[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] host: house democrats are in a party retreat today. we will be talking about the health care law and both parties' strategies. peter welch, democrat of vermont and jason chaffetz of utah, republican of utah.

but we will start today talking about the announcement yesterday from senator joe lieberman that he will not seek re-election in 2012. we will talk about the state of the united states senate and all that wraps up in his political announcement yesterday. phone lines are on the screen. well, good morning. to set the stage for our conversation with you, senator lieberman's announcement was the third about the 2012 cycle. the national journal daily calls it a rapid -- announcing that kay bailey hutchison and now joe lieberman, the thought that joe lieberman may have in fact made this announcement set

all the political internet sites abuzz this week. and the reactions from both sides are a nod to his legacy. this posting from the headline, let us pause now to hate joe lieberman. on the right, conservatives why conservatives should have no love for lieberman. the "christian science monitor" stated perhaps no one would have had the their party's vice presidential nomination and then made the short list of the party's selection eight years later, such is the complexity of joe lieberman. since the internet has been active on this topic, let's open up the phone lines. this discussion about joe lieberman about the changing senate or is it on joe

lieberman himself and his own political legacy over the years? we'd like to talk to you about senate politics with the nexus being senator lieberman's announcement. let's listen a little bit to what he had to say yesterday. >> along the way, i have not always if it comfortably into conventional, political boxes. maybe you've noticed that. democrat, republican, liberal, conservative. because i've always thought my first responsibility was not to serve a political party but to serve my constituents, my state and my country and then to work across party lines to make sure things get done for them. whatever the partisan or party line that is dwoid us, they are far more important than the shared values that unite us and requiretous work together to make decisions, to me that's

what public leadership and service is all about. >> senator lieberman in his announcement yesterday. the front page story for the harford counter -- courant, our guest wrote the headline. it suggested more or less that he didn't leave the party but the party left him. can you talk a little bit about his position vis-a-vis his position with democrats? >> well, his position with connecticut democrats was quite a precarious one if he even had a position, i mean, this is a man who after 2006, a lot of people here in the state really did not like. this ento see him in 2008 go on the campaign trail with onmccain and coaching sarah palin certainly left a bad taste in the mouths of

connecticut democrats. we did -- lieberman was a major force behind the doan doan -- behind the "don't ask, don't tell" policy. it was not enough to come back into the joe lieberman fell to. host: we set the stage with our conversation with our viewers, is this the platform lieberman has taken or something that democrats value? >> well, connecticut is a fairly liberal state. our entire delegation as of now is democratic. certainly the other senator is democratic. so connecticut may be kind of a different place and a harder place for a person like joe lieberman to charge his path than say a different state.

a more conservative or moderate state. that said, you know,s the interesting, some people have this theory that joe lieberman's politics are really joe lieberman, and that's the bottom line, and sort of everything he does is sort of filtered through that prism. and it's really hard to see where his ideology ends and his ego begins, so i'm not sure. host: well, let me move on to the balance of power. democrats have to defend seats up for the next cycle. does joe lieberman's announcement make it easier or does it change the equation for them at all? >> there's a lot of conventional wisdom that has it that it makes it easier for the democrats. we really at this point don't know what the race will look like, we have the former democratic secretary of the

state that has -- we have chris murphy expected to jump in any minute. perhaps today. host: congressman. guest: and on the republican side there's a strong idea that linda mcmahon will run again. she brings vast resources to the race, as she did last time around. it's far too early to speculate on what the race will look like. it will be interesting. we can all say that. as far as who holds the advantage at this point, it's tough to say. >> well, two years left in senator lieberman's term. you've been covering him for a while. thank you for bringing us up to date on that and the aftermath of his announcement. >> thank you. host: daniel altimari on the front page her story of the

hartford courant. your chance to discuss national politics and the senate and particularly joe lieberman's announcement yesterday. go ahead. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: one person i don't care to hearsay here's our dream or as paces. host: why is that? caller: here's guy walking down the worst period of iraq, our war history and he has seen a few satellite dishes. they have no plumbing, electricity, and he's coming back saying things look good. what i would do with joe lieberman, like lyndon said about shriver, sorry i've got this peace corps and he said hooks like we just volunteered

for the presidency or whatever it was, oirt peace corps. i take joe lieberman as president. i'd make him volunteer, become a palestinian and [inaudible] and give him half the budget he gave israel. i think take brick-and-mortar over there and build for those people what has been built in israel. host: there are suggestions floating around the internet. senator john mccain talked about him as a possibility of a new secretary of defense when the current secretary retires later this year. next is tom on the republican line. caller: about joe lieberman, this morning you're going to find out how many nasty, bitter democrats are talking bad about joe lieberman. he's a good man and hopefully carry the story about steve cone.

do you know who mess? host: no. guest: he is a congressman from memphis who caused -- the president called for unity, calmness, and he called the republicans nazis. host: i did read that story. caller: are you going to cover that story? host: well, you just told us about it but we're not because we're already 10 minutes in. what is your point about it? caller: i'm asking what you think about it? host: that's not anymy job. what is your opinion? caller: why is there a double standard there? democrats can do it but republicans can't do it? it's ridiculous. and you should carry the story. maybe you guys are air america or something here. host: next is a voice from baltimore. this is nancy on our democrats

line. go ahead. caller: yes. you started out with an article on joe lieberman quoting a writer. saying let's take this time to hate joe lieberman. host: yes. caller: well, he made some -- he did some good things and he plead plenty of mistakes. but you know with everything going on with gifford and all these politicians to open the line with just hate, you know what i'm saying? i know that's not your quote and i been watching c-span. but words matter today. host: yes. caller: it ought to be something positive being said first. host: may i interrupt for a second. to make a point. we've been hearing big dialogue about national unity in the wake of the tucson events and the whole point was to show the two hypes one from the conservative and the other both

used words like no love and "hate." caller: you guys don't have to repeat hate. someone called in just as hateful. it just doesn't make any sense. we need to heal. and joe lieberman, he's a human being just like any other politician. and i love c-span. i watch it. and i'm going to continue to watch it. i think you are the best on this. but we need to have some unity here. and i understand that people still hate and then some people love him. some people don't. but we need do better. host: thank you very much. in "the new york times" this morning two write for lieberman an exit forgeed in alienation they say no one should claim credit for joe lieberman's decision not to seek another term. in 2006 one mobilized

like-minded democrats to unseat joe lieberman for being to accommodating to president bush. one wrote remember when kicking lieberman out of the democrat party was going to cost vote centers then the democrats won everything for two cycles in a row. that's the discussion of politics in the senate. next caller from san antonio, texas. lynn, you're on. caller: hello. i was calling to talk about the health care bill. i understand how a lot of it would be nice to keep. but we simply can't afford to keep all of it. and i do like the republicans' idea of the cross state borders. because at my job, we're offered a list of companies that we can choose every year,

which we choose our health care company. and you look down the programs, and some of them look real nice, and then they say oh, you can't get those in your state. so if we had those in our state, maybe we could get a lot done. i think you ought to pass the smaller part and see how much that helps. then if they are still a lot needed, go ahead and do more. host: we're going to be talking about health care and specifically the democratic strategy to counter the republicans move to repeal the bill. next from maryland shawn you're a republican and you're on. good morning. caller: it's no surprise the magazine would use the word hate. h.r. two is going to kill people. sthates, you know, the conservative party are nazis. it was laughable in the face of

it that the liberal left and the democrats are trying to lecture us on civility. it was only a matter of time, pretty much several days before they resorted to the same old tactics. attack, attack, attack. thanks joe lieberman. i know you're feeling a lot of hate email, tweets, he's a standup guy. take care. host: next a call from virginia. chris a democrat, good morning. you're on. caller: yes. thank you for taking my call this morning. the reason i'm home is there's a program called the national re-assessment program that senator lieberman oversees with the postal service, which i am an combhee. and he has definitely not done his oversight job. i wish that people would know more about this program and

know about the dismantling of the u.s. postal service. i just wish that people would understand that we're working hard every day, and that our jobs are in jeopardy. just yesterday there was a report on channel 6 news out of richmond that there are 8,000 more people that are going to be put out of work with the postal service, and it's really ashame this government is not paying attention to what's going on. host: written this week, tuesday's announcement senator kent konrad, a senator from knot dakota will not seek re-election. rapid over the of the senate that is offering the body's composition and its leadership. last year's cycle produced and 32 new snarts have been sworn in since 2008 representing the

fastest over the rate citizens 9 0 elections. with the exits of konrad and lieberman in 2013. the agriculture and health, education, labor intention and small business and homeland security and government affairs committee will awe have changed hands. next is a call from washington, d.c. this is ralph, a republican. good morning. caller: good morning. i don't like lieberman, and i'll tell you why. because i would listen to c-span in the morning. 34 times i would hear, well, this is a potential terrorist attack. we've got to take away this right in your bill of rights. this is another potential attack. this man did more to shred the bill of rights than any other person i've seen. i just want this man to go away. because he doesn't seem to trent united states. maybe he represents israel.

he's the official is israel delegate. but i'm so vlade that man's gone. 've maybe he's done enough damage, he figures he has to leave anyway. thank you. host: home state for the senator, carol is a democrat. good morning. nice to hear a connecticut voice in all this. >> yes. thank you very much. i was there like 40 years. i voted for joe lieberman at his first election. but i was very disappointed. joe lieberman, he's are corporatist, he's a republican. we all know that. and i couldn't be more pleased, really, that he's leaving. i will tell you one thing. i'm not going to be mean here, but in connecticut, joe lieberman is widely hated. he really is. republicans, democrats. nobody likes him. so i think what he's probably going to do is become a

lobbyist, because he's all about money. and we couldn't be thrimmed and susan bison, who i hope is going to be our new senator, i love it. thank you very much, and i love c-span. thank you. >> two opinion voices. different sides of the speckstrum and two very different -- one writes the reason we have political parties is the best way to get things done is by working together. obviously sometimes people with principals have to take an independent stand but lieberman's career taught us how importants the to do that with humility. if you're continually admiring yourself as you walk away from your the job, it will increase the desire to not like you. caller: good morning. i'm been following lieberman

for 10 years. the thing i found is number one, i think he's, like, many senators. he supports military bases. he's looking for funny from connecticut and a lot of it comes from military bases and military industrial corporations that he supports. the other he supports, he gets a lot of his funding from financial corporations and stuff like that. mainly like the last caller commented. it was basically he took money for his own benefit. but also his state of course. but most of it, again, is dearrived from military and financial corporations. i guess that's about all i have to say. >> well, let's take a look.

where you can find fundraising informs for all members of congress. and senator joe lieberman, his career fundraising. he came into the senate at 4, $47 million spent. top five contributors. united technologyings. stisti. olympian brothers. -- citigroup and olympian brothers. and and lehman brothers. >> good morning to gerald who is a democrat. you're on. caller: good morning. as far as lieberman, i'm sort of indifferent to him, because it's america. he can flip flop all he wants. but my main point today about calling is the individual saying the democrat from tennessee calling -- using the word fascist. well, it's apparent the

republicans don't mind calling good americans unpatriotic and socialists. especially those of us vietnam veterans trained to kill the socialists. they flipn'tly toss it around. and perhaps they get their act together, most of us democrats will. and more macentyre who voted against the health care bills, maybe we ought to give us a real democrat. and dino ought to become a ryano. host: mike freeman tweets he was saved only by demonstrates working for defense contractors. he is an ardent hawk and defends any war any time. lieberman for the defense. is there a second editorial. the remarkable -- we recall rooting for the democrat as he

challenged a republican in 19 8 and we haven't regretted it since. he is described as a john f. kennedy democrat where he has supported low tax rates in the j.f.k. tradition. less admirably he provided the 60th vote for obama care which his grandchildren will pay for if it isn't reappealed. and supported george w. bush in 2006. that would be the party of the vice presidential nominee six years earlier. the general election and continued to speak for a robust defense budget and anti-terror ist tragedy. charlie, republican, good morning. you're on the air. caller: yes. what i want to say is i think what most people have against

joe lieberman is the fact that he would vote for what he believed was right. whether you agree with him or not didn't matter. he would vote republican or democrat. i i think that's what's going to have to change this country is that people will be americans and vote for the right thing. and when they are voting, forget about which party they are, but do the thing that's right for the american people. that's what i wanted to say. host: so tcharl, in the end you like the idea he fought with the party? caller: let's be honest. we're still in an america that's prejudice and a lot of people have something against him because he is jewish. but i thank god for people who will stand up and vote for what they believe in the their heart is the right thing to do. whether i like or don't have like everything he done. of course i didn't.

you cannot satisfy eb. but why don't people -- we elected people to go to washington ooh and get up there and vote for what they believe in their heart is the right thing for them to do and do what's better for this country. forget about being black and white and democrat, republican. but we get together as americans and say let's do this for the betterment of our country. until we do that, we're never going to prosper. host: one writes i imagine there's many breathing a sigh of relief. for democrats lieberman was the best of friends and the worst. next caller from pensacola, jay, independent line, you're on the air. go ahead. caller: thank you. i love c-span. first i want to say joe lieberman, i don't think he's a bad guy. i just think he got caught up

in the politics and when they made barack obama he was evil and from the wrong side of the tracks, lieberman just jumped on the republican party. i think he meant well throughout his political career and i think he's a good man. about the health care bill, i just think it's sad, because most of the people around here have never read a bit of the health care bill. i forget what -- mitt romney is the same as his state. the health care bill is there. it -- health care is dead. so -- and people don't want to pay for people who don't have insurance. just like in the state you have car insurance. host: thank you. we appreciate the call. dallas, tweets lieberman was so

quick to kiss up to the g.o.p. of florida. most forget he was gore's running mate. and the two senators chris dodd and joe lieberman. two similar paths up and down. if you're interested in the politics of the senate, jay is a democrat. you're on the air. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say joe lieberman is an oper tunist. once he got favors from the g.o.p. he ran over there. also listening to someone from texas talking about across state lines. one advice. for the president. when you have an insurance bought from another state and you're giving a person

regulation is going to laps, and then you could get a messy insurance. so i think we should educate ourselves like stuff on that and -- host: thank you from new york city. bill nelson, democrat from florida announcing he will seek a third term in the united states senate. here's the story in the sunshine news this morning about that announcement. and again, focusing in on the is that the 2012 and 201, democrats defending 23 and washington it's going to shape the political hand escape. >> remember -- one of the other reports was the state dinner at the white house last night. this is what the front page looks like in the papers after a meeting between the two leaders. the "wall street journal" rival seeks new ba. >> glossing over lasting

disputes of summit. >> "times" rights about the human rights story that got picked up in the -- and we will be talking to peter welch about the health care policy and process as republicans seek to challenge it. we'll be right back. >> and while it's easy to focus on our differences. of culture. and per spective. dr. and perspective. let us never forget the values our people share. a reverence for family. a belief that with education and hard work and with sacrifice, the future is what we make of it. and most of all the desire to give our children a better life.

>> let's also never forget that throughout our history, our people have worked together for mutual progress. we parade together for years, stood together in the world war. chinese immigrants and chinese-americans have helped to build america. including many who join us here tonight. to our people -- the citizens of the people's republic of china and the united states of america. may they grow together in friendship.

may they prosper together in peace. and may they realize their dream of the future for themselves, for their children, and for their grandchildren. [speaking in chinese] >> chinese isolationings have traveled an extraordinary journey in the past 32 years since the establishment of diplomatic times. a review of the history of our relations shows that we have

far more common interests than differences. and cooperation for mutual benefits has always been the main stream of our relations. this has to reenforce our confidence. pushing forward our relationship. today both china and the united states are confronted with the arduous task of sustaining steady economic growth and achieving economic transformation. and we both need to tackle the various challenges brought by economic globalization. this has added to our need and desire to enhance cooperation. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman peter welch democrat of vermont is part of the leadership team for the house of representatives and of course all the front page news is about the successful vote yesterday. 245-189 with three democrats movinging to join republicans

to repeal health care. what do you think is next for this effort? guest: there's reports this is symbolic because it won't go anywhere in the senate and the president would veto it. but it's serious. because republicans have made it clear this is step one. step two will be trying to defund essential funding for the implementation or health care. also it will be a frontal assault for any of the regulations. they campaigned on repealing health care. they are following through on their promise to repeal health care and havenology to replace it. so it's a serious first step republicans are taking. because they have made it clear they are going to pursue this aggressively. marv: there's also a court challenge. another six states have joint in. that's over half the states seeking redraft to the new law.

so where do you see all this culminating? how do you think it's the coming out in the wash? guest: well, first of all, we have a problem with health care in this country. that just has to be acknowledged. we have excellent quality care. and we have 47 million americans who don't have access to health care. extended access to over 30 million people. it also provided for long overdue insurance forms american families desperately node. these are the things that the repeal takes away. our kids now when they get out of high school or college, they get an entry-level job, generally they come with no health care benefits. those kids, our kids can stay on our policy until age 26. that's enormous relief of anxiety for parents. it's good for the kids when they get a first job. right now if you have a

preexisting condition, under the law we passed, you're entitled to buy health insurance. under the repeal you can't and many have preexisting conditions. right now if you have insurance and you get sick, the insurance company can't dump you when your renewell period comes up. but under the repeal they'll be able to do it. these are long things that will be reappealed. they have decided to throw out the good as opposed to trying to improve the bad. that's the serious question when we're on a repeal agenda, it really gets in the way of an improvement agenda. the question of the lawsuit. i think we have to acknowledge we, who supported health care, have to acknowledge that the individual panned date is extremely controversial. people don't like the idea of

being made to buy health insurance. even with subsidies to make it affordable. just like in a lot of places people don't like the idea of being required to buy car insurance. but if we're going to have access for eb, and most americans believe we have to have that, but one way or another, you still end up with the in the -- in the hospital. if we're going to have eb covered, the question is should all of us help pay? my view is yes. many of the opponents cey see that otherwise. so that's a fair combe. but we should engage in republicans saying if we're going to have a system that everybody's covered, how do we pay for that? >> you're welcome to call in with your comments about health

care and or larger issues about the house and its policy direction under the new majority. what the democrats plan to do is to counter some of their nichetist. but you can also send a tweet or email. let me move to a secondary issue which is stability in congress. you and i were talking during the debate. you were a classmate of gabrielle gifford, but what has emerged in the wake of the tucson shooting, i wonder if you heard any change in tone? guest: yes. 50eu6 been somewhat pleased. it's not perfect. but civility does matter. we've had a republican governor and democratic legislature. they had sharp differences but it was not just a matter of --

it allows you to listen to what your adversary is saying and allows you to have a certain kind of -- one of the reasons gabrielle gifford is one of the most popular numbers of congress and in our class, she had the ability to be very direct in her point of view. you had no confusing as to where gabby stood on any issue, but she spoke in a way where she was inviting the listener to speak, and then she listen is not good for any of us. host: after the debate the last few days, let's go to westward new jersey, and this is harold a republican. caller: good morning, everybody. peter, i would like to see every person who has a social security number also have

catastrophic health insurance. sadly, the affordable health care law affords planned parenthood to get even more taxpayer money, which they should not get. under no circumstances should taxpayer money be used to do to a member of the human family what you would not do to a kitten or a puppy. you would not tear legs off or crush the head of a puppy or kitten. before this day is done, planned parenthood is probably doing this to unborn members of the human family with taxpayer money. democrats refuse to remove the pro abortion language from the bill, why? guest: well, let me just be specific. i disagree with you. you're quite wrong about that. the legislation does not allow for the use of taxpayer funds for abortion.

host: i want to -- a question from twitter. congressman, he writes, i know people who work only so they can get health care. they don't need the money. explain how the bill helps them. guest: not quite sure i fully understand the question. host: i guess it's the linkage between working and insurance. >> first of all, you're right. there's an 2340r78s number of people that work only because that's only way -- if you have insurance now and you want to change jobs, under the repeal, you could not do that without risking losing your coverage. one of the good things about this legislation is you will have portibility with your health care. you will be able to go from job-to-job and not be locked into a job. but the health care, we're

providing significant subsidies for small businesses who want to provide health care. we're providing significant health to smaller and larger businesses who have retired health care. enact you're seeing major companies like g.e., comcast, microsoft opting into this plan showing they've made hard-nosed business decision that makes sense. i cannot answer your specific question because i don't know the income cutoff you're talking about, but there are subsidies. it's the ability to pay an approach to allow people to purchase the health insurance of their choice. keep in mind, by the way, i was in favor of a public option and this bill preserves the insurance-based model of providing health care coverage. so a lot of the characterization by opponents that it's a government takeover

couldn't be farther from the truth. it's going to provide ackdrose health care. host: this is a new chairman of the house ways and means committee, dave catch, a republican from michigan on why he supports the bill. >> the problem with this law among its many fault sincere it puts government at the center of health care decisions not doctors and not patients. instead of families deciding what coverage is best for them. it has the center for health and human services deciding how much they can afford. instead of families and customers deciding in they need health insurance, the government is mandating they purchase it. this is all about the government. it's washington knows best. and it's wrong. host: congress moon welch. respond. >> well, that's wrong. first of all, it's going to be you deciding which health care

you're going to purchase and which doctor you're going to see? there's no government control over who you decide to see as your doctor or who you decide -- which hospital you want to go to, so that's just flatout wrong. and again, this discussion about government takeover, i'm going to remind mr. camp what medicare is. everyone 65 years of age or older has access to medicare. we all have a reduction from our paycheck so when we're 65 each of them picks their doctor, hospital, provider, so mr. camp is either misunderstanding or mischaracterizing what this health care bill is.

essentially this is the irony. it's a very conservative bill. i wanted to abdomen lick option so you and i would have the option to go into our so now we have an insurance-based approach where you and i can decide what insurance we're going to buy, what medical provider in any health care decision, the movement now is between the patient and the doctor. host: yesterday one side bar debate became house-member-owned plans and few members decided to walk away from the health plan. that became quite a discussion last night. can you tell me how relevants the, members selecting plans from their inter, congress to their debate about the national

plan. guest: a lot of people think the fix is in and there's a good deal available for congressman that isn't available for average americans. when we passed the public option, we had to become part of that plan. to members of congress, we're going to have is to be in that plan. as it stands now, we would have to be part of that plan as well. i think there's a fair question on the part of city, in something that ought to be good enough for them or members of congress. i think having a plan that's available to citizens as well as members of congress makes a lot of sense. host: next call for you is from little rock. shaggy? caller: stagey. i want to say i hope the democrats key fighting to keep

evidence and i have a cadillac insurance. and i ended up paying almost $10,000 in fees in addition to my insurance that my husband had. one, one emergency room visit. we need health care reform. please don't give up. and stay home and fight in that state, senate. host: comments in both ethose cases, so we'll move on. now you can't lose a race you have never run. guest: well, we did pass it in the house and lost it in the senate. we didn't have the votes in the senate, and i don't control what happens in the senate. but i am with you. i wish we had been able to get that passed. by the way.

it would have saved another host: you're going to have to help me with your name. caller: tawafa. -- tawana. first-time caller. first thing, i wanted to look at the two-base repeal as opposed to the 225-page law. i want to know how are they going to get people tax breaks or incentives to have health care if people don't have jobs? second thing, you talked about ms. gifford. and god bless her. but the thing is, i just want to prove a point. how many of those people who were victimized that day, how many of those people had health care? and last thing was to mr. mitchell about -- hillary clinton tried to pass health care.

it's not an easy -- but i think reaching across the aisle is so on the part of the doing this. actually understanding. understanding it's a complicated issue. and it's not going to bal involved in two pages. no take my comment off the air. thank you. guest: well, you have a good point in the reaching across the aisle. vermont, we have an access to -- when i was a democrat our republican -- we were pushing for universal care. the governor on the republican side was argue fing cost at the same time. -- cost containment. the democrats argued access. we were both right. the only way you're going to us is stain -- going to sustain

this is reaching across the aisle. with the moral tpwhroigs extend access to all our citizens. host: the paper on information today. here is a one argument he makes. obama care is creating 159 new offices and tens of thousands of pages of new regulation later he writes obama care i go fors -- ignores. guest: health care, we had no obama. none. health care is expensive. it's been going up two and three times the rate of

inflation, the rate of profits and the rate of wages. we have a serious problem in this country that we have this escalating cost in health care and our ability to cope up with it financial, is jovend our grass. -- is beyond our grasp. a financial money machine. we have to change that. one way or the're. but that is indental i can in the -- the referee of how much a bill will cost says that the repeal will add $230 billion to the deficit. you know, i want to say something. we get back here. we had the election. the republicans won. one of their big campaign plans is to repeal obama care. and it became an epithet. it was a million bad things to

a million different people. but when you break it down. like should people have their kids on their policy until age 26 or should people with preexisting conditions -- i know? americans overwhelmingly and throwing everything out for political or political gam but is a bad idea. we are now all elected republicans and democrats. and the time for putting political points on the board is over. the time for making practicing matic progress is here. that means you improve what you have. you don't throw everything out. host: on the side in favor of getting serious about the health care in the nation. this is what "usa today" editorial team wrote. those who are ultimately serious about hammering down

costs have huge positions, all radio active and ship costs to patients forfor me to carming less. making these difficult choice to control against interrupt as i in the nation is going to have to be a bipartisan operation. guest: some of those things we're going to have to wrestle with obviously, but there are more elemental things we can do and are starting to do in vermont. 78% of expenses are associated with treating chronic conditions like diabetes and hyper tension. and most of those cases are treated in our current model on a fee for service basis. if you go into the hospital, you get an itemized bill from the surgery room to the

anesthesiologist. if you have a chronic condition, everything is done on this fee for service basis. we established in vermont what is called the blue print for health. instead of being driven on a -- we provide a -- return so folks get care that is appropriate. so folks with diabetes need counseling and a lot of access to nursing care and have those patient ins a managed program, they are going to get the care they need when they need it and by a provider and at a low cost . it's a need-driven basis. host: in 2006, peter welch is the only vermont representative

and serves on the oversight committee. i want to talk to you about that before we finish up. republican, you are on. good morning. caller: good morning. and thanks for c-span. i don't know if there's a relationship, maybe you could tell me, between my insurance and emergency room visits. they upped my i paid around $750 a year of which they will let me use $are 500 but then i have to pay $1300 before i can get 80%. so that's 33% they are going to charge me to use my money, i guess. then the emergency room visits, my son is a pharmacist in another state. and the young man came in and late night because my son works the night shift, and wanted mow

trip. hen didn't have a prescription, so my son said is go to the counterand get a bottle of and if you take two eye blew pro fin and then the young man left and came back in an hour or two with his prescription for motrin. so the state paid for his visit to the e.r. and his medicine because he didn't want to fay couple of dollars for some eye blew pro fin off the store shelf. so how does his emergency room visit, which was not an emergency room -- which was not an emergency. and somebody had to pay for it and how did it rise in my insurance? host: a related tweet. someone is asking if you could please explain what your -- lots of >> well, it's a lot.

what we estimated when we were considering the health care bill was about $1,100 of your premium. if you purchase through your employer, $1,100 on your plan is paying for other people. that caller has a good point. one is the abuse of the emergency room and what you describe clearly was. that makes no sense what over. that cost does get passed on to you and if everybody does have access to care now, they don't have to go through this con have lewded approach of having to go through the emergency room and then i -- that's a huge expense for them to keep that up and running and going. every time somebody comes in, it's a big expense, but if they

have no insurance, there's still the expense of treat that person and somebody pays and that happens to be -- here's another question. why do we have medicare at all? guest: i think she's talking about prescription drugs. it's very expensive. one of the things i advocated and we did approve it in the house bill but lost it in the senate was price negotiation. in the v.a., they do price purchases and negotiation. if you're a big purchaser, and the they negotiate the best price. 've so instead of paying an asprin like they are buying one, they pay like they are buying 100.

we wrote that there be negotiation by medicare to drive down the cost of prescription drugs to make it cheaper for srs to have access to the prescriptions they need. so that should be part of the law. ring announcer: our final seg ment you'll meet -- host: in our final segment, you'll meet our guest and we'll talk about health care provisions in this country. one last question. jim, you're a democrat. you're on. gong. caller: good morning. representative if you would give specific answers that would be really easy for me. first of all, when you have a preexisting condition or if i come down for cancer or something right now, the insurance company can't deny me, correct? >> correct.

>> under the current law. my second question is this -- from jacking up my rates so high because i came down with something that i can no longer afford it? guest: well, there's an authority to review rates we've given to them, so they don't have cart blonch to just run the meter on you. caller: so if i come down with something, my insurance between in buffalo can't say we're sorry. we have to cover you, but we just jack up your rates. guest: yes. $4,000 a month. host: there's insurance -- you're paying during the times when youen don't need coverage, because there will be a time when you do need the coverage. host: when people have a car

accident, their rates tend to go after that. is there a parallel between that and the health care bill? >> well, the rates, there has to be an actuaryal -- if more and more people get sick, then the cost overall of health insurance is going to go up. but should you have a system where you're punitively charged because you happen to be the person that does get cancer? and the answer to that is no. . .

guest: that should be the responsibility whether you are a democrat or a republican. the leadership comes from darrell issa. he has to make the decision.

if what he is saying that is that he was to do things that have a broad benefit to taxpayers in the concept of accountability and not have political witch hunt. if the history needs to be written. off as long as we are on the agenda of a protected but -- has long as we are on the agenda of protecting taxpayers, it will be a useful off committee. >> the house is in at 9:00 a.m. eastern. later on, mr. welch will join his party. mr. welch, thank you for being here. one reminder before we take our break, those who are fans of our student cam competition, the deadline is today. if any of you have family members who are working, you have to have it in by midnight tonight. we had a hundred entries last

year. we are hoping to best that. we will take a break and learn what else is happening all around the city today. then, we'll be back with congressman jason chaffetz from utah, who is a member of oversight and government reform subcommittee on national security and homeland defense. >> abc news reports that treasury secretary timothy geithner will not appear at next week's oversight committee hearing. they will send the acting assistant secretary, kim the side, instead. congressman darrell issa is the new chairman of that committee. he invited both secretary timothy geithner and the overseer of tarp to testify. it is the first hearing that darrell issa will chair. it will coincide with new

brodsky's quarterly report to congress. first lady michelle obama is scheduled to join wal-mart executives to kick off an effort that will reformulate thousands of products to make them healthier. "and huffington post" and b.e .t. are launching a new platform. the announcement is expected today. those are the latest headlines. >> this new law is a fiscal house of cards and a healthcare house of cards. >> has anybody, any family in america, any single mother, any spouse, any child, and a grandparent not a more bureaucratic system and the

american health insurance system? >> watch this week's debate, any time. see what your representatives said. read transcripts. congressional chronicle at c- span.org. host: meet congressman jason chaffetz of utah. he represents the third district in utah. we just announced he has a new job. he will be chairing the subcommittee on national security and homeland defense. what you want to do with that panel? guest: there is a lot to do. we have hundreds of millions of dollars going out the door in the war effort. we have people from every corner of this country fighting to defend the country. quite frankly, we do not have enough discussion about the fact that we are in a war.

we have a duty and a responsibility to not only work with the president, but also be the check and the balance. there's a lot to look at. also, i want to look closely at the csa and what is happening at the airports. i have been an outspoken critic of the way they are conducting the search is at the airport, and the southwest border. i'm very concerned. everyone says border security is imperative. but, is it really happening? we just heard the secretary scuttling a billion-dollar plus effort to come up with a virtual defense. i think we have a duty to give some oversight and look at what is happening at the border. host: the restructuring, do you think that has been a plus in making it more secure? guest: i think we need to evaluate that. i also serve on judiciary with

lamar smith. we asked for a review on how those agencies work together. we have this huge array. i do not know that they're working closely together. one area i am concerned about is immigration and customs enforcement. they have duties and responsibilities dealing with anything that happens on the internet over our borders. they do not necessarily have the time and resources to take on that mission as well. in utah, we have 29 counties. we have 22 officers. they are not spending any time been looking at this salacious internet sex crimes and things are happening. if these are questions we need answers on. host: we have when half-hour with the congressman. will put the phone numbers on the screen. we also have an e-mail address and a twitter account.

there has been a great deal of discussion about the tone and direction of the committee overall with chairman darrell issa have been the devil. i am wondering if you could let people know -- have been the gavel, what direction do you see that he is going to be taking this committee? people are concerned about investigations of the obama administration. what do we expect to see? guest: we have a duty with the separation of powers to be the check and balance on the president. it is not our job to be the lap dog. we are supposed to challenge the administration. i think we are supposed to do it in the way it speaker john boehner outline. we may disagree, but we do not need to be disagreeable. it is nothing personal -- personal about the president or any personality within the administration.

but, we, as representatives of the people, if need to dive deep into those issues and items that will percolate up. there is no need to go on a witch hunt. there are plenty of items to look at that have been in the news and things that investigators have highlighted. we have special investigators in iraq and afghanistan. we have a disaster in afghanistan with that general who recently left the post. we have the overseer of cartel will be on capitol hill today. we should not be making it personally. the investigator general for the tarp program, yes. host: let me jump on one other thing. that may use part of what you said before launching the discussion about civility.

you have the one member of congress who has a concealed carry permit. what are you thinking about congressional security? guest: on capitol hill, i think they do it and exceptional job. there is a virtual army and great security and intelligence. at home, it is a little bit of a mixed bag. i feel much more comfortable, it is not that i live in fear, or that i'm scared, but the reality is we have to do offices and we represent close to 900,000 people. there are a few people that deserve deeper investigation. while the capitol hill police and sergeant of arms have done a great and wonderful job, unfortunately, as we saw with what happened in tucson, a lot of people are on edge. i am hoping that as threats come in, because all members get threats, that we dive deeper in

exploring those, particularly those that cannot distinguish reality -- those need to be taken more seriously. it is important not to react. i am comfortable carrying a gun. if it is a personal issue with me. i do not want anyone to run out and suddenly go get a concealed carry permit in the wake of what happened on that saturday morning. we have to be careful not to overreact. host: what would overreaction look like? guest: if someone decided to arm their staff. there are a lot of things. i also do not believe congress should come up with new laws or rules that are special for members of congress. there were a couple of proposals that came out when day or two after the horrific events. if i do not think we necessarily need that. i am not advocating any gun law

changes. take a deep breath. understand that this maniac is an isolated case. learn from it, but let's not overreact. host: how frequently do you get threats that concern you? guest: pretty much on a monthly basis. almost everyone i talked to has had some degree of threat. a lot of this happens over the internet. a lot of people say and do things on the internet they would never do it in person. it happens on a regular basis. we had somebody two weeks before the shooting who showed up in our office and does something that said they wanted to kill jews. i happen to be of jewish heritage. i take that personally. you work about that that bridge you worry about that. host: waldo, florida. frank, you're on. caller: on the health-care

issue, the democrats are just trying to push through or keep 10 pages of that health-care bill. they have a lot of other things in there that no one knows anything about. it is like paying for abortion, and i have heard of a few other things, but i have not seen the bill. i would like to get a copy of the bill or have someone read the whole thing. anyway, my point is that i would like to see them repeal the whole thing, and then go back into it, and put in parts that they want to keep, and drop out all of the other garbage that is just going to increase taxes and everything else. host: thank you, frank. guest: i happen to agree. that is all we saw as republicans across the country. there are parts that we like.

and by and large, it was a bad bill. republicans had a mandate, a duty, and an obligation to retail lead built. there are parts that i like, but the -- repeal that bill. there are parts that are a lot that i like -- there are parts that i like it if there was an easy answer, it would have been done before. i do not think there is anyone who understands how so-called obama-care is actually going to work. when nancy pelosi stood up and actually set out loud, and i am glad she did, "we are going to have to pass the bill to find out what is in the" -- in its" that was very true. a lot of conservatives were concerned that a kid to much unilateral control to the secretary and others.

host: harkening back to the discussion about oversight -- this week. -- this tweet. guest: i am not in favor of the contractors or a post. there is a balance. it particularly in afghanistan or iraq, there was a good inc.rt called warlords thi that looked at the trucking contracts that go into afghanistan. we spend over two billion dollars a year on those trucking contract. are those actually fueling the war in afghanistan? is that money ultimately making its way to the taliban and in

power in them to continue the fight? if you think about them -- and it's in powering them to continue to fight? if you think about that, as long as there are conflicts, they will need to hire more contractors. it was a very good bipartisan report. it got into that issue. it is something our committee will dive into. host: mr. chaffetz, next call is tom, a democrat. caller: if you want to see some waste, you ought to investigate all of the spending that the local people laugh about. host: on border security? caller: you might call it border security. host: why is it wasteful? caller: anyone with half a brain

can see all the stuff they purchase that is not being used. they have a parking lot of trucks that are not used. if they have a truck for everyone in the government. there is a tremendous waste of money in that department. the local people talk about that and laugh about it. guest: tom, thank you. it is definitely something we need to look at. not only on the southern border, but the northern border as well, we are throwing billions and billions of dollars into this. what is happening with abuse. is it effective? you cannot go one week without hearing of all border violence that is spilling over into the united states. part of this was started in the bush administration. asked if you look at what is happening with cyber security and all the things i've are supposed to happen, there is a lot of concern because it does not work. i do not understand.

after a decade of deep concern, we are still not able to secure borders. to hear about what is happening in michigan, that there are just laughing, that is something our committee should look at. host: our guest has a dancer's degree from brigham young. -- bachelor's degree from brigham young. he served as a chief of staff for the governor after first being a campaign communications director and a campaign manager. he beat and the -- and incumbent gop member in that state. why did you become a republican? guest: i like to joke that i learned to read and write. i got my degree. i got married. i got a job. i just found out internally the

diet a conservative person. i believe i can't -- that i am a conservative person. i believe i can work with anyone. i believe in limited government, accountability, and strong national defense. as i look at all of those components, i just recognize the republican party offered me a lot more. i had an opportunity as a young man to meet ronald reagan. it was impeccable. i was with him for a few days. i had conversations with him. i have been a republican for quite a while. host: ronald reagan is on the cover of "usa today." the 100th anniversary of his birth is coming up february 6. there are many commemorations

that the get ronald reagan's legacy. susan page is the author of the peace. next, brad, and independent. -- an independent. caller: my first comments are since republicans came into office, they are always saying about the american people -- the polls before the election said the american people did not really like the health-care bill, but the more they understand it, most americans prefer the health-care bill -- the health care law. i want to know why republicans do not say -- i want to note the polls right now are showing american people want this plan. host: there is a new poll that says the public is evenly split

, 39/39. guest: i appreciate the call and the concern. i believe it is important that any public official be guided by principle and not by polls. we do a poll on everything, and probably too many. the principle for me not as concerned about health care is who is in control taxed i came to washington, d.c., in part because i want to shift the responsibility, the control and the power out of washington d.c., back to the states. i believe that it should not be the states that have this one- size fits all. that is philosophically my approach. it is the way i approach the department of transportation, the department of education. is there a role and responsibility for us to be

involved? yes. but, it will not be a bureaucrat in washington, d.c. it will be what is happening in utah. utah happens to be one of the most effective and efficient deliverers of health care in the nation. we ought to be able to propel them forward at the state level. point, let's not take a gauge of nicole. it is fundamentally wrong. host: hall is utah's economy? -- how is utah's economy? guest: we have been rated by a lot of magazines by one of the most impressive paces to do business. hello tax rate. we are one of the fastest- growing states. we have an educated workforce. we have lower taxes. we did the difficult lifting and

challenges of our retirement program. we have a balanced budget. we do not have the massive debt to other states do. consequently, we can't ride. -- we can authorize. host: ken, republican line. caller: i have three issues i would like to discuss. what is the issue i have currently -- we still have a huge deficit and our economy is not growing nationwide. all over the country, guess which are steadily going up. we know things like the american public paying for the bp spill. second, i am in total agreement with the congressman on the

government taking over the health care. i do not believe the government should control our health care in any form, or education. however, at the same time, with that health-care bill, no one has seemed to say they read this, but it is available online. no one is bringing up the fact that everyone will be able to -- required to take the chip under this bill, which is dangerous. the third thing, on your border security, which we are letting illegal immigrants coming here every day with drugs, guns. illegal immigrants are taking over our health-care system. we even find out that we have senior citizens from latin america that are getting social security. what is our government truly doing? are they doing anything at all?

guest: good morning in missouri. i appreciate that. let me try to tackle that. the debt and the deficit -- that is one of the main reasons i came to washington, d.c. when i was running in 2008, i was concerned our debt was coined to be nine trillion. now it is over $14 trillion. the reality is we cannot sustain this. when you have 25 cents of every dollar in this country being spent by the federal government, that is too much. we are paying more than $600 million a day in interest. we do not get anything for that. i looked at the state budget for the state of europe -- state of .tah we have to cut spending. i have only been here 24 months. what has been so disconcerting to me is that we have not cut

anything. everything from a 1 million -- billion dollars subsidy, all the way up to big things like social security reform and the entitlement reform. these are things are congress needs guts to get tested. i am proud of the fact that republicans are committed to bring up these cuts. we have massive cutting to do in order to get to where we are. to the second point about energy prices, which to me is also a discussion about how you thrive and grow jobs -- one, we need certainty in the marketplace. we have exacerbated the uncertainty. we will never balance our budget until we get a thriving business economy. we will help more people with health care if they have a job. that is what everything needs to be about. how'd you get the economy booming again? for me, it is getting the

government out of the way. incentivize to hire employees, not incentivized to not hire employees. those are more than just bumper stickers to me. it night -- it needs to not just be live service. we have not done anything to cut the debt. host: health care and a limit from it illegal immigrants -- and a limp -- and illegal immigrants access to it? guest: in the state of utah, we have the very good health care delivery system. i went to our largest provider and and i asked how much more do i pay then someone to cover all of the people? we pay 70% higher rates to cover

those people -- 17% higher rates to cover the people that are not full participants in the system. that is the burden put upon those said are responsible. that is a deep concern. host: that is the argument behind mandatory purchase. guest: this is where the government goes too far. i do not support the idea that the federal government will force you to pay for a service. host: square those two issues. guest: is what we are doing in the state of utah. the way we look at that the equation is to say we have a high risk insurance pool. we have people with pre-existing conditions. we have young people who have cancer. how will they get insurance? no matter what your situation is you can pay into the system. they need to pay into the system. i do not think the federal

government should force you. that is a line i will not cross. is it important that we offer those types of products and services? we do already in the state of utah, but i do not think the federal government should be forcing that. it goes against the principles that i believe. host: just a couple of minutes left. indianapolis, michael, good morning. sick call i think the stock -- caller: my colleagues on security. it seems to me the chinese no longer need any espionage against us because if you look at any of these deals with boeing or general electric, or binary of our technology, the chinese term is indigenous convention, which means you give us your technology if you want to sell products in our country. the recent example is the

general electric deal. basically, the chinese will build their own claims. they are after the avionics. i am not an expert, but it is clear there after that portion of the technology, yet it does not mean that anyone is doing anything about the fact that we spend and give tax credits to these companies. we are giving them billions of dollars. if it takes us five years to 10 years to develop this technology, what are we doing to stop that? guest: we are not doing enough. that is one of the deep concerns. here, we are competing with china on the global marketplace. they have bought nearly $1 trillion of our debt along the way. yet, we are still giving china a. we take tax payer money, and we

are still giving aid to china. it is frustrating with such a huge debt. i am on the intellectual property subcommittee. it is something we will look at. the roles are not fair. they are not balanced. we are giving china all kinds of access to the american market. we want and need them to have that access, but when you take u.s. companies such as microsoft, and they are trying to do business in china, they do not have the same sort of intellectual property enforcement, nor do i think they have those desires to put mechanisms in place. microsoft could collect the royalties. they joked we are the largest provider of products in china, but we have only sold one product. we have to get much more serious

with the chinese in enforcing that intellectual property and making sure that it is fair and balanced. right now it is so upside-down. host: what did you think of the tone of the meeting with the two leaders? guest: it was cordial and polite. the ambassador to china was my former boss. he speaks exceptional man during parity as a diplomat -- h exceptional mandarin. he is a diplomat in every sense .f the world i applaud the president. host: did you have a chance to catch up with the ambassador? what is up with his political future? guest: he is still a young guy.

he brings a unique conversation of been a very successful, a popular governor, but also the international experience been the ambassador in singapore and china, his work in taiwan, his work with the u.s. trade representative -- he has international credentials that most governors do not have. host: thank you for being here. guest: thank you. host: remember, this is a shorter program because the house is in session. we will take a break and get an update from c-span radial about what else is happening. then, what we come back, we will meet the head of the centers for disease control. >> reaction in china to the president's visit -- they are calling the talks successful.

this is the two leaders reached important consensus on a wide range of issues. an english dispatch from the state-run news agency described president hu jintao's visit as an historic masterstroke of u.s. diplomacy. president hu jintao will speak live today. it is the 50th anniversary of president john f. kennedy's inauguration speech. several events will mark the event. but president joe biden will issue remarks, and said that president obama speaks today said -- kennedy senator tribute. another anniversary -- center tribute. another anniversary -- the start of the gulf war. those in attendance will include former vice president dan quayle, then defense secretary

dick cheney, and former joint chiefs of staff chairman colin powell. c-span is covering all of those events. those are some of the latest headlines. >> you are watching c-span -- bringing new politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington journal" a live call in show. weekdays, watch live coverage of the u.s. house, and weeknights congressional hearings and policy forms, in supreme court oral arguments. on the weekends to concede our signature programs. on saturdays, 0: the communicator's -- "the communicator's." it is all searchable at our c- span video library. c-span, washington, your way, the public service created by

america's cable companies. >> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen is dr. thomas frieden. he is and must of his career in public health. -- he has spent much of his career in public health. thank you for being with us. guest: it is my pleasure. host: the study we are going to talk about, health inequality in the indebted states, is something that very much interested you. what was your goal in producing this study? guest: inequalities are bad for individual groups, communities, and the country. take for example, measles. years ago we had a lot of measles in the u.s..

not only did that hurt african- americans, but it endangered everyone, in the same way we have an inequality in any health status, it brings our overall health status down and hurts individual groups. we need to understand better and understand all we could do about it. host: what were the major chemical wastes from your findings? guest: there are a number of -- , what were the major takeaways from your findings? guest: there are major inequalities. in some areas, there is an unexpected disparity. binge drinking, drinking five or more drinks at one sitting for men, and four or more for women, is much more common of people -- for people of higher social

status. i do not think it would realize that. many to follow along the lines we would expect, although not always in the ways we would expect. probably the most important single health any quality insofar as it is the one that causes the most early death is inequality in heart disease. her disease and stroke are the leading single cause in the life expectancy between whites and african-americans in this country. host: we have been thinking about health care insurance and coverage for people. do your findings point to any savings for the nation if we end up tackling some of these issues? guest: is quite striking. are collaborators from another agency found that if the rate of what are called preventable hospitalizations, those that should not happen if you have

good primary-care, if that rate were the same in all communities as is in a well off communities, there would be nearly 1 million fewer hospitalizations, which would prevent nearly $7 billion a year. host: i would like to give more particulars. we would like to invite our audience to join the discussion about disparities in health, and as a policy issue. here are some of the findings from the study. white men are two or three times likely to die in car crashes. men of all ages are four times more likely to die by suicide than women. drug-induced deaths are highest among whites. hypertension, which could lead to stroke and heart disease are more prevalent among african- americans.

birth rates for african- americans and hispanics are two to three times higher than white females. the doctor just mentioned the binge drinking. the higher income, the more likely you are to binge drink, which means 70% of college graduates are more likely to -- 17% of college graduates are more likely to binge drink. you found out what? if -- did you find out why? guest: we have ideas, but we do not have to prove. people understand smoking is really bad for you. it remains the leading cause of death in this country. alcohol is also one of the leading underlying causes of death, which causes all broad range of problems.

-- a broad range of problems. that does not recognize to the same extent. one or two drinks might be healthy, but once you get into the four, or five range, you are in a level of drinking where you are more likely to have a car crash, or likely to get into problems with whatever disease or infections. alcohol causes of broad range of health and social problems. it is not always recognize how serious those problems may be. host: let me move to the other key finding -- the disparity between black americans and other groups in society on hard related issue. would you know about causality there? guest: for reasons no one is certain of, african-americans are about 50% more likely to have high blood pressure which is a leading cause of heart disease and stroke. starting off, you have a higher

rate of a serious condition. 42% of the african-american adults have high blood pressure, as opposed to 28% of white americans. if we do not do a great job of controlling high blood pressure or high cholesterol. many people with a condition do not have been under control. he really need to get the number down. doing so will be important in preventing or reducing the risk of a heart attack or a stroke. i think there are far too many young people who have had a heart attack or stroke and had been seriously disabled by heart disease or high blood pressure. these are things and simple, relatively low-cost medications can control, but you need to do something to stop them. if the doctor recommends an aspirin a day, take an aspirin a day. host: our question comes from twitter.

why should the nation but worry about inequalities are arising from individuals choices? guest: we want to support personal responsibility. it is important that not only individuals to increase the stability for their health, but that governments and communities make it easier for people to do what is healthy. tobacco advertising is everywhere. it is much harder for someone to not smoke or to quit. there are things we could do that make it easier for people to lead healthier and longer lives. some of those things are things that help everyone. a great example of that is the vaccines for children program. when it was started, there were very large inequalities between poor and better off people, and everyone is offered as a result. now, there are almost no

differences in the rate of vaccinations. everyone benefits. other programs need to be targeted to specific communities. part of that is how we could spend money most responsibly. if we have one problem effecting one group, it makes most sense to address that problem with our resources. it will get us the most benefit for the dollar. host: bill, detroit, independent. go ahead. caller: the republicans are trying to repeal this bill. if they repealed the bell, and it gets through the senate, it will be vetoed by president obama. the whole health-care debate is moved. it is a waste of time. we need jobs in this country. host: is the cdc involved in the

debate over health care law? guest: we have some key roles. one is to monitor how we are doing in preventing death and infection. that could save a lot of money. second, as a prevention agency, we have all role in helping communities have longer and healthier lives. if it is important to reduce the amount of money it costs to take care of someone who has a heart attack or a stroke. it is even better if we could prevented in the first place. host: next is a republican, might, in cincinnati -- might, in cincinnati. caller: i think money savings from preventative care of all kinds is being underestimated.

generally speaking, it is a lot less expensive to prevent an issue. also, i think that the social demographics of some of the studies did not take into account that unfortunately, healthy living is expensive. so is -- so, it is the chicken and the egg situation. think about of the tobacco settlement money had all been dedicated to providing quit smoking devices, of research, and stuff, at no cost -- in other words, if they had dedicated the money from the tobacco companies to making things like it not correct free, i think they would have been -- nicorrette free, i think that what of the more effective. numbers did not live. liars' use # -- numbers.

i think prevention is critical. a lot of the things our behavior-based. you couldn't hear what the appropriate and healthy behavior, but you may not -- you could want the appropriate and healthy behavior, but you may not be able to afford it. guest: prevention is the best body in the health sector. prevention, as i said earlier, preventing a heart attack is better than taking care of it. what we are seeing in some health plans and is being quite effected is a substantial reduction in the number of people coming in for care, coming in for a heart attack or a stroke. that is success. that is what we want to see. prevention and can be expensive.

that is one of the things cdc is doing to make it easier for people to do the healthy thing, whether it is a wall -- walking to school or work, or having fruits and vegetables available -- it is really hard to eat healthy if you do not have a place to buy fruits and vegetables. these are all areas where it is really quite important to change it and support personal responsibility so that is easier to do the healthy thing. tobacco remains of our leading be done to the cause of illness and death in this country. unfortunately, the decrease in tobacco use have stalled, although we have made tremendous progress of the last few decades. unfortunately, much of the master settlement agreement has not been spent on tobacco

control. in the affordable care act, tobacco cessation assistance is provided free of charge for individuals. there are very important preventive aspects of the affordable care act. host: the first lady is set to announce that wal-mart is going to make efforts to lower the fat and sugar content of the food it sells under its own name and lower the prices of vegetables and fruits and open more stores in under-served communities. what is the role of private industry interesting -- in addressing some of the issues you studied? a -- guest: private interested -- private industry could be extremely important. to provide healthier food at the same cost is tremendously important.

we know from the tobacco experience that increasing the price of tobacco is the single most effective way of reducing use. if we could make healthier food cheaper, that will make a huge difference. host: this you were on twitter -- guest: we consume far too much sweet food and salty food. the obesity epidemic has gotten so bad, so fast. adult obesity has doubled in a generation, and childhood obesity has tripled. that is why a initiatives are so important. it gives everyone something they could do. individuals, state governments, the federal government, workplaces, schools -- this is a

big problem, and there is a lot we can do about it. he be more fruits and vegetables, drinking more 0 calorie liquids like water. we got into this epidemic over many years, and it will not be reversed overnight, but i am confident that as a society we can reverse it. tell you more about dr. thomas frieden. he completed infectious disease treatment at yale. he began his career as an intelligence service officer in the new york city health department. in 1992 to 1996, he led the program that rapidly reduce tuberculosis. some of his background before coming to lead cdc. our next call is from dallas,

lesley, and the democrats line. caller: i am a colander graduate. intermission we learned about food we eatcessed has a definite correlation to pop -- poverty and people that cannot afford to purchase healthier food. with the new health-care bill, it is not taken into consideration how many sick people and the different diseases like diabetes and high blood pressure because of the sodium and sugar in the food. if it is really about health, there should be something that comes from the ground war, which is what we eat, -- groundworks, which is what we eat, and the different chemicals and things they use that will cause cancer. if you look at different areas where the water is

contaminated, there is a chemical that causes cancer. if you have chemical plants around where you are growing food, you have companies like monsanto. corn is in everything. it's called a lot of different issues you are raising. -- host: a lot of different issues york are raising. the guest: health care food which it healthier food is an important -- healthier food is an important consideration. when of the most important aspects of grants is helping communities have healthy food in schools so our kids could eat healthy, in committees, so people can buy fruits and vegetables near their homes, and getting regular physical activity. food is very important.

the of these the epidemic has been a terrible problem for this country. -- the obesity epidemic has been a terrible problem for this country. reversing obesity is not only very important to reduce health and equality and improve health overall, but also very important to get a better handle on health care cost. host: your report raises at least two dozen major issues of health disparities. i'm wondering, this is a wave the magic wand question -- is there one thing that you know that if americans could to implement it would make a major difference? guest: of few years ago i was in middle school and asked a bunch of kids what was the single thing you could do that would make the most intent on living a long and healthy life? i was in the inner-city, and i thought they might say not

smoke, and not drink, not use drugs, all of which would have been good answers. one girl said get a good education. if you look at health outcomes, she was absolutely right. it is the strongest predictor of living a long, healthy life. the things that make the biggest impact are often not within the health field. there are education, having a good job. within the health field, there are some things we could do that would make a difference. one of them is reduced rates of teenage pregnancy. there are higher rates in many states in the u.s., a much lower in other states. if there are things we could do to make kids make healthier choices and avoid pregnancy. teenaged pregnancy all too often perpetuates a cycle of poverty. i have taken care of patients who have had children as teenagers, and that can really

end their progression through education and represent a transmission of poverty from one generation to the next. it is something we can do something about, and i hope we can have broad agreement, because there is no one in favor of kids having kids. host: new york, independent. caller: do you agree that if we had single-payer health care, we would no longer be at the whim of business? when i am saying is get away from private health care. if we had single-payer, this would be something we would be doing -- educating our people, instead of misinforming them to keep the for-profit model going. i just want to know if he agrees. i would like to know what the

cdc thinks about this guest: there are different models that are used. some of the models that have a salaried model of doctors working are one example. under the affordable care act, there will be a model of medical homes, or accountable care organizations that try to insure that organizations and providers take more responsibility for the decisions they make, and have to live with the decisions that they make. what i think is most important is that whatever we do in health or health care, we analyze it and use that information to improve our system. no system is perfect. every country has challenges we will be best strategic challenges. we will be best situated to deal with them if we look at that

data carefully. morehouse, less money. -- more health, less money. caller: i would like to know if you know anything about -- scar tissue that grows like crab grass, that is not visible on any x-ray? why is that not listed as a chronic disease? guest: i think you are referring to a nominal adhesions, which is a common problem, especially for people who have had one or more procedures. when things that could cause adhesions is chlamydia, a sexually transmitted disease that is very common. in recent years, we have been

able to diagnose chlamydia with a simple urine test, which has made it much easier to recognize just how common it is. chlamydia is one of the major causes of infertility and adhesions. improving the quality of care, screening every woman between 18 and 25. the partners of people with chlamydia should be treated. there is a lot more we could do to reduce chlamydia and other sexually-transmitted diseases that are a lot more common in some geographic areas and ethnic groups. host: nancy, last question. caller: in 2008, a medical organization apologize for a hundred years of discrimination against african-americans.

could you discuss and also -- host: we are out of time at this point. a very quick on this. guest: there are so many problems in society where some groups don't have the opportunities that they should have -- whether it is education or work or jobs, health care, transplants, quality care, preventive care. all of those things are critically important to address the needs of groups and as we as society can be healthier. host: thank you so much. report, a lot more detailed, is linked to our website in the confined. dr. frieden, thank you for talking to our audience. now coverage of the house of representatives. live coverage is expected to be until around noon and the democrats will move to the eastern shore of maryland for their session as a party on

strategy. determined action. may those who are doubtful or cynical be renewed in patriotism , may those who feel powerless look within for deeper strength. may those who are most sensitive and loving find authentic ways to express themselves. may those filled with complaints learn satisfying dialogue in another. may those caught in dependencies and compulsions be freed. may those overwhelmed with complexity take one step forward. may those with limited resources build upon personal gifts. may those who think themselves incapable be supportive and encourage others. may those who believe deeply

discern signs that dreams do come true and prayers are answered. lord, may a whole new generation uncover creative responses to that ever-present challenge, ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country. amen. the speaker: the chair has examined the journal of the last day's proceedings and announces to the house his approval thereof. pursuant to clause 1 of rule 1, the journal stands approved. the pledge of allegiance will be led by the gentleman from texas, mr. poe. mr. poe: i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

the speaker: the chair will entertain five one-minute requests on each side. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: mr. speaker, finally congress says it will reen in out of control -- will rein in out of control spending. my neighbors to in texas say prove it. one suggestion i keep hearing is regarding foreign aid. my friend sammy told me to quit giving money to dictators. there's a thought. there are 192 countries and the united states gives money to roughly 150 of them. with our economic times, 15 million unemployed and the debt monster looming over us, it's time we re-evaluate the money we give away. some say foreign aid is taking money from the poor people in rich nations and giving it to rich people in poor nations.

many receivers of taxpayer money don't like it. as my friend louie gohmert says, we don't need to pay them to hate us, they'll do it on their own. we even give money to china. i suspect israel and a few others should receive u.s. help but the rest need to go it on their own. after all, we should take care of america first. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from new jersey rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, yesterday was an unfortunate day in this chamber as the majority voted to place insurance companies over americans. small businesses lost billions in tax credits and seniors will not have money for prescription

drugs and receive free preventive care through medicare. if repealed, these benefits will be removed and the economic impact will be devastating. 326,000 residents of my state will be subject to lifetime limits and other practices. and insurance companies could deny coverage to up to 294,000 people in my district alone, include 35g,000 children. we should concentrate on creating jobs, not repealing health care for middle class americans. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i rise today to honor the guardians of the national cemetery in bucks county, pennsylvania. this is a group comprised mostly of volunteers who perform many of the sacred functions of the

national secretary in bucks county. today they are 250 members strong. mr. fitzpatrick: among the group, those who fought to bring the national cemetery to its current location in bucks county. they worked tirelessly through the process to select a site and prove that there will always be a dedicated group of individuals willing and able to provide the necessary services to those who rest in this solemn place and their families. after the v.a. made the wise decision to locate the cemetery in bucks downy, the guardians immediately began the work they have become known for, organizing services on memorial and veterans day and placing wreaths on the graves of veterans. madam speaker, honoring the work of the guardians of the national cemetery is particularly fitting today, january 20, 2011, because today marks the one-year anniversary of the first veteran laid to rest at the washington

crossing national cemetery a place the guardians have helped make hallowed ground. tonight they will gatter to mark the occasion and pay tribute to the veterans laid to rest at the cemetery. i will be honored to be among them this evening. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> instead of focusing on creating new jobs and helping middle class families, our republican friends want to turn back the clock. we all know this week's vote to repeal and replace the health care reform was nothing but political fictions with no intentions of doing anything to improve the health care. mr. baca: it's just a smoke screen. the reality is that a repeal of reform will be bad for the economy and worse for the american family and businesses. in my district alone, repealing the health care reform

discriminates against 305,000 people who suffer from pre-existing conditions, i say from pre-existing conditions and 129 million nationwide. eit eliminates tax credits for 10,000 small businesses, kicks 5,000 junge adults off their parents' insurance plan, and 1.2 million nationwide. and it throws more than 5,000 seniors back into the doughnut hole of higher drug costs and 2.7 million nationwide. let's stand with the american family, say yes to more jobs and no to all efforts to repeal the health reform. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? >> i ask permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. wilson: yesterday, the house passed a bill to repeal the unconstitutional health care

takeover. i would like to congratulate my colleagues to voted in favor of the repeal of the job-killing health care act. the winning margin was new conservative members elected in november to truly promote expanded freedom. our work is not yet complete. today the house will be voting on true, real health care reform authored by chairman david dreier, reform that can make health care accessible, reform that will make health care affordable, reform that will not eliminate small businesses. i hope all members will work together for this kind of health care reform. the measure we'll be voting on today does not deprive senior citizens of care, will not create i don't think waiting lists for the sick, will not burden future generations of americans with massive debt. madam speaker, this is the kind of health care reform americans want to see. it's a solution for our families who need to preserve the doctor-patient relationship. in conclusion, god bless our troops and we'll never forget

september 11 and the global war on terrorism. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from kentucky rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> in the wake of the tragedy in tucson 10 days ago, there's been a lot of soul searching and a lot of commentary about what was behind the action there and what motivated jared louf for the to take the action loughner to do what he did. mr. yarmuth: it's easy to say it was just one madman, that's a cop-out. jared loughner did not attack the community college who threw him out, any of the employers who fired him or any of his family. he singled out an elected official of the united states government. one has to wonder whether all the talk in recent years about tyrannical government and the

demonization of politicians in some way guided that madman to her instead of another target. i think we need to not just write in off as a senseless tragedy and an inexplicable one but into it more deeply and decide whether the rhetoric out there in the media environment had something to do with the tragic event. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose duds the gentleman from california rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. dreier: let every nation know whether it wishes us well or ill, we shall support any friend, oppose any photoensure the survival and success of liberty. those are among the brilliant words that 50 years ago today were delivered by president john f. kennedy as he was inaugurated. in three hour, we are going to be marking that inaugural with a ceremony in the great rotunda. i think it's very important, madam speaker, as we do that, to

remember not only john f. kennedy's commitment to our nation's security, but to once again underscore his passionate commitment to our economic security by his implementation of pro-growth economic policies that were replicated 30 years ago today when ronald reagan was put into -- became president of the united states and pursued the same kinds of pro-growth policies that president john f. kennedy pursued. i hope very much, madam speaker, that we can learn from the lessons of both of these great presidencies. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from georgia rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. johnson: thank you, madam speaker. yesterday's action of repealing the health care reform cynically

called the job-killing health care act by my friends on the other side of the aisle, is definitely an ironic misnomer. job-killing. when the health reform was poised to -- or is poised to create four million new jobs. the number of jobs created by repeal, zero. so we're not about protecting jobs on the other side of the aisle. we are about protecting insurance companies. bottom line. and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from massachusetts rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman from massachusetts is recognized for one minute. >> i rise to celebrate the life of ashley turpin. ashley was respected by many people of every political

persuasion. she was a wonderful mother of three children and her depeth is especially difficult for those of us on capitol hill because we got to know her through her work as rosa delauro's chief of staff. mr. mcgovern: she was part of our family. she was a woman of great skill and personality. we also know her husband who worked on the hill for many years and served as chief of staff to the rules committee and currently workers in white house. i attended, along with hundreds and hundreds of others, ashley's memorial service last friday here in washington, d.c. those who eulogized her captured her spiriting her determination and her great compassion. she was a remarkable woman and will never be forgotten and our prayers are with dan and ashley's family. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? mr. dreier: pursuant to house resolution 26, i call up h.res. 9 and ask for its immediate consideration. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will port the title of the resolution. the clerk: house calendar number

one, house resolution 9, instructing certain committees to research legislation prere-placing the job-killing health care law. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to house resolution 26, the resolution is debatable for one hour equally divided between the chair and ranking member of the committee on rules or their designees. the amendment printed in part b of house report 112-2 is offered by the gentleman mr. matheson or his designee shall be considered read and shall be separately debatable for 10 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent. the chair recognizes the gentleman from california. . mr. dreier: i yield myself such time as i may consume. implementing health care reform is what we begin today. this resolution, h.res. 9, initialates the second step of a two-part process which as we all know with the vote last night

saw repeal of the health care bill. having taken that action to wipe the slate clean, we are now moving on to the far more challenging task of crafting real solutions for the american people to ensure that we can drive down the cost of health insurance and health care. this resolution instructs the four committees of jurisdiction to draft legislation that brings about meaningful health care reforms. furthermore, this resolution lays out 12 clear guidelines that deline what real reform is. some of these guidelines are simply commonsense principles such as the need for reform spending. if there is one overarching principle for reform is we cannot pick winners and losers.

real reform must be accessible to every american. if a family is forced to give up a health plan that is working for them, can we call that reform? if a small business must lay off employees to comply with new mandates, can we call that reform? if a doctor is forced to close her family practice because the cost of malpractice insurance is prohibitive, can we call that reform? if government bureaucrats make decisions that should be left to doctors and patients, can we call that reform, madam speaker? obviously not. our goal is to increase access to quality health care for every single american, including those with pre-existing conditions. h.res. 9 that we are going to be considering here today puts us on the path to do just that. as i said at the outset, this is a tremendous challenge.

achieving the goal of meaningful health care reform which we all share will demand an open and collaborative process. the four committees of jurisdiction have a great deal of work ahead of them. this is a process in which we all must contribute, democrats and republicans alike. we have good ideas that are coming from both sides of the aisle and i believe that they will be considered through this deliberative process. these ideas must be shared, analyzed, and debated. if we all participate in -- if we all participate in this open and transparent process, i believe that we can address the health care challenges that we face in an effective and meaningful way. ultimately we all hope to arrive at the same place. we all share the same goal. that is access, access to quality care for all.

that's what house republicans want a cheeve and that's what my democratic colleagues want to achieve as well. and that's what president obama wants to achieve. we all have our own views on how we get there. in this body alone we have 435 views on the best way to reform our health care system. we owe the american people nothing short of a rigorous and thorough debate. but if we conduct that debate in good faith, madam speaker, grounded in the recognition that we all hope to achieve the same outcome, i believe that we in a bipartisan way, democrats and republicans together, can come up with real solutions. now, we saw the day before yesterday that the president said that he is willing and eager to work with republicans on the issue of health care. that's the sentiment that i and i know my colleagues on this side of the aisle share

wholeheartedly. this resolution, h.res. 9, puts us on a path towards doing just that. it will begin this critically important process. so i hope very much that we'll have strong bipartisan support for this resolution and we'll say that we have an amendment that will be coming forward, a democratic amendment, that the rules committee has made in order. i'm happy to say will add to that list that our friend, mr. matheson, has provided, and i will also say that contrary to the argument that has been put out there, that we don't have solutions, there are a wide range of proposals that exist and we look forward to having this committee process vigorously pursue just that. with that, madam speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker. i yield myself four minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. mcgovern: i rise in very strong opposition to this resolution and very strong opposition to the very closed process in which we are discussing this resolution.

once again i am deeply disappointed that instead of working to create jobs and strengthening the economy, the new republican majority continues to focus on reopening old wounds and fighting old battles. the resolution before us today is allegedly the replace component of the republicans repeal and replace strategy. i say allegedly, madam speaker, because this resolution is not a serious legislative effort. it is a series of talking points. it is a press release. what this resolution does is ask the committees of jurisdiction to hopefully, maybe someday, if they would be so kind, to report legislation to the house that meets certain vage goals. -- vague goals. instead of repeal and replace, this is repeal and relax. trust the republicans to do the right thing. no thank you, madam speaker. yesterday this house voted without a single hearing or markup, without a single amendment to eliminate the

affordable care act in its entirety. the members who voted for that bill voted to return to the days when insurance companies could discriminate against people based on pre-existing conditions. they voted to eliminate the ban on annual and lifetime limits on care. they voted to eliminate the ability for young people to stay on their parents' insurance plan up to the age of 26. they voted to reopen the doughnut hole in medicare, basically they voted for a tax increase on senior citizens who need prescription drugs. they voted to eliminate tax credits for small businesses who want to do the right thing and provide health insurance for their workers. all of that, madam speaker, would have the force of law. all of that was done with real legislative language. but not the resolution before us today. instead of real language that would provide real benefits to real americans, this resolution is simply a collection of empty promises. and the ironic thing is that most of the provisions included

in the resolution were actually addressed in the affordable care act. according to this resolution, we should, quote, lower health care premiums through increased competition and choice. well, the affordable care act already does that. many of us argued for a public option which would have lowered premiums even further with increased competition and choice, but my republican friends didn't want to have anything to do with that. this resolution -- the resolution before us today says we should, quote, preserve our patient's ain't to keep his or her health plan if he or she likes it. well, the affordable care act already does that. increase the number of insured americans, well, we did that by 30 million people. protect the doctor-patient relationship, we did that, and so on and so on. on the critical issue of people with pre-existing conditions, however, it's interesting to see the language my republican friends use in this press release that they call a resolution. they say, they support, and i

quote, provide people with pre-existing conditions access to affordable health coverage, end quote. that sounds nice. but what we did in the affordable care act was to actually ban insurance companies from discriminating against those people. i'll be very interested to see how my republican friends handle that critical issue and how much influence the big insurance lobby has around here now that they are in charge. and the doughnut hole? the resolution absolutely silent on the doughnut hole. madam speaker, health care is a vital importance to every single american. it is a big deal. and to treat health i shurens reform as just another -- insurance reform as just another opportunity for happy talk and wishful thinking is not the way to do business in the people's house. i urge my colleagues to reject this resolution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, i yield myself 15 seconds and i do so to say to my friend that i appreciate his very consill

torrey -- conciliatory remarks. everyone has acknowledged this is flawed. we have had the courts already throw the mandate out. we need to deal with the problem even before this measure is being implemented. so it seems to me -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. dreier: we proceed with this work. with that i'm happy to yield two minutes to a hardworking member of our rules committee, the gentleman from lawrenceville, georgia, mr. woodall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from georgia is recognized for two minutes. mr. woodall: thank you, mr. chairman. madam speaker. i have been a member of this body for two weeks and two days and i could not be prouder to be on the house floor today in support of the chairman's resolution. for the entire last year in my district, we have been focus the on one thing and one thing only, since march of 2010, and that is the repeal of the president's health care bill. before march of 2010, my district cared about health

care reform. we talked about tort reform. we talked about putting patients back in charge of decisions. we talked about ending the tax preference businesses get so we can purchase insurance on our own and own those policies. but the moment this bill was signed into law, the moment the president's bill was sign into law, that discussion stopped. and the repeal discussion began. and with the repeal yesterday, we now begin anew the discussion of how properly to reform the system. i'm anxious to have that discussion. we learned a lot in our time in the minority. one of those things we learned is that bringing simple straightforward resolutions to the floor is better for the process, better for the american people. the speaker's made that commitment. we continue that commitment today with these instructions to go back to the drawing board and bring things forward one at a time. i sat through 10 hours of hearings in the rules committee where folks came forward and said, go ahead and repeal the bill but save this one

provision. let's have this one provision. keep this other one provision. we now have that opportunity. we have now repealed the bill here in the house and we have the opportunity to bring those provisions forward one by one. i'll tell you what. i'm not going to like those provisions. some will pass the house. and that's the way it ought to be. you shouldn't have a one-size-fits all take it or leave it kind of system. you ought to be able to have that discussion on both sides of the aisle. and i have no doubt that provisions are going to come forward from our committee that i'm going to vote no on, but my colleagues on the left and right are both going to vote yes on and it's going to pass. that's the way the process ought to be. one provision at a time. one idea at a time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. mr. woodall: insurance reform. putting patients back in charge of those decisions. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern:00 madam speaker -- mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i

yield myself 15 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. mcgovern: madam speaker, i think our objection is not with the idea of having a serious debate on these issues. there are areas we can come together and hopefully make this bill better. our objection is the fact my friends on the other side voted to repeal everything. voted to allow insurance companies to once again discriminate against people with pre-existing conditions. i yield 15 seconds. they voted to take away the been fit for senior citizens that we put in there to help try to close the doughnut hole in the prescription drug bill. and what do they do in terms of replacing it? they come not with an alternative a press release. that's not serious legislating. that's politics as usual. madam speaker, i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. pallone. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey is recognized for two minutes. mr. pallone: thank you, madam speaker. i'm amazed, i listened to the gentleman from georgia who just spoke, and he said that in his district all of the focus is on health care and health care repeal. i don't know, when i go home

all i hear in my district is jobs and the economy. people are concerned about the economy. they wanted us to create jobs. they want us to focus mostly on that issue. not on repeal of health care. the other problem i have with the gentleman from georgia's comments is because he seems to think because the house passed this repeal yesterday that the health reform is repealed. let me tell everyone, it's not. and this is just a ruse. this bill -- this health reform wasn't repealed. the senate isn't even going to take it up. the president has said he would never sign a repeal bill. so the republicans are just wasting their time rather than focusing on what we should be focusing on is the jobs and economy. they keep talking about this false repeal that is never going to happen. now, i also wanted to say something about what mr. dreier said before. he talked about increasing access, increased choices. that's not what goes on if this bill was ever repealed. the choices now for people who have pre-existing conditions, they can't get insurance.

they can't -- they have to pay more if they try to get it. or the kids on the policies that would be taken off if we have repeal, or the people that would again face lifetime caps. you don't have choices under the old system because you were denied care through the insurance companies' discrimination. the only way you have choice and access is under the health reform that this house and this country put into law where you're guaranteed you get insurance even if you have a pre-existing qun. you don't have to worry about lifetime caps. you can put your kids on the policies. don't talk to me about choices and access. people don't have choices and access with those discriminatory policies that would be put back in place by the insurance companies as they continue to raise premiums, more and more people will not have access to health care and have access to health insurance. the only way you have access and choices is if we keep the health reform in place. . the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'm pleased to yield two minutes to the dean of our delegation, mr. lewis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. lewis: i appreciate my colleague yielding, and madam speaker, i think the entire public knows that america has had in place, for a long time, one of the finest health care delivery systems in the world. it's the envy of many. that's not to say it's perfect. that's not to say we don't have major challenges, like pre-existing conditions and questions of portability. but indeed if the people who put in place a health care plan last year had their way, they would have taken the next step, to have a centralized, government-run health care system. that's the pattern of their future. at this moment, great britain, which has had such a thing in place for some time is attempting to back off their system and have more relationships between physicians and their patients. indeed, they're doing that because their system does not work.

it's very important that we not allow the former majority to take their next step, that is, to have government-run health care and with that, yesterday we passed a repeal that will take us to conference with the senate and in turn, today, we're beginning the process of examine re-examining where we have been to make certain we put in place health care that is positive for all americans, not health care run by the i.r.s. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. >> i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. andrews: thank you, madam speaker. i thank my friend from massachusetts, well, we could have a bill on the floor today that expands fair trade for american companies, but we don't. we could have a bill on the floor today that finds ways to stop sending a billion dollars to the middle east to buy oil every day and instead create jobs producing energy in

america. but we don't. we could have a bill on the floor today talking about ways to regenerate our real estate market and get people buying and selling houses again. but we don't. what we have is an empty promise. that someday, somehow, the new majority will come to our floor with a bill that will fix the health care problem. and i quote, instead of focusing on new health care mandates that will increase costs and employers and swell the ranks of the uninsured, senate democrats should focus on providing access to health insurance for the 39 million americans who remain without health coverage. this should be our first priority. i'm quoting from speaker john boehner. he said this on june 18, 2002. so at a time when the republicans had a majority in this house, a president in the white house, and for most of the

time, the majority in the senate, their first priority, which was to deal with the health care problem, they didn't do. that's the standard against which we should measure today's promise. doesn't leave for much -- doesn't leave room for much optimism. i would say instead of focusing on yet another empty promise, let's focus on putting americans back to work. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. dreier: everyone has acknowledged that the legislation that has passed is flawed. everyone has acknowledged that. the president of the united states, when he said that the 1099 issue imposing mandates on small businesses, needed to be rectified, in his first news conference after the election, recognized there are problems. we had, day before yesterday, the distinguished assistant majority leader, the former majority whip, mr. clyburn say, he believes republicans and democrats should work together

to improve this bill. we've already had a federal court determine it is unconstitutional to impose this mandate. madam speaker, we need to work together to resolve the very, very great challenges that we have ahead of us. with that, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from texas, mr. doggett. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. doggett: with last year's important health insurance reform law, we provided real guarantees to american families against insurance monopoly abuses. today, republicans tell these families, forget the binding guarantees. we have 12 platitudes for you. this isn't a republican prescription, this is a placebo and for the american middle class, it's a very bitter pill indeed. yesterday, house republicans in a remarkable measure, with one vote, decided to increase the national debt, reduce the

solvency of the medicare trust fund, raise insurance premiums and charge seniors more for their health care. during the last 12 years that these republicans were in charge, six of them with near total come domination of government here in washington under the bush-cheney administration, they failed to enact one of these 12 platitudes in this flimsy, two-page excuse of a bill. 12 health care platitudes, missing in inaction for 12 years. they're broad platitudes that propose something they apparently kept hidden under a bushel for the last 16 years and now will unveil. i think it'll just be the same old tired rejected, retread, republican proposals to get more -- give more income tax breaks to those at the top and if you believe they've got something new to offer to genuinely reform the health care system in a way that will help middle class

americans instead of health insurance monopolies, i think you'll want to buy some of that republican ice cream that helps you lose weight. our families don't need republican platitudes they need real help. i think the tea party types are right about one thing. there are dangers from soaring debts, dangers they forgot for a decade. there are dangers from big government. but you know, that's not the only threat our families face. they face threats from big banks. from big insurance monopolies. do you have another minute or half a minute? mr. mcgovern: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for an additional minute. mr. doggett: our families face challenges from big pharmaceutical companies that charge more than any place in the world from the giant insurance monopolies and sometimes our families need government to come down on our side because otherwise those giant economic forces will take advantage of our families. by writing out the very

protection the sick and injured need the most, protection they write into the fine print of an insurance policy that no ordinary person can understand, where they are told that they're not covered anymore. that they have a pre-existing condition. that you have reached your policy limits and cannot get the care that your doctor says is vital to sustain your life. that this policy just doesn't cover sick people or that it can be rescinded. i say we need to provide people genuine protection. that's what we did last year. that's what they want to eliminate this year. let's side on the side of the people, not the 12 republican platitudes to benefit the insurance monopoly. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, with that, i'm happy to yield one minute to one of the hardworking members of this brand new class that's come in carrying a strong message, the gentleman from

columbus, ohio, mr. stivers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. stivers: thank you, madam speaker. i thank the gentleman for yielding. i voted for the repeal of health care bill yesterday because i think doing otherwise would have been supporting the status quo and that's unacceptable. i believe there are some good ideas that were in the original health care bill that can be used and improved but, you know, some of those ideas are in h.res. 9 today. that instructs the committees on next steps on health care. however, there is one idea that i think we need to be -- need to add to that list. i think we need to add the allowing of young folks to stay on their parents' insurance to h.res. 9. in this tough economy, many students are unable to find jobs right out of school. as a member of the state senate, i sponsored a bill that would allow those up to age 30 to stay on their parents' plan and i just heard from a constituent

whose 23-year-old son justin is back on his parents' insurance. moving forward, i'm committed to working with my colleagues in a bipartisan manner to support reforms we agree on like allowing young adults to stay on their parents' plan. this was included in the republican alternative last year and should be included in the replacement bill this year. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i want to thank the gentleman for his comments in recognizing the fact that the provision that allows children -- parents to keep their children on their insurance is a good idea but he voted yesterday along with all the republicans to take that away. this press release they're now saying is a bill on the house floor doesn't address that issue. i wish the gentleman would have actually voted the way he -- with his convictions yesterday and voted against repeal. because what he did, if this bill becomes law, will take no i will -- it will deny parents to be able to keep their their kids

on their insurance until they're 26. i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from florida, ms. wasserman schultz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for two minutes. ms. wasserman schultz: i rise to oppose the republican cynical attempts to replace the health care reform law. yesterday's decision to repeal the affordable care act was dangerous to the american people, but today's actions to tout these provisions as republican ideas, is baffling. this these were the republicans' priorities, they would have left the affordable care act intact because all these provisions exist in the current law. if we all agree on the importance of keeping young adults on their parent's insurance, prohibiting insurance companies from dropping coverage for the sick and strengthening medicare this spectacle is a colossal waste of time we don't have. if they want to guarantee consume brother texts for the american people, they would not stage partisan antics.

even when republicans had control of the entire government for six year, they did nothing to reform our nation's health care system. and during that time, premiums skyrocketed, the number of uninsured americans grew to 47 million and those with insurance saw their benefits decimated. of course it would have been great to have the republicans as willing partners in the last two years as we work hard to pass the patient protection and affordable care act. no i will not yield. unfortunately, they insisted on being the party of no. even as we incorporated so many of their party's ideas into the law. rather than roll back the hard fought consumer protections and freedoms that unshackles americans from the whims of private insurance companies, as former republican senate majority leader bill frist said, republicans should be working with us to build on and improve the health care system. not to mention every potential minute spent in committee focusing on redundant legislation is another minute wire not spending working to get

out of this recession. unfortunately, the republican majority's hasty vote to repeal the affordable care act failed on all such counts. the american people deserved and got real reform. this vague resolution stating so-called republican principles on health care reform is like giving the american people a wish sandwich. there's nothing between the bread but we wish there was. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's -- gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: the fact of the matter stherk republicans sent associated health plans to make sure small businesses could drive the cost of health insurance down to the senate and our friends in the other party killed that measure. we put in place access for affordable prescription drugs so we have worked dill jebtly to make this happy. i'm mape to yield a minute to my good friend from fort myers florida, mr. mack. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one

minute. mr. mack: i thank you, madam speaker. yesterday was a great day for democracy and freedom in this country. yesterday, the republican-led congress voted to repeal a health care law that was passed by the democrats that would mandate, that would force people to buy something, even if they didn't want to. it's unconstitutional, it's un-american, it is not what this country stands for. now we're hearing a lot of our colleagues on the other side talk about how we want to strip away this and we want to strip away that and we're playing games and this resolution is a game. let me remind you that it was -- the president of the united states in his state of the union talked about tort reform, which was not included in obamacare. we intend to include tort reform in the next -- in this congress. we also believe that association health plans are very important to ensure that more people have

access to health care, something your side of the aisle failed to do. there is real ways to do common sense reforms. it is not by having government mandate what you have to buy as a citizen of this country, it is unconstitutional, it is un-american, thank you. . the speaker pro tempore: members are advised to address their comments to the chair and not members within the -- in the second person. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: thank you, madam speaker, for maybe taining decorum in the house. at this time i yield two minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. weiner. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new york is recognized. mr. weiner: madam speaker, we are seeing today that after 75 or so hours of markup, hundreds of hours of hearings, 16 months of long debate, thousands upon thousands of meetings and town halls the republicans come to washington and don't know what they want to do in health care yet.

my constituents should understand and the speaker should understand that this resolution says go back and figure out what we want to do. ladies and gentlemen, i would remind you that last year during the health care debate the republicans had a chance to offer an alternative, they didn't. now they come to washington and say, oh, let's have the committees try to figure this all out. yesterday they were the party of no and today they are the party of we don't know how to go. who are these republicans? after months and months and months of the national debate, you can go into any coffee shop, any church basement, just about any card game in this country and people have solid ideas about what they think about health care, but not the republicans. they've got a resolution today that says, hey, committees, go try to figure this stuff out. it's complicated. by the way, i don't know, madam speaker, if i read it correctly, i don't think there are any deadlines. i don't think there are any deadlines. i will eat this rostrum if they

come back with legislation that actually accomplishes the things that they just repealed yesterday. it's not going to happen. ands in the fundamental problem that i believe -- and this is the fundamental problem that i believe the majority party now has. they have the campaign slogans all down. i heard the gentleman from florida do one. unconstitutional. they have the campaign slogans, and i got to give them credit, they were successful with them. they came here we are against, against, against. now here it is. unlike past congresses come up geared up for the things they want to do, they are geared up with a resolution saying, hey, go figure out what it is we should do. the american people deserve a lot better than this. they deserve comprehensive health care that saves them money. that's what was repealed yesterday. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i yield myself 15 seconds to say to my friend from new york it's very interesting that the president of the united states the day before yesterday said that he was willing and eager to work with republicans to ensure that we rectify this flawed bill.

the distinguished assistant majority leader, the former majority whip, mr. clyburn, said he's willing to work with republicans in a bipartisan way to address this. with that, madam speaker, i yield one minute to my good friend from allentown, pennsylvania, mr. dent. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized for a minute. mr. dent: yesterday the house voted to repeal the misguided health care law of 2010 which is seriously flawed both in its structure and practical implementation. i keep hearing discussion about the affordable care act. if one believes the affordable care act will not add to the deficit, i think one is apt to believe just about anything. today we have the opportunity to direct to the committees to produce practical and effective reforms. i urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this resolution and commit to working together to enact meaningful reforms that will lower health care costs, expand access to affordable insurance coverage, and foster economic growth and jobs. the current law is simply unwise and unsustainable. i believe we must replace the

misguided policies of the current law, reforms that will address rising health care costs, specifically i support medical liability reforms to reduce the practice of defensive medicine. i believe congress must provide americans with more options for affordable health coverage such as low cost catastrophic plans for individuals, patient centered health care savings account. cross state purchasing, and effective high-risk pools. i urge my colleagues to support this resolution and let's get on with this today. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: 10 seconds to the gentleman from new york. mr. weiner: i want to respond to the distinguished chairman. the president did not say anything about thistardly flawed bill. he said we should implement and improve. that's the way we build important legislation. he didn't say look forward to republicans -- mr. dreier: would the gentleman yield five seconds?

madam speaker, let me just say to my friend that the president did say that he is willing and eager to work with republicans to rectify the problems that are here. right after the election he said he wanted to correct the 1099 -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. members will suspend. who yields time? the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: i yield two minutes to the gentlewoman from maryland, ms. edwards. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from maryland is recognized tore two minutes. ms. edwards: thank you, madam speaker. i'm actually disappointed i'm standing on the floor of the house of representatives today yet again defending and protecting the rights of the american people to health care. it's such a shame that yesterday and the day before for seven hours our members on the other side spent their time deciding for the american people to take away the ability of parents to provide health

care for their young people up to age 26. they spent seven hours other than finding jobs, trying to make sure that small businesses who are providing health care don't get a tax credit anymore for the health care that they are providing for their employees. they spent seven hours trying to strip away the ability of our seniors to make sure that they don't have to reach into their own pocket, deeper pockets, not deep anymore, to pay for prescription drugs. yesterday they spent seven hours a and the day before debating whether it's a good idea for insurance companies to be able to deny people health care for pre-existing conditions when they know that at least 129 million of us, 65 or so percent of us, have pre-existing medical conditions. it's disappointing here we are yet again where the republicans say we took it all away in one day. and now we are going to think about some of it that we might

replace again. well, we have created a health care law for the american people that's about affordability and accessibility. i know that the democrats are going to stand on the side with the president and implement the law. thank goodness for the american people, they should know that the republicans didn't do anything yesterday other than put a whole bunch of stuff on a piece of paper that has no chance of going anywhere. the paper is not even worth the ink that's printed on it. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: thank you very much, madam speaker. the native of the show me state, i'm pleased to yield to my friend from st. elizabeth, missouri, one minute, mr. luetkemeyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. luetkemeyer: i'm proud in support of this resolution. a bill that would help committees and our country back into the right direction. it will entail more than tweaking the law, it means replacing the health care bill

real reform. last august 71% of missourians went to the poll and said no. as i go about my district and talk to my employers, they tell me instead of premiums going down they have gone up 25% to 40%. instead of improving access to care we actually have doctors retiring in record numbers. true reform should be passing significant laws through reforms so doctors can perform their jobs ever taking their of their patient. i also support increasing access to insurance by allowing small business to pool together to get the best plan for the employees. all along republicans have offered a commonsense approach to approving our health care system in a way that controls costs and provides the quality of care that americans deserve. today's vote is important in realizing that goal. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: could i inquire how much time remains? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from massachusetts has 12 1/4 minute remaining.

the gentleman from california has 16 1/4 minute. mr. mcgovern: we reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: at this time i'm happy to yield to one of the other new members who come with a very strong message here, she's a nurse and she's from tennessee, two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from tennessee is recognized for two minutes. mrs. black: i thank the gentleman for yielding. madam speaker, i rise on behalf of the people of middle, tennessee, who spoke loud and clear this last year that they do not want the federal government dictating their health care. the plan that was signed into law by the president was supposed to increase access health care and lower costs for american families. however in the months since the bill passed it has been shown to do neither. we now know that the health care bill not only increases premiums for families, but hinders job creation and is filled with unintended consequences that not only

diminishes the quality of our health care system but also do great damage to our economy and increase our deficit. this new congress was sent here to follow a more responsible path. through commonsense, market-based solutions we can replace a flawed health care bill to have the best health care system in the world. i'm eager to take part in drafting the new republican plan and focusing on rolling back the individual mandate, eliminating the onerous demands on small businesses, and actually lowering the costs for families and increasing access to quality, personalized health care. i also look forward to a thoughtful discussion that includes solutions that went ignored before like tort reform, increasing competition, and tax breaks instead of tax hikes. as a nurse for over 40 years, my top priority will be making sure our plan honors the doctor-patient relationship that is so sacred in medicine

because there is no place for a government bureaucrat in an individual's health care decision. as a member of ways and means committee, i am excited to work with chairman dave camp and my fellow committee members on a new way to forward responsible health care reform. let's do the work that the american people sent us here to do. madam speaker, i yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. gentleman from massachusetts. mr. mcgovern: we continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: madam speaker, may i inquire of my friend if he has any further speakers on his side? mr. mcgovern: we do have further speakers. but there is a time discrepancy. we'll let you catch up. mr. dreier: let me say we don't have other speakers here yet. we are others on the way over to the floor. so i'd like to reserve the balance of my time. i understand the disparity that exists in the timing, but -- i can talk for all that period of time but i don't want to have the gentleman suffer through that. mr. mcgovern: i'm happy to

suffer through it if you use your time. at this time, mr. speaker, i'd like to yield two minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california, mr. garamendi, is recognized for two minutes. mr. garamendi: madam speaker, as i'm sitting here listening to this, i'm thinking this must be something like "alice in wonderland." this is the most bizarre debate i have heard in a long time. we need jobs. we need to be focusing on the american economy. this particular resolution has no sense of reality. i have heard debates here and discussions on the floor about association health plans. i know about association health plans. i was the insurance commissioner for eight years in california having to deal with these noninsurance programs that let hundreds indeed thousands of people holding the bag when the association health plans went belly up. it doesn't make any sense. california's had tort reform

for 30 years. we have in the law today in america a protection for every individual in america from the onerous hands of the insurance companies that have continued over the years to deny benefits, to make the doctor decisions, and to literally put people's lives at risk. it's called the patient's bill of rights. it's the law in the land. and our republican colleagues want to repeal that? we have a law that's in place. it should be implemented. the cost issues that have been discussed here on the floor are really a discussion about what has taken place in the past. the law has yet to be implemented with regard to cost containment. the oversight of the insurance companies. all of those things are in the days ahead and a market system is available with the exchanges. you want to talk about market, that's how you get there with exchanges.

replace, repeal, how bizarre is that? americans have a protection. yesterday our republican colleagues voted to remove their protections. they caved to the insurance companies once again the power to regulate their lives. we cannot allow that to happen. this step today is just "alice in wonderland." i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. dreier: i'd like to ask unanimous consent that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on h.res. 9, and i'd also like to ask unanimous consent that my distinguished vice chairman of the committee on rules, mr. sessions, be able to insert a statement in the record at this point. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. dreier: i'd like to yield one minute to my hardworking colleague from lincoln, nebraska, mr. fortenberry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for one minute. mr. fortenberry: i thank the gentleman for the time. madam speaker, health care reform, the right type of reform, the right type of reform, is important to