somehow the greatest threat to the republic and the constitutional order. but on the subject of war, disastrous war that has taken the lives of more than 1,00 americans in afghanistan -- 1,400 americans in afghanistan and cost taxpayers some $366 billion, the new congressional ma this country's dire situation and its credibility around the world will only get worse unless the u.s. gets its finances in order. host: good morning, it is friday, january 7, 2011. that was defense secretary robert gates yesterday announcing the white house plans

for defense spending, which includes the first cut in military since september 11, 2001. the pentagon is proposing $78 billion in military cuts, 47,000 fewer troops over the next five years. this would also include raising fees paid by retired, and working age of veterans for their health insurance and elimination of a number of major weapons programs. we will talk about this and the politics of it this morning. it here are our phone lines. the numbers are on the screen. good friday morning to you. as the pentagon was announcing its budget plan for the next five years, at the same time yesterday we learned that more than 1000 extra marines are going to be deployed in

afghanistan. anne flaherty with the associated press. she wrote about the proposed budget. she is starting our day off with us. good morning. guest: good morning, susan. let host: start with the substance of the announcement -- host: let's start with the substance of the announcement yesterday. what was he? guest: i think it was the money that they have been told they are to come up with over the next five years. that is something that the pentagon has never had to do before, cut their budgets so substantially. gates came up with a plan that would say, okay, we will do it, but we will wait until 2015 when the war in afghanistan presumably starts to end. host: and the way the budget works, are these dollars for operations on the ground in any case? guest: they are not. this is just looking at the annual budget.

they look out over five years, the defense department, and they spend about half a trillion dollars each year. over and beyond that, they spend about $150 billion per year of operations for the wars. that is protected. host: in terms of major weapons programs, which faces the chopping block guest: gates did say that -- guest: gates did say that about $100 billion would be spread out over the next five years. however, services will keep about $70 billion of debt. it will not affect the top line. of that, the programs that will affect -- be affected by that include the marine corps armored tank dead marines wanted to swim ashore with. is a very high-speed -- armored tank that marines wanted to swim ashore with. it is a very high speed tank. gates looked at them and said,

is this really feasible? it has cost more than we thought it would. how many d-day landings will we be doing? that fell by the wayside. other things also fell by the way. there are further various not too, but they're high profile. i do not think they will attract too much attention in congress. it always does in certain corners, but the program cuts in this are fairly modest. the bigger news part of this is the overall top line reducing. host: and i mentioned the veterans' health care program called a strike here. the defense berman is proposing what with regard to that? guest: they have to reform the entire system. it has become broken. it has almost become too generous. but the specific proposal that

they throughout yesterday has a link to do with working age retirees. these are people who work in the military, have retired, but -- who were in the military, have retired, but are still under 65. they have health care coverage, but are paying as little as $500 per year for a family of four through this strike care program and that is a rate that has not been touched since 1995. gates said in the civilian sector, that would be as much as $5,000 for federal workers. is that logical or fair? he throws this out there as a major monies -- money saver to increase premiums, but he has tried this before and congress has never tolerated any program -- has never tolerated it. host: let segue into the politics of this. the timing of the announcement suggests what from the by khost? guest: i think the white house

is saying we are serious -- from the white house? host: i think the white house is saying that we are serious here. there were a lot of tea part iers elected to the congress. by going after defense first, it in some ways to protect it from a deeper cuts by saying we have already gone after that. but in triggering -- but also signalling to the public that we are serious about the deficit. host: thank you so much. let's get to the telephone calls from both sides of the political spectrum. it has been reported that the liberals say that the cuts are not deep enough. and from capitol hill, but mckeown, the person responsible in the house of representatives

wants to look at this very skeptically. the politics is on the table. the try care situation and whether or not you agree that it is time for veterans to pay more. if you are a working age veteran, that is the way it was described yesterday. let's get to phone calls from manhattan, new york. this is a map on the democrats line. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. i think they can close bases in the military and save hundreds of millions. i think it is interesting that both republicans again and democrats, they listen to mr. gates with respect. and president obama does not get the same kind of respect. mr. gates, people respect what he has to say and they listen to what he has to say and they will

follow what he has to say. my favorite saying these days is that i wish c-span would employ more fact checking. you are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. the gao says repealing the health care over 10 years will cost over $10 billion. you cannot argue with mathematics. you are not entitled to your own facts, but your own opinion. host: thanks for your call. let's get to baltimore. this is kevin. good morning. caller: i am a veteran. i was active duty army for a little over seven years and i have been in the reserves since 2004. not only in texas, but also now here in maryland.

why do not use try care because i think i get better coverage -- i do not use to try care because i think i get better coverage through my work. they need to look at it things like the reserves and the national guard. -currently in a reserve unit in virginia. i drive down there once a month. it takes me about two hours to get down there. i sit down there and i drink coffee. everybody tells me that i really had something to the unit and that i'm a great soldier and a wonderful individual and everything. i personally do not see it because i do not do anything. i legitimately do not do anything. host: but you are on ready reserve in case your services

are needed to become active, correct? if caller: that is the thing, though. the unit i am in is completely non deployable. they cannot call us up and deployed us. we are a training unit. they can call us as individuals and say, you have the exact skills that we need. but the problem with that is, there is an individual in my unit that was supposed to deploy, whose orders was -- whose orders were canceled because he had not done his job. his mos is, he has not done the job in 15 years. host: we get the point that cutting reserves is a way to cut defense spending. this is as of may, 2009, but the

numbers are generally on target. the total reserve of 833,000 and total active of about 1 million. here is a comment from chris in alabama who writes -- we want to hear what you think. let's go back to telephone calls. this is chattanooga, jack on the independent line. caller: i am a veteran. i was in the national guard and army, too.

i disagree with the changes. host: why is that? caller: i just do because when you go into the military, you are giving your life for your country and you should not have to pay for benefits. host: ok, thank you. mark is up next from dallas. independent. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to thank you for having us on. you guys are great. i watched of all the c-span channels as today with mr. gates and everything that is going on. i disagree with what you are stating on your banner this morning, the dot to cut $78,000,000,000.42999 troops. and what i heard mr. gates stockton -- the dod to cut $78 billion, and 43,000 troops. what i heard mr. gates said

yesterday was that he was going to take p.i.c. off the cake. specifically with these 40,000 ha -- 43,000 troops, he is going to start moving them from europe. i cannot believe he would just cut them and basically, fire them. i disagree with your banner. i do not believe he mentioned he will give the money back to the treasury. he is going to take the icing off the cake that he got in savings and integrate with the treasury for what his budget was. you guys are the best reporting agency that i have seen, so please fact check and be cautious how to present things in the future. i thank you for your time.

host: thank you for your call. next is a comment from hawaii. brian on the democrats line. caller: i served for 21 years in the marines because i love my country, not because i was trying to make any money. in the first eight years, my wife and i and child and a way under the poverty level. no one mentions that when they talk about tricare. try to get a doctor to take tricare. it is not that good of a deal. we were promised health care and the deal was if you will live in poverty in the beginning, but in the end, we will take care of you. by 40 years old -- i do not know about other marines, but by 40 years old i have several broken vertebrae, two hearing aids, he busted right ankle, etc. no big deal to me, but when the

government bought me a piece of equipment, which they did, they said they would maintain it later, and they destroyed it. host: does that mean the amount of money that you should put into it should remain steady? caller: we were told we would never put any money into it. dow was the verbal agreement. of course, that is the -- that was the verbal agreement. of course, that is the great thing about verbal agreements with the government. they do not have to live by a code of honor in washington d.c. host: curious an article in "the wall street journal,."

the "new york times" has made it its lead today as well, citing reductions of 47,000. also in the "washington post" today, $78 billion in planned spending cuts. nexpo call this philip in michigan. good morning -- the next phone call is philip in michigan. good morning. caller: good morning. we could combine all of the efforts of the v.a. with the new health care bill that they are planning. i was just watching it earlier. why don't they combine all of the medical care together? we are trying to save money, and yet, we keep the v.a. administration completely separate as their own entity? if we combine these two entities together, and go to this place

to get your appendix out instead of having all of these little hospitals everywhere -- they are pretty much worthless. they're just places to stop instead of going to the real hospital. i go to kalamazoo. the little towns with the little hospitals, they are nice, but not enough. host: how far is kalamazoo from where you are? caller: it is about 20 miles. host: princeton, new jersey is next. craig is a democrat. caller: hi, i listened to the reporter that you had on the -- at the beginning and she talked about the pension -- pentagon budget being at least $500 million. if you look at the headline it does not make any sense because they are cutting $78 billion

over five years and in that time on your spending 500 times 5, which is $205 billion. this cut turns out to be about 3%. it is very small over five years. it is not $78 billion next year. if you look at it, it gives you questions. there are a lot more things we need to talk about. why do we need so many bases overseas? can we get rid of at least 200 of those? there is a lot more they can do. this is a drop in the budget. host: craig is -- this is a drop in the bucket. host: craig is correct in that it is a couple of percentage points over the next couple of years and ended flat lines. if i can find the specifics i

will pass them along to you. this is a twitter message from anne. we are asking you about the message from the white house yesterday through the defense department. the white house has asked them to cut their budget over the next five years. $78 billion in savings. another hundred million dollars in savings was announced, but as one of the callers mentioned, they have been allowed to reinvest that $100 million in programs. next caller is on the air. caller: i am a retired chief officer in the navy. i have been required for some time. my wife is below retirement age.

she is totally disabled, declared so. but she has no benefits from social security. we totally depend on the tricare prime. i pay the premium for her. now they are born to tell me, you know -- they are going to tell me, you know, once again they send up a lead balloon and will threaten military benefits. it is entirely political. they have made it political ever since i retired. -- , since i retired these 20 years ago. i am sick and tired of it. i have been a republican until very recently, but now i'm an independent. neither of them really care about the military other than when is a question of sending a

political bling. i am tired of being a football. -- sending up a political football. i am tired -- a political balloon. i am tired of being a football. host: here is what mr. gates had to say yesterday. >> many of these beneficiaries of tricare are employed full time and often forgo their and lawyers health care, to remain with tricare. this should not be a surprise given that the general and fee was set in 1975 at $465 per year for the basic family planning has not been raised cents. -- raised since. the fees for comparable health

insurance programs for federal workers cost nearly $5,000 per year. accordingly, with the fiscal 2012 budget, will propose reforms in the area of veteran health care to better manage cost growth and be in better alignment with the rest of the country. this will include being more efficient as well as modest increases for tricare for working age retirees. potential savings from these initiatives could amount to nearly $7 billion over the next five years. host: and back to your telephone calls. weightman, ohio, chris on the line. caller: they talk about cutting the budgets on everything. why don't they start cutting the budgets of other things? our military sacrifices every day.

i do not care if they have retired or not. they have sacrificed. they put in. people on welfare never put in anything. they should start cutting welfare and putting people back to work and cutting our taxes so we can go back to work. i do not understand why they keep attacking military and social security when they do need to be cutting on welfare. i just do not understand why our military and older people that have sacrificed, when these younger people are living on welfare and they are not giving us anything. they just keep getting and receiving and receiving. host: thank you, chris. next call from north carolina. you are on the air. caller: i want to concur with other military retirees. i was 27 years in active-duty army. i have been in three military conflicts and gafta had five major operations. when they start -- and i have had five major operations.

when they start talking about cutting benefits, they are out of their minds. i have until the age of 65 to go back to combat. the guy who said he was in the reserves and did not do anything, i guarantee him, if they wanted him to do something they could have him out there washing pots and pans. that is the way the military is. they have you out there doing what they want you to do. secretary gates talking about veterans getting this extra health care stuff, what they do not mention is that when you are active-duty military, if you are injured due to someone -- the fault of someone in the military, you cannot sue them. he should understand that being in the military is not the same as being in civilian life. you are getting shot at and you do not know if one of your

buddies is going to frighten yfrag you. they should hold up their promises to the veteran. host: thank you for your comments from north carolina. ceq has a written that they are surprised by the cuts. next is a phone call from lexington, ky. this is bill, republican line. good morning, bill.

caller: good morning. i am not a veteran, so my comments have nothing to do with the cuts and how they might impact the veterans. but i do want to give some perspective to our national debt. before the tax bill that just passed, our debt was $13.20 trillion. it takes 1000 billion to make a trillion. so, the $784 billion cut, it would take something like 13,000 cuts of that size to eradicate our deficit. this is the game that washington plays. they will hike a cut -- they a cut like this, but

nobody looks at it in the big picture. this is an enormous problem that our country has, and it is eating us, as the dead commission said, as a cancer from within. -- as the debt commission said, like a cancer from within. they need to make cuts that will make a real difference. our debt is so enormous and it is not even within the realm of human contemplation. host: thank you, bill, from lexington kentucky. the decision on the debt will be something congress has to make a decision on, as is the headline in the open or washington times" today. -- in the "washington times" today.

the article closes this way. the assistant secretary of defense during the reagan administration, lawrence korb, said -- brochure city, louisiana is next. -- bossier city, louisiana is next. caller: good morning. i am retired after 24 years in the air force. this is very, very disturbing.

every time they need to make some money, they go to the military. there is a pocket of money somewhere in the military structure there. there is a thing where you take out insurance on your family while you are in the military and i paid into it 30 years. assured my wife passed, and i know there are many more in the same session version -- shourd my wife passed, and i know there are many more in the same situation i am in, should my it would cover my family. however body all over the country has a yellow ribbons and god bless our troops. but every time they need a few dollars they go to the military, regardless of the sacrifices

they have made. someone needs to bring this to their attention. host: thank you. from "the washington post" this morning a little more on the way germans -- weapons proposals. -- major weapons proposals. and the tucson district, you remember that had a close election.

and finally, the expeditionary fighting vehicle. we talked about that earlier. and that is the "washington post" this morning. st. petersburg, fla., up next. and david is a republican. caller: i am a brain and spine surgery in florida. i want to talk about the so- called efficiency that has turned into rationing. there is concerned about cutting the military budget, and there should be. we need to take our troops out

of afghanistan and iraq, but not only that. we need to look at the bases in korea, japan, all over the world. that is where the money is. like the gentleman who just called about when his wife died, that money should be owned by him and not the government. when it comes to so-called efficiency, what they are going to do is penalize doctors who provide what they all think is too much care to their patients. for instance, if i think a veteran need to spine surgery and i want to operate on him, or if they have brain cancer and i want to put a chemotherapy wave therapy into their brain, they will say it costs too much money. it will not be the same as the bricks when they rationed. they will withhold valuable lifesaving care to our veterans. -- it will not be the same as

the brits when they rationed. host: you worked exclusively at veterans hospitals? a caller: i have worked at many, veterans' hospitals and the way they are treated is ridiculous. they wait forever to get good care. i'm sure they get free medications, but so many half doctors outside of the v.a. for their real medical care and they keep a doctor in the v.a., for their free prescriptions. , it is an incredibly inefficient system. and those veterans are mistreated. , host: we have about 10 or 12 minutes left in our discussion. we will start mixing in a few other news items. first of all, yesterday there was a reading of the prosecution. i want to show you a picture of -- a club of democrat frank malone.

>> no person except a natural born citizen or a citizen of the united states at the time of the adoption of this constitution shall be eligible to be in the office of president. the speaker pro tempore: the chair wi >> [unintelligible] >> the chair will remind the person in the gallery that this is the house. host: the woman was arrested by capitol police for her disturbance on the house floor. i wanted to assure you that because we told you earlier that c-span has delivered a request to the incoming speaker to allow our cameras to be on the floor of the house of representatives. the pictures that you see are from house cameras. that is an example of things

that would be different if private cameras were there. the house rules would allow cameras to show only the person speaking. you can hear the person, but you cannot see your. back to the defense department and its plan for the next five years budget. it would be $78 billion in cuts to programs. next call is johnny, a democrat. caller: i would like to get a little time. i have called c-span over and over. i am a 23-year retired veteran. every time they want to make cuts they want to cut retirees' benefits. and the v.a. is the worst. doctors are going to do exactly what the v.a. tell them to do. if they are really interested in

cutting, and i met my limit with it, they should give every household one m-16 and 1000 rounds and let them defend themselves. host: you heard the news that alan weiss, new spent 22 years at npr, her jshe resigned yeste.

back to phone calls on the defense department and its budget. next is, from plymouth, ohio. caller: good morning, susan. where to begin? i was not a republican and i was a democrat and now i'm independent. i am sick of both parties. the republicans got us into this mess, the war, by weapons of mass destruction. i look at it as words of mass destruction. the-distraction. the way i see it, corporations and government hand-in-hand. most of our money is defrauded by outsourcing troops. you have troops over in afghanistan now -- now making $1,000 or $2,000 per month and you have mercenaries' making anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000

per month. when we cut our military soldiers, what are we going to do? will we just a ploy mercenaries like blackwater? -- just deployed mercenaries like blackwater? we have military corporations -- what we need to do is audit the government of the way through. then we will see where our problems lie. and our problems lie with that building shown on the screen right now. i am a veteran. there are us that are watching and we are fed up with this. host: thank you. also this morning, the announcement of mr. daly as the new chief of staff at the white house. the president also set up as his top economic advisor, gene

sperling. he also served the treasury secretary. here he is. >> compensation should accurately measure and reward performance. it is a lot more complex to find that metrics of true performance. but some people say stocks on the bull market, and on the other hand not rewarding those that are doing well in difficult economic times. we should study the careful mix of metrics veteran of the rewards in fact and not just in name. >> gene sperling, expected to

be announced later today as his top economic adviser. rapid city, s.d., this is oscar. caller: i'm a veteran and there are a lot of veterans that come home, legs blown up, arms blown apart. there are a lot of people in congress and the united states

that just stay here and do not have to volunteer or get involved for our country. and here they are talking bad about the country. and here these people are going to afghanistan and iraq. and here they are cutting our welfare. they probably get paid more than what we get in the service. host: thank you, oscar. just to be clear, this is a proposal at this point and it needs to be reviewed and a new proposal will be developed by capitol hill. this is the opening salvo in discussing what spending will look like in the next five years. also from "the financial times" this morning.

back to phone calls on dispensed -- defense spending. this is jacksonville. david is an independent. caller: i have 17 more -- or more years on active duty. i have two stores in iraq. -- two two wars in iraq. i am glad that the defense

secretary brought this up. look at the contract in iraq. i worked with a guy who may have worked 50 hours a week, but we were running 24 hour operation and when he crossed his 50th hour he said i'm not doing any more work because of his contract. all he talked about was the mustang he was going to buy when he got back after doing a year in theater. these guys were doing the same jobs we were doing and they were making three times as much money. these were no bid contracts. it was a huge waste. and on the tricare, i think it should be on a case by case basis. if you are talking about guys who had their arms blown off, they should not do it. if you are talking about guys who were working in ad man, -- min, sure.rking in ad man

what are the principles here? host: later on in our program -- and we have a short program today, because the house of representatives is coming in at 9:00 a.m. there will be a test vote on the health care repeal. it is a vote on the role. coming up in a few minutes, jim mcgovern, a democrat of massachusetts will be our guest. at a later on, we will have a congressman rob bishop of utah. he will be part of the gop transition team. this is a tweet from freelancer. also in the news, you have probably heard nationally about the incendiary devices in

buildings in maryland yesterday. not surprisingly, it dominates the front page of the "baltimore sun." as we talk about defense spending, our last call comes from vancouver, washington criti. caller: yes, i'm still sang on a of a republican because i loved president reagan for the -- i'm still saying i am a republican because i love president reagan for his spirit. but i have a hard time holding on to that party because i think that all politicians need to be questioned about the press. we need to ask about what they are paying into their health care. the politicians.

they have automatically built in pay raises. the press never asked them any questions about that. the military, i have tried to figure of four years, they are paid -- i have tried to figure out for years, they are paid by tax dollars. and they have taxes taken out of their salary. they end up making very little money. and i agree with the guys who have called in that have said, you know, they are the guys that are going over there fighting for us. everybody else is just sitting at home watching tv and wringing their hands about the damn budget. host: thank you. we've got to run on that point. she mentioned roberpresident re. there are big plans to mark the reagan centennial.

later on in our program we will tell you about c-span's news service on c-span3, "american history tv." it will have a lot of presidential history for you if your interested in it. thanks for per dissipating in our discussion this morning. we will take a break and be -- for participating in our discussion this morning. we will take a break and be back with congressman jim mcgovern.

, this weekend on c-span3's "american history tv," accetta become a debate on 1980's america and sunday, -- saturday, a debate on 1980's america and sunday, an oral history with congressman charles rangel, on his political career and the founding of the caucus. learn about the history of the u.s. currency. see the complete schedule online at c-span.org/history. you can also press the c-span alert pregnant have our alerts sent to you. -- the alert button and how our alerts sent to you. >>, this weekend, robert kaplan on the historical significance.

and when reporters as there is a price on every decision everyone makes and most do not realize it is a motivating factor in the shaping of their lives. sign up at c-span.org. you can get our meals directly to your in box. >> listen to supreme court cases on c-span radio. saturday, the court considers the definition of a breach of contract and racial discrimination. >> mr. mcdonald did not hold any rights under the contract between his country -- company and the dominoes. >> listen online at c- spanradio.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on the screen is congressman jim mcgovern

massachusetts. he was elected to congress in 1996 for the first time. we have 96 new members up there. what is it like? guest: it is always exciting when you begin a new session. i wish the election have turned north differently, obviously. but i am hopeful that this will be a good year. host: yesterday, you were involved in one of the first committee hearings, that is, the rules committee getting set for the vote today on the repeal measure. help us understand what happened yesterday. it was an interesting day constitutionally. i'm sure many of our viewers watched at least part of it. guest: the republican bill to repeal the health care law, i thought that was unfortunate. people talked about jobs, what are you doing to create jobs? how are you going to strengthen economic security?

and republicans decided the first order of business was a wholesale repeal of the health care bill. to fight again a battle that we have already fallen. it was a long day in the rules committee yesterday as members came up and talked about what the health care reform bill did. and what repeal would mean. repeal would mean that we would no longer be an insurance companies from discriminating against people found with pre- existing conditions. the repeal would mean continued discrimination against women in terms of what they would pay for health care. it would mean that you cannot keep your kids on your insurance until they are 26. it would mean that the doughnut hole whitby bigger for those -- would be bigger for those on prescription drugs. we should be talking about the economy and jobs and getting people back to work and instead, we are having this polarizing debate on a total repeal of the

health care bill. the other bit of controversy, by the way, was the fact republicans have changed their rules, to basically make it easier to increase the deficit. a repeal of the health care bill would increase the deficit over -- by 230 baht -- $230 billion over 10 years. it would mean increasing premiums and tens of millions of people without insurance. saying theycally are no longer going to listen to cbo. the congressional budget office is the neutral group of experts that give us budgetary numbers. sometimes we like the numbers and sometimes we do not, but we have got to deal with them. republicans are saying they do not want to deal with cbo anymore. the republican chairman of the budget committee can decide whatever numbers he wants. that is politicizing the budget

process. i do not care whether you are democrat or republican, you should not want to go down that role. while democrats -- that road. while democrats may not like what the republican comerica -- committee chairman may say, republicans made up not like -- republicans may not like what the democrat chairman may say. again, we should have started off talking about jobs. host: there is a focus on health care because that was the rules committee purview. there will be a vote on it today. also, interesting organizational issues around the new congress and congress's pledges for transparency. if you like to discuss any of that, our phone numbers are up on the screen. you can get to us by e-mail or also by tweet.

i want to assure you a clip from speaker boehner talking about the gao report. and how you respond to it. and >> families and small businesses are worried about how this will affect their livelihood. that is why we are recent -- releasing the report that examines the health care law's impact on our economy and our budget. the evidence is overwhelming. this health care law, by raising taxes, imposing new mandates, and increasing uncertainty is already destroying jobs in our country. it will continue to destroy jobs in america until we put -- unless we do something about it. the report shows how the law is making it harder to end the job killing spending and threatens our future. and if you look at it dollar by dollar, the members do not add up.

with 10% unemployment and national debt, the american people want us to focus on cutting spending and growing our economy. that is what repealing the health care law is all about. host: that is speaker, gainer yesterday. -- speaker boehner yesterday. he talked a little bit about how he sees it as a job killer. guest: he gives no evidence. in fact, it is the opposite. there have been 171 new jobs created in the health-care sector. he wants to talk about the negative impact on the economy without this health care bill, tens of millions of people will be left without insurance. one of the biggest causes of bankruptcies and people losing their homes are health care costs. people get over burdened with health care costs. he is talking about repealing a bill that allows you to keep your kids, your injured -- keep

your kids on your insurance until they are 26 years old. i cannot tell you how many people we have talked to that expressed support for that because when kids get out of college, they do not always find a job. i've got people in my district who are grateful for the new health care law because it bans discrimination based on pre- existing conditions. i had a woman right now about her son, and graduated -- i had a woman from massachusetts right to me about her son who graduated from college was unable to get health care. we should be talking about how to put people back to work. we should be talking about how to strengthen our economy. what he is doing is fighting again an old battle. as this health care bill kicks in, more and more people will realize their benefits. senior citizens will pay less for prescription drugs. what speaker boehner will do is

to reverse those reforms. does that mean that citizens will have to retroactively pay back the benefits they have already received for closing the doughnut hole? host: the usa today leaves with a new gallup poll. the poll shows gop has the fuel for rollback. 46% of those surveyed tuesday and wednesday say they want their representative to vote for repeal. 40 percent on what a lot to stand. what do these numbers mean to you? guest: obviously, the nation this split. but think about this, the tens

of millions of dollars that have been spent by insurance companies and special interests who represent the insurance companies to try to discredit this bill. i do not think there is any other piece of legislation in the history of our country that has been so maligned by right wing groups then the health care reform bill. but i think what is happening is that as people begin to see what the benefits are, they begin to understand it is not that bad. it is actually pretty good thing. the status quo was unacceptable. right now, we are paying for those who are uninsured. when someone goes into a hospital and does not have insurance and if they have a heart attack or wherever, they get treated. but the hospital does not go to some vault and magically take out money. we all pay for that through increased premiums, increased taxes, increased debt and burden on our kids. i think the health care bill is

a good bill. i think it could be made better. we could talk about tweaks to make it better. but this notion controlling consumer protections is the wrong way to go. we should be talking about jobs. before host: we go to calls, -- host: before we go to calls, an interesting thing happened yesterday when it was found dead two republican members have not taken the oath. -- found that two republican members had not taken the oath. guest: we found that two had not been sworn in the congress. it came down to, what does all of this mean? maybe instead of reading the constitution they ought to follow the constitution. we were trying to figure or whether there was a constitutional issue, a parliament terry issue that

needed to be worked out. -- a parliamentary issue that needed to be worked on. maybe their votes will be void and then we will move on. we had to reassess the committee because the chairman did not quite know whether or not the hearing was legitimate because, again, the member in question who was not technically sworn in was actually chairing the committee for a while. >> let's get the calls for it. this is right on the republican line. caller: i wanted to ask about jobs, and how we should worry about that. obama did not do that for his first two years. he said health care, health care. the american people do not want this health care. that is the way it is.

guest: i think we need to reform our health-care system. tens of millions of our citizens do not have health care. quite frankly, the inequities in the system cried out for attention. is anyone believing that women should have to pay more for health care or that a pre- existing condition could be defined as domestic violence? give me a break. i will say this. the caller is right to know that we should have focused more on the economy and on jobs during the last two years. he left need results might have been different. -- election results might of been different. the last election was about jobs. that is what we should be talking about the first week of congress. we should not be fighting these old battles. smart, independent line.

-- marks, an independent line. caller: with all due respect, you keep spotting these democratic talking points about all of the uninsured people. no one in this country will go without health care if they do not have them. they would have gotten serviced. you talk about all of these things in health care that are going to reduce the budget over 10 years. could you explain why the doctor fix was taken out before it went to the cbo? the two hundred $50 thing? >> we have to figure out a way to pay for it. you are right about one thing. if you show up at an emergency room you get taken care of. here is the deal, all of us to pay for insurance paid for that. we have higher premiums and higher taxes. we go deeper into debt.

e notion that the system is working because you get treated is not a very good defense for not doing anything. the other thing, the way the savings will be, there are areas of cutting back on fraud and abuse in the system. there is a great deal of fraud and abuse in the system. we have seen that exposed. the other way is to by investing in prevention. when we go into the doctor's on a regular basis for call mammographies or mammograms, a lot of people do not go because there is a co-pay. this would eliminate that. i am a big advocate of regular checkups and prevention. i go for a check-up every year. i have a good health care plan. in september they noticed a module on my thyroid.

i had my thyroid removed. luckily, they caught it early enough so that it is totally treatable. they caught it early. they removed it. that not only saves me a lot of misery, but quite frankly, it makes me cheaper. i am a lot less expensive one i am well. there are a lot of things that would help reduce costs. host: this is from houston. bill, republican line. caller: you democrats all talk about the things that are going to take away. most republicans agree with your basic talking points. to be generous, i will even give you 100-pages of what we do not like. and what we do not like are the other 2000 pages that are social

engineering that republicans did not have been put in. you did not listen to dr. bird or senator colbern. the second thing i wanted to say to you is that i hope you want the republicans to give you the same rules that you gave them when you were in power. thank you. guest: i disagree that republicans did not have been put. there were hearings, and there were amendments that were added. the president reached out to republicans. they were not interested. so, i just disagree with that. in terms of the length of the bill, the republicans' bill yesterday, i think, was one page or one page and a half at most, but it is probably the most expensive in terms of if they succeed in repealing the legislation. affordable health care bill, we

will add $230 billion to our deficit over the next 10 years, and on top of that we will add $1.20 trillion over the next 10 years. we will see an increase in premium and consumer protection's thrown to the waste site. that is not me spouting off democratic talking points. that is the neutral congressional budget office. those are the people that we rely on to give estimates of what things will cost. i disagree. this was probably the most debated bill in the history of united states congress. hearings, hundreds of hours, lots of amendments -- i disagree with the gentleman. host: two headlines. "the washington times" and in

the "new york times." republicans say you can only score on what you are given. guest: for as long as i know, we have been relying on the cbo for estimates on bills. some we did not like, but we had to deal with them. republicans, in the past, relied on cbo. there are a neutral arbitrator. you do not want to turn this into a political exercise. republicans are saying we do not like those numbers, we will make up for our own. we are going down a very bad road if that is the way their attitude is going to be. let me say that i would like to be able to believe that even though we may disagree on where all or priorities should be on how we reduce the deficit or things like that, we should be able to agree at least on what

the numbers are. this is what it will add to the deficit. this is what it will save. to have those believable numbers, uniate neutral group to tell you -- you need a neutral group to tell you. that is where the cbo comes in. the republicans making up their own numbers is a mistake. host: a from twitter, if premiums -- if health care is so good, why are premiums going up? guest: i think the oversight will be able to control the increase in health-care costs. before health care reform was put into place, premiums were skyrocketing, and you were getting less protections. premiums were skyrocketing just because you were a woman. insurance companies were raising premiums and the signing freeze

it -- pre-existing conditions as someone who is pregnant or afflicted with a domestic violence. republicans are saying we trust the insurance companies, we like the status quo, and let's go back to the days were the insurance companies could tell you what doctors you could see, and we will cover this and that. i do not want to go back, and i do not think most americans want to go back down that road. host: sue, your arm. caller: a i think your party is doing a great job. i do not think on of people realize how good this healthcare plan is for everyone. the republicans want to repeal it because they never had a plan for us. if it was only you that had a plan for us. are just want to tell you how

proud i am of you. guest: thank you. we will have an interesting debate on the repeal that the republicans put forward on a closed process. speaker john boehner talked about the new openness, but we are not going to see it yet. it is a closed rule. there were dozens and dozens of members that came up with amendments to protect provisions that say you do not discriminate against people because of pre- existing conditions, or to protect benefits for senior citizens, and they were rejected. we will go to the floor in this very close process. again, what is frustrating to me is we should be talking about jobs in the economy, and we are fighting this old battle. it is polarizing. it is not bringing people together. if there are legitimate areas to

fix, we should be talking about that, but a wholesale repeal makes no sense to me. it is reckless. host: on a specific question, supplemental payments kick him in 2014, please clarify. guest: some benefits are kicking in already. the loss are expected to be fully implemented in 2014. its coat next call, evan, -- host: college state, pennsylvania. evan. caller: i am a republican registered, and tend to vote republican. why do you keep dancing around

the insurance companies. why do not -- why not just get rid of them all together? i do not understand why you want to regulate existing businesses that are not legitimate. guest: quite frankly, that is not where the majority of members of congress are at. that is not where the country is that. i think this is a good start. hopefully, it will work the way we wanted to. what we are trying to do is address the excesses' of the insurance companies. we want to make sure there are patient protections in place, or prevent discrimination. we want to make sure senior citizens can afford prescription drugs. this represents a compromise. again, there were a lot of details that were incorporated, including republican ideas. it may not be perfect, but i

think it is a step in the right direction. host: next, l.i., karen, an independent. caller: the more i hear democrats saying they would like this to work on jobs -- the last two years he obama administration did nothing with jobs. people spoke a big thing wanted health-care -- that they did not want healthcare retail and they did not want health care to go back. my second question, with the cbo, i do not believe the numbers were correct that were put in from what i understand. if there was a lot left out. you kept passing it back and forth until you got a number you could work with. i have a friend that as a child with a pre-existing condition. her health care is under a union plan. if she is not able to get her son into the plan until 2014. can you address these issues?

ron guest: if they are children, they should be able to get in it immediately. caller: he is under 26. guest: if he is under 26, they should be able to get him into the plant. on the cbo numbers, again, they are the neutral institution that provides as with estimates. if you're going to throw them out the window and rely on whatever is in power, i will tell really -- tell you will not get the correct numbers. on the numbers that we are dealing with, they should come from a neutral party, and that is with the cbo is. i agree that we should as the more time on jobs. in defense of president obama, he inherited the worst economy since the great depression. if we were spiraling down this

cycle and we passed the recovery and reinvestment act to stop the hemorrhaging. we saved a lot of jobs. he tried to focus on incentives. in retrospect, we shouldn't spend more time figuring out ways to in -- we should have spent more time figuring out ways to get the economy back on the right track. here we are now. i think the last election was jobs and we should be focused on that. host: all of a sudden, it is jobs, not so for the last two years. guest: clearly, we needed to focus more on that issue. here, we are now. what are we doing? we are fighting an old battle. we should be focused on jobs and figuring out ways to reduce the deficit. i was pleased with the news that secretary gates wants to trim

the military budget. for years, that has been sacrosanct. people do not want to touch it. we have some weapons systems that are obsolete, that we do not need, but that we are still making. quite frankly, i also believe that we should get out of the afghanistan and iraq. we should bring our troops home. we are borrowing $100 billion for afghanistan this year. that is more than the entire health-care bill will cost. i would rather spend that money on providing people with severe health care, and fixing the system, then getting bogged down in a war that i think has no end and is a bankrupt in a. and free to bankrupting us -- bankrupting us. host: do you think the cuts will be sustained? guest: i want to spend all we need to spend to protect the

people, but i do not want to spend wistfully in a way that does not enhance security. by all accounts, secretary gates is no raging liberal. i remember donald trump is felt even talked about trimming -- doubled rums felled even talk about trimming some of the waste. let's make sure some of our taxpayer dollars are being spent wisely to enhance security. i think there are probably more savings there than secretary gates has outlined. i think we could find even more if we ended these wars in afghanistan and iraq. it makes no sense to me that we will be there for another four years. the cost i think it's great. -- i think is great. we need to formulate an exit strategy. host: so you disagree with the president?

gee, i strongly disagree. i have introduced amendments to the floor. he did a speech talking about the withdrawal of our troops in the july of 2011, and now he says we will be there until it least 2014. i think that is kicking the can down the road. that is the wrong thing to do. karzai is corrupt. he is not a reliable partner. i think we need to finish until this war. host: new haven, connecticut, chris, democrat. caller: susan, thank you for your work. i can see you are working through being sick. representative jim mcgovern, my first vote. you have a proud name. no one seems to remember that before the economic collapse everyone in the country was

concerned about their health care coverage and the rising rates that was driving not only the consumer, but businesses out of business. that is what people wanted -- a change in the health-care system, and so there was an economic collapse and everyone was frightened and wanted to repeal everything that was done to save us from the insurance companies. guest: there is no question in my mind that the health-care system needs to be reformed. i think most americans would agree with that fact. the insurance companies were discriminating against people because of pre-existing conditions. they were raising premiums that had nothing to do with providing new good health care, was about rewarding executive compensation and making more profits at the expense of the consumer. in this bill, while not perfect, it goes a long way in addressing

those excesses'. if it was the right thing to do. -- it was the right thing to do. there is a lot of controversy over the bell in large part because an astronomical -- over the bill because an astronomical amount of money was spent by the insurance groups to debate it. i remember talking to someone who was against obama care and ism what he was against, and he could not narrow it down. and do you think we should discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions? now. if you believe that we should eliminate code-pays for preventative care? yes. you think we should eliminate fraud and abuse? yes. well, that is the whole damn bill. well, that is not what i heard.

i've never seen distortion launched against any piece of legislation like i have this. i think as people are seeing the benefits, they're realizing there are good things in this bill. host: i want to ask you about the senate. i have heard many members of the democratic majority complain about the senate been the stopping point for legislation they cared about. do you support the filibuster change rollbacks -- change? guest: it makes sense to me. i think the republicans of use the filibuster in a way that is not only destructive to the legislative process, and made people cynical, i think it sets a terrible precedent. it literally held up the debate of legislation. on so many of these issues, there should have been a debate and vote. if you do not like something, vote against it.

hiding behind these procedures to hold things up, and sometimes not even having to identify who you are just to be obstructionist, i do not think it is the right way to do government. again, it is a bad precedent, no matter who is in charge. i would like the senate to be more responsive and more productive. host: warwick, rhode island. this is done, republican. caller: good morning. during this talky said you have good health care law. why did you people not take this health-care bill and make it for yourselves? guest: we did. see, we are not -- caller: no, you are exempt. guest: you are wrong on that. the only people that cannot keep their health care system and are

forced to go on the exchange are members of congress. members of congress will not have a special, gold-plated health-care plan. host: by when? guest: by 2014. host: the next call is from michigan. good morning. caller: with all of our boys coming home from the service and the unemployment rate so high, what has the top 2% done in contributing to create jobs? guest: i wish they would do more. i think what we are seeing is the economy is beginning to recover. we are seeing there is a great deal of activity come up positive activity, in a lot of different businesses -- activity, positive activity, in a lot of different businesses. the rich are getting richer, and

the poor are getting poorer. if the disparity is growing. we are trying to provide incentives to make sure there are preferences given to the men and women who serve for our country. as you heard me say, i am very much against these wars, but i am very much for supporting these men and women who are doing an incredible service for our country. i have been to afghanistan and a rack. i have met with them. i am in all of their service, and we need to make sure there is taken care of. i wish those who are doing well would invest a little bit more in this economy so we could create more activity and jobs. host: we have all lot of more -- a lot of people in the twitter community asking if you read the health care law. guest: i did read the health care law. it was read on the senate floor. it was posted on the internet. contrary to the distortion campaign, there has been more

hearings on this bill the other piece of -- any other piece of legislation i know. people might not agree with it, but the fact is it was there. i read it. again, it is not a perfect bill. i think it is a good bill. there might need to be some tweaks made in the future, but the notion of wholesale repeal -- basically taking away the protections that have been built into the law to protect consumers i think is a mistake. taking away the benefit to senior citizens for cheaper prescription drugs, and he essentially raising the tax on senior citizens, i think is a mistake. host: in our earlier segment there was a discussion about the dod spending cuts, and a good focus was on an increase in premiums for health care. some of the people calling in and our twitter community suggested dismantling the veteran health care system as a

way to increase access and giving people vouchers. gee, i think it is a pretty good system. -- guest: i think it is a pretty good system. most veterans i represent think it is a good system. we want a veterans' health care system because sometimes the health issues that veterans deal with our unique to veterans, especially now when you have people coming back from these wars with brain trauma injuries and posttraumatic stress syndrome, and other health problems that are uniquely related to their service. i do not think you want to dismantle the veterans health system. think that would be a mistake. host: it looks like the vote will be happening around noon. guest: that will be happening today, and then next thing they will bring up the vote for a repeal. i will do my best to fight them on it.

host: what tools do you have? guest: my no vote and my voice. my expectation is the republicans will win on this vote, but it is the wrong thing to debate right now. we should focus on the economy, jobs, and getting into this debate on stuff we have already talked about is in the state. host: we have one final call from erie, pennsylvania. republican line. caller: i understand there is questionable information that people did not get with the health-care bill. right from the beginning it was not giving -- given to the people. one is on abortion, and the other is the microchip they are planning to put in, and that is in section four, page 101.

host: who is getting a micro chip? caller: that is in the medical device section. no information is coming out on that. guest: i do not recall the microchip. in terms of abortion, a lot is that no federal funds could be used to support abortion. that is the law. much has been made about that issue. i think much of it has been wronged. that is all lot of the land. host: what role will you have in the rules of debate today? guest: i will be speaking, and i will be managing one of the bills they bring up next week on health care. host: thank you for being here on c-span. congressman jim mcgovern of massachusetts. in a few moments, our final guest. it is a short program this morning because of the early session of the house to deal with the health-care repeal role

today. we will have our final guest, mr. bishop of utah. let's introduce it to a new aspect of c-span programming first. we are joined by a relatively new colleague, a historian who produces a weekend programming block called american history tv. tell our audience about american history tv. guest: what booktv has done, american history tv hopes to do. a few features of our 48 programming -- 40 our programming but include american art affects where we take viewers behind the scenes to take something -- take the worst behind the scenes to see something they would not see. another new feature is lectures

and history. we travel around the country to visit top american history professors. you can see a day in their class as they talk about their expertise. it is like going back to college for a day. in addition to that, we have programming every weekend on various aspects of the presidency, and also the civil war as the nation begins to commemorate the 150th anniversary of the conflict. finally, we also search archives for historic newsreels and video, and a couple of examples recently -- we are coming up on the 50th anniversary of president eisenhower's farewell address, and president kennedy's inaugural address. host: there is a lot of high programming across the dial on cable television. how will this be different?

guest: we take you to historic speeches, historic sites, and you get to experience the same way as if you were there yourself. it is open access. host: how can people see american history tv? -- co-we are on c-span3 from 8 a.m. onsaturday's monday. c-span3 is in 41 million homes. host: what should people do if they are interested? guest: they should get more in touch with their cable or satellite company. host: we should always tell -- also tell people that it is streamed live on c-span.org. what does the first weekend look like? guest: we have a couple of like

the events of the american historical association. tomorrow, we are covering a panel on the 1980's and the reagan era. a couple of live events in addition to the rest of our schedule. host: we have a lot of history buffs in our audience. i understand people can sign up for weekly alerts. guest: there are a number of ways to get in touch. you can visit our web site at c- span2 dot or it/-- c-span.org /history. you get our programming in advance -- our schedule in advance. you can also see our twitter icon, click on that, and follow on twitter. host: for about six months you have been here? guest: it has been eight already.

host: it goes by quickly. good luck with your launch and tell -- and chile for telling us. -- thank you for telling us about of this morning. our final guest is rob bishop of utah. he was part of the house republican incoming transition team. thank you for being here. i will start with big news from the defense department. as an armed services committee member, i am wondering what you are thinking about the proposed cuts and the fewer troops over the next five years? guest: it will be one of those things we will s secretary gates to justify -- secretary gates to justify. the only areas where congress has decided to cut in defense, we have significant issues with the infrastructure. when we are still flying tankers

that were originally designed and built when i was in the first grade, we have the infrastructure problem. if he's going to pull their money out, we want to know where it is coming from the other problem, simply with what they're proposing, and this is why we want specific answers, is that what you spend today does not impact the military prepared misstated. it intends what we could do 15 years from today, and what kind of diplomatic opportunities we have 15 years from today this is a long-range forecast. if we will look carefully at any cuts he suggests. host: we want to get to cause quickly. this is a short half-hour segment. we'll take your calls in a couple of minutes. i would like to have you explain the job-killing aspect of the health care law, which has been the strategy of taking it up

first. jim mcgovern suggests we should focus on job creation. explain how this effect jobs. the guest: as i was flying out here, i was sitting next to a good corporate citizen, and he was telling me that the health care would prohibit him from hiring more people. he may have to reduce the size of his employment staff. the mandates that come from this program to hit the private sector and job creation. host: on friday we always get the unemployment numbers. the atf is telling us and businesses are boasting higher income and the unemployment rate has fallen to 9.4%? guest: and see what happens when you put a republican leadership in the house? i hope it is not just a blip.

host: we will begin with arkansas. william, a democrat climb. see, i wanted to ask -- caller: i wanted to ask the congressman, you people make $173,000 a year, which is $3,220 a week. you're off five months out of the year. but you hear me? host: yes, we are listening. caller: you are off five months of the year, but still the only way president obama could get tax breaks for the middle class and the poor, he had to give tax breaks to millionaires. for 10 years they have these tax breaks, and no jobs were

created. all of this debt was put in before obama got into office because you control everything for 12 years. explain that to me. guest: be careful calling me a millionaire. i am actually a school teacher with less disposable income now that i had as a schoolteacher. the bottom line in these issues as the worst thing you can do in this economy is raise taxes on anyone. there were no tax breaks on anyone. all we were saying is we're not going to raise taxes on any one across the board. if you want to be fair, that is what we have to do. the other problem, when they were talking about the so-called ridge, that includes small business. that would hit over 90% of the small businesses in my district, and those are the people that higher.

the tax increase was one of the worst things we could do, and all congress said was there will not be a tax increase. no one got a tax cut. host: a lot of coverage to the announcement of your appointment. what do you want to do with that panel? guest: it is one of those things that is a regional issue. if you look at the map of where the public lands are, one-third of america is owned by the federal government. it is an amazing concept, but one half of the west is owned by the federal government. if you live east of denver, you do not know the fun of having a the government as an absentee landlord. if we want to bring some kind of order in which we could actually use the public land to develop the resources that there for

people in the west. i am an old school teacher. if you want to fund education in the west, you have to develop their resources in the west. if you stop that, you are hurting education, kids, and our retirement. host: how do you think environmentalist would feel about that? guest: the goal is to have multiple use. you can have conservation, recreation, and work that is done on those areas. the west is not a backdrop of a john wayne movie. it is real people who need real jobs, and you cannot cut them out. some arbitrary decisions have heard the west. we do not want that to happen again. host: just so people can get a sense, what percentage of utah's land is public land? guest: 70%, and in nevada, you

are up to 90%. host:, mich., you are on. caller: i would like to know if you believe the republican party hasn't used the filibuster because they have used it quite a bit -- has of use the filibuster because they have used it quite a bit. you did not think too much about being the senator. what do you think the senate's problem is with the 400 judicial nominations said have been blocked. that is causing a judicial crisis in the united states as reported on npr this morning. guest: the filibuster is only in the senate. when we had the majority, my party have the majority, i was very frustrated with the filibuster. when the other party had the majority, i found a different value in that. whether if you have a filibuster or not, its use and abuse has been traditional and cuts across

time lines. historically, it does not been any different the last couple of years. however the senate wants to orchestrate their roles on the filibuster, that is their prerogative. to be honest, the second one? host: judicial? guest: i find it frustrating there are holds on judicial nominations. but, that is traditional. and the past two years, they have increased of late, primarily, because of what is expanding in the courts in the kinds of opportunities -- decisions they make. you have found there is a greater emphasis on who the judges are. that means nominating a judges almost like a political campaign because the courts are expanding their reach.

if you go back 30 years or 40 years tough you find that the courts are narrowing. there were fur -- few complaints. when a supreme court judge was nominated, i think it took about 15 to 45 minutes. you contrast that with the day, things are much different. i think they are much different because the supreme court has expanded their scope of the kinds of things in which they rule. host: next is a call from california. maria is a republican. caller: good morning. i have a question to ask the rep. would you not agree that there were republican amendments added to the health-care bill?

i also wanted to s q -- ask you, republicans said we were not creating jobs, so what are your specific ideas for creating jobs, and what is your specific ideal for health in the health- care bill? host: thank you guest: the first answer is now. the second thing is that the worst thing you could do is increase the tax burden on small business. if you want to see health-care extensions, i would suggest you go into the last session and look at the bills that were introduced. in those three bills, you will see a litany of good ideas that would get a free market approach

into the health-care system that would allow people to actually have control over their own choices. the only way you are going to drive the cost of health care down, which is a significant problem for all people, his by allowing people to have greater access to joyce and options. we empower people, we move the country for. if we allow the government to tell people what is and what is not possible, we destroy the economy. historically, that is fairly accurate. host: one of the new rules is changing the concept of budgeting pay as you go to cut as you go. democrats had a press conference where senator chuck schumer talk about the cut as you coat concept. -- , as you go concept. >> the bottom line is they said the reason they came into power was to reduce the deficit. that is what they are claiming.

they are not going along with it. we believe getting the economy going is important. we believe there are a lot of different values. our focus today is on deficit reduction. that is their mantra. whether you increase the deficit by giving tax breaks or by spending more, it does not matter to the deficit goes up. host: response? guest: that is to spin, but it is not quite accurate. they go and you could either raise taxes or cut spending. their choice was to raise taxes. we are talking about going after the spending cut aspect, which is why cut-goal is there. it's as we will focus on cutting spending, not raising taxes. the pay-go system was further in its reach far more than its

access. it was suspended repeated times. if we suspend cut-go, you have a right to criticize us. we are focusing on the problems of too much spending. that is why cut-ago is there, and why it is far superior to pay-go. host: the role of the seven exemptions. guest: if we throw out exemptions the way the other party has, we should be criticized. for rep bishop, this is the independent line. caller: i think we could turn our economy around in six months. i think the president just has to announce that he is going to ever get all of the trade agreements, and the senate has to concur. this would be an enormous turnaround. we need to get economically independent. we have to stop all of the

borrowing and the remarks before we touch anything on our country, and we have to protect our borders. i do not think it is republicans against democrats, it is global lists against nationalists. i like his opinion. -- i would like his opinion. guest: there is merit to each of those. the trade agreements are one of the areas we need to look at. the last one, as far as the borders, you had one of the passions of mine. the border patrol is given almost free access to patrol the borders and do what they need on private property. the laws of the united states per head of the border patrol from having total access -- prohibit the border patrol from having total access on federal property, specifically of the southern border, which has become a prime area where

people come in legally in to this country, not necessarily to better their lives, but as part of drug cartels, or union traffic compared there is also potential terrorists using these avenues. -- traffic. there is also potential terrorists using these avenues. i want to allow border patrol to do their jobs on federal land. if you want to know why arizona is moving in this direction, it is because almost 51% of illegal entrants into this country is coming from arizona. it is almost all federal property. host: you are giving democrats ammunition. guest: we want to focus on health care that most countries for. obama-care does not. it harms our economy. what i hope the house will be able to do is forward new and

appropriate ideas over the senate. what the senate does is what the senate will do. host: this is a woman watching in nevada. hearst twitter handle is not a grandma. what is the gop plan to a corporate infrastructure for the 21st century -- kick the can down the road or invest soon? where will the money come from? guest: one of the things we are doing poorly with transportation funding is spending a lot of gas tax money on stuff that has nothing to do with infrastructure. about 25% of the money we spend on transportation does not go to building infrastructure and transportation. close to its environmental reports, regulations, -- it goes to an environmental reports, regulations, and non-road consumption -- conception

projects. host: the next call is from cleveland. democrat, you are on. caller: why do you republicans not help with the infrastructure build that obama has posed? governor christie turn down money that would help his state building the tunnel. on the health-care bill, you are trying to stop them. the republicans never tried to help anyone get health care, but you sit there and you cry about it. why not tax company's debts and jobs overseas? tax them higher than the 1 -- said that sen jobs overseas. tax them higher than the ones that keep jobs here. guest: for governor christie, if you turned down monday, that is good for him.

it is time congress stopped dead in the way money that we do not have. -- dangling money that we do not have. there was a study that was done in which it was on that taxpayers end up paying more because of federal mandates that is the state simply had control and solve the problems by themselves. if governor christie did that, and good of him. on health care, and just 83 bills that were not allowed to be debated -- three bills that were not allowed to be debated. i want to see those bills come to the forefront because they talk about long term free-market approaches and empower people to make choices for themselves the last one, i forgot. host: i did not let it down. we will go on to las vegas. good morning. caller: i would like to see why

-- thank you for not completing on what the democrats that the hearing yesterday. i watched the hearing on television late at night. second, i am retired, and my fiance is retired. before retirement, her program on the doctor's visits only had a $10 co-pay. host: and, the point? caller: emergency room service was zerozero co-pay. now, she has a $25 kohl paid for the doctor, and for the --co- pay for the doctor, and for the

urgent care. if the benefits are good, why are they cutting for myself and my fiancee? guest: that is the kind of problems involved with the government setting the parameters. i do not want to oversimplify health care. if you want to see stability in the health-care issue, it is not simply about what the mandates are and what the requirements are. it is about the ability of people to make those decisions and choose themselves. here's the bottom line. if you need plastics' surgery, the cost of that has decrease year over year, and that is primarily because it is not covered by insurance companies. if we put those same concepts into the overall health-care system, where you actually have control of your own health care dollars, and did your own negotiating, you would see those

cost-cutting benefits taking place if you want a long-term, overall improved -- place. asked if you want a long-term, overall improvement, that is what we need to do. otherwise, you have no recourse to change things. you have no way of going about your own way of renegotiating something that is better for you. it is not easy to do, but it is the direction we must be going in. unfortunately, the health-care bill did not go in that direction. it went in the opposite .irection host asked host: people are asking about the jobs number. the nation's unemployment rate dropped to 9.4% last month because more people found jobs, and also because some people

give up on job searches. the labor department says that employers added 103,000 jobs in december, but far below analyst. host: our producers did get the question from the earlier caller, which is why not tax companies said send jobs overseas? guest: it is something to look at. one other thing above these numbers. i hope we have turned the corner and we are actually improving. that would be the ideal situation at one of the things we have to do is make sure we have a business climate in washington that encourages businesses. for several of the past few years we have an attitude coming

out of washington that has been antagonistic toward business, talking about raising their taxes, increasing regulation, and redefining the role. that does not give comfort to a business that wants to expand itself by hiring. one of the best things congress could do is making sure we have a pro-business attitude fed gives business who can hire more people expand their jobs. -- that gives business who can hire more people the ability to expand their jobs. host: de think hiring mr. daly signals a change? >> i do not know -- guest: i do not know. caller: good morning, susan. the election in november was a clear message from the people that said we reject obama's

administration and the health- care plan. we want it repealed. also, along with the financial bill, which is probably more intrusive and more destructive to the business than anything that's come to congress in a long time. we had represented jim mcgovern on earlier and kept talking about the congressional budget office, and their reports. if i remember correctly, the first report from the cbo about the health-care bill was that it was three things -- it would increase the cost of health care. it would not make health-care readily available. the third one, it would not increase the quality of health care. however, that did not appease the obama administration, so he called the head of the cbo to his office, where to the white

house, then they had a discussion, came back in the next report, and the cbo officials said we do not have the correct numbers, so we're not going to give a report at that time. they gave the report -- host: i understand your " -- host: i understand your question. i have a similar tweet. will you talk about the validity of the congressional budget office numbers? guest: it is not -- i do not want to criticize cbo. it is hard to predict. with health care, we played games. the congress took 10 years of income against six years of expenditure, and tried to equate those. that is smoke and mirrors. the gentleman said there was a message sent in the mid-term

elections. that is spot on. that is one of the reasons that when the transition team was combined, the goal was to equate rules so that we could increase, promote, and expand the number of jobs. number two, which could make it easier to cut spending, which is why we are doing cut-go instead of pay-go. no. 3, to empower communities so that members had more say and a voice on the floor. time management was a key element. no. four, return to the constitution, and make sure that we are doing what the constitution intended congress to do. host: we're just about out of time, but the caller also mentioned the new financial law on the dog -- dodd-frank bill. front page of the "boston globe ." guest: that is a difficult one.

this was a bill that was put together without committee and put. there were no amendments allowed. some envisioned the future of the floor. i do not know if the repeal is a proper approach, but looking at that carefully, and cresting changes, i think would be extremely helpful and beneficial as we talk about the business host: the house representatives is coming into session, so at this point we will say goodbye and thank you for being here. now to the floor of the house. the clerk: the , washington, d.c., january 7, 2011. i hereby appoint the honorable candice s. mr. miller: to act as speaker

pro tempore on this day. signed, john a. boehner, speaker of the house of representatives. the speaker pro tempore: the prayer will be offered by our chaplain. chaplain coughlin: lord, our god, you have shown us your glory, you redeemed your people by the revelation of your eternal word. let your light now shine within us, guide us, that we may be led through the darkness found in this world to the radiant joy of your presence both now and forever. amen. the speaker pro tempore: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house her approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1 the journal stands approved. the pledge will be led today by the gentleman from illinois, congressman jackson. mr. jackson: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to

the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will entertain up to five requests for one-minute speeches from each side of the aisle. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, today our national debt is $14.01 trillion. it rolled over to above $14 trillion for the first time on new year's eve last week. on january 7, 2009, the -- january 6, 2009, on the start

of the 111th congress, the national debt was at 10.63 trillion. mr. coffman: this means the national debt has increased by $3.38 trillion since then in just two short years. this debt and its interest payments we are passing to our children and to all future americans. i have been submitting and will continue to submit this debt to the congressional record daily, and i will continue to do so until washington takes responsibility and ends its reckless spending addition. madam chairman, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. jackson: madam speaker, as

we enter 2011 we find ourselves in the same job situation as in 2010. in order to show the huge need for jobs, i'll be collecting resumes from americans who are unemployed or underemployed. i'll submit them for the congressional record. unfortunately, submitting these resumes for the record will not get anybody a job, but by collecting these resumes i hope to drama ties the shameful continue -- dramatize the shameful continuation. i want to remind my colleagues every day that people want to work. today i call on my fellow americans to send me your resume and your story to resumesforamerica@mail.house.go v. if you're out of work send me your story. martin luther king jr. said we

have wrote a bad check. it has come back with insufficient funds. madam speaker, sending a resume for me will not put you first for a job. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: members are reminded to address their remarks through the chair. for what purpose does the gentleman from michigan rise? >> madam speaker, i request unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. >> madam speaker, while campaigning this fall, people in northern michigan made it clear that they are not happy with the government takeover of health care. that's why i'm pleased that one of my first votes in congress will allow me to keep a promise to my constituents and vote to

repeal that legislation. mr. benishek: as a surgeon who spent more than 30 years working directly with patients, i view the government takeover of our health care system as an attack on the doctor-patient relationship. now, as a member of the freshman class of 2010, i invite all members to join us in repealing this law and developing realistic health care reform that lowers costs, improves insurance options and puts patients, not government bureaucrats, at the center of health care. madam speaker, i yield the remainder of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from new york rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, the republican rules package passed wednesday included a change that could be extremely damaging to our nation's highway and transit systems over the long term and to the

construction industry where record unemployment remains twice the national average. mr. bishop: simply put, this rule is a job killer. it will treat highway trust fund revenue as general spending, tearing down fire walls that prevents them from being siphoned off. removing the trust from the highway trust fund will inhabet states to have multiyear transportation projects and to create construction jobs in the process. but don't take my word for it. the rule change is also opposed by business, labor and industry organizations alike, such as the u.s. chamber of commerce, the american association of state highway and transportation owe ferbles, the associated general contractors of america and the american trucking association. madam speaker, this is the wrong time to back away from investments in our infrastructure and job creation, and yet this is exactly what will result from this job-killing rule. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise?

mr. poe: i ask permission to address the house for one minute, to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. poe: madam speaker, more border patrol agents are being sent to the southern border. the border is violent, desloate and dangerous. drugs and people are going north. money and weapons are going south. and the border is a war zone. madam speaker, i'm not talking about the southern border of the united states with mexico. no. i'm talking about the afghanistan-pakistan border. that's correct. secretary of homeland security napolitano has said, quote, we are going to contribute border patrol agents to protect the border of afghanistan. now, why is homeland security making this uninformed decision? our southern border is a war zone, and our border patrol agents are needed there. in fact, they need more help. we should send more national guard troops there to help them stop the invasion of the violent drug cartels. homeland security should protect our homeland, not somebody else's. this ill-advised move by the

department of homeland security shows how blissfully ignoreant washington is about reality and the battle on the third front, the southern border of the united states. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from connecticut rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you, madam speaker. in the middle of the health care debate, a gentleman came into my office in connecticut and delivered a petition signed by 3,000 people. he was citing two battles. one against the cancer that was ravaging his body and another to keep his health insurance. this is a situation faced by millions of americans who have a condition and the disease that is also potentially contributing to the downfall of their entire household. mr. murphy: this is a situation they shouldn't be in, this debate of whether we'll continue or repeal health care. this seems to be a game to my republican friends. this bill is not going to pass. it's going nowhere. when c.b.o. says it will cost

taxpayers $230 billion, they just throw it away and come up with their own numbers. the stakes here couldn't be more serious. that constituent and 39,000 others who walked into my office in waterbury, connecticut. it's not a game to them. it's a matter of life and death. and the stakes of repeal could not be higher. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from arkansas rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. >> madam speaker, i rise today with great sadness to remember one of america's great entrepreneurs, don tyson, of springdale, arkansas, who passed away thursday, january 6, 2011, following a brief illness. the son of tyson foods, incorporated founder, john w. tyson, don was chairman of the board and c.e.o. of a company that began as a family business, supplying feed and baby chicks to local producer,

to a global food enterprise with sales in excess of over $26 billion, over 1,500 team members and operations in five countries. he founded the tyson family foundation and is well know for his philanthropy in the fields of conservation and the arts. mr. womack: he personifies the true pursuit of the american dream. the state of arkansas, the united states has lost an original and we mourn the passing. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? mr. cohen: to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. today's the beginning of a process where the republicans will try to repeal the affordable health care bill. it's about 50/50 in popularity in america. how can a bill with such individual constituent elements that are so popular, such as keeping young people on your insurance until you're 26,

eliminating the doughnut hole, seeing to it there's more community health centers, how can it be so unpopular? because the republican mantra has been and it has been said today, a government takeover of health care. well, the journalistic group from "the st. petersburg times" said that was the biggest lie in political 2010. the biggest lie in political 2010. instead of reading the constitution yesterday, maybe we should have just repeated, do not bear false witness. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. pence: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. pence: thank you, madam speaker. well, welcome to the 112th congress. while there was much pomp and ceremony this week welcoming all the new members to the

house of representatives, this week belonged to the american people. the american people sent a deafening message on november 2. it was they wanted to see this national government end this era of borrowing and spending and bailouts and takeovers and turn our national government back in the direction of fiscal responsibility and limited government. i rise today this morning to say in this first week of this new congress, if house republicans got the message, we will keep our promises to the american people and more. if house republicans got the message, we won't just extend tax rates for a couple years. we'll extend them permanently. if house republicans got the message, we won't just find $100 billion in cuts, we will find more than $100 billion in cuts and bring about the long-term reforms that changeses the size and scope of government. if house republicans got the message, we won't repeal once for obamacare, we will vote to repeal obamacare again and again until we can add this to

the history where it belongs. welcome to the 112th congress. the american people, this is your week. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? >> to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. those who want to repeal health care reform should be clear and candid what they are doing. you can't expect the people to understand the affect of repeal just because you put a label on it like obamacare or misrepresent job creating legislation as a job killer or misrepresent legislation that doesn't even have a public option in it as a government takeover. health care reform, it will close the doughnut hole and allows young adults to stay on their parent's policies. it means that those with pre-existing conditions can get insurance, provides tax credits to small businesses, to help them cover their employees, create health care -- community health centers and additional health professionals. it prohibits insurance company abuses like cutting off

coverage in the middle of illnesses or unreasonable increases in rates. it means that in 2014 all americans will have the security of knowing that they can have health care insurance. don't just call, put a label on it or have a slogan. tell the american public what will happen to the doughnut hole, to young adults, to those with pre-existing conditions, to small businesses. to tell the public what's going to happen if we repeal health care reform. . >> by direction of committee on rules, i call up house resolution and ask for its immediate consideration. -- the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 26, resolved, that upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to consider in the house the bill, h.r. 2, to repeal the job-killing health care law and health care related provisions in the health care and education reconciliation act of 2010. all points of order against

consideration of the bill are waived. the amendment printed in part a of the report of the committee on rules accompanying this resolution shall be considered as adopted. the bill as amended shall be considered as read. all points of order against provisions in the bill as amended are waived. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill as amended to final passage without intervening motion except one, seven hours of debate with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or their respective disegg knees. 90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on education of the work force. 90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on energy and commerce. 90 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on ways and means. 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and

ranking minority member of the committee on the budget. 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on the judiciary. and 40 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chair and ranking minority member of the committee on small business. and two, one motion to recommit with or without instructions. section 2, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order to -- without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house the resolution, house resolution 9, instructing certain committees to report legislation replacing the job-killing health care law. the resolution shall be considered as read. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except one, one hour of debate equally divided and controlled by the chair and

ranking minority member of the committee on rules or their respective designees. two, the amendment printed in part b of the report of the committee on rules if offered by representative matheson of utah or his designee which shall be in order without intervention of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. and three, one motion to recommit which may not contain instructions. section 3, upon adoption of this resolution it shall be in order without intervention of any point of order to consider in the house a resolution if offered by the majority leader or his designee relating to the status of certain actions taken by members-elect. the previous question shall be considered as ordered on the resolution to final adoption without intervening motion or demand for division of the question except four minutes of

debate equally divided and controlled by the majority leader and minority leader or her respective -- their respective disig knees. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one hour. mr. dreier: madam speaker, it's a great honor for me for the first time in four years to say that for the purpose of debate only i yield the customary 30 minutes to my very good friend and rules committee colleague, the the gentlelady from rochester, new york, ms. slaughter. pending which i yield myself such time as i may consume. i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to rise and extend which i have done. and i ask all members have five lemming days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. dreier: madam speaker, house resolution 26 provides for a closed rule for consideration of h.r. 2 and self-executes an

amendment by the majority leader which is required under the statutory pay-as-you-go act of 2010. this is routinely required and is similar to many provisions that have been self-executed since the enactment of statutory pay-go. the resolution provides for seven hours of debate on h.r. 2, equally and controlled by the chair and ranking member of six committees and the majority leader and minority leader. it also provides the minority a motion to recommit, h.r. 2, with or without instructions. house resolution 26 provides for consideration of h.res. 9, under a structured rule, that provides an hour of debate and makes in order an amendment if offered by representative matheson of utah. it also provides for one motion to recommit h.res. 9 without instructions. lastly, the rule provides for the consideration of a resolution if offered by the majority leader or his designee relating to the status of certain actions taken by members-elect under a closed rule. madam speaker, it was just before midnight that my great

new colleague, and i were here in this chamber and filed this rule following a lengthy 12-hour hearing upstairs in the rules committee. i have to say that there were many, many discussions that took place on a wide range of issues. i think it's very important for us to note that there were those who argued that we should not be taking up this issue because of the fact that we should be focusing on job creation and economic growth. madam speaker, we know that the overwhelming message that came from the american people is that we have to get our economy back on track. we have to create jobs. we have to make sure that those people who are struggling to get under the first rung of the economic ladder are able to do just that. and that's why when we look at a

$2.7 trillion expansion of the federal government, $2.7 trillion in new spending, we recognize something that is common sense and that is if you're going to expand the size and scope and reach of the federal government by that magnitude, it clearly is going to kill the effort to create jobs and get our economy back on track. so that's why today, madam speaker, we are taking the first step in fulfilling a key promise that we have made to the american people. with this rule we are setting in motion an effort to repeal president obama's job-killing health care bill and replace it with real solutions. i underscore that again because all the attention is focused on the fact that we are going to be trying to kill good provisions that are out there. madam speaker, we want to start with a clean slate. we are going to repeal president obama's job-killing health care

bill and replace it with real solutions. this rule takes two important steps. the first is to allow for consideration of a bill to hit the reset button, so to speak, on the very damaging legislation that was passed last year under the guise of health care reform. the second is a resolution directing each of the committees of jurisdiction to craft responsible, effective, and economically viable health care solutions. madam speaker, the resolution lays out very clearly what real reform looks like. real reform will help not hinder in our goal towards creating jobs. real reform will lower health care premiums by enhancing competition and patient choice. it will preserve the right of patients to keep their existing coverage. if they so choose. it will ensure access to quality

care for those suffering from pre-existing conditions. it will implement meaningful lawsuit abuse reform so that resources can go to patients and doctors. and not to trial lawyers. in short, it will increase access to health care for all americans without compromising quality or hurting the very important small business sector of our nation's economy. madam speaker, the underlying re place resolution which i have offered will begin a robust committee process to tackle the difficult but essential work of achieving these goals and crafting true reform for the american people. this will be a process in which each and every member, each and every member, democrat and republican alike, will have an opportunity to participate. madam speaker, as speaker boehner said, the day before yesterday when he accepted the gavel, we are returning to

regular order. once again our committees will be the laboratories, the centers of expertise, that they were intended to be. rank-and-file members of both parties will play an active role in crafting legislation, scrutinizing proposals, offering amendments, participating in real debate. critical legislation is not going to be written behind closed doors by a select few. today's rule sets in motion a process that will be both transparent and collaborative. but we cannot get to that very important step without clearing the first hurdle. which is to undo the damage that has already been done. we will hear people say, why are you considering this under a closed rule? madam speaker, this was a clear promise that was made throughout last year leading up to the very important november 2 election. everyone acknowledges the elections have consequences. the commitment was made that we

would have an up or down vote on repeal. and that's exactly what we are doing. we must repeal last year's bill before we proceed with replacement. just as prekicted -- predicted, the so-called reform bill is having very real negative consequences for our economy and our job market. it is putting enormous burdens on job creators, particularly small businesses, at a time that is already one of the most difficult we have faced. imposing significant new burdens and penalties, while our employment rate remains above 9%. we got the news a few minutes ago it's at 9.3%. we are encouraged by that positive drop but only 105,000 jobs were created, not the 150,000 jobs necessary to be created to sustain the position we are in right now. so we still are dealing with very, very serious economic

challenges. and that's why we need to take a commonsense approach to first repeal this measure and then deal with solutions. above all, i will say that the onerous, unworkable mandates that have been imposed are adding greater uncertainty which are job creation's biggest enemy. anyone who has spent any time talking with small business owners knows this to be the case. while the economic impact is already quite apparent, the fiscal consequences are looming down the road. while the bill's authors used a host of accounting gimmicks, i'm going to get into those further as i'm sure i will be challenged on this and i look forward to talking about the accounting gimmicks that have been utilized, by the authors used a host of accounting gimmicks, as i said, to mask the true cost of this measure, and honest and

realistic assessment of the impact on the deficit shows a much clearer and tragically a far worse picture. the budget committee has demonstrated the real cost of the health care bill, as i said, in my open, a staggering $2.7 trillion. once it is fully implemented. it will add over $700 billion to our deficit in the first 10 years. the words reckless and unsustainable hardly begin to cover it. this bill is an economic and fiscal disaster of unprecedented proportions. the time to undo it before anymore damage is done is quickly running out. republicans promised the american people we would act swiftly and decisively, and that's exactly what we are doing. some of my friends on the other side of the aisle have asked, why there will be no amendments to the repeal bill? frankly, there is nothing to

amendment. there is nothing to amend, madam speaker, the repeal bill. either we are going to wipe the slate clean and start fresh or we are not. that's not to say there aren't some good provisions in this measure. that is so onerous, nearly 3,000 pages, that we believe that the best way to do this is to wipe the slate clean, have an open and transparent process, and do everything we can to ensure that every single american has access to quality health care and health care insurance. now, once that slate is completely wiped clean, we will be ready for this open and collaborative process to develop the real solutions that we have talked about. that's what we promised the american people as we led up to last november 2, and that's exactly what we will deliver here today.

madam speaker, first we undo the damage, then we work together to implement real reform and real solutions. i urge my colleagues to support this rule and then, after we have gone through the three-day layover requirement next week, which is in compliance with another promise that we made to the american people, i urge my colleagues to support the underlying legislation, h.r. 2, which our colleague, the new majority leader, mr. cantor has offered, and h.res. 9, which i have introduced, that calls for our committees to work in a bipartisan way to develop solutions to the challenges that we have out there in ensuring that every american has access to quality health care. with that i reserve the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: good morning, madam speaker. i appreciate my gentleman

friend, mr. dreier, for yielding me time and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. slaughter: what a week it's been. since we've been sworn in, the republican broken promises have been dizzying. one summed up the week up nicely when he said, quote, i don't think it would be possible to fall from grace any faster than this end quote. in november, the republican leadership, led by speaker boehner, traveled to suburban virginia and made a pledge to america. their constituents, including tea party patriots, like mr. mecker, listened intently as the republican party pledged to be fiscally responsible and serve the will of the american people. on page 6 of the republican pledge to america, the party states, and i quote, with commonsense exceptions for seniors, veterans and our troops, we will roll back government spending to

prestimulus, prebailout levels saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone and putting us on a path to balance the budget and pay down the debt, end quote. the pledge was solemnly made by republican leadership despite being largely panned as a political stunt. despite following through on their pledge, the republican majority said the pledge to cut $100 billion was hypothetical. today now we're moving forward to do the exact opposite of the actions that they pledged as they introduce legislation to repeal the affordable care act. if successful, the republican legislation will add $230 billion to the deficit by 2021. this extra $230 billion won't be spent rebuilding our crumbling infrastructure, teaching our children or providing for the millions without jobs. instead, the $230 billion will be added to our deficit in

order to take health care benefits and protections from those who need them the most. for example, starting this year the affordable health care act will begin to close the doughnut hole for seniors. under the law medicare beneficiaries who fall in the doughnut hole will be eligible for a 50% discount on covered brand-name prescription drugs. repeal this law and seniors receive no help and will be forced to pay their rising costs alone. those are the types of protections i fight for today. fiscally, members of congress pace a $300 billion choice. according to the congressional budget office, we have two options. one, do we keep the affordable health care act and save $130 billion by 2021 or, two, do we repeal the affordable health care act and add $200 billion to our deficit by 2021?

that may be trouble for some but for most of us it's easy. for me the answer is clear and i assume to most americans it's clear as well. because they can't win by simply judging apples to apples, the republican leadership has taken to discrediting the congressional budget office. yet, a quit bit of research will reveal that republicans have long valued the nonpartisan and reliable work of the congressional budget office and have publicly supported the agency before. in fact, 2009, speaker boehner repeatedly referred to the c.b.o. as nonpartisan institution and relied on their estimates to argue against the affordable care act at the time. but now that the c.b.o.'s estimates are detrimental to their political goals, they have taken to questioning the work. republican senator john cornyn said it's inconvenient. two years ago he said, i quote, i believe the professionals at

the c.b.o. are doing a difficult but unpopular work. they are speaking the truth to power here in washington, and making the folks who would pass these enormous unfunded bills that impose a huge debt on generations hereafter somewhat unhappy. but i think they're doing important service by telling us the facts. and last week, i commended the director of the c.b.o. for saying that the c.b.o. will never adjust our views to make people happy. thank you, doctor. god bless him for his integrity and commitment for telling the truth because we have to learn how to deal with the truth, not try to remake it or try to cover it up. now, i couldn't agree more with that. the deficit estimates provided by the c.b.o. are the singular authoritative figuring from which we make all our decisions and have for decades. even if some don't like what the numbers tell us we know that numbers don't lie.

i remind my colleagues that today's actions are not, quote, hypothetical, unquote. we truly face a $300 billion choice. we can choose to provide invaluable benefits to millions of americans while paying down our national deficit. remember that it will save $134 billion over 10 years, or end health care choices for millions and add $230 billion to the nation's deficit. mr. speaker -- madam speaker, we are considering the first measure from the rules committee of this new congress, and my republican friends have already produced one for the record books. let me give you some of the highlights. first of all, the resolution includes a completely closed process for two separate pieces of legislation. that means we get two closed rules in one. and maybe my republican friends think they can save taxpayers money by rolling all the closed rules into a single resolution. i think that's what they meant

by bringing efficiency to government. the first closed rowley on the health care bill -- rule on the health care bill does heavy lifting. blocks every single germane amendment submitted to the rules committee. that's not exactly right. it slips in one change without allowing the house to vote on it. the special amendments slipped in with the famous demon pass maneuver is very interesting. it allows the house to pretend that the repeal bill is free even though the budget office says it will raise the deficit by over $1 trillion. that's a neat trick, and now we know the secret weapon for reducing the deficit, a blindfold. this closed process is especially troubling on the health care repeal because this republican bill has had no public hearing, no committee consideration and is not paid for. the second closed rule in this two for one package blocks all amendments to another resolution, to correct a flaw in the swearing in process. apparently the vice chairman of

the rules committee was conducting legislative business before he was actually a member of congress. maybe amendments are not important here because no member in the house has seen this resolution. since the rule allows the majority leader to make the changes -- allows the majority leader to make changes until the moment it is introduced. if my colleagues are concerned about not having enough time to read this surprised resolution, don't worry. the rule allows the house to debate it for four full minutes. four minutes? have you ever heard of a bill debated for four minutes? fortunately, the rule generously gives the minority two of those four minutes and i guess that qualifies as both efficiency and bipartisanship. finally, the rule allows the house to consider a sweeping press release from the republican leadership, a resolution to replace real patient protection with vague rhetoric. and, mr. speaker, this is a very disappointing day for the house rules committee. the first action in this new

congress violates the promise we heard from our republican friends, no public consideration, a completely closed process, legislative text no member has read, four minutes of debate on an important constitutional issue and so on. for all those members who were sent to washington like i was to repair our nation's finances, create jobs for millions of the unemployed, help the millions of americans in need, the decision should be simple. i encourage my colleagues to reject the efforts of the republican leadership, keep our promises to our constituents and vote to keep the affordable health care law, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman reserves the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself 10 seconds to say that thomas jefferson said the two thinking people can be given the exact same set of facts and draw different conclusions. well, i just heard what my friend from rochester said. i will say this is a great day for the people's house because we are going to in fact be

implementing the commitment that was made to focus on getting our economy back on track. with that, madam speaker, i yield two minutes to have very hardworking and thoughtful member of the rules committee who was with us for 12 hours up until late last night, our new colleague from north charleston, south carolina, mr. scott. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina is recognized for two minutes. mr. scott: thank you, madam speaker. mr. chairman, i will say that it's truly an honor to serve on the rules committee. my first experience at the 12th hour experience all day yesterday. what an opportunity to serve the american people. thank you, sir. this is a great opportunity for all of us in america, to kill the job-killing health care bill that is taking jobs away from the private sector. soon we want to make six quick points. we all recognize that the cost of insurance is only going up, up and up. there is a misnoemer that this bill somehow reduces the cost

of insurance. it is simply categorically not true. shifting who pays for the insurance, the health care cost, does not make the health care cost goes down. it is simply going to continue to rise. second point, when you design a bill that has tax increase after tax increase after tax increase and say that you are reducing the deficit by increasing taxes, it is inconsistent with the reality that the american people want from their congress. third, the individual mandate is simply unconstitutional, and if the individual mandate is not part of the bill, if we don't force every single american to buy insurance, this ponzi scheme simply doesn't work. number four, bringing 10 years of revenue in and paying out six years of benefits and calling that equal, that's a farce. number five, the lifetime benefits -- lifetime benefits,

we want everybody in america to have access to health care without any question. the question we ask ourselves is from an actuarial perspective, can we pay for a $2.7 trillion expansion, a new entitlement when we have a $76 trillion unfunded liability on the current entitlements? we simply cannot continue to dig a hole and call ourself compassionate. there is nothing compassionate about increasing our entitlements by jeopardizing the future entitlements of americans. and finally, we've heard lots of rhetoric. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i'd like to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 second. mr. scott: finally, we heard lots of rhetoric of what we're doing to senior citizens and women. what we are facing is an opportunity to stop robbing future generations, to stop the

unnecessary impact -- the intergenerational cost without even taking into consideration the intergenerational cost, we consistently impact unborn americans with legislation that passed under the former house. it is good to be in the house with a brand new speaker and thank you, mr. chairman, for allowing me to be part of the rules committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. mcgovern. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for three minutes. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, the american people made it very clear in the last election, that they want us to focus on one thing, jobs. but the new republican majority has instead chosen to reopen an old ideological battle. i think that's a mistake. but the good news is that the american people will have the opportunity right at the outset of this new congress to see the clear differences between democrats and republicans. democrats believe that insurance companies should be prohibited from discriminating under the basis of pre-existing

conditions. republicans do not. democrats believe we should close the doughnut hole and reduce prescription drug prices for our seniors. republicans do not. democrats believe that young people should be allowed to remain on their parent's insurance plan until age 26. republicans do not. democrats believe 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. and democrats believe that we need to seriously address the budget deficit. republicans do not. as the c.b.o. croble made abundantly clear -- made abundantly clear. it would add $230 billion to the deficit over the next 10 years and another $1.2 trillion in the following 10 years. as far as i can tell, this is the most expensive one-page bill in american history. 114 words. that's $2 billion per word. rather than address those

budgetary facts, the new republican majority has simply ignored them, to cover their ears and pretend that the laws of arithmetic do not apply to them. in their first order of legislative business, the republicans want to take health insurance reform and toss it in the trash. and how many hearings have they held on the impact of this repeal? zero. how many markups do they have? zero. and most shockingly, how many amendments will they consider in this bill? zero. the new majority whip, mr. mccarthy, said after the election last november, and i quote, when you look at the pledge to america that the republicans have laid out, there is a cultural change in there. there is something that opens up the floor that hasn't been done for quite sometime where bills will be written in the back room, where bills actually have an open rule, where people can bring up amendments on the floor. so much for that. instead of thoughtful, reasonable legislative language that addresses health care issues, the republicans replaced part of their repeal

strategy is just a list of happy talk sound bites. it's no more than a press release. so, again, madam speaker, i believe we should be focusing on jobs and the economy and in the meantime i urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying reckless bill. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: we have 87 new republicans in the house of representatives. there's no more impressive group than the four serving with us on the house rules committee. among them former sheriff noon gent -- nugent, the gentleman from brooksville, florida. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. nugent: thank you, adam -- madam speaker. it's new to me. chairman, thank you so very much. we were there last night in the rules committee for 12 hours to hear testimony from a number of individuals. on the democratic side and also on the republican side. let me talk to you about this. over the past year i met with

thousands of people from throughout florida's fifth congressional district. whether they be small business owners, veterans, or medicare recipients, they ask me to promise, promise to repeal obamacare. it's clear that the american people know more than our democratic leadership in regards to what americans want. obamacare eliminates millions of american jobs. cuts hundreds of millions of dollars from medicare. taxes by almost $500 billion over 10 years for six years' worth of coverage. everybody knows that the health care system's broken and that reform is needed. however the unconstitutional job-killing mandates of obamacare are not the answer. house resolution 9 is an important step in congress working with the american public

to find real, meaningful solutions to our nation's health care needs. this is the people's house and we should be listening to the people. house resolution 9 will allow us to foster economic growth, job creation, lower health care premiums, and protect medicare. and inform the medical malpractice system that is bankrupting america. for all these reasons i am grateful for my colleague from california, mr. dreier, for introducing house resolution 9 and i'm proud to be an original co-sponsor of that resolution. with that, i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from colorado, a member of the rules committee, mr. polis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado is recognized for two minutes. mr. polis: i thank the chair.

i rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, the most expensive one-page bill in the history of congress and it costs the taxpayers over $200 billion first 10 years alone and over $1 trillion. not only have the republicans as the first bill that we are doing a rule on and facing here on the floor put forward the most expensive one-page bill in the history of congress, but it is not paid for, madam speaker. in addition to not being paid for they have waived many of the notice fors transparency requirements, the regular order that they sought to establish with regard to the way that this congress is run. madam speaker, there were many good ideas and good amendments brought forward by members of both parties yesterday during our session of the rules committee. i want to talk about a few in particular. one, my colleague from michigan, gary peters, brought a proposal that would have made sure that this biggest one-page

expenditure in the history of congress did not raise taxes on small businesses. unfortunately that amendment is not made in order under this rule and therefore h.r. 2 will be raising taxes on small businesses across the country that are now receiving tax credits for providing health care for their employees. there was also a lot of discussion and i think it's important and the american people know with regard to people with pre-existing conditions. now, we all want to do something for people with pre-existing conditions. there was talk yesterday, in fact when we are talking about h.r. 9, there might be discussion in the future with regard to agreeing on high-risk pools for people with pre-existing conditions, but what this body is being asked to do today and next week is effectively replace something that works for people with pre-existing conditions, namely eliminating prices discriminations with some vague assurance on paper that perhaps someday, some committees, some chairmen might consider. we asked them kindly to consider something that would do something for people with pre-existing conditions. well, madam speaker, that is

simply not enough for the people that have pre-existing conditions today, for those who will in the future. if we want to talk about improving health care there's ample room to do it but not eliminating protection that is exist. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, at this time i'm very privileged to yield three minutes to the distinguished former chairman of the republican conference, my friend from columbus, indiana, mr. pence. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. pence: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i would ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. pence: thank you, madam speaker. i rise in support of the rule but i rise from my heart with a deep sense of gratitude to the american people. to urge my colleagues in both parties to join us as we keep our promise to the american people and next week vote to repeal their government takeover of health care, lock, sew stock -- stock, and barrel.

i know democrats said at the time that they had made history. i said at the time i thought we broke with history. we broke with some of our finest traditions, limited government, personal responsibility, and most profoundly the consent of the governed. on a late sunday night in march, the last majority had their stay . on a tuesday in november the american people had their say. and that brings us to this moment. it is remarkable to hear members in the minority explaining their opposition to this bill. only in washington, d.c., a year ago, only in washington, d.c., could you say you were going to spend trillions of dollars and save people money, and this morning only in washington, d.c., could you say that repealing a $2.7 trillion government takeover of health care is actually going to cost money. pleased to yield. mr. dreier: i thank my friend for yielding. i wonder if he might repeat that

line. i think he said only in washington, d.c., can there be interpretation that cutting $2.7 trillion in spending is actually going to end up costing the american people, is that what the gentleman was saying? i thank my friend for yielding. mr. pence: i thank the gentleman. reclaiming my time. yes. it must be mystifying for people looking in this morning to hear about the most expensive one-page bill in american history. i say again, only in washington, d.c., could a congress vote to repeal a $2.67 trillion -- $2.7 trillion government takeover of health care and the minority says it will cost the american people money. let me explain, when you mandate that every american buy government-approved insurance whether they want it or need it or not, when you create a government-run plan paid for with job-killing tax increases,

when you provide public funding for abortion for the first time in american history, that's a government takeover of health care that violates the principles, the ideals, and the values of millions of americans and the american people know it. look, after we repeal obamacare next week, we can start over. with commonsense reforms that will focus on lowering the cost of health insurance without growing the size of government. republicans will waste no time in bringing greater freedoms to the american people, to purchase health insurance the way they buy life insurance, the way they buy car insurance. we'll deal with responsible litigation reform. we'll even use the savings to cover pre-existing conditions. i urge my colleagues to join me in support of this rule but join us as we keep our promise to the american people and repeal their government takeover of health care once and for all. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, this is not a dispute between republicans and democrats about the $1.3 trillion. c.b.o., the nonpartisan

congressional budget office, is saying that. i will now yield two minutes to the gentlelady from california, ms. matsui. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for two minutes. ms. matsui: i thank the gentlelady for yielding me time. madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to the rule and the bill before us. the bill would increase the national deficit by $230 billion. increase costs to individuals, families, and small business owners, and deny the american public the consumer protections they have been seeking for years. repeal of the health care law would also mean the young adults would not be able to stay under a parents' plan. this is something that would have a devastating effect on constituents of mine such as elizabeth. shortly after graduating college she was dropped from her parents' plan and soon developed a severe thyroid condition. as a result, she had to purchase her own individual insurance plan which proved to be a severe financial hardship for her and

her parents. thankfully she was able to re-enroll on her parents' plan as of january 1 because of this health reform bill. repeal would also mean that senior citizens of sacramento would not see any relief for the medicare part d doughnut hole. the bill would close the doughnut hole critical to seniors in my districts. one such senior regularly pays over $2,000 a month for his prescription drugs. repeal would mean gary and the thousands of other seniors in my district would see no relief from the part d doughnut hole. this is unacceptable. madam speaker, a vote against this rule and against this bill is a vote to protect the american public from unfair insurance company practices. to provide relief to young and old alike, and to stay on the path to fiscal responsible future. i urge my colleagues to vote down this rule and vote against the underlying legislation. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, at this time i'm happy to yield one minute to a hardworking member of the energy and commerce committee which will be one of those committees when we pass h.res. 9 that will be dealing with ensuring that every single american has access to quality health insurance. our friend from brentwood, tennessee, mrs. blackburn. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized for one minute. mrs. blackburn: thank you, madam speaker. today we do begin a very important process and it is a solid first step. and i stand to support this rule and to support repeal of this law because we have on the law -- on the books a law that doesn't improve the quality of health care. it will not reduce the cost of health care. and it is going to add billions to the exploding national debt. we have listened to the american people. they are smart. and they know that this law is unworkable. it won't deliver on the promises

that they made. and the american people voted in overwhelming numbers to repeal it and replace it. that is the action that we are going to take. congress cannot wait any longer to get this irresponsible law out of our doctors' offices, out of our lives, and off the books. we in tennessee have lived through the experiment of government-run health care called tenn-care. tennessee could not afford it and the american people know this nation cannot afford a tenn-care-type program on a national level. i support the rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, our ranking member of ways and means, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: this is what the republicans are after, what

their repeal would mean. it would take away from millions of americans, coverage for kids with pre-existing conditions, coverage for young adults under 26, recommended preventive care would be taken away, it would take away lower drug costs for seniors. and this is what the republican repeal would do. it would give back to insurance companies unreasonable premium increases, unjust policy termses, rescissions, it would take away this, it would give back profits and c.e.o. salaries to insurance companies, not health care benefits. health care benefits. it will give