NBC News has obtained a list of talking points being distributed to the offices of House Republicans by Speaker John Boehner's (R-OH) office in preparation of the Supreme Court's ruling on the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law.

The list sheds some light on how Republicans plan to react in the event that the Supreme Court strikes down the entire law, or just pieces of it.  According to a GOP aide, Speaker Boehner discussed these talking points during the GOP conference meeting this morning.

The talking points say that Republicans will not introduce a massive package to replace the entire law if the Supreme Court strikes it down, but instead will "enact common-sense, step-by-step reforms" in its place. 

Republicans use the mantra "Repeal and Replace" when talking about Obama's health care law, but have yet to introduce any real legislation to take it's place in the event the law were to be struck down.

HIGHLIGHTS FROM THE TALKING POINTS:

- Unless the Court throws out the entire law, we need to repeal what is left of ObamaCare and enact common-sense, step-by-step reforms that protect Americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost.

- Republicans will not repeat the Democrats' mistakes. We won't rush to pass a massive bill the American people don't support.

FULL LIST OF TALKING POINTS:

TALKING POINTS: WHAT WILL REPUBLICANS DO IF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT STRIKES DOWN ALL OR PART OF THE PRESIDENT'S HEALTH CARE LAW?

·    The president's health care law is making things worse -- driving up health costs and making it harder for small businesses to hire workers.  The only way to change this is by repealing ObamaCare in its entirety.

·    Unless the Court throws out the entire law, we need to repeal what is left of ObamaCare and enact common-sense, step-by-step reforms that protect Americans' access to the care they need, from the doctor they choose, at a lower cost.

·    Republicans will not repeat the Democrats' mistakes.  We won't rush to pass a massive bill the American people don't support. 

·    Health care coverage has become too expensive for too many people.  The number-one health care concern of families and small business is the cost of health care, and Republicans' health care reforms will lower costs.

·    Women make approximately 80 percent of the health care decisions made for their families.  Republican health care reforms will ensure families and doctors make health care decisions -- not Washington.  

·    We want families to be able to make their own choices in health care, visit the doctor of their choosing, and receive the health care they and their doctor feel is best.  Those decisions shouldn't be made by Washington.

The House narrowly passed on Friday the Interest Rate Reduction Act by a vote of 215-195 -- largely along party lines. The White House has already threatened to veto the legislation.

The bill, introduced by House Republicans, would postpone, for a year, the doubling of interest rates on student loans to 6.8 percent on July 1st. Those interest rates currently sit at 3.4 percent as a result of a five-year bill passed by Democrats in 2007.  

The Republican's bill would offset the almost $6 billion price-tag for the year-long interest rate freeze by taking money from programs established by President Barack Obama's health care overhaul -- including those for prevention, wellness, and public health.

Democrats oppose that plan, saying they would rather pay for the bill by taking away subsidies for oil companies.

The legislation now goes to the Senate, which is expected to pass its own version in May. After that, both chambers will likely end up going to conference on the bill, to negotiate a way to fund the proposal that's amenable to both sides.

Congress could be barreling towards another showdown after House Republicans announced today they would need a short-term extension of federal funding for transportation projects to buy time to work on a longer-term reauthorization, a move Senate Democrats have rejected.

"I'm inclined not to do that," Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said in response to a question yesterday about the prospects for a short-term extension in the Senate.  Federal funding for highway and transit programs will expire on March 31if an extension or reauthorization is not passed.

House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica told reporters today that Republicans will be introducing a 90-day clean extension to give their members more time to finish their own five-year reauthorization bill. 

That bill -- which was once touted as Speaker Boehner's primary objective for the year -- has hit a number of snags over the past months. Parochial issues have plagued the legislation, causing members to reject it because of stipulations that directly affect their constituencies. Some conservatives also don't support the bill because they say it spends too much.

Rep. Bill Shuster (R-PA), who is also on the Transportation Committee, said he's "confident" Reid will change his mind about a short-term extension. "I think Harry Reid will rethink that when it gets to March 30," Shuster said, "He wants to shut down the highway program? I don't think he wants to do that."

The Senate has already passed a two-year reauthorization that is currently sitting in House awaiting a vote. House Republicans don't support the measure, saying a two-year extension is not enough. But Boehner has said they may need to take up the Senate's bill if Republicans fail to coalesce around their own version.

Either way, the debate has real economic implications. If federal funding for these projects runs out, workers could be furloughed and some highway and transit programs could be stalled. Both parties agree that if Congress is going to pass a major "jobs bill" this year, this is it.

In a rare act of bipartisanship on Capitol Hill, the House has overwhelmingly passed the JOBS Act, 390-23, a package of six bills dedicated to helping small businesses get access to capital and create jobs. The package had been spearheaded by House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) and had the blessing of the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

The package of bills works to cut through some of the bureaucratic red tape involved in small business start-ups, such as allowing smaller companies to go public sooner, and getting rid of regulations that involve raising business capital. Of the six bills in the package, four had already passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in the House, but had yet to be brought up for a vote in the Senate.

The JOBS Act now goes to the Senate where it’s fate as a stand-alone bill is unclear. Senate Democrats indicated today that they intend to introduce their own version of the package next week, likely in an effort to take away steam from what, from an optics standpoint, looks like a Republican legislative win.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) took issue with the bill today, and while she supported the measure, she called the bill “meager” and “jobs bill lite”. House Democrats had also hit Republicans for branding the bill the “JOBS Act,” with House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) claiming the package was “not a jobs bill.”

"Just because you regurgitate a few bills and package them together, even though we've already passed them out doesn't mean you have a jobs agenda,” House Democratic Caucus Vice Chairman Xavier Becerra told reporters earlier this week.

But Cantor was undeterred by the criticism of the package after its passage today, and in a rare showing of agreement with President Obama, called on the Senate to pass the bill “with dispatch”. 

“The President has endorsed this JOBS Act," Cantor said, "and if we want to act with dispatch so that small businesses and start-ups can get going again, it seems to me the simplest way forward is to listen to the president on this one."

Joe Kennedy III, grandson of Robert Kennedy, announced today that he is leaving his job at the Middlesex District Attorney's office to start an exploratory committee for a possible run for Rep. Barney Frank's Massachusetts Congressional seat.

Frank announced his intention to retire in November after he finishes his 16th term in the seat, citing redistricting as the reason.

Here's Kennedy's full statement:

I am announcing today my intention to explore a candidacy for the United States Congress in the Fourth District of Massachusetts.

I look forward to reaching out to the residents of the Fourth District over the coming weeks, and I will look back on my work as an Assistant District Attorney in Middlesex County - and before then, in Barnstable County - with great appreciation for the dedication of my colleagues and their commitment to equal justice under law.  I loved my work in the courts and will remember its lessons as I seek the counsel of the citizens of the Fourth District.

One lesson that will stick with me from my time in the courts is how hard police, prosecutors and judges work together to achieve fairness. Fairness, the foundation of America's social compact, seems to be in short supply these days. We wage war, pass skewed tax breaks, and expand benefits by spendthrift borrowing, saddling the next generation of Americans with unsustainable debt.

Then when it comes time to restoring fiscal sanity to our budget, we see the middle class and the poor take the hit while the wealthy get more tax breaks.
 
The lack of common sense and fairness in Washington is a byproduct of the partisan gridlock that has turned obstruction into victory. Americans are better than that. Each and every day, we work with people of different backgrounds and political views to achieve a common purpose. Washington can and should do the same.
 
My decision to look seriously at elected office is grounded in a deep commitment to public service and my experience - both my own and that of my family -- in finding just, practical, and bipartisan solutions to difficult challenges. It is a commitment instilled in me at a young age and one that inspired me to join the Peace Corps after college and to become a prosecutor after law school.
 
I have given my notice of resignation to the Middlesex District Attorney's office, and my work will wind down over the course of the next two weeks.  I will then begin to reach out to the people of the Fourth District in order to hear directly from them about the challenges they are facing and their ideas on how we can restore fairness to our system. I will make a final decision about entering the race in the weeks thereafter.
 
I look forward to this new challenge, and to meeting people across the district in the weeks ahead.

After days of silence, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is calling on the House GOP to pass the two-month payroll-tax-cut extension -- and for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (R-NV) to appoint negotiators to work with the House on a long-term deal after that extension is passed.

"House Republicans sensibly want greater certainty about the duration of these provisions, while Senate Democrats want more time to negotiate the terms," his statement says. "These goals are not mutually exclusive. We can and should do both."

House Speaker John Boehner's office had this response: "The House and Senate have two different bills, but the same goal," Boehner spokesman Michael Steel said. "That is why we believe, as Senator McConnell suggested, the two chambers should work to reconcile the two bills so that we can provide a full year of payroll tax relief -- and do it before year's end."

This morning, Boehner's office says he called President Obama to urge action on a one-year extension, but president Obama declined.

"Today, Speaker Boehner called President Obama to discuss the Speaker's desire to provide a full year of tax relief for American families before December 31st," a Boehner aide said in a written statement. "With Senator Reid having declined to call his Members back to Washington this week to join the House in negotiating a full-year extension of the payroll tax cut, the Speaker proposed that the President send members of his economic policy team up to Congress to find a way to accommodate the President's full-year request. The Speaker explained his concern that flaws in the Senate-passed bill will be unworkable for many small business job creators. He reiterated that if their shared goal is a one-year bill, there is no reason an agreement cannot be reached before year's end. The President declined the Speaker's offer."

A Democratic leadership aide said Senate Democrats are "happy" to begin negotiating with the House once Boehner says he'll hold a vote and pass the Senate two-month payroll-tax-cut extension. 

"We have been saying all along that if the House passes the Senate's compromise to ensure there is no tax hike on Jan. 1, we can immediately begin negotiating the full-year extension," the aide said. "It's important to now hear from the Speaker. As we have said, we are happy to start negotiating a full-year extension when the House passes the short-term compromise."

Here is McConnell's full statement:

"The House and Senate have both passed bipartisan bills to require the President to quickly make a decision on whether to support thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs through the Keystone XL pipeline, and to extend unemployment insurance, the temporary payroll tax cut and seniors' access to medical care. There is no reason why Congress and the President cannot accomplish all of these things before the end of the year.  House Republicans sensibly want greater certainty about the duration of these provisions, while Senate Democrats want more time to negotiate the terms. These goals are not mutually exclusive. We can and should do both. Working Americans have suffered enough from the President's failed economic policies and shouldn't face the uncertainty of a New Year's Day tax hike. Leader Reid should appoint conferees on the long-term bill and the House should pass an extension that locks in the thousands of Keystone XL pipeline jobs, prevents any disruption in the payroll tax holiday or other expiring provisions, and allows Congress to work on a solution for the longer extensions."

The House will vote tonight on a bill that would solidify the phrase "In God We Trust" as the nation's motto, and would support and encourage "the public display of the national motto in all public buildings, public schools, and other government institutions."

The vote should occur around 6:30 pm ET.

The bill, which was introduced by Rep. Randy Forbes (R-VA), will likely pass with the two-thirds majority needed to pass, but it is not without its opponents. In a report of dissenting views from Democratic members of the Committee on the Judiciary Committee, five Democrats call the bill "unnecessary" and a violation of "the First Amendment's prohibition against the establishment of religion."

The List of Dissenters: Reps. John Conyers (D-MI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Robert "Bobby" Scott (D-VA), Melvin Watt (D-NC), Judy Chu (D-CA).

Key Statements in Dissenting Opinion Report:

"For more than 50 years, the National Motto has been the law of the land. While some have questioned its constitutionality, none of these challenges has succeeded. We wonder, therefore, why the Majority believes this precatory intervention by Congress is so necessary."

"By aggressively pursuing a vehicle that places the government in the position of making an affirmatively religious statement, the Majority has transgressed the clear line between government and religion in violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment."

Here is some background information on the "In God We Trust” motto from the report:

The motto IN GOD WE TRUST was placed on United States coins largely because of the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War. Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase received many appeals from devout persons throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins.

From Treasury Department records, it appears that the first such appeal came in a letter dated November 13, 1861. It was written to Secretary Chase by Rev. M. R. Watkinson, Minister of the Gospel from Ridleyville, Pennsylvania.

. . .

As a result, Secretary Chase instructed James Pollock, Director of the Mint at Philadelphia, to prepare a motto, in a letter dated November 20, 1861:

Dear Sir: No nation can be strong except in the
strength of God, or safe except in His defense. The trust
of our people in God should be declared on our national
coins.

You will cause a device to be prepared without unnecessary
delay with a motto expressing in the fewest and
tersest words possible this national recognition.

It was found that the Act of Congress dated January 18, 1837, prescribed the mottoes and devices that should be placed upon the coins of the United States. This meant that the mint could make no changes without the enactment of additional legislation by the Congress. In December 1863, the Director of the Mint submitted designs for new one-cent coin, two-cent coin, and three-cent coin to Secretary Chase for approval. He proposed that upon the designs either OUR COUNTRY; OUR GOD or GOD, OUR TRUST should appear as a motto on the coins. In a letter to the Mint Director on December 9, 1863, Secretary Chase stated:

I approve your mottoes, only suggesting that on that
with the Washington obverse the motto should begin
with the word OUR, so as to read OUR GOD AND
OUR COUNTRY. And on that with the shield, it
should be changed so as to read: IN GOD WE TRUST.

The Congress passed the Act of April 22, 1864. This legislation changed the composition of the one-cent coin and authorized the minting of the two-cent coin. The Mint Director was directed to develop the designs for these coins for final approval of the Secretary. IN GOD WE TRUST first appeared on the 1864 two-cent coin.

Another Act of Congress passed on March 3, 1865. It allowed the Mint Director, with the Secretary's approval, to place the motto on all gold and silver coins that ''shall admit the inscription thereon.'' Under the Act, the motto was placed on the gold double-eagle coin, the gold eagle coin, and the gold half-eagle coin. It was also placed on the silver dollar coin, the half-dollar coin and the quarter-dollar coin, and on the nickel three-cent coin beginning in 1866. Later, Congress passed the Coinage Act of February 12, 1873. It also said that the Secretary may cause the motto IN GOD WE TRUST to be inscribed on such coins as shall admit of such motto. . . .''

The motto has been in continuous use on the one-cent coin since 1909, and on the ten-cent coin since 1916. It also has appeared on all gold coins and silver dollar coins, half-dollar coins, and quarter-dollar coins struck since July 1, 1908.

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-851) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States. IN GOD WE TRUST was first used on paper money in 1957, when it appeared on the one-dollar silver certificate. The first paper currency bearing the motto entered circulation on October 1, 1957. The Bureau of Engraving and Printing was converting to the dry intaglio printing process. During this conversion, it gradually included IN GOD WE TRUST in the back design of all classes and denominations of currency.

The nation's AAA credit rating will likely stay put no matter what the outcome of the Deficit Supercommittee later this month, according to a report released today by the ratings agency Moody's.

On Aug. 2^nd, just days before S&P's downgrade of the nation's credit rating from AAA to AA+, Moody's confirmed it's AAA rating but assigned it a negative outlook.

According the Moody's report, due to the fact that the nation's deficit will be reduced both if the Supercommittee reaches an agreement or not, Moody's does not anticipate any change in their credit rating of the U.S. 

"Agreement by the Joint Select Committee and the Congress as a whole on a larger amount of deficit reduction would be favorable,” the report states, “but the smaller amount triggered by the spending caps is still a step in the same direction. Thus, the committee outcome will not necessarily lead to any change in our rating stance."

According to the Budget Control Act passed in August, if the Supercommittee does not come to an agreement on at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction by Nov. 23^rd, an automatic "trigger" will result in almost a $1 trillion in automatic cuts to programs such as defense and entitlements.

The Moody's report will likely come as a relief to Supercommittee members, who are scheduled to hear a dire warning from former Sen. Alan Simpson and Erskine Bowles during an open congressional hearing today. According to prepared testimony, the two plan to warn the Supercommittee that "a failure by this committee might result in another downgrade."

Only 28 days stand between the deficit “Supercommitte” and the looming deadline of Nov. 23rd, leaving some worried that the time constraint may make a deal harder to achieve.

"Time is short. That doesn't give you a lot of confidence," House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-MD) told reporters today, "But the reports that I have received from our three [members of the committee] is that there is an honest effort."

Doubts about whether a deal will be struck by the deadline are beginning to rise, with Hoyer stepping away from a generally positive tone he has held before. 

"I'm not optimistic,” he said today. “I'm hopeful.”

When pressed if he was confident that a deal would be met, he made sure to clarify his opinion. 

"Did I say I was confident?" Hoyer asked reporters.

"You said you were hopeful," a reporter said.

"Hopeful is not confident," Hoyer responded.

The Supercommittee has been tasked with achieving $1.5 trillion in cuts as part of the debt limit deal reached in August.  If at least $1.2 trillion in cuts is not reached, a "trigger" will be pulled which will result in just under $1 trillion in across the board cuts to defense and entitlements.

"Obviously there is a strong constraint of time," Rep. John Larson (D-CT) explained to reporters today, "but a great opportunity here." 

Larson hinted to the current Congressional calendar as need for concern. 

If Congress continues with its current schedule, there are only five days in which both the House and Senate will be in session at the same time between now and the Nov. 23rd deadline. Members of the Supercommittee have been meeting during recesses the past weeks, so the lack of overlap is not necessarily a cause for panic, but it does create logistical barriers.

Democrats in the House continue to push for a "big deal" that reaches somewhere in the vicinity of $4 trillion, and falls within the guidelines of previous deficit reduction groups that have tried, but failed, to achieve that level of cuts in the deficit.

"I think it's absolutely essential that we do so, that we succeed in producing a product that is a big deal and not a small deal," Hoyer said. "If we do a small deal we'll have to revist that."

Republican Supercommittee co-Chair Rep. Jeb Hensarling, who has repeatedly said that "nothing is off the table," says he is "encouraged" that they will be able to reach a consensus.

"I remain encouraged that the members of the Joint-Select Committee know how serious the situation is, and I believe they are all committed to achieving the goal," Hensarling told reporters today. "The report is due at midnight on November 22^nd, and we still have plenty of time to make that."

Frank Thorp, NBC News

Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA)

As Congressional leaders meet today at the White House for the third time in the past week to discuss a deal to decrease the deficit, the gap between Democrats and Republicans appears wider than ever.

With President Obama telling reporters that there is no path to a deal if the GOP won't budge on revenue increases, the question looms if a deal will be made at all by the Aug. 2nd deadline that the Obama administration has imposed for when the nation's debt limit must be raised.

During a pen-and-pad news conference with reporters today, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) reiterated his stance that the tax increases Obama is calling for will not pass the House.

"The votes aren't in the House to raise taxes," he explained emphatically. "If they want to vote on the debt ceiling, they're going to have to come meet us, and we're going to have a package that does not have any net new revenues, period."

Cantor, who is one of eight members of Congress who are regularly meeting with the president in an effort to strike a deal, said that Monday's meeting at the White House will focus on the details that came out of the Biden group meetings, which were disbanded after Cantor left over continued talks of increasing revenue. 

Obama has called out Republicans, who he believes are not playing fair, saying his proposed concessions involving entitlements such as Medicare and Social Security are not matching their unwillingness to budge on increasing revenues. Cantor doesn't see it that way.

"The fact that we're even discussing voting for a debt-ceiling increase [is a concession]," he contended. "Again, what I don't think the White House understands is how difficult it is for fiscal conservatives to say that they're going to vote for a debt-ceiling increase."

The big question is whether a deal, if one ever comes forth, could garner the 218 votes it would need to pass in the House. Many Republicans have already expressed their intention to vote down a deal that includes tax hikes, and then there is the Tea Party members, who will refuse to vote to increase the debt limit no matter what the deal includes. 

House Democrats have also made it clear that a deal which includes changes to Medicare or Social Security would be almost impossible to support as well. 

"There is a fundamental preset to being a Democrat that involves a commitment to Medicare, and to that safety net, and we ain't going to give that up," said Rep. Jerry Connolly (D-VA) late last week.

He anticipates that Speaker John Boehner will need between 68 and 90 Democratic votes to pass any deal that is brought forth.

The vote will, no doubt, have implications in the 2012 election, as any concessions either party decides to make could be campaign fodder for opponents to use in attack ads. 

"This will be, I think, the biggest issue that we'll face that comes from Congress in the reelection," Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) said. 

Cantor reiterated that concern today: "The election battle in 2012 is going to be much about the future of how this country runs it's entitlements programs and constructs a safety net for those who need it, and frankly not for those who don't."

But, according to Cantor, there's no question that the increasing the debt limit by the Aug. 2nd deadline is necessary, explaining that interests rates could "quickly wipe out any savings potential that we're working on here." 

He also admitted that a "clean vote" to raise the debt ceiling (which would simply be done to avert the crisis and wouldn't include any deficit reduction plans), would be fruitless. "The markets are smarter than to just accept a, as you call it, clean vote on the debt ceiling," he said. "Just checking the box and making the payment, if you will, is not going to satisfy savvy investors out there, who know the fiscal situation of this country."

Today's meeting will be the start of daily meetings the president has called for to bridge the gap between the two sides, and while Cantor has expressed his intentions to negotiate, he also didn't rule out the idea of leaving the talks if President Obama continued to press for an increase in revenues. 

"We certainly don't want to walk out of these talks," he said, "but I think the message has been heard at the White House from what I stated yesterday that we're not going to raise taxes."