that is a week and a half after the shootings in tucson, arizona. john sher will be joining us. 48 states are facing a potential budget shortfalls. what does that mean for the states and our governors and state legislators responding? amman luther king day, the chief strategy officer of the corporation for national and community service will join us. we will see you tomorrow. that is all tomorrow morning on "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern time. thanks for being with us on this sunday. enjoy the rest of your weekend and have a great week ahead. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> next, "newsmakers," with kathleen sebelius. then president obama speech at the memorial for the victims of the shooting in tucson.

>> is the cost of the health care legislation in the range of the estimates? >> implementation is absolutely on schedule. it has been a daunting task from the beginning. the way the bill was designed by congress, the president anticipated a lot of benefits reaching the american public in 2010. to get regulations formulated, to get the information out the door and make the programs up and running has been the work of three federal agencies, the

department of labor, the department of treasury and our department and a lot of careful work with state insurance commissioners across the country with a lot of insurance providers and a lot of disease groups. every deadline has been met. people are now beginning to really connect with the benefits that they have available to them. that is good news. in terms of overall costs, we have said from the onset that a lot of the assets here at the department of health and human services were already people with expertise in some of these areas. we have hired some people in the private insurance areas where we did not have individuals who were familiar with that. former state insurance commissioners, a former consumer advocates are now helping to develop programs in that area. so far, we have done a good job

getting the regulations out on time, informing people with this wonderful new what -- new website which gives individuals a way to talk in a the code and pull up every private program available to them in their age group in their neighborhood and figure out ways that they may be able to access affordable health care or do some shopping. all of those things are happening on time and on budget. >> amy goldstein from "the washington post." >> a common wisdom is that republicans have enough votes to repeal. even if it is largely symbolic,

are there cautionary measures for the obama administration? >> it gives us an opportunity. since the house has chosen to do this as their first order of business rather than work on jobs in the economy, which the american public has says -- has said is their number one priority, it gives us an opportunity to remind people what the house leadership and house majority is voting to take away, the kind of freedom americans are beginning to realize. they can lose the toehold from insurance companies and began to make -- chokehold and began to make some choices. they would not have an opportunity to forgo cocaine --

forgo copays. they would not be able to keep their children on the insurance. we can have a conversation reminding people what is at stake and go back to the days where insurance company controlled who had access to coverage and who did not and could put a lifetime cap on a 6 person's benefits so that they would run out of money wendy -- benefits soerson's that they would run out of money when they needed the insurance most. >> you are using this impending vote as a forum for reminding people about the affirmative aspects of passing this law. are there no danger signs politically?

>> there is always a cautionary note. i was reminded that when social security was passed, there were numerous votes to repeal the legislation over and over again until the full benefits kick in five years after the passage of the bill and people realize what social security meant for their future and the stability of seniors in this country. it became wildly popular. i think one of the most interesting pieces of data recently was the congressional budget office suggesting that a road to repeal this bill would add $230 billion to the deficit in the first decade and) -- and closer to $1 chilean to the deficit in the next decade. -- closer to $1 trillion to the

deficit in the next decade. they are going to take a vote that does not put anybody back to work and they jeopardize the health of our work force and at hugely to the deficit that is already looming for our children and grandchildren. >> jeffrey young from bloomberg is also with us. >> turning to the implementation of this law, which you said is a large task, your department's responsibilities have grown since obama took office. the food safety law that the president signed a few weeks ago, new regulatory rules over tobacco products. with the president's but it do in the fairly near future, do you anticipate that you are going to be needing to ask for a substantial increase for funding

for the department to hire the people you need, to carry out these laws? is that where the republicans are talking about slashing the budget overall? do you expect that you will get it? can you cope with less? >> you might understand the budget discussions that began months ago between the office of management and budget and individual departments across the government. they have been pretty difficult because from the outset the president made it clear that we need to restrict our spending. we need to look carefully at what our priorities are. all agencies were asked to submit a budget that had decreases from where we were last year and stop funding

activities that had little value in the future. we have a number of new and important assignments. we have had created leaders who have really scrapped their agency budgets to see where it is that their cost savings are. what are the kinds of programs that may have made sense 10 or 15 years ago that do not make sense now. my experience as a governor and serving during tough times and balancing budgets by law because states have a constitutional mandate -- at least we did in kansas -- gives me experience in looking at what resources we have and figuring out ways to move will work. these are challenging times. we are certainly willing to do our fair share. we do not want to jeopardize

the real priorities in this department, some of which are high priorities for the president. finding important science and research that goes on at the national institutes of health, implementation of the health reform bill, some of our critical family and children programs that, in this difficult economic time, are helping support families so they can continue to work and know their kids are in a safe place. we are doubling those priorities and have every intent to continue to fulfil the mission of delivering health services and provide human services. >> so you do not have any concern that the burdens placed on you and the department and the agencies might be too great with less funding? in other words, doing more with less is an achievable goal?

>> would we like to have additional resources? you bet. i do not think that has been a realistic view going forward. what we are looking at is how we maximize the resources we have? how do we make sure we can fulfil this important assignment for the american people and do it with the assets at hand. in the lame-duck session, congress only pass the continuing resolution that goes until march. we really do not know what the next step looks like. halfway through a fiscal year, will it reduce what we have to spend overall? we have been conscious with our leadership saying, do not hire

lots of new people. do not start new programs unless you can do them out of the existing access. we may have fewer assets than we have right now. we need to be cautious about the additional spending, but also aggressive about fulfilling the mission the president has given us. >> this is c-span's "newsmakers " program. we are discussing the house vote on repealing the health care legislation. our guest reporters are amy goldstein and jeffrey young. there is a new poll out that says 75% of the american public want the health care change. 52% say they want to repeal it. would the administration be

willing to look at changes to the health care a lot if proposed by the house and passed by the senate? >> absolutely. we said at the outset that there were a number of good ideas that could not be included in the bill because of the procedure on the senate side that had some strict budget rules, the reconciliation procedure. we know there are things that need to be changed like the 1099 reporting, which i think could be a burden for small businesses. for months, it has been proposed for change. we are eager to work with the new congress to change that feature. can this bill be improved as we move forward? you bet. think about medicare. when my daughter was in congress, he served on the energy and commerce committee. he helped to write the medicare

law. medicare today looks very little like it did when he asserts. he is going to be 90 in march. he is pleased that medicare is there. it changed and improved. this is a platform for a new health-care system for access for people who have never had access to affordable coverage and for new rules for insurance companies. as we go forward, we look forward to working and discussing with the congress wheys that it can be improved. >> it sounds like the house's new republican leaders are going to test the administration's sensitivity for change. they intend to pick apart piece by piece the parts of the law that they dislike. one of the parts they demonized and which the public is not that

crazy about is the individual mandate, which in 2014 would require most americans to carry health insurance. this is not something the president was initially in favor of. what are your views about the mandate being taken out of the? >> there are responsibility pieces built into the law. there is an employer responsibility section that indicates that if you are a larger employer, if you hire more than 50 individuals, you should contribute to the employees ' health care. your employees may be getting tax care provided health care. there is a provision about the federal government that anticipates that public programs will continue to cover seniors and make sure they're guaranteed

benefits and medicare are safe and secure -- their guaranteed benefits and medicare are safe and secure, that we will continue to cover disabled americans with the medicaid program. those who do not fall into the federal program qualifiers have a pause -- have a personal responsibility peace. with that comes financial assistance. people will be able to pick and choose from the same programs that members of congress will have available to them and have some financial assistance in order to do that. there is a waiver provision saying if you cannot afford health insurance, you will be waived out of the program. having everybody in the pool is a way of making sure we balance the benefits for those who are sick in need and those who may get sick in the future.

it is a way to have a stable, solvents insurance pool. that is why the individual responsibility pease is an important lead of the stool. >-- piece is an important leg of the school. there are lots of challenges to the constitutionality of the law. the insurance pool makes it since. it is about time to get everybody covered. for families who have insurance, they pay about $1,000 more on their premium every year for those folks in their communities who are coming through emergency room doors without insurance coverage. those costs are not disappearing. everyone can access the health- care system whether or not they have insurance. it is just more expensive and

less effective. it is being borne by employers and individuals. the instruction that was passed by the congress and signed into law by the president is the best way to not only have everyone in the pool, but also to provide the kind of freedom from the restrictions that insurance companies have always had over people with pre-existing conditions. it is difficult to get rid of the rules that say you cannot be ensured if your child has cancer or had asthma. you cannot come into the program if you have had a heart attack. we cannot balance you. if you only have people buy insurance after they had an illness, you would quickly bankrupt insurance companies and bankrupt the plan. trading beat everyone participates or getting rid of

the owners' rules that insurance companies have had that have -- the onerous rules that have locked people out of the market seems to be the important balance to strike. >> madam secretary, beyond the 1099 reporting provision, the president has indicated he feels the same way. have you identified other elements of the love that are going to require new legislation to make them work better? if you have, can you share some examples? in the congress where the republican majority of the house is more interesting -- more interested in repealing the law than making it work better, can you get that accomplished? if not, what restrictions are you working under? >> there are compensations under way. a lot of the law is just being

realized as we speak. it was signed into been nine months ago. we have not had enough experience of some of these features to know whether or not the legal structure is really sound or whether we have the administrative flexibility to address what may be some problems. so far, we have been fortunate in getting in but from dr. groups and employer groups. we realize we can have a regulation that can meet the needs of people that have some flexibility between now and 2014. 1099 stands out as a teacher that does need to be fixed -- as a feature that needs to be fixed. but you are right. there are folks in congress now that want to see the bill

failed. if they are not successful with an vote to repeal, they will resist any vote to improve. i am hoping that the majority of legislators do not feel that way and will listen carefully to their constituents. going back to the status quo that existed before march of 2010, going back to the dramatic increase in underlying costs and skyrocketing premiums that were bankrupting families and business owners and having an insurance company make the rules instead of giving that freedom to consumers and to seniors is a dangerous step back. we are going to be working with congress, suggesting changes and listen to ideas. i hope they are interested in the improvement and not just in

having this new and important lot failed. >> speaking of resistance from republicans, you met with the congressman who will chair the ways and means committee. he and other leaders members in the house have said they intend to bring you down to the hill for hearing after hearing after hearing. there will be investigations and subpoenas. the agencies working under you will have similar demands placed on them. is that going to hamper your ability to carry out your job? how cooperative can you be? will you be responsive to these subpoenas? will you attend the hearings will -- when you are invited or more than invited? >> as i told the chairman, whom i worked with since i have been

in washington. we had a family house in northern michigan that is in his legislative districts. i am one of his constituents. i made the visit to the chairman's office to really offer to help in any way i can. of course i will be responsive to congressional requests to come and testify about the budget, about the issues in our department. we called him we will make every effort to have the witnesses that he wants their when he wants them to work with his staff around schedules. having a schedule is appropriate. it is information he needs to have for himself and to answer questions from constituents. we look forward to that. we want an open and honest

dialogue. we want to give them the information in a timely fashion and fully intend to do that. i hope that what will happen is a good dialogue and information sharing. there are a lot of new members of congress who do not know about the progress in our agency, much less the rest of government. there is going to be a learning curve and an opportunity to share information about the range of programs and the impact we have on individual families and businesses in their districts are beyond health reforms. whether it is researching programs at universities or the services will help fund in their backyards, i look over to that kind of discussion. >> that was a legislative branch discussion.

the judicial branch is also active in looking at the health care law. what is your strategy of one of the court cases currently moving through the courts overturns the health care law? >> what we have so far, as you know, is that three judges have ruled on cases. two of the judges have found the law to be constitutional. a second judge in virginia has ruled that the portion of the law dealing with individual responsibility is unconstitutional. the judge was asked to stay the implementation. he said no. he has, at this point, given us the opportunity to continue to move forward. this is the law as the case

worked its way through the system. the judge who has not yet ruled is a judge in florida where there is a consolidated case. my guess is that we will have continued opinions by courts and continue to move forward. the lawyers in the justice department is handling the legal debate. what i find in talking to new governors who are being sworn in last week and this week and working with insurance commissioners is that while there may be ongoing legal discussions in the court, there is also the implementation work going on at this stage. people have access to state planning and are beginning to put together the framework for a state exchange, states who are eager to tap into the website so there consumers can get this information, states around the

country that have taken advantage of the new consumer grants so that people have folks on the ground where they can go for help when they are shopping for insurance coverage. there is lots of work going on looking at this changing marketplace and getting ready for the future. the court cases will continue to go along. implementation is full speed ahead. >> i know question for amy goldstein. >> there have been three different court rulings so far. there are two dozen federal court cases. no matter which way the judges rule, there are going to be appeals. this will take a while to get resolved. in the meantime, is your department making any decisions in case the law is ultimately struck down or are you hoping for the best? >> i do not know what the contingency plans would be. our job is that this is the law

and we are working to implement the law and educate americans about the benefits that they can now take advantage of and about the new freedoms they have in terms of parents keeping their kids on their plan, seniors who had a wellness visit as part of their medicare benefits, the beginning of the closing of the donut hole so that 50% of the donut hole payments will disappear. we are beginning to set up training programs for our newdoctors and -- new doctors and new nurses/ / . >> kathleen sebelius is the secretary of health and human services. amy goldstein, you talked about the republican plan to put health and h