school segregation. virginia passed all types of loss from preventing the schools from being desegregated, which were eventually struck down by the federal courts. i think today virginians are embarrassed by the fact that they did that. i see that as this type of campaign. states saying we do not like the federal law, our citizens do not have to comply with it. in fairness, another campaign that has been waged is the medical marijuana campaign, where a number of states have legalized medical marijuana despite federal laws making it illegal. there is some evidence that the federal government is not as

aggressive in prosecuting those cases, so they could beginning some headway. -- gaining some headway. in this case, because the individual mandate is so integral in making private insurance markets work, i do not think the federal government will back down very lightly on this one. host: mary lived in maple shade, new jersey. caller: good morning, rob. good morning, mr. jost. my first point is, i do not understand what all these people across the country who obviously have legal proficiency would even take the time and effort to challenge this issue if they did not feel they had, right grounds for it.

my second point is, a lot of people are concerned about their assets, and if they do not comply, the government will take their money. i want to say something that people could do if they are concerned. those of you who are lucky enough to be working, they ask you to declare whether or not you want taxes withheld from your pay. those of you have a clear that you want them withheld, change your status to non withholding. that way, at least the government will not be able to get their hands on your money immediately. the other issue as well is to go to your bank, get as much money as you can to protect our assets. i do not know when they could do if a large number of people refused to comply with this mandate to buy insurance. thank you for c-span. i will take my answer off of the air.

guest: with respect to your first question, i think these are political statement and not legal statements. the attorney general's our legislators. but they are also politicians. they are making political statements here. we are republicans and we do not like health care reform. i do not think that this is necessarily that they are applying their of legal expertise. rather, they are making a political statement. as far as protecting your assets -- the first question i would ask is why would anybody go through all that trouble to make sure that they are uninsured? if you end up in hospital -- you have an auto accident. you can run up a bill of

several thousand of dollars very quickly. if you are a multimillionaire, maybe you are ok with that. most people are not. so what is going to happen? you are going to go bankrupt. who is going to pay the bill? the taxpayer. the hospital. what is wrong with buying insurance? as i said, i really think this should be called the slacker provision. those not buying insurance are people being irresponsible. if you cannot afford it, if you are poor enough, you do not have to buy it at all. number two, if you are above the filing limit but below the poverty level, there are subsidies to help you pay for insurance. you can also go onto medicaid if

your income is low enough. no one has an excuse. finally, the statute does say that the irs shall file no mean for levies under this provision. if it really matters for duty uninsured, you can do it. host: what do you say for those people who say the requirement for everyone to be injured runs in the face of the 10th amendment? -- insured runs in the face of the 10th amendment? guest: the 10th amendment says any power is not granted to the federal government is entitled to the state. of course, that is the authority under which the states are passing the legislation. what congress has concluded, and properly, based on supreme court precedent, is that it is within

the powers of the supreme court. you have to read it together with the sperm is a clause in article 1. if congress acts within its authority, is the supreme law of the land, and states cannot stand in the way. host: hollywood, new jersey. richard on four independent -- the line for independents. caller: it is interesting to me. i used to sell plants. if i tried to do the same thing with insurance, the irs would last me out of town. we do not have anything to worry about. obviously, right now it is not growing and we do have a

problem. telling insurance companies have they can no longer underwrite their risk, that adverse selection will be in group insurance -- i am sure you know what that is. it cannot fly. inevitably, a private insurers will go out of business and then the government will take over. . guest: well, you are pointing to precisely the reason why the individual mandate is so important. if the losses that private insurers cannot underwrite based on health status, that have to take a rebutting walks in the door, and we did not have an individual mandate, people who were healthy, young people,

could just say i am a healthy and young, and i will live forever and not buy health insurance. and then there hit by a car and are in the ambulance on the way to the hospital in call up their insurance agent and say quick, get me a policy, and i do not have to worry about pre-existing conditions or health status, you can ensure me. where is it going to end up? of course, private insurance companies will go up business. on the and, this lot is expected to get 20 million more people into the private health insurance market, and they're going to be young and healthy people who can afford to pay for health insurance. many of them are going to get subsidies, cost sharing subsidies, and i expect that the private insurance industry is going to do very well off of it. and i might say that, you know, we got social security, but as far as i can see, we still have

a private pension business. i have a lot of money in my private pension plan. and it did not just drive the private sector out of business when we got social security. host:, thank you very much for being on "washington journal." guest: thank you. >> one of the lawsuits plans to file suit after one of the statesman policy after the bill was signed into law. republican attorney general saying to the congress lacks the authority under its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce. florida also announcing today that it would join in a lawsuit with nine other states. the house is back in session today at 2:00 p.m. eastern. six bills, all of which deal with veterans issues. we will have live coverage beginning at 2:00 p.m. eastern. president obama is expected to sign the health care bill this week, possibly tomorrow. house democrats voted late last

night, 219-212. no republicans voting for the bill. it is headed for the senate. republicans their plan to make parliamentary objections that could send the package back to the house again. the house is in at 2:00 p.m. eastern. looking at the $787 billion economic stimulus program signed into law a year ago, $353 billion has been paid out. -- has been committed. $202 bill in has been paid out. for more details and video including vice-president by then's even today, you can go to our website. we also have links there. senate banking committee gets underway this afternoon, beginning their work on overhauling the regulatory structure the financial industry, the first of what is expected to be a number of market sessions. senator chris dodd will have live coverage beginning at 5:00

p.m. eastern on c-span3. with the package of health care legislation, the student aid legislation also mips thru. we talked about that on this morning's "washington journal." host: joining as a staff reporter with the chronicle of higher education to talk to us about student loan reform. tell us about the bill that passed this week and this sort of got overshadowed by a lot of the health care discussions. guest: it got hugely overshadowed. this is a very important day for higher education, too. just as an porn is the health care bill. this is something that is -- just as important as the health care bill. this is going on for a generation. it is about how a student loans are delivered to college students. if you get your student loans through the department of education, the direct lending system, and others get it through a private bank, which is paid a subsidy by the government.

essentially what this bill does is it gets rid of the bank based route for delivering that aid, so if the subsidy given to the big will beat recollected kept by the government. a lot of that money is not taken and spend on other education programs, primarily the pell grant for low-income students. host: some of the other highlights of the student loan bill in addition to the pell billion to tell grant program. $2.5 billion for historically black and minority colleges. the $2 billion for community colleges and career training programs. where is this money going to come from? guest: these are subsidies the government has been paying since 1965, more than a

generation. the numbers have gone up, but the estimates are that roughly $8 million a year is being paid to subsidies to pay these loans. it is a complicated system and democrats have been trying to get rid of it for awhile. the question now is whether or not they should get rid of the bank system altogether. that is what they are considering doing now. host: our guest is a staff reporter for the "chronicle of higher education." if you want to get involved, democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. we would especially like to hear from folks who are trying to put a young person from college, or a young person trying to pay their way through higher

education. what was it necessary to pass this bill to the healthcare bill? guest: a lot of people have wondered where this came from. this bill has been pending for one year, actually. the reason it has taken so long to get through it is because the democrats in the senate did not think they could get the 60 votes to get cloture, so they had to run the reconciliation process. once a year, you can pass a bill with only 51 votes, as long as it reduces federal spending. host: first phone call from st. paul, minnesota. caller: good morning. i am currently studying for my

daughters of business administration -- doctors of business administration. i have noticed there are aggregate limits on what students can get. i was curious if this new bill had addressed that issue? host: it does not -- guest: it does not, however, i believe congress passed a bill last year that did increase those limits. loan limits have not been keeping up. certainly, there is a concern about students who have to go beyond and have to go into the private market. host: brian, on the line for independence.

-- the independentsindependents. caller: you had a lot of people with student loans out there and they have to keep on deferring because they do not have worked. there has been a lot of talk on the hill about that problem. guest: one of the issues the administration is trying to push through separate from this is a train for students who graduate from college and have a lower income jumped. the amount you would have to repay to the government would be indexed to the amount of money you make in your job. it would cut back any land of time and percentage you would have to pay. host: at chronicle.com, you

write -- tell us exactly how this changes the current system and one the administration felt it was necessary to do that? guest: mainly to save money. the congressional budget office was talking about $9 billion a year the government was spending as a subsidy to the banks just to give to money -- just to give money to the students. now the college and their student will need to go to the education department. that said, there is still a role for all loan companies. they will be handling the paperwork. but you will not really see

them, perce. host: next is newport news, virginia. caller: good morning. i was hoping to get on the earlier. i have a comment to make about student loans. that is a fantastic idea. make money available for students to go to college. i would hope that one thing happens. every student who get that loan pays every penny back into the pot so that other students can get a chance to go to college. if the students put that back

once again in john -- once they get a job, the frequency that they pay will be based on how much money they are making, but they will be held responsible so that other students can get a loan and college education. host: is this with the repayment of programs is for? guest: if you grant with from college and you take a lower income job -- the number of years in which you have to pay ben will be reduced. the interest rate will also be reduced. people have this concern that you borrow money from the government, is in free money, do you have to give it back?

obviously, you do it. p -- the obviously, you do. in general, the government makes money off of these loans. the net income to the government from the loan program is positive. host: is there an area in the government that students are being guided into for the use loan paybacks? guest: yes, there is a program specifically for public sector- time jobs. a teacher or a policeman, for example, and they've received

more flexibility host: next phone call. sunny in florida. let's move on. caller: good morning. students who go to on monday universities, i notice a pattern where they enroll, push them to start the program, and when they do, they only need to be enrolled for two semesters, and then if they drop out, and the university keeps the rest of the loan. what about all the people that live in the country and maybe have family outside of the country? and they get their education and a sign that they want to move back and they do not pay their loan back. what happens to them? guest: that does happen, not a

huge percentage. i think i have heard about it happening in the medical school area. there is not a high percentage of that going on. as far as the for-profits and institutions, that has happened to some degree. that happened a few years ago where there were more start up- type of colleges doing this. not to say that it does not still happen, but the department of education has cracked down on that. it can still happen. host: next is sunny. do we have you now? caller: yes, how are you?

host: just fine. what is on your mind? guest: first of all, i am a physician. this is a great nation in terms of providing loans for students. there are many students who start the underground program, then go to another program, finish it halfway, then go to graduate school, only halfway, and then they have found of dollars in loans that they will not able to pay back in logical terms. is there any limit where we have to force students to do a -- three strikes and you are uout --so that when they are more serious about finishing their programs? host: how much money in loans did you have to take out?

caller: $220,000. host: how much have you paid but so far? caller: $75,000. host: thank you. guest: this does happen. with this repayment plan, there will be income limited rules. part of what president obama wanted to do was set up a country as a world leader for college graduates. part of what this will be will be to get more students into college. yes, they're above the some who will decide that it is not the right thing to do, but with the job market the way is, it is worth doing. host: lee on the republican line.

twain harte, california. caller: good morning. i am a disabled marine. i hear all this talk about students that have never served in the military, rotc programs -- they do not want us on campus, that sort of thing. what about the trends? what about money going to the gi bill? that has never been addressed. they tried to push this through with health care. it is criminal. it is a criminal because we are the ones keeping you free, keeping this nation going. i do not see these young students stepping up to the plate and putting it on the line through the rotc programs . the question is, what is going

to be happening to us and the ones coming back from iraq that have their limbs -- they're trying to make their way in which we call america. host: we're going to leave it there. thank you for the call. guest: there is some set aside for public service, and that includes military. advantages on the loan rates to their other programs out there for g.i.'s as well going into college. and the rotc my understanding is that the environment on campus for that is more welcoming in general than it has been in past years that the caller may be talking about. host: program that has been approved, is this for loans strictly for four-year colleges, or can use these for a two-year or technical schools? >> you can use them for those as well. college life these days -- the image of college has been as a four-year place, and people go

and live on campus. it has changed a lot. what a lot of this is about is realizing the way in which people go to college these days is a lot different than it was years ago. >> and there are the online courses. you can use it for that as well? guest: it is not directly in this bill. there's some limits in terms of how much you can do online in general, but yes, it is part of it. do online, but generally, yes, there is a program. host: next phone call from new jersey. caller: you had some figures about the grant to go into the bill. if someone failed in their courses, where they have to pay that money back? guest: they would not have to pay it back, no.

host: our guest is paul basken with the "chronicle of higher education." he has also been working with bloomberg news covering the state department. he has also worked as a reporter covering the white house, congress, and 1994 health care debate next phone. next phone call from tim. caller: i am in medical school right now. if i am in residency or if i work in the nonprofit hospital for 10 years, the government will forgive a certain percentage of my loan, something like that. is there any promise that these

public service-type of programs will be in place 15, 20 years out, which is when these people would read those benefits? host: before you go, what are your plans after medical school? what kind of medicine do you want to practice? he is gone. guest: obviously, you cannot predict the future. we have seen bill level of this -- we have seen the support for these types of programs be there. we suspect that these programs will contain to be there. host: can you tell us the difference between the program that was passed last year and a one that was passed over the weekend? guest: there are similar.

the house passed a version in september that did a similar thing. the key point was that it ended the bank-based system of distributing student loans, took the proceeds from that and this to be did it among higher education programs. some of that must cut back because the congressional budget office have to issue an estimate on how much the bill will save. that change because of the land to the senate took to get the bill out. in the meantime, individuals were turning to the department of education on their own, so many to be adjustments made. there was some money for early to of had that was cut out.

the other thing to mention is there is some deficit reduction money. $10 million goes back to the treasury. about $9 billion helped the healthcare bill, helped to balance that. host: you write that company officials will force worker layoffs while costing taxpayers more in the long run through the effects that include lower quality debt collection efforts. explain that. guest: loan companies have lobbied hard on this, making the point that the bank-based system may look it is more expensive because the government has to pay subsidies, but they argue they're giving students and colleges better service. in the long run, it helps out because they do a more aggressive job of collecting on the student loan debt. that is a complicated argument

and get into questions about how you account for payback. some students switch from one to another. there are demographic issues in terms of who uses one system. as well, loan companies have this extra subsidy from the government they can use to pursue students. again, it is a question of resources and wayne there are spent. host: next phone call from martinsburg, west virginia. caller: any time the government takes over -- a part of the government, especially education, liberals will indoctrinate the kids. they can teach the progressive- type of government. also, the number of irs agents the government will need to

police healthcare and the student loan the thing -- it is just mind-boggling. the country is going broke. i cannot imagine the amount of money and will cost to enlarge the irs to take care of this. host: are you saying that the government is going to force students to take certain courses? caller: absolutely. they will set the agenda on what will be taught. and they will have quotas -- so many blacks, so many whites, so many asians. liberals will use this to indoctrinate the kids. even among conservatives get in there -- host: thank you. paul basken? guest: we have not heard any mention of that.

political indoctrination as a result of taking a loan. the other thing to talk about is, this talk about the government taking over -- it is a government program to begin with. they have been paying private companies extra money on the side to handle this. again, these are guaranteed loans. if the student does not pay back the loan, even in the back-based system, they give the loan back to the government, and it is their job to go after the loan anyway. what this does it is taking away the top today that was given to the banks to issue the loan. host: is there anything in the legislation that spells out any guidelines courses that the

government will not pay for, not loans will not be provided for? guest: in the student loan program that has been going on for awhile, there are some. one of the main eligibility is it is a college needs to be accredited. it needs to be an accredited institution in order to be eligible for these subsidized loans. that system is fairly involved. that is al another subject we could go into. in terms of curriculum and that sort of thing, that has not really been raised. host: nancy on our independent line.

potomac, maryland. caller: i was glad to hear you mention sally mae because that was part of my question. my husband is an eye to professional. it requires a great deal of training and staying up on his job. he has attended local here versus base and they have worked directly with sun in may. we were forced to work with the lender that they used, so you do not really have much of a choice in terms of who you deal with. when he completed his program, we had no ability to negotiate. there was no opportunity to make our payments lower. in terms of this program, i am pleased to hear in that it is coming available.

we pay back harlow and religiously, but at the same time, in terms of being a good a lender to us, i would not consider that to be the case. i would hope, if there is any provision for people like us, for people who are in constant continuing education situations, that there could be some opportunity with this bill. guest: this is an issue that some have raised. loan companies say that being forced to use the government's system is like being forced to go to the dmv. it conjures up images of waiting in her long lines. sallie mae has people who like it, they have people who complain about it. obviously, the question is whether or not you have a choice. under the bank-based system, you do have more towards, however,

it was easier to get through this year because there was attention to the fact that the number of choices that you had as a student were fairly limited because or college loan officer often had a relationship going on with a particular bank. so the real world choices did not turn out to be as wide as you thought. that was important to the loan companies because it gave them an in to the stricken when they offer them private loans as well. host: ken from rocky mountain, north carolina. democrat line. caller: there is a lot good with the college program, but we also have a lot of people going into these programs who cannot get jobs and is being used as a welfare-type of system.

what concerns me from the education standpoint, public schools, we have so many people going into teacher education programs and taking college loans to do it. local school systems are not following through. when they get close to tenure, they are bumped out. it seems when there is not enough oversight on the school system doing that. host: thank you for the call. guest: that has been raised as an issue. also, teaching in certain schools to get a certain forgiveness, teaching in low- income schools. that could change what he or teaching there. there are some changes along that area. as i recall, you have within 10

years -- i do not remember the exact numbers - -- but there is some host: thank you for being on the program this morning. guest: thank you. >> mr. speaker, with the house of representatives. >> following passage of health care last night in the u.s. house, 219-212, lawsuits are lining up. the virginia attorney general saying that his state will file suit. florida could joining nine other states in a lawsuit against health care legislation. after passage last night, the house gaveling in next. they will take up six

noncontroversial bills, all of which deal with the veterans' issues, including in the veterans homelessness and providing for cost-of-living adjustments for veterans' compensation. the senate also dabbling in at this hour. they will take up in the faa programs bill. happening later this afternoon on capitol hill, the markup of financial regulations. 5:00 p.m. eastern on c-span3. .

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the prayer will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: father of love, source of all blessings, help us pass the brokenness and sin to the new life of healing and grace. may your word today bring good news to those most in need of your mercy and our service to

others and this nation, may we find you in our midst as our saving lord with redeeming power. prepare us for the glory of your kingdom now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentle illinois, congresswoman halvorson. mrs. halvorson: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina seek recognition? mr. wilson: madam speaker, perm -- i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. wilson: madam speaker, the health care takeover vote last night was a battle in the ongoing war between supporters of limited government and the forces of big government. the fight will continue as we promote limited government and expand freedom. i was very encouraged in the last year by the activation of concerned citizens who tried to prevent a federal takeover of health care. yesterday's outcome is sad for america, but don't think for one second citizens didn't make a dirns. after making voices -- make a differences. after making voices heard in tea parties, they moved to the

ballot boxes in new jersey and massachusetts. they may have ignored the message but citizens can remind them again soon. they are a force which has awakened to support change in the future. please note that while these efforts to protect the doctor-patient relationship and prevent a federal government takeover of health care, they are overlooked by a majority, they are appreciated by the freed-loving americans across the country. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we will never forget september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? mrs. halvorson: to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. halvorson: madam speaker, i want to just say that now that the health care bill is passed and the rhetoric and the politics and the noise can be set aside, now we'll have an opportunity to let the american people know about what's in it.

this is going to be about accountability, about choice and about lowering costs. and now as we are able to let everybody know what this is about, the american people are going to finally be able to see through all this noise. madam speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from minnesota seek recognition? mrs. bachmann: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mrs. bachmann: madam speaker, yesterday was a historic day. we saw the passage of the job-killing government takeover of health care, 18% of our economy. but we want the american people know that today many of us are introducing the identical legislation. i've introduced the repeal of yesterday's law, as did my colleague, steve king, as well as many of my other colleagues today. we will not stand for the

federal government taking over 18% of the health care sector. from the inception of bailout nation in september of 2008 until last night, the federal government has taken over an astounding 48% of the private economy in the last 18 months. this is unprecedented. we will not allow this to stand, and that's why we've introduced this important legislation. this fall we'll take back a constitutional conservative majority, and after the next presidential election, we will repeal this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. filner: my colleagues, mrs. bachmann, it's time to chill out, it's time to chill out. government takeover of the health care system, let it go. this is a private insurance -- private insurance companies are still in charge, your doctors

are still in charge. you have a choice of what hospital you want to go. i will say it to my district, i have 150,000 constituents who tonight have health insurance. 135,000 of them are going to have health insurance after this -- after this bill passes. they don't -- they don't care what your rhetoric is and fear is. they're going to have health insurance for the first time maybe in their lives. kids who are in college are going to be able to stay on their parents' health insurance. we're going to put some brake on the health companies' ability to cut you off for pre-existing condition or just cut you off if it costs too much. it's time to chill out, republicans. let this bill work. let our constituents finally get health care. the speaker pro tempore: for

what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, they're back. we've all heard about acorn and it seems to me that acorn is nothing more than a criminal enterprise. and here's why. they've been caught helping undercover journalists open a prostitution ring with underaged girls. they've been caught in voter region tration fraud scams. at least 14 states are investigating acorn for voter fraud. even micky mouse can now vote. imagine that. and acorn signs up the poor into their membership rolls. the poor get their bank account information and the duck membership dues without the expressed consent of these individuals. in a bipartisan vote last year, congress voted to strip federal funding from this rogue fraudulent organization. not one dime of taxpayer money should be spent on this group. however, the white house budget director, peter orszag, has directed all federal agencies to open the federal funding

floodgates for acorn again. why did the administration trump the will of congress and the american people? american tax dollars should not fund its apparent band of thieves and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida seek recognition? ms. ros-lehtinen: i ask permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, madam speaker. i would like to recognize an outstanding individual from my south florida community, alejandra. she is part of south florida's first spanish language daily newspaper. "diarios los americas" was founded by her father. it helps informs my constituents on current events and matters that impact our local state and federal government. alejandra's professionalism and dedication are influenced by

the each publication of "diario." she has been president of the american press association. this organization champions freedom of the press and freedom of expressions throughout the western hemisphere. the iapa has shown the light of truth on the dark corners of oppression throughout our hemisphere. the group has spoken out of independent journalists in cuba. the members have also spoken out against the growing decray of freedom in venezuela. i want to thank alejandro for his courage, his service and most of all for his friendship. the family is a shining example for us all. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. burgess: i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burgess: we heard from a

few minutes ago from the other side a few minutes ago that it's time to shine out. let me run through a few of the numbers. 19 million people are predicted to lose their employer-sponsored insurance. 33 million people, the number of people with traditional medicare at risk, according to the medicare chief actuary. there will be no tax increases for anyone who earns less than $200,000 except the 73 million people who earn less than $200,000 who will see their tax bill rise, according to the joint committee on taxation. a 2.3% hidden tax on medical supply. class 2 medical supplies, sutures, medicine, needles, a 10% tax on tanning salons and a $60 billion hidden tax on health insurance. to quote, the average family will save $2,500 in health care costs by the time i complete my first term as president of the

united states. however, according to the congressional budget office, $2,100 premium increase for the average family. there's a lot more like in this and i will be exposing this in the coming days. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio seek recognition? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. latta: madam speaker, it's with great sadness to come to the well to announce the passing of arthur, a world war ii hero. he was a navy radio operator who volunteered with the o.s.f. and pampted in the largest successful rescue mission of 513 downed airmen in yugoslavia. he stayed behind until the last airman was rescued on december 27, 1944. the heroic efforts of him and his officers in the yugoslav people and the forgotten 500.

yet, they have failed to receive any recognition for their actions. i introduced legislation which honors him with the medal of honor. he said, let me say that just being nominated is an honor in itself. therefore, i am in a win-win situation. i will continue working on this legislation to honor this exceptional american with the recognition he received. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. smith: madam speaker, the national media gave a sharply contrasting tale of two weekend rallies. a gathering of thousands opposing the administration's health care scheme to overwhelmingly negative coverage. "the washington post" front page described it as a hideous display. cbs said the health care

debate, quote, turned even nastier at the rallies. abc called the protesters angry and ugly. a "newsweek" correspondent called them an angry mob. to anyone there, all these descriptions were obviously untrue. in contrast, an immigration amnesty rally over the weekend received positive coverage. "the washington post" said the festive crowd waved the american flag and came out to support the obama administration in this next big battle. "the new york times" said pro tessors there most flew american flags overhead. the national media should give americans unslanted news, not favor rallies that support their liberal agenda. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the

yeas and nays are ordered or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken after 6:30 p.m. today. . for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? >> i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4810. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4810, a bill to amend title 38 united states code to make certain improvements in the services provided for homeless veterans under the laws administered by the secretary of veterans' affairs. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. filner, and the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. filner: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. filner: madam speaker, this is the first of a series of six pieces of legislation that will benefit our nation's veterans. this congress and certainly this committee has been concerned with these veterans in our daily work and we are proud to present these items which will help prevent veterans' homelessness, protect the national guard, the employment, help blinded veterans, keep -- help veterans keep their home, give veterans a cost of living adjustment, and other kinds of benefits. before i begin on this package, madam speaker, i just would like to briefly comment on a little item that came up yesterday during the debate on health care. one of our veteran service

organizations and the ranking member of our committee claimed that the bill that we would pass would hurt veterans health care. i just want to point out on behalf of all the chairs on this side of the aisle, all the legal opinions that have been made, veterans health care is not affected by the health care bill that we passed. all the benefits will keep going. nobody will be penalized for that. for any of the -- for being part of the veterans health care system or any other part of veterans health benefits. i got a letter -- the congress received a letter yesterday from the vietnam veterans of america, the president, who said, and i quote, it is unfortunate that some continue to raise what is now even more clearly a false alarm that is apparently meant to frighten veterans and their families in order to prompt them to oppose the pending legislation. while there is a legitimate debate as to whether or not the pending health care measure

should become law, vietnam veterans of america does not appreciate spreading rumors that are not accurate by any political partisan from any point of the political spectrum. i just want to allay any fears that veterans have about this health care legislation. and certainly our committee should anything arise that was unintended, we will move quickly to make sure that veterans health care is kept at a high quality and no one is penalized for having veterans health care in this country. i want to point that out, madam chair. now, to get back to the bill we have h.r. 4810 under consideration, almost half the homeless on the streets tonight, madam speaker, are veterans. anywhere between 150,000 up to 200,000. this is a national disgrace. it is our national disgrace. it's been an issue that i have been working on since i came to congress.

when i joined the committee on veterans' affairs almost 18 years ago. now that the democrats have the majority, we want to put forward a plan, as our secretary of veterans' affairs has announced, a plan to end veterans homelessness within five years. zero tolerance. that's going to be our policy. and we will be announcing and hopefully passing steps along the way toward that goal. today we have the opportunity to take bold action to combat homelessness, but as i said, we have a willing and eager administration to make sure that we achieve this goal. president obama and his secretary of veterans' affairs, have, as i said, pledged to end homelessness over the next five years. our secretary is committed to expanding proven programs and launching innovative services to prevent veterans from falling into homelessness. this bill does three important things to provide the administration with the

necessary tools to combat homelessness. first it would provide additional funding for the grants and perfect deem program which pro-- per diem program which provides services to homeless veterans. providing needed resources to the local agencies that care for our homeless veterans is one way or grateful nation can support the vital and compassionate work performed in communities all across the country. second, this bill helps low-income veteran families who are occupying permanent housing from becoming homeless by extending you powerful and effective support services. compafrpbls of these services -- examples of these services include outreach, case management, and obtaining benefits from the v.a. as well as public benefits from state and local agencies. finally h.r. 48 10 helps the increasing number of female veterans who end up being homeless. this is especially magnified for our women veterans coming home from iraq and afghanistan who are four times more likely

to become homeless than their male counterparts. my bill would direct the department of veterans affairs to focus their outreach efforts on homeless women veterans and homeless veterans with children. this powerful bill is the result of significant work by the entire committee. i would like to thank the chairman of our subcommittee on health, mike michaud, from maine, and his ranking member, henry brown, from south carolina for the bipartisan leadership they demonstrated on this bill. i would also like to recognize the important contributions of our colleagues, harry teague from hard money hard money, ciro rodriguez from texas, and phil hare of illinois. each of these members are true advocates for homeless veterans who introduced the legislation that helps homeless veterans that are now key parts of the provision. -- key provisions of this bill. i would also like to thank our staff from the health committee, especially our staff director, kathy, who has worked so hard on this legislation for

such a long time. there are hundreds of thousands of service members returning from iraq and afghanistan. it is our duty as a nation when we put our men and women in harm's way to care for them when they return. we must also live up to the promise to honor the service and sacrifices of our veterans from previous conflicts. this is an opportunity today, madam speaker, to make a difference in the lives of veterans who are sleeping in cars, looking for public housing, searching for relief, feeling helpless. i urge all of our colleagues to pass h.r. 4810 to provide the help and support that our homeless veterans need and deserve. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. stearns: thank you, madam speaker. good morning. i would say to the chairman of the veterans' affairs committee, mr. filner, he just did a one minute where he said let it go, let it go. i'm a little surprised he's bringing up the health care bill and talking about it prior

to talking about the six wonderful bills we are going to pass on the veterans' affairs. but since he brought it up, i think it's appropriate that i return with our side of this issue. because as you pointed out last night the house of representatives passed a -- the senate bill which was the government setting up exchanges, which these exchanges include taxes, they include mandates and regulation. and it's phased in over a number of years to 2014. but there are some problems, frankly, with that bill. if there were no problems, then ike skelton who is chairman of the armed services, would not have brought it up two days ago to try to get it in because he voted against the health care bill. so the chairman of the armed services committee voted against the senate bill last night. and the day before that he brought up the idea that we

have to protect veterans who are on tricare. and that's probably one of the flaws in the bill that's being sent to the president. it has some serious ramification for our military and dependents under tricare, madam speaker. for veterans, widows, and orr fans, and children suffering from spina bifida as a result of parents' exposure to agent orange during the wars in korea and vietnam. as deputy ranking member of the committee on veterans' affairs, i join with ranking member steve buyer of our committee and armed services committee ranking member buck mckeon, we introduced h.r. 4894 to protect the department of defense and the v.a. beneficiaries. so i'm a little surprised that the democrat leadership didn't take up our bill. instead they passed a more limited bill introduced by, as i mentioned, the chairman of the armed service committee, ike skelton, which after reading it provides limited protection for tricare

beneficiaries, but not the d.o.d. and v.a. health care systems and the v.a. health care benefits. moreover, i was also surprised to learn from the congressional budget office there could be a cost associated with our bill, the $4.4 billion, so-called for the cost of our bill. i'm an original co-sponsor. what are the implications for these beneficiaries? simply it means that the government takeover of health care could result in a savings of $4.4 billion made on the backs of service members, widows, and orr fans, and children suffering from spina bifida as a result of a parents' exposure to agent orange. i don't think the public realizes that. so i think it's important to get this information out. and i'm hopeful that we can solve this problem. over the weekend there were a lot of claims made that there is no problem for tricare and v.a. health care beneficiaries under the senate health care bill that's passed by the democrats yesterday.

frankly, there is. and it's a big problem. and as i mentioned earlier, madam speaker, if it wasn't a problem, then ike skelton, the armed services chairman, would not be here two days ago trying to offer a scaled down bill to correct the problem. he would not have taken his own bill, h.r. 4887, to the floor in a quick effort to solve this issue. so it's important to reiterate that this bill does not protect the v.a. health care system and doesn't fully address tricare, either. as a result of c.b.o. score of h.r. 4887. the ike skelton bill does not stop $4.5 billion from being cut from tricare. but we think ours will. the veterans service organization know what is happening and the american legion, the v.f.w., d.a.v., and national association of uniform services have up supported our bill, h.r. 4894, that they believe will protect veterans.

madam speaker, i hope that the house democrat leadership will see fit to act as soon as possible to lay the fears of all these veteran service organizations as soon as possible to direct the measure with h.r. 4894 to stop these cuts to protect the individuals and their families who have served and sacrificed on behalf of our nation. i might add to allay the fears of men who are at war who think when they come back they'll either retire or possibly be under v.a. -- with those comments, let me then move to the bill that we are considering. i rise in support of h.r. 4810, end veteran homeless act of 2010. now, my colleagues, this bill would amend title 38 of the united states code to make certain improvements in the services provided for homeless veterans. this important legislation represents a combination of a number of bills that move

through the veterans' affairs committee and i believe truly exemplifies the manner in which our committee can and does work together in a bipartisan fashion. to bring forth legislation that improves the lives of our veterans. it is with a deep and personal commitment that i and everybody else on the veterans committee embrace and aggressively want to tackle the challenge of homelessness and veterans and forward our mutual goals of ending this chronic problem among our veterans. since the enactment of the homeless veterans comprehensive assistance act back in 2001, which significantly expanded the v.a.'s homeless program, we have seen a significant number of previously homeless veterans returning to leading productive and sober lives. h.r. 4810 continues that proactive approach by permanently extending v.a. program that provides grants to entities that help low-income families that are homeless.

transitioning to permanent housing or already in permanent housing. increasing the annual amounts authorized for v.a.'s homeless grant and per diem program from $150 million to $200 million. and encouraging the v.a. to expand its promotion for homeless veterans to include programs for homeless veterans that are female or that have -- or that have children. v.a.'s latest estimate indicate that about 107,000 veterans were homeless on any one given night last year. with the unemployment rate for veterans from operations enduring freedom and operations iraqi freedom, age 18 to 24, standing at a staggering 21.1%, more simply must be done to ensure that our veterans come home not to joblessness and homelessness but to supportive communities and meaningful employment. i recently had the pleasure of participating in the grand opening of the new honor hope

opportunities networking outreach and roofery -- recovery center in my district in gainesville, florida. this newly renovated comprehensive v.a. homeless center includes a 45-bed come sill larry to care for disabled and homeless veterans with special medical needs. it will also have program offices for outreach, grant and per diem and other essential services, including a special area that's designated just for women. . it will provide a full continuum of care and provide homeless veterans with family style dining and recognizery agse areas, including a library with a meditation room and a full-time recreational therapist. it has been in development for nearly three years and i was very pleased and proud to see a wonderful resource for homeless veterans open in my congressional district in gainesville, florida. so, madam speaker, h.r. 4810,

the end veteran homelessness act, is an important step in achieving our goal of eliminating homelessness among veterans. but still, my colleagues, it is only one step. and while i support its passing, i look forward to continuing hard to work in the future to make sure that american veterans are welcomed back from service with open arms, good jobs and happy and healthy homes. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: madam speaker, i have no further speakers and would ask if the gentleman is yielding back? -- ask if the gentleman is yielding back. mr. stearns: i would like to thank chairman filner and ranking member buyer, as well as chairman mica and member brown of the subcommittee on health for bringing this bill forward. i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 4810 and do their part -- do their part to ensure that not a single one of the brave men and women who fight in

uniform to defend our rights come home to a life without a job and a home. madam speaker, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: thank you, madam speaker. a famous president once said that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. the deputy ranking member, i didn't know we had such a title, is spreading fear. i'd just like to make it clear to every veteran, every family veteran and all-american -- and all americans, there will be no reduction of any benefits, of any veteran in the veterans health care system. there will be no taxes or reduction of services. let me make that clear. madam speaker, i'd like to all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks -- i'd

like to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. filner: i ask all members to support the bill. i have no further requests for time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4810. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended. mr. filner: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. filner: on that i'd demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted. a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the

gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. filner: madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 1879 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 1879, a bill to amend title 38, united states code, to provide for employment and re-employment rights for certain individuals ordered to full-time national guard duty. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. filner, and the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. filner: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. filner: thank you, madam speaker. and i'd like to thank congressman mike coffman from colorado, who is here, for introducing the national guard employment frokse act of 2010. one of the protections provided by the uniformed services is to require employers to support a service member's absence for up

to five years if called to active military duty. at the time when it was enacted into law back in 1994, congress intended to minimize the disruption to the lives of service members as well as to their employers and prohibit discrimination against persons because of their service in the military. unfortunately, current statute does not provide national guard members who are ordered to full-time active duty with the same protections. this is especially disheartening at a time when our guard are called up to active duty in support of missions to secure the homeland or provide relief abroad. and, of course, since 9/11, the guard has been doing almost half of the fighting in iraq and afghanistan. many of them are bumping against the five-year userra protection for their civilian jobs, and h.r. 1879 seeks to address this inequity and extend re-employment rights for those ordered to full-time national guard duty. congressman harry teeing of new mexico worked with congressman

coffman to add a provision to allow the secretary of defense to designate which duties qualify. so i'd like to thank the gentleman from colorado and the gentleman from new mexico for their bipartisan efforts on this important bill. it is time, madam speaker, that congress ensures that members of the national guard are afforded the employment protection they deserve. i urge all my colleagues to join me in support of this legislation and would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. stearns: madam speaker, i rise in support of this h.r. 1879 as amended. this bill amends title 38, united states code, to provide for employment and re-employment rights for certain individuals ordered to full-time national guard duty. madam speaker, it's well-known that the national guard and reserved units have carried a significant load in the wars in iraq and avelings. many of these units -- iraq and afghanistan. many of these units have

provided homeland security services such as maintaining an airborne alert here in the d.c. area. additionally, guard units have performed heroically at times when natural disasters, like hurricane katrina, devastated new orleans. as a result of these demands, many members of the guard have accumulated significantly active duty time and are now in danger of exceeding the five-year limit on active duty that is protected under the uniformed services employment and re-employment rights act, or userra. so i'm pleased that our colleague, mike coffman from colorado, has taken the action to recognize that active duty performed under title 32 should be added to the types of duties exempted from the five-year limit. i also thank chairman herseth sandlin and ranking member boozman for their bipartisan work as well as chairman filner for bringing this important

bill to the floor. and with that, madam speaker, i'd like to yield as much time as he may consume, mr. coffman, a fellow veteran who served in the army and marines in the first gulf war and the second gulf war in iraq. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for as much time as he may consume. mr. coffman: thank you, madam chairman. i thank the gentleman from florida. i'm proud to stand before you today in strong support of house resolution 1879, the national guard employment protection act. i created this legislation in order to extend the same re-employment rights for all of our national guard personnel regardless of whether they are assigned to a homeland security mission or deployed overseas to iraq or afghanistan. under current law the members of the national guard who are called up for active duty in support of homeland security missions inside the united states are not provided the

same re-employment rights to their civilian occupations that other members of the national guard and reserve have when they are called to active duty for military assignments. it's no doubt that they must have the same re-employment rights irrespective of where they are ordered to serve. the bill recognizes that those who are called up for homeland security missions can face the same hardships and challenges in trying to return to their civilian employment as someone who has been away from their civilian occupation due to an overseas military assignment. with the passage of house resolution 1879 national guard members will no longer have to worry about being put into a position where they are forced to choose between retaining their civilian employment or serving our nation in the critical homeland security mission.

i yield back to the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: i reserve the balance of my time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. filner: madam speaker, i'm prepared to close. i have no further requests. i'd reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserve. mr. stearns: madam speaker, i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 1879 as amended, the national guard employment protection act of 2009, and i have no further speakers so i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 1879 azzammed. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass -- i'm sorry. mr. filner: i want to officially yield back the balance of my time and urge everybody to support this

important legislation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 1879 as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended and the bill is passed -- phil phil -- mr. filner: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. filner: madam speaker, i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. filner: madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.j. res. 80. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the joint resolution. the clerk: house resolution joint 80, joint resolution

recognizing and honoring the blinded veterans association on its 65th anniversary of representing blinded veterans and their families. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. filner, and the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. filner: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. filner: i rise in support of house joint resolution 80, recognizing and honoring the blinded veterans association on its 65th anniversary of representing blinded veterans and their families. sponsored by mrs. halvorson of illinois. mrs. halvorson, as a first-term member, has been incredibly active and committed to veterans on our committee, and i would yield to the gentlelady from illinois to further explain the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from illinois is recognized. mrs. halvorson: thank you, madam speaker. and thank you, chairman filner, for yielding. it was truly a privilege to introduce h.j. res. 80, which

recognizes and honors the blinded veterans association on its 65th anniversary. madam speaker, this simple resolution helps to honor the service and sacrifice of the more than 165,000 blind or visually impaired veterans. the resolution helps us to remember that on march 28, 1945, 100 blinded members of the armed forces who served in world war ii formed the blinded veterans association in order to help veterans and their families meet and overcome the challenges of blindness. the following year in 1946, general omar bradley of the veterans' administration, aboarded the b.v.a. the first representative for the filing of claims and appeals to the

veterans' administration. this made the blinded veterans association only the eighth veterans organization to receive such distinction and responsibility. in 1958, congress followed general bradley's lead and echoed his recognition of the b.v.a. by officially approving the b.v.a. congressional charter. since that time the b.v.a. has encouraged and assisted blinded veterans to take their rightful place in the community with their fellow men and work with them towards the creation of a peaceful world. their leadership continues to advocate for the war, blinded to regain independence, confidence and self-esteem through rehabilitation and training. almost 13% of the evacuated wounded service members in iraq and afghanistan have suffered a serious eye injury of one type

or another. this means that the blinded veterans association services is just as crucial today as they were 65 years ago. h.j.res. 80 recognizes the extraordinary members and works of the b.v.a. and the good that they do for america's visually impaired veterans. i thank the members of the b.v.a. for their service and strongly encourage my colleagues to do the same by voting in favor of this resolution. i thank the chairman and i yield back the balance of my time. mr. filner: and i'd reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. stearns: thank you, madam speaker. not only does the b.v.a. provide support for our nation's blind veterans, this organization also provides inspiration and support for their family members via the kathryn f. gruber scholarship awards. this worthy scholarship enables

spouses and independent children of blinded veterans to achieve their goals in higher education. . our blinded veterans have made tremendous sacrifices. it is all together appropriate that we honor them this day and join the blinded veterans association in celebrating its 65th anniversary. so obviously i'm a strong supported of h.r. res. 80, a resolution to recognize and honor the blinded veterans association. on its 65th anniversary of representing blinded veterans and their families. recovering from the tragic loss of sight is a traumatic and life changing event. veterans who are burdened with this loss are forced to relearn almost every task associated with normal daily activities. such rehabilitation is difficult but necessary challenge blinded veterans must overcome to simply integrate back into our civilian life.

the blinded veterans association was established specifically to help these severely injured veterans and their families during this most difficult preered. on march 28, 1945, 100 blinded members of the armed fors -- force who is served in world war ii formed the blind the veterans association. just a year later in 1946, general bradley of the veterans administration appointed the b.v.a. as the first official representative for blinded veterans who are filing claims and appeals to the veterans administration. this made the blinded veterans association the eighth veterans service organization to receive such an authorization. chartered by congress in 1958, the b.v.a. has worked throughout the years assisting blind veterans acquiring department of veterans' affairs disability compensation and health care benefits as well as other federal and local benefits. thanks in large parts to the efforts of the b.v.a., they are now 10 blind rehabilitation

centers located at various v.a. medical centers across this country. madam speaker, along with this legislation, which obviously you can see how important it is, we wanted to honor today these blind the -- blinded veterans in the 65th anniversary. but, madam speaker, our committee also had requested consideration of h.r. 4360, a bill to designate the blind rehabilitation center in long beach, crarks, as the major charles r. soltice jr. o.d. department of vare blind rehabilitation center. this legislation has the support of the entire california delegation and the major veteran service organizations in california and would further honor blind veterans to whom minimum wageor soltice provided so much service and sacrifice. i would like to inquire if it's appropriate to the speaker or

perhaps chairman filner if they could explain why this very important bill was not permitted consideration on the floor today. mr. filner: if the gentleman would yield. mr. stearns: i yield. mr. filner: as the gentleman knows we included that bill on a list of seven bills we would ask for the floor to be taken up. and we were scheduled for six of them. that's as far as i know. mr. stearns: all right. i understand he's saying that it wasn't put in the loop at the moment. wasn't put in the schedule, but i think you are also saying that this is the type of bill you support, you believe should be part of the vote on the floor? can i assume that your approval, you support this bill? mr. filner: if the gentleman would yield. i was one of the californians who signed the original petition. and support the bill. mr. stearns: thank you. mr. filner: we are mystified as

you are. mr. stearns: it's unfortunate this bill to honor and individual who did so much to our blind veterans community, this particular bill is not being considered this afternoon. many of us are disappointed. and will work with ranking member buyer and mr. -- chairman filner since he's a signee on the delegation letter. to have it brought to the floor at the earliest opportunity. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman. the gentleman from california. mr. filner: madam speaker, i have no further speakers. i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: madam speaker, i have no further speakers. i return the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. million filner: madam speaker, i ask -- mr. filner: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and

extend their remarks through extraneous material on h.j.res. 80. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. filner: i urge my colleagues for their unanimous support and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to house joint resolution 80. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the joint resolution is agreed to, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table. mr. filner: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. filner: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. filner: madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 3976, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 3976, a bill to

extent certain expiring provisions providing enhanced protections for service members relating to mortgages and mortgage foreclosure. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. filner, and the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida -- california. mr. filner: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. filner: thank you, madam speaker. i want to thank congressman tom perfect yealo -- pair pello -- perriello of virginia for introducing this bill. he's one of the large number of first-term members we have in our committee. they are incredibly committed and active. mr. perriello hit the ground and running in his first year and is here today with a bill that make an immediate difference in the lives of our nation's military veterans. i yield to him the time to explain the bill.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. perriello: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. i'm proud to stand in support of h.r. 3976, the helping heroes keep their homes act, a bill i introduced to help ensure our veterans have the resources they need to confront the myriad of challenges in today's economic environment. homeownership is a touch stone of the american dream. h.r. 3976, the helping heroes keep their homes act, will re-authorize home foreclosure protections to prevent lenders from foreclosing on veterans home within nine months after the end of military service. unfortunately some of the protections established in public law 110-289 are scheduled to expire at the end of this year. this bill would ensure that these critical protections remain available to our veterans. h.r. 3976 is a commonsense bill that has been supported by the iraq and afghanistan veterans of america, the veterans of foreign wars, the american legion, and the u.s. department of veterans affairs. i appreciate the bipartisan support on this bill, the chairman's leadership, and others, and i would urge all

members of this body to join me in supporting our military families by voting in favor of this bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. filner: i reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida is recognized. mr. stearns: madam speaker, if i might digress, i just wanted to thank mrs. halvorson on house resolution 80 for introducing the resolution and obviously the chairman and mr. buyer for bringing this bill to the floor. i think that's important to remind all my colleagues. madam speaker, i also rise in support of h.r. 3976, as amended, a bill to extend certain expiring provisions providing enhanced protection for service members relating to mortgages and mortgage foreclosure. madam speaker, public law 110-289, the housing and economic recovery act of 2008, extended the protections against foreclosure and related actions on service members' homes contained in the service members' civil relief act from

90 days to nine months. following lenchty deployments, did -- lengthy deployments. extensions will sunset december 31, 2010. to address the continuing lengthy deployments by our service members, the veterans home preservation act of 2010 would simply extend the mortgage related sunset dates contained in public law 110-289 through december 31, 2015. the bill also add a new clause that would apply these same mortgage protections to a surviving spouse of a service member who dies while in military service. and whose death is service connected. madam speaker, these are good provisions that are appropriate to give the current -- appropriate to be given the current economic climate. i think the authors of the bill, mr. perriello, wells chairman herseth sandlin, and ranking member boozman for their fine work and the

veterans' affairs committee chairman, mr. filner, and mr. buyer, the ranking member, for bringing this legislation to the floor. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. filner: i have no further speakers, madam speaker. i'm prepared to close. mr. stearns: i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3976 as amended. a bill to extend certain expiring provisions providing enhanced protection for service members relating to mortgages and mortgage foreclosure. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time of the the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. filner: madam speaker, it's unfortunate that these protections are still needed. two years ago or so we went through this major foreclosure crisis. we unfortunately have not solved it. and expect a reoccurrence and we must protect and serve these brave men and women in uniform with the same commitment and dedication which they protected and serve us.

i would like to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 3976, as amended. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. filner: i urge my colleagues to support h.r. 3976 as amended. i have no further requests for time and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california yields back the balance of his time. the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3976, as amended. so many as are in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 of those voting having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table -- the gentleman from california. mr. filner: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and make a point of order a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed.

for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. filner: madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4667. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the bill. the clerk: -- the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4667, a bill to increase effective as of december 1, 2010, the rates of compensation for veterans with service connected disabilities and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. filner, and the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. filner: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. filner: thank you. i rise in support of this bill which ensures that hard-earned benefits for disabled veterans and their surviving family members keep pace with their living expenses.

this bill like the last was introduced by mr. perriello of virginia. it will benefit each disabled veteran and their survivors from the world war i era to the current conflicts in iraq and afghanistan. i yield to the hardworking active and committed mr. perriello for an explanation of the bill. mr. perriello: thank you, madam speaker. thank you, mr. chairman. today i rise in support of h.r. 4667, the veterans compensation cost of living adjustment act of 2010. a bill that i was proud to introduce in support of america's veterans. over 140 years ago president lincoln called upon our nation to care for him who have borne the battle for his widow and orphan. this charge is as compelling today as it was in 1864. it underscores the important role that our veterans play in defending our freedoms. and the obligation we all have as a nation to provide our brave veterans the care they need once returning home. h.r. 4667 the veterans compensation cost of living adjustment act of 2010 will provide an increase to the rates of basic compensation for

disabled veterans and the rates of dependency and indemnity compensation to their survivors and dependents. along with other benefits in order to keep face with the rising cost of living. the disabled cola would -- disability cola would become effective december 1, 2010. in these economic times our disabled veterans depend upon these tax-free payments not only to provide for their own basic needs but those of their spouses, children, and parents as well. without an annual cola increase, these veterans and their families would see the value of their hard-earned benefits slowly erode. we would be derelict in our duty if we failed to guarantee those who sacrifice so much for our country -- doing right by veterans must always be a top priority for congress. i believe the passage of this bill will send a clear message of support to those who wear the uniform of the united states military. a message that says we will never forget your service and sacrifice and that a grateful

nation will take care of you when you return from the frontlines of freedom. i urge my colleagues to support this bill on behalf of these nation veterans and continue the bipartisan support that we showed in the committee. i yield back. . mr. filner: i would reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: madam speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 4667, the veterans' compensation cost-of-living adjustment act of 2010. this legislation would increase effective 1 -- december 1, rather, 2010, the rates of compensation for service members with service-connected disabilities and the rate of indemnity compensation for the survivors of certain disabled veterans and for other purposes. now, this cola adjustment includes disability compensation, additional compensation for dependents, clothing allowance, dependence and indemnity compensation to surviving spouses and their

children. this is an important annual authorization which provides much-needed assistance to our nation's veterans and obviously i encourage all my colleagues to support the bill. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. filner: madam speaker, i have no further speakers and am prepared to to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: i'd like to thank mr. hall of new york, mr. lamb bore of colorado, the -- lamborn of colorado, the house bill sponsor. mr. pierriello of virginia, for their leadership on h.r. 4667 and thank chairman filner and ranking minority member buyer for advancing this bill. i ask my colleagues to support it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. filner: madam speaker, just like our military men and women did not hesitate to offer to lay down their lives to defend our freedom and the way of life that we cherish, we will not

hezz state to defend -- hesitate to depend the funds necessary to support themselves and their families. with that, madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on h.r. 4667. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. filner: i urge my colleagues to support the cola bill, h.r. 4667 and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4667. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed -- mr. filner: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. filner: on that i demand the yeas and nays. the speaker pro tempore: the yeas and nays are requested. all those in favor of taking this vote by the yeas and nays will rise and remain standing until counted.

a sufficient number having arisen, the yeas and nays are ordered. pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentleman from california seek recognition? mr. filner: madam speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass the bill h.r. 4592 as amended. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4592, a bill to provide for the establishment of a pilot program to encourage the employment of veterans in energy-related positions. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from california, mr. filner, and the gentleman from florida, mr. stearns, each will control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. mr. filner: madam speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. filner: madam speaker, the u.s. bureau of labor statistics recently released survey data showing unsettling numbers on the unemployment rates of newly returning veterans.

last year the unemployment rate for our iraqi and afghanistan veterans was over 10%. even more disturbing were figures showing that the jobless rate of younger veterans exceeded 20%. congressman harry teeing, a first-term member of our committee from new mexico, proposed an innovative way to provide training for veterans in the energy industry. he introduced this act, h.r. 4592, the energy jobs for veterans act, and i'd yield to mr. teague for explanation of the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new mexico is recognized. mr. teague: madam speaker, i rise today in support of my bill, h.r. 4592, the energy jobs for veterans act. i'd like to thank chairman filner for bringing this legislation to the floor, and chairwoman herseth sandlin and ranking member boozman for their assistance in crafting this legislation. finally, i'd like to thank the democratic and republican professional staff of the

economic opportunity subcommittee, namely, javier martinez and mark brink for their expertise. madam speaker, our dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security and the lives and safety of our men and women in uniform serving their country overseas. when the fierce global competition for petroleum drives up the price of crude, millions upon millions of dollars flow into the coffers of nations that don't like us too much. in too many cases, that money has financed weapons and operations that have resulted in the death of american soldiers. what can we do about it? it's simple. produce our energy in america instead of importing it from iran, saudi arabia, nigeria and venezuela. how do we do it? also straightforward. we invest in the production of energy right here in america. we produce american oil, we produce clean-burning american natural gas, we extract liquid

fuels from algae, we construct wind and solar farms, we make our homes more efficient, and we invest in nuclear power. what's the result? we keep our money at home, we create energy jobs all over america and we bolster our national security. my bill means that those who fought for their country abroad would be able to continue their work for the security of our country when they return home. by getting a job and a career producing our energy right here in america. my bill says if you risk your life for your country fighting enemies funded by foreign oil purchased with american dollars then you can come home and continue your work for our national security this time with a career in the energy industry. the energy jobs for veterans act will incentivize employers to hire veterans for jobs being created by american energy. the bill instructs the department of labor to award

competitive grants to three states to establish programs to reimburse the employers and other organizations for providing on-the-job training and apprenticeship programs for veterans that are employed by energy companies. the bill will allow states to reimburse employers for training and apprenticeship provided to veteran employees. unlike other employment programs for veterans that fund training but don't guarantee employment, the energy jobs for veterans act incentivizes companies to hire veterans in the first place and ensures that veterans are learning on the job and collecting valuable work experience from the beginning. eligible energy employers are those involved in the energy-efficient building construction and retrofits industry, the renewable electric power industry, the biofuels industry, the industry efficiency assessment industry, the oil and gas industry and

the nuclear industry. this is a pilot program and it's 100% competitive. the secretary of labor must make the awards to the most competitive applications for funds. if this works we can expand to more states and different industries. madam speaker, now let's get down to why it's really important. on march 12 the labor department announced that the unemployment rate last year for young iraq and afghanistan veterans hit 21.1%. the number was well above the 16.6% jobless rate for nonveterans of that same age group, 18 to 24. as of last year 1.9 million had deployed for the wars since 9/11. many have struggled with mental health, problems with addiction and homelessness as they return home. difficulty finding work can make the adjustments much

harder. our veterans were on the front lines defending our freedom. we can't leave them behind now. i urge my colleagues to join me in passing this bill. at this point i'd like to ask unanimous consent to enter into the record the seven letters of support for my bill from my congressional district. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. teague: with that i yield back. mr. filner: thank you, congressman, teague, for your strong advocacy on behalf of our veterans. this will ensure that our returning veterans have the employment opportunities they require to make the difficult transition into the civilian work force while also addressing america's need for energy independence. madam speaker, congress must act to ensure our returning veterans have employment opportunities as they strive to reintegrate into the civilian work force. this bill will help do just that. and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: madam speaker, i also rise in support of h.r. 4592 as amended, a bill to provide for the establishment of a pilot program to encourage

the employment of veterans in energy-related positions. madam speaker, i think the final bill is better. i applaud the manner in which the bill was developed. as originally introduced by mr. teague, it would establish a grant program to subsidize employers for salaries paid to newly hired veterans working in the energy sector. the ranking member on the subcommittee on economic opportunity, mr. boozman, dr. boozman, he expressed some reservations and concerns about the approach and he offered to work with mr. teague to craft a bill that would pay for skill development providing on-the-job training for veterans in the energy sector. and to mr. -- the credit of mr. teague, he's worked with our side in a bipartisan manner, and i believe we have a better bill that will promote greater veterans' employment in the long run. helping a veteran in a way instead of perhaps giving him something for a day we're also

giving him the opportunity to learn so that it would be for a lifetime. with that, madam speaker, i'd reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. filner: madam speaker, i have no further speakers, and i'm prepared to close. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. mr. stearns: madam speaker, once again, i thank chairwoman herseth sandlin for her leadership and ranking member, dr. boozman, and mr. teague, for their work to bring us a bipartisan bill. i urge my colleagues to support if, as amended, to provide for the establishment of a pilot program to encourage the employment of veterans in energy-related positions. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california is recognized. mr. filner: madam speaker, as we conclude this package of six bills that i think do so much for our nation's veterans, this committee's been proud to work in a bipartisan way to get these bills to the floor. i'd like to remind my colleagues that this committee

in the last four years has in fact done a tremendous amount for our nation's veterans. we have increased the health care budget by more than $20 billion, 60% increase in health care for our nation's veterans. we've updated the g.i. bill and have a g.i. bill for the 21st century that about 200,000 students, in fact, student veterans are taking advantage of -- in this first year. we are helping to improve access for our rural veterans, for our women veterans and as we've shown today, to make sure we bring an end to our homeless veterans. so we are very proud of the work we are doing for the veterans that we are so proud of. and as i close, madam chair, -- madam speaker, i'd ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material both on the previous bill, h.r. 4667, and the current bill, h.r. 4592, as amended.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. filner: i'd urge my colleagues to support this bill. i have no further requests for time and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4592, as amended. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 having responded in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed, and without objection -- mr. filner: madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. filner: i object to the vote on the grounds that a quorum is not present and i make a point of order that a quorum is not present. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20 and the chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be postponed. the chair lays before the house an enrolled bill. the clerk: h.r. 3590, an act

entitled the patient protection and affordable care act. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until approximately >> republicans plan to make objections that could send the bill back to the house.

senators are meeting with the parliamentarians this afternoon. also, the senate banking committee is meeting, holding a markup section -- a session -- hold it marked section. senator corker said no republican amendments would be offered and that a committee vote on the bill could take place later this afternoon. that is underway at 5:00 eastern on c-span3. tonight on the "communicators," reaction on the fcc's national broadband plan. that is tonight at 8:00 on c- span2. >> c-span, our public affairs content is available on television, radio, and online. you can connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube. signup for our schedule alert e- mails @ c-span -- at c-

span.org. >> secretary clinton will meet with binyamin netanyahu. you'll hear about a u.s. citizen being put on trial in north korea. the briefing runs about 20 minutes. the much george mitchell met with president -- >> george mitchell met with president abbas. the secretary spoke this morning, stressing that the status quo is and is -- is unsustainable for all sides. the two-state solution is the only viable path for israel to remain a viable democracy and a jewish state. our focus is on getting the two parties to the table and creating an atmosphere of trust. she praised both sides when they showed courage. we want to be unequivocal when we disagree with action on either side. she reiterated the u.s. commitment to israel's security

and future. she stressed the nuclear arms i iran is unacceptable to the united states, israel, and the international community. tomorrow, she participate in a high level -- high-level consult in mexico. it is grounded in the recognition of our shared responsibility for addressing challenges such as counter- narcotics, the importance of building in decisions -- building institutions, respecting the law and human rights, and trying to great prosperous societies on both sides of the border. -- trying to create a prosperous societies on both sides of the border. there will be a video teleconference with personnel from the embassy and consulates

in mexico. many of you have traveled with the secretary and you know she normally does a meet and greet with the local embassy or consulate staff. tomorrow schedule does not allow that. she will do the video teleconference this afternoon, where she will reiterate our gratitude for the personnel in mexico, for their service and their sacrifice. we will assure them that we continue to work steadfastly on their security. she will express condolences to the families of those who were killed recently in juarez. she will reiterate that we're doing everything we can to help with the investigation and with the security improvements. the mexican government has increased protection for our consulate, as they continue,

along with u.s. authorities, with the investigation. maria ortero and the assistant secretary, and the special representative, and others will all participate later this week in the world urban forum, joining the secretary of housing and urban development shaun donovan in a real visionary -- in rio de janeiro. all nations are concerned about addressing the challenges. 2/3 of the world's populations will live in cities by 2050. most of these cities are in the developing world. we're committed to working with united nations, donor nations, and local and national leaders to address the challenges posed

by rapid urbanization. assistant secretary of state for political and military affairs and worshiper an assistant secretary of defense for international security affairs will travel to bahrain and oman this week to lead the fifth round of a dialogue there. the dialogue is the u.s. government securities coordination mechanism. the dialogues are interested in focusing on a wide range of political and military issues, including shared strategic challenges in the wider region and enhancing partnerships in the areas of terrorism -- anti- terrorism in maritime security. -- anti-terrorism in the maritime security. -- anti-terrorism and maritime security.

he continues to travel through south asia. he is in afghanistan today. he is a bit -- he is visiting local officials. he was in india on saturday, where he reviewed a wide range of bilateral issues with his ministry of external affairs counterpart. he helped prepare for the u.s.- india dialogues later this summer. he also discussed regional issues with the foreign secretary. >> why was the meeting moved to the mayflower? >> i am assuming it was at the request of the israeli leadership. >> it has gone from a meeting here with the state department in the treaty room 2 a closed -- to a closed event at the

mayflower >> i think there is still -- at the mayflower. >> i learned about this less than 30 minutes ago. >> we learned about it while we were sitting in here. we can we try and find out if there is some kind of problem -- can we try and find out if there is some kind of problem? do they not want to be seen together? is it that bad? >> i do not know the reason. >> you can see that it does not look particularly good. you have a leader of your top ally in town, and the meeting that was most have some kind of public atmosphere to it becomes closed. >> first of all, the prime minister -- it is usually by protocol, his choice for the meeting site. we are set to welcome here at the state department -- we're

set to welcome him here at the state department. i do not know the reason for the shift. but that is their prerogative. this afternoon is a preliminary to the meeting at the white house tomorrow. i would not read anything into the change in venue, nor the change in media coverage. >> he would not read anything at all into it? given the last-minute nature of it? >> i do not know why the shift was made. >> does it have a symbolic aspect? secretary clinton is going to see the prime minister, after it not getting what she wanted out of him in the discussions. there is a stalemate. he is not backing down, she is not backing down. >> there are presumptions behind your question that i do not share this is an ongoing process. -- borrowers engines behind your

question that i do not share. this is an ongoing process. -- there are presumptions behind your question that i do not share. this is an ongoing process. we cannot use the term "condemnation" likely -- lightly. we have outlined specific steps she thinks is important for him to take. the secretary indicated in her speech today that the prime minister has responded. she used that as a positive development, just as george mitchell met with prime minister netanyahu yesterday, the secretary will continue the dialogue today. we continue to look for ways in which we can move the proximity talks forward. this is an ongoing process. i would not suggest that we have

particular concerns. our task is to get the parties into the proximity talks and direct negotiations, towards the conference agreement. bamut is it correct to say that he has not back down on what the united states -- >> is it correct to say that he has not backed down on what the united states requested? >> the secretary made a request, he has been responsive to the request. we continue our conversation. >> can you give us an explanation -- a very simple explanation? you have not given us an explanation for why the venue has been changed. >> i cannot give you something i do not have. >> but i assume you will be able to give it to us if you're saying there is nothing to read into it. >> if there is something different than the prime minister asked for the meeting to be shifted to the mayflower, i will let you know. >> the text of the secretaries

address this morning indicated to the israelis and the prime minister that day -- was that on hand? did they know? >> we did not clear the speech with them, if that is what you are asking. >> if prime minister not now refuses to freeze settlements -- -- if prime minister netanyahu refuses to freeze settlements -- >> we will continue the conversation. our goal is to create a climate of trust. we want to push both sides to provide competence-building measures that the momentum to the proximity talks. we recognize the importance of these complex issues.

our bottom line is -- jerusalem is a final-status issue. the sooner we are in formal negotiations, the sooner we can address the issues. we can make progress and hopefully reach a successful peace agreement. [inaudible] >> we do not know much about what took place between them before the meeting with the secretary here. she said that pakistan must do more, if they want to continue dialogue. do you have any idea of what

happened here in the building between the two -- the secretary of state and the foreign secretary of india? >> the secretary did join the undersecretary recently in a meeting that was charting the way forward on the u.s.-india dialogue. we are satisfied with the level of engagement that we have across a wide range of issues. we will have a similar conversation with pakistan this week, on a wide range of issues from coulter, water, energy, economic development, finance, defense, social issues, diplomacy. we are broadening and deepening our relationships with both india and pakistan. we look for ways to encourage the two countries to increase their dialogue as well.

>> here is a follow-up to the question. pakistan and iran signed a deal last week. are you supportive of that plan between the two countries? >> this is a decision for pakistan to make. our concerns about the role that iran plays in the region and beyond are well known. we continue to a wide range of discussions around the world, in terms of the nature of future economic transactions between pakistan and iran. we continue that conversation. >> could that affect this dialogue? some of the leaders have links with al-qaeda in the peace talks. how do you see that affecting this dialogue?

>> these are issues between afghanistan and the insurgent groups, as part of the reintegration and reconciliation process. we support the afghan government but of interest in reaching out to members of these interest groups -- the afghan government's interest in reaching out to members of these insurgent groups. we want them to live anin accordance with the afghan constitution and have no ties with terrorist organizations. if any group is willing to accede to those conditions, it can play a role in afghans future. -- afghanistan's future. >> p.j., this would appear to be the second time the united states has backed down. it happened in september. it happened now.

-- it is happening now. what can you tell us to convince us this was not a sign of the u.s. inability to convince israel that it should freeze the settlements, at least in east jerusalem? >> i would challenge the assumption -- this is a dynamic process. notwithstanding public statements that have been made -- and we certainly understand that the government of israel has a different view of these issues than we do. we will continue the conversation. we have successfully conveyed to the netanyahu government that these things are important. it is important to the palestinians and the region. they are directly related. there directly related to our ability to create confidence in the process we're starting to move forward within. the government of israel has to

take responsibility for and get control of this process so that we do not see these kinds of announcements in the future, and so that they will have no impact on the process. our goal is to move the process forward. both sides have to avoid the kinds of announcements, actions that will inhibit further progress. >> you have a different view than the government of israel about this? the entire world has a different view than the government of israel does on this issue. the europeans came out. with the exception of two or three sau pacific islands that vote with the u.s. -- south pacific islands that vote with the u.s., i cannot think of any country that holds the same view as israel on settlements in east

jerusalem. when is it time to put your money where your mouth is on this and do something beyond complaint and carp about it? what will get through to the israelis? they are incredibly isolated on this position. >> we are doing exactly what we think is necessary at this time. we want to see the parties get into formal negotiations were these kinds of issues can be put on the table, wrestled with, and hopefully resolved. the sooner, the better. we have made that clear. that is exactly why we raised our concerns publicly. that is exactly why george mitchell was within the region yesterday. it is why the secretary and president will meet with the prime minister today and

tomorrow. the sooner we get into formal negotiations, the sooner we can see resolution to these issues. it will be part of a comprehensive peace agreement. absent a formal negotiation, it is quite unlikely that these issues are going to be resolved just by posturing, phone calls, or meetings. it is formal negotiations that will enable the parties to actually wrestle with this and find an equitable resolution. our position is clear -- the sooner we can create conditions for formal negotiations to begin, the better. that is exactly what we're doing in continue to do today. >> what is a plan for senator mitchell? what did he achieve? >> i have not had a re-out -- read-out from him. he was in moscow. our goal is to move the proximity talks forward.

we are engorged -- encouraged by the support we received in the quartet statement where they were very supportive of the proximity talks and or broad goals -- our broad goals. everyone understands the bottom line is to get the parties from where the art today into formal negotiations, recognizing that -- from where they are today into formal negotiations, recognizing that requires the right atmosphere to move the process forward and avoiding- steps that impede progress. >> do you have any comment on the american citizen put on trial in north korea? >> i do not have a particular comment on that. through our friends the swedes, we have had a couple of meetings with the individual who is being detained.

there is no privacy act waiver, so we can not provide specific information on him. we're concerned about his health and welfare. we're obviously concerned about what ever legal process he might face. we have concerns about the lack of transparency in their judicial process. we will continue, through the embassy -- the swedish embassy in pyongyang, to make sure that he has a brit representation, should north korea follow- through -- that he has appropriate representation, should north korea follow- through. we're grateful for the work that sweden does on our behalf. we continue to encourage his release. >> when robert park entered north korea, he was released

without a trial. this time, they announced a trial. >> our primary concern -- we want our u.s. citizen back. we want to be sure that -- to the extent that there is a suggestion he has broken north korean law, that he be given the appropriate counsel and have a fair legal proceeding. we continue to press for a portrait consular access, full rights under north korean law. -- for appropriate consular access, and full rights under north korean law. we want to make sure he is returned as soon as possible. >> what are the charges? >> we have to go through a protecting power. we have seen the reports and will follow up. we have not had consular access to the individual in several days. [inaudible] we're not aware there is a trial

at this point. should there be one, we hope it is a fair and transparent proceeding with access to appropriate counsel. >> how is that -- what the chances of him getting a fair and transparent trial in north korea? >> i am not a legal expert. we have great concern about the lack of transparency in north korea, overall, and certainly a lack of transparency based on our past experience with legal proceedings involving u.s. citizens. >> the japanese press have reported that china's proposed a preparatory meeting for the six- party talks -- it seems like all six members will be attending, including u.s. and north korea. >> we will take that question.

the mother is an expectation that google will announce its this is -- >> there is an expectation that google will announce its departure from the chinese market. have you received any communications from google on this? have they told you what they plan to do? do you have a position on the wisdom of withdrawing from the chinese margaret? we -- from the chinese market? >> we are aware that a decision may be announced by google this afternoon. this is a decision for google to make. >> to the strong indications come directly from google to you -- do the strong indications come directly from google to you? >> i will not comment on that. let's wait for their announcement. >> speaking of announcements -- >> note change from friday, as

the secretary said -- no change from friday, as the secretary said. we are close. the secretary had one -- the teams continued their hard work and are making progress. we're down to the small details. we think we have resolved the major issues in those negotiations. we look forward to reaching an agreement. we're not quite there yet. [unintelligible] >> do you have any comments on that? >> we wish them safe travel. we hope they will announce that north korea is willing to come back to the six-party talks and take affirmative action towards denuclearization. >> the foreign minister of japan is supposed to meet secretary

clinton on march 29. >> i do not have anything to announce about that at this point. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> secretary of state hillary clinton is meeting this afternoon with the israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu. secretary clinton spoke to the american-israel public affairs committee about the israel- american relations. prime minister netanyahu will speak to that group later this evening. we will have live coverage of that at c-span.org. a spokesman says the prime minister will take a firm stand on israel's position towards jerusalem. he will stress that jerusalem is israel's capital, not a sediment -- settlement. that is this evening on c- span.org. we will have house coverage at 6:30 when the gavel back in.

-- they gavel back in. also, we will have coverage of a markup session with the senate banking committee today, beginning work on legislation geared at overhauling the regulatory structure of the financial industry. bob corker of tennessee was quoted as saying that no republican amendments would be offered and that the committee vote on the bill could take place this afternoon. watch live coverage beginning at 5:00 on c-span3 and tear on c- span. -- and here on c-span. >> vice president biden encouraged americans to take advantage of tax credits. this runs about 20 minutes. >> it is an honor to be here today with vice president biden. he has taken a lead to make sure the american people receive the full benefit of the recovery act.

secretary geithner is here. he has worked with the vice president and others to make sure the american economy is strong in brazilian. as you know, it is tax filing season for the american people. about 75% of the american people get refunds. that means the taxpayers are getting a lot of money from the irs these days. this year, the are getting a record amount. we are announcing today that the average -- they are getting a record amount. we are announcing today that the average tax refund is up 10% this year. the average refund was $3,036, to leonard's $66 more than it -- $266 more than it was last year. this will be the biggest check many taxpayers see this year. we have sent $175 billion in refunds out since march 12. what is telling about these numbers is that, so far this

year, we have sent out $6 billion more in refunds than in the same time a year ago. we have actually received fewer returns because of the bad weather that hit many parts of the country. a major factor in these larger refund numbers has been the recovery act. from buying homes to helping people with their college expenses, the recovery provisions have increased tax their refunds to record levels. this is going to contain -- continue in the weeks ahead. roughly half of the american taxpayers have not yet filed their tax returns. for those who have not yet filed, we want to remind everyone about the many important recovery credits and deductions that they may be accountable for this year. let me give taxpayers a few tips for tax filing. it is really important that people take their time.

the recovery provisions can mean extra cash in hard-working american pockets. do not overlook checking into things like the expanded earned income tax credit. a common mistake we're seeing this year is people overlooking the making work pay credit. everyone should make sure to claim it. people should e-file, which helps catch mistakes and make sure that the software or their preparer can help them find the credit they deserve. people are catching on to e- filing. the best way to get your refund is due e-file with direct deposit. you can get your refund in as little as 10 days if you keep file with direct deposit. -- if you e-file with direct deposit. let me close my remarks with one message to american people who are feeling stressed out at this

time of year. if you are having trouble paying your taxes, please get in touch with us. you have options. we have been instructed to go the extra mile to work with american taxpayers. we are running special saturday open houses this year, starting march 27, so taxpayers can resolve any problems they have. let me turn it over to secretary geithner. >> thank you. thank you to doug shulman and the officers of the irs for improving taxpayer service and making it easier for americans to take advantage of the very substantial benefits in the recovery act. americans are still suffering a great deal from the recession. because there president acted quickly and forcefully, the economy is growing and expanding

again. as it continues to grow, the economy will start to create jobs again. the recovery act and our actions to fix the financial system more decisive -- were decisive in turning the economy around. many people think about roads and bridges, teachers and classrooms, and extended unemployment benefits. the recovery act also provided nearly $300 billion in tax cuts and incentives. these tax cuts are working, providing tax relief for 95% of working families, making it easier to buy a new home, helping municipal governments borrow to fund investment products -- projects in your communities come u, and helpinge pay for college tuitions. the most important thing is to create more opportunities for good jobs and growing incomes. one of the most effective things the government can do to help that happen is to promote a

strong, dynamic private sector. cash incentives can play a key role in this process. the work by encouraging the initiative of individuals and businesses -- they work by encouraging the initiative of individuals and businesses. we want to help companies of for new equipment and investments. tax cuts like the making work pay tax credit and the investment in energy credit help keep us at the forefront of technological innovation in energy. that is why the budget proposes eliminating some taxes on key investments and small businesses. the president signed into law new tax cuts to provide incentives. of the $300 billion in the real every act, and -- in the recovery act, nearly half of that is ahead of us. we want americans to take full advantage of that.

if you just bought your first home, you could be eligible for $8,000 in tax credit. if you replace old windows or put new insulation in your attic, you might be able to claim $1,500 in tax credit. if you have a child in college, you could be eligible for up to $2,500 per year for four years. do not need your money on the table. the more you claim, the more money is put back into the economy, helping us grow out of this crisis. i have the pleasure of introducing the vice president who chairs the middle-class family task force, making sure the recovery act is doing what it is posted to. because of his persuasive powers, this program -- the most powerful program of tax cuts and credits -- is moving with speed, transparency, efficiency to help americans come out of this

crisis. now, the vice president of the united states. >> thank you very much. the commissioner has laid out what some of these tax cuts are, as well as a secretary. i want to make an overall statement here. there are a number of aspects that secretary geithner referred to, which we have done an awful lot with. others have said there -- i am reminded of a comment by will rogers -- the great comedian and humorist of the twenties -- 1920's and 1930's. the difference between death and taxes is that death does not get worse every time congress meets. quite frankly, congress having met last year has actually been helping in a big way. the difference is that because

of the recovery act, providing $300 billion in tax cuts, millions of middle-class americans will get hundreds of thousands of dollars in relief from more than a dozen tax credits. i know you know this. sometimes, when people turn on the news and hear part of this, they hear tax credit, tax reduction -- it does not compute right away. a tax credit means -- this guy is going to sit there and bounds out a check -- they will give you money. you're not claiming something on your tax form that means you pay less tax. it means to get something back. i would like to note that through march 12, as the commissioner said, the average tax refund was a record $3,036. that is up $266. in the neighborhoods i come

from, the dread of filing your taxes -- 50% of people still have to file them. it is almost thought of as found money. it is like we're going to get a break here people are hurting right now. -- it is like we're going to get a break here. people are hurting right now. an extra $3,000 coming in and out of this recession is going to be welcome news for a lot of americans. hard working people -- for these people, this extra cash in their pockets can make an astounding difference, in terms of their attitude as well. for president obama and myself, and for the whole team, this was part of our goal from when we first took office. it was not just to rebuild the economy, but also, as we rebuild the economy, to rebuild the

middle class. the middle-class took a shellacking the last to go decades -- two decades. we will measure the recovery, at the end of the day, based on how many folks are in the middle class, how many gain access, and how many are able to securely stay in the middle class. to ease the burden for people in working families today, it is a simple proposition. we are looking to -- again, many of you probably come from neighborhoods and families like i do. it is all about the standard of living. it is all about whether or not you feel comfortable, safe, and secure in your home, your neighborhood, your ability to take care of your elderly mother, your child when you go to work, being able to make sure your kid can go to college. these are things the middle class is all about.

they are about family, neighborhood, and having the ability to live a decent life. help with college tuition, buying a house or car -- this helps middle-class families. it goes to their sense of who they are in their standard of living. -- and their standard of living. that is also why, days after being sworn in, it was one of the first announcements the president of united states made was to establish the middle- class task force, which he asked me to chair. i called the cabinet meeting and said come here is the deal. you have a lot on your plate -- i called the cabinet meeting and said, here is the deal. you have a lot on your plate. i think i was a pain in the neck at the beginning. scrub your agency. what can be done within your

agency that can increase security for the middle class families? what is it? commerce and housing, treasury -- everybody went forward and scrubbed their agencies. we dealt with it fairly swiftly. in the meantime, we had to deal with the housing crisis, the financial crisis. less than one month after moving into the white house, we passed the recovery act. i do not think anyone argues about the spirit is responsible for saving or creating over 2 million jobs i do not -- >> i do not think anyone argues about this anymore. it is responsible for saving or creeping over 2 million jobs. we help people with their health care.

we created a tax credit for small businesses. 95% of working families got a tax credit. people hear a lot about the major projects in their recovery act -- new highways and high- speed rail lines, abundant renewable energy, wind, solar -- all really important things. but we have also used it through the tax code to help americans. about half of americans still face the unenviable task of sitting down to file their taxes in the next couple of weeks. american business, american -- corporate america -- tohave people who starve the tax code to make sure they get what they are entitled to -- scour the tax code to make sure they get what they are entitled to. americans have trouble working

to good jobs just to put food on the table -- two jobs just to put food on the table, and they do not have experts to go out there and prepare their taxes. it is not a criticism of those who do. everyone is entitled to what the law provides. this is focused on average, middle-class taxpayers who are not business people -- they may be business people -- who are out there asking how they can get the most out of what is intended, by congress and the administration, for them to get. we want to make it easier for them and give them more breaks. the people who file can still amend. we want to make sure americans get every dollar they are entitled to. i am proud to announce our new online, tax-saving tool, which makes it easier for many to determine the recovery act benefits for which they qualify.

just log on to whitehouse.gov/recovery. it is a tool to make it easy to file your taxes. it is easy to understand and simple to use. it will help families across the country who have been hit by this economic downturn to know exactly which tax credits and benefits they are entitled to, including, but not exclusively, for those parents with a kid in college -- they can get up to $2,500 in a check written by the government sent back to them. that is a big deal. by the way, for students who are doing it on their own -- they can do the same thing. they can file and get $2,500. they are struggling to figure out how to pay next semester's

tuition. it is coming due. i have one left in graduate school. this is the time when universities say, by the way, next semester. this is a big deal. family struggling with their energy bills -- most middle- class families are. as pointed out by the secretary, they can get up to $1,500 in tax credits in home-energy efficiency improvements from buying certain appliances to putting in new windows that are high-efficiency, or insulation. not only did they get the credit, but they are reducing their energy bill in the long- term. this is a win-win. there is a refundable tax credit to help families targeted by job losses. .

it is a lot of money in some states. no tax liability on a 2004 hundred >> of unemployment benefits. people have never had to collect

on insurance probably think that you get an unemployment check, and that is it. well, they pay taxes on that unemployment check. the first 21 -- first $2,400, that is not taxable. we keep talking about "make work pay." i keep kidding people that we should speak english. when you say every individual that is getting a paycheck is going to get $400 back and $800 if you are a couple, maybe some employers did not withhold it. you are able now on your tax form, which amounted to about $60 a paycheck more, if you did not get it back, and you can file that now.

you are entitled to $400 individual, $800 as a couple. i like to reemphasize -- refunds are up $260 per person compared to last year. this money not only helps people strapped now, but stimulates the economy. it helps the economy grow, keeping the people at coffee shops employed, but you sure the hair dresser does not grow broken the local town, make sure people have money to go to a movie. these of the things that support people. it is poured back into the economy and people stay employed or increase employment. when the extra cash goes into the pocket of consumers, they have an incentive to go out and buy energy-efficient windows at the hardware store or purchase a new hybrid, or finally by their first home that they had dreamed about.

they are generating more economic activity which spurs more jobs and creates jobs in manufacturing, clean energy, construction -- industries that we also spend a lot of time in the recovery act focusing on. i see it all across the country and it is close to 70 cities that have gone throughout this country, and no little more than a year the recovery act is not only working, it is working toward creating jobs and building a dynamic 21st century economy that is going to allow america to lead the world in the 21st century. and by cutting taxes for millions and millions of middle- class americans, the recovery act is working toward helping families whether the storm that they are in the middle of and get back on a better financial

footing. we have more information on which tax credits are available. visit the saving tool add whitehouse.gov/recovery. i look for to working with you to make sure that americans get their fair share of the tax relief that they are entitled to. this is a good thing and i am always happy to announce on the eve of filing your taxes, some good news ahead. those of you who prepare your own returns, go on to our website. take a look. we will walk you through. if you have trouble paying your taxes, give the irs a call. we want to help. people need help right now. we apologize for the late start. we had something going on and it is all good. i was a little late.

so again, thank you all very much. we appreciate it. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> taking a look at the $787 billion stimulate -- stimulus program, $352 billion has been committed, while $202 billion has been paid out. more information about the stimulus is that c-span.org /stimulus come with you confine hearings and congressional debate and links to watchdog groups tracking spending. that is all at c-span.org /spending. -- c-span.org/stimulus. according to roll call, bob

corker of tennessee said that no republican amendments would be offered and that a vote could take place this afternoon. you can watch live coverage beginning at 5:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span, and also on c- span3. tonight on all but the communicators," congressional reaction to the release of the national broadband plan. our guest are the chairman and ranking member of the committee on communications, technology, and the internet. it airs every monday night at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. ♪ >> >>, mr. speaker, a message from the president of the united states. >> i am directed by the president of the united states to deliver this to the congress. >> on tuesday, president obama plans to sign a health care bill

that the house passed last night. more about that at the white house briefing to date with press secretary robert gibbs. >> now what? [laughter] >> now we wait for everyone to take their seats. [inaudible] >> the white house wanted this bill passed. you talk about -- how do you talk about health care now that

it is passed? >> i think the president has been working on the economic recovery every day he has been in office. we know that the president signed a bill just last week to provide tax credits for small businesses. that is highly important and we will continue to talk about that going forward. there are aspects -- zero capital gains for small businesses, direct proposals that the president has made that he also wants to see go to congress. thursday the president will visit iowa city, where he outlined the grassroots health care reform plan and 2007 and he will have a chance to talk about what this legislation means for the small businesses that i was talking about, for families, children who are labeled by insurance companies to suffer from a pre-existing

condition, and to talk about what this means for seniors who will finally -- finally get help covering the cost of the power grid -- the prescription drug that happens to fall into what is commonly known as the down not alld -- donut hole. the president has a very busy schedule coming up. a whole host of issues. i assume the president will talk about health care for a long time. but the president has over the course of the past few weeks, even as the legislative agenda has been focused on health care, you will see that he has been working on a number of other issues that are at the forefront and we will have an opportunity to talk about it.

>> a lot of democrats switch their votes -- politically dangerous but for themselves. what kind of support are they receiving from the white house? >> i think there is no doubt that the political schedule is in front of us. as it relates to health care reform and helping those that supported health care last night, and supporting democrats. >> due to announce when the bill signing is? >> it is likely to be some time tomorrow. they are working out the logistics in terms of timing. i would plan right now for a late morning bill signing, weather permitting, outside probably on the south lawn. as of the last update i got, it

would be logistically there, and if the weather does not cooperate, it might be logistically difficult. i think each and every member of the house and senate that supported health care reform will be invited. i expect that they will attend. i believe the president will have with him many of the stories that he has given over the course of the past year to demonstrate why the president did what he did for so long, and to this impacts the most. >> [inaudible] what is the white house reaction to the states that have threatened to sue or the health care legislation? >> i heard talk about this this morning on the television.

my sense is that a lot of pieces of legislation are challenged in some ways. you've seen the intent of some two challenge this legislation -- to challenge this legislation on grounds that we do not think will be successful. >> is there any plan of reaction? >> i assume there will be many things that we will deal with in the coming weeks, months, and years ahead as health care reform is implemented. i think that -- some of the states and players might be curious, but again, the longstanding precedents of the constitutionality of this. >> my other question is on

google in china. if google pulls out of china, what effect will that have on u.s. relations? >> let me not get ahead of something -- we might have a chance to discuss that later on. i think you heard the president said quite clearly, a policy and a belief that an open government can be with people without the censorship of important, that is tremendously important. so it may be that there some issues that we in a mature diplomatic relationship disagree, but i do not want to get ahead of something. [inaudible] i do not know what the latest is. >> thursday you are going to

iowa. the president will talk about health care reform. [inaudible] if you look at what he announced in 2007 and what will be a lot as of tomorrow, there are similarities but there are striking differences in terms of whether or not there is universal coverage, whether or not every individual's family premiums will go down $2,500. is this just what happens when i deal meets pragmatic politics are what the differences are to mark >> -- r? >> what you propose and west coasts through the system sometimes changes. -- and what goes through the system sometimes changes.

in laying out a specific policy, we should not, in a country like the united states of america, have to decide between keeping a house and keeping health care. we should not live in a country where people do not have access to affordable health care. look, always in this, it always goes through the legislative process, but i think what the president promised back then and what the president will sign tomorrow is very much the promise of affordable, accessible health care that puts people back in charge of their health care, rather than insurance companies. i think something that will have lasting benefit for tens of

millions of americans for many years to come. >> is there going to be follow- up legislation? the current legislation will leave 23 million americans -- americans uninsured. >> i did not know if there is one of the discussion about this morning. the coverage -- between 94% and 95% of americans will have coverage. we will get to the important process of ensuring its efficient and speedy implementation. >> it was a long hard fight, very divisive in many ways. as a man who campaigned on

breaking the partisan divide, to reach out to the republicans for future rev -- future legislation for improving the tone and washington that has been hurt by this? >> i do not know that -- we will be able to look back and see whether the debate itself poisoned the atmosphere. i think the president will do on financial reform come on campaign finance, on getting our economy moving again, all of the host of issues that immigration reform and energy that we have talked about still being on the docket, the president will continue to reach out to democrats and republicans that want to make a positive effort on these issues.

i'm a little struck by the fact that everyone seems to want to talk about repeal today. i will let the profile in the "new york times," the anecdote that he had a plan even before the recovery act, to say no to each and every thing that the president proposed. i think that is a little bit about where -- what elections will ultimately be about. if people want to campaign on attacking tax cuts away from small businesses, taking assistance away from people wanting prescription drug, a mother knowing that their child cannot be discriminated against by insurance companies, if that is the platform that others want to run on, taking that away from

families and small businesses, then we will have a robust campaign on that. >> there was one republican member shouting baby killer. what is your reaction to that? how do you pick up the pieces of this debate for immigration? >> we have talked about any number of different debates, what happens when people say things that have no place in a legislative debate. no real place in our public, or quite frankly, even private discourse. i don't want to explain to my 6- year-old son of the things that were done and said this past weekend. i think the president believes,

hargarten -- regardless of the passionate views, which people rightly hold, a country as great as this, we ought to be able to have that debate will about having the type of language and actions that we have seen in some places of the weekend. >> was there any talk this morning about legislation -- is this the first bite of the apple? does the president hope to complete this? >> i appreciate you all constructing another mountain for us to climb. quite frankly, this afternoon, we will enjoy the view from where we are. >> i have the meeting to mark, the prime minister suggested

that he might make concessions including sitting down for direct talks with palestinians it sounds like we need to hear whether the u.s. is willing to bring the parties together. how will the present received those concessions? >> i think prime minister netanyahu will meet with administration officials today and meet privately with the president like he did last year, tomorrow. our goal in any of this is to create an atmosphere of trust and open dialogue to bring these two sides together so that the discussions can be sensitive in moving toward middle east peace. i think that is what we hope tomorrow is, in his discussions with the prime minister, and we

will see what comes out of that. >> is the president prepared to start talks? >> the president looks ball or to having a good conversation with the prime minister and we will see where we go from there. >> its legitimate to talk about what is the next place. >> it is legitimate ask. i think what all of washington learned is that he is willing to make very tough decisions --

willing to make very tough decisions and see that through. i think there were many opportunities where he could have turned back, and i think it meant more to him than any election night could have, because i think he understands that the reason he continued to push forward on something as important as health care reform is that he understands just what it will mean, as i've seen -- as i said earlier, for americans for many years to come. within this year, small businesses will begin to get tax credits to help pay for the coverage that they provide their employees, seniors will get help

in the prescription drug coverage, and we will begin to close that donut hole i talked about. a mother will not have to sit in her kitchen on the phone with an insurance company, worried sick that the decision about her child's health care are not going to be made by dr. but by her or her family, but by an insurance company, a bureaucrat on the other end of the phone and god knows where determining that that child had a pre- existing condition. that is all going to change, and that is just what is going happened over the course of the rest of 2010. i think he knew what he wanted to accomplish, and despite

whatever he was told, he kept fighting for what he believed in. >> [inaudible] he started out very slowly. >> i would say perseverance paid off. i think the president rightly looks at the scorekeeping that happen on any individual day, but i doubt there is not anyone that declared health care dead. maybe multiple times. i think the pace that the president had was to see the long view and get this done. i think that is what he did. as for the next round, we taught that there was no doubt that finishing the legislation that

the president had offered, and ideas that he offered, getting our economy moving again, small business lending, zero capital gains for start-ups of businesses, the retrofitting initiatives to begin creating jobs -- there is the outstanding case of the loophole for citizens united, and obviously financial reform, which senator dodd's committee will take up today, and i think we feel there is some momentum building for seeing that through, as well as big issues like comprehensive energy legislation. there is plenty left for the president to do. [inaudible]

>> i think the executive order makes this clear. the president was -- the president's stated throughout this process that health care reform should maintain the status quo. he believes that the bill maintains the status quo and he thinks the executive order reiterates that strong belief. >> it reiterates the existing law. you did not need an executive order to do that. >> the president and many in congress on both side believed as the president did that they should be in health care bill. it should not be a bill about other issues, and what the bill

does and what the executive order does that status quo preserving. that was the whole point. >> what the president have any new proposals for the israeli- palestinian proposals beyond the talks right now? any new ideas? >> again, after the meeting, i think the president is rightly focused on building the type trust which needed to get two parties back to the table and continue their dialogue. >> does expect further apology for the treatment of the vice president? >> i think he has spoken clearly on that and that will no doubt be a topic in the meeting. >> so there is no public

meeting. this will be the second time in a row that prime minister netanyahu is met with the president and there have been no cameras. >> marquez better statistics on this probably. -- mark has betters this decision is probably. [laughter] what you have to say about that? i think this is the fourth meeting, if not -- if i am not mistaken, within half to -- with netanyahu. [inaudible] >> i think it will have a good discussion. >> is a helpful thing? >> it is helpful to have the means.

[inaudible] >> we said that a week ago. >> why would they go public? >> our bond with the israelis is strong. >> and allied comes and visits, no pictures -- and allied -- an ally comes and visits, no pictures. it does seem odd. this is an important ally, you say that relationships are important, why not come out together and say that? >> there will be coverage of the meeting. >> why you have this confidence of established law and precedent? >> its regulation of interstate

commerce. >> how was the mandate of individual coverage purchased interstate commerce? >> i am not a lawyer. this is the pool where neither of us consider the bottom. but the attorney general of virginia will sue. i think that for many decades, the supreme court has recognized congress's authority under the commerce clause to regulate activities relating to interstate commerce. >> so the argument is going to be, as an american citizen you're going to have to get health care insurance. >> the constitutional basis of an individual responsibility requirement -- right -- for

instance, you talk to one of the state's thinking about doing this. senator hatch and senator bennett have had legislation requiring some level of individual responsibility like this. senator bennett's health care bill with senator biden had an individual mandate. -- senator wyden had an individual mandate. >> that law could be wrong legally, too. >> we all have-senator hatch whether he regularly -- >> there's no basis on which some people could -- >> we think that this is based on established law. >> you've got to 51 votes for reconciliation for you got the

wind up $3 that is what senator reid told the house caucus on saturday. -- you have got them lined up. >> that is what senator reid tell the house caucus on saturday. it did not have the commitments that he said that he had, and we believe that he does. the bush can use a word for word what they have? >> i think that the senate will take this up at some point this week, begin the process and health care will become what tomorrow. -- become o'clock tomorrow. -- become law to more. i cannot speak to all the shenanigans that will be tried on capitol hill in the course of the next many days. but we're confident that the process is coming to an end.

>> their son that believe, given the difficult of complying with the separation of funds and the roles that are laid out, many insurers will not opt for abortion coverage in the exchange. >> i have not talked to nancy- ann about that topic. obviously once the president signs this into law, there will be a host of implementation ideas that we will begin working on. >> and on the broader question, the president entered office determined to bridge the gap between the abortion sides, trying to bring them together. it seems as though the abortion wars are as hot as they have ever been. >> if they were as hot as they have ever been, we would be talking about why this was an

issue that was not central to the legislation and caused this divide. instead, we're here because groups work together in order to ensure that the health-care bill would be a health care bill. >> do you think the abortion debate has become less toxic of a last week? >> i think it is about health care. it is evidence that the issue is one that even those that disagree on can find common ground to ensure important policies like comprehensive health care reform moving forward. >> robert, but the president signed the executive order tomorrow? >> i am told he cannot sign that until he signs the wall. i cannot know whether that is tomorrow or the coming days. likely because of weather, we are going to be over at the department of interior tomorrow.

i think largely because of that. >> on a chip on thursday, is that a victory lap or is he reaching out to americans that are upset about the bill? >> i think we will take the opportunity to discuss the benefits that the law provides millions of americans as a result of his signature. we can debate the polling and the politics on this, but as we get away from the back-and- forth of a legislative floor debate and examine what is in the bill and how it affects families is a small businesses and seniors, and then we can talk about what is not in the bill, despite what some people

have said, and i think the president believes more will see the benefits that he saw in making sure that this legislation become law. >> does he want to try to allay these fears are concerns of those opposed to the bill? >> i think that people -- he will all people through what this legislation does. i think you heard him say in the past many months to address specific instances about what they say the bill does that in fact does not do. he will continue to have an opportunity to do that. i anticipate he will do a lot of that tomorrow and started on that last night and to even more in iowa city. >> to get any comments about the vote before the bell was entirely partisan?

-- the vote was entirely partisan? >> nothing i can specifically remember. again, this is a president that has, by any account, you can see that this is a process that took a little more than a year to complete, partly because the process that congress went through was to get republican support, even one republican said -- even if it is likely highlight what is in the bill, i will not be able to vote for it. i think this is regrettably the times that we live in. >> since the briefing started, google has now announced that it will not sensor searches in china and is directing users to foreign servers. >> let me -- i know that there

were some -- i need to find out what discussions were had here this morning. i know that there were some discussions over the weekend that something like this might be coming. >> do you know what action the u.s. might take if the chinese government makes any move for googled operations? >> i do not know about would get into that. i am happy to react to something. >> on the talks tomorrow night, will the president offer up some proposals? >> again, i'm not under the impression that the president is bringing new proposals fall were. i think what we need to do is work to get and build the types

of relationship between the two parties that allows them to get to the table and trust each other and to have a conversation. that is what the president's intention has been, quite honestly, since the beginning of the administration and trying to get this accomplished. >> any specific request? >> i am not going to get into what has been discussed with the secretary of state and the vice-president of the past weeks. -- over the past we spirit >> when did the president know that he had the final blows? was it the final resolution of the stupak situation? i have to imagine it was a mile is significant moment for him

personally and for those closest to him. >> i think that in terms of both, the members that congressman stupak had that shared his concerns, once the executive order -- once that all played out, obviously that is the point that we felt good that the legislation would exceed 216 votes. th>> did you think you can get to 16 without that? -- did you think you can get 216 without that? >> there were a lot of combinations to get to 216. >> could you have gone there without stupak?

>> i am not sure that is altogether noble, since it became that way as today, and i'd do not know what that does to other people. in terms of the roosevelt room, major, we walked in and of the vice president was there, many staffers were there, and i think th he he had come down from the residents and he wanted to, as we want to be with him, he wanted to be with a group of people who had been working on the promise of health care reform for millions and millions of americans. as you always do, you anxiously watch and wonder who that 24 people are who have not voted with 2.5 minutes left so never

mind that it has been what everyone has talked about four weeks. and when we had to 16, there was a lot of jubilation. -- and when we hit 216, there was a lot of jubilation. he went around the room, shaking hands and hugging and high- fiving. their people working on this longer then there has been in the obama administration, that had been with the president for many years throughout the campaign, like myself. they felt enormously proud of him for the type of perseverance i talked about earlier, not letting up and not giving up, and making sure that we drove for -- we drove toward what he saw as the outcome rather than

listen to all of the noise and gimmicks. >> [inaudible] >> i just remember him being very happy. he walked around the room and we all had a chance to say something. >> speaking of pilot, charles grassley said that he would like offer an amendment in the reconciliation process to require the president and all senior staff and cabinet secretaries to live under the guidelines and requirements of the health-care bill. do you consider that of what the legislation? -- eighth law of the legislation? >> i would have to look at the amendment. if someone offered an amendment at some point to make members of congress, as the president has said, give the american people the same kind of health care that members of congress have come all this with the president

supported that. -- that members of congress have, obviously the president's supported that. [inaudible] >> i did not have that information. >> will it be a speech or a town hall? >> it will be a speech. >> what is the administration's methods to it -- message to the palestinian when they have called on the israelis to stop building? [inaudible] it seems there is no real solution. >> i think the president is hopeful that we will in this meeting make progress without getting into the intricacies of it, getting these two parties --

not just bad physically to talks but to the type of relationship that is necessary for those talks to bear fruit. >> first, on the passage of the health care reform bill, a lot of talk about democrats in november, i think karl rove said that it would be devastating for democrats. was the reporters i have heard on tv indicate that democrats are going to pay some price. any scenario where democrats could actually gain in november? >> i am not when the hazard a lot of guesses on eight months from now. eight months -- eight months back with from today, i don't think people thought today we would be talking about what we accomplished. i tend not to have a crystal

ball. again, when the president signs this landmark legislation, the american people over the next several months begin to filter small business tax credits and protections of children being declared having a pre -- pre- existing condition, seniors getting help with prescription drugs, it is part of health care reform and i think that will be beneficial. the president was eloquent in saying that over the past couple weeks, what happens if this fails, what does it mean for you politically, and the president was clear in saying that his far greater concern was what happens to all of those depending on us to change the status quo, and to

do so in a way that helps them? i know that there are a lot of folks that will want to prognosticate. i think the president's strong belief is that you make the decisions that you believe are right, and you don't spend a lot of time listening to the chatter, and with good decisions and good policy, they tend to make for good politics in the long run. >> there's talk on the left about how any democratic senator the sponsor an amendment with a public option and the reconciliation package. if that happens, would that be something the president pushes for? >> we will wait for the senate to make that decision. >> the present and third months of negotiations to get republicans on board. he went through town halls and

meetings at blair house and ended up with zero republican votes. is the lesson that bipartisanship is a fool's errand? >> if the strategy on the other side is regardless of what the president proposes, to say no, then bipartisanship is going to be difficult. you've seen people say that we're not going to work together with the other side for the rest of the year. i don't think that is a real change in their schedule. i haven't noticed all whole lot of -- gee, i know the economy is experiencing its worst downturn since the great depression, here are some ideas to help. the american people will judge whether or not people are doing

what they're doing because they are just continuing the type gains -- games the american people hate in this town versus people who are trying to honestly make some progress. i think the president spent seven or so hours at the blair house, incorporated into the legislation were more than 100 republican amendments -- you would have to ask them what it would take to get their support, when the president -- bipartisanship cannot be none of your ideas and all of my ideas. people like bob dole and howard baker had proposals with tom daschle, very similar to what was proposed here. i talked about the fact that this legislation looks and all like -- looks and all light --

an awful lot like what happened in massachusetts, and i'm sure mitt romney hates me say net. why would people who propose something very similar to this now walk away from this? it is a good question for them to take. >> are you willing to work for a year on financial reform? >> we have already been working a year on financial reform. if passed the house. we're likely to pass through some committees in the senate, and the president believes we're coming close the two-year anniversary of the other collapse of our financial system, based on people gaming the system, and they are not

seeing strong rules to prevent that from happening. the president is not convinced that it will take another year to get those rules and the place. people are going to have to decide within the next few months, particularly on financial reform, whether you're going to put rules in place to prevent this from happening or whether you're going to work on the side of those that cause this calamity to happen. >> the president's communications challenge as and missouri or before the bill was passed. does he have a different message now? >> i think the president will now discuss -- look, up until yesterday, we were discussing what happens when the bill passes.

now we can talk about tangibly but people will say. in some ways, the verbs are different but there are no questions that the basis -- what you heard the president talk about for the past two weeks, about what insurance companies are doing and what this reform does, will be the basis of a lot of what you hear going forward. >> some issues on the president's agenda. you ever ranking of the most important thing? >> i don't see any reason to began raking the brackets. >> i think there's no doubt that on education, the president and secretary duncan have made amazing strides on reforming our

educational system. there is no doubt that financial reform is something the president expects to sign before the end of this year. >> he talked earlier about the debate, but members of congress -- connie mack sent out oppressor saying "freedom died today." can you work with people like that? >> all the president can do is try. all the president can do is talk to members about what is important going forward, and getting our economy going again, is in helping businesses with tax credits and things like that?

i believe that there is commonality, at least in the rhetoric of what president obama and some of the republicans talk about. whether or not they are willing to put aside senator mcconnell said plan to oppose everything and seek to be part of the governing solution, we will just have to see. >> on a related front, looking back on what happened with the stimulus and the political debate that followed months afterwards, as the white house picked up any lessons on how to deal with that definitional debate that will come about after the passage of this bill? >> as was the case with recovery plan, there was no doubt that i said earlier on, there is no doubt that the president will

continue to talk about what health care reform is for the american people come up with the passage of this loss means -- for the american people, what the passage of this law means. they will kick to see it that -- they will get to see that. and i think all of that will be beneficial for folks of the next many months. >> is the white house ready for the implementation challenge? there are a number of positions at hhs that are still vacant. >> i know that senior staff this morning as well as in our meeting with the president discussed beginning and ferguson process and what goes along with it. it is undoubtedly a big challenge.

but i think many of the same group of people that helped get through congress what many people thought was unattainable, they will begin the challenge of implementing what will be law. >> it's a circus-like atmosphere in the house is today, there are flyers and one incident where there was an outburst in the gallery, and members on the republican side seemed to encourage that. t think the gop in the house is doing enough to rein in its own members? >> i was in and out of a lot of things an ad did not see each and every instance. -- and i did not see each and every instance. many have said that we have to

be respectful of each other, despite the differences that we may have in our opinions, and to conduct ourselves in a way that demonstrates that respect. i think that goes for anybody in public life, on both sides of the aisle, even as you are debating something that in flames the passions like health care reform certainly has. >> but the party and where it is at the moment? >> again, there were many avenues