the cbo analysis and other outside analysis, mr. president, has really revealed something very important that the plan as propounded by the administration and the democrats is unsustainably expensive and one fed did not have a way of paying for it. it'd be very interesting to see how they tailor their plan to the expenses and how they address the issue of how to pay for it. clearly raising taxes is an option they are considering. i don't think raising anybody taxes in the present-day economy is something that would be beneficial to all americans. mr. president i suggest the absence of a quorum. >> the best way to ease the pressure and burden of health-care it is easy to becomes sidetracked by distractions are easy to point* fingers but when we do those we lose sight what is at the heart of the effort and the reform. take a moment at this end of the week with this is all about the health-care debate. there are two of tank casualties of the health-care system the americans deserve better to be casualties of misleading politics. for mi

so cbo has already spoken on title 2.what they raise as a flashing light, yellow light was the coverage. so you're going ask cbo to do the same thing that they did a view of. >> but that, as senator knows, a little bit at the margins are of the implications of what they said because they said there was no direct spending in title 2. it is an authorizing events which create discretionary spending potential. because we pursue that, we should know whether or not it's going to return the savings that are represented it well. you're not going to be able to know that unless you have cbo or gao look and give us a score on whether that's going to occur. it is a bit off the mark to say they didn't score it as costing anything because it was an authorizing event. as we know authorizing events lead to appropriations -- >> senator bingaman. i was going to comment. i think the amendment assumes that the ga omt or cbo can know more than they actually claim to be able to know. we have this letter that doug endorsed, the director wrote t

another letter from cbo said yesterday in response to congressman kemp request cbo also expressed doubt about industry stakeholders at the behest of the white house to help hold down health care spending. in that letter mr. elmendorf states and by quote the industry leaders attention to the schools and agreement that significant savings can be obtained are no doubt welcome. however, most of the proposals are steps that do not require the involvement of the federal government or are not specified at a level of detail that would enable cbo to estimate a budgetary savings. in other words $2 trillion may not be there is what cbo is saying. instead of saving $2 trillion savings proposals offered by the health care group might actually end up increasing the cost of health care. i think as we go through this we should adopt one consensus position. do no harm. and in fact cbo raced serious issues lot about what we are doing but about what the white house was able to get in commitments from those in the private sector about changes they could make. now mr. chairman, the president has included in

it is not scored by the cbo, because that is not what cbo does in all honesty. there is that focus here on just what the each individual sections did. there is frustration from earlier with independent pieces of legislation. >> we come to the money that is proposed, is -- is that of the do with the cbo's not scoring that? >> i do not think that is what he said. i hope nobody took that as what he intended. that is not the direction that he was moving. >> going back to honduras and iran, you said you are pro- honduras that way because you want to address rumors and we are not involved. that is exactly the situation in iran. condors yet taken a very strong position on -- condor is, you have taken a very strong position. >> as a penny -- i appreciate this, as opinionated as it may be. i do not think the president is weak on iran. maybe henry kissinger's and others can address this. >> use of the position is that -- but when it came to a rian, you'll make take position. >> i think that everybody recognizes the democratic process that has happened in honduras. i do no

while we have a cbo report that says, no. in fact, when this bill is in its highest period of activity, there will still be 40 million people uncovered. the reduction in uninsured, it takes up 16 million people of the 47 million who are on coverage today, so it doesn't accomplish that goal. we know in the uninsured community that that's not a hom jennous community. we know of the 47 million people who are uncovered today about 20 million are high-income individuals, reasonably high-income individuals who come under $75,000 who choose as a choice of lifestyle not to spend discretionary dollars if you call it that, but rather choose to do something else with those dollars and maybe get a better education and buy a home or take a vacation. i don't know, but they could afford it. of the 47 million who aren't covered, 20 million theoretically could be covered if you set up a system which pushed them toward dissipating an insurance, but this bill doesn't do that. secondly, we know that in that -- of the remaining 27 million who are

to now, the score is numbers from cbo and joint tax. the numbers we got from cbo, we could not get to joint tax in time last evening and they have not scored it, so i will not ask us to deal with that section even though senator gregg and others may want to make comments about that section generally. there are 17 amendments we have agreed to already in the section. i commend the staff and others who have worked to reach an agreement on the amendments. so we have to come back to the section. regretfully, i had hoped to complete that but as i promised earlier i will not ask the colleagues to vote on a section that we didn't have the scoring for this morning. the cbo says that the section saves us that we have written so far, $59 billion over ten years, and now whether or not joint tax will agree with that number, i cannot say yet, but indications are early on we have some savings in that section. so there has been tremendous progress here. i know that we have had@@@@n%@ biologics, and as well for lack of a better description, the public o

cbo projection i guess that is. i would say that that picture's concerning not only because of the level but because of the fact it continues to rise. sustain ability means there are countries that have 80 pez or 100% debt-to-gdp ratios, i'm not recommending that. clearly you can't have a debt-to-gdp level that continues to rise indefinitely. it's very important that we have now, or very soon, a plan to stabilize at least the debt-to-gdp ratio so it doesn't go into a continued increase, which because of interest payments would make sort of a vicious circle going forward. >> i've seen one analysis that clearly to keep the debt at today's level, 41% of gdp, that either, number one, you're going to have to monetize the debt and essentially inflate the money f supply 100% or tax increases across the board, in the neighborhood of 60%, would be necessary to balance the budget in ten years. has the federal reserve done its own calculations? does this seem to be an accurate analysis? >> we haven't done that particular analy

with the president was expressing was -- look, we are going to follow obviously what cbo, how cbo scores health care legislation. i think the frustration is less with how they scored the bills then just simply the notion that the mission and the job that cbo has in this instance is simply to look at and evaluate some of what that legislation does rather than some of the game changes in terms of a going forward cost. some of this stuff is not obviously taken into broader account of what it can do to help families, lower health-care costs. that is all he was expressing was simply just that there is a broadness to what we are trying to do on health care policy and that is not scored by cbo because in all honesty that is not what cbo does. rather there is that focus here on just what each individual reports said even though i think there was some frustration that you are looking at earlier incomplete pieces of legislation. >> they are concerned when you come to the 600 billion in medicare savings that the president has proposed, is there a concern that his comments are interpreted as a there

i think apparently the cbo has, in effect, stated the obvious.re's simply not enough health care bang for our buck. finally, my worry is that this bill will increase government control over health care and will cause health care to be rationed, especially for our seniors. i went keown to the senate floor to express my discontent with a process, made a wonderfulful speech. i think probably senator harkin heard it and that's why he's leaving. and i expressed my discontent with the process, the cost and substance of this bill. marvelous speech. i know that i am not alone in this sentiment as the american people it seems to me start to realize what is actually in this legislation, despite the goal so eloquently put by me colleagues to my left. and you're right. on process, my republican colleagues and i recently made very reasonable requests from the chairman and finance committees as well as senator dodd who has done a very good job in serving in senator kennedy's absence. these requests appeared in a letter, my letter, i wrote it, which every repub

that says more about cbo than the reality of prevention and even cdl admits that. they say there really is substantial savings that can be achieved through health-care reform that is hard for them to quantify because we've done to win this fight and can't just lay out a hand in have to happen automatically but it is a fi we have to the airport and we never started will never get those savings on i respectfully take a different view than my colleague him and senator mccain. >> thank you mr. chairman and again i want to apply their patience and your courtesy that you have continued to extend to us recalcitrance on this side. >> i won't put that to a vote but i appreciate it. >> i do thank you, you have been more than generous with your time and allowing us to express our views but i would also like this to ask the chairman first of law and tristan from media reports that you submitted to cbo cost request estimate of three options for employer mandates. will you share those options with this side? >> absolutely. >> you have submitted for cbo estimate? wamp we would be

the cbo estimates of what the obama budget will do to this country is very striking. is as clear on a path to a debt spiral that will lead to a crises in the currency and the national bankruptcy and that healthcare bill is a tipping point* in the wrong direction for that pass. so one of the things i wanted to do for those who are not connoisseurs' is talk about what the congressional budget office does. the answer is these estimates of 1.6 trillion dollars, for the senate finance bill, $1 trillion, for the first title health bill without touching the rest of it, these are business as usual for the cbo. good job, the price of federal budget and tax legislation by the congress in during that there is things that the cbo due does. number one is gore's actual legislation and not ideas it goes with a fantasy what could happen to what will happen if we do what is written in the proposals. second, it considers all of the potential effects on the bridge is spending, taxes and in direct spending what happens to the 16 of the u.s. economy with that is the healthcare sector when

you can't get cbo numbers unless you have language. it makes the question one that people raise and that is the obvious one. if i can't answer that question then obviously -- you put on language and you can't run the numbers. we're trying to accommodate that and simultaneously recognize that despite the committee rules of 24 hours or so in a normal process of the bill, that's very difficult to do, so i want to accommodate members as senator byrd has raised to give adequate time next week for people to respond, john, to whatever the product is we put out so you can have amendments ready if you're not happy with the product that we put out with the cbo numbers that have been provided. >> let me just add with the comment, even with the 12:00 accommodation, i can't get here. the airline schedule, i have no effect over, and i've been cut out. i understand we can't all make it, but let me just make this plea. if the legislation is not released to us today or at some point over the weekend where we can actually read it, i'm not sure that havi

he said we have the same problem as cbo for the last eight years. the meeting will stand adjourned until tomorrow morning and i thank my colleagues. thanks mike. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] >> how is c-span funded? >> through dalmations? >> i think you get a little bit from the federal government? >> grants and things like that. >> may be from sponsors? >> we might get government funding. >> viewers? >> how is c-span funded? america's cable companies created c-span is a public service. a private business initiative, no government mandate, no government money. >> monday's state department briefing included questions about iran, china and north korea. it is a half-hour. >> good afternoon. i think as many of you have heard, the secretary on doctors' advice decided not to travel for the g8 foreign ministers meeting, and the osc meeting. is deputy secretaries feinberg said, just a few minutes ago, he will go for the osc meeting which is the back in of the trip and undersecretary burns "represent us at the g8 foreign minister meeti

only that to get numbers from cbo but also joint tax. the numbers we got from cbo we cannot get the joint tax and they have not scored it and so will not ask us to do that although senator gregg want to make comments about the session generally. there are 17 eminence we have agreed to and i commend the staff to have work to reach an agreement on those amendments and so will have to go back to the session. again as i promised earlier will not ask colleagues to support a vote on a section we did not have the scoring for. this morning the cbo says the sections saves us that we have written $59 billion over 10 years. whether joint tax will agree i can say yet but at least indications early on we have some savings in that section. so there has been tremendous progress here. i know we have had a some eight or nine markup sessions already over the last two weeks and our intention would be two have language to our colleagues on remaining sections we would not brand language for by the very first of the week on the pay or play ball on biologics a

and of course there is the issue of what the bill costs that cbo makes clear is not clear. so the bill is not right right. major sections are missing, costs can't be analyzed, implications haven't been fought out, and i think we are premature to move forward at this time but if we are going to move forward you have to presume at least on our side we are going to go back to the three principals and push those principles which is as the bill moves forward it should cover all americans. it showed increase quality, protect choice of americans and it should not create a government plan which puts the government between you and your doctor and creates delay and rationing. and it has to lead to the controlling the cost of health care in the out years. >> thank you, senator. senator mikulski. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. well, this bill has just been accused of being somewhere another combination between goldberg and karl marx. however, our current system is a combination of adam smith, darth vader and the invasion of the body snatchers. [laughter] i like our plan better.

i think there is some frustration in the notion that -- the cbo has a defined mission. some agreements in the savings that are being padilla here are not -- are being put together here are not "scorable." i think the president mentioned that. but we will abide by the cbo. >> deal have reaction all -- do you have reaction at all about the remarks about the president? do they see him as relevant at all? or are they more concerned about the relationship with the supreme leader? >> the president has said for more than a week and half that there are people in iran want to make this not about a debate among iranians in iran, but about the u.s. and the west. you can name ahmadinejad as among the list of people who want to make this about the united states. obviously, the person who has the authority to make decisions over national security and foreign policy, the primary national interest that we hold, the nuclear weapons program, the support and sponsorship of terror -- >> with immigration reform, in terms of getting everybody to talk about what you agree on or where you disa

we can't have cogent amendments unless we have a score on cbo about what the amendments are going to do. so two days to accomplish all that i think is maybe -- i know it's what you want to do, but i think it's going to be very difficult to do. >> do you want to take a minute or so and just talk briefly about the amendment? >> i want to speak on procedure. >> yeah. >> this is a huge bill and it's being rushed on an head-long rate and on anything that's substantive, the votes have been extremely one-sided. and key elements of this bill are blank. and even language which we received that you sent to cbo has not viability to it as to what it means. it's all so vague. and the thought that we're going to come back here and mark up something this mass i in two days that deals with government plan and employer mandates and potentially follow-on biologics, without even knowing what it's all about is becoming a game of hide the ball it seems to me. you know, clearly when senator mccain yesterday asked for some specifics on what you sent over to cbo to be scored i would have thought we would ha

and stuff ourselves as legislators and i wonder -- >> maybe some of the frustration is the fact cbo is looking at older proposals or half measures. i think that the christoff legislation of originally scored was not a final product. i don't think that there were savings mechanisms about building the cost of health care. but look, the president as i said clearly today, the president is going to look for health care reform that is paid for. >> by the congressional budget office? >> unless and until somebody comes up with something different. >> on north korea under the sanctions, and the member nations that wishes to enforce the the the tracking of a suspect vessel or its inspection or shepherding the vessel to the port must obtain a commission from its own government at the political and military level, that is the language within 1874. has the president asked for permission for the u.s. navy to board -- >> not that i'm aware of. >> okay, and is their anything about the cargo on the vessel that leads you to believe the request is likely to come? >> i don't want to get into that sort

guest: i am familiar with the cbo numbers. orrin hatch put out the numbers from the cbo that was released yesterday, that the senate health committee bill would cost more than $1 trillion. that is a number that we are going to see i think repeated and thrown around a lot today and in the next few days because republicans have been saying for a while now that we do not know what the president is trying to do. he is trying to spend too much money and will he accomplish his goals. i think you will hear from democrats that this was a -- that the cbo look at the kennedy bill but there were missing parts of it. it does not look at the bill as a whole, it misses some parts of the health reform program, a public insurance plan that will change the final calculations. it also left out how much medicaid expansion will cost, and that will add a couple of hundred million dollars to the bottom line. there are a couple of other measures that the present -- that kennedy's staff says that will be taken off insurance rolls at at the end of 201

>> my staff notified me that this's been a cbo briefing scheduled for 11:00 a.m. on monday morning. >> right. >> could i ask the chair to consider that those of us who already had travel plans in place trying to get back with a mark-up schedule, and i think that started it too that it is impossible for us to make the briefing. would the chair consider moving the time of the briefing so all members could participate in it? i think it is absolutely crucial that we understand from cbo how they're scoring the bill and as a follow-up to that, there's rumors that the second half of the bill will not be shared this afternoon, and i'd like to ask the chair if those rumors have any truth to them since we were supposed to receive the remainder of the bill yesterday in that slip. i think it is abchutely crucial that we have ample time to understand what's in the bill before cbo briefs us on the cost of the bill. >> first of all, we'll move the briefing to noon to accommodate members coming back. i'll accommodate my colleagues on that point and my intention would be in my con

cbo estimated that for the currents fiscal year, we will have a deficit of around $1.8 trillion, or 13% of gdp, which is over twice as large as any deficit we have experienced since the end of world war ii. in percent of gdp terms. looking at fiscal 2010, the next year, doesn't look a whole lot better. a deficit of something on the order of $1.4 trillion or 10% of gd perform and even looking out over the full ten-year period, the cbo projections of what the president's policies will entail, are pretty, pretty bleak. the specter of a financial disaster is no longer two or three decades away. in short, the wolf is -- if the wolf is not at the door, we should look for him in the foyer. [laughter]. >> all of this points -- all of it puts the fiscal imperative front and center as we consider the size and the shape of fundamental health reform. in contrast to 1994, this time around, we have to ask how can reform contribute to a broad effort to bring future deficits down? this is no mean feat, because it is inevitable that any reform that expands access to insurance in any kind of significant

he is president of the urban institute and former director of cbo under clinton. he's been through this once before. he is really uniquely positioned to understand the incredible need for healthcare reform, the politics around healthcare reform, the economics and, of course, the arcane language of scoring which is becoming increasingly important. and i have learned to always listen to bob because not only is he very insightful with his analysis and judgments but he's almost always right. and so i'm always asking him -- not only me but others always asking him to handicap things so here he is. bob reischauer. [applause] >> thank you, nancy. one correction, it wasn't under clinton. [laughter] >> that i served. i predated him but he outlasted me. [laughter] >> so i think to his relief. let me add my welcome to all of you, to that of nancy. i also want to take the opportunity to congratulate -- nihcm has become influential and a respected voice on healthcare policy. it's done this on a number of ways. first through its issue briefs called expert voices, which top anal

we thought we would have cbo numbers back today. we don't yet have them john. i know you were interested in the subject matter but we hope to get them by early tomorrow. i am not going to go near the sections that we don't have scored but they will stick with the sections that we do have scored numbers, to allow us to complete those sections and to move forward. at wanted to say to all members my intention would be this week to work in the evenings, and hopefully we complete sections during the day that we will try to leave early. it is not my intention to make this hard. we will try to get rid of the can, at least a good part. guidone escort numbers, and i have told my can see this, i'm not going to jam situations where we only have a short amount of time to react. it is the most difficult bill any of us will ever work on and it is complicated in getting it right but i have considered it successful if we can move on the quality prevention. reach agreements or we can have those votes to move on. that is my intent anyway this week. >> could i ask a question? >>

chairman, i have not seen any cbo report on this whatsoever. if the senator would share that -- >> it's not cbo -- >> it's been used in your remarks. >> i miss spoke. >> we have been working with hrsa and they said the graduated interest rate that you will see when senate term schakowsky offers her amendment they do believe it is a good way to go so we do have that coming hopefully shortly. >> mr. chairman. >> senator coburn. >> i agree with senator marie there is a shortage of primary care. but i disagree as to the reasons why. the reason why is it because we don't have adequate enough loan programs and penalties. it's because there is an absolute economic reason not to go into primary care. and so, i think this title of the bill fixes the wrong problem. it increases what we are doing by 400% and changes interest rates, which i don't think have any indication. the reason people are all going into primary care is there is a 300% payment differential if they go into a sub specialty. so, we are treating the rahm disease. the disease is economic.

well, for example, when the bank started down cbo abs business which is taking chunks of mortgage debt either through the actual tangible loans or increasingly toward the end through the derivatives of those loans there was a number of occasions where internally the jp morgan investment bank tried to work out why the competitives were making more money than him. and there was a huge debate on a number of occasions about whether they should do the same. should they dash down that route with a bshcbo and they kept wor number unless you take crazy risk. and they said no. and to say no was amazing because everyone was dashing down that route very fast. and other people were dashing down that road even in late 2006 when there was already evidence that the u.s. housing market was starting to turn, i mean, that's one of the astonishing things so much of the crazy risk-taking and crazy breaches of normal controls occurred even when there was evidence that the subprime mortgage market was starting to turn sour and mortgage lending was starting to go bust. >> as an armchair economic theorist i s

when we're looking at that cbo, which you mentioned, are we talking private sector jobs being created or on federally created jobs that might just last a short period of time? >> well, it depends on the these jobs are going to have to, you know, be created over, especially getting back to working the private sector? >> well, the stimulus program only roughly speaking puts out a quarter of the money in 2009, half the money in 2010 and if it takes several years for unemployment rates to come back down to more sort of normal levels, the fiscal program will be having some effect over that two to three-year window. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i yield back. [ inaudible ]. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, thank you for being here this morning at this critical time. along with congress and the treasury department, the federal reserve has taken action to try to help the credit markets and you talked about that a little bit already. and we thank you for that, to try to in the i was you said, one of the toughest downturns we have seen since the great depression. let me ask

that was again done similar to a way how the cbo's were talking about buying cbs from all kinds of banks including jpmorgan and that is why jpmorgan was one of the biggest to have the hedge funds because they have the cbo's. but it. >> to them because they had a loan of 90% of the money that was to pay them. >> steve black and a diamond would say over and over like a cracked record we made mistakes and they're scared of people thinking they did too well because it's been like japan, no one wants to stick up by now and look as though they're doing well because they are getting too much retraction so, in fact, in the course of my interviewing the kept saying we have made mistakes. i mention them were in the buck but you can look at the results and who made the big write-offs in the last two or three years there in the scale of mistakes jpmorgan have made so far and i think there's still plenty of things that can go wrong in the future. they've got consumer credit-card exposure, they have got mistakes there but the scale of write-offs that jpmorgan made are nowhere near the scale of a city,

the risk attached to some of those and when they developed credit derivatives and about synthetic cbo's they were doing that because they were hoping to blow the system up. on the contrary they have a technology that they generally thought was going to make the system safer and many generally thought was going to make a safer. one of the regulators tells me that when he first found out about credit derivatives he sought a presentation of one of the characters in the book had put together on this and 1995 and was very excited, he called her up and said this is going to transform the face of banking. there's a sense of having discovered amazing technology that can only be good like the guys who'd first bit the adam and it did it medical genetic dna. you've actually had the technology that can only bring back good things and, of course, these are bankers. they had an eye for this and a word angels and their two, they were cheered workers but the jpmorgan group were not in any way driven by the sense of us try and get a big pm el this year, was try and be as good as we can. they like a lot

again, i think some of the most important things that came out of cbo this week were underscoring -- i know this doesn't get a lot of news attention because there is no conflict, but underscoring the notion that the president has outlined a series of steps cbo believes must be taken in order to deal with rising costs of health care as it relates to the government's budget. we think those are all positive developments and we have five think if you look back at some of the efforts that have been done the past few decades, we have stakeholders involved in this that are on occasion split up and on different sides and shooting back-and-forth at each other all at the table working on this, so i wouldn't call the game in the second inning. >> you said nothing would change, nothing is coming to change with what the president wants to do in a policy toward iran and having to do with the nuclear situation. does the administration believe there should be consequences in any future dialogue than start based on the actions the iranian government is taking? >> i don't want to get ahead of any of t

that issue of spending because as we know this bill has been scored only a sixth score because the cbodid not have the full bill and it is a score that will increase by $1.3 trillion with an offset of about $300 billion in new taxes so the net being $1 trillion and when you throw in the potential for the medicaid and a class act store on this bill and the potential for the government plan tile depending on how it is involved on this if in an up with a bill that is easily headed toward $2 trillion price tag that is unfunded which would go right on top of our debt and only aggravate dramatically our debt situation. unfortunately it does not include initiatives which have been suggested for containing spending and ceo has given a number of those such as accountable care organizations, bundling payments to hospitals and are some preventive and well as programs but cbo suggestions are not included. increasing the cost sharing for patience and and the president's own proposals are controlling cost not in here that he set up just last week which represent $300 billion in potential savings. so

hard to get the money devoted to those firms because it is zero credit for it as a reformer because cbo was scored it that way so i want to make sure that lobbyists and others here nor are fighting hard every day on your behalf, the people have read that and understand why is it hard to do -- that is the reason it doesn't get score that way. >> i think that we have one advantage right now in seeking this and that is the guy who is running a office of management and budget has for the last several years when he was head of the cbo and in the white house and the five health care as the primary culprit in economic recovery and growth and so having him there make some difference that is anybody's best guess. >> on the one hand, and looked at the details and the scoring of these worries, on the other side and the beginning about how little was understood in in the public and preventive care and will thus, i've been heartened by how many people in those instinctively i believe there were good things but a lot of other terms you in this room use all the time use quickly and is not that they ar

but if we are trying to provide insurance for every american how can we proceed with the cbo estimate and other outside organizations that were not? shouldn't we go back and see if we can craft legislation that aims to were the goal of providing health insurance for every american. second thing i think we ought to mention is the elephant in the room to some degree malpractice reform. the president made it clear he was against caps. why don't we look what happened in the state of california. they passed a law that put caps on malpractice and guess what insurance premiums for malpractice have gone down and costs for malpractice have gone down to the tune of some 100 to $180 billion a year can be saved by medical malpractice reform. but obviously -- and it's not directly within the scope of the committee. but i have been on lots of committee and i'd seen this comedy act we haven't always necessarily adhere to that. but look, here we are with three major holes. one of them is pay or play. obviously the other one is how we pay for it. and it's very clear that the finance committee who is i

we make that we know reduces cost, brings money to the treasury, but never scored positively by the cbo. yes, it is frustrating. i hope that we will see them saying that this is what we see the cost of something. we have not accounted for the benefit. because they do not. and they have not. and it should not be inferred by what they do. thank you all very much. >> every weekend, a book tv has latest nonfiction books and authors on c-span 2. writers and artists, gods and visionaries, up from the garden of eden to today, eduardo ghalib. -- g aliangaleano recalls the historf the world. also, john talbot exposes the midst of the recession and what it will take to recover. why is capitalism the best way to ease poverty and protect the day in -- protecting the environment? americans exposed to much sure can control their eating habits. all of that is this week and on a book tv. we have great new features, including streaming video, archives that are easy to surge, and a simple way to share your favorite program. >> today's state department spokesman -- she fractured her of all on the way to a

. >> i have not heard your response on the cbo estimate. [unintelligible] what is your assessment of $170? >> if you look good cbo -- it is only one part of the bill. every american household is going to pay more. when you create this giant bureaucracy to impose this tax, it is good to cost a lot of money in. at the end of the day, when you look at everything that has happened this year, from the stimulus to the omnibus with all the it earmarks to the budget to the $1 trillion deficit, it is the middle american the gets -- is the american middle class ticket hit every time. >> -- it is the american middle- class that get hit every time. >> [unintelligible] >> you will have to ask him. >> is he under some undue pressure of another kind? you made -- you took pains to make concessions for everything he mentioned yesterday. >> you have to ask him. think about this. we provided tens of billions of dollars to bail out the auto companies. we are telling the auto companies what kind of cars they're going to produce. frankly, i think they are the ki

could we get cbo and the gao to take -- to tell us because of the implementation? >> i would feel better if we had a little more time to look over this. >> let me see if i could. >> this is not a blow off. >> i know. i have respect for the question that you are asking. there are two or three points that we will send to you. all 50 state's directed on the internet. this is readily available. no. 2, we rejected out of hand center greg's vote -- senator gregg's vote. we know without a shadow of a doubt that the cost it saves would be greater than the cost would be to implement it. it is pretty obvious from the medicare numbers. i would like to work with the gentle lady and the chairmen during the course of the mark up before we get to the end. i'm pretty serious about not slipping this. it is an opportunity for me as it is for a lot of other people to do things they have always wanted to do. i think this one makes an awful lot of sense. i would appreciate the opportunity to continue to work with the lady. i will get the information on the web access. >> that think abo

guest: it will be important that we have the cbo evaluate our legislation, not only for cost, but for the number ensured. and that is what health care is so complicated. legislative portions of the bills interrelate and you change one and affect another. and so the latest score we saw was a trillion and a half, which we think is a burden that the american people will not be able to sustain in terms of higher taxes or cuts to providers to get there. so it will be important to have a common-sense approach, which is what we have. and that is going to be a key portion of looking at this, particularly in this recession. we see debt upon debt piled upon the american taxpayer. it is important to do this the right way. not in a way that is going to make it more difficult for our country to recover economically. and i think that we're at a critical point in that period that has certainly got to be a big part of what is possible in this debate, and we think the alternative we will provide this morning will be a common sense the american approach people can rally around. host: there are financin

as to move forward, i hope we will get that cbo score. i think it is important to the deliberations ally before us. i want to reiterate again that those of us on our side the i'll look forward to working in a bipartisan fashion. we hope amendments will be suggested. thank you again to our witness, our secretary, and thanks all the witnesses will make of the panels that will follow. i yield back. >> thank you very much. it is my pleasure to welcome kathleen silliest to our committee for the first time as our nation's secretary of health and human services. it is highly appropriate that the first testimony is on the reforming of the nation's health-care system. that is the president's highest priority. it is a subject of which brings a bread -- in which she brings a breadth of its experience. she has essentially valuable experience. she is implemented health care reform. before that, shed eight years in the kansas house some reason it is. i want to welcome you. we look forward to welcoming you. your full prepared statement will be in the re

>> sir, i'm waiting to see what the cbo score says. i don't know that -- i don't know who the group is. >> have you seen this report? >> no, i have not. >> okay. all right. now, the president has indicated that if any bill rises from congress that's not controlling costs, that's the bill he can't support. so the first question is, you don't agree with this report. you don't know about it. they said it's going to cost $3.5 trillion. fit's not $3.5 or $3.2 or $2.8, where are you going to get the money to pay for this bill? >> again, congressman, i think that once the bill is scored and once the proposals are put forward, i'm eager to work with the committees and the house and the committees in the senate to identify the cost savings the president has proposed about a billion dollars worth of revenue enhancements and cost savings that he feels are appropriate to spend on this and other ideas that are being proposed by members of the senate and members of the house and we're eager to work on that. >> one day is not going to approach $3.5 t

i am familiar with the cbo school. >host: maggie on the independent line from california. >> congressman danny davis introduced a bill called the community choice act, dealing with long-term care to remove the institutional bias so that people could receive care at home at one-third the cost. i'm wondering if you're a person could address the long- term care issues? we can do a far better job at less cost if we can get the 12 year-old bill through the health-care bill that is being discussed. we have baby boomers coming and were not even ready for them. host: aspirin, va., law or on the democrats' line. caller: hello, this is lori. i had an opportunity to listen to the president's speech yesterday to the ama. he said that he was not going to advocate a single payer system, but like what we have in the federal government. when i get my insurance statement for my yearly checkup at my primary care physician and i see that the insurance company has negotiated that my primary care physician gets less for my yearly checkup t

cbo says the bill we have before us causing 10 million to lose insurance and we've got to fix that. and we have been left out of the drafting -- >> those bureaucrats. >> so it's important that we have our amendments. >> oh, those bureaucrats. >> i know the amendments have been accepted and i want people to look at those amendments, some of those are technical -- most of those are technical corrections and that doesn't get to the heart of the bill. what we're talking about on some of these amendments that we're taking some time on do get to the heart of the bill. and coverage -- we started on what's supposed to be the easiest part of the bill. coverage will be the more difficult part of the bill. we'll have to have time to talk about that. i hope that isn't condensed into one day of talking. i think there are opportunities to make this difference there too. >> mr. chairman, you and i came off of a couple weeks of deep engagement in a legislative issue and it came to conclusion a bill that had been around a long time and you're passionate when you engage and you're fair. i want to ack

according to the cbo's estimates by the end of 2010, the stimulus package could boost real gdp between 1% and a little more than 3% and the level of employment by between roughly 1 million and 3.5 million jobs. the increases in spending and reductions in taxes associated with the fiscal package and the financial stabilization program, along with the losses in revenues and increases in income support payments associated with the weak economy, will widen the federal budget deficit substantially this year. the administration recently submitted a proposed budget that projects the federal deficit to reach about $1.8 trillion this fiscal year before declining to $1.3 trillion in 2010 and roughly $900 billion in 2011. as a consequence of this elevated level of borrowing, the racial show of federal debt held by the public to nominal gdp is likely to move up from about 40% for the onset of the financial crisis to about 70% in 2011. these developments would leave the debt-to-gdp ratio at its highest level following the 1950s, the years following the massive debt buildup following world war ii. c

romer, d cbo score the senate at $1.60 trillion. it is not provide an employer mandate or payroll attacks. the house bill will cost about $1 trillion, largely due to the mandate to provide insurance or 88% payroll tax. how important is it that the employers continue to provide insurance along with other non providing employers? is 8% adequate or realistic? does the senate a bill to meet the president standards? >> i think you are all getting at a key issue, which is how one structures the employer shared responsibility. that is important to maintaining the system that we have, the employer based insurance. that is certainly important. the detail are sending it will be analyzing more. i am sure that the congressional office will be analyzing it more. one issue of one to bring up, as mr. klein was talking about, slowing the growth rate of costs and our report shows that it has a beneficial effect on employment. by having a time when cost is not rising as much, gives as a period of unusually good economic performance. we certainly want

the cbo tells us it will ship -- by and large, our employer base health-care system is a success. most employees are happy with the coverage they have received. my goal throughout this process, because of my role in the education and labor committee, has been to build upon the success of employer based coverage. there are common-sense ways to expand coverage and reduce the number of uninsured. for example, small business health plans make coverage more affordable. i want to thank roy blunt for the great job they have done. they will enjoy it. >> i am from florida. guess what? i have the highest number of people on medicare. every day, 8000 additional people are going on medicare as they turn 65. medicare is having severe financial problems. the other day when the president spoke before the ama, that there were points where he was obviously not very well received. let me tell you, the doctors in my district and districts around america are not -- they are in forming their patients. both medicare and non medicare patients on what the democrats are proposing. one of the reasons why i

can demonstrably show in some cases that physicians that access the decrease because of it indeed the cbo scoring of this or maybe the document, the cbo score said there would be limited access to some specialists because of rate -- because of rates paid by the public option. so i don't see that much innovative. and so let me bounce it back to you. if we're going to come up with a patient centered plan i think the only way that history subpoena by towing so -- and improve it by doing so -- and -- i keep on saying this but it's just -- i feel like a tree falling in the forest for a similar demographic, a similar set of benefits, hsas cost 30% less than do a fee for service plan. the patient is now in control. yesterday, i was speaking to someone -- they have an hsa. they said that their doctor prescribed them $150 a pump inhibitor. they went to them and say listen, we're paying for this out of our hsa and they asked for a substitute and they got a $20 generic substitute. that's because the patient had her healthcare was not subsidized. i don't see much innovative to drive down costs and pr

of course, if you look at the cbo score, you'll see that they've said it's an incomplete analysis of an incomplete bill. and i don't think we're going to see anything like that with respect to the house bill. this provides new opportunities to get coverage if you're in a small business. it creates a health insurance exchange which does something which the american public wants, namely, they want to have the same kind of options that members of congress have and the health exchange is going to provide that opportunity and in so doing it'll provide accurate and helpful information about benefits and rights. it creates reasonable rules about how insurance companies should operate. so that if you have insurance, you actually know what you're getting as opposed to find out that you didn't have something at a point when you need care. and it provides a public option that we think is very helpful because it not only provides more choice but it provides a real opportunity for getting costs down and it provides a stable, portable option. now, another value that consumers care deeply about is