the report shows how the laws making it harder to and the spending that threatens our children's future. when you look dollar by dollar, the numbers do not add up. with 10% unemployment and massive debt, the american people want us to focus on cutting spending. that is what repealing the health care law is all about. i hope that the house will act next week to repeal the job killing health care law said that we can get started on replacing it with common-sense reforms that will reduce the cost of health insurance in america. >> we have a clear determination to fix what is wrong in washington. in so doing, we hope to be able to deliver results for the american people and get this economy going again so more people can get back to work.

we believe that a significant impediment to job growth in this company has been the existence of the obama-care law. that is why we are taking action, and next week we will see a resolution to repeal the job-killing obama-care law so that we can demonstrate that we are dead serious about cutting the disincentives in this town to job growth across this country and began to once again grow the economy so that more people to get back to work. >> questions? >> by taking this repeal to the floor of the committee hearing, you promise $100 billion of spending cuts in the first year. also, tea party activists are

talking about this. >> have promised a more open process. i did not promise every single bill would be a more open bill. as i said yesterday, we went through a whole congress, two years, without one open rule. as i said yesterday, there will be many open rules. second, when it comes to repealing health care, we made it clear going back to last spring after the bill was passed that it ought to be repealed and replaced with common-sense reforms to lower the cost of health insurance. we outlined on september 24, when we put the pledge to american out there, our commitment to the american people that we would repeal this job-killing bill. at the american people understand this bill. the members of congress all get a chance. they have had to debate it during their collections, they have had the chance to discuss it, and the fact is the

committees are not constituted yet and we want to begin action. i believe it is fair. when it comes to spending, you'll remember that we called for the 2008 spending levels to be enacted going back to august in a speech that i gave in cleveland, ohio. on september 24, we made clear that we want to go back to 2008 spending levels. if we had been able to move on september 24, we would have been able to go back to 2000 spending levels. but we are halfway through the year. i will say this, we will meet our commitment to the pledge in this calendar year, no ifs, ands, or buts. >> the democrats are upset that within the gop rules, there appears to be a rule to allow paul ryan to set the budget level for the next fiscal year. it talked to the ordinary american about why it is

possible for that without a democratic vote? >> the democrats in the house last year did not pass a budget, did not pass any appropriation bills, which left us in a position where there is no spending limit under the law. between now and the time that a new budget is enacted by the house, someone has to set spending limits. under our rules, we decided the chairman of the budget committee was in the best position to do that. but it is only in effect until the new budget is enacted. >> you put out a statement on the debt limits. it could be more specific about what you need to see happen in spending to pass the house and could you envision them not voting on that early this year? >> as you are aware, the limit

issue was out there. the reason we asked to increase the debt limit was because washington continues to spend more money than what we bring an. -- bring in. if the house is going to move an increase on the debt limit, i think we have responsibility to cut spending and make changes in the process by which we spend people's money. i think it is irresponsible to try to deal with a debt limit without taking corrective action so that we're not facing this each year. >> he said the committees are not constitute the yet. why not just wait a couple weeks, go through the regular process? we have heard criticism, people say this is bad pr. >> it is no surprise to you and it should be no surprise to our democratic colleagues or the american people that we want to repeal the health care law yo.

this is in the way of what the american people want, which is a better chance of getting a job. >> will include a ban on insurance companies with preexisting conditions? >> we have called for the repeal of the health care law and replace it with common-sense reform to bring down the cost of health insurance. we will bring with the result -- we will deal with a resolution instructing the committees with jurisdiction to combat with their ideas about what those replacements all to look-alike. -- all to look like. senate does not even have to take up the bill. what is the point of going

through this process? >> we made the commitment to the american people. we are listening to the american people. they want this bill repealed, and we will repeal it. we will do everything we can never the course of however long it takes to stop this because it will ruin the best health-care system and the world, bankrupt it, and ruin our economy. no, i do not. i believe it is our responsibility to do what we said we would do, and i think it is clear to the american people that the best health-care system and the world will go down the drain if we do not act. >> the congressional budget office announced that repealing the health care bill will add at $230 billion to the debt. are you worried about the signal when you've got to cut the debt at the first major legislative action that you'll take will increase the debt? >> i did not believe that repealing the job-killing health

care law will increase the deficit. the cbo is entitled to their opinion, but they are locked within the constraints of the 1964 budget act. even the actuaries at the centers for medicare and medicaid have made clear this bill will not save the kind of money that was predicted earlier. >> what should the world expect of this congress? what be a return to partisanship and bickering at the beginning of the 2012 race or will be more productive? >> i am hopeful that all parties have listened to the voters in the election, and if everyone in washington is listening to the american people, i think there's an awful lot we can accomplish. at the american people have said there is too much spending, get it under control. i would hope that the senate and my friends at the lighthouse heard the same message that i heard. at second, the american people

said we want the economy fixed. we know that spending hurts the economy, we know the job- killing health care law hurts the economy. these are the things the american people expect of us. >> with the legislation of your own, how the move forward if you do not trust what the cbo says? >> the cbo can only provide a score based on the assumptions that are given to them. if you go back and look at the health care bill, and the assumptions that were given to them, you will see all of the double counting that went on. you will see the fact that documents that were not part of the bill. this is why the cms has made clear they did not believe the passage of this law will in fact bring savings to the

american people. >> if you disagree with the cbo and think it will save money, why were republicans not more clear about your requirements that any bill be offset? >> if you believed that repealing obamacare was going to lower the deficit, have to have some way to offset the spending. i do not believe anybody in this town believes that repealing obama-care will increase the deficit. at last one. >> whenever bill that you use to replace the bill, will you bring in a health care bill? >> we will let the committees do their work on how we should replace this and what the common-sense reforms will be. they will have hearings. it will be a bipartisan process.

we will see what they come back with. thank you all. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> house republicans are moving ahead to repeal what they called the job-killing health care law. the debate begins on friday. watch all the debate on c-span, and view the bill on line at c- span.org. the c-span network, providing coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history, all available on television, radio, online, and social media networking sites. find the content any time at the c-span video library. we bring our resources to your community. it is washington your way, the c-span networks, now available in more than 100 million homes, created by cable, provided as a public service.

>> president obama today named bill daly as his new speaker -- william daley as his white house chief of staff. here is today's announcement at the white house. this is about 10 minutes. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> please have a seat, everybody. happy new year. last october when it rahm emanuel departed to pursue other opportunities in chicago, i asked pete rouse, one of my most trusted aides, to step into the breach and lead us into a difficult time.

i also asked him to help us think about how the white house should be structured and run over the next two years. thanks in no small part to his efforts, a time that everyone thought would be one of retrenchment turned out to be one of great progress for our country. his leadership is all the more remarkable when to consider when i first met him, and i asked him to lead, he told me in that gruff voice of his, his strong inclination was to leave government. [laughter] [applause] so -- the reason everybody is applauding is because they have heard him say that every day. he has said that every day for the last six years. and yet each time i have asked him to accept one more assignment, he has saddled up and taken the job. it is fair to say i would not be where i am today without his

extraordinary council. pete did not volunteer to serve as interim chief of staff. he made it clear that was not his preference, but he accepted the responsibility. and as he oversaw our strategy during the lame-duck session of congress, he was also working to develop a structure and plan for the next two years that i believe will serve the white house and the american people very well. one of those assignments was providing the recommendations for candidates to serve as chief of staff moving ford. as part of that process, today i am proud to announce the appointment of an experienced public servants, devoted patriot, my friend, fellow chicagoan, bill daley, to serve as my chief of staff. [applause]

few americans can boast the breadth of experience he brings to the job. he served as a member of president clinton's cabinet as commerce secretary and took on several other import duties over the years on behalf of our country. he has been chief of major corporations. he possesses a deep understanding of how jobs are created and how to grow our economy. and needless to say, he also has a smidgen of awareness of how our system works. you might say that it is a genetic trait. most of all, i know bill to be somebody who cares deeply about this country, believes in its promise, and considers no calling higher and more important than serving the american people. he will bring his tremendous experience and strong values and forward-looking vision to this

white house. i am convinced he will help us and our mission of ground the economy and moving america forward, and i look very forward to working with bill and years to come. before i asked bill to say a few words, a shuttle to confess that i have prevailed once again on pete's sense of duty, or sense of guilt, i am not sure which, and i am grateful that he has agreed to one more toward of duty as my counselor for the next two years. -- one more to four of duty as my counselor for the next two years. [applause]

as you might have noticed, people like pete. he is a unique and indispensable asset to me and this administration. i cannot imagine life here without him, and i told him so. and i am delighted that we are able to keep him a little longer. i would making further announcements in the days and weeks ahead, and i am absolutely confident that will have a great team that is equal to america's tasks in theica's years to come. with that, i'd like to introduce my new chief of staff, bill daley. [applause] >> thank you. much.you very thank you so much.

thank you. thank you very much. president.mr. thank you very much, mr. president, mr. vice president. you have honored me and my family by giving me an opportunity to serve you and to serve our nation. 50 years ago, i visited the white house with my parents. my brothers and sisters visited a young president who went on to show great strength, leadership, and vision in the face of enormous challenges in those times. mr. president, you have proven your strength, leadership, your vision during a most difficult time for our nation and for the world. you have also shown through your example that public service is an honorable calling, and i am pleased to answer your call. i look forward to working with the wonderful staff that you have assembled, and i know my

job will be made easier by the great work and direction of pete rouse. the great direction he has provided and that the president talked about, the enormous successes under pete's watch. he has dedicated his life to public service and to our nation, and i am grateful for his efforts and i am proud to call him my colleague. i share with you, mr. president, as they have done in the last two years, that this team will not let you down or the nation. thank you very much for this extreme honor. [applause]

>> tomorrow morning on the washington journal -- on of " washington journal," we will discuss the new congress. it begins live with your phone calls at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c- span. >> i think news organizations have adapted. is a great that overall we are probably not doing as much domestic news? but the public bear some responsibility, also. the public bears responsibility of keeping themselves informed. >> sunday, martha raddatz looks at the wars in iraq and afghanistan and the political, strategic, and personal levels at 8:00.

the new chairman of the house budget committee, paul ryan, sat down for an interview with the wall street journal. they talked about the budget deficit and republicans relationship with the president. from the national press club, this is one hour. >> let me ask you to take your seats, and i will do an introduction and turnover. from wisconsin, the first half of the session will be on the packers' prospects on saturday and wisconsin's unfortunate defeat, culminating a big week for the big 10. at least wisconsin made a

competitive. i edit "the weekly standard," but i am also on the board of these organizations. one of the sponsors is the manhattan institute. i am a also a relatively inactive member of the board, so i get to do the introduction and leave. listen, i should say, of course. listen attentively. but you all know it is a very fine think tank in new york. it was probably best known for its contribution to the policy ideas which mayor giuliani implemented in the 1990's, and many other mayors and governors took the lead on in the 1990's. in the last few years, they have done terrific work on the state pension crises.

and also on the fiscal crisis, the financial crisis. they are happy to be a sponsor of the institute. they're dedicated to innovative public policy ideas. both websites are really worth going to each morning. sign up and get the e-mail from them to save yourself having to find them each morning. i honestly recommend that to keep up on the economic policy debate, both at the state level and the federal level. both are worthwhile. we are pleased that we will have a series of conversations

with major public figures, and the conversation will be moderated and led by another major figure. it will have mitch daniels and a month and other governors and senators, actually, and other political leaders who have consented to do this. it is terrific to kick off with paul gigot and paul ryan. at the their needs and the introduction. bestgigot wrote the column and washington for the wall street journal from 1998- 1991, and -- from 1988-2001, and he has been editor of the journal. paul ryan came to washington in 1988 as a 7-year-old -- [laughter] yeah, he came as a young member of congress. it hard to believe that he just

entered his seventh term as a republican member of the house from wisconsin, now chairman of the budget committee, obviously a crucial position to have. he was already crucial for his intellectual leadership, and not institutionally as well as for what happens in the next the years with fiscal and budgetary policy. i will turn over to paul gigot and paul ryan. >> it is a great pleasure for me to be here. it is a pleasure to be here with congressman ryan. the plan today is we will talk about 40 minutes and then we will open up for questions. before we get into the details of the budget year and the debate, let me ask you to think ahead two years, to 2012. >> the packers will have their second super bowl ring by then. >> you are more optimistic than

i am, i am afraid. but you are running for reelection, you want to present to the voters what you have accomplished. thinking ahead, what is it that you want to tell the voters, show the voters that you have done in these two years? >> that is an import question. what i hope we will have done is have been responsible. we will conduct ourselves with humility. we will have work with president obama on occasion where we find common ground on issues to get things done for the country. but at the end of the day, and 2012, -- in 2012, i think there are large chasms of government philosophies that will not be bridged. i feel that we owe it to the country to give them a choice, an alternative future for the country. by 2012, hopefully americans will have in front of them a very clear choice to make.

on the one hand, it will be the future of what we have in front of us right now. based on the current objective we are on, based on all the government that has been created in the last two years, had been proceeding that, from both political parties, which is putting ads on a path of debt ruin, which is putting us on a path of being more like a social welfare state. that is the path we are on today. hopefully we will give the choice of a different feature where we reclaim the american idea, embrace american essentialism -- exceptional listen, and we are priced -- and we read apply the principles and we have a debt-free nation, prosperous economy, and opportunity with a safety net as opposed to a welfare state. and give the country a choice. i believe that we will win that

referendum and therefore have the moral authority and the opportunity in 2013 to make good on that vision, to reapply these principles and fix these things. it is also important that they see us as that, party of growth and opportunity, not crony capitalism. we have fallen into that party track before, that we believe in being pro-market, not necessarily pro-business. so what we believe then is a system and society where everybody has the chance to make the most with their lives and that we have prosperous, growing, internationally growing economy where people have a bright future. we know for a vote irrefutable fact we're getting the next generation and inferior standard of living based on the future we

have right now. we just created two new open entitlements. give the next generation higher living standards. t>> he did not mention any specific legislative achievements, necessarily. he suggested the main goal, as you look at two years from now, you think there is anything legislatively that you really want to have done? >> i think for that to take place, we have to define ourselves with our action. we have to draft and pass legislation in the house to frame that choice, accomplishments we want to have by then? it is difficult to have that question because we did not know what the president will want to sign into law or not. the way that i hope this goes is the president -- i think the

triangulation, whatever you want to college, is a foregone conclusion. he has to come to the middle to get some things done to work with house republicans. hopefully he will say on a, b, c, let's do these things. hopefully some spending cuts, trade, spending reforms, and we do those things. but on x, y, z, repeal of the health care law -- so we will still advance legislation doing these x, y, z things. at the end of two years, the people of this country have a have a clear choice. >> but you have to take care of the budget, fiscal 2011, and then pass the budget legislation. you are taking over it to committee with spending of gdp is about 25%.

the deficit is about 10%, roughly, and the deficit is about one $0.20 -- $1.2 trillion. is there tangible progress? >> we will get our first bunch of numbers at the end of this month. i think the president submits his budget february 14. then we get another set of numbers from cbo in march. that is where we see where we are and what kind of deficit targets we can hit. yes, i expect in the spring, probably april, when the deadline is hit. in april, we'll have a budget resolution which will map out how we will do things differently, what are fiscal prescription for the country it will be.

containing, controlling, cutting spending, but also growing the economy to get an opportunity, prosperity, and jobs back in the economy. those will be in the budget resolution. the technical part of the budget resolution that is necessary is fiscal year 2012 discretionary spending. that is where the government shut down scenarios come into play. will have a lower number, probably lower than the fourth president. of the course of the summer and into the fall, -- over the course of the summer and into the fall, will have to negotiate a resulting number that comes out of that for discretionary spending to continue. >> first you have to deal with fiscal year 2011. you have probably heard the democrats criticizing you for backtracking on the $100 billion reduction campaign promise. could you respond to that charge? >> if people think we are afraid

of cutting one of a billion dollars, they have another thing coming. -- if people think we are afraid of cutting $100 billion, they have another thing coming. when we said we would bring down to 2008 levels, that was part of that. what has happened since then? the c.r. occurred. >> continuing resolution. >> and to things that happened sincet happened. he c.r. itself brought spending down, and have the fiscal year's spending has gone and out the window. hitting the spending target we have pledged to hit in the pledge to america now scores at around $60 billion, not $100 billion. so the savings estimates of our policy in october was one of a billion dollars. now have the money is out the door because of the c.r. it is not a backtrack of policy.

the republican policy has stayed the same. >> is it fair to say that the $100 billion, that is just a down payment? >> wait until we do it the fiscal year 2012 spending bills and the budget resolution. we will keep going. >> the discretionary accounts, you think that you could get a lot of that. does that include defense? >> yes, we have caps. you cannot throw $700 billion at the government and not expect weast to occur. >> you would reduce that? >> i would reduce the entire cap. iand then we would prioritize. i don't try to do the job of the appropriations committee. they are guarded about their

jurisdiction. the way i look at defense spending, first, let me say something that think might be counter to what you thought i would say, i would want that to be at a peace dividend budget, but we're not at peace. at second, there is waste at the pentagon and we have to go after that. we have to save money in the dod budget. >> any specific examples? >> there is lots of waste in operations and management accounts and procurement as well. about any particular programs? -- >> any particular programs? >> i have opinions but i will keep and to myself right now. i want to go after the waste, get the savings and the pentagon, and put that back into defense spending to prevent supplementals. what we typically do it is passed a defense appropriations bill, and we pass a supplemental

on top as if it is an emergency that we don't know we are in afghanistan. i would rather see savings occur from within the pentagon budget by cleaning up the books at the pentagon and then putting that back into the pentagon to reduce the need to have the supplement pills which occur outside of the budget and on top. to me that is the better way to go. we need to force government to prioritize from within. and let's recognize the fact we cannot have a peace dividend at a time when we are not at peace. >> what kind of magnitude are you talking? where is the 2008 target still -- >> 2008. that your talking about lower? >> i am talking about more savings coming into the budget. i cannot give you the numbers because i do not have the cbo baseline. but we will continue cutting spending after this current fiscal year expires. >> the other big question, it

york on to reduce spending, are the entitlement accounts -- medicare, medicaid, social security. will you include those and reductions in those, reform and those? >> i literally do not know the answer to that question. what everybody seems to think these days, gosh, i am the chairman, i could just make my road map to the budget resolution. that is not how it works. i wrote the road map from 2008- 2010, to reach the consensus of one person, myself. i now have to reached a consensus of 218 people, the majority of the republican caucus. it is difficult to say, especially since i don't have the baseline, but we have to deal with entitlements. what we will do, we are launching lots of hearings on

entitlements at ways and means, lots of hearings at the budget committee on entitlements. the commerce committee will do hearings on entitlement reforms. it will bring governors ought to tell us about the reforms. we will look at medicaid solutions, all parts of the federal budget. nothing is going to be immune from oversight and from hearings, so we can get the best ideas to try to figure out how to get this turned around. ultimately, you cannot fix or preempt the debt crisis without dealing with entitlements. we have to take some sizable steps in that direction. >> so your argument will be that we must do something about the medicaid, medicare, and social security in this to your time frame, despite the fact the president is a democrat and the senate -- >> i look at the three of those in the same sentence. at the debt commission, social security reform should not be a

function of deficit reduction or debt reduction. social security reform should be to fix and reform social security. whether or not we do social security reform, i don't know the answer to that. i'd love to see if the president wants to engage in that dialogue. i don't know the answer. >> would you recommend it? >> the last budget that i wrote in the minority, but modest social security reforms in there. -- i put my best to socials kurta reforms in there. >> would you like to see that? >> i would. i think it is one of the policy options we should consider given this at fact that states are so different from each other. it is leading to state in solvency and contributing to their fiscal problems. >> what do you think the prospects of that happening are? >> in the interim, i think that

holds the best promise. i think social security and medicare reform will take longer to achieve, because i don't think this issues are there yet. because of the divided government that we have. >> medicare is obviously the most politically difficult -- >> i am familiar with that. >> not only because of the difficult politics, but the case your party ran against the medicare cuts as part of the health care reform. so has that complicate your task this year? >> if you look at what we said, we were against taking $522 billion of medicare money to create another government program that did not do anything towards helping solvency.

a lot of republicans drop that last sentence and were just for cutting. >> imagine that. >> but taking $522 billion to create another in totten that was a bad idea. medicare is going broke. the biggest fiscal problem of all of them, i believe we need to make down payments on medicare reform. >> in these two years? >> i will have hearings from the budget committee on this. i don't know if we have consensus on this. i don't know whether we will be moving legislation on this, but i think it is something we need to consider and talk about. >> you are young, but you are still old enough to remember 1995, 1996, when the republicans -- i think you were an aide at the time, newt gingrich was the

speaker at the time he pushed dramatic reforms in entitlements, medicare and medicaid in particular, and they were the party's and doing politically, -- they were the parties on doing politically. >> that is the historical view right now. >> i think a lot of members of the party think that. so the question is, what is different politically now to make you think he could make the same kinds or similar reforms and survive politically? >> because the economic day of reckoning is right around the corner. because the tens of trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities are in front of us. medicare is going insolvent later in the decade, and

medicare is the greatest cause of our debt problems. because the baby boomers start retiring this year, we're going from approximately 40 million retirees to approximately 80 million retirees. we are increasing the benefit by 100%, but we're only increasing the texting generation by 17% to pay for these programs. we have a looming insolvency. if you look at the gao unfunded liability figure, the general accountability office, it was 62.9 trillion dollars. it is not 88.4 trillion dollars this year. we are going that much deeper into whole, that much faster. after the 1996 medicare imbrue political football -- after the 1996 medicare political football issue, this bipartisan commission, that recommended

some innovative reforms to medicare that would have put it on a path towards solvency. we co-authored some reforms that are innovative that put medicare on the way to solvency. a commission advocated medicare reforms and put it on the path to solvency. let me tell you what the road map does on medicare. what people like me have been saying is let's guarantee that current seniors with the medicare benefits they have coming towards them, people have already retired or near retirement. if you are under 55 years old, guess what, it will not be there for you. you'll have to severely and deeply ration medicare to seniors at that time if we keep the program going as it is, and

the new law puts a lot of these rationing mechanisms in place. >> my guess is that if you put a question of the it -- if you put a question to the american public about this, saying that these are real and if there understood, would you favor reductions in medicare spending in the future, you would get 60%, 65% against. but you have a significant technology and education hurdle in front of you? >> we do, but we will never fully fix the budget situation without addressing medicare. whether we do with this year or next, i don't know the answer, but we have to keep talking about this. whether we pass legislation, i don't know, but we cannot stop talking about it. >> is this the kind of major change that you need

presidential support for? >> i think so, for either party. >> to actually accomplish? >> yes. >> so with the president says, don't touch medicare, which just took $500 billion out of it to put to health care reform, then the republicans, should they marched into the fixed bayonets, politically? how many sponsors do you have? >> i have not reintroduced it. i was not looking for co- sponsors. i cannot tell you whether we will push comprehensive medicare reform and the budget or not, but we will be talking about it. will be doing hearings on it. i will be personally advocating my own legislation and outside of my role as budget chair. >> ok. let me ask you about the

president. the last time we talk after the election, you were pessimistic about the degree of cooperation you would get from the president as the republicans move forward on their agenda. since then, you have the tax deal, which was something that you supported, and it passed with big majorities in both houses. did that negotiation the judah think that perhaps the president will move more dramatically than you thought, on more items or you could actually get things done? >> that does not lead me to think that because that is something he had to do. he did not have a choice of the matter. >> why? >> because of the votes and the date. the tax increase clip was happening, anybody, whether you are keynesian a classical economist, would argue that it would do damage to the economy. he had to do this, plus the

votes just were not there for his school of thought, i would say. he had to do that. i don't look at tax deal as necessarily a sign of things to come with respect to cooperation. i believe, i would like to think we will have cooperation on some issues, but i think days -- i think those will be more the exception than the rule. >> you mentioned trade. what else boxed -- what else? >> hopefully spending reforms. budget limits, budget caps, but reforms perhaps. i have a line item veto bill that i've had with democrats in the past. >> you want to push that? >> yes, that is among the things. >> does the leadership support that? >> they always have. >> out where else can you get agreement with the president? >> i am curious what he will do

with immigration reform, whether it will be a political issue or try to get things done on that. two years as a long time of not doing anything. obviously, the priority is getting the border under control, but we have all these other issues in the immigration law that have to be addressed, and that is also for economic reasons. i wonder out loud, talking to john mccain yesterday, and he seems to think there is a shot at this, i don't know if it is possible or not. energy policy as well. i would like to thank -- i would like to think that somewhere this administration would allow us to explore for domestic energy supplies. >> what you have to get? >> more natural gas than oil. i don't think that he will open at outanwar, but i think natural gas, that is cleaner burning -- i don't think he will open up anwar, but hopefully energy

legislation and natural gas. epidemic is the price for that that would have to give green energy subsidies? >> my opinion, no. >> so you are going after that, subsidies for wind? so you still think he may compromise on energy? >> i don't know, but i think there is a chance of it. >> what about tax reform? you have talked about this for a long time. dave camp has talked about it, even charlie rangel supported in the last congress a cut in the tax rate from 35% down to 30%. so the president may have headed at this -- the president may have hinted at this. it is that something?

>> we will see what he says in the state of the union address. i think so. most people -- i have been involved in tax reform for a long time, but they all involve broadening the base and lowering the risk. so how you do that matters greatly with respect to our competitiveness, but i would like to think we can get a consensus on broadening the base and lowering their rates to make the tax code more competitive. i hold out some hope that there is a shot at some actual -- maybe not wholesale fundamentals, but hopefully a good step in the right direction to make the tax code more internationally competitive. >> would you support a more narrow flat tax, lower the corporate tax rate, and reduce some? >> yes.

>> how do you feel that goes with the caucus? >> i think generally speaking, pretty well. my own tax reform bill basically does that. the budget that i brought to the floor last session. the corporate rate down to 25%, investor based broadening measures. it has already been in the caucus. we have to confront the continent. i have been on ways and means now for 10 years, and the tax expenditure lobby has an interest in this. they succeeded pretty well and protecting those interests through both political parties. we have to confront that. if in 2012 we do our job right, we're looking out for the american people. we are looking out for the american economy. we're not looking out for narrow special interests that have this tax code carved out that serves as a barrier to entry.

we want growth, competition, lower barrier to entry. it won a haven for capital formation in this country, -- we want a haven for capital formation in this country, not some other country. >> there is a debate a lot about how to handle the debt ceiling. i think the president today submitted his formal request that the debt ceiling be raised. it will have to happen sometime this spring, some people disagree about the timing, but sometime in the next few months. there are a lot of republicans making this almost into a moral issue, saying i will refuse to vote for a debt ceiling increase without major spending reforms. >> i am glad to hear that. i am in the major spending reform camp. >> what do you think about that

strategy? >> just refusing to vote for it, i don't think that is really a strategy. i believe -- i don't want to rubber-stamp big government in raising the debt ceiling. do i want to see this nation default? no, but i want substantial spending cuts and controls in exchange for raising the debt ceiling. that is related. it is not unrelated. so i believe if we're going to do this, which obviously you cannot default, we need to have some real fiscal fixes to do that. this is very serious. it is something we care a lot about, and we will not turn the fiscal ship around overnight, but we want to point in the right direction. the debt ceiling is not dealing with current spending, it is old spending. it is the recklessness of the

past. >> but it is your watch. >> doesn't have to be raised what -- does it have to be raised? default is not the alternative. we did not want to just pass some naked debt ceiling increase. we want to have real fiscal controls, or spending cuts in order to do that. >> the former senator phil gramm once told me one of his political roles was never to take a political hostage you are not prepared to shoot. you have to pass a debt ceiling increase. so that is a hostage you are not prepared to shoot, because she cannot. how was that a winning strategy? >> how long will we raise it for? two years, one year? there are lots of ways of doing it that could speak to our strategy. i don't like negotiating in the media on how we will propose

this issue, but republicans are not interested in just a naked debt ceiling increase it. >> you well want something in return. >> at a minimum. >> what you what remains to be negotiated. >> exactly. >> if the president refuses and says you guys are irresponsible, you are wrecking the full faith and credit of the united states and that is irresponsible -- >> i think it is irresponsible if he refuses to sign a bill and country defaults. but it is his choice. >> but you think you could do that when he has the bully pulpit? >> we are on the stage right now, are we? >> i am a local journalist. he has the bully pulpit. >> what we really do not like is runaway spending that is bankrupting this country. we want to see the fiscal

direction of this country change. the debt ceiling is a symptom of the fact that the fiscal policy is way off track. we want to do some things that it was pointed in the right direction as the debt ceiling increase occurs. the letter this morning said march 31-may 16. there is an effective time frame. nobody really knows the answer. it is receipts and expenditures and things like this that are a little on forseen. we're not interested in a naked debt ceiling increase. >> ok, another issue that is likely to come up is the fiscal position of the states. there are a lot of them, including major states, and very tough fiscal positions, big deficits, and there is a prospect one or more of them will come to you and say we cannot avoid truly awful cuts in services without help from the

federal government. what is your response? >> california, we cannot do a bailout. if we bail out one state, then the other states is not just implied, it is almost explicitly put on the books. then the federal debt will go way up because of state debt. there seems to be some implicit belief that these are federally backed. they are not. it is important. i am a supporter of the nunes bill which is asking for more clear accounting. if you want to enjoy a tax free bonds at the state or municipality, give us a clear accounting of the liabilities. they have discount rates of something like 8%, which is just not reality. a, let's get more clear accounting, and b, we will have lots of hearings on this.

we need to learn more about what states are in what situations, what are the timing of these things, and what the proper response is. i have been working on something myself on what i think would be the proper federal response, but we're not interested in a bailout. >> so this is a flat "no." what if some states say they are in danger of default? >> they are already telling us that. >> take it somewhere else? >> should taxpayers in frugal states be bailing out taxpayers in other states? going to become a frugal state, but we have not been one. it should taxpayers in indiana who have paid their bills on time, should they be bailing out californians who have not? no, we should not and that is a moral hazard we're not

interested in creating. >> you have probably heard some democrats say and repeal of the health care bill, there will be a big hit to the deficit increase. what do you think of that idea, and why did you exempt the repeal from the new budget rules that make it impossible under the rules, at least, to increase the deficit? the only reason why anybody suggest that this will reduce the deficit is because the books have been severely cut. it is not the cbo that did the book cooking. the cbo has to score what you put in front of them. if you put a bill in front of them that ignores the discretionary cost of $115

billion. that double counts the medicare savings. that double count the social security revenues. that does not count the fix. if you add all that stuff up and net it out, we are talking about a $7.10 billion whole. if you actually do real accounting and get away from the budget gimmicks, this is a huge deficit increaser. it is better than accepting all of the budget debt -- budget gimmicks that democrats used to cram this into law. this thing will not reduce the deficit. i am very confident in saying that. that is not reality. >> will you seek a we score from the cbo? >> we got one yesterday or this morning. it is about the same as it was

before -- $145 billion. we are going to ignore these budget gimmicks. the press has been hitting us on this. we are bringing it up under a closed rule this week. we promised the american people that we would do this. i have a notion that if you say you are going to do something, you do it when you are in office. we said we would bring up a straight up and down vote to repeal this health care law. what are we doing? that is what we are doing in office. we do not think we should be paying for the repeal of a law that we believe will increase the budget deficit by $700 billion over the next 10 years. i get a little animated. >> fair enough.

[laughter] he mentioned that you want to have a growth agenda. >> if yes. a lot of things that are a necessity you have to do as budget chairman is through reducing this and reducing that. the danger, i suppose, politically is you become -- you get a reputation for austerity. the president takes the high ground and says he is the growth died. we need spending for investments and growth. i am the growth candidate. you began to look small and austere. you are the national accountants. how do you avoid that? obviously read rick is part of that. what do you do to be able to avoid that austerity level?

>> it will be on the budget itself. let's focus on the foundations of we need for economic growth. i am not one of these people do things you can scratch some big bill with a magic silver bullet and turn the economy around. lower tax rates -- that is something we can do with a budget resolution. in your resolution, you assume whatever tax policy you will have going for. tax reform is number one. it is a key ingredient to economic growth. we need to go after regulations. that is not something you do on the budget, that is something you do on the other committees. we need regulatory uncertainty. we need businesses to understand what the rules are. we need fair, honest, efficient , a transparent regulations. that is the second thing we ought to address to get growth in this economy.

we also need to become the party of sound money. our money has to be honest and reliable to our values. we have a federal reserve and a monetary policy that is anything but sound. >> that implies you are going to bring up chairman ben bernanke and talk about monetary policy. >> i am sure ron paul has a few plans of his own. [laughter] >> are you going to push your bill for the dual mandate? you want to see the boat for that in this congress? >> if yes. >> if you vote to get a bill on the floor. >> i have to do that, yes. >> what else? >> we need to focus on these foundations. we need to do the things we think are important to get growth in this economy and make ourselves better as america.

trade, led tax rates, sound money, as our resident -- sell regulations -- that is what we need to make us internationally competitive. some of these things are other bills will have to pass. i would also attack on top of that an energy policy that creates jobs here at home, makes us less dependent on foreign oil, lower our commodity prices, and lowers our fuel prices. these are the things we need to do to have growth. yes, we need to cut spending. >> we want to open it up for questions. >> it is important that we are the growth party. cutting spending now is really not a root canal. wait until we do not do that and what happens later. the question we have for this country is, do we reform government, reform our entitlement programs, getting

these programs to work in the 21st century, and have a growth policy that makes our businesses internationally competitive -- that is growth. what austerity is, is doing nothing and having our own debt crisis and our own european kind of a fixed where we are raising taxes on the current economy to slow it down. the question we still cannot answer is do we have a pro- growth policy to get us going again? without economic growth, you cannot fix this budget problem. or do we manage load segment growth, watch us tip over to a debt crisis, and then manage our decline as we go into a welfare state? we are coming to a country where we are getting more and more takers than makers in america. if we have more takers, then we

are denying people their ability to make the most of their lives. it drains them of their intentions to make the most of their lives. that is the end, these types of policies we are discussing. -- that is the outcome of these types of policies we are discussing. [applause] >> we are going to open up the floor. we do have microphones. please identify yourself and ask your question. the gentleman in the corner. >> thank you, mr. chairman. on the issue of entitlements, you mentioned that is the biggest area you would like to create a contract with the obama administration. quite the biggest area of contrasts -- i would say all of the budget.

>> and thomas is the biggest part of the problem -- and entitlements is the biggest part of the problem? you talk about the road map and the budget which seems like less of a likelihood. you also want to put the spending cuts out there before the state of the union. are you backing all of the willingness to go after this? >> we are cutting the congressional budget. we will put bills on the floor. i cannot speak to the timing of before or after the state of the union, but we will be bringing spending cuts of all first corder long. i am not suggesting the budget will be one thing or the other. i do not know the answer to the question. i do not have a baseline. it is a collaborative process. we have not gone through that yet. we have not had our committee hearings.

we have not done the research we intend to do to formulate a good public policy. it is not like we are the majority and we have everything figured out. congress has not had a lot of oversight in the past few years. we need to get into policy. we need to bring innovative policy makers in to discuss how best to achieve these goals of keeping america exceptional. we're not done all of that yet, so it is impossible for me to tell you what the budget resolution will look like. there i want the roadmap in the budget? i never intended when i wrote the roadmap that this would be the budget for the platform for the republican party. what i intended was to create a debate, create a discussion, encouraging other people to jump in with me to discuss how to fix these fiscal problems.

what i wanted to share with the roadmap is that you can still have the american dream. but is still keep our government limited and our economy free. it is still not too late. i think i achieved that. i want to advance the discussion to an adult level. it is not quite there, but it is getting closer. when i read the roadmap, that was not me saying, "this is exactly how to do it and this is the only way i will go." far from it. this is one way of doing it and what i personally think is the better way to go. i want other people to bring their ideas to the table to get the best outcome. we are in the process of getting other people to bring their ideas to the table. we have not completed that process yet. that is why i cannot tell you. we were just worn in yesterday. [laughter] >> we have a microphone here in

the front. >> i am from the washington post. the is the roadmap, according to the cbo, does not balance the budget until 2015. -- 2050. now that you are in the majority, what your duty budget should be balanced? >> i do not know that. i do not have the base line yet. >> but the roadmap, which is considered lead -- which is considered to be a conservative plan -- has a 50 year time frame. >> this shows you how all all the numbers have become. the shows you how deep we have gotten. we are not measuring our budget deficit in billions anymore, we are measuring it in trillions. the baby boomers are starting to

retire this year at full retirement. white budget people call -- what budget people called the "pig in -- pig and the python." if you choose to grandfather the grandparents, which is what the roadmap does, that does require more spending or borrowing to finance entitlements for people who are currently on them given more people are retiring. this just shows you how tough this is. it shows you how you are not want to balance the budget in a couple of years. why do i want to do? i want to budget -- i want to balance it as quickly as possible. it will not balance if we do not fix this economy. we will not budget be balanced -- budget the balance anytime soon. the cbo does not menaced that stuff.

we need pro-growth and economic prosperity. that is how we will balance sooner rather than down the road. >> let's take one from over there. why in the middle. the woman. so we can hear it on c-span and other places, we would like to get the microphone if we could. right there. she has her hand up. >> my name is jennifer. you talk about all of the spending cuts. do you have any specifics? are you considering a run for the senate in 2012? [laughter] >> i thought you'd ask me about the packers or something like that. [laughter] i tried not to do the upper creator's job.

-- the opera creatappropiators . after the oversight hearings, we will come up with a list of spending cuts. i am not try to pass the buck. they will be doing the hearing and coming up with a list of specific spending cuts that are needed to achieve the spending limits that we will put in place and get to the committee. as far as 2012 is concerned, i am not thinking about 2012. i am thinking about right now. it is not even on my mind. >> the gentleman in the white shirt. right here. >> i am with cnnnews.com

the elephant in the room is the funding for the health care reform law. no one expects the repeal bill will pass the house ended will not pass the senate or be signed by the president. in your budget, will there be any finding for that bill? >> obviously, we plan to repeal it and our budget reflect the repeal of the health care law. the question you're trying to get at is defunding this law. that occurs in the appropriations process. we send the numbers to them and they write the bills. that is where we will consider other mechanisms to try and repealed this all. >> redshirt in the back on the inside. >> just to get back to something brought up earlier, some groups

never to -- some deficit groups note that not security spending is only about 15% of overall federal spending. to what extent is it credible to say you can make a dent in the budget without going after defense, they a? >> that spending went up 24% in the last four years. this was a gusher of spending in this particular category of government. we want to bring it back. it was a huge increase and contributed to a much higher spending base. by the way, all that spending has kept our employment rate from getting above -- all that

spending was supposed to keep our employment rate below 8%. it is now at 10%. we have a big deficit hangover because of that. we want to take some of that spending back. >> second row on the far corner. >> mr. chairman [unintelligible] i hate to put you on the spot, but i will do it anyway. there is nothing -- i trust you entirely, which is very i natural for me, but there is nothing in the republican party that signals to me that all of the mistakes of the past 10 years and all of the big government mentality is gone. can you reassure me? in an easy question.

you're talking about lowering the budget caps. what are the reforms he will put in place to make sure -- >> the only thing we can do to assure you that the current republican majority will not go the way of the last republican majority is our own actions. look at the rules package we put out there yesterday. we will cut spending to help other spending. if we cut spending, we will put that into deficit reduction. we change the institutional bias in favor of cutting spending. now we have to change the policy bias in favor of limiting government and promoting free enterprise. those are things that will dominate our actions at this year. the only thing i can't really tell you is that he will have to watch us and hold us

accountable. we believe that we were validated in the last election. this was also the election that gave the republicans a majority. we do not think that. this was a repudiation election. it was a repudiation of the direction the president and his party took the country. it is not a validation of us. we have to earn the trust and support of the american people by being too we say we are. that is the mistake the last republican majority made. they said they were conservative. they said there were fiscally conservative, but they did not govern like that. we have to make sure we do not do that. we want real binding spending caps. we need enforcement mechanisms. i call it the standard approach period. if you exceed the budget resolutions limit, you have automatic cuts across the board.

we have been toiling in the vineyards of reform for many years. we fully intend on moving forward with these packages. >> this has to be the last question. you there in the brown shirt, i think. >> i am wondering if you could elaborate. the you believe the republican majority in the house can eliminate items like the tax exclusion for retirement plans and the tax bill but in life insurance plans? >> i am not going to get into this tax expenditure and that tax expenditure. the advocacy of tax reform at the best way to go about lowering rates -- do i believe

that the majority -- that there is a majority within the majority for tax reform? yes, i do. we have to decide how best to achieve that. we've not got our hearings in research on these things. >> one quick playing -- are you going to run for senate in 2012? >> she just ask me that. >> you did not answer it. >> i had no plans to do so at this time. >> thank you very much, congressman. thank you very much to all of you. [applause] it has been a very lively session. thank you so much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> senate democratic leaders talked about the new majority in the house. dick durbin and debbie stabenow -- due to a technical problem, we are unable to share the first few minutes of this event. >> i want to introduce dick durbin.

>> it was not that long ago when vice president cheney and president bush said that deficits do not count. it was at a time when they wanted to pay for a war and not be held accountable for the amount it would add to the national debt. at the end of their eight years, the national debt had increased from $5 trillion to $12 trillion on their watch. the surplus the inherited from president bill clinton turned into the worst annual deficit the nation had ever seen. they announced that assist do not count. the first day of the new house republican leadership, we hear a similar song. we are learning, unfortunately, that the new republican leadership has replaced pay as you go with pretend as you go. the latest republican -- what they basically said to us is that there are certain things that will not be counted toward

the deficit. i sat around for 10 months last year on the deficit commission. it was a bipartisan commission that included the new house budget chairman, paul ryan of wisconsin. what did we learn in 10 months? we are a number of things. we learned we had a terrible deficit that has to be addressed. addressing it to send might make the recession worse. this week focused on something that people talk about a lot on capitol hill. each year we lose $1.10 trillion from our treasury for tax expenditures, tax deductions, credits, exclusions, and earmarks. that is money that does not go into the treasury because of the tax code. what did they do on the first day? they said they would not tell the tax expenditures towards the deficit. that ignores what the commission

established. if we are going to move towards anything near balancing our budget, it includes not only spending cuts, but an honest look at tax cuts, tax exclusions, and a list of things they have said should be exempt from conversation when it comes to deficits. as chuck schumer said, permanent cuts for multi millionaires. they do not want to count that. permanent extensions of bush tax cuts for the wealthy -- they do not want to count it. tax breaks on business income -- they do not want to count it. it all adds up. time and again during the debate on health care reform, we waited, sometimes for days, sometimes for weeks, for the congressional budget office to score the things within. the president told us before the debates, "i want health care reform. you want health care reform.

do not add to the deficit in the process." the cbo said that the first 10 years of health care reform, you will reduce the deficit by $143 billion. at 9:30, this cbo updated that figure to $145 billion to be saved in the first year of health care reform. now, we had a situation where the republicans say they want to repeal of health care reform and ignore its deficit reduction. that is living in the world of dick cheney where deficits do not tell. not only would repeal of health care reform add to our deficit, it would dump more than 30 million americans from coverage who will be protected by our new health care reform act. that is a personal family tragedy even beyond our discussion of the deficit. the republicans would rather add

$1 trillion to the deficit as chuck schumer said, and let the debt ceiling collapse of the american economy than deal in on his terms with our deficit challenge. i took some heat on that deficit commission. a lot of people were surprised. i honestly think bowles and simpson were right. the first day of the new house republican leadership did not demonstrate the kind of honesty and kind of bipartisanship we need to solve these problems. >> let me thank senators schumer and center durbin for their leadership and emphasize again, here they go again. it is voodoo economics, and it demonstrates which side they are on and what their values and priorities are. they are willing to add over $1 trillion to the national debt in order to protect the tax breaks

of millionaires and billionaires. at the same time, they are adding costs to seniors who may stay in their home and just what help with their medical costs. they are willing to double this year the cost of brand-name drugs to seniors. at the same time, they are willing to add over $1 trillion to the national deficit to protect me in tears and billionaires. they are willing to add to the cost for families who just want to talk to the doctor when the kids get sick in said it -- instead of talking to the insurance companies. they want to take away that freedom and, at the same time, they are willing to raise the national deficit by over $1 trillion. it is very clear what is going on here. this is the same old same old.

it is what happened in the bush administration when republicans were in charge. it got us into the deficit we are in today. i would simply say that we would ask for a focus on jobs and growing the economy because that is the real way we are going to turn around this deficit. we'll never get out of deficit with over 15 million americans out of work. rather than just protecting the wealthy and focusing on extreme ideologies, we would ask them to join with us on putting people back to work in this country and getting us out of debt. >> i want to ask about this subject. the rule was in effect less than three weeks ago when he passed a tax and spending bill. that included exemptions for

millionaires and estate taxes, a provision that could not get 50 votes in the senate. why are you making claims about how much money it could be saved? >> as we said, it is the first day on the job. they said the reason they came into power was to reduce the deficit. that was their claim. we believe getting the economy going is important. we believe there are lots of different values, but our focus today is on deficit reduction, which is their mantra. you cannot decrease the deficit by spending more. the deficit goes up. we are called in on what they campaigned on as opposed to what they are doing. >> do you think the rule has been effective? >> it does not been completely effective, it has been somewhat

effective. this is like a hole through it. >> you said there reckless fiscal responsibility would be dead on arrival. are you talking about the extension of the tax cuts? >> we are going to be much more responsible fiscally when the public says to america, reduce the deficit. we are not just want to talk about it the way they are. we are going to do it. we have begun to show it already. democrats supported the limits on spending. we are trying to be careful in every way. they are not. i am not going to comment on any specific plan, but we are going to actually put our money where our mouth is and reduce the deficit, not just talk about it. they think they can get away

with increasing debt. >> just to remind everyone, under the former administration when the republicans were in charge of the house and the senate, they did away with the basic principle of pay for what you do. are there challenges as we go forward? yes. but we have made the commitment to restore the rules that were put in place by democrats under president clinton who got us out the deficit and into surplus. they do a lot of talking about it, but we actually see now what they plan to do. >> the focus has been on what the new republican senate will do. we say, "watch what they do, not watch what they say." this is what they do. >> the new house rules gave a -- rman or ryan

>> we will be very serious about deficit reduction in eight real way. i will not get into what the senate is going to do right now. yesterday was a great deal of fanfare. the house revealed how they were going to change things around by shrinking government and reducing the deficit. we are saying, they are not. we are saying we will do better. s watch us. -- watch us. >> what is a realistic number? >> i am not going to talk about what we are going to do other than to say, "watch us peer "we are going to be responsible and get things done. what we are talking about today and the focus of what we are

saying is, again, they say one thing and they do another. if they did what they said, the deficit would go up $1 trillion. that is more than the stimulus. they complained about that of the last few years. >> on another topic -- >> let's stick with this one until we finish. we are going to be fiscally responsible and we are going to try to both reduce government spending and reduce the deficit. we are. we understand that. we got the message from the people, but we are actually going to do it. >> are you actually going to present a budget? >> again, today our focus is on them. you can watch us over the next few weeks. yester day there was a whole lot of hoopla about how republicans are changing things.

this is hell they are changing things. >> -- this is how they are changing things. >> what are the chances between now and then that you will have some sort of bipartisan compromise? >> my hope is that we can come to a bipartisan compromise. we met last night. we had good discussions. we -- at the same time, we are making it clear that there are certain that are beyond dispute. -- there are certain things that are beyond dispute. we are working on two pass. one, to build our support for the principles we believe in and second, to compromise with republicans if we can.

>> he said to build support for the principles. would it be okay to have an agreement without having to change the rules? >> there are different ways to get there and we will look at every one of us. -- look at everyone of them. one person cannot just got everything from happening. it seems to me, and i think my colleagues would agree with me, if you want to hold the senate up because you want the right to debate, then you have to debate, not just stand there and say you object. >> on another topic -- >> this will be the last question. >> the word is republicans are trying to do a back door session for the budget. >> i am worry about that.

we have dramatically increased the number of people working for the securities and exchange commission as well as the commodity futures trading commission to make sure we have people on the beat with appropriate oversight and investigative authority. we want to make sure transactions are adequately monitored. we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of transactions covered by both of these agencies. we are trying to keep pace with that by increasing the number of personnel. many republicans did not support wall street reform. we believe they can start the sec and to commission by refusing to put enough personnel monitoring the activities in exchanges. that, to me, is extremely shortsighted. we have going for us the roll hall and transparency. we have exchanges that are more

successful than others around the world because of those two factors. if the republicans start the sec so they cannot oversee wall street and other changes, it would diminish our rich nation -- it will diminish our reputation in the world. >> what is your expectations for the sec? >> if they want to go back to 2008 spending levels, take a look at the funding. we haveeeeee added hundreds of e atafterrnie made ofdoff other exchange activity. does will be on the chopping block. -- of those will be on the chopping block. >> they are going to rue the day i try to force it. if you talk to most -- most people, they want to make sure

the bad guys do not dominate the markets, but the guys who follow the rules do. >> you keep saying it wants them and what they do. when voters do not have jobs or health care, they do not see us or them. >> we would like to have a bipartisan agreement on how to deal with these issues, but when they opened up on a day like this, they do not seem to be doing much in terms of bipartisanship. we will have concrete plans a very sent on jobs, on the economy, on reducing the deficit, and making america group. we will talk about those shortly. thank you, everybody. >> thank you.

>> coming up next on c-span, the house rules committee holds a hearing on repealing health care legislation. the constitution is red on the floor of the house, and the speaker john boehner discusses the republican congressional agenda. the senate budget committee meets tomorrow for the first time this year to hear testimony from federal reserve chairman, ben bernanke. you can watch the proceedings live beginning at 9:30 a.m. eastern time on c-span2 and cspan.org. >> saturday, a debate on 1980's america and sunday, a roundtable on national security and the public's need to know. the congressional black caucus marched his 40th anniversary.

charles rangel on his political career and the founding of the caucus. learn about the history of u.s. currency. see the complete we can schedule online at cspan.org/history. you can have our schedules in mailed to you. >> the new republican majority in the house has scheduled a debate on really the health care law passed last year. today, the house rules committee considers the repeal. this part of the hearing is just over two hours.

>> thank you very much, mr. king. where do you stand on this? [laughter] it is a national -- natural question we need to ask here. we want to ensure that every single american has access to quality health insurance and health care. the president of the united states indicated in his first press conference following the press conference following the election that he believed the 1099 provision that imposes a burden on small businesses in this country needed to be addressed. most recently, judge henry hudson in virginia has determined the mandate is unconstitutional. we had the executive referring to this as a flawed bill. we have a court decision that

has been made. it seems to me that the right thing for us to do is this two- step approach we are taking. number one, it is our efforts to repeal the measure and, number two, the measure i will introduce which calls for us to get you working to ensure that every single american has access to quality health insurance and health care. i believe there are five simple steps that need to be taken that will immediately drive the cost of health insurance down. i think we should expand medical savings accounts, which should have associated health plans, which it had meaningful reform, we should have deals with pre- existing conditions, we should do everything we can to make sure people can acquire insurance across state lines. those five simple things, most of which are actually supported

by president obama. in every one of those instances, from the state of the union message to his interest in looking at the purchase of insurance across state lines available, there has been an interest. i know there are democrats that have. we have an opportunity to come together in a bipartisan way. we know there was not bipartisan support for this measure when we saw it in the 111th congress. i believe we can come together, democrats and republicans alike, working with the president to ensure that every american has access to quality health insurance by dropping this cost down. i thank you you all for your remarks. you have come forward with some interesting figures that are obviously going to be challenged by my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

just this notion that 87 million americans, as she said chairman upton, will lose their health insurance when, in fact, we are hearing everyone can keep their insurance. the fact that we had this cbo study that has come out showing we will see an increase in the deficit of $145 billion when, in fact, if you look at the gimmickry and vault, we are talking about $700 billion in gimmicks. to me, it is incomprehensible to think that putting into place -- that putting into place taxes, mandates, and extraordinarily borden's instructor like this is going to save taxpayers' dollars. we know the taxes alone in this measure are going to exacerbate the economic downturn through which we are struggling to date. again, i thank you all very much

for your remarks and appreciate your call full approaches. i assume i have a commitment from all three of you that when we pass might measure that direct your committee to begin work on an effort to put these measures in place that will decrease the cost of health insurance for americans, that you are committed to doing that. >> absolutely. without a doubt. we will be embarking on this almost right away. we will have a product that he will be very proud of. i would like to think we will be bipartisan in terms of what we would like to do to help working families and businesses provide benefits for their workers. >> the other two gentlemen nodded. i know you cannot speak for the entire committee. i feel very sanguine that your colleagues on the judiciary committee and chairman smith will lead the effort there. i got a great knowledge from

chairman klein. we look forward to working together on a bipartisan way to drive the cost of health insurance down. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome to each of you who are here today. we hear in the rules committee are looking forward to hearing, not only what you have to say, but also our colleagues on the other side of the aisle. during the last few years, this has been an active discussion. there are a number of people in the room today to our back to join the discussion including mr. andrus, who of given us all full of ideas. we want to examine, reopen, and make sure the facts of the case are better known. i will tell you this. the american people recognize, as gasoline nearest $4.50

dollars a gallon, that we recognize, or at least a group of people i hang around with recognize, that gasoline at $4 a gallon combined with the economy we have is a drag on jobs. the health care bill is a devastating, not only for what it costs, but also the job loss that takes place. it is slowing our economy. chronic unemployment is what we now have. when you look up and see that gasoline is going to this price because of the economic advantages that are taking place in china and india, there are economies better booming and the united states is left out of that because we have been embroiled in trying to do a health care, cap and trade, and all the things that diminish our

economic base. it is my hope that we will think about catching up as the world leader in job creation and innovation. i hope there will be some focus on pharmaceutical companies that i believe have been diminished i believe have been diminished greatly in their capacity to provide research and development the advantages to small and cure problems that exist in the marketplace today. we can have a pharmaceutical industry back enter problems that doctors will not do. i am very excited about this new day that has dawned and what it means. we look for to hearing, not only from my colleagues, but also my colleagues on the rules committee that are democrat. we are going to look at this issue and move forward. mr. chairman, i appreciate your

leadership. >> thank you very much, vice chairman sessions. we have a quorum call them has just been called on the floor. i encourage members to record their presence downstairs. we'll continue with the hearing. quite good morning, gentlemen. we are happy to see. congratulations on your new posts. i think this is probably one of the first times that i have been able to speak. i understand your great determination to root it out. america should travel. you do know that the latest polls showed that 50% of americans really like this bill. some do not think it is strong enough. you understand the harm you are going to do. let me ask all three of you when you think about holding a hearing to do away with

something of this magnitude? -- something of this magnitude without holding any hearings in your committee? we find ourselves this morning with an emergency rules committee to get this done 7 next year you can and do this with no hearings. >> it is not an emergency meeting that is being held. >> i would just like to say that i appreciate the comments from white friend. -- from my friend. i would just note that our party leadership would -- with virtually everyone behind it announced last summer -- a first of all, there was not a single republican that voted for the bill last march. >> that is true. >> it passed by a 78 vote

margin. we announced in the summer that if we took the majority we would look for a full review -- full repeal. it was part of our pledge that was publicly revealed in late september, early october. i would dare say that every one of the new freshman class and many of us that ran for reelection at this as part of our platform. it should come as no surprise. thatu're on the committee hill over 100 hours of hearing on this bill. how can you say that you had no input? >> you attended 100 hours of hearings. your amendments were accepted. >> some of them disappeared in our committee. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i will not right now.

i know in the very beginning that 100 hours of hearings were held. the house heard from 181 witnesses, democrats and republicans. 239 amendments were considered. 191 were adopted. the democratic caucus spent time to go over this bill section by section hours at a time. yet despite this and the fact that you were in those meetings, you continue to say that you had no input on this bill. how can you say that? >> if you could yield? >> i would like to hear from all three of you. >> chairman waxman had a 36-23 advantage. in the marquette we had last summer, unlike most marked ups where the bill is able to be marked up title a, a title be, a tidal sea -- you can only do the

first title -- title 1a, title b, title c -- >> if you had no input and did not know what was in it -- >> thank you, ms. slaughter. i find it interesting that in spite of all the hours you talk about, you still had the fascinating occurrence of the speaker saying that we needed to pass it and find out what was in it. americans did not know what was in this thing. if this legislation was not written in a bipartisan way. quite the hearings were bipartisan. it was written under the same way we write bills in the house. there are other things. i want to go on. >> let me make this one quick

point. i read a lot of the bill. >> i hope so. >> always say to this section that was testified on with regard to the section 1099, if you read that particular page -- pay 737 -- you would not have any idea that transaction filing by every business. >> we cannot discuss everything. >> that was in the bill before we took it up on the house floor. >> i do not know of the bill we have ever done in this house like that. for over 100 years, congress has tried to do something about health care in the united states, starting with theodore roosevelt. we did not take it on because we

wanted to have talmudic hall meetings with people throwing rocks and things at us. we did it because 17% of gdp was taken up with health care and was rising every day. something had to be done. we were the only industrial country on the face of the earth that does not provide health care for its people. believe me, i went through this with the clinton administration. the eight years that you all were in charge, he did absolutely nothing with health care. on top of that, i do not know what you call this. this is an emergency session that was called last night. we are rushing this through. no doubt about it. no doubt about it. we had plans to read it all and have all of this time. you do not have the cbo estimate for what it would cost, do you? is there a cbo estimate on repeal of this bill?

>> yes, madam chairman. yes, mrs. lauder, there is. -- mrs. slaughter, there is. it is on page 4 of the letter. it is on page 4 of the letter. >> $1.20 trillion for the second? you talk about this being a job killer. i do not know how you arrive at that. 935,000 jobs have banned added -- have been added since it has been in effect. i was so happy to hear that. i have done work on this one. 10 federal judges through the case out. two federal judges said it was absolutely constitutional. you do not read that anywhere,

but it is a fact. judge hudson is a referred -- is a confirmed republican. they say he was in the right place at the right time. he is a co-owner of a construction firm, a republican consulting firm, and his client is the attorney general of the state of virginia that brought the lawsuit. if there was ever a case that called out for recusal, this is it. i have respect for all three of you. it embarrasses me for you that you would use him as your case knowing about the other 10 who said it was constitutional. we are rushing through here, getting ready to do something pretty devastating, i think. >> my recollection is that the consulting fee between the

consulting -- between the attorney general of virginia is part invested by judge hudson, but less than $10,000. they severed the relationship demille. >> as far as i am concerned, a federal judge should not be part owner of eight republican consulting firm. . .

>> they had nothing to do with the rules committee. >> i don't know what happened. but they weren't there. the other thing is, we tried, actually, in our committee to have a tort reform amendment, something that the president told a number of us one-on-one. he wanted tort reform as part of this package. we tried to offer -- our side tried to offer that amendment

in full committee and we were denied because of the jurisdiction issue. but, again, it never came back from the judiciary, so it couldn't even be considered then on the house floor. >> well, tort reform is generally a state issue. that's really done by the state. >> well -- >> but there is $50 million, i believe, in this bill. >> the president asked for it. >> we tried to do that as well, to repeal the ferguson act, which you'll happy to say almost everybody voted for in the house. which is something that needed to be done. it's been around for years, it's inhibiting and a great gift to the insurance industry. and we wanted to get that done. we wanted to do the medical malpractice along with it, but we were unable to get that done. and i would say to you that that really does need attention. the mccann ferguson act really ought to go. i just find myself flummoxed after 20-something years here that -- of course, we had this happen with the catastrophic

illness bill years ago. heaven knows how much further ahead we would have been if we had been able to keep that. but i understand -- >> again, i was here when that happened. i don't know that mr. klein or mr. king were here then. but that bill passed. >> i wasn't here either. >> yes, you were. when we repealed it. you and i, i think, were elected in 1986 together. >> right. >> right. >> that bill passed. people found what was in it. and a year or two later it was repealed almost overwhelmingly. >> it was. >> and my bet is that you, mr. dreier and mr. upton voted for the bill, and then voted to repeal it. and that's what i did. >> we were here when the bill came up. i can remember looking at it. all right. >> we found out what was in it, like the american people have, and wanted it repealed. >> the thing that has made it so distressing to me is we had

no fingerprints, we knew nothing about this bill, which we all know is not true, that we jammed it down the public's throats, which was not true. if you call that a jamming, i don't know what this is. maybe we'll come up with something on our side that will be appropriate to that, thank you very much. >> thank you have,s mrs. slaughter. let me just respond to a couple of comments briefly, and then we'll call on ms. fox. first, this is technically first, this is technically designated as an emergency meeting for the following reason. we took the oath of office less than 24 hours ago. and the minority was informed of this meeting at the beginning of this week, and today is thursday. from my perspective the notice clearly was provided. so that's why i said this is not considered an emergency meeting. so everyone knew that this was happening and it has been made very clear. i want to make sure that every member has gone down to record

their presence on the quorum call. i have not. i'm going to call on ms. fox now and turn it over to vice chairman sessions, the gavel. >> thank you, i was not here when the catastrophic illness bill passed. it may be that her memory on that is not as strong as it might be. and i think her memory on what happened to this legislation may not be as strong as it might be. i've been puzzled constantly at how our colleagues across the aisle have talked about how many hearings were held, how many amendments were offered. i just -- i got the record on the two bills, and i think it's really important that we correct it. i'm not quite sure why my

colleagues, chairmen of the various committees, have not done this. done this. but the bill that passed the house was hr-3590. and indeed, there were hearings on that bill and there were amendments offered on the bill. there were hearings in different committees. however, the bill that finally passed was hr-4872, which came from the senate and had nary a single hearing on it. and i think we have to correct the record, and that every time our colleagues say this, we've got to correct the record, because that bill had no hearing. not one. that bill was not allowed to be -- well, excuse me. there was one hearing in the rules committee. it did not go -- mr. mcgovern, it did not go -- mr. mcgovern, if you can show me the record -- i'm not going to yield time. but when it comes time, i

invite you to bring to the record the dates and times of those hearings. i would really like to know about those, because i have the timeline on that bill. but there were no hearings on it. and it is deceptive of our colleagues to continue to say that, and i think the record has to be clarified on that. has to be clarified on that. and i would like to ask us all to do that, and i think mr. upton wants to add to my comments. >> well, i do, and i thank you for your comments. it was the senate bill that passed. you'll recall when it passed on you'll recall when it passed on christmas eve morning, there were actually a number of senate democrats who said, don't worry. we know that this is not a perfect bill that's going to be fixed when it goes to conference. it never even went to conference. they took the senate passed bill. how it got an h.r. number, i don't know. but they then took the

senate-passed bill and that was it. no amendments at all when we passed it on a sunday afternoon a couple of months later. as it reflects on our committee -- and i did not serve then on the health subcommittee. it's my understanding that there was one legislative hearing on the house -- ended up being the house-passed bill, not the senate bill. and the secretary at the time said something along the lines of we're not permitted to answer direct questions on this bill because we have not read it. and i'm getting nods from my staff that in fact that did transpire. so at the end of the day it was the senate bill, not the house, and really all of the efforts -- and there were hearings on health care, but on the legislative hearing, there was only one. it was, in essence, all nor naught, because the house pass -- for naught, because the

house-passed package, which was passed in the fall of 2009, was not part of the final bill that was enacted in march of last year. >> well, again, i think we have to make sure the american people understand that our friends on the other side of the aisle are mixing up apples and oranges. and want to ask in the future if we can do that, that when comments are made about what bills had hearings, that our colleagues be very explicit that it was hr-3590 on which hearings were hold, and not on the bill which passed, which was hr-4872. i do think that's clear. i really am pleased that the american people are paying a lot more attention to what's lot more attention to what's going on in congress. we've always said over the years that process is dull and nobody wants to hear about the process, but in this case

process is extremely important, because it's the process that made the difference in the way this was done. so i'm glad to be able to get this in the record. mr. upton, you say there was one hearing. >> one legislative hearing on the bill. >> one legislative hearing. the rules committee did deal the rules committee did deal with the bill here. but, mr. klein, were there any hearings in the education committee? >> we would have liked to have had them, liked to have had jurisdiction. it would have approved the final policy. >> well, mr. chairman, i just want to say, to back up what want to say, to back up what you and chairman dreier have said, republicans are very

concerned that we have affordable health insurance and affordable health care in this country. what passed in this congress does not provide that to the american people. in fact, what it does is give government control over insurance and health care for the american people. that is not what this republic is about. we are not to give our lives to the government. we don't live in a nanny state. and this repeal needs to be done so that we can get on with putting in common-sense reforms related to health insurance and the health care. the health care. and i look forward to this action and to what's going to happen after that. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mrs. foxx. i would like to, once again -- the chair would like to thank each of the members that are here, and the gentleman and

mrs. foxx. we are not in a rush. we are here to openly, forthrightly discuss this subject. and i appreciate you taking the time that's necessary, mrs. foxx, the gentlemen, mr. mcgovern, that's recognized. >> again, not a single hearing has been held on this repeal package, not a single one. we are meeting here today, and you haven't told us of a single meeting in any of your committees. i think people who are watching this are probably saying to themselves, well, why don't you hold hearings, figure out what the impact is. you may not agree with everything the democratic bill has passed, but there may be some things that you do. why not do this methodically and do this in a way that makes sense. but instead we're coming here, we're rushing something to the floor. i mean, this is not a -- whether we do it today or monday, you know, or next thursday or a week from thursday doesn't make much

difference. but not a single hearing has been held. i have a question for the vice chair of the committee, because we've been talking about process. and i just wanted to correct the record on something that i've read, a statement from the majority leader, mr. cantor, who has said at a press conference that this package that's going to come to the floor next week might come to the floor under a restrictive rule or a closed rule. given what mr. boehner said yesterday, given what mr. dreier has said here, i would like the assurance from the vice chair that this will come to the floor on an open rule. if you could give me that if you could give me that assurance that, would be -- or at least tell me that mr. cantor misspoke, that would be helpful. >> what i would say to the gentleman is that what we're attempting to do is not a surprise to the american public nor to any member of congress nor to any member of congress that has been reading about the expectations of performance. this was a promise that was made during the campaign and

the election, where people would decide who they would want to be their member of congress. i believe that the gentleman, mr. cantor, the majority leader of the united states congress has forthrightly said that he believes that we are going to schedule the hearing today, which we are doing. he believes that we will then have a vote on the rule, and he believes on or about wednesday allowing the time for dissemination, discussion and a full vetting of the process for there to be a vote where the american people understood what this is about and every member of congress knew what they were doing. >> right, right. >> as it relates to whether this will be an open or closed rule, i think the gentleman knows that at the end of this hearing, before we vote on the rule, there will be a discussion about that, and then we will decide that. >> so mr. cantor spoke prematurely. >> you know what, i believe that the gentleman is entitled

to an opinion about what he believes, and i will take the gentleman at his word. >> well, let me ask the three gentlemen here. would you support an open rule for the discussion of this next week? >> yes, mr. klein. >> i thank the gentleman. i think that we have been very clear as a party, the majority leader we were just talking about. we believe that we owe to the american people an up or down vote on this law. and so i would not support an open rule in this case. >> i would say that the way, as i understand the bill -- the bill is repealed in place. this is the first step. it then directs the proper committees to come back and talk about how we want to replace it. that work has not been done. that's where we're going to have the hearings. we're going to have the markups, whether it be in the oversight and investigation subcommittee, whether it be in the health subcommittee, and that will be when the time is taken to thoughtfully put

together a piece of legislation that in fact replaces the repealed bill. but on repeal it ought to be yes or no. >> no open rule, no process to amend. >> i don't think we need an open rule. we'll let the committees then take the action to -- >> mr. king? >> mr. mcgovern, it's suggest there's nothing to amend. this is either repeal it or not repeal it and pull it all out by the roots. i think there's something completely left unsaid here, and that is there is a piece of legislation that passed the house without hearings, as mrs. foxx said. >> well, i am stunned. >> this is an illegitimate bill that didn't happen before the majority in this congress. >> i am stunned in light of what mr. boehner has said and what mr. dreier has said and what others have said about open process and what all three of you here are saying, that we should have a closed rule. it is really -- it is really stunning. and i don't think it is as

simple as an up or down vote, and that's one of the reasons why this is kind of a travesty here is that it is a complicated issue. and quite frankly, i'm looking -- i was just looking at a kaiser poll that just came out where, quite frankly, when people realize what is in the bill, you know, more and more people do not want it repealed. in fact, only 24% of the people that they polled wanted it a total repeal. there were things in this bill that i would think that even republicans would agree. so this notion that we're going to go in, we're going to throw everything out and start over again, without caring about a c.b.o. score -- i mean, all of a sudden the campaign's all about reducing deficits and lowering the debt, and we have a preliminary c.b.o. score that says this is going to cost a great deal of money to repeal. but that doesn't matter. and no hearings, no hearings. this is not a thoughtful process. and then you're all telling me

that you want a closed rule. bring it to the floor, no amendments, no input. so much for the open process. there's none, there's none. >> mr. mcgovern, i might note, as i have looked at some of the questions by not maybe specifically the kaiser poll that you're citing now, but other polls and which suggests that this is probably the case for the kaiser poll, when you look at a number of different individual elements, there is strong support for them. no pre-existing conditions can we allow for discrimination. allow for insurance across state lines. take the president's promise. if you like your health insurance, you can keep it. i think those things most americans would support. and i would bet that at the end of the day, when we come back with a charge, whether it be the education and labor committee, whether it be the energy and commercial committee, whether it be the ways and means committee, hopefully perhaps the judicial committee as it relates to tort reform, something that the president supports himself, those will be common-ground

issues that republicans and democrats support, something that we did not see in the last congress. >> this is all backwards. you should do the hearings first, you know, and then figure out what makes sense, and then do the legislation. what you're doing is the legislation and then saying, oh, don't worry, we'll do hearings. then you issue a press release, a statement of principles. quite frankly, which are already taken care of in the bill that has already been passed. so, i mean, it just strikes me as, you know, as unbleemble that after all we heard about -- unbelievable that after all we heard about openness and about full discussion that we are rushing this to the floor in an emergency rules committee meeting. this is going to be brought to the floor and the majority the floor and the majority leader is saying that under a closed process -- and you're all agreeing that it should be a closed process. so where's the openness and where's the discussion? >> let me ask you a specific question. you know, some of the health

care provisions have already kicked in. i have a lot of senior citizens in my district who have fallen victim to the doughnut hole. remember, you guys shoved through a medicare prescription drug bill that wasn't paid for, that added incredibly to the deficit, and then you allowed this doughnut hole to be there, so people, when they reach a certain level in terms of their cost of prescription drugs, they have to pay out of pokt expenses. that is being reduced. i can't tell you how many senior citizens who have told me, i really appreciate that, because it is a real burden, this doughnut hole. i look at the statement of principles and there's no mention of the doughnut hole or the medicare prescription drug bill or any of that stuff. but if you got your way and we repeal the bill today and it became law tomorrow, what happens to those senior citizens who are beginning to get relief from the doughnut hole? do they get a tax increase? >> two things i'd like to say. first of all, if the repeal

bill does pass next week, it's not effective immediately because the senate hasn't taken it up and neither has the president signed it. so we have a good number of time between when we can actually come back and report a bill that allows it to be replaced. second -- and i don't know the massachusetts plan as i do know the michigan plan. from the start, the michigan plan had at least -- michigan seniors had at least three plans among the 30-some that they could pick and choose from. remember, it was individual choice, where there was no doughnut hole. and in addition, seniors, low-income seniors, did not have a doughnut hole. there were provisions in the medicare part d program when it passed that provided the subs deso that they did not have a -- subsidy that they did not have a doughnut hole. >> it's a real issue. it's a real issue, and you're going to repeal it. >> well, that will be something

that we take up and consider as we look at the replacement part of the bill down the road. >> well, look, i appreciate you being here. and at first when i heard about all this, i was kind of -- i thought it was unbelievable that this was the first item that you were going to take up and that you were going to do it in such a closed and restrictive way. but on the other hand, i've been thinking about it, and it's actually a good thing that you're here and it's actually a good thing that you're bringing this issue up, because i think the american people will have an opportunity right at the outset of this new congress to see the clear differences between democrats and republicans. if i could finish my statement, mr. chairman. democrats believe that insurance companies should be prohibited from discriminating on the basis of pre-existing on the basis of pre-existing conditions. republicans do not. >> that's simply not true. that's simply not true. >> you opposed the bill. >> it was an alternative, sure. >> that we should close the

doughnut hole and reduce prescription drug prices for our srs. republicans do not. democrats believe that young people should be allowed to remain on their parents' health insurance until they're 26. republicans do not. i can't tell you how many people, how many parents have come up to me and said how grateful they are that they could keep their kids on their insurance until they're 26. insurance until they're 26. it is a big deal. it is a big deal for a lot of parents all throughout this country. democrats believe that we should provide tax breaks to small businesses and subsidies to low-income americans to help them pay for health insurance for their workers and their families. republicans do not. you know, for 80 years americans of both political parties have talked about the need to address health care. in the last congress we actually did it. we held dozens of hearings and markups. and to dr. foxx's issue that she raised, you know, the fact that the bill that we voted on here was not exactly the same bill that we introduced at the

outset in the house. that's how the legislative process works. when a bill goes to a conference committee and comes back, it's different from the original bill we voted on here. but we actually did something. we listened to hundreds of witnesses, expert witnesses in the congress. we considered hundreds of amendments. the bill was passed notwithstanding incredible obstructionism by the republicans on the floor of the house and the senate. and now in the first order of legislative business, the republicans want to take that work and just toss it in the trash. and how many hearings have you held on the impact of repeal? zero. how many markups have you had? how many markups have you had? zero. and, you know, and most shockingly to me, given all the rhetoric that we have heard, again, from the new speaker, from the majority that we've heard of this new open process being how many amendments are we going to be able to consider on the floor? on the floor? and you're all telling me zero. that's what you're advocating. you know, look, instead of a

thoughtful reasons legislative language to address this, you provide us with a press release. these are our goals, you know. on all the issues that protect consumers, you've been on the other side. and here we are, you know -- i mean, i'm sure the insurance companies are thrilled that you're here talking about repeal. but i think -- i think this is -- i think this issue here defines the differences between the two parties, and so on one hand, as frustrated as i am that you're trying to undo something that help as lot of my constituents and helps people across the country, i'm actually kinds of glad that you're showing your hand up front. there is a clear difference

here. i look forward to fighting you on this. >> i thank my friend for yielding. i wonder if my friend was here when i offered my opening remarks. >> i think i might have been a little bit late. >> i think that you were here, actually, when i offered my opening remarks, during which i spoke specifically about our commitment to five specific proposals that would deal with the issue of driving the cost of health insurance down, and they included a number of the provisions that my friend has made in his written statement that he has there. and i also think it's important to note as we talk about this process that last summer, as mr. upton said, there was a commitment that was made. that commitment was made was that we would immediately have an up or down vote on repeal of the measure that was signed in march. that commitment was made last summer before the election, and so it should come as absolutely no surprise. now, let me say about the

process. it was very clear also that we said that if we were to come to majority, we would have a more open process. it has been less than 24 hours since we've taken the oath of office. we indicated that this measure would be considered immediately and i have introduced h. res 9 which calls on these committees to have jurisdiction to immediately proceed with dealing with the five issues that we've talked about and other ways that ensure that needs that we all share must be met are in fact met. and so i will just say that gentleman points to a number of issues that we want to deal with in a bipartisan way, which was not done in the 111th congress. >> i want to chang the gentleman for his comments -- thank the gentleman for his comments. first of all, yeah, it's been less than 24 hours and it's less than 24 hours and it's been pretty restrictive. an emergency rules committee meeting. >> i don't know if you heard what i said on that. at the beginning of this week

we informed the membership of this committee, minority and majority, that we would in fact be holding this meeting, and we are acting as expeditiously as possible, because we believe that this issue needs to be addressed. >> thank you. and we have the three gentlemen before you advocating for a piece of legislation that has had no hearings, nobody's had any input, republican or democrat, and you're all advocating for a closed process to bring it up on the floor. so, yeah, you've been here for 24 hours and already you've broken your promise. so i'm not sure what that means for the rest of the session, but we'll wait and see. >> we'll just wait and see. >> i'm looking forward to that. the other thing is, again, for the checks that have gone out to help the people deal with the doughnut hole, are you going to ask them to send the money back? i mean, is that the way you envision this? would you ask these senior citizens to forego it, or would citizens to forego it, or would they retroactively have to send back the money that they got to

help offset the cost of their drugs? how do you -- how do you see this working? >> mr. mcgovern, having drafted the legislation to repeal obama care in the dawn in the middle of the night after it passed, i contemplate add lot of these things throughout the summer as i gathered bipartisan signatures on the discharge petition that reached 173. a lot of questions came up, and that was one of them. and drafting this repeal legislation is one of them and how it does affect those things. it would scom to a halt. as chairman upton said, it can't be anticipated, because the timing of the repeal can'ting predicted. but what the legislation contemplates as i understand it, is that when and if the president should sign the repeal legislation, then things come to a halt as of that moment. so we can't really lead this thing far enough to make this prediction, so there wouldn't be, in my view, a call to go back and gather any of the

back and gather any of the funds that have been distributed. >> but the way that bill was written is that the relief in the doughnut hole gets bigger and bigger as the years go by, so the relief would stop. >> the bill is written so that all things stop at the moment of its enactment. >> so that would stop. >> that does not mean that there wouldn't be replacements in place to address that subject matter. >> what's curious is i'm looking at your press release on the statement of principles. doesn't mention anything about the doughnut hole. i'm just curious. you mention a lot of other things, but you don't mention that. i mean, why? i mean, why? >> well, mr. mcgovern, you've identified about four popular components that can be potentially defended within this entire 2,500-page bill and that's where the focus of this discussion has been, and i've listened to the points that you've delivered here and i'd suggest in summary that rather than putting an agenda before republicans, i would say that republicans support a constitutional bill that is fiscally responsible that protects the patient's rights, patient's relationship with the doctors and it allows for free

market. not an unconstitutional not an unconstitutional socialized medical bill. >> i appreciate your comments, mr. kane, but basically what you've given me is a sound bite. and you're saying let's repeal this bill, we don't have a replacement. there's no replacement, there's no specifics, there's nothing. so here we are. the beginning of the process, closed process, and i think if you got your wish, a lot of people would be hurt by it. >> would the gentleman yield? >> i'm happy to yield. >> thank you. this is another argument that i've made for a long time, and i have resisted the idea of putting repeal and replace together, because if do you that, that interrupts the process of having an actually clean process, where all members of this congress can weigh in. if, let's just say, leadership presented a replacement bill that was attached at the hip, then that list of components that mr. dreier listed in the opening statement, there would be members in this congress

that would say, well there, are five things on mr. dreier's proposal, i don't like one of them and i want another one and the list gets so long you ends up with another back-room deal. we want to do replacement through a legitimate process so legislation can be built with the wisdom of the new freshman class, coupled with the experience of the members of this congress. that's why replacement can't be a part of the repeal. >> i appreciate it. but i'll just close by saying this is not a legitimate process, this is an illegitimate process, no hearings, nothing, and we're going to the floor under a closed process. that's not the way this should be done. i yield back my time. >> thank you very much, mr. mcgovern. mr. new jenlt. thank you, mr. hastings. thank you, mr. hastings. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. i thank you and our colleagues on our committee for all your patience with regard to time in this matter today. i especially am grateful for our witnesses and our

colleagues that are here to testify and apologize to them if, in the next few minutes, i spend time inordinate on what some might consider to be particularly important, because all of our matters are important and they have just as many important things to say. i associate myself with the remarks of ms. slaughters and the remarks of mr. mcgovern. i do believe that we're embarking down a path that will ultimately be not only to our detriment -- and i wish to correct a few things along the way. mr. king, obviously you and i have our friends and

ideological opposites, have fundamental disagreements on what can and should be done. footnote right there. ms. slaughter pointed out something to me last night that you all need to get rid of, or, in my judgment -- she didn't say that. i'm saying in my judgment, something you need to get rid something you need to get rid of. every number in this chamber right now was elected. and the constitution immediately establishes a congress made up of a house and a senate. i don't then need any other provision other than that i got elected to legislate. so when you all start -- and i'll be among the first, perhaps, to test you in court when you start down the path that you're not going to receive my proposed legislation because i didn't cite to a specific amendment in the united states constitution which i revere and you revere,

then i'm going to tell you that i cite to the fact that i got elected and i'm going to move on and then we'll go to court and see whether or not this junk y'all are talking about is going to stand up. but that's for another day. if i heard you correctly, mr. king, then it is that we probably shouldn't have legislated health care in the first place because we didn't have the constitutional power to do so. now, i don't want to put words in your mouth. you tell me what you meant. >> mr. hastings, i believe that this bill that is the law of the land today that's set before us and proposed to be repealed completely violates the constitution in probably four different categories. the most obvious one is it violates the commerce clause. and there have always been babies born with -- the interstate commerce clause. there have always been babies born within the states who

live, breathe and died without crossing state lines and without accessing any health care whatsoever, let alone purchasing health insurance. they would be compelled to buy insurance underneath this policy, expanding the commerce clause to a point beyond the imagination of the founding fathers or any legitimate reading of the commerce clause. so under those conditions, this violation of the commerce clause, if it's allowed to stand, does allow the federal government to direct every activity of our lives. that's the most egregious violation. i believe it also violates the equal protection clause of the constitution, where -- and that, as far as i know, has not been litigated at this point. >> it has not. >> and florida would be a state that's aware of that. there were special provisions set up under the medicare advantage that allowed some of the people in florida to keep their advantage policies. so i would argue that that violates the equal protection clause in the same way that the former kickback violated the equal protection clause.

i would argue that there's not the enumerated powers to grant congress the authority to pass legislation like this, and i believe that it violates the 10th amendment of the constitution. this is a states rights issue. that's where i stand. and i hope that we're able to resolve this through the litigation process. but i wouldn't leave the resolution of this to the courts, because in the ends, as you know, the constitution you have in your hand, puts the power in the people and the people's house. >> whether you leave it to the courts or not, the simple fact of the matter is it's on a path to the united states supreme court, and certain provisions, whether your repeal were to be successful or not and certain provisions as they exist, are likely to be tested in court. the chair referred to judge hudson's decision. there are two other federal decisions that are in disagreement with judge hudson's decision, and the chair notably did not reference those decisions. so the courts are going to be

in conflict, and their interpretations, just as you and i are. i don't think this violates the commerce clause at all. i don't think it violates article one, section eight, of the constitution. and i do read the constitution to mean when you say promote the general welfare, that matters of this consequence and countless others come under that heading, and, therefore, i can't ignore some facts. let me turn to -- >> would the gentleman yield on that point? i just think it important that we understand that the language and the constitution that says promote the general welfare means the general welfare of the united states, not the general welfare of the individual population within the united states. >> where the power is derived from in the constitution? the people. >> indeed. >> indeed. but the general welfare of the united states is the condition by which we can achieve our own success and happiness, not

imposed upon us by the federal government. >> we'll sends you to conduct our law school seminar. >> and may i also ask if you would be willing to respond to would be willing to respond to the point that i made about interstate commerce, about a baby born within a state that accesses no health care, crosses no state lines, lives and dies, how would they be covered under an interstate commerce clause by the federal government? >> i think the legislation as proposed did exactly what you said, and that is to look out for all americans, and that would be that child that didn't cross state lines as well. what you would have the commerce clause be read to mean that insurance companies, for example, can cross state lines. that's one of your mantras. so that they can sell across state lines, and it would leave a state like mine and a district like mine and dan webster's, and nugent's districts, where we have high incidences of retired persons and people -- lots of them in

better than my district, over 80, that would be left uninsured, because we've seen it on automobile insurance, we've seen it on wind insurance when we had hurricanes. insurance companies go elsewhere. elsewhere. and i'm not mad with them. they have a right to pursue their bottom line. but they will cherry pic and thereon lies another flaw. >> will the gentleman yield? >> i'm not going to yield now, because i do have other questions and i don't want to take all my time on the gentleman's comments. last night a good friend of mine that others here know as well, and i don't know whether my colleagues, mr. webster and mr. nugent, knew katherine kelly. but katherine died last night. she supported me in 1992 and she did so for the reason that i made a speech in west palm beach that she attended. and i advocated universal

health care. and she came up to me -- i didn't know her from anybody, and she said, you know something, young man, i'm going to support you because i believe in universal health care, too. among the premises that i sought office in 1992 had to do with establishing universal health care, and i had as a subset the great need that we had and have in this nation of people to live in adequate housing, followed closely, of course, as all of us do, by the need to educate our children. katherine had good health care because she was wealthy. her husband had good health care for the same reason. she labored in nursing care in a variety of forms for the last two years of her life.

i last communicated with her six months ago when she had six months ago when she had undergone inhalation therapy. i don't know what her medical bills were and it's not my business, but i'm pretty sure that they were rather considerable. but i do know this -- that katherine would have given her last dime to ensure that least of us in this great america would have the same opportunities that she did as she exited life, and toward that end, that's just a slight memorial to the loss of a great american, as many of us have had, who advocated for more than what we did in the measure that was passed in the last session of congress. now, then, for 48 years i've had good health care. i began my practice with a lawyer that allowed that both of us understood that one of us could die and we wanted the

other and hills or her family to be protected. and so what we did was we got a buy-and-sell agreement and had insurance specialists come in and set up even in our poverty days plans for us. i then went on to become a state judge and i had blue cross blue shield of florida good, health care. i went on to be a federal judge. i had good health care. i had good health care. i was thrown off the federal bench and i had enough money to buy blue cross blue shield again. and then came here and, guess what, i still have blue cross blue shield of florida and i have good health care. i come at this from the standpoint of i'm all right. my mama had good health care not because of what she could afford, but she had an only son who could afford to provide for her, as i did before she died. she had medicare, and medicare

helped an awful lot, but it did not pay the thousands of dollars of bills for home health care and a number of other measures along those lines. now, some of our colleagues, specifically a couple of them are in the room. representative welch, miss capps, i didn't see her yet, jane harmon, ms. schakowsky, i saw her over there, but there are several bills that were offered that would include the elimination of lifetime coverage, the coverage of individuals up to 26, the requirement that individuals not be denied pre-existing conditions and the requirement that preventive care be provided free of charge, including the provision that recently took effect providing preventive services for seniors. mr. upton, do you deem it

unreasonable that that measure could go forward, and then the things that you and the resolution, as offered by the chair, could be undertaken? >> well, let me just say particularly, as i look at the very talented and thoughtful members on the energy and commerce committee, many of them who you just cited and i consider as my dear friends, as we look at a bill to replace the repeal of this bill, that that certainly would be considered in the full and open debate before the -- not only the health subcommittee, but the full committee as well. something that i would note did not happen in the passage of the house bill because they skipped the subcommittee. it went directly to the full committee. but i would think that mrs. capps, who's on -- you're on health, right? well, you haven't decided actually. ranking member waxman i don't think has decided yet who the ranking member is or the

membership of that subcommittee. and we're in the process of doing that now on the republican side. but i would think that under the fair and open process that we're going to have, that that would be an amendment that would be offered and we'll see what happens. but i think that there will be a debate. >> do you think it will be made? >> in committee, absolutely, that's going to happen. >> well, we had that opportunity. >> i would note that a number, if not all of those provisions, at least most of them, were in fact in chairman dreier's statement of things that he would support. so as a basis of how we would replace this bill, i think that those are certainly building blocks that many -- most of those, if not all -- >> i'm reclaiming my time. where is the data that you all have reflecting that what has passed and what is the law of the land as we continue the debate on repeal and you styled your repeal measure sort of a

stab at the legislation -- you called it job-killing, i fosht the exact name -- forget the exact name. but it's the repeal of patient protection and affordable -- waste it called, job-killing something or another. but the job-killing part continues to stick out at me. where have the jobs been killed? where did you see that? >> we'll be glad to get you that evidence for the record before the day is out. >> all right, then do that. and will you also get for me the jobs that were made as a result of the bill. >> i would note that in my testimony i talked about the nearly 400,000 jobs that speaker pelosi said would come about almost automatically. about almost automatically. i know that the 15,000 jobs that are in the bill for the i.r.s., i don't think they've come yet. but i have not seen a great number of jobs to the 400,000 that speaker pelosi -- >> but about the number of

losses, you told us when the bill passed that sky was going to fall. well, it didn't, and we still are alive and well. you talk in here as if the american public, all of them are in agreement with everything that you said. there are many things not to like in this bill and there are things to like in this bill, and there are many people in america who like a lot of this bill and determining who likes it the most and who likes it the least is something that i gather that all of us can do. but let's go to the neutral, and i ask about -- asked about this last night in the committee hearing, the neutral c.b.o. process. mr. chairman, i'm going to ask that the january 6 reference from doug elmendorf of the from doug elmendorf of the congressional budget office be made a part of this record. thank you, mr. chairman. i always wish to read one paragraph. c.b.o. has not yet developed a detailed estimate of the

budgetary impact of repealing that legislation, and that's the question that i raised last night by us going forward without having a c.b.o. score. although it is working with the staff of the joint committee on taxation to complete such an estimate in the near future, because congressional deliberations on hr-2 could begin very soon, c.b.o. is providing in this letter a less detailed preliminary analysis of that legislation. c.b.o. and j.c.t. estimated that the march 10 health care legislation would reduce budget deficits over the 2010-2019 period and in subsequent years. consequently, we expect that repealing that legislation would increase budget deficits. now, a lot of talk goes on

around here about budget deficits. do you all agree that the repeal of this legislation will repeal of this legislation will increase budget deficits? mr. king. you don't. c.b.o. is wrong. >> if the gentleman would yield. i was just starting a list and i've only begun to go down through it. but the legislation that's set to be repealed before this new 112th congress, which i think the sky actually did fall for people here, it has tax increases in it that are calculated into the funding that you're discussing, and it has a $532 billion cut to medical services in this country that is also calculated in there. i don't know all the asummings of c.b.o. so i think it needs to be taken into account rather than just wave the paper. >> so you, under the 10 years tax benefit, six years of tax tax benefit, six years of tax hikes, six years of benefits that cantor wrongly asserts.

and if you look at the charts that c.b.o. utilizes, you will find that that estimate is wrong. again, to show you what you're getting ready to do and why you should listen to mr. mcgovern and ms. slaughter and me and others when they talk. let's tell you what you're getting ready to do in my state. i want mr. webster and mr. nugent and the others to pay particular attention. without this affordable health care act, what we will have is 83,000 300 young adults -- 83,300 young adults [no audio]

[no audio] >> we're having a technical problem with the program that we're in. we're going to try to fix it and bring it to you in a short while from now. >> -- seven million residents of florida with private insurance coverage would suddenly find themselves vulnerable again to having lifetime limits placed on how much insurance companies will spend on their health. nearly 1.1 million people in florida alone are at risk of losing their insurance. nearly one million residents of florida would not know if they are receiving value for their

health insurance premium dollars, as insurers in the state would no longer be required to spend at least 80% to 85% of premium dollars on health care, rather than c.e.o. salaries, bonuses and corporate property. new insurance plans would no longer be required to longer be required to recommended services like mammograms and flu shots. nearly 3.2 million seniors in florida would have medicare coverage and be forced to enter co-pays. nearly 3.2 million seniors in florida who have medicare coverage would have to pay extra if they want to stay healthy by getting checkups regularly. 182,672 medicare patients would see significantly higher prescription drug costs, and you all stand accused repeatedly of not filling the doughnut hole. this legislation starts by filling 50% of it and could

benefit those persons who are my constituents that are in that doughnut hole, and now you would repeal it and say we start all over again. start all over again. i don't know when it is you propose to put it back where it is now, but i gather you do intend. florida would not receive additional resources to crack down on unreasonable insurance premium increases. florida would not receive additional funds to plan for a additional funds to plan for a health insurance exchange. maybe they won't have to. they just will have lost the money that was provided if you all decide not to have one. florida would not receive funds to support a consumer assistance program and 190 employers would not be receiving help from the early retiree insurance. let's go nationwide. 142,000, again, in the doughnut hole in my state. 293 already signed up, previous

existing condition insurance situation. the million dollar crackdown that i pointed out to you, that has already been set forth. let's talk about grants. in the state of florida alone -- and this is true in all of your states. let's just talk about grants. already -- already $26 million-plus dollars in discovery programs and tax credit grants have been allocated. other grants, $1.7 million for demonstration projects to address health professionals workforce needs. $3.4 million for early child -- this is already done. $500,000 for aging and disability resource centers. $1.4 million for medicare improvements for patients and providers. $2.1 million to strengthen public health infrastructure to improve health outcomes. $5.4 million in communities putting prevention to work grant awards. mr. chairman, i'm so glad you

put cameras in the courtroom -- in the rules room. $600,000 to build a laboratory and health information systems capacity. $1.3 million very much needed in florida for h.i.v. prevention and public health fund activities, where we have already seen cutoffs that are causing people not to be able to get drugs to keep them alive. $3 million to implement the national background check program for long-term health workers. $6.7 million for the primary care residency expansion program. $2.1 million for advance nursing education. $600,000 to expands physician's assistants training. $14.5 million to support capital development and health centers. $1.4 million for medicare improvements. and i'll spare you the national details. suffice it to say that they mirror what's happening in florida. but what i want you to tell me is, if you are successful --

and you're not going to be -- but if you were successful, other than passing it here in the house of representatives, which is your prerogative and out goes to the senate, and if you were fortunate enough to get senators crazy enough to sign on to this and send it to the president and he caved, what would you say to all of those people, and how would we get that money back, and how get that money back, and how would that not be a loss to the federal government? >> again, as mr. king said earlier, no one is talking about taking away money that's already been -- the checks that have already been cut. >> i hope kathleen hears that. she could get into a lot of check-bouncing. >> but we are committed. all of us here, as well as dave camp, chairman of the ways and means committee, to come back with a plan that replaces the with a plan that replaces the repeal. most members of congress do support reform of health care.

the question is, do you want the reform that passed without amendment that just took the senate bill, that was ram-rodded down our throats, or do you want to come back and look at an open process where we can look at common ground to actually make improvements to the current system, as chairman dreier indicated in his opening statement? that's where those of us here at this table today stand ready and prepared to move forward. >> well, i think you will repeal in a manner that will hurt america's middle class and eliminate millions of americans' jobs, in spite of what you say. and i believe that it explodes federal deficit. it certainly does by the announced and already scored c.b.o. score of at least 143 billion dollars. and i believe that there will be millions of people that would be affected by this. i would like to at this time

yield to the ranking member, ms. slaughter. >> i thank jat for yielding. i thought that i asked very interesting and important questions earlier in your enlightening testimony about how many jobs had been created since this health care bill went into effect. private employers since that time has added 935,000 jobs to their payrolls and the health sector has added an additional 171,000 jobs. for a job-killer bill, it's not for a job-killer bill, it's not doing its job very well, is it? >> not at all. thank you, madam slaughter. before i yield, mr. chairman, particularly for the members and young people in this audience and the rules committee today, as you heard me say, those of you that were in the room, for 48 years i've had good insurance. i don't know how many of you have had good, bad or indifferent insurance. but i woulas