host: one of the ideas out here is to give those in this country illegally a form of amnesty, to give them a right to citizenship. is that a good idea? >> yes, that is what i'm getting at. it takes 15 years or so for some people to get their green card and i believe that is a very long time so, immigration reform, is it going to take a shorter amount of time to get its back and do you believe it will increase the amount of -- amount of time to get it? and you believe it will increase the amount of time to get it? guest: i'm like you, i have more liberal views that most conservatives on the immigration issue. i would like to see a way past -- a way to citizenship for those here illegally. to be fair, a lot of people have waited in line for a long time

to be -- to be here legally. and there is something unfair of those who jumped the q and got here ahead of them. -- who jumped been queue and got at of them. there are people who have lived here, paid their taxes here, voted here, they should have first consideration at those jobs. i think it is a very tough issue. i am pleased that the motions have receded a little bit on the issue. i am a bit surprised that president obama says he is going to make this a priority to the degree that he plans to. i cannot believe that congress can pass immigration reform in 2010 and i do not think it's healthy to raise it if you will not solve the issue. you will inflamed the debate and not get much done. i know it is unfashionable of me to say this, but maybe it is better to leave the issue alone

for a while. let's let the economy come back a little bit and let's see if we can't get some bipartisan decision that's on the immigration. host: on behalf of the program, thank you to the students, and to bill kristol with the weekly standard -- with the codey weekly -- with the codey weekly -- "weekly standard." enjoy the rest of your day. . .

♪ >> getting underway right now on c-span3, house financial services committee holds a meeting on the future of the mortgage market. timothy geithner and representatives from an advocacy groups are there. of this morning president obama signs health care legislation. we expect several members of both the house and senate to attend.

it is taking place in the east room of the white house. we will take your comments and calls after remarks from the president. you can listen online and also on c-span radio. this afternoon, testifying on increasing broadband. the plan was released last week by the fcc indians to connect 100 million households who lack it today. the hearing is being held by the senate commerce committee, like that to 30 p.m. eastern on c- span3. >> our commitment to the security in the future of israel is rock-solid, enduring, and forever. >> first lady, senator, or attorney hillary clinton -- you can search, web it, share it, and more on the new c-span library.

every c-span program since 1987. the c-span video library, cable's biggest gift to america. >> richard kemp talks about relations with israel the middle east conflict, having spoken yesterday at aipac. it is half an hour. >> he has served in northern ireland, iraq, bosnia, and most recently in afghanistan as the commander of british forces there. his service earned him the military title and honor of commander of the order of the british empire, an honor reserved for a select few, and received from her majesty queen elizabeth.

his service in off led him to cut-author a book. it describes what it is like to fight an enemy under a harsh battlefield condition. -- his service there led him to co-of arabic. with his 30 years of service has come a unique understanding of critical decisions that military leaders must make during times of war. the citizens of life and death. decisions about conducting a war where enemies hide among civilians. the assistance of extraordinary ethical significance. these experiences have profoundly informed his insight into israel's gaza of pershing, a defensive one following years of unrelenting hamas rocket and

mortar attacks on israeli civilians. colonel kemp has studied carefully israel's actions in gaza before you heard that the former judge was investigating israel's actions on behalf of the united nations human rights council. colonel kemp offered his findings and analysis to judge goldstone declined. in case you have not heard about the record of the u.n. human rights council, of the 34 resolutions the council has passed since 2006, 27 of them have been against israel. according to the human rights council, israel has a far worse record on human rights in such countries as saudi arabia and iran. fast forward a few months to october 2009, the human rights

council was holding an emergency session to discuss judge goldstone's board, a 575-page document accusing for israel of intentionally targeting civilians. because this was an open session, kemp had an opportunity to present his analysis of what he said astonished member states like saudi arabia, even pakistan nico based on my knowledge and experience i can say this, the israeli defense forces did more to secure the rights of civilians in the combat zone than any other army in the history of the warfare. [applause]

>> despite the u.n. human rights council's unwillingness to listen, colonel kemp determined to set the record straight, to describe the true nature of israel's defensive actions for all of her detractors to hear loud and clear. ladies and gentlemen, please welcome a true hero, a man who stands up time and again for his country, his comrades, and for his ideals -- colonel richard kemp. ♪ [applause]

>> thank you, tim, for those extremely kind words. i should say, any achievements i have made in my career have been due entirely to the extremely brave, committed, dedicated british soldiers the why have had the honor to serve alongside. [applause] -- who i have had the honor to serve alongside. ladies and gentlemen, it is also a great honor to have been invited to speak to here in washington today. i will not open up with that old churchill cliche about two people/a common language --

[laughter] i will say how comforting it is to know that in this enormous audience today there is a very strong british contingent led by richard benson. [applause] at least, therefore, there are about 30 people will understand what i am saying today. babies and gentlemen, the nexus of globalism and violent jihad have brought to this world of phenomenon that is entirely new, and that is global insurgency. the challenges facing the security forces whose duty is to fight against this global

insurgency war are in many ways much greater than those that have confronted them in any previous complex. this is especially true of the security forces of the free world such as the united states, united kingdom and israel. in standing together in this fight against global insurgency it is essential that we do not allow the dark forces of the insurgency to divide us. there are those who say, for example, that our forces are placed in greater danger because of the policies of israel and its fight against its element of the insurgency. i would dismiss that comment.

it is essential that we stand together. israel, and from experience has been of enormous assistance and help to the forces of great britain in its own struggles, and certainly when i appealed to israel for assistance when i went to afghanistan and needed expertise in combating the terrible threat of suicide bombing. that assistance was given generously and very wisely. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, the reason i single out those three countries as representative of the free world is that their actions are scrutinized, analyze, and dissected by powerful and on the present free

press. those countries, like other democracies, are quite rightly governed by moral standards, conventions, human rights laws, and democratic accountability -- standards that do not constrictions of many of the other states who are nevertheless caught up in the same violent struggle. some of those states themselves untroubled by any need to observe human rights, whether of their own citizens or other enemies, were among those that most loudly condemned israel at the united nations in geneva. [applause] as i will explain later in my remarks, some of those states may well buy this type of ill- considered condonation, make the global insurgency even worse than it already is, for

themselves as well as for us. the insurgents that the u.s., israel, and other states are different. al qaeda and others in iraq. in afghanistan, al qaeda and the taliban, which is itself all horribly complex tapestry of insurgency. they are different, but linked. they're linked by the complex network of networkjihad, and by its transfer of expertise, skills, tactics, and technology using the world wide web, remote training camps, and easy global travel. they are also linked by the pernicious influence, support, and sometimes even the direction of iran.

it was iran the form has below back in the 1980's, and to this day funds and direct it as an instrument of its own -- a hezbollah. iran has developed it into one of the, if not the most deadly terrorist organizations in the world. but receive support also from iran. not just support, whenever there has been any sign of wavering by hamas, or by other anti-israel groups, iran moved in to stiffen their resolve, often using hezbollah do its dirty work. similarly, iran's support enabled another element to attack the combined military strength of the u.s. and u.k. in iraq for they were responsible for numerous casualties. iran to news to provide such support to militias in the

country today. we know that the al qaeda management board, plus at least two of bin laden's wives and a son of them based in iran since 2001. since the presence was discovered by western intelligence, the tehran regime consistently says this group is confined to their homes and unable to operate. last week, on the foreign affairs committee, general petraus reveal that iran is letting al qaeda leaders travel freely between pakistan and afghanistan, effectively using the territory as a safe haven while permitting them to hold the meetings to plan terrorist attacks against americans.

taliban leaders have recently been boasting that they have received significant training and resources from iran in their fight against nato and the afghan government. the fact that has also been confirmed by general david pretorietraeus. the second-largest group has its main bases across the border in iran. the first groups with differing goals and strategies share a common characteristic. they are trained and equipped for warfare fought from within the civilian population. in a complex of several countries and in towns and villages, the civilian population are routinely exploited in violation of international laws and reasonable norms. and in gaza last year during an

operation civilians became a strategic weapon in the hands of hamas, who were deliberately putting their own people's lives on the line. those people they proclaimed there were there to protect. they used the non-combatant population of gaza as human shields, relying on the israeli military's and adherence to international law and its own moral codes to protect them from harm. hamas, of course, deployed suicide attackers including women and children who are also used to fight, collect intelligence, and ferry and intelligence between battles. they used schools, private houses, and other protected buildings sometimes deliberately filled with civilians as fighting positions. and despite the international legal protection afforded to

religious buildings, they frequently used mosques as weapons stores and strong points. the u.s. and british armies face the same situation every single day in afghanistan too. the taliban force the boys as young as 14 to throw high explosive grenades at our troops, knowing there would not return fire against children. civilians are forced to move in front of taliban fighters, attacking those troops. i read only recently on the web site of an old woman who is used to fire at nato troops to distract them from taliban attack. all of this is of course in breach of anything we would recognize as international law. [applause]

but, ladies and gentlemen, it would be an enormous mistake to believe the jihadists group's internationaignore internationay do not. they study them with care and understand them well. they know that a british/american, or is really commander are bound by international law and of the rules of engagement. then they do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemies main weakness -- their m.o. is built on the correct assumption that western armies will abide by the rules. so, how do civilize armies get around these tactics and prevail against the insurgents? in particular, avoiding killing innocent civilians and that is exactly what that enemy is trying to lure them to do. in the counter-insurgency we're

winning over the hearts and minds of the people is so critically important, it is vital to absolutely minimize civilian deaths. as general stanley mcchrystal, the nato commander in afghanistan, recognizes in his the did to avoid sibylline deaths of virtually all costs, you must go even beyond the rules of law, sometimes even putting your own troops' lives a greater risk to do so. the commanders of the israeli defense forces have planned and implemented an operation, also understood this necessity, and they themselves took unprecedented measures to minimize civilian casualties. [applause] the israeli intelligence operation was complex and fraught with danger.

convert intelligence sources, predominantly arabs working for israel worked tirelessly to get the best possible idea. make no mistake, it captured the penalties for these agents are heavy. hamas recently reintroduced crucifixion as a method of execution for its prisoners. torture is routine. so, why did israel make this effort? because to fight to pinpoint war on the ground particularly against an enemy like hamas, you need the best possible intelligence. to make sure that the minimum damages done to the civilian population. when possible the idea gave at least four hours' notice. it was knowingly giving an

advantage to the above. we have heard that helicopter pilots had total discretion to avoid a strike there was too great a risk of civilian casualty. many missions that could have taken out by the military capability were aborted because of this. during the conflict the idea allowed huge amounts of humanitarian aid into gaza. this task is regarded by any military commander as risky and dangerous at the best of times. to mount the operations to deliver aid into your enemy's hands -- and let us not forget that hamas confiscated significant amounts of the aid for their own military use -- is quite amicable to a tactician. the idea courageously we're willing to take on those risks. in the latter stages of the operation, the idea unilaterally announced a 33-or ceasefire knowing this would give hamas

time and space to regroup, re- equip. that added to the danger to their own troops. the israelis dropped over 9000 leaflets warning of impending attacks to the population. they phoned over 30,000 palestinian households urging them in arabic to leave the homes where weapons might be stashed. similar messages were passed on israeli radio broadcasts warning the civilian population of forthcoming operations. american and british forces operating in afghanistan to they have adopted similar measures, some perhaps borrowed from israel's express to reduce civilian casualties. at the start of an operation, the major offensive running today in afghanistan, our troops and the american troops

and delivered large numbers of leaflets at aimed at the taliban and local people. they held meetings with local leaders. they took the unprecedented step to give warnings that the operation was coming, to allow the civilians who could to leave the area. despite israel's extraordinary measures in gaza, as we know, a number of civilians were killed and wounded. every commander knows no matter how sophisticated you're targeting, have your for your planning, the over-present friction and chaos of military operations means there will always be mistakes. there will always be bad soldiers who deliberately or through incompetence go against their orders. like british and american soldiers, israel's forces operate under a strict code of

conduct and are held accountable for this by the israeli government. hamas fighters are subject to no such restraint whatsoever. there is no equivalent between israel soldiers and the fighters of hamas. [applause] like every army, including other western armies, the idea is far from perfect. but their work to reduce the risk of civilian casualty went well beyond the requirements of the geneva convention to an extent that would not even be considered by most other armies around the world, least of all -- [applause] least of all of some of the country's the most vocally

condemned israel at the united nations. [applause] the campaigns fought by the three countries have several common factors. there is also a major difference. in many countries around the world, not least of all in europe, the starting point is that israel is always in the wrong. i have met many israeli soldiers and former israeli soldiers -- these are not war criminals. [applause] i recognize it virtually no difference between the soldiers of the idea and the brave ones i spoke about at the beginning of

my remarks. they are also very brave men and women who have prepared to put their own lives online to defend the civilian population. quite often to make the ultimate sacrifice. the u.s., u.k., and other nato countries, even when themselves cause in the unintentional deaths, a tragic ones of civilians, attract no such automatic condemnation as to the israelis. those groups that unthinkingly accept or subscribe to this blanket condemnation of israel, risk worsening the global insurgency we all face. they enable highly questionable reports to be treated and then given prominence. the goldstone report depended

heavily on testimony from people of the gaza strip, those same whose suffering was exploded by hamas. the same who face horrific punishment from the hamas folks if this image is considered the beating from the hamas lying. all exceptions of the goldstone report would effectively make it impossible for states to defend themselves from armed insurgents as long as those insurgents operative from within the civilian populations. [applause] in his report, judge goldstone strongly criticizes the attacks -- [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in session. the chair lays before the house a communication from the speaker. the clerk: the speaker's rooms, washington, d.c. march 23, 2010. i hereby appoint the honorable betsy markey to act as speaker pro tempore on this day. signed, nancy pelosi, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the order of the house of january 6, 2009, the chair will now recognizes members from lists submitted by the majority and minority leaders for morning hour debate. the chair will alternate recognition between the parties with each party limited to 30 minutes and each member other than the majority and minority leaders and minority whip limited to five minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from florida, mr.

stearns, for five minutes. mr. stearns: thank you, madam speaker. good morning. my colleagues, i have come here this morning to talk about this health care bill. this senate health care bill that we passed continues to spend far more than we have and at a rate anyone could have imagined. so the bill itself is chock-full of budget gimmicks to game the system to show it's revenue neutral. i'm going to outline this morning why it's not revenue neutral. in fact, future congresses will repeal some of these cuts in medicare and some of the taxes like the tax on certain health care plans. the president indicates that he would veto any health care bill that created a dime, a penny of deficit. mr. president, i hope you're listening because i have gone through the scoring on the health care bill, the senate health care bill and there is a chock-full of gimmicks and in

fact this creates a deficit. let's take a look at them. because she's savings that the c.b.o. scored will not be achieved. let me first of all start by saying there's 10 years of taxes to pay for six years of benefits. that's one of the tricks we should realize. many of the taxes will start immediately, yet the health exchange does not begin until 2014. the two large cost drivers are medicare expansion and the health care exchange. but there are only six years of the exchange cost in the budget window. so if we are going to have tax for 10 years and institute the program much later, those are cost savings, but once this thing gets going, after 10 years of taxes and six years of benefit, what happens after that? no one knows. obviously it's going to be a deficit. that's the first thing i want to art -- start out with. there's cuts throughout this and to medicare, they are

fiction. let me give you an example. they have a 21% in what's called the s.g.r., which is sustained growth rate, funding rate for physicians. so they are going to cut physicians their s.g.r. by 21%. and they are going to do a 2% cut every year for the rest of the decade this. will require $280 billion cut and correct it we have to do a fix. is this going to occur? remember now we just passed h.r. 3961 as a doc fix. so they are already agreeing we have to fix medicare for doctors, yet they are going back into this health care bill and cutting them. now, there's $156 billion in cuts to the hospital market basket. this is a reimbursement formula used to calculate payment rates. can we realistically expect to provide a negative cost increase to hospitals? or are we creating another so-called s.g.r.-type situation in this bill? now, they have what's called

$70 billion in community living assistance services to support. this is a new entitlement, it's an insurance program for assisted living programs. however it does not collect enough and pays out too little. it's estimated this program will become insolvent in 2020. senator kent conrad has called this a ponzi scheme of the first order that would make bernie madoff proud. another fictitious claim, $15 billion cut by the independent payment advisory board. this is an un-elected body who will be able to force medicare cuts and reforms throughout the system. congress can only vote to stop these if 3/5 of the senate votes to stop the cuts. now they have continually talk about tax on cadillac health care plans. they use this, it's a saving of $32 billion. you know whose cadillac health care plans we are talking about? we are talking about unions. they are the ones who will be

affected. do you think the democrats are going to tax union cadillac health care plan? that's not going to occur. i tell you that once this gets passed they are going to repeal this tax at future points. 10 years of taxes to pay for six years of benefits, i mentioned earlier. the two large cost drivers are medicare expansion and the health exchange but there are only six years of exchange cost in the budget window. again that's a gimmick. these costs were not included by the c.b.o. because they would not be subject to future appropriations and not mandatory spending. so that's why the c.b.o. didn't include these. $10 billion to hire about 60,000 new i.r.s. agents to enforce the individual mandate on every american. so c.b.o. did not include this in the scoring because it would be subject to future appropriations and not mandatory spending. c.b.o. didn't include that. what about all the number of employees hired by health and human service to operate that?

that's not in here. $55 billion for new bureaucrats to run this government expansion into health care? none of that the c.b.o. has in there. so the president, mr. president, you should realize you sign this bill, you are signing a bill that's going to create deficits. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. stearns: the savings we'll see are not there. we are continuing to put this country into hock. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks to the chair. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house

host: our guest is a history professor at george washington university. we are glad you could be here. talk to us about how this legislation compares with other major bills of the past.

give us some historical perspective to start out? guest: it is certainly one of the three big ones. my personal list begins with socials your security reduce social security from 1935. it is the basic for our social policy. it is where we began welfare, unemployment. number two, particular to this field would be 1965 when medicare was passed, an amendment to the social security act. it carved out a whole new round social insurance for the elderly with the government providing financial support for health care to the elderly. other than that, this might be no. 3. this complicated law bringing together lots of different communities and congress with many different programs. all these people jealously guard their jurisdictions.

it is also the hardest because in 1935 the federal government was working with an open field, not much there. they were free to do things. much of that legislation the states forto the one thing or the other. one thing or the other. so it was the kind of thing most most people were reasonably happy with it. medicare was past when there was plenty of money around. it said ok, we will buy a health insurance policy for the elderly having trouble because they are retired, or more ill. they bought into the system and provided liberal subsidies to hospitals and doctors. were able to unite both the democratic and republican approaches, and marry them together. also, in the medicare, everything was tightly held by the ways committee that did not

have subcommittees. they had a in a fireplace to enact public policy, which made things easier. it was a controversial measure in 1965, called socialized medicine, but in the in the past. then we come to this legislation. in many ways it has been the hardest to pass. the politics is as difficult as it were any of the other pieces of legislation. host: a reporter over the weekend talks about this issue historically. he writes that unlike social security or medicare, this health care bill passed with over half of unanimous opposition. cases, it is fair to say the democrats were the lead party and republicans were the

minority party and the official republican position and all three cases was pretty much against the legislation. but you have to remember in 1935, president roosevelt had very fat congress to work with. he had a big majority of democrats and actually they complained, they complained about the social security part of the legislation because, like this legislation today, it was started out by taking money help of people's checks in 1937 and it was not going to pay regular benefits until 1942 and congress said, what is the point of that when people need help today. so there was opposition. but the president kind of sat them down and i want this and it passed with big numbers. medicare was a more complicated situation. that came in 1965. it just had a sort of the perfect sequence of events to get past. john f. kennedy died in 1963 but he did not just by at the beginning of the term, but at the end of the terms of president johnson did not have

time to build up ill will and in 1964 we passed civil rights act, which was always one of the stumbling blocks -- which is sort of like abortion. there was an issue that people used to block social legislation and in this case -- hospitals, we did not want to integrate the hospitals. but the civil-rights act passed in 1964 so it took up the table and then they have the election that gave lyndon johnson this really fat majority so they made medicare hr #1 in the congress and that had a lot of momentum and everybody realized it would pass so in the and it basically was a bipartisan measure because it had both the democratic and republican alternatives. host: "the financial times" looks at healthcare history in the making. they look at past presidents and what they attempted, starting with president truman, 1945- 1948, government run health insurance fund, funding to increase the number of doctors and nurses and hospitals and what went wrong.

american medical association attacked the plan as socialized medicine and accused his team of telling the moscow party line. guest: you have to remember president roosevelt died in 1945 and president truman takes over and he is feeling really inadequate, if that is not to clinical a term, to fill these incredibly large soyuz -- shoes. they can upon healthcare, which is a good post war thing. optimistic. but they did not have a chance. it was doomed from the beginning even at that time, the social security system did not cover everybody -- almost half of the population was not covered. it was a tough sell to push health care at a time in which social security itself was not very popular. the ama was able to say, do you want the government and the room where you are being examined? people feel terrible anyway when

they are being examined, having the intimate -- like the person from espn, where someone saw her through the keyhole, there is a sense of violation of privacy so the idea that the government is coming in there with the doctor was a pretty effective thing to block this. they did not have the votes. and truman i think was a nonstarter. host: next up, lyndon johnson, creation of medicare and medicaid, government run, covering the elderly, poor, disabled. what went wrong -- the schemes were passed and now highly popular but have contributed to2

let's say, the working age will get health insurance through their employers, and the elderly will get with came to be called medicare. president kennedy pushed that very hard. he began formally in 1957. so -- 1957 or so. but the person who introduced it was like the third ranking guy in ways and means committee. they really could not get the top folks interested. in part because there was another battle, disability insurance. paying social security benefits. that distracted attention until 1956. then the medicare thing took over, and once again, ama said we did not want to have this, socialized medicine. president kennedy pushed very hard when he was president. he got a vote in 1962 but they

lost by one vote in the senate and never came to a vote in the house. it was being considered by the ways and means committee when president kennedy was assassinated and they basically just said we are not going to meet on this any more so it kind of debt inherited by lyndon johnson and he takes it and it becomes one of his top priority items for 1965 and it brings health care to the elderly in complicated ways, you know? i think it is important that we realize that every generation works with what it has. it and this case they had a relatively -- blue cross/blue shield coverage for people, which people are familiar with. the kind of work with bad, and elderly were brought into the system. -- the kind of worked with that. that is what happened in 1965. we are talking to end -- ed berkowitz, george washington

university. a barber on the democrats' line. cincinnati, ohio. -- barbara, on the democrats lined parent caller: -- democrats line. caller: i was calling because i do have a question regarding health coverage, etc., but it is not the patient. some of the things like social security are doing, as previously stated, i got an increase but then social security changed some of the benefits to the point that now i have to pay $80 for one of my very important prescriptions that i need. and i cannot use these other medications that they want you to use necessarily. so i have to stick with wyck -- what my regular medication because of that is a concern. when we first started talking about health insurance, a pharmaceutical part was not terribly important. in fact, none of it was terribly

important. in the 1920's people paid out of pocket. but now for many seniors and others, the cost of your prescriptions are just prohibitive. congress has tried to deal with that -- not so security you are talking about, but medicare. apart d addresses that problem. and the new legislation actually provides some relief for people in terms of lowering the cost they are going to pay for their prescriptions. a maybe some of your problems will be solved. host: conn. kathleen, republicans line -- connecticut, kathleen, republicans line. caller: several comments. i have not made a dime from my business and a couple of years, being a mom and pop situation, three generations. industrial parts -- we know

where manufacturing has gone. aircraft, government parts being made out of the country now. to say the least, we are hurting. the government does nothing to help small companies. guest: talking about small companies and health care, right? caller: that comes in here too. we have not had health care in probably -- we have not been able to afford it. guest: this new bill, whether it works and not, i cannot tell you. but this new bill is definitely on that question. the people who are self-employed or single individuals that will essentially be able to enter this market that the states are going to have to provide an array of health care benefits. so in theory, this bill is

supposed to work for you, and in fact, it is a good test case. we have to see in a couple of years with the benefits -- benefits. the fact that the industrial base here is shrinking, this bill cannot address that. but at least health care coverage for people struggling with businesses or individuals, that is exactly what this bill is intended to address. host: caitlin, independent line, orlando, florida. caller: i have a question about social security. i am a little bit worried what i heard on tv when i watched the news. how is it going to end up with the social security for somebody young like me, 34 or 35 years old? guest: your first mistake is watching television they're all sorts of misinformation. we can spread a little bit more may be today.

your question is about social security. and it is a question about the solvency of social security. first of all, kind of unrelated to the health care legislation and we should make it clear that the face of social security and the fate of this health-care legislation are a little bit different. but this question about the solvency of seoul's security, my personal take is worst case, the benefits and the future will be 75% of the amount promised today, which will still be more than people are getting today. i have every confidence we will deal with the social security problem. in fact, it is not unrelated to health care in a sense that congress has been totally preoccupied with health care, and as a consequence, the committees considering health care, they would also naturally consider social security, a problem to president obama said we should not kick the can down the road. maybe now, or maybe after these elections, the have a little bit of time to think about that so

maybe that health care legislation will pave the way for other social policy discussions that we should be having. host: why the concerns about the solvency of social security? was there a time line or a sense of how long it could be sustained? guest: from the very beginning it was complicated. let us say you were 65 years old in 1935, the year social security past. you pay nothing in beard of the question is, she you get -- should you get benefits? they sort of made rules saying, you pay in a little bit. so there was this, as a said before, this complicated arrangement where taxes were paid beginning in 1937 and first benefits were 1942. that caused an enormous amount of controversy. in addition, when the bill was first presented to president roosevelt it had a subsidy from general revenues, until the year 1967. and roosevelt said i cannot put

on the shoulders of those guys in 1967 this enormous debt. so it was made to be self financing. but maybe to be self financing, the taxes were higher than otherwise and people complained. . host: the next big issue, social security pops up again. now that landmark legislation it is about to become law, addressing social security insolvency will be the next big thing. let's go to gainesville, fla., with our democratic caller. caller: the weather is pretty good now. guest: how can we help you this morning? caller: i cannot understand why

people who have a lot -- i am not a am-- it seems to me they do not want to share. when i had, i shared, and i don't mind sharing. if i had a million dollars, a great athlete, i don't mind sharing -- from a moral standpoint, the people who have should share -- but it seems like they just want to keep the lower economic people down. for some reason or another they just have to have someone -- it's like indentured slaves. guest: we are little beyond the indentured slave stage now. if i had a million dollars in my pocket right now, i'm not sure that i would fly down to gainesville and give it to you. i don't think it is a natural instinct to people to want to give money away unless it makes

them feel real good. this is a fundamental question that divides us today. some people think that their richer simply not giving enough to the poor. of the people think that the rich are being asked by the government to give too much to the poor, and undermining the initiative. this is a question it goes back well into the 19th century. it is a perennial question. it reflects the optimism of the society, how generous do we feel? maybe this health care bill in some ways is a sign of that generosity. of that generosity, beginning to change the climate a little bit. host: looking at the "peninsula times" piece -- "financial times" piece --

guest: that is a very interesting episode. the nixon administration decided if if you were an employer, you had the obligation to provide insurance. we have a new individual mandate that was not in the nixon's law. kennedy was trying to interpret what his brothers' behalf, -- brothers would have, what their legacy would have been, so he picked up health care. you should not have to get insurance through your employer. at one point, he and the head of the ways and means committee, a compromise bill called the

kennedy-mills bill. two things happen. wilbur mills went into the tidal pond, got involved in personal scandal, and he was founded as an alcoholic and left washington. even at the conservative age, the watergate scandal that occurred made things trend a democratic. some of the labor union decided they were going to win the election in 1974 big, so let us speculate political futures. let's bet that we are going to get in better deal in 1975. it turns out that that was the wrong bet because the economy went south and things were not as often as they were today.

so nixon considered this somewhat conservative proposal in 1971, and it becomes president obama's liberal proposal in 2010. host: a comment on twitter -- was there a time in history where people were more willing to give and share? guest: perhaps back in the early days where it had more to do with our religious duty, christian duty. providing for people less in the community -- who have less in the community. we started to get these really big fortunes. andrew carnegie. eventually, his company would become the largest in the world. he began to think, what are my responsibilities?

do i have a responsibility because i am wealthy? a number of these big industrialists began consciously to think about charities. the carnegie library, for example. those are some kinds oof the things that he started. host: let's go to the phone calls. ron from cincinnati. caller:@@@ @ ád caller: my wife and i go into the doughnut hole round june, and announced a great this bill was. they said they would take care of this hole. do you know what year?

guest: i do not come off the top of my head. i am only an academic. caller: 2016. guest: i will be 66, so will be ok for me. caller: well, good luck, fella. . . how was the public reaction to these major pieces of legislation, as far as the feedback, ranchor? were there protests, were there things like we saw with town hall meetings? guest: not quite. in 1935, people really did not understand what was in the social security act. that is similar to today.

this is a very complicated piece of legislation to grasp. of legislation to grasp. there were guys from left saying that every elderly person should have $100 provided to them at the end of the month. compared to that, social security was very miserly, so there was protest from the left. there were attempts to create mass rallies. president kennedy actually went to madison square garden to speak in favor of medicare. there was concern about the supreme court and the left- leaning nature. the conservative movement was just beginning, but there is not that same vitriolic sign that we see today.

1935, there was no television there was radio and news real. you could not set up on the street and expect someone to talk to you from television. now only live in an age where communication is so instant. that is a difference that did not exist in the 1930's, 1960's. host: in "usa today" they talked about this timeline for medicare -- don on the independent line.

pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: how are you this morning? one of the problems i have put health care, i used to work in the zero are in virginia, and i was devastated -- or in virginia, and i was devastated because there were incredible doctors but insurance was always in the way from preventing the patients from being helped. the problem i had is no one looks at that as a problem. the problem is not that we cannot afford insurance. the problem is these insurance companies and corporations producing these medications decided it is going to be this amount when it only costs a certain amount to produce it. there are a few people walking,

with fistfuls of in their pockets. guest: that is one of the problem with medicare. right now, certainly, people in washington are aware -- first of a&l4@@@@@@)krr'r% having said that, there will always be limitations. the amount of a mental health utñbenefits -- somebody could go into therapy for 10 years which is very expensive. rehabilitation benefits is something that doesn't of a natural ending to it.

that is difficult to ensure something like that. it is an open-ended cost. our hope is to eliminate those open-ended cost spread in minute -- in medicare there is the diagnosis related groups which is an attempt to say that if you have a certain element, the hospital gets a certain amount of money. the idea is not to create an open-ended entitlement that leads to expenses. host: some states plan to challenge the health care bill. officials in a dozen states hope to block it in court by arguing that requiring people to buy insurance is an intrusion by the give us a context for that. guest: the most relevant example is social security in 1935. that was the year when the supreme court took president

roosevelt most important 1933 plot and said it is unconstitutional by a vote of 9- 0. when the social security act was being passed and written, the question was on the present. the titles of that act were put in the order they were because they were looking at the supreme court looking over their shoulder. it has always been a factor. in 1905, there was a case in which new york state had said that people can only work for a certain amount of hours of their working in the bakery industry. the supreme court said it was a violation of contract. when so security came in in 1935, the supreme court said you cannot tax people's payrolls. they said was a violation of freedom of contract medicare. was less so in terms of legal

battles but legal battles have always been a part of the story. this is nothing new. this is a battle that people don't realize this is the beginning. the real -- the real battle comes now, the complicated legislation, putting all these things in about what insurance companies have to do. the real battle which the white house and to be aware of begins now with the court and with the implementation and would try to make sure there is no repeal. there have been repeals of life insurance laws in the past. this is just beginning. host: democrats line in winter haven, connecticut, good morning. caller: it seems to be such a big controversy and it will be a controversy. it is so said because if everyone was working together,

there would not have been that controversy. it was an opportunity to make a wonderful change for the american people, all the american people. and what people don't seem to realize is that by going to emergency rooms because people only have that option, our bills are so much higher than they should be. it is time that the insurance companieswj had some competiti. guest: your point about the emergency room is valid. all of us have spent time there. it is never an easy thing and it is not easy for them to figure out what they should do because they don't have good access to your records. within a lot, a system where poor people get their care only numbers to rooms will begin to

end with this bill. your point about everybody coming together and be reasonable, yes, but you have to remember this is complicated stuff. for these guys trying to make this legislation, they have medicaid which is different in every state of the nation. they have medicare which has a very complicated rules about what get reimbursed. they have this very complicated private insurance industry which is regulated at the state level and provides all sorts of different plans for people. this is just a very, very complicated problem. it is not just the will of locking people to come to a solution. this is taken a long time and we have had to compromise all along the way to get where we are today. host: president reagan had an amendment to life insurance.

he wanted to set ceilings on payments for hospitals, doctors, and drugs. the catastrophic coverage act passed in 1988 was repealed followed a surge of popular protest against the turks -- surtaxes associate with the bill. guest: that is interesting because that is the only one like that that has been repealed. that is because once it was put in place, people knew they would pay more taxes than they did not to the benefit period that has been one of the issues in this kind of campaign. in this case, the apple and people would have to pay higher tax for things that already had. -- the affluent people would have to pay a higher tax for things they already had. 1988 was the year when representative dan rostenkowski from chicago stepped out of his car and people started coming up to him and threatening him.

this was because they objected to this law. it got repealed. that has to be on the minds of everyone in the white house. they don't want to have this happen again. a1 congress to come back next year -- they don't want congress to come back next year and repeal it. host: republican line, in arkansas, good morning. caller: that was quite a history of government intervention that you went through it so security, medicare, and medicaid and guess what? they are all broke. we are trillions in debt. you have 60% of the people better taking more out than they are putting in. you have 44% of the people are paying no taxes. all of this conversation this morning will be for norton about 15 years. this country cannot afford all of these things.

guest: i am hoping we get a lot of immigration and people do come in and pay taxes and not claiming benefits. we have to hope that we can sustain this economic boom after the second world war and they can continue to have economic growth and create the amount of prosperity that will be necessary to fund these programs. >> you could watch this segment of all the program on line at cspan.or. we will take you live to the white house for the signing of the health care legislation with president barack obama expected to get underway shortly.

[no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] >> members of congress and cabinet secretaries and others are gathered in the east wing of the white house and are waiting for president barack obama to sign a health care reform that was passed sunday night. last night, the senate parliamentarian clear the way over gop objections to get the bill under way in the senate. 20 hours of debate in the senate is set to begin this afternoon for the senate begins at 2: 50 in the second with a final vote by the end of the week. president barack obama signing the bill here today. others in attendance at the

white house conclude ted kennedy's widow, vicki kennedy and kathleen sebelius, the health and human services secretary and manyi/t other senators and congressmen as well. this is one ceremony that the president will also be over at the interior department later today after noon, eastern to talk about health care legislation, there will be a larger crowd there. we'll have that live for you, as well, on c-span 2 per that should be just after noon, eastern. [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] >> this is the east room of the white house, waiting for president barack obama to commander s the audience here. there are a number of commerce

secretaries and others here. three of the people you will see with the president as he signs the bill are folks that broke the president about their medical situation. one is connie anderson. brian smith, a small-business man. all those folks will be gathered around a table that you see in the middle of the screen as the president signs the bill. [no audio] 7d÷

[no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio]

[no audio]

[no audio] >> you can see members taking pictures here in the east room waiting for the president to come out to sign the health care legislation. the president will later have over the interior department to talk to a larger group, about

600 folks. we will have those folks log -- will have those comments live on c-span 2. the house cavils in for a legislative business at noon. the senate comes in at 2:15 and they will take up the reconciliation package. the senate parliamentarian ruled last night against gop objections last night. the parliamentarian ruled that changes to the proposed excise tax on high-cost plans would not violate the 1974 budget act by changing contributions to the social security trust fund. republican procedural experts said that the impact also secured was enough to violate the byrd rule and derail the whole bill. you will see the debate later today in the senate, 20 hours of debate. we expect plenty of amendments and it is expected to see a vote on that by the end of the week. all that is on c-span 2 later today.

[no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] cj[applause]

[applause] [no audio] >> ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. the program is about to begin.

ladies and gentleman, the president of the united states and vice president of the united states. [applause] p&>> thank you all. [applause]

>> thank you all. we are ready. let them celebrate a little bit. mr. president, i think we have a happy room here. [laughter] it seems ridiculous to say thank you all for being here. [laughter] ladies and gentleman, let's state the obvious, this is an historic day.

[applause] in our business, we use this phrase a lot but i cannot pick of a day in the 37 years that i senator and a short time i had been vice president that it is more appropriately stated. this is an -- this is an historic day and history is not merely what is printed in textbooks. it does not begin or end with the stroke of a pen. history is made. history is made when men and women decide there's a greater risk and accepting the situation that we cannot bear and a bracing the promise to change. that's when history is made. [applause] history is made when you all

assembled here today, members of congress, take charge to change the lives of tens of millions of americans through the efforts of those of us lucky enough to serve here in this town. that is exactly what you have done. you have made history. history is made when a leader steps up, stays true to his values and charts a fundamentally different course in the country. history is made when a leaders' passion is matched with principle. to set a new core . ladies and gentlemen, mr. president, you are that leader. [applause]

>> you deserve it. mr. president, your fears advocacy, the clarity of purpose that you showed, your perseverance, these are, in fact, the reasons why we are today. but for those attributes, we would not be here. many, many men and women are going to feel the pride that i feel in watching you shortly sign this bill. they will know that their work has helped make this day possible. mr. president, you are the guy that made it happen. [applause] all of us, elected officials

assembled in this town of years, we have seen incredible things happen. you know, mr. president, you have done what generations, not just ordinary, but great men and women have attempted to do. republicans as well as democrats, they have tried before. everybody knows the story. it started with teddy roosevelt. they tried. they were bold leaders. they felt sure to print you have turned the right of every american to have access to decent health care into a reality for the first time in american history. [applause]

mr. president, i have gotten to know you well enough that you want me to stop you because i embarrassing you. [laughter] i will not stop for another minute because you delivered on a promise, a promise he made to all americans when we move into this building. mr. president, you are, to repeat myself, literally about to make history. our children and our grandchildren, they will grow up knowing that a man named barack obama put the final girder in the framework for a social network in this country to provide a single most important element of what people need and that is access to good health. [applause] and that every american from

this day forward will be treated with simple fairness and basic justice. look, the classical poet virgil want said that the greatest wealth is held. the greatest wealth is held. today, america becomes a whole lot wealthier because tens of millions of americans will be a whole lot healthier from this moment on. ladies and gentlemen, the president of united states of america, barack obama. [applause] >> thank you, everybody. thank you. thank you.

[applause] d)dthank you, everybody. please, have a seat. thank you, joe. [laughter] >> good to be here, mr. president. >> today, after almost a century of trying, today, after over one year of debate, today, after all the boats have been tallied, health insurance reform becomes law in the united states of america. [applause] today.

it is fitting that congress passed this historic legislation this week. as we mark the turning of spring, we also marked a new season in america. in a few moments, when i sign this bill, all of the overheated rhetoric over reform will finally confront the reality of reform. [applause] while the senate still has a last round of improvements to make on this historic legislation and these are improvements i am confident they will make swiftly. [applause]

the bill i am signing will set in motion reforms that generations of americans made possible and marched for. it will take four years to implement fully many of these reforms because we need to implement them responsibly. we need to get this right. a host of desperately needed reforms will take effect right away. this year. [applause] this year, we will start offering tax credits to about 4

million small business men and women to help them cover the cost of insurance for their employees. that happens this year. [applause] this year, tens of thousands of uninsured americans with pre- existing conditions, the parents of children who have a pre- existing condition, will finally be able to purchase the coverage they need. that happens this year. [applause] this year, insurance companies will no longer be able to drop coverage when they get sick. [applause]

they will not be able to raise limits five times on the amount of care they can receive. this year, all new insurance plans will be required to offer free preventive care and this year, young adults will be able to stay on their parents policies until they're 26 years old. that happens this year. [applause] and this year, seniors who fall and the coverage gap known as the doughnut hole, will start getting some help. they will receive $250 that will pay for prescriptions and that will, over time, fell in the doughnut hole and i want seniors to know that despite what some have said, these reforms will not cut your guaranteed

benefits. in fact, under this law, americans on medicare will receive free preventive care without co-payments or deductibles. that is this year. [applause] once this reform is implemented, health insurance exchanges will be created, a competitive marketplace for uninsured people and small businesses will finally be able to purchase affordable quality insurance. they will be able to be part of a big pool and get the same good deal that members of congress get. that is what will happen under this reform. [applause] when this exchange is up and running, millions of people will get tax breaks to help them afford coverage which represents the largest middle class tax cut for health care in history. [applause] that is what this reform is about.

this legislation will also lower cost for families and businesses and for the federal government, reducing our deficit by over $1 trillion in the next two decades. it is paid for, it is fiscally responsible, and it will help lift a decades-long trend of our economy. that is part of' what all of you together worked on and will happen. [applause] that our generation is able to succeed in passing this reform is a testament to the persistence and the character of the american people who championed the this cause, who mobilized, who organized, who believed that people love this country can change it. it is also a testament to the

historic leadership and uncommon courage of the men and women of the united states congress. they have taken their lumps during this fiscal debate. [laughter] >> yes, we did. [laughter] >> there are few tougher jobs in politics or government than leading one of our legislative chambers. in these chambers are men and women who come from different places and face different pressures and to reach different conclusions about the same things and feel deeply concerned about their constituents. by necessity, leaders have to speak to this different concerns. does not always tidy. it is almost never easy. perhaps, the greatest and most difficult challenge is to cobble

together of these differences, the sense of common interest and common purpose which require them to events the dreams of all people. especially in the country as large and diverse as ours. we are blessed by leaders in each chamber would not only do their jobs very well but who never lost sight of that larger mission. they did not play for the short term are they did not play to the polls or to politics. one of the best speakers the house of representatives has ever had is nancy pelosi. [applause]

one of the best majority leader of the senate has ever had, mr. harry reid. [applause] all of the terrific committee chairs, all the members of congress who did what was difficult but did what was right and passed health care reform, not just this generations of americans will thank-you but the next generation will thank you. this victory was also made possible by the painstaking work of members of this administration including our outstanding secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius. [applause]

and one of the unsung heroes of this effort, an extraordinary woman who led the reform effort from the white house, nancy-ann deparle. [applause] today, i am signing this reform bill into law with regard to the mother who argued with insurance companies as she battled cancer in her final days. i am signing it for ryan smith who is here today. he runs a small business with five employees. he is trying to do the right thing to pay half the cost of coverage for his workers.

this bill will help him for that coverage. i am signing it for 11-year-old marcellus collins, who is also here. marcellus owens. marcellus lost his mom to an illness when she did not have insurance and could not afford the care she needed. in her memory, he has told her story across america so that no other children have to go for what his family has experienced. [applause] i am signing it for natomi canfield who had to give up her health coverage after rates were

jacked up by more than 40%. she was terrified that an illness would mean she would lose the house that parents built. she give up for insurance. now she is lying in a hospital bed as we speak, faced with just such an illness, praying that she can somehow can't afford to get well without insurance. natoma's family is here today because she cannot beat. her sister is here, stand up. [applause] i am signing this bill for all the leaders who took up this cause for the generations. from teddy roosevelt to franklin roosevelt, from harry truman to lyndon johnson, from bill and hillary clinton to one of the deans who has been fighting the

so long, john dingell. [applause] to senator ted kennedy -- [applause] it is fitting that his widow vicky is here. [applause] it is fitting that his widow the key is here and his niece caroline, his son patrick was a boat helped make this reform a reality. [applause]

i remember seeing ted walked through that door in a summit in this room one year ago, one of his last public appearances and it was hard for him to make it. he was confident that we would do the right thing. our presence here today is remarkable and improbable. with all but pundits and lobbyists and game playing that passes for governing in washington, it has been easy at times to doubt our ability to do such a big thing, such a complicated thing. to wonder if there are limits to what we as a people can still achieve. it is easy to succumb to the

sense of cynicism about what is possible in this country. today, we are affirming that essential truth, the truth that every generation is called to rediscover for itself, that we are not a nation that scales back its aspirations. we are not a nation that falls prey to doubt or mistrust. we do not fall prey to fear. we are not a nation that does what is easy. that is not who we are. that is not how we got here. we are a nation that faces its challenges and accept its responsibilities pri we are a nation that does what is hard, what is necessary, what is right. here in this country, we shape our own destiny. that is what we do. that is who we are. that is what makes us the united states of america. we have now just and tried, as soon as i sign this bill, a core

principle that everybody should have some basic security when it comes to their health care. it is an extraordinary achievement that has happened because of all of you and all the advocates all across the country so thank you. thank you, god bless you, and may god bless the united states of america. [applause] thank you. thank you. all right. i would i like to call to the stage some of the members of congress who made this day possible and some americans will benefit from these reforms. we will sign this bill.

[no audio] [applause] this is going to take a really long time [laughter] i did not practice.

[no audio]

pdr[applause] [applause]

[applause] [no audio]

et÷>> passed by the house 219-7, the president signing this in the east room of the white house. he will head over to the interior department to talk more about health care legislation with a larger group, some 600 expected that the interior department's as you see the president with patrick kennedy. we will have that on c-span 2 this afternoon. the next step for health care is

in the senate and they will take up legislation today and take up the reconciliation package of changes to the health care bill. and this student loan program attached to it. the 20 hours of debate will be ahead in the senate and you can follow that beginning at 2:00 p.m., eastern on c-span 2. [no audio]

[no audio] [no audio]

[no audio] a number of bills in the house are on the agenda including a double bill. live coverage of the house here on c-span. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. the chair will be offered by our chaplain, father coughlin. chaplain coughlin: lord god who ordered the heavens and guides the affairs of humanity on earth, be with the members of this the 111th congress of the united states of america. make known your will for the common good of the nation and reveal your presence in the midst of our activity.

by your spirit renew in all those who have sworn to uphold and defend the constitution, the original enthusiasm, high ideals, positive attitudes, and desire to make a difference that brought them to serve here . banish all indifference and quicken every response in them for the needs of your people an to the challenges of the time. proud to serve, raise them with renewed hope and deepened faith, to man fest the strength of character, the integrity and noble this institution -- nobility this institution deserves. may your divine providence which led them once again renew their presence and help them reflect the genuine goodness and greatness of the american people. by their prayer, honest search

for truth, unified action, and great deeds. so may the people of this nation grow in patriotism and give you the glory 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 his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from pennsylvania, congressman pitts. mr. pitts: i ask our guests in the gallery to please join us in the pledge. 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 pennsylvania rise? mr. pitts: to address the house for one minute. revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pitts: madam speaker, today the liberal editors of the "washington post" state in their lead editorial that the current trajectory of entitlement spending will bankrupt the country. on the facing page, conservative commentator george will calls america's entitlement programs a ponzi scheme, and quote, a teetering tower of unkeepable promises, end quote. indeed, this is the true crisis in american health care. we have already made over $100 trillion in entitlement promises we can't keep. but what congress has just done is not reform. it does not bend the cost curve. it does not reform entitlements. it just makes more promises that it can't keep. obamacare pours gasoline on the fire of our entitlement crisis.

this congress has squandered an opportunity to save and strengthen america's safety net when they should have put on the brakes, they put their foot on the accelerator. we need to repeal this terrible bill and replace it in a bipartisan way with real reform. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: madam speaker, there's a new push to drill for oil in the gulf of mexico. the drill here, drill now slogan is finally sinking in. but the new rigs won't be flying american flags, they'll be russian rigs drilling for oil in the gulf of mexico, right there off our own shores. the russians and the cubans are now in cahoots to drill for oil we should be obtaining. then they'll probably sell it back to us at an incrossed price. we don't drill off our own coast so we have to import more crude oil and it gets worse every year and it's costing

america millions. plus america won't be getting those high dollar rig jobs. we have our own natural resources but refuse to explore them because of the elitists. we are a decade or more away from green technology when we'll all be driving those toy cars that you can buy about a six-pack. but the anti-american energy elite dominate congress and the white house. unfortunately, they'll let us freeze in the dark before they allow offshore drilling. that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. pence: unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: today i had the privilege of welcoming the prime minister of israel, benjamin netanyahu, for his second visit to the united states capitol. the american people consider israel our most cherished ally and we her closest friend and guardian. as we met, israel lives under

the shadow of a threatening neighbor seeking nuclear weapons, but remarkably this administration seems intent on focusing on a controversy over construction in undisputed areas of jerusalem instead of the threat of a nuclear iran. as i just told the prime minister, i never thought i would live to see the day that an american administration would denounce the state of israel for rebuilding jerusalem . if the world knows nothing else, let it know this, america stands with israel. as the president meets with prime minister netanyahu today, i urge the president to stop all this talk about settlements in jerusalem and start focusing on isolating a threatening and menacing and rising nuclear iran. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. pence: the american people and the american congress in both parties support the state

of israel. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. gohmert: thank you, madam speaker. dramatic times require dramatic actions. there's a party of the constitution that hasn't been used since its inception, article 5, the part that says on legislatures of 2/3 of the several states, congress shall call in a convention of proposing amendments. since the 17th amendment took out the last check and balance on use of states' rights, it's time to get the balance back in place. we have 39 states upset wanting to do something and not have another unfunded federal mandate coming down their throats. this will do it.

let's get an amendment that gives the balance back into the country and the constitution before this congress destroys what's left. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the house will stand in recess subject to the call of th

revelation. and the senate parliamentarian will be asked to rule. in some cases you will hear arguments from both sides. another case is the points will

be raised on the floor. and you will have to make a ruling from there. a host of you right to today, a story called gop launches final move against health bill. you start off by writing the gop officially launches its last day of the dance health care reform today. tell us more about this last stand? guest: the president will sign the bulk of the legislation into law today. it is hard to quantify, 99%, 95% of the reform democrats were seeking on their agenda is going to be a done deal and there is nothing anyone can do about it anymore. at least not in terms of blocking. so i think what republicans are looking to do is continue opposing what is left to be done -- both showing constituents, those opposed to the president's health-care agenda, that they have not given up -- continuing to poles and

the health care legislation. a little procedural exercise because they feel the reconciliation bill, as presented so far, does not necessarily adhere to the rules. and i think republicans also believe every day they can talk about health care on the senate floor, and the capital, on television, is a dude -- good day for them politically. and republicans still have designs down the road trying to either adjust or repeal if not portions of the president's bill, but the bill entirely. host: you wrote but senate democratic leadership has been . . amendments, even those that might be politically problematic, november. however, one democratic source said the leadership is still working to ensure no democrats propose amends to their own. do you think you will see democrats bring things to the

table? guest: of it is possible, but the thing about the reconciliation bill, you change one comma or a period and it has to go back to the house for a revote. that is where republicans say they can create problems for democrats and extended health care debate. if a democrat were deposed the amendment, if it were to pass it would have to go to the house for a revote. what democratic leaders are trying to do is preserve the integrity of the bill. harry reid, nancy pelosi, the white house negotiate the contact of the reconciliation package. harry reid guarantee he would have 51 senators to support reconciliation. all it takes to pass. again, any change by the democrats, it causes the house to have to debate the thing over again and revote. we don't know yet democrats will agree not to propose their own

and amendments. i am told it is likely if they did propose an amendment, enough democrats would vote it down that it would not cause a change. so it will be interesting to see, for instance, if any democratic senator chooses to oppose the amendment for a public insurance option, which is still popular in some quarters. democrats are trying to keep their conference unified the same way the republican conference appears to be unified. host: "the philadelphia inquirer" says gop regroups for senate health showdown. "the washington times" let us take at look at that one. the gop fighting mad. and other reports from other outlets like " the new york times" talking about how the health boat is of a partisan debate rages on. do you have a sense of how focus the american public will be on the senate floor? the republicans see this as a chance to gain political points? guest: they do see it as a chance. it will be interesting to see

what the focus is on the senate action, only because the president today will hold a big signing ceremony. it appears that the bulk of the health care reform as the president wanted it will become law. but polls continue to show the public is engaged in the health- care debate, and they are watching what goes on on capitol hill because the unemployment remains high and people are insecure and concerned and they are not pleased with the direction of the country. so i think that republicans believe that if they continue to discuss health care reform it keeps the eye on the ball in terms of things people don't like about democratic leadership. that is being republican position. the and democrats in the senate's -- and democrats in the senate are aware people might be paying attention so that is why their goal is to give it away from procedure and shine a light on all of the benefits that are in the health care reform bill, some of which will kick in

immediately over the next three, six, to nine months and others, of course, which don't kick in until 2014. but it will be a message battle. i think people will continue to be engaged generally. how much they wanted the senate floor fight, that will be interesting all because people, after the watts the president signed the bill, will be aware that the main battle over the white house reform agenda has been one. host: who are the players to watch? guest: i think on the democrat side, kent conrad, but the chairman, harry reid and dick durbin, majority whip. kind of his job to make sure that his members vote the way the leadership would like them to vote. on the republican side, i take a look at judd gregg, the ranking republican on the budget committee. the republican point man for reconciliation, and tried to poke holes.

watch mitch mcconnell, a decent strategist in his own right and republican leader. and jon kyl, the republican whip. the republicans, they already signed a letter, all 41, that they would also bar budget point of order -- and any budget point of order would take 60 votes to over,. democrats only have 59 votes as long as republicans remained unified. host: and democrats that they peel off or is it written stone? guest: i don't think anything is written in stone. but i can't say that senator michael bennett, appointed to replace ken salazar, interior secretary, is standing for election for the first time in colorado. he is a big proponent of the public insurance option. and at least last week when i talked to him was not ruling out the possibility of proposing an amendment to include -- to add a

public insurance option to the reconciliation package. he wanted to see the final outcome in the house to see if the james does mind -- decided since i talked to him not to do >> and that's the debate beginning later today in the senate, c-span2. here on c-span we are waiting for the house to return. they came in briefly at noon eastern and then gaveled back out subject to the call of the chair. the reason is that the democrats are over at the white house. president obama signing the health care legislation today shortly before noon eastern. so when they return the house will likely gavel in. today, a small, small small business jobs bill is on the agenda and a number of other bills as well. we'll have live white house coverage when they return here on c-span. in the meantime, from this

morning's "washington journal," founder and editor, bill crystal. this for a [captions cot national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: mislocate inside the archives here in washington d.c.. -- this is looking into the archives here in washington d.c.. and we welcome bill kristol from the codey standard -- from the "weekly standard". has the government fulfilled its mission to educate the fish -- the people? guest: its vision is not really to educate the people. about 92% of the spending of state and local. and obviously if you go to school in fairfax county, where our kibs@@@@@ @ @

stimulate debate about education and encourage reform and encouraging excellence, some of the same questions asked here were questions that we heard 25 years ago. huddy make sure that kids are getting pushed and get a chance to compete with those around the world and the best opportunities they can. education is not that changed. the good news is that people understand how important education is. the good news is that parents understand how they need to push the school systems. the good news is that every teacher knows how to challenge.

the bad teachers, i think that has changed. some came in and said, we need to fire the bad teachers, the bad principle. and people were shocked. it is controversial when it was talked of, a little bit of tough love in the education establishment. but here we have arne duncan saying similar things to what bill bennett said it 25 years ago when he worked for arnold -- ronald reagan. host: do we still need a department of education? guest: a lot of what the department of education does is send out checks. if. pell grants or -- if pell grantspell grants -- if you get pell grants or student loans, they will be sending you a check.

the federal education department was begun under jimmy carter in 78 or 79, something like that. i think the track of the federal department of education, in all honesty, you will hear it from secretary duncan. one of you asked a question and he says, we have $100 million in the budget for this or that. but it is a trivial amount of spending for total spending. 15 but -- if people think they can go to washington to get their problems solved, they're mistaken. you and your friends need to focus on improving things at the local level and the state level. if the schools in your area are not doing what they should be doing, washington has a limited ability to help. in that respect, the notion that washington is going to fix these things is a trap for people to fall into. host: we are talking about education with bill kristol of the "weekly standard" and also talking about politics and health care. but first, some questions from

the students here. >> i'm from san francisco, california. do you support president obama's plan to pull troops out of iraq by 2011, and if not, what you think is a proper time line? -- what do you think is a proper time line? guest: i have been involved in the iraq debate over the last several years. i think it's terrific that things have taken a turn for the better in iraq kirk -- ever since the surge in early 2007 under general patraeus and general air now. if he says to back it, i trust it. he is not going to risk u.s. troops or u.s. success in iraq by going too fast for drawdown. but i hope that president obama keeps an open mind. i think it is foolish to set an arbitrary number -- 50,000 by sunday, june, 2011. that was just picked out of the

air. if you are fighting a war, and we have sacrificed a lot in that war, and you want to make it come out well, which is important for the middle east and our future, it is foolish to get trapped by some campaign promises for some arbitrary date. if we need to slow down the withdrawa&,@@@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @r i get asked, people introduce me somewhere, there's bill kristol, editor of "the weekly standard." the question is how often do your magazine comes out? once a week. there is the website weeklystandard.com. we have 1,000 print subscribers. people come from the left side to read the material. we're a conservative magazine

started in 1995. i think a little unpredictable in our conservatism sometimes. we supported president clinton on some times and then president obama to send troops to afghanistan. we try not to be simply partisan or predictable. to sene troops to afghanistan. we try not to be simply partisan or predictable. i hope we inform the debate. i think a fair number of conservative politicians look to us to see what the arguments are on some issues, and a lot of liberals i know. the "weekly standard", if only to see what is being argued on the other side. and we also focus on music and history and art, which is a strong focus of the magazine as well. we had a piece just two or three weeks ago by the -- by a leading

iraq expert that has been there several times reporting on what the situation was with the election and what the prospects were and what the challenges are. i encourage you to read it online. host: both of our speakers today have a -- are graduates of harvard. he played basketball. do you? guest: yes, we all play basketball. but i imagine that he and president obama are better basketball players that i am. >> i'm from north carolina and i come from a family of farmers. my dad and i live on a farm and he has a lot of acres and we grow soybeans. i was wondering how the conservative party feels about agriculture in america. it should it stay in america or

go overseas? guest: when you drive through north carolina you do see a lot of family farms. generally speaking, conservatives are pert free trade, -- are pro-free trade, so i do not think it is good to shut ourselves off from that. but it is good to have things that are consumed locally, or nearby. it is one of the good things that americans have done in the last decade, the amazing strength are our culture. we are now producing an amazing amount of food and fewer people are involved in it, which is good for the country as a whole. it allows people to do other things. it is more efficient. but i am no expert on foreign policy or food exports and the like. host: juanita is joining us from

union, missouri with bill kristol of the "weekly standard kik." caller: because of this bill and its cost, i may personally have to sell my home. i think basically what he has done is given a death sentence, basically, to all senior citizens. i'm sorry if people do not agree with me, but he is rationing health care to anyone that is not on medicare. i have a backup insurance, but even at that, it is not going to meet the need. host: thank you. guest: i am an opponent of the obama health care proposal. i do not think it will be good for our country and it will explode the deficit. i hope, in fact, that after the elections of 2010 and 2012, large parts of it can be repealed. this is a democracy and one vote

does not determine our future forever. obviously, bush thought he had put the country on certain patents and president obama has come in and reverse a lot of those paths. in 2010 and 2012 are think some of what obama has done will be rev%rkebs create more regulation and i think make the system even less effective. host: but you're lshed seeing some of the political divide on this issue. democrats today like allen in his report this morning in "politico" is saying that we want the republicans, we encourage them to run in favor of the insurance companies. we welcome that at the bait. so is this a game changer politically for the mid-term elections? guest: i don't think so. i think we've had a pretty long debate. and the american public doesn't like it. now, maybe they'll change their mind maybe that president obama is signing the bill.

i don't see why they should. this is the same bill we have been debating over the year. some of it will go -- that goes into effect is bad. the cuts in medicare advantage which is the supplemental plan that senior citizens can buy will have an effect on senior citizens' ability to have. willy have an effect on what seniors can get. i do not think it is good legislation. but it is a democracy and it is ridiculous, this notion that -- i certainly accept that president obama is entitled to get through legislation that he thinks is important. i think democrats should give room for that. we're not going to just go home and say, i guess we lost about one. we never get to have another argument about health care. that is one of the disturbing

things about the way that president obama addresses it sometimes. he acts as if this will once for -- once and for all and the debate. to many people think it is foolish. to many people think it will -- too many people think it will damage the economy. we will soon see that it is when to explode the deficit. we are already running a big deficit. i predict that we will not implement this health-care bill in the way that it is now past. there will be changes in the next three or four years. host: chris from buffalo, we welcome you to the program. caller: i'm calling about what i would consider a discrepancy, or a bit of hypocrisy on the part of republicans that now they

like to talk about the deficit when they had two wars that were underpaid for, the bush tax cuts that were underpaid for. they created a doughnut hole in medicare. there was no regulation in these financial industries with no congressional oversight when they were in power. all of a sudden in one year, president obama is supposed to be able to fix all of this, and yet, republicans come up with new ideas for these things. but they like to demonize the president for what he is trying to do. guest: republicans made plenty of mistakes. some of them may have been worthwhile expenditures, some not. but that does not justify president obama making mistakes. he has increased the deficit of what appeared that part is just a fact. he hasn't -- he has invested in the economy and some people say that is wise. i think we're running a

dangerously high level of debt. and i think republicans do have alternatives. republicans have proposed various cuts in spending in the long-term and short-term. no one can do away with it immediately. it would be foolish for a candidate to say, let me in the debt is when to go away. -- elect me and that that is going to go away. there is a spending bill that is part of the reform bill for higher education. arne duncan talked about education expenditures. they're not cutting. we are fighting two wars. you can debate whether we ought to be, but here we are. it is tougher times than it used to be. and what happens to@@@@@@@ @ @

now, he believes he's doing the right thing for the country. he's not trying to bankrupt the country. he believes it's important for going into a worse recession. he thinks it's important that we spend this money in certain areas. most of us think we're spending too much and we need to cut and cut some things that sound good but still need to cut. i think that's a real debate that the two parties are going to have over the next few years. host: question right over here. go ahead, please. going to have in the next few years. host: the question right over here. >> i'm from boise idaho. hardee believe the health care bill can be improved? -- how do you believe the health care bill can be improved? guest: that is a complicated answer because it is 2700 pages long.

if a republican president were to come into power in 2013, parts of it could be repealed or abolished. parts of it could be dealt with pretty easily. other parts are going into effect now and people will have to judge and people can decide. some parts are ok. some can be changed or amended to be more consistent with conservative ideas. and we have repealed legislation in this country before. in 1988, legislation was passed that was repealed by the next congress. it is a question that a lot of people are beginning to think about, a lot of republicans and conservatives that and people that do not like this healthcare plan. you cannot just snap your fingers and say, let's pretend. once it begins to go into effect, you ought to figure out to undo certain aspects of it. host: right here. >> with many democrats leaving

office around the nation, how you think this reflects president obama's job that he is doing? guest: it has been an amazing year and one thing you should learn, being in high school, is that most people tend to predict what has been napping -- happening in the last few weeks or months, they tend to project in a straight line. our member at penn state in 1979, they had some good at regional and got to the final four. they lost by 50 points to magic johnson. bush won reelection in 2004 and

republicans held congress in 2004. it was the first time in 80 years that a republican president and a republican congress had been reelected at the same time. everyone, conservatives like me, thought ok, it is a new moment for conservatives to govern. everything fell apart. 2005 and 2006 were disastrous years for the republican party and the administration. host: why is that? guest: the iraq war was going badly, katrina, one thing after another. in 2006, democrats won more seats. and in 2008, president obama. at the beginning, if you had said it, which democrats would win, it would have been hillary clinton. and damned -- and president

obama is on the top of the world. conservatives are in total disarray and it is going to take 10, 20, 30 years for a recovery from the bush administration. suddenly, some of obama's policies are not so popular. in virginia, republicans won the governorship in a state that obama had carried. and of course, scott brown of massachusetts. politics can change quickly in a democracy where people change their minds. people vote for president obama because they do not like bush. and did they say, with a second, i do not know if i signed on to this kind of health-care policy for this kind of foreign policy. it is not fair to say that republicans are not -- are being too confident because president obama is not that popular now or

because democrats are retiring. it does not mean that things could not change again. having said that, given where history is now, republicans may take control of one or both bodies. and that in 2012 becomes@@@@@@@b everyone knows the debt is too high, large portions of the government i think it would be presumably, you guys are so interested in politics. i guess that's why you're here. you know, it's an interesting time to be getting involved and watching what's happening in this democracy. happening in this

democracy. there are some times, you know, things are chugging along peacefully and they do not change that much. there is not that much drama, not that much of conflict -- consequence happening. i think there -- this is a very unusual moment. really, it is up in the air. there's a wide spectrum of possible outcomes two or three years from now in terms of politics and policy. it is a good time to be engaged in the debate. i think republicans will do well in this coming election. it is really key for conservatives like myself to really explain why conservative policies will address these problems -- these policies better than liberal policies. why there were mistakes made in the past and to say, yes, at times conservative policies have not worked. there's no reason the bush administration should have led banks levy themselves 30 to one,

not that others did not have responsibility as well. but we need to be honest about that and present to the american public in 2012 a series agenda for helping the country. host: throughout the year, the close-up program brings students to washington d.c., many first- time visitors to our nation's capital, and we are joined by about 200 students from 10 states. one of the questions, right over here. >> arm from boise, idaho. what are your -- i am from boise, idaho. what are your views on china and how to deal with them? guest: people in washington are supposed to have universal knowledge and have an intelligent opinion about everything, but i can honestly

say that i do not know enough about the chinese currency trading you should ask an actual economist about that. host: york governor in idaho did something that was the first in the nation. anyone in idaho want to respond to what he did and what this means for the health-care debate? >> i thought what he did was -- well, i agree with him. host: tell bill kristol what he did. >> did he say that the mandate to buy insurance against our constitutional rights? host: and he was the first governor to do so. there are 37 states that are likely to fileñi similarly, like in your home state of virginia. guest: the federal government can require certain things. if you get a pell grant you have

to fulfill federal requirements by not doing drugs and assuring the federal government that the moneys were and where it ought to be going. but can the federal government make you buy something? can he tell you you have to have health insurance? it is uncertain constitutionally. there are very few cases like that where the federal government says, you have to buy this good. the federal government does not say you have to have car insurance. they say, if you want to drive a car, the state laws say you ought to be injured. -- insured. there is a big question about whether this mandate is constitutional. and obviously, there are a lot of state attorney general's that will question that. can we trust individuals and families to make intelligent

decisions for themselves? should we help them to buy health insurance if their lower income? yes, i think there's quite a bit of agreement on@@@@@@@@h @ @ @ caller: something that mr. kristol said early on, it was something to the effect of what you do with children that are more academically challenged and at the same time address the needs of those really first -rate academically bright children. really first-rate academic the bright child -- academically bright children. i'm concerned about the attitude

that exists with teachers that have that attitude of, oh, yeah, we have those that are not that academically bright and we have these really first-rate children. shouldn't our education system be addressing the problems of the attitudes that exist that automatically peg some children as not so academically bright and then we have the reliefers rate? you may have said that unconsciously, but you see how that pegs those children? guest: no, i do not think that these markets are better people than the less intelligent or less academically gifted students. i think is foolish to have kids go through public school and have kids who are smarter than my kids and my kids are more academically gifted in other subjects. there are students that can

perform at different levels. should we try to help those that are struggling? absolutely. does it help those who are struggling to draw them into a class that with those who are more gifted? i'm not sure it does. -my sense is that some students benefit more from a high academic, classical education. some benefit more from a vocational education. and we have a diversity -- my impression is -- in our schools of glasses and tort system at least in the bigger public schools. -- in our schools of classes and choices in our school system, at least at our bigger schools. i think we probably should spend more to help those that are struggling. they probably need more help in the way of individual assistance from teachers and that kind of thing. but i also do think it is a problem -- i just say this for

my own experience watching students in different school systems. i think we need to pay attention and help those that need help, i believe that. but we also need to help those who can achieve at high levels academically and sometimes are not challenged. one of the students questioned secretary duncan about this. they sometimes give off and get into disciplinary problems or whatever. in any case, that is not good. if you are talented, you need to develop those talents. the what is the point of being this great, free country if we do not help kids to look the best they can. i think is a concern for all students and we need to seriously try to help all students what we need to provide good opportunities for those who are most academically gifted. host: here's a question in the back. >> i am from boise, idaho.

i have a question relating back to the united states carrying a significant amount of debt. what is your personal solution to paying off the 10 year treasury bonds to china? guest: china is a big topic in boise. something in the water in idaho that makes them more willing to stand up and ask questions. which is good. honestly, the china question is very complicated. the chinese seated in their interest to buy treasury bonds. that is not a bad thing. it is an open market. whether it creates longer-term problems for our country if we are in debt to china for a huge amount of money, i think that is a problem, yes. it is one of the great achievements that we step back and say, two minutes on china because there have been a couple of questions about it. one of the great achievements of

the last 25, 30 years, a little more than your lifetimes, is they have brought hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty in china and india. when i was your age, china was engaged in a horrible internal revolution with tens of millions of chinese killed. of chinese killed. india look like it@@@@@@@ @ a) world and for us we're much better off and the world is much better off with a wealthy rise in china that are poor, desperate, chaotic china. remember the challenge of china and the consequence of success is not a failure. having said that, china does

have an ought krattic, authoritarian government. i'd rather china be like us and when they control the fair amount of u.s. debt, the foreign policy, one can worry they will use that leverage over us in an unfortunate way. use that debt, they could use that as leverage over us. it would be great to see china with more political freedom. if china and india and the u.s. for all free, flourishing liberal democracies, your futures, i think, would be much brighter. china is worrisome because is a -- an unstable political situation because it is governed by this one party that does not have much legitimacy except that they have been doing a good job of keeping economic growth going. but if economic growth slows down, it could go in another direction.

it is right of you all to think a lot about china and to learn a lot about china and india, i would say. your generation is going to be much more focused on asia than mine has, probably. when i went to school, we learned about europe and asia was a secondary thing. for you all, china and india are a large part of the future. host: growing up, many fathers say, and each your meal because their return and india who are starving. -- eat your meal because there are starting children in china and india. now he says, each more meal because -- eat your meal because there is competition. guest: it is an achievement for the world and it is an achievement that the united states can take some credit and develop some pride.

we provided open trading framework in which these countries could attract capital and export goods. again, that costs us sometimes. people lose jobs here because china is exporting goods. from the broader point of view, i think, is a very good thing that china and india have been able to make the progress they have. host: the next call is from compton, california. ida is on the phone. caller: this article is called "return of the neocons." i will tell you about our financial crisis. our crisis is funding israel and fighting wars for them. and now you want to start a draft? everyone knows that aipac controls our congress. you can look on page 147 of the 9/11 commission report that talks about why we were attacked

on 9/11, because of our support for israel and their oppression of the palestinians. guest: we were not attacked on 9/11 because we were supportive of israel. the congress is not controlled by israel. israel has never had any american to fight for israel. we give 3000 in foreign aid -- $3 million in foreign aid every year to israel. maybe we should not give accurate -- give it back. -- maybe we should not give that. host: today, the israeli prime minister is sitting down with the president. what do you think that conversation will be like? guest: i have met them both and they're both impressive, intelligent and proud men who are not used to differing to anyone else in the room. they're both used to being deferred to.

i would like to be a fly on the wall at it. i guess they're not even allowing cameras at all, not even for the handshake at the beginning. obviously, there have been tensions between the obama administration and the netanyahu administration. presumably, they will try to work that out in private. tensions are usually about small things when compared to the threat of a nuclear iran. i hope they focus, honestly come on what we do to prevent this iranian regime from getting nuclear weapons rather than squabbling over a part of -- apartment buildings in a part of jerusalem that is already jewish. is going to be part of israel the matter where the borders are. it is stupid, in my view, of the obama administration to overreact to the surprise. it is an unnecessary fight when they should focus on iran. host: right appear.

>> i'm from oahu. i was wondering about illegal immigration. i am not a bit -- a very big fan of that, but i believe that everyone should be able to live in this country. it is a great country. host: one of the ideas out here is to give those in this country illegally a form of amnesty, to give them a right to citizenship. is that a good idea? >> yes, that is what i'm getting at. it takes 15 years or so for some people to get their green card and i believe that is a very long time so, immigration reform, is it going to take a shorter amount of time to get its back and do you believe it will increase the amount of -- amount of time to get it? and you believe it will increase the amount of time to get it? guest: i'm like you, i have more

liberal views that most conservatives on the immigration issue. i would like to see a way past -- a way to citizenship for those here illegally. to be fair, a lot of people have waited in line for a long time to be -- to be here legally. and there is something unfair of those who jumped the q and got here ahead of them. -- who jumped been queue and got at of them. there are people who have lived here, paid their taxes here, voted here, they should have first consideration at those jobs. i think it is a very tough issue. i am pleased that the motions have receded a little bit on the issue. i am a bit surprised that president obama says he is going to make this a priority to the degree that he plans to.

i cannot believe that congress can pass immigration reform in 2010 and i do not think it's healthy to raise it if you will not solve the issue. you will inflamed the debate and not get much done. i know it is unfashionable of me to say this, but maybe it is better to leave the issue alone for a while. let's let the economy come back a little bit and let's see if we can't get some bipartisan decision that's on the immigration. enjoy the rest of your way. >> waiting for the u.s. house to gavel back in. members will plan debate and votes on several bills, including one that will provide tax incentives to help small businesses gain capital while spurring infrastructure projects. also this week, $5 billion in

disaster relief. and next week they'll have their spring recess. a number of them have been at the bill signing. president obama signing the health care bill a short while ago at the white house. now that debate on the reconciliation package, the changes to the bill, moves on to the u.s. senate. and they're in this afternoon at 2:15 eastern live on c-span2. >> which president was buried wrapped in an american flag and a copy of the constitution under his head? andrew johnson. find these and other presidential facts in c-span's newly updated book "who's buried in grant's tomb?" >> it's a guide book to travel on, if you will. it's also a mini history work of biography of each of these presidents. let's face it, you can tell a lot about people at the end of their lives. >> a resource guide to every presidential gravesite. the story of their final