as in his first speech that caught everyone's has found a lot of the language that reaches over and be on the party, and part of helping government to be self-government in the best sense is to give our response and our support to leaders who do speak the language of light. whenever your summary of id is, but the language that heels, that brings together. it begins to sound sweet. but in a tragedy of what the president was talking to, i think he found the words tied it to the -- the words must be made

flesh, and he took flesh and loss to turn it into words what we need and how we turn these words into action is up to us and to the people in this body here and over in the senate and in the white house. >> rights, just as freedom, our best expressed by "freedom is just another word for nothing left to lose" when it comes to certain things. if we are pressed to say i am free to do this and free to do that. >> [inaudible]

i think the point also speaks to a strategy that is being utilized to undercut rice in a way that is outrageous. most of us in the civil rights movement see this as a holy day, and that is the day of august 28, going back to the march of washington in 1963. over 250,000 people of all races and points of origin came together at the foot of the lincoln memorial. the idea was to bring an agenda of jobs, justice, and freedom for all americans and everyone being able to fully participate in our society, raising the rights of all of us to guarantee the american dream. then we watched last summer, as the form, not the substance, of that march came to capitol hill with big dollars behind it.

many of us were amazed that about 100,000 people showed up down on the mall. we washed and kept wondering, where is the message? what are we trying to do here? we saw huge banners with dr. king's picture on it hanging in that mall area downtown as a form but not substance. i think one of the best things we can do is we have to teach the american people to start thinking again. intelligent thought is the ability to all of these right wing extremists and those who want to move over the rest of us or take back what we have been able to gain so far, and to teach the american people to think again for themselves and ask the hard questions. i see you standing out here looking pretty. you spend that money. you have lots of sound systems and jumbo tv screens. but why are we here, and what are you going to do to help the american people? [applause]

>> i have been told that people might battery has a died, so sir, if you would stand and ask the question, i will repeat it for the microphone. >> [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> again, the question is, at what point will we really talk to the issues that we are being confronted with, the violence, the economic recession, the poverty, the lack of educational progress, and more? how do we get to the point where it is more than two weeks of media attention and it then everything seems to go back to where it was before? i hope i captured your question. >> i think a part of how we get

the discussion going is to realize they have stopped it, too. if we can just remember for just a little while back, the town hall meetings, which were supposed to do that, right after the last presidential election, there was to be the open dialogue. and to do it at the site where people lived. the town hall meetings or to go to another level, where people could do exactly what you were mentioning. and getting the question in a real way was stopped almost before it started. the phrasing that you talked about, flipping the script, so that they would talk about taking our country back, i do not know where the heck they thought it went. but there is in should be an opportunity for folk to express exactly the kind of things that

you are talking about. i think a part of what kathleen was talking about to making that happen is for those who are normally polite to take license with not being so polite, and showing up and shutting down those who do the screaming folks to the ground so that the real story does not get coat -- does not get cold. there is a responsibility sometimes to be a bid to rude, and we have to put that in the same kind of framework that dr. king taught us to do. be persistent. do not give the challengers of the new phraseology the platform. hold on to it because it is that in a legal right that we all fight for that now becomes the message and the mantra with no substance, as he was

describing. we have got to show up. if we do not show up, they will continue to show out, and that is the message that we will get told. that is at this story. [applause] >> unfortunately, time is moving very quickly. so if we could get a quick short question and one more, and then the panel will finish up. however, you are all invited to remain for the reception afterwards, and we can continue as we visit and talk. yes? >> one thing that struck me about this panel -- [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> we are asked, how can we build resilience in to the electorate who are, perhaps in the 21st century, not as strong when it comes to -- ok. >> actually, i think the question is, who was the electorate in 2008? i think that a large part of that victory was the economic

disaster. therefore, they were really voting against what had happened, rather than for the democrats. it is very possible that the reason there was such a great victory was not because of a long determination for barack obama, but really a disgust with what had happened before. that is one explanation. a second explanation is, you know, we're lucky enough to have a vision of what this country should be about. and we believe, at this panel, deeply about justice and mutuality and lifting one another up. it is in our dna, in our hearts, and in our minds. that is not the case for everybody, and that is why i

believed that i wanted to make maryland at the first state in the country to remark -- to require all kids to do community service. we're not all born with this passion. you have to learn in it. you have to absorb it. and it takes a while. there is not an easy short answer. it has to be about what this country is and get people excited about that. >> the challenge that i do not want us to mess is that the last bill of ted kennedy, the last great action that brought people together was what was named the edward m. kennedy serve america act that called for national service to go from 75,000 to 250,000, americorps members to expanded service and

learning and gave a great new impetus to sr., to boomer generation service. that will not be determined along with what happens to the peace corps. will it continue on the track? armey, who may not go to jail, spoke for a great part of the tea party, saying second on his agenda to kill would be the serve america bill. and it has been put on a list that may mean a whole new battle, but it was a night when the republican conservative from wyoming got up and said in every committee that worked on this, the majority of the republicans supported it. the ranking member worked on it. the two houses worked together. why can we not do more of this? the reason i am optimistic is that it is when things get

worse that the clearest thing people ever know in politics is what is not it. and i think the response to what the president said revived a sense that, those of us that were among the million people out there at the inauguration, fell for that moment. i cannot tell you the number of republicans and young people, but republicans who voted for obama who in the last 48 hours have said to me, that just reminded me why i voted for obama. one of the white house speech writers under bush sent me a message saying now he has testified what some of us hoped for when we voted. i do not want to put too much weight on one moment of obama's

great achievements in finding the right language, but wait on the opportunity that i sense right now that the majority of people are saying what we have just seen in the last year is not it. let's remember, martin luther king had very slumping years, when burn baby burn was the slogan and young people would not listen to him. his answer was not that, it was learn baby learn, build baby build, and i think, think baby think. we can get to thinking on a larger scale. >> thank you very much. i am afraid we are now out of time. we have another song at the end

and then the reception. and we content -- we can continue our questions. thank you very much to our panelists during the formal part of our discussion, doug tanner, kathleen kennedy townsend, harris wofford, and the others. thank you very much. [applause] and thank you to candy shannon, our wonderful moderator. thank you to all of you for being here this evening. [applause] just a few quick announcements before we close out this event. first off, while i mentioned that joy ellison was the first place winner of the first ever essay contest, and we have our two runners-up. jack crumholt from florida and natasha dillon from new york. they both wrote wonderful essay

is. we will be doing more contests in the future, so make sure you learn more. their two boys to stay in touch with what americans for democratic action and education fund is doing -- there are two ways to stay in touch. www.adaction.org. you can friend us on facebook. americans for democratic action. please make sure that you are connected to everything that ada and ada ed fund are doing in those capacities. i want to thank the staff and volunteers, and especially our wonderful panelists and moderator. i love what hilary shelton taught us today. we need to educate, agitated, and organized. so let's go out and do that. before we do that, donna leaf will take us out. thank you. [applause]

>> thank you. i would like to say something quickly. there was another mouse that was taking her brood of mice children across the kitchen floor one night. and they got halfway across the floor and a cat jumped out and started menacing the children. the mother mouse, without a beat, ran in front of her brood and started barking at the cat like a dog. [laughter] it freaked the cat out. the mother then gathered all the children in the nest, started counting them, saw that they were all there and save. and she said, now you see, children, that is the advantage of a second language. [laughter] [applause]

in my heart deep in my heart >> as a freshman at howard university, i was often called out at night to go to a rally. i was very lucky to have been there. and this song still is, as far as i am concerned, the official anthem of the movement. folks used to stand, lock their arms, interlock their arms, and sing it with a great deal of passion. and i hope you can rise to that occasion tonight, please. ♪ >> deep in my heart i do believe we shall overcome

someday well, we shall overcome we shall overcome we shall overcome someday oh deep in my heart i do believe that we shall overcome someday ♪ >> the truth shall make us free. make us freeall truth shall make us free

truth shall make us free someday oh deep in my heart i do believe we shall overcome someday we shall overcome we shall overcome we shall overcome someday oh deep in my heart i do believe

that we shall overcome someday ♪ [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i believe the best for carry- on dr. king's work is to reach out to someone in need and make an ongoing commitment to community service. >> on the 82nd anniversary of martin luther king, jr.'s, birth, use the c-span video library. there are hundreds of programs on the life and legacy of the civil rights leader. find a program, watch it, click it, and share it.

>> health care again is expected to dominate house action this week. debates get underway tomorrow with seven hours of debate set aside, as agreed by the rules. the final vote on the repeal measure expected on wednesday. senate majority leader reid has announced that he will not take up the repeal, even if it does pass in the house. a reminder, you can watch the health care repeal debate in the house right here are on c-span. this debate will feature several new house members. among them, alabama republican martha roby will be incumbent democrat for the opportunity to represent the state's second district. trained as an attorney, she previously served on the montgomery city council. another new face from alabama, a democrat terry sewall, who defeated republican don chamberlain. 72-20%. to succeed the three-term incumbent. he ran for governor and lost in the democratic primary.

>> it is the new congress and a new way to use c-span. congressional chronicle is a comprehensive resource to follow congress your way. research members, a view session timelines, and find video and text of all foreign committee appearances. cochran aggression chronicle, at the website. >> a preview now on the week ahead in the house. action will be dominated by work on the health care repeal. from today's "washington journal," this is about 45 minutes. we will show you as much of this as again until today's hospital update on the condition of arizona congressman gabrielle giffords at 1:00 p.m. eastern. host: mike lillis is a congressional reporter for "te ill." h thank you for being on the program. guest: thank you. host: the lead story in "the

baltimore sun" this morning is about health care. what is the plan for republicans this week? guest: to repeal the bill. it is a simple bill that they have offered, declaring everything that was passed last march will be eliminated. the final vote will be extended in the house on wednesday afternoon. is expected to pass the house with john boehner in the majority. the question is what happens afterwards. host: what happens afterwards, it will go back to the senate and may ultimately end up on the president's desk. at which time he is most likely going to veto it. what is the actual purpose of they cannot get this passed? guest: they want to make a political statement. but they ran on a campaign

pledge to repeal the health care bill. it was controversial and unpopular in some parts of the country. republicans said it was not just the economy, but it was democratic policies epitomize by the new health care bill that swept them into office in november. host: republican congressman jeff blake was interviewed on sunday on "face the nation." he talked about the health-care debate. >> i think that you will see a more civil debate and we have had otherwise. i do not think that the substance will change that much as republicans are committed to repealing the law in the house. obviously. but i do think that the town will change and i think it was a good decision -- tone will

change and i think it would this -- i think it was a good idea to put the decision off for one week. >> speaker john boehner said that we would stop this job destroying legislation instead of job killing legislation. can that possibly continue on here? or am i just being a pollyanna? >> i think that republicans and democrats alike will realize that if we tone down our rhetoric, the debate can be more effective. taking a cue from the movie industry. looking at the top grossing movies, they're almost always pg or pg-13. it is better to have a more civil tone and the debate. -- and the debate. host: your thoughts? guest: he is exactly right.

the tone is going to change. but he was quick to clarify that substantially democrats still support health care. it is an ideological divide. he mentioned job destroying the supposed job killing. there are a lot of symbolic gestures that we will see like that. at the state of the union address they're going to go democrat, republican, rather than boy, girl. in terms of actual substance these guys do not agree on what the government is supposed to do end out there run the country. -- supposed to do a and how they run the country. host: the first call this

morning comes from cheyenne, wyoming. caller: why is it that republicans claim that they are for all of this austerity, cutting the deficit in waste in congressional office and all of that, why would they want to have several hours of debate and then voting on this repeal of health care when they know it will not be passed? all of this will cost money in salaries, time that could have been spent on another bill or what ever. guest: good question. they have been criticized for that. they said they would come in and cut spending, work on the deficit, that kind of thing. and then their first vote is symbolic of health care reform. i do not have an immediate answer except to say that several hours of debate in washington is not a long time. if you remember the hours of debate they have last year.

for them to be able to do it in a few days, that is pretty quick as far as washington, d.c. goes. host: james, independent line. michigan. you are on the line with mike lillis. caller: this is carter in mississippi. of -- host: ok. caller: because of the situation, democrats, republicans, t partiers -- tea partiers, the people suffering around minimum-wage rural areas -- there is so much money being wasted by and the usda.

i am on section eight. the money that they're paying people to keep these places up, they're wasting this money. i have tried several times to contact people in washington about this. as far as the people were concerned -- can you help me with that? thank you. guest: i have to plead ignorance, but i do not follow the usda very closely. as far as your initial question about jobs -- we just popped out of the recession except for jobs, still lingering at 10%. mentioning those philosophical differences between the parties, that is what you will see entrenched in the coming congress. over the next few years the

democrats will run on a policy of spending a lot of money. they really expanded the deficit, due in the unemployment insurance and keeping things from going even higher. republicans as a philosophy object to that. they will be telling us to cut government by giving tax cuts and tax breaks to businesses, trickle-down economics allowing us to grow ourselves out. over the next few years you will see a lot of head-in between the white house and the senate's. john boehner and the republicans in the house over spending and the role of government in reducing. host: lawrence, idaho, you are on with mike ellis -- mike

lillis. caller: there are good parts of the health care law. but i understand that there are laws that our constitutional. democrats and republicans need to step backward to dictate what is constitutional and what is not. host: give me an example of something that you see in the health care law that you think is unconstitutional. host: forcing -- caller: forcing all americans to purchase health care is unconstitutional. the reason being is that the lot of americans cannot afford health insurance. are we going to lose the health insurance that we that? of or are we going to be able to

keep the same benefits that we have now? host: this is the big sticking point. they are mostly talking about individual mandates. it is going to go out to the supreme court. a lot of states have already sued. this is something that is simply going to have to work its way out in the court. in the meantime it is important to recognize that there are 50 million people, at least, without insurance in this country. we argue that they can choose not to have health insurance. but at some point they are going to need health services. it is expensive to pay for that. the question is to is going to pay for that. should the patient pays for it themselves?

taxpayers? hospitals and doctors? should they pick up the tab? free markets in the health care world exists only in the sense that we are willing to allow uninsured people to die and treated. thankfully we live in a country that does not allow that. but we should not kid ourselves by thinking that these costs are absorbed by hospitals and doctors. they are picked up by everyone else. the republican idea, that in 1993 when clinton was trying to reform health care, they made the argument that this was a personal responsibility. no one should pay for your health care, you should pay for it by yourself. now they are saying that it is

unconstitutional. host: house republicans are coming back from a weekend retreat by a baltimore. they were there for three days. it was billed as an issues conference. can you talk about what was done there and what they were trying to do guest: they are trying to get on message. these conferences -- what they were trying to do? guest: they are trying to get on message. these conferences are kind of strange. you are not in the room, you have to rely on leaks. you do not know exactly what they are talking about. they wanted to go back to their pledge to america, which they revealed on september. -- in september. lower government, balanced budget. enormously broad talking points for which they do not have any specific solution.

saying that host: the democrats are going on there retreat this coming weekend. i believe they are going to annapolis. what kind of things do you expect the democrats will talk about as they prepared to do battle with their republican counterparts? guest: good question. all indications are they are enormously productive in passing legislation. they had to go out on a limb in a couple of the bills, even though they had a 75-member majority. now, but not that they're happy to be in the majority -- not that they're happy to be in the majority, but they have a much simpler task, and that is to be

the republican voice. just to say no to everything. the republicans offer something and all the democrats have to do is say no. there are a lot of, a number of blue dogs and moderate democrats. she might lose a straggler here and there. for the most part pretty liberal democratic caucus right now. she will be uniting them to oppose everything the republicans put forward. she has given it of having harry reid in the senate. -- she has the advantage of having harry reid in the senate. host: her office is smaller. i

host: back to the phones. atlanta, georgia. to restore on for republicans. go ahead. heresa on for republicans. caller: i do not agree with republican sitting with democrats at the state of the union address. in i think it is a cheap trick. i think it is a cheap trick to take attention away from obama majority and the house. where was the bipartisan shift in the beginning when democrats did not want bipartisanship? i do not think the republicans

should do it. and we send the republicans to the white house to stop obama's aggressive agenda. i do not been this is the way to do it. thank you. -- i do not think this is the way to do it. you are not alone in that assessment. that have had similar criticisms. the difference is there is a member of congress that has been shot, and recognizing they're not going to agree on anything, they want to send a message to the american people that they even if it doesa something as meaningless as sitting together during the state of the union address. kevin mccarthy came out and said it is a good idea, a good message to the american people.

the assassination attempt on a congressperson is not -- is a very rare event. this is how they're chosen to respond. they've chosen to respond. it is a chance for the new members to showcase their numbers. it sends a message that we won and we are here to fight peer ye. host: our next phone call. caller: we supported the big three. my point is when we were starting to lose our business, the first thing to go is we

would get pay cuts and benefit ♪ ♪cuts. and government seems like there is a sense of entitlement where they do not consider treating it like a member of our are sold. is there a reason they cannot go back to basics. and obviously defense is important. and you know, space, and stuff that is important, but not as important. and when they balance their books like a person would in ridhome, why can't stathey get of a lot of the fat? host: sorry about that. we lost or call. guest: the short answer is there were able to get away with it for a long time, and it became

have it. lawmakers are nothing but perhaps creatures of habit. your seeing this right now with defense cuts. secretary gates is proposing to cut just one marine vehicle, and the guys wear the vehicle is being made, the guy on capitol hill saying that is jobs in my district. this is going back into the 1970 boston 1980's when the debt started to crescendo, and it has been at republicans and democrats watching all of this happened. they have done it because they have been allowed to do it and have a piggy bank in asia where they can borrow money from china, borrow from japan. it really has not hurt the economy. it does help the economy for a

number of years. now they're looking at it and saying how did we get here? everyone is conflicted. it is not really a partisan issue. host: texas. rachel on the line for independence. caller: you will have to excuse me, i am a little nervous. and during the bank bailout everyone accused obama of bailing out the banks. for two years they called him names and everything. then we heard bush say he was responsible for bailing out the banks. i do not know why no one came to his defense before bush started on this. another thing, the stuff they're talking about health care, the

fact that if you have insurance you no longer be able to keep insurance. that is a lie. and i wish someone in the media would finally start telling the truth. host: we will leave it there. regarding the activities in the house of representatives, particularly after this week, this week will be tied up mostly with the house voting on the repeal of the health-care law, what comes next? what are the top three or four items that the new speaker wants to accomplish in this congress? guest: it will mostly be spending bills. not only because this was their pledge to america, but the budget is one of the first things you do as you come into the year. they have paul ryan, republican from wisconsin, who will be working -- had a series of hearings on the budget.

then you will also have the debt ceiling debate that will come up early. that is a tough vote for republicans because they ran on a campaign pledge of balanced budgets. the debt ceiling, they're not allowed to go above 14 trillion dollars, but they will have to. there is no way around it. in a lot of the conversations that were happening in baltimore over the weekend for what can we get in return for the tough votes in march or april, whenever that will be? that makes us look bad. we will get spending cuts from the democrats in return. host: omaha, nebraska. go ahead. caller: it is a complete ways for the republicans to focus their time on the health-care bill. we all know it will not get repealed. second, referring to the bank

bailout, i am republican that was for the bank bailout, because i believe without it we would have lost countless jobs. all of the aig people would of been out of jobs. i thought they were crucial, although unpopular. third, the debt ceiling. i do not think republicans should get anything in return for the debt ceiling, because we need to raise the debt ceiling. i did not believe we should accumulate more debt, but we need to keep the government operational. the simple idea we should let our government go out of operation simply to prove a political point, which they're trying to do, is astounding. they are putting the safety of the american people are risks over trying to appease the tea party, and i think that is

entirely unacceptable. thank you. host: john in a mall. omaha. in guest: you are exactly right, it was a bush-era program. it happens in late 2008. it was henry paulson who said we have to do this thing. it was supported by democrats and republicans. it was big and controversial, and there is still a lot of debate about its effectiveness and that sort of thing, but a lot of economists are in agreement that it has saved them a much tougher economic time. i think what the debate is now is because that was an $800 billion bill or something like that, all that was not spend -- the republicans want to take the money that was not spent in pay

back the deficit. the obama administration, one to ce you have the money, you did not want to give it back. that is where the debate has gone just to clarify that a little bit. host: talk to us more about the raising of the debt ceiling. how close are we to facing some sort of a government shutdown the way the clinton administration had a face-off with new it being bridge? -- with newt gingrich? guest: often times congress for its history, but they're not shortsighted enough that they have forgotten what happened with newt.

clinton came out of that smelling like a rose, and newt retired a few years later. john boehner does not want to make the same mistake. they will ask for something in return, but they will raise the debt ceiling. host: we have more on the health-care debate from senator gillibrand.o brakirsten if we can go into the chamber, what you're going to create is an image of the congress deciding that we're going to work as a body, not as two separate sites, and that is a very good place to start. the conversations about health care are very meaningful because one thing the government brought up is if we can move the conversation to what about the bill to want to change?

that is a legitimate debate that we should have a. after the bill was written, a lot of small businesses said there is a lot of paperwork i have to fill out. we can change that. that is something we can absolutely agree on. talking about repealing the whole piece of legislation, let's break it apart. are the tax cuts not something we can all agree on? i think it is. making sure we have more choices and competition, that is american value, something we agree on. in making sure everyone covers preventive care, we should probably keep that. i think the president's call to action is extremely meaningful for that reason. all he is saying is that our democracy has to live up to the expectation of our children.

that we have to solve the problems of the day. in a very significant issue is the economy. in -- a very significant issue is the economy. host: michael willis, go ahead. guest: she mentioned that one specific provision where both parties actually agreed. it is not a new tax, does the new filing requirement. it saves about $70 billion by closing the tax gap. both parties have heard enough anger from small businesses that they have said we have to go back and get rid of it. the senate tried to put that out last year and they cannot agree

on how to pay for the 17 billion. they agree on the policy. i think it is something that will pass this year. one of the very few things in that bill that both parties will agree on. host: another issue that is getting a lot of attention, especially in the wake of the shooting in tucson is gun- control. he wrote last week that speaker gaynor says no to new gun control. homeland panel cheap is thas at odds with gop chief. host: is this going to be a big issue that will create an internal fight?

guest: i think a lot of gun control activists are hoping so. all indications are that this not an issue that will hang long. e around very the political and arm is not right for gun control. very different in 2007 after the virginia tech shootings. both party stepped in and recognize that something needed to be done to keep guns out of of the mentally ill. and it was supported by the national rifle association. now there are pushing, asking the question of winning to return to the bill? the answer across the board from a lot of democrats is no, we

will not go back. host: back to the phones. jenny on the line for republicans. in caller: good morning to you both. i wanted to make a comment about the health care first. they have made it mandate. ok, if they do not want it mandate, who will pick up the, you know, -- the taxpayers will end up paying. when you are in a group like some of the federal employees, they are in a group of insurance plans, but their insurance goes up a lot of other places goes up. and if they do not want that in there, then i think that they should be the ones that have to pay the bills. because i do not think it is fair to other americans -- my insurance goes up, and this is

probably in the last 15 years, it goes up every year. i believe this is one of the reasons why, because we are paying for people that do not have health care. as far as the state of the union, ok, it is a one-time evening, and who cares who's side -- if you want to sit on one side, fine. fine. you don't, as far as the one congressman, he says 1,000 feet away, but that will not make a difference, because that is ridiculous, because if someone wants to shoot you or whatever, they are going to find a way to do it. host: jenny we will leave it there. guest: i will start with the gun

control issue. thank you for the call. a lot of criticism peaking for that reason. the logistics of it. how do you know they are carrying a gun? how does this is a note congressman is and the general vicinity? -- how does a citizen know that a congressman is in a general vicinity? host: we are talking with mike lillis. congressional reporter for "the hill." after a week delayed by tragedy, house such ship back into gear. that is in today's issue of "the hill" on line and also and hard copy. you are on "the washington

journal." go ahead. caller: good morning, gentlemen. thank you for giving me the opportunity. i was really disappointed with my republican party. they are creating rhetoric every time, and that is now how they won the elections. if you go any time in the history of winning, -- that is what is coming up with health care. obama's health plan. stop killing health plan. that peoplery to say like rush limbaugh are being

paid so heavily to do it. in i do not want to say anything more than that. and as a free country, i would never like a person like rush limbaugh to speak even in a small -- host: we're going to leave it there. the debate this week is regarding health care specifically. is it going to be strictly along party lines or might there be some democrats who are going to be speaking out and also talking about repeal of the healthcare bill? guest: it is a good question. eroded -- devoted on the role that or govern health care debate. -- they voted on the rule that will govern health care debate last week. you have a lot of democrats who

won very narrowly in november. they were critical of keeping speaker policy as -- pelosi as the minority leader. in when asked about whether or not he would support repeal, he said it is not only a bad idea, immoral to do it. you are seeing some of the moderates have the potential of swinging back. you can see nancy pelosi reigniting -- uniting these guys. host: john on the line for republicans. caller: i would like to make a point about the news. and i am down the middle. hannity or o'reily,

i have to watch cnn to get all the information when politicians get voted into office, the american people have spoken. i wish someone would explain to them if they won 53% of the votes, that is not the american people. what we would like to see is nothing to do with fox news, but i was watching fox news and had a couple on. they both wanted health care for everybody. what gets me is the bankers that make all the money, that is their job. when you have health care, get someone like it same vincent's hospital in new york that is a nurse making 140.

then you have the >> are leaving now to go live to arizona for an update on cabriole efforts. -- gabrielle giffords. doctors upgrading heard from critical to serious. physicaltire team a, therapies, and many others. in the first phase in the three phases, resuscitating is the first phase, restoring the second phase, and rehabilitation the third phase. the first phase dealt with the initial injuries and then on saturday, the second phase was restoring and improving their patients' conditions. this was possible because after

they completed a successful team program. last saturday the teams performed on congresswomen placing of a feeding tube and repair of the right eye. the doctor will be available for comment as to the details of the procedure. i have asked dr. randy grand to speak in his stead as the assistant director of the trauma program. i would also like to take opportunity to update you on the other patients. we have two more patients in good conditions in the hospital and still won it seriously injured patient and i see you. we are very pleased about the outcome. we really appreciate all of your support that not only do, but

across the community and people across the nation have given us. i will let the doctor talk about the details of the procedure on saturday. the minor procedure took about two hours, and he will update you on the portion that he did. to go good morning. what you're hearing here again and is another team ever to ffort. yen let me take you back to the operation and describe exactly what we did in needed to do. if you recall from the first conference where i mentioned the congresswoman's initial injuries, i mentioned she had fractures in the root of the eye socket. fortunately on the left, that

fractured does not look like it will need any kind of repair. on the right to the bone fragments, they needed to perform a very quick releasing operation. we did not want to do the full repair of that time. the patient was very critical condition at that time, and we did not want to take a dance to further exacerbate brain swelling and other factors that could have been adversely affecting her. we put that off until at such time we felt she was through the critical time. at about the weak mark is when we thought it would be right. we wanted to get into it in a reasonable time to prevent complications down the road from the pressure on the eye socket. the procedure itself did require craniotomy, opening the window

and the school. the required we remove some of the rim and i stopped it. and then again working with dr. we repair that. we did this so we would not have to we expose and risk the left side of the brain. we wanted to minimize that as much as possible. and i am happy to say that within a few hours of the surgery she was waking up here yet through the weekend she came back to the same base line before the surgery. the same level of interaction she has been having with us. at this time, we are hoping to continue tying up loose ends and get ready for the third phase of her care, rehabilitation. >> prior to the procedure, we performed a tracheostomy and

gastrostomy these are common procedures done that allow us to expedite their care, provide them with adequate nutrition, manage their way in a much more comfortable manner. therefore, the tubes that are no longer there is needed. it also decreases the risk of infection, sinusitis, aspiration and those types of things. she tolerated those procedures well. we can now open and up for any questions that you might have .ppeared in >> >> our suspicion is that she can see something, but at this point detailed evaluation has not been performed. >> can to speak? -- can she speak?

>> it goes in through the neck and removes the breathing tube from her mouth and places and other breathing tube in her trachea through an incision in her neck. what we have in place now does not allow her to get their pastor vocal cords, so she cannot vocalise, but she certainly could amount words or something like that when she is ready to do that. >> beside her husband, mark kelly, there was an interview with him, and what does that say about what kind of progress she has made? >> there is a lot of inference, but it does imply she is recognizing him, and that she is interacting in an old, familiar way with him. >> what does that mean from a medical standpoint? >> all of those cause

connective -- medical levels are there from the standpoint. she is at the same base line where she was before we did the operation. have called her recovered miraculously. how you change that description? >> that still holds. >> [inaudible] >> the next major step is the graduation to rehabilitation. in that school repair is many months down the road. we will not even crossed that at this point. the key we are trying to get her to is rehabilitation so she can move on to the next phase of a recovery. >> to have an idea of when that might be? -- do you have an idea of when that might be? >> she has been working really

with a therapist at the bedside. also with family. we certainly have a potential as longe time very certasoon, as things progress well. usually trickett monodies -- tracheotomies state until we are sure the patient is safe. we can change it to a to where she can actually get air pass her vocal cords so she can vocalize with it in place if need be. it is hard to predict how long that will stay. also, and ammonia risks are lower. it depends on it per alertness continues to improve and her ability to follow command continues to improve. >> we talk about milestones. what is the next milestone that

you would like to see? >> the day she leaves the hospital. that is her graduation. then she moves on to rehabilitation care ye. the family is looking at the resources. they have the entire country available. proximity to family is very important. >> are we talking a matter of weeks for her to leave the hospital? >> it could be a matter of days to weeks. again, it is a matter of getting all of the information from our own therapist, when she thinks she is ready to move forward with that. >> [inaudible] >> congratulations from grades are mostly dependent on patients' ability and

maintenance of certain dynamic levels, blood pressure, not making any changes on a day-to- day basis, not requiring surgery frequently. she is off the ventilator. that is a huge move in graduation from critical to serious. i also wanted to mention about the transfer to rehabe. getting her out of the intensive care unit will decrease your risk for complications. >> if she registering any emotion on her face? and she's smiling? >> occasionally. her husband has told me he has seen it. mark told me he thought he may have seen a smile. all very optimistic. we could be wrong, but we all want to see the best, and sometimes we see what we want to see, but if he said she is

smiling, i buy it. >> is there any indication she is trying to talk? >> no. >> [inaudible] >> that is hard to say. that is up to her and her process. ng you are asking about very advanced things, and we're not at that point yet. >> [inaudible] >> i am going to be really cagy with you. the family does not want to go into the detail at this time. an>> [inaudible] >> they are very close to getting to rehab status themselves. very close to being discharged. it could be within days. >> can you talk about the risk

of infection. are you already passed that point? -- past that point? >> there is always risk of infection. risk of pneumonia, surgical wound infection. the risk is certainly there. it exponentially decreases the further you get from surgery. she just had major surgery, so there a certain risk for infection. >> [inaudible] >> it looks like we're through the window for the maximum brain swelling. everything suggests we're going in the right direction of this points >> we will continue to issue medical bulletins on a daily basis. many of the questions are speculative in nature right now. whenever we know, we are sharing with you. further steps that need to be

taken. we cannot predict, nor can we foresee the future, but i think we're all happy to tell you that she continues to make progress. we will keep you updated for the next few days. if things remain stable, we might not have another press conference until she can be transferred to the rehabilitation center. there will be daily bulletins and he beat riley will be available for individual questions or interviews. we would like to think all of you, your interest and participation. -- we would like to thank all of you. we will keep you updated on good and bad events. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> i believe the best way to carry on dr. king's work is to reach out to someone in need and to make an ongoing commitment to community service.

to go on the 82nd anniversary of martin luther king jr. urs birth, use the c-span video library. there are hundreds of programs on the life and legacy of the civil-rights leader. find a program, watch it, click it, and share it. >> health care is set to dominate house action this week. debate is set to start tomorrow with seven hours agreed to by the rule. a final vote on the repeal measure is expected on wednesday. harry reid has announced he will not take up the repeal even if it does pass the house. and a reminder you can watch the health-care repeal debate in the house right here on c-span. this debate will feature several new house members, among them just denim -- jeff dunham. -- jeff denham. he was previously an allman farmer and served in the u.s. air force as well. another new face from

california. she won the right to succeed diane wants to represent the 33rd district, which includes central los angeles. >> it is time to upload your m deo for the subitudent can documentary competition. get your video and to win the grand prize of $5,000. -- get your video in for a chance to win the grand prize of $5,000. >> a discussion now on the 112 congress and the obama administration from yesterday's "washington journal. " this is about an hour. feehery and karen finney. good morning. thanks for being with us. guest: good morning.

host: let's move ahead to the speech 10 days from. -- from now. the debt ceiling vote is coming up later in the spring. karen finney -- john feehery, what will the president say? guest: he will reflect on his speech in tucson, which i thought was a very good speech. i thought it it all the right notes. he will talk about what happened to the health care vote. will talk about how we need to work together. he will talk about how we is going to try to create jobs. those are the notes he is going to hit. gut: i agree with most of that, but i think it is an opportunity for the president to lay out his vision of the next six months to one year. we're entering reelect. you have about six months before

you start to get into campaign mode. it is an opportunity, using the framework of the speech in tucson, to talk about how we can, we a in democrats and republicans, work for different common ground -- work to find common ground. host: many of us feel that the debate was hijacked by fox news with the so-called death panels and the unending string of republican misinformation. i will be the first to say i thought the democrats could have done a better job correcting public misconceptions about health reform that linger to this day. guest: it is a myth to say people did not like the health care bill because of fox news. they thought it would raise their premiums. if your small business owner, you think it will hurt job

creation. they did not like the individual mandate. there were so many things that were bad about this health care bill. this is not a myth perpetrated by the republicans and conservatives at fox news. it was a very bad bill. i think that is why republicans, pretty easily in the house, will vote and to repeal -- vote to repeal it. guest: they spend hundreds of millions of dollars. our recent poll shows that the majority of americans do not believe there would have a choice to keep their current health insurance if they want to. people will be able to keep their current health insurance if that is what they choose to do. the volume of misinformation out there -- if we had a conversation on the mers of the issue, that would have been

different. republicans did not come forward with their own plan. they did a disservice to the american people. most statistics show that -- some conservative economists even -- show that any impact on jobs will be minimal. it could help current jobs because this is a growing sector of our economy. host: one of the key players is mitch mcconnell. this piece calls him a "master manipulator." he uses tactics that are head- obvious.ing ly some describe him as having

"the natural charisma of an oyst." guest: he is one of the most gifted strategists i have ever seen. he is always smiling. he knows how to work strategy. knows how to make the news he wants to make without making news he does not want to make. i have a lot of friends who work in that office. i marvel at his ability to keep that caucus together. guest: anytime somebody can stay on message -- it's incredibly impressive. he gets on a message like, " the most important thing we can do is make sure this president is reelected," says it over and over, then moves on to the

next message. t did not" -- it is not because of a lack of stability that caused this tragedy. a p it did a precen -- it did not set a precedent. bill crystal said the words "it did not" were not in the prepared text. they were apparently added on delivery by president obama. .

>> and really talk about what the impact will be, and not get into the hyperbole we have seen before of death panels, which just is not true peer yen gues guest: i think we will have a clash of wills between the

different sides in this congress, and i do think that for better compromise to get done, this debate has to be conducted with stability, and i think that is one of the things the president was saying in his speech, that disability did not cause this necessarily. but let's take this as an excuse to add more civility toward one another. t wednesday evening in tucson, arizona. >> let each of us do so with a good dose of humility. rather than pointing fingers or assigning blame. let's use this occasion to expand a moral imagination, to listen to each other more carefully, to sharpen our instinct for empa thy and remind ourselves of all the ways that our hopse and dreams

are bound together. >> we've been talking about what happened in tuscon over the last eight days. but where does the political dialogue and debate go from here? >> it goes to the debate we've started on health care and the differences of opinion on whether this is a good law or whether it's a terrible law. and then really it goes to some serious substantive discussions about how do we extend the debt ceiling, how do we cut spending, how do we fund our troops in afghanistan and iraq. how do we make the critical decisions that areoing to get this economy moving again. how do we deal with the different state gotshat are going bankrupt? all of these things are huge decisions and require sophisticated arguments and sophisticated solutions. and so i think that this is not easy. none of these decisions are going to be easy and i thi

that you're going to have passionate debate on both sides. hopefully, it will be civil and passionate. >> i hope it's civil and passionate but also pragmatic and truthful and based on the facts. and when we talk about budget cuts, we had a discuss last year about additional funds for the states. mr. boehner referred to special interest groups which was teachers, firefighters, well, you know what? on that horrible da last saturday thank god there were police officers and first responders there on the scene able to help. so when we talk about some of these budget cuts we have to understand and i think let's be honest that those are some of the things that get cut. we may still decide that's the right cut to make but let's acknowledge, let's not try to sort of hide the, do a shell game here and try to suggest that when we make a cut over here it doesn't have an impact over there.

that would be the kind of straightforward discussion we can have. no doubt we're going to have to make cuts. the other thing i hope we have in terms of a civil debate, it's disturbing to me so far when we talk about the discussion over the debt ceiling, it's who is going to get what, i'm going to get this from you rher than you're going to get that from me rather than the right decisions for the country. rather than if we give up this you'd better give up that. come on. >> i think what republicans are saying ise need aeal plan to be fiscally responsible. anddom gogry really comes from the democratic side of the stuff. if you talk about the fact that these states and local governments are drowning in pension costs, you know, montgomery county for example, 60% of their budget is paid for pensions and that is all because of labor unions. and these are government employee labor unions. and yes, i think that the teachers and police officers play an extraordinarily

important role. but those who are retired at age 55 and getting pensions for the rest of their life, that all sounds good in a growing economy. but when you have these state and federal budgets going bankrupt, we ve to make some real changes. and the -- i saw what happened with michelle rhee and the district of columbia and the teachers unions going after her. these are adult discussion that is have to take place. and the deem gogry is extraordinary. >> good morning. caller: the problems we're having in the united states, the reason we're divided so much is because we lie. we lie. >> host: who is lying? caller: everybody lies.

republicans lie, democrats lie. everybody is lying. and i've been watching you for years. see, i'm from kentucky. i know mitch mcconnell, see. i've been watching him for about 30 years. that man will say anything to get his agenda passed. anything. w, i'm from kentucky. been there all my life. i'm over 50. o what we have to do is quit lying and telling the truth. there isn't such thing as obama care. it's health care for american people. when mr. obama was disrespected at the last time of the union when the man saide was lying, he isn't lying. he isn't giving health care to no illegals. host: well, that point of true also goes to issue of democrats and republicans sitting together side by side, which is something that seems to be gaining steam.

to that point and to his point about everyone lying, john. caller: h guest: well, let me address the first thing first. ve been to several states of the union and over the last 20 years, it's kind of devolved into a competition about who can stand up or sit do you know the first and really taken away from the discussn of the president's giving. and i think that one of the besthings about having the members interspersed is kind of i think will cut do you know on this cheer leading competition that happens. i think that -- i don't think that politicians lie. i think that they put the best gloss on their side soft story. and i do think that with 30-second commercials they hammer home on those. i think they distort on both sides and i think that's the nature of the political campaigns. and i agree with the caller that we need to truthfully face

the problems that are hitting this country, especially when it comes to spending because we scompli cannot afford to spend the way we hav without revenue and no one wants to raise taxes and the government is too big and spends tooch. so i think that's the kind of discussion and facing the truth is important. guest: as long as we have that discussion with an honest and open way and acknowledge that some of the cuts that we're going to make will have a real impact on real lives. just going back tohat john was saying about state and local governments. i agree. my mother used to be a labor negotiator and many local governments are just crushed under their obligations for pensions. at the same time, i feel like what we always sm to forget when we're having that conversation is that many of those deals were put together so that in lieu of cost of living increases or other types, that others in the private sector were getting, public sector employees, this

was kind of the trade-off. so if we're now going to say pensions are the problem, let's also remember that people did give something up to get to that point. and again, if we're going to make cuts, it's going to have an impact. and one of the opportunities that president obama has, part of why he was so effective as a campaigner, is we don't he to buy into this either/or rhetoric of it's the end of the world, it's the best thing since sliced bread. wait, how do we fwigyur out the right decision for now. >> let me put a couple numbers on the table. the number of residential home foreclosures. in 2008 it was 1.12 million. only one state had a budget shortfall, michigan. in 10 to 1048 states. and finally the budget deficit in 2007 was $101 billion year

to year. >> well, is eraordinary. we are in one sense all to blame for the housing bubble that occurred. and it's the government had a role. i think the private marketplace had a role. i think consumers had a role. and we are just dealing with that bubble. i mean, this is what's happened to us post collapse of the bubble is very typical of what happened back with the tuleyip bubble back in the 16th century. this is what happens. people get hurt. state governments get hurt. the federal government gets hurt. and we have to climb our way out of it. and we're not out of it yet. that's why the foreclosures are still fairly high. too many people are filing foreclosures. guest: i think john is right too. on some level we all know we have to make cuts as long as it doesn't impact me. so as long as it's not my kids'

school or my neighborhood. again, we're at a place where we have to have a very honest frank discussion about the kinds of cuts that need to be made and what those impacts are going to be. host: our next call, good morning. caller: good morning. well, i am a young person, if you could say that. i'm 20 years old and i am a student of arizona state university. i am also a recent transplant of louisville, kentucky. and just t state of politics these days seems to be very concerning to both me and my demographic. i've been here for a few months, and last saturday i was at work when the shootings happened, and it was extremely disturbing toveryone. everyone was so worried. there were natives from the

reservation, they were worried about how it would reflect upon them. there were hispanics who were scared that it was the mexican mafia that might be behind it and might inspire, if you want to say, a race war. and when it turned out to be a mentally disturbed young man it was almost a relief because arizona is a tinder box right now and it is a very disturbing place to be. you can say all the things you want to say about mitch or the south or kentucky but honestly, it has no comparison to the state of politics here right now in arizona where people are just worried about the next little thing could set off something much larger. host: karen. guest: well, i think the caller is right. we can say that obviously the young man last week who was

engaged in the sheeting clearly had long-term mental illness that seems like for a variety of reasons was not caught at points where it should have been and could have been. that being said, i think many of us were very concerned that some of the rhetoric that we heard in arizona particularly around some immigration and some of the other. and i think that's one of the things we have to be accountable for. if we take an issue and demagogue it and turn it into immigration reform is one we tend to do it the most where we deemize or scape gothe one group of people and play on people's fears that's the kind of climate we have. i thought it was interesting to note that daniel hernandez is a naturalized citizen. i would say i'm glad he is in the united states of america, i'm glad he is a naturalized citizen. but i would say there are wonderful people trying to become united states citizens. so let's have a real

conversation on that issue. host: we'll go to jim next, louisiana, with john and karen. good morning. caller: good morning. i got a question about this civility stuff. it seems like all of a sudden it's everybody should be hand in hand and if these republicans fall for this thing that's the democrats want to sift together, the only reason they want to sit together is because they don't have as many representatives as the republicans. now, they didn't want this when they were in the majority because they had more people. guest: well, this morning jim called it a kumbaya moment and has put together some discussions.

attorney general eric holder would be joined by darrell issa who has called obama one of the most corrupt administrations. also sonya society my or and elena kagen would sit between jeff sessions and to keep things lively, michelle backm who wants people armed and dangerous to fight the energy bill should sit with senator john kerry an energy bill author and mitch mcconnell would probably want to be near al franken who made funny faces during a debate. guest: where you sit does not change or shouldt where you stand on the issues. i think republicans are commited to their agenda which is mostly going to be getting us to be fiscally responsible again and create jobs in the private sector. and i think that the caller -- both callers make an important point. we have been as a country under great economic stress.

this has impacted a lot of people in a lot o different ways in many parts of suburbia you see foreclosed homes all over the place. these homes were the embodiment of the arican dream and now people, it has become a nightmare. so we shouldn't under estimate how impassioned people feel when their livelihoods have been snuffed out. and i think we do face, especially the 20-year-old who just called, they face even more stark choices in the future. the debt we are putting on these kids, and also the how hard we make it for them to get into college and how expensive college is. all of these things add up. and the reason we need to have civil debate from washington is because washington needs to be a leader in providing civil debate in the rest of the

country. but that doesn't mask the effect that people in the rest of the country are hurting and need some direction. guest: if i could add to that by saying we ought to have civil debate, personally i don't think we should go to some kind of knee jerk reaction the other direction a pc movement. i think it's important that weaf vigorous discussion and debate. we can disagree. john and i do it all the time. but there's a way that we can have that conversation and disagree that's constructive and that flushes out the issues rather than name calling or making it pirnl. that's where when we talk about the civity, that's where it goes over the edge. where we talk about -- and again scape goating groups of people. that's where it goes over the edge. but certainly that's not to say both sides should not vigorously defend and present their sides of the argument. host: one of our viewers say this point.

guest: that's a danger that comes in when washington gets too cozy and don't reflect the views of the people back home. it becomes a party insider party versus the outsiders which is the rest of the country. and the whole issue with the banking industry, really the tarp was centered by president bush continued by president obama. it was essential to making sure that people, the banking industry would stay open without a banking industry functioning you really do have complete anarchy in the country. that being said it was extraordinarily unpopular for democrats and republicans who voted for this thing. and that's that view irmakes an important point, which is both parties have to reflect the values of their constituents and not just cut deals without understanding where their

voters are coming from. host: roger, independent line. caller: first, i'd like to say that there was a strong point where they say that it's a person's actions. republicans and democrats sitting side by side at the state of the unian address means nothing because for them to sit next to each other thinks exactly the same. i don't like the way you think, i don't like the way you think. i don't like you and you don't like me. me shaking hands for five minutes, smiling next to you two hours and acting like something has changed for one day isn't anything except what the american people have come to realize, that come to think of as politicians just lie. we look at obama and i'm an african american man.

so i'm giving him cudos as far as being the first african american president. but when he was standing up there talking about this is too big to fail, this is too big to fail, he was at the same time saying that you're too small to matter. you're too small to matter. because i'm willing to give these people this money so we can stop systemic breakdown that the country and blah blah when the actual matter is that the economy is based on the small businessman, not the big corporate banking system. you know? so when you go out of your way to save people who aren't starving to begin with and allow people who are starving to change the score, then all the back slapping anr w because this crucial thing

happened in the country. host: i'm going to stop you there. you've put a lot of things on the table. guest: i think what roger is expressing the views of a lot of people who are probably looking at this idea of ok they're going to sit together but what does that really mean. and again, i think it's meant to be a gesture. again, it does not mean that there are not very strong disagreements. but if we can keep those focused on the issues and not make them personal, i think that's important. and i think that's what people are trying to do. i hope it works. after 9/11 we had about a good three to four months of real compassion for one another in a way that we hadn't seen in a long time and then it began to dissipate. and i would hope this could be a moment that we check ourselves and begin to bring it back. and the point john made. it's not just the economic trauma that americans have been

suffering under but you can't underestimate the psychological impact of war. we have been at war for a very long time. and i think the combination of all those things i have to believe it's been draining on the american people for a very long time. host: there's an e-mail from one of our viewers. guest: probably in the period between 1995 and 2000 when they were doing real conflict with president clinton and they really offered budgets that cut spending to the bone. and i think what happened is you had a surplus. and what happens when you get a surplus is people spend more money. and the other thing that happened, and karen makes an important point about the impact of the war. we tend to forget about,

unfortunately, about the real sacrifice of a fairly small percentage of our country and the daily sacrifice of the families an the troops that go and are fighting the wars for us. there needs to be a sense oofer shared sacrifice about that war and i think we are under the daily stress of the terrorists and that is that we walk through t.s.a. and we walk through the worries about the caller earlier said the shooting in arizona. we weren't sure if that was a terrorist act. so these are the kind of stresses that build up with people. it's not surprising that there be a breakout of incivility on occasion. host: let me turn to politics. the national review.

guest: i was always maintain i don't thinhis ry elecon is in jepty. i think he is doing what's right for the country. one thing i will say about polling. i s this with bush and i think we see this with obama. when your favorability ratings are high and people like you, sort of honest and trust worthyness, to me, tend to be the most important numbers because if people like you they're more willing to say well even if i disagree with you i'm going to give you a chance and see what you can do. i do think that people appreciate the fact that obama may not have always used all of

the tools of the presidency in terms of the theet ric but i think is trying to do the right thing. guest: you have to give the president, he's a favorite right now in the next reelection. republicans have to come up with a candidate that can be plausible and credible. and they have a lot out there but they have to go through that process. host: we hear mitt romney is likely to announce in april, rick santorum was in new hampshire la weekend and tim paultenty is out with a new book. guest: i think romney and paul enty are the top two most credible candidates. karen's point, the president is in one sense very lucky that he has republicans in congress because not only are they a foil but they also drag the president closer to the middle and have more responsible policies.

we saw this with bill clinton. he was on the ropes in 9and 94, and then the republicans took over the congress and the country improved economically becausof it. so we'll see what happens. i do think that for the president, the most troubling thing for him is the unemployment rate is still persistently high. and while his ratings are high, that's why he is is the favorite rightow, he's got to be worried about that because unemployment and under employment is not a healthy economy. host: jim saying mitt mandate romney question mark n a chance. and that sentiment is strong. guest: no question. the reason i say romney is one of the favorites is because he camen second place last tim but the health care debate is something that he has got to deal with because people are

saying that the obama care is just a bigger version of romney care and that's not good for mitt romney. guest: it's been interesting to watch mitt romney trying to walk away from what he did in massachusetts because there are many similarities between what romney did in massachusetts and the affordable health care act. so i think that will sbernl a presidential issue. i do feel i ought to come back around on something that john said. president clinton and the republicans in congress worked togetr but i would not say that it was the republicans who dragged him into fiscal responsibility. guest: i would. guest: i know you wld. but i think you've got to give president clinton some credit. again it was a democratic president who left the country with a surbluss and a republican president who spent that money. and one of the things i personally find very

disconcerting with the way that john boehner is approaching the budget is he's bragging about going from paying to cut go. now the way he's redone them, you don't have to account for lost revenue for things that get cut. so in terms of repealing the affordable health care act, if you believe, as many do including the cbo that's going to reduce the deficit, there don't even have to according to the budget account for where are we going to make up the rest of that money. that's not exactly responsible budgeting. host: our guests karen and

john. back to your calls. democrat's line. good morning. caller: yes. when you were pushing the tax cuts, you were saying that it was to create jobs. but yet, you had them forp ten years and two years prior to that. how many jobs did you create with tax cuts for the very wealthy? host: the bush era tax cuts. did they create jobs or only add to the deficit? guest: unemployment during the bush years was about 5.3%. so it was actually, they did create jobs. they created jobs in very difficult circumstances after 9/11 we had a tremendous shock to the economy, unemployment

that didn't nt go up to 10%. unemployment stayed fairly constant. the fact of the matter is that if you give more money to job creators, more jobs will be created. and if you raise taxes on job creators, they're going to create less jobs. it's just a truth, an economic truth. so i do think tt the bush tax cuts, which were successful, which is why democrats cut them off. democrats were in control of the congress and they didn't repeal the bush tax cuts like they said they were going to do, the president didn't repeal the tax cuts. they've actually kept them going. so yes, guest: come on, john. again, in order to -- guest: because they're worried that job increases --

>> guest: it wasn't just that president obama said let's continue the bush tax cuts. furl, we had a pretty vigorous discussion about if we do this then here are some other things, including as you mentioned earlier, let's make college very affordable. college is very important. making sure that we have a workforce that is prepad for 21st century jobs, something that president obama has talked about again and again. so making those investments now i think he is right to talk about. let'also remember that when president obama came into office we were losing, what, 700,000 jobs a month or something crazy like this and now we're actually, granted, not to the degree that we need to, we are creating jobs. so i'm not sure you can draw the direct correlation between bush tax cuts and job creation. i think we had aot of problems that we're now digging ourselves out of.

st: ifou're listening on c-span radio, our guests, joh and karen. there was a moment at the white house briefing in case you missed it i wanted to share it with you. it was a russian reporter asking about the president's speech in tuscon and the shooting that took place. >> this is america. the democracy is the freedom of speech, the freedom of assembly. and many people outside would also say, and the quote/unquote freedom to react in a violent way is also america. how do you respond? >> what's the last part? >> the quote/unquote freedom of the deranged mind to react violently to them, it is also american. >> i would disagree vehemently with that. there's nothing in the values of our country, there's nothing

on the many laws on our books that would provide for somebody to impune and impede on the very freedoms that you begin with by exercising the actions that that individual took on that day. that is not american. host: the question, do americans have too many freedoms? guest: coming from a russian talking about a violent society, russia is a mob oksy. if you're a journalist, you're lucky to be alive. if you make money and criticize putin you're going to be put in the ghouling a. americans have a lot of freedoms. russia, you're lucky if you speak out if you're going to li the next day. guest: be careful john. host: karen. guest: you know, it's a tough

question because, it's interesting that the shooting happened the week after we had the reading of the constitution, which i think is an opportunity to go back and reflect on the rights and privileges that we have in america, which i am very grateful for, i know we all are. and our democracy, we are constantly trying to make it better. and i believe that with our second amendment rights there have got to be ways that we can protect that right but then ensure that people like mr. love anywhere don't get any weapons in their hands. and i think that's a part of making our democracy a more perfect union. host: she calls herself the jazz chick. guest: o you know, can't say. it's an incredible hon tor have been mentioned to be on the short list. it's one of the most incredible

jobs in the world. and we'll just have to see what happens. host: if asked. guest: would i serve? host: my questi is, what would you bring to the job? and in today's 24/7 sbrit driven news cycle how would you approach the position? guest: i guess i would try to approach it with a sense of humor, because again it's a very tough job and i think you can't take it personal and you've got to do the best you can to be as forth right and forth coming with answers as you can be. i've always felt like as a press secretary or communications director there's really sort of a dance between reporters and what we do. reporters are trying to get a story, we're trying to either help you with your story and sometimes get our own story out in how you negotiate that. sometimes it all comes together beautifully and sometimes not. but i thi if you approach it that way it becomes less personal. and you're better able to sort of understand what people are

trying to write and what you are alsorying to get out there. host: in the interest of full disclosure with mike as white house press secretary we supported the idea of having camer tevise the briefings in their entirety. it began with george as the clinton press secretary. marlin would have the first five to ten minutes on camera and then off camera. ist helpful or hurtful to have cameras in the white house briefing room cover the eire briefing? guest: it's a very interesting question. and i think that the media reporters, television reporters want that. they feel it's unfair to them if you give the bulk of the actual facts off the record. you know, i hope karen gets the job. i think you would be terrific at it. guest: thanks. guest: it's a high honor to work for a president in that kind of position.

you know, you really do want to work the room before you're in front of the cameras to find out what's going to happen and u also want to be i think in that j as truthful as possible. you are truthful. and i think you are a sales man or sales person for the president in that job and that's the most important thing. but you also have to be a salesperson for the press inside the administration. and that puts you in a difficult spot. it's kind of, when i was press zobet the speaker, it's the same type of thing although at a much higher level. you know, i think that the reason why you want to have it only for the first five minutes is that you want that to be your message, but it's awfully unfair to part of the journalism field that is trying to make news. and i think that the best way to handle it in my view is to

make sure that you have gotten all the facts on background before you go before the camera and then let the briefing commence as it does. guest: i also think that given we flive a 24 hour news cycle which we have cable which has need for zpwr video you have to have some sensitivity, whether or not is it about how much you do briefings o camera versus how much you just make sure people are getting the informion or the access that they need. one thing that john said that i want to pick up on though i feel like in these positions that we have, the most important thing we have is our credibility. so i think we always want to make sure that you are conducting yourself in a way, no matter who you work for where you can feel good at the end of the day that you are credible, did the best you can kind of person. host: michael curry said in the past, press secretaries need to

tell the truth slowly. guest: sometim when you get in the back and forth, i've had that advice given before, you caslow do you know. because there's a tendency to want to rapid fire give the answers back. it's true. sometimes you want to think it through not because you're not being truthful but because you want to be thoughtful how you say certain things. sometimes out of civility and sometimes out of a need to ensure that you're kind of giving the full picture. host: he was in a the difficult spot there because that was in conjunction with the monica lewinsky thing and i think there's a temperature thing to all of this. but as karen said, you're -- the president can only use you if you're credible. once you lose your credibility they might as well fire you righ away. host: two anniversary this week and this is from susan eisenhow who is the grand daughter of dwight d. eisenhower.

it was 50 years ago that he gave his fair well address. but as she pointed out in h.r. piece this morning, it may be rembered for those lines but also we cannot mortgage the material assets of our grand chinch without risking the loss so of their political and spiritual heritage. he was speaking 50 years ago to my generation and yet we have not heeded the advice of long term planning for our country future. guest: i've written about this, about how great a president eisenhower was. he did a couple things that everyone knows about, but he also left a huge, a surplus for president kennedy and he in this speech he really talked about being responsible, and responsible governance. and i think if we think of anything over the last 50ears it is that we've kind of lost that heritage of real

responsible governance. and that means making very difficult tough choices. i am disappointed you got through. the other anniversary i want to share with you is the 50th anniversary of john kennedy's swearg in. there's a piece in vanity fair about the inaugural ceremony. but there'slso a moment they highlight. at night, looking out over the mall convinced that he would be back. guest: we have heard that before. guest: someone wrote about how kennedy's folks actually broke into nixon's papers and that's what inspired nixon to do the water gate burglary. history is a fast nating thing. and the images of these huge characters like john kennedy

and dithe eisenhower and richar nixon. everyone should read up on those because they all made interesting choices and they all confronted conflicts. guest: we should mention there's obviously tomorrow we celebrate the birth of dr. martin ludeser king, another great figure in american history. and it's interesting that as we talk about nixon i'm going to have to put an aside here. but certainly these were great men with big vision. and i think we need that right now. and i think that's part of why people were drawn to president obama. and i hope it's part of why working with the republican congress we can actually accomplish some good responsible things. because if you go back to the message of eisenhower, he was actually taking on everybody a little bit and saying we're all accountable an we're all responsible.

and we've all got to share the pain. and i hope that is the tone and tenor of the discussion going forward. with keeping in mind the goals of predent kennedy and obviously dr. king. host: the previous caller did not get the memo apparently. but there was a piece in the "washington post," the memorial that will soon be dedicated. guest: it's a great troibt a great man and it's an honor that we celebrate. and a lot of people tomorrow will be participating in the service projects as their way to honor martin luther king. and again, i think if you look at each of these men an their vision and what delave tributed to our society and our >> pier starting tuesday, the house will start taking up the repeal the health care law.

good c-span.org to continue the conversation. several dozen new members joining the 100 to of congress. among them, republican martha roby, from alabama. she previously served on the montgomery city council. another new face, democrat terri sewell to succeed -- to secede a three-term democrat who ran for governor. gary shapiro on improving the business climate for education. mobile web surfing. the communicators on c-span2. >> tomorrow, the house will begin seven hours of debate on a

measure to repeal the health care law. but it was agreed to as part of the package of rules governing the debate. up next, the rules meeting that decided this debate. 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. it will give back annual and

lifetime limits on benefits. it gives back to insurance companies discrimination author against women. these are concrete reasons to vote no on this repeal. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield to a member of the energy and commerce committee, our friend from marietta, georgia, dr. gingrey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. gingrey: madam speaker, i thank the gentleman for yielding. we have heard a lot of arguments on the other side of the aisle in regard to the $230 billion cost. and on our side of the aisle of course only in america can something actually cost $1.15 trillion in eliminating it that all of a sudden costs $230 billion. yes, ms. slaughter, only in america, only in this congress, numbers do lie. let me just say that what we

have been talking about on this side of the aisle, of course, is the voice of american people. it's about 3,000 years ago that a little shepard boy walked into that valley of death looking up at all those philistines and that nine-foot giant goliath who had that coat of maile, sword, and javelin, what did david have? a pouch and handful of stones. he hit that giant right between the head, brought him to his knees, and cut off the head of the snake. that pouch and those little pebbles represent the voice of the american people. that's what we have on this side of the aisle. that's why we are going to pass h.res. 9 and we are going to pass h.r. 2 next week and we are going to deliver our promise to the american people to eliminate, to repeal obamacare, the american people spoke loudly. they don't like this bill. the democratic majority in the senate and the president have one last chance to make amends. i think they'll do it.

i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia yields back. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. markey. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. mr. markey: this debate is about health care versus don't care. the democrats' health care law lowers prescription drug costs, helps middle-class families pay for coverage for their sick children and expands health care for 32 million more americans, reducing the deficit by $143 billion. the democrats' health care law helps grandma afford her prescription drugs. the republicans don't care about grandma. they want to take back the drug benefits in the new law. g.o.p. used to stand for grand old party. now it stands for grandma's out

of prescriptions. the republicans don't care repeal shows they don't care about sick children with medical bills, pushing families into bankruptcy. they don't care about grandma and grandpa who need help paying for prescription drugs. vote down this rule so that we can help grandma, sick children and middle-class families struggling to pay for health care. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, at this point i'm happy to yield one minute to a hardworking member of this freshman class, the gentleman from san antonio, mr. canseco. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. canseco: madam speaker, i rise today in support of the rule and in support of an underlying legislation, the repealing of the job-killing health care act. 10 months ago president obama and his allies in the

democrat-controlled house and senate committed legislative malpractice when they jammed through the congress and into the law a washington takeover of health care. they did so despite the overwhelming opposition of the american people. since its enactment into law, what was already an unpopular law has only continued to become more unpopular. there's no doubt that we need to reform health care in america. however, it's not done by assaulting individual liberties guaranteed in our constitution, bankrupting our children and grandchildren and putting washington bureaucrats and personal relationships between our doctors and our patients. repealing the health care bill will also help encourage job growth to get our economy back on track. our economy's not suffering from a capital crisis. it is suffering from a confidence crisis. mr. chairman, may i -- mr. dreier: madam speaker, i'm happy to yield my friend an additional 30 seconds.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. canseco: thank you. policies enacted in washington like the health care bill have injected uncertainty into our economy that has eroded the confidence of americans to start new businesses or expand current ones to create jobs. the american people have made it clear, they want the health care law repealed and replaced with commonsense alternatives that will lower the cost of health care while also increasing quality and access. after meeting and speaking with thousands of texans in the 23rd district over the past year, this is their message. repealing and replacing the health care bill is one of the promises made to america in the pledge to america. today we are working on that promise as we work to -- the speaker pro tempore: the time has expired. mr. canseco: thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield one minute to the gentleman from nouge, mr. pallone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. this is nothing but a gag rule. i and so many of my colleagues on the krattic side went up to the rules committee yesterday and asked for amendments and they were almost all excluded from this rule. the republican chairman of the committee says there's transparency. he says that there's an opportunity for participation. he can say it as many times as he wants but it's simply not true. he also said this is a commitment to the american people. there's no commitment to the american people here. the only commitment is to the insurance companies. they're the only ones that are going to gain from repeal of this important legislation because they want to increase premiums and they want to institute discriminatory practices again against women, against men. against those who have breast cancer, or bring back those annual caps or lifetime caps if they have a serious operation and they try to go back again

and they don't have insurance. or perhaps the child who's up to 26 and also will not be able to get on their parent's insurance policy again. so let me tell you here. the only one that benefits is the insurance company, not the american people. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: may i inquire of my friend on the other side of the aisle how many speakers she has remaining? ms. slaughter: certainly, madam speaker. we have -- we've got every minute taken. i'm not sure everybody is going to show up. mr. dreier: i'm told 11 minutes are remaining on your side. i think with that i reserve the balance of our time. ms. slaughter: all right. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from michigan, the dean of the house and our leader on health care, mr. dingell. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from the great state of michigan is recognized for one minute. mr. dingell: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.

the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. dingell: madam speaker, if you listen to the republicans today, they're telling us, don't bother them with the facts, their minds are made up. they are unaware of the fact that the congressional budget office says that this is going to create four million jobs in the health care legislation. they don't tell us that the same congressional budget office says that passage of h.r. 2 is going to increase the deficit by $140 billion. and they also are telling us, the american people want this repeal. they don't. they understand what this means. it means that no longer are people going to get the protections that the health insurance bill gives. no more protections that the republicans get their way against pre-existing conditions and recisions, denying people health care because of something that happened to them down the road before. no longer will americans be

protected against frivolous and improper behavior by the insurance companies. this is a bad role. it is not on facts but on fiction. if this body is going to legislate and legislate well we need the facts, not fiction, no deceit, not misleading statements by our republican colleagues. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california continues to reserve the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. doggett: if you are hit by a truck this afternoon or your child contracts a dreaded disease your future ought not to depend on the fine print in an insurance policy you didn't have anything to do with

writing. no insurance monopoly should stand between you and your doctor. unfortunately, the republican party has become little more than an arm of the insurance monopolies. they asked for a vote to further empower those monopolies and we ask for a vote for american families to empower them. a vote to repeal is a vote to maintain health care costs as the leading cause of bankruptcy and credit card debt in this country. it is a vote to require seniors to pay more, more for prescription drugs, more for diabetes and cancer screenings. we can stand with american families today or we can bend and kneel to the insurance monopolies. the choice is clear. let's vote for american families. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i reserve the balance of my time, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california

reserves the balance of his time. the gentlewoman from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman and former member of the rules, mr. welch from vermont. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from vermont is recognized for one minute. mr. welch: i thank the gentlelady from new york. i say, madam speaker, to my republican colleagues, you can't -- you beat us good, you ran on the agenda of defeating health care and repealing it. now you're doing it. own it. admit what it is you are doing. this is not a campaign. we're playing with fire. we're taking away health care benefits to make a real difference to our families. number one, this bill will raise the deficit by $230 billion. fiscal responsibility out the window. second, things that matter to families, their kids starting out getting $10 an hour job without health care. they have it now on their parent's policies. we are taking it away. pre-existing conditions. you have cancer, want to buy insurance, you can't. repeal, you can't. you lose it. lifetime caps. if you are with cancer or diabetes and you need that

insurance, you lose it before you can go without it. and preventive care, we're taking it away from seniors who are trying to take care of themselves, get those free mammograms, keep the cost of health care down. you are taking it away. admit it. own it. state it proudly. it's what you campaigned on. it's what you're doing. but don't try to sugarcoat what this is about. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from new york -- the gentlelady from california, mrs. capps. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california is recognized for one minute. mrs. capps: madam speaker, the issue facing the country is jobs. instead of repealing health care we should bring up a jobs bill like the china currency reform. and so i rise in strong opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. today, i speak on behalf of millions of americans who are currently benefiting from the law and have yet been shut out

of the legislative process. the way in which this legislation has been brought to this floor is a travesty. before the affordable care act became law in the house alone, we held nearly 80 hearings on the merits of reform. but this bill to repeal this life-saving law has not had a single hearing, not one amendment has been allowed for an up or down vote here today. that's probably because the majority knows hearings would show that the law is already a real success. while we may disagree on the policy, we should be able to agree on the process. and this, my friends, is not the way to move legislation in the house of representatives. we've all agreed upon that, and that's why i urge my colleagues, especially the new members who ran on the promise of ensuring an open congress, vote against this rule. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time.

the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. garegare a lot of talk here on the -- mr. garamendi: a lot of talk here on the floor about job killers. the affordable health care bill creates some 400,000 jobs. the repeal of it is actually a killer of human beings. some 40,000 americans die every year for lack of health insurance. that's the reality. repeal this bill and you're going to find more americans dying. also, you're doing away with this repeal of the affordable health care act, of the patients bill of rights. i was insurance commissioner in california. i know exactly what the insurance companies will do if this repeal goes forward. they will continue to rescind policies. they will continue to deny coverage. they will continue to make sure that those 23-year-old children that have graduated from college will no longer be able

to be on their parent's policies. this repeal is perhaps the worst thing you can do to americans in their health care. and besides that, you will significantly increase the deficit by $230 billion. . i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the figures from today's jobs report showing that since the enactment of health reform in march, 2010, the which has created 11.1 million private sector jobs. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: i yield one minute to the gentleman from california, mr. thompson. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california is recognized for one minute. mr. thompson: madam speaker, i rise in strong opposition to this rule that we are taking up today instead of focusing on jobs. the new majority in the house ran on the platform of fiscal responsibility. this bill flies in the face of that promise by adding $230

billion in the short run and over $1 trillion in the long run to our deficit. as important, under repeal the medicare trust fund will become insolvent by 2017. that's just six years away. pushing medicare over the cliff by passing this repeal breaks the sacred trust with our nation's seniors to help provide health care coverage in retirement after a lifetime of working and paying taxes. that's why i went to rules committee last night with two colleagues and offered and amendment to guarantee that repeal will not go forward unless it's certified that that repeal will not shorten the life of the medicare trust fund. sadly, the rules committee didn't allow us to help protech america's seniors, they didn't allow that amendment. we will not be able to vote for that amendment on the floor. and i urge a no vote on this rule. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back.

the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: may i inquire, first how much time is remaining on each side, and of my colleague how many more speakers she has. the speaker pro tempore: 7 1/2 for california. 5 1/2 for the gentlelady from new york. mr. dreier: madam speaker, then in light of that i'm very happy to yield one minute to a physician, another hardworking member of this freshman class, the gentlewoman from new york, ms. hayworth. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york is recognized for one minute. ms. hayworth: madam speaker, as a physician i understand the profound importance of the goals of the health care bill passed last year. to assure that all americans have affordable, portable health insurance, providing access to good medical care. i also understand that -- the disruptions this law is already causing to our economy, the predictable side effects of

legislative bad medicine, and the reason we must repeal and replace it. the bill we will be considering is in no way nearly imbolic. it represents the true will of the american people. the majority of whom have stated time after time to this day that they reject this law. the house's vote to repeal is the first step towards assuring that all americans will have the quality, choice, and innovation in health care. that they expect and deserve. we need to proceed expeditiously . according to the rule on which we vote today, with the understanding that we are taking meaningful and crucial action. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady yields back. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: thank you, madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from organizeon, mr. defazio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from oregon is recognized for one minute. mr. defazio: previous speaker's

right. this is not symbolic, it's real. in fact, the republicans are going to allow the return of the worst abuses of the health insurance industry. pre-existing condition exclusions. taking away your policy when you get sick. lifetime and annual caps. throwing your kids off your policies. the republican repeal of this bill would enable all those things for their very, very generous benefactors in the insurance industry. i haven't had a single constituent and i know you haven't, begged you to bring back these abuses. is that what you are doing? is that what they want? you could take steps right now, in fact, to rein in this industry, and 400 people in this house voted for it last year. let's take away their unfair exemption from antitrust law so they can't collude to drive up prices, they can't collude to take away your insurance, they can't collude to that throw your

kids off and all the other anti-competitive things an industry does. i offered that amendment to rules last night. the republicans, despite the chairman of the committee and others having voted for it last year, would not allow it. this is an insurance industry bill plain and simple. 7 the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: at this time i'm happy to yield one minute to another hardworking physician, a member of this new freshman class, the gentleman from south pittsburgh, tennessee, dr. desjarlais. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from tennessee is recognized for one minute. mr. desjarlais: madam speaker, today i rise to support the rule and to support the repeal of the obama health care law. as a physician who has practiced medicine in rural tennessee under the onerous tenn care law, i know parent that this law does not work. it restricts access to health care. it increases the cost, and it does not deliver on the promises the minority made when they

passed the law. the american people have had their say. they do not want this bill. they want it repealed and they want to see health care reform that will increase access and lower costs. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yield back. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. green. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas is recognized for one minute. mr. green: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my colleague from the rules committee for allowing me to speak. i ask unanimous consent to place my full statement in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. green: i rise in strong opposition to this rule on h.r. 2, patient's rights repeal. just yesterday the congressional budget office said that this repeal would cost $230 billion in additional federal debt. it's amazing this is our first major piece of legislation and the republicans are already adding to the national debt. the issue facing our country is

jobs. instead of repealing health care, we should be bringing up a jobs bill like the china currency reform. where is that bill on the floor with the new majority? let me tell you what this bill will do. at least in texas we will see tragedy happen. 161,000 young adults will lose their insurance coverage through their parents' health care plan. that's only in texas. 2.8 million texans who have medicare coverage will be forced to pay co-pays now for preventive surgeries, like mammogram services. medicare will no longer pay for the annual visit of nearly 2.8 million texans and many more americans for medicare. 128,682 texans on medicare will receive higher prescription costs if this bill is repealed. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, could i inquire again of my friend how many more speakers she has remaining at this point?

ms. slaughter: i have four. mr. dreier: i think with that i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i'm pleased to yield one minute to the gentleman from maryland, mr. cummings. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from maryland is recognized for one minute. mr. cummings: thank you very much, madam speaker. i rise in opposition to this rule. despite ardent promises from republicans that all bills would be considered under regular order, this resolution has neither been debated nor voted on by a single committee of jurisdiction. additionally, the recently passed republican rules package requires that all legislation be fully paid for and yet the republican leadership has already publicly declared that they have no intention of paying for what is estimated to be a $230 billion increase in the deficit that the repeal of health reform would create by 2021. according to the congressional budget office. worse than the republicans'

already broken promises are what this rule and the underlying resolution would do to children, seniors, and all americans suffering from illnesses. i strongly oppose this rule and yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, at this time i'm happy to yield one minute to another great new member. the gentlelady from 340 -- missouri, miss archer. --miss archer. miss archer: i can testify as a person newly elected and been on the campaign trail for a while in the fourth district we have small businesses that are not hiring and not expanding because of the health care bill. we have got to repeal this so that we can create more jobs. i'm a small business owner myself and i can tell you since this has passed that health insurance premiums have voted --

skyrocketed. the anticipation of the mandate will be forced on them. if we want to get serious about creating jobs, we need to start by repealing this. this is also a bill to rein in the run away spending. that is devastating our country and it's mortgaging our children's future. as a another that's important to me. this bill put another $1.2 trillion of debt on our country. we cannot afford that. and lastly, this is a freedom bill. the people in my district do not want the government telling them they have to buy a private product and then mandating what is in that product. that is unconstitutional. by passing this last year, you have taken away my freedom, the freedom of the people of the fourth district, and the people of this country. we deserve better. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: let me inquire of my colleague how many speakers he has left. mr. dreier: madam speaker, let

me just say to my friend from rochester that i will be the final speaker. ms. slaughter: you're ready to close. mr. dreier: i'm ready to close. ms. slaughter: thank you. mr. dreier: how many more speakers does the gentlewoman have? ms. slaughter: two left. i would like to yield one of those minutes to ms. sutton from ohio. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from ohio is recognized for one minute. ms. sutton: thank you, madam speaker the issue facing this country is jobs. instead of rushing to the aid of the insurance industry to reinstate their right to engage in egregious discriminatory practices of discriminating against adults and children based on pre-existing conditions, instead of allowing the doughnut hole to continue to bear down on our seniors, we should be passing real jobs legislation. urgently we should be bringing up jobs bills that will make a real difference like putting an

end to china's currency manipulation. we have heard the numbers, 2.4 million jobs lost across the country. 92,000 jobs lost in ohio. and 5,700 jobs have been lost in my congressional district due to china's deliberate and abusive trade policies. we can do something about this issue today and we should. it makes a real difference. i hope that our friends across the aisle will stand with american businesses and american workers and put an end to the abusive practice of china's currency manipulation. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'll continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i yield for a unanimous consent request, the gentleman, mr. butterfield, from north carolina. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. butterfield: i thank the gentlelady. i ask unanimous consent that my statement be included in the record. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from new jersey, mr.

andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. there are 15 million americans unemployed this morning. they do not want us to play politics with health care, they want to us work together to create jobs. there is a job killer loose in america. the job killer is unfair trade practices that force the outsourcing of our jobs. there is a proposal that has broad agreement between republicans and democrats to bring fair trade back to america. if we defeat the previous question, we will move to amend the rule to make in order the currency reform for fair trade act which simply says this. as the chinese have been slamming the door shut on our workers and products, we have been opening our shelves in american department stores. no more of that. no more outsourcing of jobs.

no more unfair trade practices. a fair and level playing field for american workers. let's work together to create jobs and stop the politics and the waste of time of health care. vote no on the previous question. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from california. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'll continue to reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman continues to reserve the balance of his time. the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: i would like to pause for unanimous consent request for mr. engel, the gentleman from new york. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york. mr. engel: i rise in opposition to this amendment. it seems that the openness of the new majority promised us lasted half a day. and changed the order remain the same. i urge my colleagues to vote no. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york. ms. slaughter: madam speaker, if we are able to beat the previous

question, i will move to amend the rule to make in order a bill, h.r. 2378, from the last congress, the currency reform for fair trade act, which invokes our anti-dumping laws and provides relief for american workers and companies injured by unfair exchange rate policies. . i ask unanimous consent to insert into the record the text of the currency reform for the fair trade act. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. slaughter: and i yield to the gentleman from new york for a parliamentary inquiry. >> madam speaker, i have a parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his parliamentary inquiry. mr. weiner: what is the current whole number of the members of the house? the speaker pro tempore: the whole number of the house is 435. mr. weiner: madam speaker, further parliamentary inquiry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state. mr. weiner: can the speaker state that all have been sworn

as under the constitution? the speaker pro tempore: the speaker, it's her belief that all have been sworn. mr. weiner: thank you. ms. slaughter: i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from new york yields back the balance of her time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: thank you, madam speaker. this is the first act of the 112th congress and i am particularly gratified that we had six new members of this 87-member republican class participate in this debate. because, madam speaker, they have come here with a very, very strong, powerful message from the american people. that message is that we have to make sure that we create jobs and get our economy back on track. even though we've goten this positive news of the reduction of the unemployment rate from 9.8% to 9.3% this morning,

tragically last month only 105,000 new jobs were created. that's not enough to sustain our economy. you have to create at least 150,000 just to be treading water. and so we know that the american people are continuing to suffer. and the message that has come from the american people through these 87 new members is that we have to have a laser-like focus on creating jobs, getting our economy back on track and reduce the size and scope and reach of the federal government. my friend, mr. pence and i, had an exchange which we said only in washington, d.c., can a $2.7 trillion increase, saying that cutting that, eliminating that, scrapping that will in fact cost money. it's absolutely crazy, but that's what they're arguing, and through their sleight of

hand with the congressional budget office they are continuing to claim that somehow it will save money. madam speaker, we are doing what we told the american people we would do. it's very simple. beginning last year we said we would have a very clean, up or down vote, an up or down vote should we maintain this $2.7 trillion expansion with government mandates and increased taxes or should we repeal it, and that's what we're going to be voting on after the three-deleover next week. and, madam speaker, are we in fact committing ourselves to doing everything that we possibly can to ensure that every single american has access to quality, affordable health care and health insurance? and that's what the resolution i introduced, h.res. 9, will do. it will direct the six committees of jurisdiction to

begin immediately working on ways in which we can drive the cost of health insurance down. i personally believe that we need to allow for the purchase of insurance across state lines which is now forbidden under the karen ferguson act. i believe we -- the karon-ferguson act. i believe we need to have lower rates. we need to have pooling for pre-existing conditions. we need to expand medical savings accounts and, yes, madam speaker, the fifth thing we need to do is to have meaningful lawsuit abuse reform so that resources can go towards doctors and not trial lawyers. and, madam speaker, these are the kinds of things that these new members are telling us need to be done and that's exactly what passage of this rule will make happen. madam speaker, let me say i urge support of this rule and i urge support of the underlying legislation, and once again,

with zeal, enthusiasm and gratitude, i move the previous >> starting tuesday, the house takes up the repeal of the health care law. go to c-span.org to read the bill on line. >> it is a new congress and a new way to use c-span. congressional chronicle is a new resource to do research your way. congressional chronicle, at c- span.org/congress. >> chinese president hu jintao arrives in the u.s. tomorrow for a four-day visit with the president, lawmakers, and businessmen. business gets underway wednesday morning with white house meetings at a news conference

with president obama. later a visit to the state department with vice-president joe biden. the president will meet with republican and democratic lawmakers, followed by an address to the u.s.-china business council. he flies to chicago during the night for meeting with chinese business owners before heading home. >> on television, on radio, and on line. c-span, bringing public affairs to you. created by cable, it is washington, your way. >> recently a panel of industry executives in the telecommunications industry gather to talk about how innovation and technology is impacting the u.s. economy. you will hear from the ceo of time warner and the at&t ceo, as well as julius genachowski. the forum was one of a series of discussions hosted by the brookings institution. it is about an hour and 20 minutes.

>> good morning, everybody. it is my pleasure to welcome you all here for the third forum in a series that we have been running here at brookings under the general topic of growth through innovation. the first to forums that we held or private, but we felt that the group that is assembled here and that has been the core of the effort has become sufficiently cohesive and enough teams have begun to crystallize that it is time to go public with this venture. first because we feel there are some ideas here that are important to put into public debate and also we feel it is particularly timely to have the public forum more or less at the same time that the new congress is coming into office. what we called " through innovation is an all brookings priority.

what i mean by that is that it is intended to address the challenge facing the nation that requires bogus and inputs from all of our research programs here at the institution, which is to say we are drawing on expertise across disciplinary lines. we have an all brookings priority on how to insure that our economy, and our government policy, and our society are capable of providing maximum opportunity and well-being for our citizens. the third priority is managing global change. the premise of g t i is inherent

in what the initials stand for, namely that in order to be sustainable, growth needs to be based on innovation. that means new ideas, new strategies, new technologies. also means new ways of investing while at the same time restoring fiscal sanity to our nation. it means unleashing or perhaps i should say reviving the american knack for invention of products, techniques, and competitive strategies. what we will be doing during the course of the day is bringing together brookings experts with public officials, representatives from the private sector, and opinion leaders. we will have a series of conversations that will be anchored by some of my colleagues here at the institution. on the issue of the information

economy, and darrell west is anchor. be that angethe he is the founding director of our new center on technology innovations. on clean energy, we will hear from bruce katz, the founding director of one or five -- on research policy. and defense industries, we will have peter singer and michael hamlin who lead our 21st century defense initiative. on innovating public institutions, we will have the managing director of brookings and also a senior fellow in our government studies program.

and manufacturing we have martin bailey, the head of our initiative on business and public policy. the event will conclude with a conversation between the chairman of our board and valerie jared from the white house. glenn hutchins is a trustee of this institution. he served at the white house in the 1990's and is the founder of silver lake partners, a private equity firm that specializes in technology. he has been instrumental in conceptualizing this series of forums and cream together. i want to thank him as well as his coach fares -- cochairs of this whole enterprise.

>> good morning. our goal today is to discuss how we should think about the plan for national economic competitiveness. in particular, we want to address whether in an era of intense political partisanship and a yawning divide between government and business, we can conceive of non-partisan approach is. -- non-partisan approach is to our common problems. to work constructively in partnership with industry, to foster economic growth and job creation. barkeep premise -- our key premise is vital to growth and prosperity. we fear that the u.s. risks losing our comparative advantage at the center of innovation.

jack kennedy once said there has not been such a group assembled since thomas jefferson dined alone. i think we have a similar kind of experience here today at brookings. we have extraordinary group of leaders from the private and public sectors to explore these questions and they come from some of our most important industries, information technology, communications, media, entertainment, defense, and so on. we also have with us public policy leaders who have grappled with some of our most difficult public policy questions. the economic problems we will discuss today are manifest and urge it, but not susceptible to quick solutions. economic historians warned us that in the aftermath of debt

field goals, countries often experience persistently high unemployment and low growth for a decade or more. to avoid that fate, we must work in earnest to construct ways to put the millions of unemployed americans back to work. that means we have to devise innovative solutions, strategies to elevate our economic output to its potential, with some of our experts tell me is as much as one trillion dollars more than we have today. it seems clear that that must be driven by innovation at all levels. but advances in basic science, technology, industries of the future, process efficiencies, revolutionary business models, as well as supporting innovation in capital formation, the delivery of public services, and approaches to institutional governance. the dimensions are quite straightforward and we intend to ask each panel today how public policy solutions can be

implemented in their respective sectors. they include an areas for cutting edge research is done every day here at brookings. the list goes on and on. it is meant to be interminable. education, research and development, immigration, federal, state, and municipal balance, a trade reform, tax reform, labor market initiatives, persistent poverty issues, metro area initiatives, and most important of all, fostering innovation. we are frequently advised by political operatives that partisanship and paralysis mean thoughtful solutions to these critical problems are simply not possible. we find that mindset unacceptable. in contrast we believe that americans are prepared to meet

these challenges and those assembled here today are more than ready to do their part. we are also often told that industrial policy or picking winners is folly in a market economy. that misses the point. every high-growth country in the world is implementing a carefully conceived, long-term plan to create the conditions for national economic competitiveness and resulting prosperity. this is not [unintelligible] this does not mean it caprine with the market's allocation of resources. means creating a foundation in which markets and ocean and businesses can thrive. this is the third in a series of meetings being together leaders from the private and public sectors and the better of growth through innovation. the first of the two sessions

were smaller brainstorming sessions. today you will hear scholars talk about some of the work that these discussions have inspired as a moderate conversation. i am happy to announce today that two policy briefs are being released today. one by darrell west and won by martin bailey. both touched on a topic central to restoring skills transfer. barrels paper recommends moving from a family's first -- darrell paper. martin's paper offers recommendations for increasing manufacturing in the united states. these are important papers. i like to also thank the corporate leaders here today who

braved the weather to attend. a number of people got out of their respective cities and i appreciate the effort people made to get here today. this combination of research, private dialogue, and public discourse is what makes brookings very, very special and it makes me very proud and pleased to be associated with it. brookings is also uniquely capable of creating a forum like today where partisan political differences and commercial self- interests can both be set aside in pursuit of the common good. this work will continue following today's session. we look forward to sharing with you. in closing, many have argued that our problems today are the culmination of a generation of both the accumulation of debt

and the neglect of basic investments in almost every sector of our society. the solutions could well require decades of remediation. to most people, this challenge seems just too daunting. why not just kick the can down the road? to business leaders, that means we must act with a sense of urgency and resolve, so let's get started. [applause] >> before we start, i like to

acknowledge glyn's leadership on the innovation issue. it was his suggestion that brookings launched this forum and he has helped to make it an amazing success. each conference we has put on has gotten better and better. we appreciate all he has done and emphasizing innovation and highlighting the challenges facing our country. as a side benefit, we have discovered that he is willing to show us his boston celtics championship ring. even my wife is impressed with it. i would like to welcome you to this session on the information

economy. the have explain the rationale our program today. there is little doubt that innovation is the key to american prosperity and one of the reasons the united states dropped it after world war ii and then following decades. with congress back in session, all eyes are focused on how to improve the economy, the central issue facing our country right now. we all need to figure out ways to remain competitive and facilitate future innovation. these are some of the reasons why brookings last may launched our new center for technology innovation. our mission is to enhance public media and policy maker understanding of technology innovation.

we work closely with the white house, members of congress, and the private sector to determine what policies are needed and how to promote best practices in the public and private sectors. we have found that technology innovation is crucial for economic development. this area is one of the few industries experiencing double- digit growth. if the want to give back on track, we need to strengthen our information economy. that is the platform for future progress in areas such as education, health care, energy efficiency, and mass entertainment. to help understand the information based economy, we are pleased to welcome three distinguished leaders to brookings. jeff is chairman and ceo of time warner. he oversees time inc., hbo, cnn, tbs, and warner brothers, among other partners of the company.

he is chairman and ceo of hbo. you see him regularly in the news are from his views on the industry and the future of television. last fall he wrote a widely quoted column for "the wall street journal." everybody thinks the internet is the coming age -- the coming golden age, he thinks it is television. he does have tremendous insights into how innovation takes place. randall stevenson is chairman, president, and ceo of at&t. at&t is the world's largest telecommunications company. as chairman he has strengthened at&t posted position as a leader in mobile broadband and global id data. at&t invests around $18 billion

each year to upgrade broadband and bring wireless service to people around the country. >> closer to $19 billion. >> at&t is launching its new long-term evolution service and also is a carrier for apple's popular iphone. that made possible the new services that are coming on line. there are lots of amazing innovations taking place in health care, education, energy, entertainment, and communications. mr. stevenson is right on the front lines leading to that innovation. jewish genachowski is chairman of the federal communications commission -- julius genachowski.

and prior to joining the sec, mr. genachowski chair candidate obama's technology and telecommunications policy working group. he has extensive experience in the private sector. he was chief of operations at the interactive corp. we are delighted to have him with us here today as well. i will start with a few questions for our panel and we will have a little bit of discussion among ourselves. then we will open the floor to any questions and comments that you have. there has been a flowering of media and entertainment concept providers. this has shaken the industry and produced new players, vigorous competition, and new business models. can you tell us what competition means in your industry and how it enables innovation? >> i don't want to change the mood because it was very serious

and uplifting at the beginning. we are in the middle of a huge period above innovation in the media business. the easiest thing to look at is television. we all know that the television business has been with us for a long time. it is either a renaissance or a second golden age. the first golden age was when it was invented and had this transforming effect on life not just in the united states, but all around the world. the advent of tv in the united states was really the most vigorous and the one that served as a template for what then happened in the rest of the world. that is happening again and has been underway for at least 20 years. if you think about -- we will the objective measures first and then subject of once, and then you be the judge. objective measures, the

ratings, the earnings, the programming investment, the number of channels, the top of diversity of subjects that are on television every day, 24 hours a day -- it is more vital, held the, every indicator is up, including financial indicators. to this minute, every quarter without change. if you go with the objective measures in the tv industry to subjective measures, and ask yourself what do you see in the quality of what is on? what do you see in the diversity of not only the subject matter, but the type of programming, the mix between mass audience appeal versus target appeals that may be of interest to do, that we all know 20 or 30 years ago, you could not find that on tv. it did not work that way. it was a low common denominator industry. not true today.

if you move from range and precise quality and focus of all the different kinds of tv shows that are on the air, and absolutely measurable dramatic increase in the money being invested in this programming, look at the talent, the directors, the writers, the actors that used to associate with the big screen that are working on television now. they are doing work that you cannot do on the big screen because of the commercial nature of the business. so you have all this going on on the quality side. if you look around the planet, basically this system of an explosion of channels and different types of programming is being duplicated and created and implemented all around the world. you are looking at a very healthy industry that is connected to the citizens' lives

everywhere. that goes hand-in-hand with something randall is going to talk about, which is that you cannot do any of this without a very healthy, well funded infrastructure that can bring in hundreds of channels. eikenberry new high-definition. soon it will be 3-d. -- it can bring you high- definition. there is no difference between your tv screen, it has at last brought, and a smaller one of your laptop and a smaller one still that is portable, your hand-held device. it is extremely important, $19 billion a year, and that is just at&t. the amount of money put into broadband road construction or all over the planet in this infrastructure capability is very important. it is a huge source of

innovation. of course has side effects in terms of education, barriers of entry for people to come into that system and create new forms. that industry, now you have hand-in-hand the media and the infrastructure industry that brings your video and broadband, altogether bringing you the programming you want, on demand. you pick it, get it when you want, put it on any screen you want, and don't pay anything extra for it. that is the business model. there are other models were you pay extra, show by show, where you pay for other subscription providers. but the point of is, there is a huge vitality in competition and innovation that is occurring now in the intersection of

internet and television which is basically accelerated. i think to the point that glenn asked at the beginning, what is the best way for public policy in the united states and around the world to say look at what we do? to foster a good intersection where this innovation can continue to take place, because it is working very well as it is. >> you mentioned infrastructure, that provides a nice transition to mr. stevenson. at&t is investing billions in broadband and wireless infrastructure. what is the biggest obstacle to continued innovation and job creation in your industry? >> obstacles -- when i think of job creation, that has been the topic over the last few years. everybody says it ought to be about creating jobs.

when you listen to jeff tall, it makes it more apparent that jobs are kind of a bar product. they are of byproduct of investment and innovation it is a byproduct of investment. the highest correlation coefficient to jobs is investment. if you want to create an environment fort jobs, you have to create an environment that is attractive to investment. what are the triggers you can pull to drive investment and thereby jobs and innovation? you would be disappointed if a businessman did not stand up and a tax policy is one of the greatest drivers of investments, and regulation being another one. tax policy is front and center from my standpoint. if you want more of something, you should tax less.

it was maddening to meet coming up the last part of last year. you invest $19 billion a year, and we were headed toward a cliff of driving up capital cost dramatically. i commend the administration and senator mcconnell for getting this put in place. it brought some stability and kept capital costs down and allow us to continue investing at the same pace. i cannot tell you how critical those are to continue to drive investment and to drive job creation in all these media that jeff was talking about. just as important is regulation. regulation affects capital costs and that it can create uncertainty. when i think about our environment is regulated, as a

company, we are almost at full investment capacity. i don't know that we could put much more capital away than we are putting away at this time in the industry. regulation is one of those things that creates uncertainty and, which is one of the british triers of capital cost as well. i take my hat off to julius and his team that we were able to come to a place on how wireless and the internet is regulated. it is a place where we know what we have. regulation needs to be fair and consistent. the capital investments we make our multibillion dollar bets that we make every year. they are multi-your investments. making these capital outlays when you do not know how that will be regulated in 10 or 15

years, that is a big deal to us. working towards an end where we did not get everything we would like to have had. i would like to have had no regulation, but that was obviously not going to happen. we can commit to these 10-year and 15-year horizons. we have these tax policy changes put in place right before the holidays. we have of these regulations and rules that are better defined coming into the holidays. it is eye and not a of -- it is not a coincidence that we stepped up and said we are accelerating our investments to take advantage of the tax policy changes so we have some clarity in terms of how the investments will be regulated. those are the most important elements. >> a year ago, the fcc released

an ambitious agenda. what do you think are the most important public policies for encouraging innovation? >> let me start by telling you about what i saw last week the consumer electronics show. it is one of our big annual showcases for innovation, technology, investment, and i noticed two things this year that are worth pointing out. if someone went to ces 20 or 30 years ago, almost all the devices would have been billed on the platform of electricity. it was an incredible platform of innovation. it led to tvs and radios and ovens.

today, all of the incredibly cool gadgets, devices, products that i saw at ces were connected, in addition to electricity, to the information grid, to the internet. if you shut down the connectivity, you would have shut down ces. the second point is, in the past, it is typical for almost all the products to have been consumer products that we buy around holidays. there is nothing wrong with that. i noticed two things this year. one, more and more products that go to business productivity, in addition to

home entertainment, and more and more products that are part of vertical economic categories that matter because of opportunities for economic growth and also for the social benefit, like health care, energy, and education. it really illustrates what we have been trying to accomplish around broadband. everything we are doing is build on the premise that making sure we have a world-class infrastructure in the united states for wired and wireless broadband is what is essential to the kind of innovation that both of the companies up here are working on and many other companies are working on. you do see a tremendous amount of innovation and exciting things going on, attracting a lot of investment and opening up new markets.

there are some challenges to this great story that we are worried about. one was illustrated by what happens if you tried to get on wi-fi or if you tried to make immobile call around the convention center. spectrum was being very heavily used. a lot of people there have frustrating experiences. the products that these companies and others are generating that is causing consumers to put so much more demand on our spectrum infrastructure, smart phones, tablets, it is just incredible. it is dramatically are stripping the supply of spectrum that we see coming on line at the fcc. we will come back to it, but i

think that is a challenge that notwithstanding what i think right now is a leadership position becomes to wireless innovation in the country, and also longstanding leadership around television related innovation, is something that could hold us back. other countries are not waiting around. another area we are working on, we continue to have policies in the country that made sense in a communications era that was dominated by old telephone service that did not make as much sense in the broadband area. one is called the universal service fund. programs that it spends several billions of dollars a year did a terrific job connecting people around the country to telephone service. it still wakes up every day and supports connecting people in rural areas and others to telephone service. that does not make any sense.

we have to modernize it to apply to broadband. we have to look seriously at a bunch of wasteful, inefficient, not smart policy pieces that have become part of the program over the years. it is going to be more sit -- more expensive to support this level of detail will probably not be interesting to many people. the point is, right now this whole system is creating the opposite incentives in many ways of what we would want. in some cases, it is discouraging companies from going from circuit switched communication systems to oip packet switch systems. we have to tackle depth -- tackle that. third thing -- we have to continue to look at investing in

our communications infrastructure, wired and wireless. not everyone is at the peak of investment capacity. our job is catalyzing more and more private investment. there are a bunch of areas, the blood and guts of communications infrastructure -- tower siding, poll attachments -- that are not particularly thrilling. but the amended difference to catalyzing more investment and getting those investment dollars to go further, that is for the same dollar to get two towers up instead of one tower. we can reduce inefficiencies to cause that to happen. all of those things together will put us in a much stronger position vis-a-vis the rest of the world at the point of time when there is clearly global

competition going on in these areas. >> jeff, you have talked about eight t v-everywhere strategy. what does this proliferation of platforms mean for future innovation, and how should the government change its regulatory coverage in light of the emergence of new platforms? >> before we answer that, i have to say this must be a good session. if we are talking about tower siting and pole attachments -- [laughter] >> that is public policy these days, cell towers. >> randall, you should talk about the spectrum issues and how you can interact with rural areas. we do not do that. television, magazines, whatever

it is -- we are basically putting out content on the theory, and this is not accepted by every media company and every connection company -- if you have paid for a television network, if you have any economic relationship with any of those pieces of content, and you use to get it as a scheduled tv channel or a magazine, this concept is you cannot have it for free, no extra payment, on every device connected electronically. it basically works on demand so that if you want to watch whatever show is not scheduled tonight but was on last time, you can do that. any of you that have hbo today can do it now. you can see that future now. it would be no charge across all devices. same thing with magazines. if you were reading "time

magazine," you can do this on and ipad right now. "people" is the biggest magazine in the world. if you have a subscription and you have a tablet device, you are a subscriber, it is coming to your house, you can turn on your ipad and read "people" for free, with moving pictures. if you want to read deeper into a subject published in another issue, you can do that. whether it is television, magazines, or any kind of content, the business model simply uses all of these advancements without changing the wholesale or distribution structure, at least not initially. and it does not require consumers to make a payment or deal with another entity. the aim is, if you think about your relationship to any network

or magazine, something you know how to use -- you want to watch cnn or discovery channel -- it should work the same on every screen, on every device. it should all be on demand. you should not have to pay differently or do anything. that is basically a massive innovation that takes this industry, which i started up by saying the economics are all at the top of what they have ever been, and it makes it more usable at no extra charge. there are certainly issues as we go along over how the economics go forward. you have cable packages that you pay for. you may want to discriminate more and more to what you get. most people, or a lot of people, are paying more every morning for coffee than they are paying every day for all of this media choice. the one thing i would say on behalf of the media business and

the tech business is that there is an idea, which i hope you take it as a joke, is "let's use the new content in a way which is good enough. it is good enough to have an inadequate selection on your broadband stream, less than the one on your television. it is good enough to have it with bad resolution, no high- definition, no 3d, and with latency." it is not good enough. that is not how we got any of these industries to the leading position in the world. let us think about what we always think about in this country -- the highest quality, the biggest innovation, the widest availability, and the most freedom of choice. >> the emergence of smart phones, tablets, high-definition video, and wireless capabilities in different areas -- what would

you like to see in terms of spectrum policy regulation to further these new technologies? >> julius said it best. if you want this world to be a reality at a reasonable price point, so the consumer can take advantage of all this, the brick wall we are looking at its spectrum availability. to put this into perspective, the world jeff is articulating -- maybe five years ago, we started talking about a three- screen strategy. that is a reality today. what jeff arctic elected, we offer to date with uverse. i can get this service on my iphone, my ipad. programming is available in all those formats and mediums. is there. what will keep us from proliferating this broadly its spectrum.

bandwidth and wireless is these airwaves, this spectrum. over the past three years, if julia's will approve this less transaction we did with qualcomm, we have spent $11 billion just on spectrum. we still see the end of the spectrum we have in our portfolio now. maybe three or four years ago, our pattern was we would go through a 10 megahertz of spectrum every four or five years. today, thanks to the iphone and this content we are streaming to all these devices, we go through that at about 10 months today. you can go through arithmetic and see how quickly the spectrum is being consumed. this is why julius and i talk about this all the time. we have to do something to free up more spectrum, get more spectrum into the hands of operators. what does that process look

like? julius and i would probably have difference of opinion here. go figure. i believe markets ought to work. let the free markets work. i think options and so forth and to be the most efficient way to ensure the treasury gets the most value for the dollar out of these and allocate the spectrum that way. i understand there are other public policy issues. but to make this world a reality, this is the one issue that will be the constraint as we move for the next five years. >> julius, both jeff and randall have highlighted the spectrum issue. >> this is an area where the opportunity for a smart, non- partisan, market-based approach to deal with our country's spectrum -- we do not have a lot of spectrum just sitting around. let me give you some numbers to back up what randall was saying.

the amount of spectrum the fcc has, based on the status quo pipeline, to put on the market for mobile broadband, represents about a threefold increase over what is available now, which sounds pretty good until you see the numbers that randall knows better than i do, that over the next five years the dated demands on our spectrum coming from spark phones and tablets because of the content is likely to be more on the order of magnitude of a 35x increase over what we have now, which is too conservative. those studies were generally done before the biped took off. so that is a gap we have to close. -- that is before the ipad took

off. so that is a gap we have to close. we have various parts of the spectrum where most people would look at it and say, "that seems underutilized. we are not sure if the market would put the spectrum to those uses if there really was a free market and there were not spectrum allocations that are protected." a lot of people point to broadcast spectrum as being in that category. when i was a kid, i got 100% of my broadcast tv viewing of the air. today, most americans get under 10% of their broadcast television viewing. this is not a point about the success of tv. tv is going internet. what was the over the air broadcast tv business should really just become the tv business. how do we get to an area where we can think creatively about the 300 mhz, the big number of

very high quality spectrum in every market set aside for what was a very important technology in the 20th century? here is the idea we have put forward. i agree with randall that options have been the best method devised to allocate spectrum. what we have proposed is running essentially a two-sided auction, where the supply spectrum in that auction would come from broadcasters, and there are other bands we could look to, which would create the supply of spectrum for this option on a voluntary basis, incentivized by getting some portion of a share of the auction proceeds. the market says that if you have a better idea, that is fine. the reason why we would have to be in the middle of this -- the

reason is the way that broadcasting was originally allocated, a checkerboard of 6 mhz blocks, non-contiguous so we could have local broadcasting and not interfere town to town or city to city, i think randall would agree that is not the way want blockske aat&t for broadband. what we need to do is incentivize underutilized license holders to give us back the spectrum, and then reorganize the spectrum so we can free up contiguous blocks. i am giving more details than i should, perhaps. [laughter] but this is a market-based idea that will help make sure that our invisible infrastructure, our spectrum infrastructure, is what it needs to be in the next

few years. we need the authority of congress to do this. oddly, we have the authority to take back spectrum from someone and auctioned it off. we do not have the authority to share proceeds to make a market- friendly auction. this is one thing i think we can do. the other things we are doing on spectrum to reduce restrictions on other bands of spectrum to allow mobile broadband use -- there are things at&t and other companies are doing on the ground to get more efficient use of spectrum, but we are trying to encourage. the big thing today is the incentive auction idea. if we do not do it, i am worried that other countries in the world will end up with a more robust spectrum infrastructure then we will, and the future advantage we have right now of the most incredible motivation occurring in this company could move to other countries. it sounds crazy.

a few months ago, people woke up and read the newspapers and saw that an important technology company based in silicon valley, in the energy space, decided to move its technology operations from silicon valley to beijing. how many companies have to make that decision until we say, "there is a crisis here we have to deal with"? >> i have another question for the panel and then i will open it to the floor for questions and comments. there is a point julia's is making about the global situation. there was a report by the technology and innovation foundation which claims the united states is slipping behind other countries in innovation and competitiveness. it's possible in singapore, thailand, finland, and china. is the u.s. using its technology

edge? >> i will give you a classic example. last year, we put out a request proposal on our 4g network built. who would be the key technology suppliers? i will not list the four company names, but one of the four is headquartered in the united states of america. i find that alarming. the united states is driving this mobile broadband revolution. we are the engine behind this. you look at what is transpiring in the u.s. in terms of the content jeff keeps talking about. there is not a country close to the u.s. in terms of the level of volumes and the innovation that is going into mobile broadband here in the u.s. and the thought that from a manufacturing standpoint, not one of those companies is located in the u.s. -- i found that alarming. why is that? probably all of us would have different reasons for that, but

i think that is a patent and blatant example that we would seem to be losing our technology advantage from the manufacturing and innovation said. >> i saw it -- i do not know if it is the same study. it looked at 40 industrial companies and rank them on a small number of metrics related to innovative capacity and competitiveness. on a snapshot basis, it ranked the u.s. six out of 40. these metrics go to broadband and some other metrics that would make sense to everyone in this room. it ranked the u.s. six out of 40, which is interesting when you tell it to people. some people say six is better than they thought. there is the idea we could be six. that is not what is scary about the study. the study looked at the 40 countries and the matter,

including broadband metrics, and raided each country on a rate of change. all the countries were improving, so it was rate of improvement. on that basis, it ranked u.s. 40 out of 40. i am sure people can attack the study for that, but that tells you something that should worry us. i also think it gives us a little bit of a clue about why it we are not moving faster as a country to do with this. i think it is because we are moving forward when it comes to broadband. but other countries are moving faster. so we have the illusion of for progress. most americans do not really appreciate that other countries are very, very focused on this. i know when i visit with my counterparts in other countries, they are very focused on this. in australia, an election turned on it. literally, one government had a better broadband policy.

i do worry that if we do not take care of our broadband infrastructure over the coming years that all this incredible innovation that we see, companies up here and other scattered all over the world -- but we are not going to have the basic infrastructure on which these products and services can proceed, and we risk seeing that innovation shift to other parts of the world. i do think there are things we can do to tackle it. >> i agree with all of those things. the media business, content creation, is not primarily thought of as technology. are we innovative technology. -- innovative technology? . technology innovation is not the only kind of innovation.

there is business model innovation, and innovation in the things that, given the rule of law and cultural history of the united states -- think of basically free expression, content diversity. one of the great -- in fact, i do not want to overstate it, but the forms of popular entertainment, whether it is music, movies, television, or magazines that exist around the world -- most of them were pioneered in the united states because of the nature of our society. well i take nothing away and agree with all the decisions on how to preserve innovative platforms on tax structure, let the american system work in terms of content creation. we are the best of it. we are the only country where all over the world everybody watches our popular cultural exports.

they range from the somewhat tawdry, as we all know, to the excellent in other ways. let us not forget that innovation goes beyond technical guys in white coats. it includes business model freedom. it includes the intersection of popular culture and free markets. that is so admired around the world. it is instantly taken up and copy. i am talking about forms of tv shows, forms of movies copied in other countries with other languages and other tests. let us not count ourselves out. we have huge areas of success. >> let's open the floor to questions and comments from you. there is a microphone in the aisle. if you can give us your name and organization, we would request that you ask a question as opposed to making a long speech. the only people allowed to make long, boring speeches at brookings are the scholars. [laughter]

>> i have a question for chairman genachowski. it is about your efforts to structure this universal service fund. i found out that companies like at&t and verizon are attached to the program. is that true? >> when i first said universal service fund, it -- that is not true. we have been working with a very broad set of companies and others in the ecosystem around the universal service fund to talk about a smart, efficient way to transform it and modernize it from telephone service to broadband. unless you're doing something i

do not know about, randall. i think we are in a position -- it is not easy. in a lot of different areas, in both the usf area and the spectrum area, we face innovative dilemma problems. our successes in the 20th century are precisely what presents challenges from both a business and technology perspective for the 21st century. telephone service -- i think the rollout of telephone service in the 20th century was a huge success. it helped fuel commerce, connect people, connect businesses. when you travel to other parts of the world, you could not go anywhere that had better phone service in the united states. around that build up a whole service of policies that are optimized for telephone service

and the market structure that existed at the time. the crate to all sorts of anachronistic -- they created all sorts of anachronistic words that nobody understands. the fact that a whole series of alliances and tendencies grew up around these old programs meet these transitions hard, just as it is for a market-leading company that deals with a new disrupted technology and knows what it has to do strategically, but it is hard to make the change. at time warner, it is sometimes harder than starting for scratch. spectrum is the same way. in the 20th century, what we did with spectrum -- on a comparative basis, we commercialized our spectrum here faster and better than any other country in the world. it led to a vibrant, healthy broadcast television industry that, together with our film industry, created this content

industry that is a major american business, a major export to the rest of the world. it has been an amazing contributor to our economy. some of what led to that success in the 20th century, in particular the use of spectrum for broadcast television, is holding us back from what we need to do in the 20th century. we need to get people to say the time is right. let's tackle this innovators the lemon -- dilemma and make the tough policy choices we need to make, whether is usf or spectrum, so we are moving in the right direction for the 21st century so we can unleash what these companies are doing. we need to do something different because the global environment is very different. >> other questions? right there. >> hello.

i listen to you guys talk about the markets. having lived through a couple of huge market failures, i wonder where the public interest comes into this. should at&t be required to make my iphone work? should time warner be required to come up with the -- comply with indecency? where does that come from? where is the public interest in all this about how great the market is? >> i think everything in been talking about today is in the public interest -- driving the american economy, innovation, and jobs creation. this has been a discussion about the public interest. randall has something to say about iphones in new york. a lot of spectrum discussion has been about that and how to

collaborate on this. we have litigation that is addressing that issue, and we will have to fight that litigation and see how it is resolved. >> i think the pre-market to have worked quite well when it comes to wireless. the iphone came out three years ago. in the course of that three years, two years ago there was no such thing as an app store. this is moving at a remarkable pace. as a result of that technology, you look at the opportunities. everybody has a touch screen smartphone mobile broadband device in the marketplace. absent that, i do not think you would see this kind of proliferation of technology. you are seeing the same thing happen with tablets today. the see the state of the art right off the bat, and now there are tablet's proliferating all

over the place. i would suggest the markets are working well. they are driving at&t to invest at levels that are impressive to the history of our company, trying to stay ahead of this capacity of new technology. if you listen to the discussion on broadband, it is kind of an interesting below-the-radar technology. one of the greatest broadband projects in the world is the fiber of being laid all over the country. we have invested a lot of money putting fiber out to these cell sites. you are seeing a massive investment in technology. the free markets are driving this industry to invest at unbelievable levels. it is driving technology curves that are very impressive, and it is driving prices down. i am not sure what more you want out of a system. >> i think if you asked about compliance with indecency, julius addressed it in terms of

broadcast. it comes over the airways to your home and you do not choose it. if you look at the voluntary industry, the one where you choose a channel, magazine, or book, but the industry does and we certainly do is we identify exactly what is in there so you have the choice and control it. there are plenty of things if you are particularly focused on indecency. we have televisions that allow parents to try to be able to look at what their kids do. i am not sure if it is funny or sad that your kids can be you when you try to use the devices. -- can beat you when you try to use these devices. it is a difficult problem. the question was asked with reference to television. think about asking that question in terms of the internet and what content and lack of control there is.

particularly young people can wander into really bad neighborhoods. everything that you have as an issue, if the issue is suitable content for kids, you have it in spades in the internet. >> to take that to your kid's mobile device and it compounds. >> i wanted to ask a question about -- this is a huge industry and has a huge impact on investment and innovation. i wanted to ask about the impacts on other industries as an enabler. julius, you mentioned health care. that is a huge industry in itself. consumer behavior and new business models can make a big difference. what are the most interesting examples are opportunities to

see for this industry enabling others like that to innovate? >> all of the above. i will go first. you have a lot to say about this, and you and i talk about this a lot, but health care is the most dynamic i can think of. you think of the health care ecosystem. if you really want to drive efficiency, innovation, and improved health, the telecom infrastructure will probably accomplish this as effectively as anything. health care in the home -- you need significant bandwidth in order to have monitoring capability, diagnostic capability, and access to doctors all over the world. if you have a really robust broadly infrastructure in the home, it changes the health-care delivery model. the mobile devices we are talking about -- think about the spectrum. the ability to monitor diabetes patients real time, the devices

on the body, the ability to monitor heart patients -- it goes on and on. it is a very exciting area. the more this proliferates, the more demand it is going to put on the spectrum situation julia's is talking about. this will change how health care is delivered. you can let your mind go through how that means as it relates to education and energy. i am not sure that the energy sector itself will lead the way, in terms of smart energy management. robust broadband infrastructure will accommodate people to begin to manage the home business requirements -- the home and business energy requirements, but i may be proven wrong on that. >> i agree completely. i see huge opportunities, moving to make medical records

electronic. we all know about that. if we make medical records electronic and then we forget to connect hospitals, clinics, family doctors, and patients, we will not succeed in the enormous cost savings from electronic records and that and -- that industry will not be as strong as it could have been. energy is the same thing. i agree with randall. integrating smart grid and broadband infrastructure in a smart way that includes the supply side and consumers, there are huge opportunities. education -- same kind of thing. but the health-care examples -- let me close on this point by talking about digital text books. it is such a wonderful vision. i have a 19-year-old.

during high school and elementary school, she carried this huge backpack back-to- school every day. the text books generally seemed up to date. in other parts of the country, they are carrying 50-pound backpacks of books that are not up to date. this whole thing is crazy. there is no reason, especially as the prices of tablets are coming down, that every student in the country should not have some kind of digital learning device that has all their textbook information. this is easy for innovators around the country. it can be personalized so you actually help teachers deal with 25 or 30 kids in the class who are different levels of mass are other things. we should be the first country in the world to move from paper textbooks to digital text books. it is a wonderful national challenge. [laughter]

>> we are going to take two questions over here, and then we will give our panel a chance to respond. >> this is for julius. just to be very pragmatic on this topic that randall talked- about, spectrum, and your proposed solution and all the good that could come out of that, just for a sanity check, what allegiances that congress will go along with your proposed resolution? if so, in what timeframe? >> will take multiple questions and then give the panel a chance to respond to each of them. >> zoe baird. you spoke with great enthusiasm about the platform you could digest on different devices and deliver all the content people want. you also talked about the places americans innovates that include

our values and our policy interest. randall, you talked about the need for the sustainability of policy and regulation, and health care i.t.. invested in all of that is an understated question that is a downer at the end of the program. i hope you will approach this with the same enthusiasm. how do you innovate on user control of information and on pricing protections so we can have predictability and robust use of i.t. would like to see can be sustained without user backlash? >> plan in congress and then user control and privacy. >> i am not a lawmaker, and i defer to other people. i do think the incentive option idea, bringing market forces to underutilized bands of spectrum, is exactly the kind of idea that should be non-partisan, where

everyone is interested in our spectrum future and is able to make this work. we have people on both sides of the aisle. our job at the fcc is to be a resource. we will be very active. there have been examples of where smart, good ideas did not go anywhere. >> i would say it is possible. this kind of process is not instantaneous. it takes a few years from developing the idea to running the option. the trends around spectrum usage are not slowing down. jeff would like to get his program on every platform everywhere, and that is great.

the gap is going to increase. we have to tackle it as quickly as possible. i think that everything that goes by without tackling this is hurting us from a global competitiveness perspective. other countries are looking at exactly this. it is not the incentive auction idea, but at freeing up more spectrum for mobile broadband. many of our global competitors do not have the same challenge. they were successful in the 20th century and did not commercialize their spectrum. they can have easier conversations inside their countries about what to do. we have to tackle harder problems here because of our success in the 20th century. that is fine. i just think we have to admit that and figure out what we are going to do about it, and not let older dependencies slow us down. >> can i make a brief comment? i think he is right on. the sense of urgency -- i am very pleased with where he and

his staff are on this. historically, in the time we began with these processes until we put spectrum online, it has been about six years. six years is too late on this one. where is it squeezed out? it is squeezed out on privacy. the urgency on this is really important. >> of the question of privacy, it is a great question that offers a lot of opportunities. there is no reason that giving all of us more choices over what we want to read, watch, get it on any device, and not pay for it -- that does not need to lead to any diminution of privacy. but if you talk to different individuals, people choose differently as to whether they want people to know what they are watching or reading or whether they want to share that with someone else. young people tend to want to share more. i think we all know in terms of

popular media that one aspect of it is talking about movies with your friends. increasingly, people do that on screens and communicate with friends who watched it with them. the point is that it has to be a real choice, not a thing where whoever created the system creates an opt in or opt out, where you end up defaulted into lack of privacy you did not want. it is a very complicated issue. they could be given either content proposals or advertising that fits whatever they are doing. i do not like it, but some people do not care. it is in the control of the people, not corporations, as to how it works. >> this is an important topic.

we have the broadband adoption challenge in the u.s.. 65% of people have adopted broadband. it should be closer to 100%. it is 90% in singapore. we have an adoption problem when it comes to small businesses. too few are taking the opportunity to expand their markets. there are many reasons for this. there is a lack of trust in what happens with information when it goes on-line. some of those concerns are legitimate. in addition to the really powerful bell you reasons for getting privacy right, there is also an economic reason. if people are not confident that the internet is a safe place for their families, a safe place for their businesses, they are going to hold back. that underlines the positive

texas system of innovation that will really matter to our economy. >> i think we have time for one last question. >> this question is to the chairman of the fcc. many years ago, when i was in secondary school in india, we learned data management. we were talking about information technology, how to manage information technology and the availability of data. india was talking about a knowledge-based economy. you have data at the bottom, information on top of that. beyond that comes knowledge, and beyond that wisdom. the government is trying to create that society. in 2010, we are sitting here and talking about the future of this

country, and you are talking about building an information economy. don't you think you are looking backwards instead of forwards? some countries are doing that, from my own experience. my second question -- >> that will be sufficient in our time remaining. the switch from an information economy to a wisdom-based economy -- i like that question. >> i am not sure i completely understand this. >> that is what makes it such a great question. >> it would not be the first time. milliken talk about it afterwards. -- maybe we can talk about it afterwards. >> the question he is asking -- are we as forward-looking as some other countries? india, china and other countries in asia -- when i travel there, the decisions they are making,

their government structures seem better designed to make these types of changes. do we need to be more forward- looking? >> that is the subject of our discussion. there is a real challenge we face as a country. i said it before. there is a tremendous focus on unleashing investment, innovation, and opportunity around these devices. we need at least an equivalent focus here. i think that is incredibly important. as i mentioned before, moving forward slowly is not good enough. i mentioned the beginning point that other countries have national competitiveness policies and we do not. we did produce our country's first national broadband plan, in which a lot of the ideas we are talking about today were developed. i think doing more work, together with the companies that are building our infrastructure,

innovating, creating the content on the infrastructure, is very important. one of the things we did in the broadband plan that i am looking forward to doing more broadly is some goal setting for the country. we set some goals in the broadband plan around speeds, around adoption, around a vision for where we want to be as a country in 2015 and 2020. more of that, i agree, would be healthy. >> with that footnote on wisdom, we will conclude this session. i want to think jeff bewkes, randall stevenson, and julius genachowski. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011]

>> i believe the best way to carry on dr. king's work is to reach out to someone in need and make an ongoing commitment to community service. >> on the 82nd anniversary of martin luther king's birth, use the c-span video library. there are hundreds of programs on the life and legacy of the civil rights leader. find a program and share it. >> health care again will be the focus in the house this week. debate is set to get underway tomorrow. there will be seven hours of debate, with a final vote on the repeal measure on wednesday. the senate majority leader has said he will not take up the repeal even if the house passes it. you can watch the health-care

repeal debate in the house here on c-span. new house members, among them republican -- a republican who was an omen farmer. another new face from california, democrat karen bass, representing the district which includes central los angeles. >> it is time to upload your video for c-span's documentary competition. the deadline is this thursday. get your five to eight minute videos to c-span for your chance to win the grand prize. the studentcam competition is open to students in grades 6 through 12. for details, go to studentcam.org. >> a look now at the future of the defense industry and its role in the u.s. economy. participants include the ceos of honeywell and saic, and

engineering and scientific technology company. the discuss the challenges facing the industry and their ideas for generating innovation and growth. this is about 50 minutes. >> why don't we go ahead and begin? i am peter singer. i direct the 21st century defense initiative here at brookings. i am exciting to be -- expected to be monitoring -- moderating this panel on the future of the defense industry growth through innovation. the broader aerospace and national security base is often thought of as the arsenal of democracy, a term first coined by fdr in 1940. in this role, the industry has certainly played a major part in defending america. that goes from the over 324,000 aircraft that were manufactured in world war ii at the same

time 88,000 tanks were manufactured. that is astounding to think about when you go to the current defense budget debates that are over whether we should buy five or 10 more jet aircraft, or whether the marines should have 200 or 500 tanks, instead of that 88,000 a half century ago. but that role continues today, to the reaper drones that keep our servicemen and women sit in places like iraq and afghanistan. the defense industry also is a key engine in the american economy, and most especially as an injun of trade and innovation. to use one example, if it was not for the defense industry's role in everything from cps, the internet, and jet engines, we would not have these current global trading networks. would not have things like just- in-time strategy, which have

allowed so many organizations to increase quality and efficiency. a journal had an article on the connections between the defense industry and innovation, and it found that the typical major defense firm was spinning out about 6000 copyrights and inventions, just one firm. this role is really huge. for the last year, brookings has gathered a working group of public and private sector leaders and experts to wrestle with the questions of the future of the defense industry. different from the normal approach of how these things are discussed in washington, we did not focus in on whether a single program should be bought or not. we did not look at this year's budget or the way it is normally discussed. we did not put it within a partisan from work. leaders and experts gathered around the larger question, trying to identify the key policy issues ahead.

they zeroed in on these questions. what is the long-term future of the u.s. defense industrial base, and how might it evolved over the next decade? what of the connections between the industry's future and the broader issues that are sometimes looked at as domestic, such as these a policy? finally, one have been the key is for success in innovation in the defense industry, and how could these be applied to the broader economy? we are going to take those questions identified by this private working group with some great leaders. we have a fantastic lineup to delve deeper into these issues. to my right, i have david kobe -- david cote of honeywell.

approximately 50% of its technologies and products provide energy efficiency benefits. previously, he has worked at trw and g e in various manufacturing and finance positions. he serves as" share as the u.s. and india ceo forum and has received the corporate responsibility award from the foreign policy association. to his right, we have walter wavenstein, ceo of saic. they run the modeling and analysis for the space and missile defense command and how utilities builds margaret's. prior to joining saic, he worked at bae, raytheon, and itt. he is also chairman of the board

of first. that stands for the inspiration and recognition of science and technology. this organization is designed to inspire young people to find interest and participate in science and technology. they do some fantastic work. finally, he's a graduate of the u.s. naval academy. he served in active duty for 12 years, and then in reserve. he retired as colonel. finally, we are joined by a senioro'hanlon, fellow. i am biased, but mike is one of the true legends in the field. he is the author of 17 books on national security, including his most recent, about afghanistan. i went to the brookings website to count this. he has offered 567 magazine and newspaper articles. that number is more impressive than the u.s. manufacturing

300,000 aircraft in world war two. before brookings, he worked as a national security analyst at cbo, and continues to serve as an adviser to u.s. military central command. with that, i would like to go down the panel. dave, weigh in on this first question. what is the long-term future of the u.s. defense industrial base, and where might it evolved over the coming decade? >> i have a number of observations, but i will try to focus on three. the first is we have to resolve our debt issue. it may sound counterintuitive, because we are talking about defense. but as you probably also know, i was on the president's deficit commission. when we look at the roles that debt is coined to play over the next 10 years, it is going to have a significant impact on the

defense industry, not just in how much we can spend, but how we go about spending it. if we take a look at where we are currently, on the current path we are on, we are about 60% of gdp today. over the next 10 years, it joins to 90% of gdp, a $20 trillion debt. we will have an annual interest bill of about a trillion dollars a year. we talk about millions and billions. trillion seems like another number. the way i have taken to describing it is if you had spent a million dollars a day since jesus christ was born 2010 years ago, you would still not have spent a trillion dollars. that will be our annual interest bill. we are clearly on an unsustainable path. i think there are signs that if something is unsustainable it

will stop. there are two ways it could stop. we could do something about it now, thoughtfully and proactively. the second is we could wait until the bond market forces us to do it. we assume that with portugal, spain, and some others. you are not a world power when the bond market forces you to do something. that will have as big an impact on the defense industry as anything we are faced with. second, we need much greater speed, flexibility, and less cost. we take a look at all the routines, the process is put around everything today, and we have a system that is not fast. it is not flexible. and it is not inexpensive. those are three dynamics, in my view, that will have to change a lot going forward.

in the past, we have talked about the need for speed, flexibility, the asymmetric threats. we still do not have a system that helps to there. it seems like we are more than willing to spend $100,000 to make sure the $10,000 problem never happens again. we have a totally backwards. we need to become a lot faster and more flexible. what is good to become increasingly important for us is the number of engineers. innovation generally comes from engineering and technology. if we take a look at the number of graduates, engineering graduates we have today, the u.s. produces around 450,000 u.s. graduates in engineering. china today produces about 900,000, and they have a third

the% of college-aged kids going to school because the system is still catching up. when they get to the same percentage we do, they will be producing 3 million engineers a year. we need to start thinking a lot differently about how we encourage technology, math, and science. my view is we need a sputnik effort that gets people motivated and thinking about all kinds of engineering. we have enough lawyers, you know? we do not need more lawyers. we need more engineers. that is a dynamic that is going to need to change, not just for the defense industry but for the country in total. >> the capstone of that number is that in 1986, compared to today, we graduated less engineers and folks that majored in information technology.

since 1986, we have had a 51% increase in students who majored in leisure and fitness studies. [laughter] >> i feel more competitive now. [laughter] >> you actually have a special interest in this area of education. but i wonder if you could weigh in on not just education but how trade policy and other issues connect to the future of the defense industry. >> i would be happy to. i would reinforce dave's thinking here, especially in the context that if we are going to have to deal with a more constrained budget, and it remains to be seen whether defense spending is going to look flat, as we heard last week, or is going to go down -- the reality is we are good to