Skip to main content

tv   U.S. Senate  CSPAN  January 13, 2010 5:00pm-8:00pm EST

5:00 pm
political rhetoric does not help as we move toward the elections. so we are watching that very carefully. i have to admit, though, i am on the ground with the iraqi army forces. i talk to the commanders of the side. we are very fortunate to have rational actors on both sides of the line who will pause when something happens. perhaps a bomb goes off in an area and tensions rise, or if there is a troop movement that is unexplained or uncoordinated, no one leaps to conclusions. no one mobilizes forces. no one goes to guns. these are rational actors, and we are, quite frankly, partnered with them and talking to the daily. so that is the good story.
5:01 pm
i believe we can keep the tensions down. we can avoid fighting between the two forces. .. we are trying to keep the tensions down in that vein.
5:02 pm
also you asked about baghdad. right now -- i thank you are where there is a. >> and move afoot in the krg to combine the puk and kdp pesh. it's already happened at the minister of the pesh level, the equivalent of the minister of defense if you will in the krg. that's already happened at that level and now the desire and the actual action and movement is to combine the puk and kdp pesh forces. that is significant. it's a natural step in the evolution in the peshmerga being immigrated into the iraqi army at some point in the future. it has support from baghdad there's progress in that. of small steps but there's progress in that. let me toss it back to you in
5:03 pm
case i didn't answer the question properly for you or if you have a follow-on. >> just a follow-up. it could you give us -- to do you have any figures and numbers about the size of the peshmerga and right now and you believe that this krg would agree to have a the peshmerga integrated within the iraqi army? >> i can't give you -- i can give you the size of the units that i am -- that i sit across from or deal with their commanders and i can't shoot from the hip on it. i deal with brigade size units and their handful of brigades and if you'd like we can try and get to actual peshmerga force numbers that we are aware of by
5:04 pm
e-mail perhaps or in a follow-up after this press conference. but forgive me -- what was the second part? >> do you believe that the krg would agree to have the peshmerga integrated in the iraqi army? >> i believe so from what i am seeing from this year krg leadership, yes. everyone's attitude is this is what iraq and is very positive. since i've been here i've been impressed by many things. impressed by the quality of the iraqi security forces particularly the iraqi army and i can give you a yes on that if anyone's interested but i am impressed with the quality, very impressed with the desire for unity and that goes to the krg so i can tell you right now the current krg leadership seize on
5:05 pm
the horizon and integration of a the pesh into the iraqi army s. >> general cucolol, good to see you. peter spiegel with the wall street journal. but to see you out with a proper job for a change. let me ask you to look forward to the drawdown spring and summer because obviously we're seeing huge numbers of troops disappear and then your bit of the world as you mention in your comments is perhaps the most complex and most are on edge. when you look forward to the spring and summer what are your two or three biggest risk factors and concerns that you were worried about as the draw their begins in your region? >> stir, i would say it's good to hear your voice, peter. peter, i would say the biggest concerns are the kurd-arab
5:06 pm
attention and in the desire to interrupt the seating of the government's and then as we drawdown, the ability of the iraqi security forces to a soon the battle space with some of the niche capabilities that we provide right now. we do a lot of ground clearance. the iraqi army has a route clearance and that's -- driving down the road with mine rollers and certain types of technology that helps you find in price explosive device and minds of that sort of thing. we do route clearance right now. the iraqi army has a route clearance capability, in this nascent and growing. we want to see that grow further. they are beginning to conduct intelligence driven operations and we would like to see that continue and improve and expand.
5:07 pm
there are just some in its capabilities that they need to acquire two properly assume the battle space the way we would like to leave them with the greatest capability possible for what they have to do come and defend their nation, and the securing of the population and then the last part is -- a subset of the iraqi security forces been ready to do that. that is building -- you asked me what my concerns are, adding to that would be building the institution that is the iraqi army and build an institution that is the iraqi police. right now i have iraqi units that are capable of independent operations at low level, abrogated and the low. some iraqi divisions are capable of independent operations but the institution that gets them and spare parts, that gets them
5:08 pm
bullets, that gets their the things that they need to sustain routine operations. that is still growing. all the right folks are working on it, it's happening, it's just not there yet to and so those would be the concerns that i have a and i just add one more. the borders are getting very significant focus right now and that is most appropriate. a perhaps one of the last things besides kurd-arab tensions that we will be focusing on as we drawdown is the capability of the borders. right now we could use some increase capability at the borders. i will pass it back, go ahead and. >> can i follow up? as you dialogue with general odierno about what the drawdown who will look like in the august given that you are and probably
5:09 pm
a bit of a country that everyone will focus on a given the kurd-arab conflict and the last extremist groups, do you have recommendations of -- you can sure most of it but you anticipate your bit of the world may be where some of the most residual forces may reside in post august? we have 50,000 allowed to keep in, are you discussing at all what might reside in your world and put it to be worth some of the bulk of its residual force is remaining? >> absolutely having those discussions right now. gosh, we citgo we had a significant planning effort to end conference on with lieutenant general jacoby and the the force of u.s. hyrax folks on of what we will look like over the months and where the forces should go, where is
5:10 pm
the medical capability and the helicopters, the ground forces. excruciating detail and to answer your question is, yes, when the dust settles and the number is 50,000 or it is conditions based, when the dust settles and the number is 50,000i see because of a occurred arabic tensions in particular and because of the complexity of the battle space in the north and because of the fact that act of part of the provinces and the south have actually been on their own for a while now i do see that when the dust settles on 50,000 and perhaps more will be in the north yes. >> general, stars and stripes. last time you got a chance to talk to us in d.c. was about the inclusion of pregnancy and general order number one. i know that we have shipped to
5:11 pm
u.s. fortas in iraq but i don't know what the fallout for you has been if you still got a chance to talk about those issues of personal responsibility with your troops and where things stand with the folks you were talking to? >> i'm understand exactly. first of hollis is a good move and to consolidate general order number one into one single general order, that's a good thing. it my commanders and my sergeants and major's know exactly what the intent of my original order was and we have fallen in on the new general order one and it's all about maintaining -- maintaining the tina. and i think if any san -- if
5:12 pm
anything -- gosh, i feel like we miss an opportunity to talk about several things. we miss an opportunity to talk about the incredible value and role of female soldiers have any 21st century united states army. we fail to talk about what it's like for commanders now with the 12 to 18 months of the well time to prepare for a 12-month deployment, what it's like to build teams, and how -- all the things that go into building teams in keeping them together. there's a lot of great stuff to talk about there and we just missed the opportunity because we got caught up in other things. but as far as my formations and the intent, my intent been understood by the soldiers and i
5:13 pm
don't have any second -- i don't have any issues with that at all. i think we are ok. >> general, american forces press corps. going to a more mundane things appear if it was the situation in and around mosul and what are your troops going to do on the election or for the election? >> great question it. you're first question was about mosul and the second one was about the election. mosul, mosul has got to elements of two iraqi divisions. iraqi army divisions. we do not have an iraqi police primacy in mosul ads because of the iraqi police strength is not
5:14 pm
sufficient to get out into significant real of law-enforcement operations of the iraqi army under the operational command of nineveh operations command who has got a solid iraqi to start demanding its is basically knocking back a violent extremist groups in mosul. what is the situation in mosul? what i see in mosul is a week in the thank you icon isi cellar structured trying their best to stay relevant. we can be as we have not backed their financial capabilities, we have not backed their access to weapons, ammunitions and explosives. how do we know this? we know this because the thank you i and isi elements are now resorting to extortion and kidnapping, to get to their funds. we know this because the ied is there using are much smaller
5:15 pm
than we've seen in the past. there are trying to wrestle up what they can and so that's what we're seeing there. however, they are down but there are not out and we have to keep the pressure on them. so on election day there's freedom of movement, voters do not feel harassed or intimidated. the candidates on vow to the elections do not feel threatened and so we are working on that and is primarily my partner -- iraqi army units doing that. we have absolutely outstanding incredible aggressive iraqi army division commander in mosul, very strong. now what are we doing to the elections? right now a lot of planning and prep going on with that. we are joined at the hip if you will with the independent high electoral commission in iraq. in and we are going to their
5:16 pm
meetings and sitting in the back listening to their meetings with our provincial reconstruction team partners in each province so at the provincial level we're listening to the iraqi alexian planning and seeing where we can help with things like a barrier material for polling sites, coordinating and offering security, obviously their own lives be a u.s. soldier and in and i do not think soldiers in your id: to. this is an iraqi show, they can handle it and actually they have a wonderful reputation for handling the big events like elections. i have great confidence they can handle this on themselves. and so we will be doing some outer ring security with our partners with the army. in most of my other cities the please will be two in the inner ring security by themselves. the other thing will be doing to help with the elections is there
5:17 pm
will be international observers, you naughty and others coming in. we will provide them why support at bases near the locations, they will have to go, they will have to observe and will also provide them with transportation and security up to a point. so this is going to be in iraqi show, but we are trying to help logistically and with external security as much as a mechanic. and also freedom of movement. if you have got to and iraqi army soldier and a u.s. soldier at a checkpoint or a patrolling of area where there is high tension, or another are strong arm tactics or threats or intimidation, we want to take that down as others' freedom of movement of voters to get to the polls. looking to the iraq -- looking to rock the vote and give as many iraqis out to vote as we can so we want to set the
5:18 pm
security conditions to allow that. >> general, thank you, my question is that many iraqis now feel free and freedom but what is your assessment out and journalists, had to feel iraq is confirmed -- concern and what can do to or what can they learn from this now afghanistan is focused and not iraq in my viewpoint? >> i want to make sure i got that right in i'm sorry, it might have been the microphone. could you repeat the beginning of a? i understand that afghanistan is the focus. iraq is not. absolutely, i understand that. could you repeat the beginning please? >> yes, sir. many iraqis feel they are safe now and there are free and they
5:19 pm
are very thankful to the u.s. for their freedom, but what do you think and what you feel, how do you feel as far as iraq is concerned? >> i hope i got a right but i will give it a shot. the iraqis -- to the iraqis are a wonderful people that want what you and i want. they want safe and secure environment for their children. they would like to the job. there would like a source of income, they would like to feel valued, and in this is all things that's certainly u.s. soldiers have seen in other parts of the world and is not new to us a. it's so different in each
5:20 pm
province what i see the iraqis feeling and what i'm hearing from them. in some provinces is an essential service and in some provinces is concerned about a corrupt provincial government because either the government is not delivering what they promise or they are not seen the progress they thought. and what i am two texting over all is that there is a thirst for change and a desire to go out and exercise their freedoms. and the freedom to vote, the freedom to make a choice and have a government that is accountable to them. so is really hard because it's hard to explain in simple terms in short bursts and sentences because, gosh, of the seven
5:21 pm
provinces that i have some degree of u.s. force responsibility for each province is so different. nineveh is a different from per cup, different from the others and diyala is not like anything else. it is a hard question to answer a succinct way for you and i apologize for that, but i tell you what else, the iraqi use i believe it watched what happened in afghanistan in their collections and watched what happened in iran in their elections and there's also a desire not to have that happen here. incredible national pride here to do this right and i see that in the security forces. and like to give you a been yet about security forces. i had a provincial governor who was voted out by the council which the council is allowed to
5:22 pm
do by the provincial powers law and we see in four u.s. constitutional reference real marbury vs. madison stuff going on here. it is a great thing to watch. the provinces flexing their muscles, trying to understand what they can do it and where does the central government responsibility go etc. anyway, i had a governor voted out, he didn't want to leave. i'm going to fast for the story for you. at one point the council was frustrated with the speed of the resolution of the issue going slow, having the governor who was voted out leave office, and they turn to their iraqi army division commander and they turned to their chief of police and said, that's it, we can't wait, you must arrest him. and the division commander said, i will not arrest him, and the chief of police said, i will not rest of because there's no
5:23 pm
warrant, there is no legal reason to arrest him right now. let the rule of law take its course and i will stop anyone from trying to arrest him and. there are some good things going on here and i just hope some of those stories get out. back to use. >> general, there is domestic instability and iran in and has been some speculation in the because security forces in iran have been in a word focused on making sure there is security in word and that they would be less poking around in the neighbors and i wonder if you see any data or any intelligence that would speak to that whether iranian so preoccupied with their own domestic trouble that they are less bothering with the internal
5:24 pm
affairs of iraq? >> as a great question, peter. i have not seen any data that shows a decrease -- i can tell you what i see. when i see is since the third of november i have seen a steady effort to iran for soft power in iraq. for example, here let me give you the money you need to build that school. just some exercise of soft power in corners of provinces that they can do that. and then i have not seen any increase or a decrease in reporting on iranian forces or movement of weapons and ammunition and explosives from
5:25 pm
iran into iraq to extremist groups that are operating with iranian support. i've not seen -- its been steady. it exists and in has been steady. back to you. >> general, in answer to peters questioned before, you said something about beating up the operations along the borders. and what do you mean by that? are you going to shift troops to meet that? >> well, excuse me, actually i will tell you what. i have never had -- i do not believe there have been more soldier is particularly on the syrian border than we've had. right now i have got to in my back in the north i have got to cavalry squadrons battalion size units doing classic cavalry type operations in the open desert with an iraqi army
5:26 pm
division just inside the border. as you know, the border and horsemen units of iraq are literally on the border in border ports so they've got the first line in the an iraqi division in that particular part of western nineveh province has got the second line and we are bernard with them with more u.s. worse than we have had in a long time. two calories' squadrons. and so the decision will be -- how much do we as we draw down the really forces on the border doing that? the last place we draw down or do we leave forces there because of the importance of securing borders for a sovereign nation, helping them secure their borders? so that's the beefing up. and the other critical part of the beefing up is helping in the border enforcement brigades with their capability is.
5:27 pm
it is an iraqi central government efforts and it is happening. it is getting all of the equity needed to inspect, transit to other people and goods and vehicles, cargo, trains and roads, train crossings, railroad crossings and road crossings at the border points. then at the border for its backing them up. the other night, two nights ago we found a 13 people came across the border between to border ports, the border ports did not have the night-vision capability or the ability to see them. we did with our iraqi partners, combined u.s. iraqi move forward, captured the 13 people, brought them to the border for to, and at the border boards we worked out the biometrics on them to see if we knew these
5:28 pm
folks before and basically turn them over to the iraqi authorities. as an example of a night out in the desert in the west. back to you. >> general, it looks like we're good year so i will take it back to you for any closing remarks you like to make any good to see you again. thanks. >> good to see you, marie. i appreciate your time tonight. one of you mentioned that afghanistan is the focus and iraq is less so. this is true and it's absolutely in the realm of the possible for the forces we have here. the american soldiers, sailors, marines, chairman and coast guardsmen are doing an unbelievable job here. i am in all of them every day and we also feel incredibly supportive from back in the united states. when you're deployed and you
5:29 pm
whether a holiday time, it's interesting. the out reached, the love and the warmth that came from the united states from folks we don't even know was absolutely fantastic and was a real morale boost for all the soldiers over here. so is this one to think anyone listening for their support to. i give you one example. mr. george miller of colonia, middle school in colonia, new jersey under the shadow of the garden state parkway. this was his 30th year of having his health class send cards and letters to soldiers overseas, his 30th year. and when those cars come in from those little kids and they say, have a merry christmas, thank you for what you are doing, it's absolutely fantastic. so for all of the george miller's out there, thank you
5:30 pm
everything you do. we appreciated to ended kansas energy to complete the mission. thank you. >> thank you. [inaudible conversations] ..
5:31 pm
b supreme court heard oral argument in the american middle versus the national football league today. the court will decide if the nfl can be considered a single entity in be immune from antitrust lawsuits. this is the company the sold nfl hats and gear until the league
5:32 pm
and entered an exclusive deal with reebok. shortly after the oral argument attorneys spoke with reporters outside of the supreme court. this is about 15 minutes. [inaudible conversations] >> what about these folks? >> who has a question? >> i have a question for the nfl there seems to be a lot of questions about whether the nfl, with the court is going to declare the nfl is a lalinde. does this go back to the lower courts what's going to be the nfl's decision? >> i disagree with your premise. i think there's a very good likelihood when the court reviews the record it will decide that the nfl is a single entity at least purposes of licensing and promoting its product.
5:33 pm
if the case goes back to full record we are going to defender under the rule of reason and i expect we are going to be successful. this is a pro competitive consumer friendly policy that's been challenged and these cases, the problem with these cases is they are regularly filed against the sports leagues. the plaintiffs and defendants spend millions of dollars pursuing them and in a vast majority of cases the league's win and the reason the leagues win is the conduct they've been engaging in is in turn will conduct and consistent with market forces, and it's pro competitive. >> look, let's get serious. this is a antitrust case. if we don't get you over here -- >> greg levy as the chief outside counsel. we are standing outside the supreme court. i think it is appropriate [inaudible] >> but, understand he represents the nfl --
5:34 pm
>> does anyone else have questions for mr. levy? >> [inaudible] -- does the we have plans to use that with tv contracts or is it just -- or is this limited to apparel? >> the only thing we asked the court to do is for purposes of marketing products, for purposes of promoting the product the league is a single entity. there are no plans if you will to use it for any other purpose and the example like you mentioned in terms of tv sales there's already a statute that finds the nfl as a single entity for those purposes. >> what about fantasy football league's? what about to promote the league this is we will do better with uniform ticket prices for example? >> what about fantasy football leagues? the good of a product to deal with fantasy football leagues -- >> what a decision this is a single entity for purposes of promotion insulate a competing
5:35 pm
fantasy football operation? >> the whole point is the single entity ruling we are asking for here doesn't and wouldn't protect the league against agreements with other leagues, other producers about anything including fantasy football. what we are talking about is an internal decision about how best to promote nfl football. not how best to promote the major league baseball or national hockey league hockey. >> how does that extend for example to union agreements? >> it doesn't have any application to the union agreements. 1996 the supreme court basically decided for purposes of union agreements for leagues was an sandlin player. in brown versus the pro football and. this doesn't have anything to do with union agreement issues. >> you were given the example by one of the justices let can't remember who, since opposing the league is a single entity say
5:36 pm
the sale of you can't sell the team individually. >> why should the team be different than any other business and being able to sell capital and raise capital to sell shares and stock, it ought to be is treated as a single business for that purpose and all others. >> why is in the trade marketing logos in the building houses is the justice analogized the supposed to playing a game on the field? >> of the views of the logo is to identify with the game on the field. that's why consumers buy the product. that's something about which all the parties agree, even the president said the reason the consumers by the caps with nfl logos is to identify with their team on the field, and you can walk around the streets today and you won't find them on the steps of the supreme court, but you will see lots of people wearing nfl logo merchandise.
5:37 pm
in this city most of them will be because they are wearing redskins merchandise. not because they like the redskins logo but because it's identified with the team on the field. >> your argument is the competition here is with the other sports and other forms of entertainment. you can't persuade kortright sample, a redskins fan that a national cap would do in lieu of if he decides that it's too expensive to buy a redskins cap. >> i don't disagree with that at all. but on the other hand, you may be able to persuade a national santa by season's tickets to a redskins game were to buy tickets redskins game if we are successful if the leak of successful promoting a product effectively and putting a good product on the field and that is why the league competes not in a market a false only nfl teams in the business since the league competes in a broad entertainment -- >> the status quo is basically as i think i understand you saying it the league's get basically her last in these
5:38 pm
lawsuits. that's the status quo, you're asking for the change in the status quo. >> the status quo is lawsuits are filed and the courts are burdened with cases that have no merit because the courts have been following precedent from the early 1980's and before. they are based on formalism since the fall when the supreme court's 1984 decision. and the net result is that pro competitive conduct of sports leagues is being found, has the potential to be found unlawful and pro competitive conduct as a potential to be chilled because the leagues are not willing to take on the risk of being sued, not because they are going to lose but because the lawsuits themselves are so expensive and burdensome to defend. >> what is it the league's want to do that they cannot do now because threat of being sued?
5:39 pm
>> i don't know what others want to do but this case provides a perfect example, the league is being sued over providing exclusive license which the league determined was pro competitive in the most effective way to promote its product. the next time around if there is a competitive exclusive license may be the legal think twice about it. >> at one point justice sotomayor asked if you're trying to get a antitrust exemption you couldn't get in congress; what is your answer to that? >> this case isn't about antitrust exception. we don't dispute the need of subject section to read the disagreements between the league and other entertainment providers of other leagues were subject to section one of the sherman act. this is about what section 1 of the sherman act means, and the court made a pretty clear in its 1984 decision in congress that section one has a limited purpose. its purpose is to regulate
5:40 pm
independent source of competition. nfl teams are not independent if it were not for the league as justice scalia said the teams would have no value, no business. even if they were to go off and join another they still couldn't produce the product on their own unless it was with others. >> to follow on that point -- >> can we get you to come over -- just answer straight ahead. >> to follow on that point the case was said to be bigger than the other cases because the potential of the affect of the union's and help the salaries go and everything else, it would be somehow a broad antitrust exemption applied. it seems that wasn't the case, that wasn't what the nfl was asking for or what the judges were considering. >> evin spending too much time reading the papers instead of the briefs. [laughter] >> can you expand that? >> this case doesn't have anything to do with union issues
5:41 pm
as i previously answered. this case, if the case is bigger than other cases as the question suggests, it's only because the height of the press and not the substance of the briefs. >> what is to stop the nfl from building houses from starting car shops going off in other ventures. >> i think the question you want to ask is what is it to stop the collapse of the nfl from separately independent nfl going to other measures and the answer is nothing except the antitrust laws. if they go into business lines that are unrelated to the production and promotion of nfl football, then there's a host of legal teams that would regulate the conduct and that conduct may be perfectly lawful. >> do you get a sense of the justices -- [inaudible] >> the best answer i can give you to that is 1996 the only
5:42 pm
other time i argued a case before the supreme court i walked out with a sense that some of the justices were skeptical of my position and in the and we 18-1 so i think it's very dangerous to draw inferences based on the justices' questions. i think there's no doubt justice breyer had some serious questions but aside from justice breyer, who may simply have been engaging in aggressive questioning and may not have been showing his opinion i think it's very hard to tell how all of the other justices will rule. [inaudible conversations] >> nfl players want to come over
5:43 pm
and? can we get somebody from nfl players over here? ashley. >> would you come right up here. if you could look straight into the -- >> can we get your name and title. >> my name is jeffrey and i am council for the nfl players association, the place is a season and filed a brief for the hockey players association. >> tell us why this case was important to all of these players associations. >> the players were mostly concerned that the league's number plame complete immunity from antitrust laws to fix the salaries, to fix the price of tickets to the fans across markets, to fix all aspects of competition to the detriment of the players and the fans. >> help werries than ever today?
5:44 pm
>> we listen to the arguments, we listen to the reactions of the justices. we believe that the single entity can all shield the nfl from all antitrust -- we think congress decided that. we think the majority of the justices will hopefully agree with that. >> did you think that the league was asking for that? >> i think it was clear by the last question when they said even they could fix the prices of the sale of the independent franchises and you got a remarkable, one of the justices let think the comment was wow. it was clear they were asking broad based. we think it is clear the supreme court is going to say we apply what is called a rule of reason. >> greg levy said this case has nothing to do with labor and yet i know a lot of the players are concerned of the nfl wins this potentially could lead to labor strikes. could you talk on that a little bit? >> yes, mr. levy had an opportunity before the supreme
5:45 pm
court to say that he wasn't seeking protection even to fix the wages of secretaries, and he was not able to concede the point. so we assume if he thinks the giants and the jets are the redskins and ravens can get together and fix the prices of the secretaries he thinks they could fix the prices of labor, they could impose restrictions that would prevent good teams from getting better or take any other conduct without antitrust law we coming to play at all. we don't think the supreme court will agree. >> you also mentioned the 96 case the nfl said there was one entity negotiating with the players. what is that response? >> the brown case had to do when there's a labor union of collective bargaining. this case is about antitrust and whether there is immunity from that and so, we are very content for the antitrust laws to apply. we don't think the brown case is relevant at all actually.
5:46 pm
>> thank you. >> [inaudible conversations]
5:47 pm
did you know the number one free news application for your iphone or ipod touched c-span retial? now you can get quick and easy access to three streaming audio channels, c-span retial plus c-span and c-span2. there is of our podcast includig q&a and after words and it's all free and available from the ap store. a group of state attorneys general are threatening to file a lawsuit over a particular provision in the senate version of health care legislation henry mcmaster talks about the constitutionality of the health care bill today at the national press club. this is about one hour.
5:48 pm
>> thank you all for joining us of the national press club today. my name is mark, i am the washington correspondent for workforce management, business magazine published by crain communications and ibm the chair of the national press club news makers committee however i am coming near the end of my tenure and in three days the new chair will be -- he is a member of the clutter and is it to be the news anchor chair for 2010. he writes for the india today group and also as a reporter for age and i also want to thank matt of the ad for kidder's group, press club member who
5:49 pm
helped us put together today's timely newsmaker. and today we are going to address the health care reform bill that is the subject of negotiations right now between the house and senate. we are pleased to welcome to the national press club south carolina attorney general henry mcmaster, he is one of 13 state attorneys general to sign a recent letter to senate majority leader harry reid and house speaker nancy pelosi protesting a provision of the health care bill that obligates the federal governor to pick up the entire cost of medicaid expansion in nebraska. critics call it the cornhuskers kickback designed to secure the votes to of senator ben nelson for the healthcare bill. mr. mcmaster will explain why he and the other state attorneys
5:50 pm
general belief that the agreement is unconstitutional. mr. mcmaster prosecuted white-collar criminals, internet predators and drug-traffickers. today he wades into another controversy and potentially dangerous area, healthcare reform. so welcome, henry mcmaster. >> those other prosecutions are not controversy. almost everybody is in favor of looking at internet predators and drug-traffickers, drug smugglers. this has achieved some conversation around the country and i will be glad to answer questions anybody has about it. it's actually a very straightforward thing, and that is that we have now 15 attorneys general, two democrats and 13 republicans who joined together on this issue concerning these so-called cornhuskers kickbacks. the other challenge and other
5:51 pm
critics and criticisms of the bill itself both in the house and senate and of those are not a part of this letter and this effort by this group also some or all in this group and some that are otherwise not participating so far they join together or may do something individually about other matters concerning this bill if it becomes law. so that is where we stand today and now i will tell you how it all began and then be glad to answer whatever questions you have as long as you have them. when the bill was passed in the senate there was great fanfare and a conversation about senator ben nelson's participation, and as you know, his was the 60th vote of the letcher, his was the critical 60 of the vote to come along to allow the bill to move forward and at the time there
5:52 pm
was no controversy at all or excuse me there was no misunderstanding at all about his motivation. no one suggested that the so-called core has turkic back was put in the bill for any reason other than to achieve his votes. now, under the constitution there are many reasons for putting things into bids. but to achieve somebody's vote on a bill like this that is national in scope is not one that is recognized by the constitution. the case law on the constitution as we see. so as the bill passed under those circumstances there is a member of us who had questions about. on december 31st of their bets just before that i received a telephone call for senator lindsey graham who said the letter was on the way from
5:53 pm
senter lindsey graham and senator jim demint asking me as attorney general of south carolina to look into this question in the constitutionality of this particular provision. and i began doing that and also began seeking input from my fellow attorneys general are on the country. and the first to offer support in an effort were greg of texas and robert mckenna of washington state, and thereafter be expanded. we had to look and conferences and the result was a draft of a letter of the was then redrafted and edited, and the product of that is the one dated december 30 of, which we addressed to speaker nancy pelosi and senator harry reid outlining our reasons why we believe that that particular provision is unconstitutional. in a nutshell what it boils down
5:54 pm
to is this: the constitution is very broad and giving spending power to the congress. but the spending power of the congress isn't unlimited. there must be limits, and the limit is the spending cannot be arbitrary or capricious is what the case law says. and a bill like this that would affect every step and involved taxes and benefits for every state, maybe not exactly the same level but would involve every state except for the state of nebraska that begs the question of why is nebraska being treated differently? if there is a reason for treating nebraska differently, that is where 49 states are bearing their share of the medicaid expansion and indirectly bearing nebraska's share of the expansion, then there has to be a reason. the only reason it has been
5:55 pm
positive by anyone is that is what was necessary to get harry reid, excuse me, then senator ben nelson's vote. that is not a reason that is recognized by the constitution as legitimate. if they had been a distinction made because of the volume of potential medicare recipients or poverty levels or something involving health care and nebraska that was different, then that would be a different story on the constitutionality. that's why many states in the national legislation are not all treated the same because they are distinctions. and a lot of times there's a lot of straightening that goes on as we all know. but there is always a reason given. well, there is no reason given here except the one i recited and that is one that we see as unconstitutional and is likely seen by many as a symbol of the
5:56 pm
excesses of the corruption and excessive spending and fiscal irresponsibility in the congress. now that is not addressed in this letter. with this letter addresses is simply the constitutionality of that one provision. after we wrote the letter the next day which was thursday, december 31st, i received a telephone call from senator gramm saying he had received a telephone call from senator ben nelson asking to call the dogs off, and senator gramm suggested to senator nelson that he call me and he called me and asked what he could do to assure us that there were not going to be constitutional problems and i told him what would satisfy this group, which is now grown to 50 is to take the provision of the bill and don't let it become law. he explained that either the out what happened or the same
5:57 pm
provision would be provided for every state. of course of the same provision is provided for every state than that does not pose a constitutional problem that the attorney general's would be concerned in and protecting their states' but would raise other questions of fiscal responsibility and budgetary questions and all of those kinds of questions that are rampant right now in the current budget crisis. and the economic crisis. so that is where we left it and i was very interested. he said i know, just like ronald reagan, trust but verify. and he was assuring me that there would be something done and that's how we left it and i have not heard from him since december 31st. after that, i asked drew edmondson, he was a democrat in oklahoma, attorney general who's been there several terms, if he
5:58 pm
would join with me to go to the national association of attorneys general, and as we often do, send out a letter asking other people to participate if they would like. and it was sent out about a week ago. we had a number of regimes, both republicans and democrats that were quite interested. one actually signed on. others were interested in signing on but they wanted to change one word savitt editorial comments on the letter and it finally got -- we ran out of time and so we now had 15. but there were others interested in the question and others interested in other questions as well. probably the most prominent of which is the individual mandate, which is i believe and presume others believe all the wit is not a subject of this particular letter, we believe that is constitutionally suspect as well. and that would come under the of course as the tenth amendment
5:59 pm
question the congress has power to spend, the congress has power to tax the individual mandate is neither of those. congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce. but this is something that is not in interstate commerce. this requirement of an individual mandate is requiring people to buy something they don't already have, and that is going off the scale and the question of constitutional law and i believe and i know some other believe some of whom are on this letter and some of whom are not that that is also a highly suspect and maybe a suit brought about that as well depending on what comes out of the congress and by president obama. the next question is if they don't take the provisions out, if they are unconstitutional parts, and i want to state clearly that we are not challenging the other aspects, the policy aspects of the bill. that is not the focus of this
6:00 pm
group of attorneys generals. just the constitutional question involved. but there are a number of other questions the need to be answered and there are others may be myself included who would be interested in pursuing remedies the question is what cord do you go into and there are some, perhaps some exceptions and these are the sorts of things that need to be finalized through research. a state can sue the state only on the jurisdiction of the use might it states supreme court. a fully than 139 cases to be accepted by the u.s. supreme court in the original jurisdiction since the beginning of the country. line was on a case where south carolina is serving north carolina stealing our water, taking too much and they
6:01 pm
accepted that as the 138th case in its original jurisdiction which is a very big deal. it isn't an appeal that his trial and appeal and all that. that's an average of all dressed action for a state to see a state or state to sue the must n the trust action. now however, if an individual sues the federal government or if an individual suzanne officer of the government that is someone who would be involved in providing these benefits or implementing the program that could be done in any u.s. district court and probably the same for the state of south carolina or any other state suing someone and some officers, federal officer in their official capacity who would be involved in implementing this program could be done in any district court in the united states. again i emphasize by an individual or by a state. it is not unusual for attorneys
6:02 pm
general to join together on issues. this is the first time we've had one like this since i've been attorney general or since any of us know. i've known this for seven years but it's not unusual for us to join together through amicus briefs, on letters like the one i described a moment ago and other things to force out opinions and concerns on proposed legislation, to support or oppose any of lawsuits in connection with each other and as i mentioned filed amicus briefs. so there are plenty of opportunities and a lot of different ways a case concerning this and other provisions could be brought to the courts but all of us i know of the 15 participating in this effort at this time we would prefer to have the provisions taken out of the bill and not put in law and
6:03 pm
the would solve problems with us, think i've covered it all. i would be glad to try to answer any questions anybody has. >> please identify yourself and your organization when you ask a question. >> [inaudible] i know about the 13 states -- speed the last two or oklahoma, that is attorney general drew edmondson and american samoa and i don't remember that attorney general's name. she was appointed and is a democrat. >> if i may quickly follow up i understand you are concerned about the legality of this provision but let me ask a
6:04 pm
political question do you support the health care bill as it is written? >> no an emphatic no. no. but that isn't a part of these efforts by these 15 attorneys general. that is a separate question. >> attorney general, could i ask you for a few more details on your conversation with senator nelson? there's a few things i would be interested in, how long did the last -- >> about ten minutes i think. >> [inaudible] >> very cordial. >> and did you discuss the central issue with him for instance you've indicated you sort of hinted a while ago now the motivation for getting this provision that to think is maybe shifting on the side of the
6:05 pm
democrats did you directly ask him whether this provision was added to get your vote? to do directly ask the question? >> i did not roskam that question because he address the first. he said he did not ask for it to be put in. >> he said he did not ask? >> that is correct. he said as i recall that was a marker put in by the leadership and what he had hoped for was every state would have the option to have what nebraska got or every state would have with nebraska >> does he think it's fair or unfair or what did he say about it? what does he think about the challenge? >> well, he didn't give any indication as to whether he felt the challenge would be successful or not. he explained that he had not asked for the provision and that
6:06 pm
he was going to fix it, that he would hope and he had intended for every state to have the same benefit that nebraska got the the the only provision was put in was the one for nebraska. >> i'm sorry, mcclatchy newspapers. >> i recognize him. okay. >> you were talking about some of the other troublesome provisions for the individual mandate for example. could you flash that out a little bit more, please? >> the individual mandate requires everyone to buy health insurance. now, the question becomes how does the united states congress have the authority to require an individual to buy health
6:07 pm
insurance or anything else? and there is no provision for that in the constitution or the constitutional law as i know and others agree because the congress has the power to tax and spend. as you know the constitution provides certain things that the federal government can do and the tenth amendment says the states do everything else. this is something the would fall into that category if it falls there but it certainly does not fall into the authority of the federal government. the federal government can tax and spend and regulate the army navy air force marines and other things and interstate commerce, it can regulate interstate commerce but this is not a matter of interstate commerce. if this involved track it flow
6:08 pm
or something like that where that was an activity being conducted to the interstate commerce than there would be a different question. this is an instance where the federal government is requiring an individual to buy insurance they may not want and may not need and may not be able to afford and that is taking the federal government into a completely new area. senator orrin hatch and two other gentleman wrote a piece for "the wall street journal" recently that goes into that and three possible constitutional infirmities and that is one of them and i agreed with them and i can't remember his name, mr. kozlowski said a meeting i attended earlier and he's very well informed and anyway there is a lot of law that agrees with what they had in that. >> if the bill comes out does
6:09 pm
not contain this provision would be okay? >> which provision? >> the cornhuskers provision. >> yes, that would end the effort to that is signified by this letter but that is i'm not saying that would end all efforts that may be signified by additional letters were not even by letters at all but lawsuits either by states or individuals. >> would you tell people who say this is a political issue? and you said senator lindsey graham as one who initiated the call to you and with senator demint said the letter to vote against this bill and so they are trying every way possible to try and stop it and you are complicitous in that. what is your response?
6:10 pm
>> i don't know if i am confident there's or if they are accomplices in line. [laughter] >> they initiated a -- the letter of course formalized i think there are a number of ag and scholars or observers and ms. people around the country raising questions about the constitutionality of the various parts of this from the jury beginning. but when i received that letter we went into additional discussion and conversations and began the other attorneys general to see if they saw the same way i saw and the resorted and as i said the three others at the beginning and then we called some others and in the up with a group of 13 at that time and then we went into the discussion of what should we do and should we write a letter and if so what should say and the letter went through a good bit of work and if you'd read it i
6:11 pm
think he will say it is of a provocative letter it is a legal document and it stays in telling of the attorney general's speaking of the legal issue. this is something. this bill this something that would put a burden, financial burden on my state from nebraska at a time we can barely keep the lights on in my state and here comes another unfunded mandate, unfunded everywhere except nebraska and we are all funding nebraska's progress so that is something clearly within the authority of an attorney general to question and that is why we question that. why did this group go after this and instead of focusing on others? i think it's because this was the most heralded and egregious example of what, i will speak for the others will speak for myself there's the corruption and excess that has taken deep root in washington it is a
6:12 pm
serious threat, a very serious problem and sometimes the states need to rein in washington and and that is what we are attempting to do >> yes, sir. >> could you talking little bit more? is this provision illegal or unconstitutional or both and it is unconstitutional but specifically in the constitution tells the congress how it can go about getting an agreement on a legislation? >> there is nothing that says how to go about getting agreement on legislation in the constitution but the constitution as concerns with this agreement and this is just one way to approach it, privileges and immunities and due process, the welford walls, a variety of different ways all of which have to be considered very carefully as well as which
6:13 pm
state, which district, which division to bring the case in and which court if it is necessary to do so and if we believe that we should. but it is the case law that provides the details the constitution allows the congress to spend money for the general welfare so the question comes up with is the general welfare? is that just anything or are there limits? the case is defined by saying there is a limit. they say the spending power of the congress is broad but is not unlimited and spending can be conducted provided is for a reason and that is for not being bartered or capricious. for disabled people the provides for health care services or spending above the country and says send $10 million to this gentleman just because we like him we are likely to be found unconstitutional because it isn't related to the risk and
6:14 pm
shows an arbitrary and capricious approach. that is the precise thing we see here. the only reason has been suggested by senator nelson or anyone else that is no contradiction that the reason nebraska got the special deal was because harry reid and senate democrats need his vote for the cloture and passage of the bill. that is an arbitrary capricious reasoned as unrelated to the rest of the bill which reads the states differently. it treats the other states unfairly and unjustly and that is recognized in the constitution. >> is it also any illegal bribe? >> it depends on the law. arnold schwarzenegger says if it were done in sacramento would be to reduce the liquid to the sins of carolina? >> south carolina and would be -- it would probably not be i say probably the law is unclear but it could be if it took place
6:15 pm
in south carolina. it is undecided whether it would be or is not. our laws fairly specific on a person who is bribe receiving something of value and i can't predict how the courts would react if this had taken place in south carolina and there were allegations and these allegations were made the only reason he did was to get something from nebraska. now, if he's getting something for himself is this getting something for himself? for example there's been instances where people in south carolina have suggested if you vote for this particular piece of legislation we will send money to your campaign account. is that a bride? the case is probably so, probably not. we don't know. if it says you will vote for this piece of legislation we will give you $1,000 we know
6:16 pm
that is a broad and people that have gone to jail back in their early nineties in a federal prosecution where the u.s. attorney's office for precisely that. a lot of it was even less than $1,000 that is why we have long ways very strict on that sort of thing now. so in south carolina would this be a state crime? it's difficult to say yes or no but it will be highly regarded as completely wrong whether it is illegal and criminal would be regarded as from the reply is not researched law in california to see what reference governor schwarzenegger was making. >> exercising [inaudible] -- i was just wondering you said you started with one or two and then 13 and now you are 15 and now it's bipartisan also. are you heading towards all
6:17 pm
states to gather commending things can be sorted out by all [inaudible] >> if you were to get sorted out in court they would be sort of by the court. all you need is one person to bring the case to get this sorted out whether it is an individual or attorney general bringing it on behalf of the state or an individual bringing it on bye him or herself. but if someone filed such a lawsuit, i expect there would be a lot of amicus briefs and support around the country but i don't know how many other people will join. there may be more. i don't know that. >> have you contacted others? >> yes we have. >> the second is how far you are
6:18 pm
going to go you are running for the governor so if you become a governor will you still be addressed in this particular subject? >> i will be there much interest in the subject because it is an unfunded mandate on the state of south carolina and as i said we barely are keeping the lights on. our budget has been -- we had to slash the budget in south carolina we don't have to suspend the constitution doesn't always of the income isn't coming from taxes and fees and money from the federal government we have to cut the budget and that means you have to cut the budget of every agency when the legislature is not in session the cuts are done by a group called the budget and control boards that makes across-the-board cuts and i think the last two years we've had cuts of over 40% said yes i am concerned about it now if elected as governor from the position i will still be concerned about it.
6:19 pm
>> the president has announced the body of ten governors, five from each party minimum wouldn't be more than five from each party and what is your take on that? to solve emergency problems? >> i'm not aware of what he did. ten governors to solve the problems with this health care bill? >> the phase the country. >> i would say it's always good to have help from whatever source but i'm not familiar with what you are referring to. there was another question. i don't think i answered your whole question we have 15 now and there may be others that join but if we were to file something there would be an open
6:20 pm
invitation as there always is to anyone who wants to express their views either pro or con to file an amicus brief. >> [inaudible] >> that was the question. yes, attorney general of oklahoma, drew edmondson and i send out a letter about a week or -- a week ago in fighting others to participate and the attorney general and american samoa signed on to the letter as written as other republicans and democrats who are interested to edit the letter further and some minor but we were running out of time to keep tinkering with the letter and we've settled on the one that we have and so it was time ran out and about was the end of that. but anyone can file an amicus brief and we often do.
6:21 pm
on cases. >> mr. attorney-general, have you gotten any response from white senator reid or sicker pelosi, and did you make any effort to meet with them while you are here and if not, why not? >> i wrote a letter -- i wrote this letter that has 13 attorneys general on it and we have not received or at least i have not received a response. i know of no response any of the others have received, and i don't expect to receive one at this point because this lecture is dated december 31st. spread widened to make any effort to meet with them while you are up here and try to resolve this issue? >> i don't -- i don't believe that my meeting with them can produce fruit. if they responded and asked for a meeting i would be happy to meet with them and anyone else
6:22 pm
but it is their turn. >> mr. attorney general, thank you for being here. i'm a member of the press club and not a reporter. i run a firm in washington, d.c. and i am a former staffer for senator ben nelson [inaudible] and your comments you said earlier that senator nelson told you had you not ask for the provision in certain the bill and a few moments ago to said that with great fanfare he took credit for the provision so i would like you to tell me which statement do you believe to be correct? >> both. he told me that, as i recall and i am fairly confident this is precisely what he said as he did not ask for that to be in there. but he preferred a similar provision for all states but he only got it from nebraska but he did not ask for nebraska to be singled out.
6:23 pm
so he was responsible for nebraska getting it but he did not asked nebraska only get. you want me to say it again? >> you changed your statement earlier when you said he didn't ask for it and now you're saying he didn't ask for nebraska only to get it should -- >> that's right. he did ask for nebraska only. sprick after governor schwarzenegger's comments on the press on sunday, the associated press and california issued a report showing governor schwarzenegger himself engaged in the very exact same activities of the state level he was complaining about at the federal level. i wanted to know if you were aware of that and if you know and would file similar suits in california against the governor if he was doing the same kind of trading that's happening in washington. >> a pesky questions. [laughter] >> no, our focus is on the state of south carolina and this bill as written when i left the
6:24 pm
senate it poses a fiscal burden for the people of south carolina for the benefit of another state and was nebraska only the was accepted. the other states bear the burden of their own people and a burden from nebraska as well. that is what we think is unconstitutional. but now the other question. you seem to be interested in this. [laughter] he said that he did not ask for this provision. what he wanted was a similar one for everyone across-the-board or an opt in or opt out for all the states. but the only one included in the bill, the only state that was included was nebraska. so that's what he said. >> agreed. okay. i only brought up governor schwarzenegger because you did and again, think you for indulging me with questions. i have one other question that can't be in the pesky nature as well. you mentioned "the wall street
6:25 pm
journal," the piece from senator hatch and the great emphasis on wall street journal's stature as a media organization. in october "the wall street journal" editorial page at negative comments to say about your behavior in a particular instance of questions or ethics having to do with no bid contracts for friends who then turned around and donated $60,000 of contributions to your campaign. i'm wondering can recall that the carolina kickback? >> you're right, that is a pesky questions. [laughter] >> sorry to bring it up. >> i'm sure you are. [laughter] the agreement -- >> thank you again for indulging. >> sure. the agreement on a use, i bring lawsuits for the state against business is very rarely. attorney general's all the time, we bring them very rarely. the one against ely is one that
6:26 pm
had to be brought to read the one i used to hire outside counsel as was pointed out in my letter to the editor in response to the i would say uninformed or not completely informed editorial by the journal pointed out in my state i have eight civil attorneys most doing criminal work. a case of this magnitude is too big. but the agree and i use to hide your attorneys has been selected as the model by toward reform groups for hiring outside counsel and all the states. many of the other states have adopted the one we use. it is a good agreement there is nothing wrong with it and in this case it produced very important results for the state of south carolina. >> i agree don't think the wall street problem is with
6:27 pm
[inaudible] it was with the campaign contribution kickbacks that were done after they were hired. >> there were not in a campaign contribution kickbacks. >> "the wall street journal" saw this differently. one other question -- >> we dennett -- i know you do but there were attorneys who gave money to my campaigns, and the attorneys representing the defendant, ely, gave an equal amount of money to my campaigns. a judge ruled on that question and ruled that there was no ethical violation at all and ely brought up in the case before we had the 45 million-dollar. stopguard the other attorney generals signed on -- to keep referencing the letters, is there a letter today and then -- is there in a letter today or was it the same that he's been talking about? >> is there in a letter today?
6:28 pm
>> you've been a reference in a letter during your comments -- >> no, there's no new letter. >> my question is are the 3415 interregional signed the letter aware of the situation with the no big insider contract and deal in south carolina and would they condone that kind of behavior? >> i would have to ask them about those kind of things. >> in addition to writing this letter are you also crafting -- addressing or can you shed some light on the process? are you going ahead drafting the lawsuit itself? where does that effort stand at this point? >> at this point the attorneys general are doing i don't know if all of them but i know some of them are doing additional research to determine and make determinations about whether a case should be brought or which court a case should or should
6:29 pm
not be brought in if it is necessary to bring the case, and there are other observers who are interested as well. >> to go back to the conversation with senator nels and i want to make sure i have something straight. did he say or was it your understanding that when he said other states should get the same benefit if other states, if all other states got the same benefit, the conclusion seems to be that the federal government would pay for the entire increased cost which would increase the deficit and not make this and revenue neutral which is what president obama and congressional leaders have heralded. is that what he was saying when he said other states he wanted other states to get the same benefits that nebraska is now getting which is the federal government is going to cover their added cost was he saying that is what he wants, the federal government to call all
6:30 pm
-- >> that is when he explained to me in the phone call, but his precise words were that he did not ask for the special treatment. what he preferred was an opt out, al qaim provision for other states or similar treatments for other states. >> was your understanding of that that he was basically >> my belief is that these bills
6:31 pm
6:32 pm
6:33 pm
provide tax benefits and various sorts of tax relief, when business or individual goes to a
6:34 pm
member of congress and makes this request and these bills are routinely passed. are all of these bills unconstitutional and of the state theory you been offering in this case? >> i don't believe so because, of course, there are not part of a national legislative effort are national legislative purpose and i would presume although i haven't studied the any particular ones, we've been concentrating on this one, that there is some reason for it other than to get someone's vote in one of the legislative bodies. >> why is saving in individual -- providing one individual tax benefits -- what is that any more legitimate purpose? then getting one set too. >> that is outside -- that's a good question. i would be glad to have someone
6:35 pm
do some research and try to provide the sum of items on that but the thing we have studied at some length is in this provision, this cornhusker kickback, and the research or our conclusions are set out. i can tell you about that one. >> sir, i understand that this particular provision is egregious and that has prompted this legal examination on you're part, but the individual mandate has been around, that's been well known. the democratic leaders have been talking about this since they began talking about health care and has been part of the house bill and previous -- the previous operations. how come that did not rise up to the level of a municipal legal challenge from view, that's been around and is egregious? >> it does raise constitutional
6:36 pm
questions put this one with senator nelson in coming, the fanfare of the 60th vote and all that was involved in all the attention focused on its lead us and led me and i presume others as well to conclude and that it would be harmful to our states and that we need to do something. and as i said, there may be others that may attack some other part of the bill if it becomes law. none of this is ever become law before and we explained the absence of a challenge but if they become what i would expect there would be numerous challenges some of which we know nothing about at this time. they could come from anywhere. >> i have a question on behalf of south carolina, they are going to watch it on c-span taping.
6:37 pm
what message do you have for the south carolina and ordinary folks, you are talking this is on behalf of south carolina. the local media, what are they going to the vote with your methods? >> i'm sorry. >> why are you doing this? what benefit is this going to give south carolina? >> well, the benefits that the effort will have his it will save the people of south carolina money. that is it will not be called upon to bear our own burden for the extension of medicare -- medicaid, but also the costs associated with nebraska. we believe it's unconstitutional and for that reason as i say in south carolina we can barely keep the lights on now with the budget cuts we've had and to have this imposed on us is again speaking constitutionally not
6:38 pm
only the burden that we would bear under the bill of it becomes law, butine on behalf of
6:39 pm
the state. >> we are nearing the one hour mark that we allocate our
6:40 pm
newsmaker so if there are no further questions i want to thank mr. mcmaster for joining us today at the press club and i want to thank each of you for taking time out of your day to come to this event and as we say at press club gatherings we are now adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations]
6:41 pm
6:42 pm
6:43 pm
last week china denounced the decision to allow the sale of patriot missiles by lockheed martin to taiwan. of next a look at recent changes in china's military strategy. officials of the pentagon and state department testified earlier today about china's relationship with its asian neighbors and the united states. this is about two hours. >> today we have with us admiral robert willard, a pacific command, honorable chip gregson, assistant secretary of defense for asian and pacific securities paris, and it david shear, deputy assistant secretary of state for east asian and pacific affairs and we welcome you gentlemen to the first hearing on before this committee. we are pleased you could join us today to testify on a recent security developments involving
6:44 pm
china. this is a very important -- i wished to welcome his wife, donna, who is sead the good adderall and we welcome you. if the admiral of missteps of it you just whisper in his. help him out. welcome. this is a very important and timely hearing. it's interesting to note that just this morning press reports indicate that google is contemplating pulling out of china which we may discuss a bit in our hearing. i stress the particles of dividends of developments in china to our national security. in recent years while we've been heavily focused on events in the middle east and south asia, china's influence has grown in asia as well as beyond. i'm pleased that the obama administration has characterized the u.s. china's security relationship and was encouraged by the joint statement the
6:45 pm
resulted from the president's recent visit to china. i welcome the administration's efforts to increase u.s.-china relations and cooperation in areas of common interests ranging from the counter-terrorism and nonproliferation and two energy security. we must work together with china for the settlement of conflicts and reduction of tensions that is to be two global and regional instability including the denuclearization of the korean peninsula, the iranian nuclear issue and the situation in south asia. i particularly well, the administration's support for increasing military to military contacts. i want you to such contacts as an essential part of efforts that it promotes understanding and prevents conflicts and fosters cooperation. and given my own visits to china in recent years i know how important these relationships are. looking back at u.s.-china
6:46 pm
security cooperation and in the previous administration there were some positiv steps but there is still much progress to be achieved and the new administration will continue to raise plenty of challenges. i remain concerned by trends and ambiguities regarding china's military modernization including china's missile build up across from taiwan and the steady increase of china's power projection capability is. moreover china's military budget continues a trend of double-digit increases at a time when china provides more and more of loans that support the american economy. the chinese transparency on defense matters is still limited. and questions remain regarding china's strategy -- strategic intentions. this was highlighted days ago following china's concerning missile intercept event. at the same time the reduction of tensions across the taiwan strait is a positive development and i hope to see for the progress in the area including
6:47 pm
meaningful action by china to reduce its military presence directly opposite taiwan. i am also encouraged by china's recent involvement in counter piracy operations in the gulf of aden. this demonstrates responsible use of chinese military power in line with its international responsibilities of which i hope to see more. i continue to believe china is not necessarily destined to be a threat to the u.s. but there are trends and ambiguities that concern us. i continue to believe that the u.s. must not bashed demonstrate our own interests in the asia-pacific region including ability to project power and i believe there. at the same time we must also acknowledge china's limitations and recognize that china's choices may well be shaved by our own actions. so i look for to hearing from witnesses about the actions that dod and the department of state are undertaking and hope they will help us better understand
6:48 pm
recent security developments involving china. i also love for to receiving the 2010 dod annual report on the subject which is due to the committee this march. however, before we begin testimony i turned to my friend from california, the ranking member,. >> thank you mr. chairman for holding today's hearing on a recent security developments involving the people's republic of china. today is our first opportunity to examine the administration's policy toward china and how such a policy is aligned with our overall approach to the region. this hearing also gives a forum to better understand china's military buildup and activities were expanding areas of influence around the globe. of which has serious implications for the strategic posture of the u.s.. i'd also like to welcome our
6:49 pm
witnesses, the chairman recognized, and thank you all for being here today and look for to your testimony and our discussion. as i review our policy toward china it's my understanding that president obama's team may follow an approach of strategic assurance has put the worthen by deputy secretary of state james steinberg. this strategy is based on the belief that china cannot be contained and therefore we america and the international community must accept its rise to power. in return we see china as resurgence that his stature will not come at the expense or security of other nations. for example, strategic assurance may be demonstrated to impart by china's cooperation with united states and other nations on matters of a shared interest, in particular within the last year we were together in our handling of the global financial crisis. countering piracy of the east coast of africa and isolating
6:50 pm
north korea for its persistent and aggressive nuclear and missile tests. while these are positive steps in our relationship we cannot ignore the reality that china still falls short in a column of reassurance. actions speak louder than words. here are but a few examples -- first, on monday china demonstrated its resolve to expand strategic capabilities with a missile defense test. as of yesterday we heard of the pentagon that this was conducted without a danced on vacation to the u.s.. what are china's intentions for employing the missile intercept system? once again, we're left in the dark to question china's commitment to transparency and cooperation. mark concerning this test comes at a time of tension over arms sales to taiwan. is this test intended as an aggressive signal? second, according to the latest u.s. china and economic insecurity commission report, i
6:51 pm
close, there has been a marked increase in cyber intrusions originating in china and targeting u.s. government and defense related in computer systems. and activity that could potentially disrupt u.s. commercial and banking systems as well as compromise sensitive defense and military data and the chairman and remarked about google and the problem they're having and where we're moving in that direction. third appearing in march 2009 chinese naval muscle behaved in an aggressive m'aam toward the u.s. ms impeccable. despite china's assertion of its rise within its maritime exclusive economic zone, this incident illustrates its willingness to violate international law and reflects increasing risks of china's expanding military operations in areas where u.s. forces routinely operate. independently these examples are a cause of concern but more so
6:52 pm
when seen under an umbrella of market uncertainty surrounding china's future course in terms of its military and security ambitions. i would like to now turn to the neighborhood in which china resigns. this brings me to the president's recent trip to asia. while some see the u.s.-china joint statement as significant accomplishment, from my view we are merely left with a laundry list of issues that need to be worked out. furthermore i'm deeply concerned with the message we sent to our partners in the region. from australia to india, the trip raised questions about who has the upper hand in the u.s.-china relationship. at a time when we should be focused on reaffirming our commitment to the region and we left many doubting the depth and breadth of american power and influence. for example in 2009 defense point paper the government of
6:53 pm
australia states we also need to consider the circumstances of a more dramatic and independence sudden deterioration in our strategic outlook. while currently unlikely transformation of major power relations in the u.s. pacific region, would have a profound effect on a strategic circumstances. of particular concern would be any diminution of the willingness or capacity of the united states to act as a stabilizing force. i hope each of you will give concrete examples of what we're doing to alleviate these doubts. finally in just a few weeks at the department of defense will submit its 2010 quadrennial defense review to progress. shortly after riss will receive the nuclear posture review. the 2006 the pentagon noted that china was a strategic crossroads and that it had the greatest
6:54 pm
potential to compete militarily with united states. in its 2009 annual report to congress on china's military power, the department maintained that the pace and scope of china's military transformation continue to increase. fuel by the acquisition of advanced board weapons. also similar to years past noted that china continues to develop and build a destructive technologies including those for access to an area of the nile as well as nuclear cyber and space warfare. when we received the cutie are there will be changes. my fear is that we will downgrade the china threat in a time to justify last year's and future cuts to keep defense programs. if the conclusion is the same as it was in 2006 than i expect the president's budget to invest in the necessary capabilities to
6:55 pm
execute our contingency plans in asia. this is the type of strategic reassurance our allies need and is the key to stability in asia. with respect to the npr we must be cognizant and additional reductions in our strategic capabilities will only invite china to seek strategic parity with united states. in closing today will hear about the need for a candid dialogue and improving patient with china. as you know we made changes to the pentagon's annual report on china's military power in this year's defense bill to focus on those areas. while i believe the coming to the table is vital to avoid a misunderstanding in this calculation, we must be mindful that it takes to to make a relationship work and that our priority focus must always be on protecting america's national security interest. this is truly a timely hearing and we appreciate your appearance this morning. thank you mr. chairman. >> i think the gentleman.
6:56 pm
a word to the members. we will be backed in our old haunts, the committee room around the first of next month so it will be much more convenient for us then it's going to look very good. i'm very pleased with what i saw yesterday. each of the witnesses today as i understand it has statements to make and we will call on admiral robert willard first. admiral. >> thank you mr. chairman, and members of this committee. chairman, thank you for introducing my wife, donna, who joins me today. she's been a military spouse for 36 years in addition to being a mother and grandmother and she is now very much a joint spouse
6:57 pm
at pacific command with oversight of the needs of army, navy, air force, marine corps and coast guard families as well as families of our civilian workers within pay -- pacific command. i'm pleased to have her. thank you, sir,. i've been in command of the u.s. pacific command for about three months. and although i may be new to this i commanded extensively in the asia-pacific region. consequently during my 36 years of service developed a great respect for this part of the world. in that time i have come to believe that now more than ever it's vital to our nation's security interests and economic prosperity. in previous taurus as now the emergence of china and its military has been a routine topic of discussion in my interactions with the regional leaders. of concern to most, reconciling china's declared desire for a
6:58 pm
peaceful and stable environment for economic development with a new military capability and capacity that designed to challenge international freedom some action and potentially in force influence over regional nations. reconciliation of these two divergent positions can only occur through continuous rain conversations and mutual actions within a strong and mature military to military relationship. he relationship that is not yet exist between the united states military and the pla. and until it does and it's determined that china is intent is, indeed, a nine, it's critical that we maintain the readiness of our for the deployed forces, continually reinforce our commitment to our allies and partners in the region, and miti's challenged by the people's republic of china in a professional manner that is consistent with international
6:59 pm
law. it's clearly in both nations interest and the asia-pacific regions interest to manage these complexities and developer relationship with china that is constructive and in every way. and u.s. pacific command our goal is to support this relationship by identifying opportunities that allow us to work more closely with china. while also encouraging her to reconcile strategic intent with increasingly sophisticated combat capabilities. congress can assist by maintaining a focus not only on china, but on the growing importance of the asia-pacific region to our nation and to our global partners. leadership both in beijing and during our visits to washington, d.c. must be consistent, resolute and invoke the nation's principles an values. i offer my staff's support,
7:00 pm
direct support to you during travels to the region and invite to you stop in honolulu and visit u.s. pacific command on your way to or from this area of responsibility. finally, i would like to thank this committee for the strong support you provide to the men and women of our united states military. despite being involved in two wars, a retention in recruiting rates remain very strong, which is a direct reflection ever the quality of life initiative supported by you and by the american people. on behalf of more than 300,000 men and women of u.s. pacific command, please accept my sincere appreciation for the work that you do for us and for this great nation. thank you, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you admiral. secretary gregson. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee, thank you very much for this opportunity to appear today to discuss recent military
7:01 pm
and security developments in the peoples republic of china. i'm pleased to be joined by old friends and colleagues admiral willard and mr. david sheer. china's rap it rise as a regional political and economic power with growing global influence has significant implications for the asia pacific region, the united states and the world. these developments occur in a dynamic environment with little historical precedent. as secretary gates said during the past three decades an enormous swath of asia has changed almost beyond recognition. hundreds of millions emerged from poverty to higher living standards as a result of cooperation, openness and mutual security. new and re-emerging centers of power alike are realizing extraordinary growth and development. from india to indonesia, china to russia, and australia to japan millions have moved to poverty to prosperity. this helps drive the growth.
7:02 pm
in turn, china gains greatly from asia's growth. the united states welcomes a strong, prosperous, and successful china. as president obama stated, the relationship between united states and china will shape the 21st century, which makes it as important as any bilateral relationship in the world. but this develop occurs as new challenges emerge. our newest security issues cover a very wide range. these include economics, regional areas, terrorism, proliferation, energy supplies, the effect of climate change and disasters both manmade and natural. our increasingly interconnected world require cooperation and integrated solutions. since the committee's last hearing on this topic, we have seen several significant develops. some positive, other troubling.
7:03 pm
many are documented on military power of the people's republican of china. on one hand we have several positive examples of china's constitution to international peace and stability. we are encouraged for the year-in security council in 1974 to support the nuclearization of the korean peninsula. also they are cooperating in delivering goods to humanity assistance to caster relief. we appreciate the positive experience of our two navies working in concert to combat piracy in the gulf of aden and we're looking forward to building on these experiences. but we have concerns at the pace, scope,s and lack of transparency. the people's liberation army is changes from a man's army on
7:04 pm
it's own it territory to one developed for winning short duration, high intensity conflicts on it's periphery. they are being prepared to foreign source us and increasingly cable trail base. organizational and doctrinal changes are developed as the design for anti-access, nuclear space and cyber space arenas. missouri -- modernization continues with the edition of more missiles, enhanced air, surface, and sea capabilities. over the last couple of years, china developed rolls and missions that go beyond the territorial it interest. we will continue to use military engagement to demonstrate u.s. commitment to the ah sha specific region and act as a partner in addressing common
7:05 pm
security challenges. we will maintain and enhance our presence and alliances in asia and clearly demonstrate u.s. resolve. our interest lie as they have for the decades of asia rise in constructive engagement combined with a strong network of alliances and partnerships throughout the edge of. thank you and i -- i appreciate the -- the opportunity to be here. and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, mr. secretary. secretary shear. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. mckeon, i appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. my colleagues have already addressed our military to military relations with china. so my remarks will focus on the president's november trip as well as our broader security goals regarding china and the region. since coming to off, president obama has stated the united states welcomes the emergence of china and in the interconnected
7:06 pm
world, power does not need to be the zero-some game. we welcome the world in which the growing economy is joined by growing responsibility. end i would reiterate or desire that as the chinese economy grows, they become a responsible member of the international community. president obama's trip to asia in november 2009 with stops in japan, singapore, china and south korea was intended to demonstrate the u.s. commitment to the region, build trust, articulate or values on issues such as human rights and strengthen and expand our cooperation with china. the trip was productive in this regard. during his first ever visit to china, the president deepened his acquaintance with the chinese court part on issues such as iran, north korea, and afghanistan. the president said the stage for
7:07 pm
further cooperation in copenhagen on climate change. he discussed exchange rates and trade, clean energy, military-to-military education changes, human rights, and stopping the right of spread of the nuclear weapons. in a joint statement issued by president obama and jintao. in order to get china right, you have to get the region right. this is the vital to economic prosperity. our act of presence helps promote regional security and stability. we intend to deepen our engagement and strengthen by strengthening our commitments to allies and partners and enhancing our involvement in regional institutions. the secretary addressed these issues as well as our presence in the region in an important
7:08 pm
speech in honolulu yesterday. the president's trip to china -- and the region, demonstrated the importance we place on east asia which remains vital to u.s. security and prosperity. in the november joint statement, the chinese recognize the positive role that the united states plays by saying they welcome the united states has a an asia-pacific region that contributes to the peace in the region. it was also a continuation of our efforts to build a positive, cooperative, and comprehensive relationship between the united states and china. as president obama has said, the ability of the united states and china to partner is a prerequisite for progress on some of the most important issues of our times. those issues include several important security challenges. issues such as north korea and iran cannot be successfully addressed without intensive and sustained involvement by china. to date, we've been encouraged
7:09 pm
to cooperate. although there's a lot of work to be done. we obviously do not see eye to eye with the chinese on every issue. for example, on taiwan, the united states remains committed to our one-china policy based on the three joint communiques and the taiwan communications act. we believe the policy has contributed greatly to the peace and stability. and we remain committed to that framework. we welcome the improvement in cross relations over the past year. at the same time, we have voiced our concerns about china's rapid modernization program as it remitted to taiwan. the continued military build up across the taiwan strait despite the improvements raised many questions about beijing's commitment to a peaceful
7:10 pm
solution to the cross strait issue. similarly, they have differences on the human rights. human rights is central element of american foreign policy as the president has said it is a part of who we are as a people. president obama has stated the raise of strong prosperous china can be a source of strength for the community of nations. this summer we'll hold another meeting to the u.s., china, strategy economic dialogue that we initiated last
7:11 pm
7:12 pm
7:13 pm
7:14 pm
7:15 pm
7:16 pm
7:17 pm
7:18 pm
7:19 pm
7:20 pm
7:21 pm
7:22 pm
7:23 pm
>> steve: 4:19 here to play in the first quarter as washington made just two of 13 field goals. that's 15% from the field. atlanta not doing much better. they made four of 15. fans stay connected to the home team with the wizards play pack. packages in the vw penthouse are only $99. packages in the lower club
7:24 pm
level $199. visit to n ha twice. here is the second one right there. >> phil: pick up. turned it back over again. >> steve: hawks have outrebounded the wizards 13-9 so far tonight. washington made just within of their last five field goals. atlanta made two of their last fi >> steve: this building which averages over 16,000 for hawks games this year is very quiet right now and clearly not that many people in there. >> steve: not quite the 16,000 in here. >> steve: huge building. so when there are a few people in here it is almost carnous.
7:25 pm
>> steve: jamison with his fourth rebound. young against bibby much nice fade away. comes up short. wizards woes continue from the field. here is marvin williams. bibby. back to horford on the screen and roll and he scores. >> phil: hor hoford comes into this game shooting a very good percentage from the field. right around 58%. >> steve: randy foye knocking down a jumper and randy foye has been outstanding for the wizards. in fact last night became the
7:26 pm
first wizard guard other than gilbert to record a double- double with 10 appoints and six assists. back in 2004. gilbert still on suspension. last time these two teams met gilbert arenas had 23 points and hawks won it 100-89. antawn jamison in that game didn't play because he was out with an injury. >> phil: right. going back to randy foye. got need for him. five rebounds to go along with that. a couple of steals. so he has been get morgue and more confident. i like what i see from him. >> steme-oatla ngin a c. u coly ne o. ich uld ve?sy, h, mour - uhy mo ur mlite oh. mbli how s thf? ou le ta offbeermuch ll, uld.
7:27 pm
whate taabouknow ed tfile ret e no esti g yo que com h&k: get it right.
7:28 pm
>> steve: wizards having a tough start to this game. made two of their last seven shots. shooting now at 20%. as we take a look at our toyota league leaders. most points per game by starters. >> phil: obviously we tend to believe that means you could get a little bit more help from your bench but certainly right there, of course i remember back when they had a trio of players with washington that averaged pretty close to that. right around 70. >> steve: got 67 plus points a game much that was the big three. jamison, butler and arenas.
7:29 pm
hawks have only made five field goals tonight but they have assisted on all five shots. 11-6 for atlanta. foye gets another one. randy foye outstanding averaging 8.5 points a game for washington. >> phil: i think what is significant about the play right now he is getting minutes. he is getting at least 32 minutes over the last five games that he has played as a starter. >> steve: jamison comes to help on joe johnson. rotates. foul called on brendan haywood. jamison holds his arms apart as if to say couldn't have been me. >> phil: brendan haywood came out with the same attitude. you are not going to win with that one. tony brown making the call. williams making a very aggressive move to the basket to make sure he got some contact. >> steve: hawks ranked 16th in
7:30 pm
the league in free throw shooting. >> phil: williams shooting his best in his career from three- point range. he is another one of the listed players with this atlanta team that is knocking down threes. >> steve: hawks by four. could have had a huge lead had they made some shots. of course the wizards could be in the lead as well. jamison loses it. has it stolen by joe johnson. jamal crawford is in the lineup. that goes off the rim. atlanta gets the offensive board. here is crawford. challenges. nice pass. fouled by butler. first personal on caron and that's going to send jamal crawford to the free-throw line to shoot a pair. correction -
7:31 pm
throw line. >> phil: nice pass from crawford. you have a two on one situation. contact on the arm. sends williams straight to the floor. >> steve: last time these teams played he had nine rebounds. has played all five years in atlanta. he was the second overall pick in 2005 after one year at north carolina. >> phil: if you're going back to williams and his three-point shooting. his first three year they had a total of 25 threes. last year shot right around 34% and made 55 threes. so again, he is adding that to his game and it has been very beneficial for the team. >> steve: last year was the first year in four that he did not increase his scoring average. >> phil: randy foye knocking
7:32 pm
down another jumper. trying to make it a little easier. they seem to have a good feel for the shot right there. good rebound. >> steve: boxing out. jason collins in the game. foye has 6 points. jamison left alone for three and you buries it. wizards have come back to tie the game. 5 points for jamison. second around butler. tough shot. gets it to go. >> phil: he is capable of putting the ball on the floor. he seems to be an ideal small forward for this team. that time puts the ball on the floor and able to knock it down. >> steve: pushed way out by
7:33 pm
collins. let's jamison drive. and the rebound to the hawks. very quiet first quarter from atlanta. the hawks leading by 2. led by as many as seven when they were up 11-4. crawford around to collins. screen is good. >> phil: bibby going behind that pick. jamal crawford had the ball. >> steve: boy, this is going to be -- he did. and the first quarter is over here in atlanta. antawn jamison got a big three- point shot moments ago. but the hawks building a lead as both teams struggled from the fields. atlanta just 7 of 22. washington just 6 of 21. and after one quarter
7:34 pm
in 1977, in johannesburg, uth , yearoy ed ugamelf hisr. by e oe wa alrutplhim. th of entl ng tior chamips e ag4?
7:35 pm
fn 16on. dds t sa akino th feurpro-tour fn 7 n. th of e "sy" g opepionnce .s. chship? 780ion. e o rofel goavin a ciagnith ? 1 in erls eges tn ths ofm >> steve: from atlanta. comcast sportsnet coverage of wizards basketball brought to you by sony pictures legion.
7:36 pm
in theaters january 22nd. wizards scored a season low for a first quarter moments ago when they put up 13 points previous low is 17 again toronto. they have done that twice this year scoring 17 in the first quarter. 13 a season low. morgan franklin pivotol play. bibby with a nice look to al horford. rather, michael >> phil: kind of a pick and pop that time. they have such a balance attack they lead the eastern conference in points per game. >> steve: mcguire will start. west a local guy signing a contract today. went to high school in douglasville georgia and four- year career at georgia tech.
7:37 pm
wizards wound up shooting 29% from the field in that first quarter. here is mcguire getting limited playing time. to nick young. nice fake. lost the ball. brendan haywood in the lane. offensive foul is called on haywood. and that will be his second personal foul. >> phil: that's what you don't want to see. having him pick up quick fouls. they need him in the middle there. take a look at the first quarter stats. neither team shooting the ball well in any kind of way so therefore lots of rebounds. 30 rebounds between the two teams in that first quarter. >> steve: so brendan haywood comes out of the game with two personal fouls. andray blatche who sat at last night's game due to suspension is back in uniform, back in the lineup and back in the game. earle boykins is in for
7:38 pm
washington. short jumper is good by jamal crawford. hawks got from golden state. splitting time last year with the knicks. 54 games at golden state. >> steve: what a pickup he has been for mike richards. >> steve: rejected by jamison. antawn jamison. fouled. looks like it is going to be on jason collins. his first personal sending antawn jamison to the line. >> phil: josh
7:39 pm
7:40 pm
7:41 pm
the imt guhe i t it't shere it switd yo oneho the imt guhe i workntir.
7:42 pm
7:43 pm
>> steve: one of the things you have to guard with this atlanta team is letting them get into the paint. they have already scored 12 points in the paint tonight. they are very aggressive in the paint. >> phil: nice back door play once the defense rotated around and they make some good passes. williams getting two more of those points in the paint. he is 3-6 with eight points to go along with four rebounds and is off to a good start. >> steve: three seasons ago he missed the first 17 games after fracturing his left hand in practice in october. averaging 10.5 points a game and about five rebounds. had 14 in boston the other night. 8 of 11 from the free-throw line. >> phil: he goes on stretches where he goes to the line quite a bit. he is very active as i said from that three spot. he can put the ball on the floor but he has also developed
7:44 pm
that long range three-point shot. >> steve: game was tied awhile ago at 13-13 but since then atlanta outscored the wizards 9- 1. and they have grabbed an eight-point advantage. jamal crawford will get one more. and he makes them both. 23-14 atlanta with 8:50 to play here in quarter 2. steve buckhantz, phil chenier. our comcast crew. couldn't convert the pass. come back with the rebound. lid on the basket for washington so far on this game. jamal crawford in his 10th year from michigan where he played
7:45 pm
one season. 25-14 atlanta. another wizards turnover. >> phil: that wasn't a really bad attempt on that play. williams kept his feet moving, playing the front position on jamison and was then able to get into position to field a pass. >> steve: heck of a play. >> steve: here is foye off the screen. still had to take a long difficult shot. jamison rejected. andray blatche chases it down. good hustle by andray. >> phil: and good block. >> steve: spinning. ran into trouble. jamison.
7:46 pm
jumper. hawks on a 14-1 run here to grab control of this game in the 2nd quarter. wizards have caron butler and brendan haywood back in the lineup. smith and williams. travels. 24-second violation. travel. >> phil: looked like he was getting ready to call the traveling violation as well. shuffled his feet. >> steve: wizards have missed their last nine field goal attempts. 0 for 9 in this quarter. andray blatche. field goal. called a foul on joe smith. first personal on joe and andray will head to the line and try to complete a three-
7:47 pm
point play. >> phil: that's something the coach has been trying to emphasize with him, going to the holes, utilizing that
7:48 pm
and they have started against washington outscoring the wizards 17-3 to take a big lea ñññóóóóóóóóóóóó? 
7:49 pm
7:50 pm
7:51 pm
7:52 pm
. ove
7:53 pm
7:54 pm
a spectacu
7:55 pm
7:56 pm
. he turns 50 yesterday. there is the human highlight film.
7:57 pm
ot msho >> pt halike lo--utte so c i .. i lo i .. otheer l- i' one ank -ou le taoffbeermuch you e grlsnee trips b er l taste grs. you're gorgeous, look at you, i loooov y
7:58 pm
why vel daysout ou g t wh get f elety f for powyour o styourgs, ur wn, fod wu'rey, anng or sh f yo lik ese lux 're . fem b ace
7:59 pm


1 Favorite

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on