tv U.S. House of Representatives CSPAN December 1, 2009 5:00pm-8:00pm EST
the abiding love of our country and want to protect this country. it's in that spirit that i would hope to move forward with respect to iraq and afghanistan. the situation in iraq remains obviously a tense one, but there is some accomplishment in terms of some level of stability, some serious functioning by the central government and the takeover of security in large swaggets of urban areas. is it perfect, no? but i believe the u.s. military has done a fairly significant thing in turning back urban insurgency in iraq. way too early to say victory can be declared. but i think you can see some stability emerging from that
country and the president has set a timetable in that case for an exit strategy and our withdrawal from a combat role. i believe that can be met and i believe that has bipartisan support. i believe the president will get bipartisan support for what he is proposing in afghanistan to restabilize the situation that we had been prevailing in but got distracted because of iraq. . are too critical of republicans for not having a plan? well, you know, progress in america works in many interesting ways. anyone here in a debate team? ok, you are. harvey, you are a debater. i was a debater in 1964 and 1965
in high school. you know what the topic was that year? the topic was, is the proposed medicare legislation socialized medicine? would it destroy the private sector health care system in america? would it constituted a federal government takeover? wouldn't it be socialized medicine just like canada and the u.k.? sound familiar? didn't you just hear that from our rough -- our republican friends in the senate? none of it was true. 44 years later -- i know you are too young, but your grandparents are awfully glad we took the bold step of passing medicare to make sure they had that assurance of insurance in their old age. that is what we're trying to do to make health care of more fair, more affordable, and more accessible for americans as we move forward.
i think that if you are going to take potshots at the health care reform, that is fair, that is what public debate is all about. but when you invoke things like that panels that are flat out untrue and you know it, i think that exposes the emptiness of your argument in your position. by the way, what is your better idea? frankly, the other side did not have any. you get the last question. >> my name is marco flores. i'm from dallas tx. the crux good morning, marco. >> -- >> good morning, margaret. >> if we had a public auction right now, would it help us out? >> i do not know that it would have an immediate impact on the recession. the kennedy as just a few minutes ago, correct me -- the young lady asked a few minutes ago, correctly, i think this is
legislation that will be fully phased in. i believe that the cost of health care in america is unsustainable. when john kennedy was elected in 1960, we were spending about 6% or 7% of our gdp on health care. we are spending 18% today. by 2015 when i am 100, -- by 2050 when i 100, will be spending 48% of the entire economy on health care. that will not be sustainable. we have got to get around the burgeoning cost of health care for all americans and tried ttrt money into the other investments in our country. that affects every business in america. health care costs are one of
the largest uncontrolled costs every business has to deal with >> the u.s. house is still in recess. earlier today members debated seven noncontroversial bills, including one on ovarian cancer and another dealing with energy and water research. members returning at 6:30 p.m. eastern for recorded votes and speeches. more live house coverage when the gavel comes down here on c-span. the u.s. senate continues debate on its health care legislation and moving toward first votes on amendments later today. a bipartisan amendment would increase insurance benefits for women through yearly screenings is expected to get the first senate vote. the amendment co-sponsored by maryland democrat barbara mikulski and republican olympia
snowe, would require policies to include a variety of yearly screenings. a vote on this amendment may take place around 6:00 p.m. eastern. senator mccain has offered a motion to send the entire bill to committee to remove medicare cuts from the measure. live coverage of the health care debate right now on c-span2. tonight president obama will address from the u.s. military academy at west point, address the nation as he announces his decision regarding u.s. policy in afghanistan. we will carry that live on the c-span networks. and we'll open our phone lines for your reactions as well. that starts at 8:00 p.m. eastern. check c-span.org for our coverage plans. a.p. is reporting that president obama is sending 30,000 extra u.s. troops to afghanistan on an accelerated timetable that will have the first marines there as early as christmas, and all forces in place by summer. he'll also declare tonight that
troops will start leaving in 19 months. we discussed u.s. policy in afghanistan this morning on washington journal and took viewer comments on the president's speech tonight. this is just under an hour. we will get to your phone calls in just a minute. first, bob cusack, the front page of "the hill" a newspaper -- " newspaper. how will the president be defined by what he says tonight? guest: basically he is going to own the afghanistan war. he called this the good war on the campaign trail. he sent 17,000 additional troops to afghanistan. at that time democrats embraced the move. they said that president bush had not paid a lot of attention to afghanistan and that he was
focusing too much. just like president bush was defined by his decision to invade iraq, it went well at first and his political capital evaporated as the war went on. this is a key moment in the obama presidency. he spent a lot of time deciding which course to take and he is definitely a war presidents. host: the other had line is that the president must sway doubting democrats. will the president be speaking ahead of this speech? guest: yes, he is going to be meeting with 30 lawmakers before he heads to west point, he will be detailing what he will be saying tonight in the speech.
there will be some powerful democrats there, including david obi, who has been saying in recent days that the war must be paid for. the afghanistan war, we have obviously been there since 2001, he has been saying that it will cost to $2 trillion and that we should offset that. he has proposed a tax on wealthy americans. nancy pelosi has noted much unrest in her caucus with afghanistan and have it has been going. this will be tough for the president. he has to convince not only republicans, who want 40,000 troops at least, but he must convince a fair amount of powerful democrats to go along
with his plan and i think that there will have to be compromise on capitol hill because they are not going to rubber-stamp what obama wants. you have to concede to some of these offsets. host: what about selling this to the american people? guest: it will be a challenge. earlier this year 65% of americans supported the war in afghanistan, but since then the number has dropped considerably. he is not really going to convince anti-war liberals, who have been very skeptical of the war in afghanistan. he has got to convince centrist democrats as well. people that polls show have lost faith in this war. host: what will he and the folks in his administration be doing
to not only sell this to the american people but, as you indicated, the legislators on capitol hill? >> there will be a series of hearings later this week. the top officials in the obama administration are on deck. hillary clinton, she is going to be testifying. robert gates, as well as mike mullen, will be testifying. stanley mcchrystal, the top u.s. commander in afghanistan, republicans have wanted him to testify on his recommendations. he has not yet, but he is expected to testify next week. all of these major players in the obama administration will be making their case and there will probably be some tense moments with members that do not want this war to continue or at least
once a timeline for getting out. earlier this year nancy pelosi did not embrace timetables, which the appropriations committee chairman was pushing for. i think that there will be more of a push for an exit strategy. the white house has indicated that the u.s. is not going to be in afghanistan forever. there are sticking points that will come up. host: we will look for coverage of that here on c-span, go to c- span.org for the schedule. what should the viewers be looking for in these hearings? guest: how they handle the questions and how they pinpoint but cost and how the u.s. will continue to fight and wage two wars when we are in record deficits and unemployment. when lawmakers go home they are not hearing about the war in
afghanistan. they are hearing about jobs and the unemployment rate. how do we continue to wage these wars? republicans will make the pitch -- how do we not? we have not had a terrorist attacks since 9/11. some people say that the fort hood shootings was a terrorist attack, but that is under investigation. officials are going to have to be dealing with some very difficult questions from liberals and republicans. host: bob cusack will be with us for the first hour here on "washington journal." we will be back with you in a few minutes. first, chris, independent line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? president obama on his campaign
trail said that he would have a clearly defined exit strategy in iraq. but in fact they are really just moving the deck chairs on the titanic into afghanistan. what i find interesting, being a former veteran of the cold war, the tipping point that financially broke the former soviet union was not only the cold war but it was also afghanistan. it was unsustainable. that area of the world is not a troop of friendly geographic area. they are not accustomed to fighting there. we are not. what i want to hear tonight from president obama is basically two things. a clear description of what his measure of success is and how he
is going to fund of this war. those are the two things. anything else that he has to put in place is just a smokescreen. host: what do you think of a clear description of success? guest: how do you define it? that is the number one question. we have done a very poor job in the middle east and that region of the world, basically squeezing a balloon on one side, not knowing what would happen on the other side. going all the way back to the beirut bombing of 1983 and to iran and iraq. there is a need for cohesive governing in that area of the world.
my stance, personally, is that i would like to see us pullout completely. where it is recognized that this is clearly something that no one is ever going to solve after 5000 years of documented war and turmoil. how do we have the ego to actually think that we can control that area when our demo is to go in and pullout? host: ron, republican line. you are next. caller: no one looks at the real problems of afghanistan. they have a country that is separated by a language, and the worst part is the endemic taliban and al qaeda people in
the border areas of pakistan. those people can go across that border on a donkey any time that they want. if you study what has been happening in afghanistan over the last few months, 80% of our troops have been killed by ied's. how will the president's stop that from going on? i mean, you have got to look at this and say how can you control a country that is basically corrupt? built on poppyseed being sold around the world with an unending supply of criminal tribes. there are an immense number of tribes with different problems. and it is almost unbelievable. you cannot build a society on
that kind of situation. that is why the russians failed. that is why the english failed. probably why we will fail as well. host: can the president say anything to you to convince you that this is a war of necessity? caller: that would be in using the right strategy, putting our troops somewhere in pakistan. when we go over there, we take care of them as they try to take over different areas. then we can react to that. but do have those guys waiting around for them to plan to ied's with civilians, the taliban comes across the border, they
take women and children with them so they are injured. it never looks good for america that way, we can never win that kind of war. host: democratic line, north creek, ore.. go ahead. caller: bob cusack called this a war, many people call it a war, but it is an occupation. congress has not declared war. if someone came to our country and occupied us, would we be resisting them? that is pretty much my opinion. we should get out of there and do it as soon as we can. host: what if the president says tonight that his goal is to be out of afghanistan within two years? is that a short enough time
table? caller: he should do it in one year. how long did it take to get over there once we decided to go there? we should leave them to run their country the way that they want. host: bob cusack, the caller mentioned that you called this a war and that his opinion is that this is an occupation. your reaction to that? >> there has been debate on what congress approved with the iraq war and the afghanistan war. there was a resolution put forward on both fronts. soon after 9/11 only one member oppose that in congress. but the iraq war was more controversial. so, most members did support that resolution. on the campaign trail in 2008 it
was a bonus, people in the hillary clinton campaign were making the argument that the iraq war solution was not actually a declaration of war, it was a series of warnings that would lead to war. other democrats and republicans thought that that was not true, that everyone that was voting that day on the iraq war resolution knew what they were voting for and voted yes or no on it. that campaign angle that the hillary clinton campaign took did not win many political points and she backed off of that argument. host: utica, new york. as we are listening to you we will show our viewers the number of forces in afghanistan, broken down by country and region. caller: merry christmas, everyone.
i want to tell you a few things about the middle east. excuse me, first i want to go to the gentleman there. this is not the president's war, it is congress's war. this is the most stupidity thing that i see. americans need to study the constitution. we should not have 700 airports over there. we have over 1 million troops there. all they are doing is guiding our eyes to be wide open. host: any concern on capitol hill, bob cusack, that this will be seen as the democrats war? guest: in a way, yes. charlie rangel said he was looking forward to the end of the iraq war. i said that even if you win back control of congress, how will
you stop it, president bush will still be in the white house? he told me -- the power of the purse strings. cutting off war funding for the iraq war, that did not happen. there were high-profile showdowns with president bush. now that president obama is in the white house, democrats are very concerned. they thought that this president would get out of iraq quicker. and get out of afghanistan quicker. then there are others that note that osama bin laden is still on the loose and how are they going to get him if there is not a large presence in afghanistan? others counter that point and say that he is probably not in afghanistan, he is likely in pakistan. host: cambridge, andrew. good morning.
caller: i am calling to say that in minnesota rehouse the largest -- hello? we house of the largest headquarters of the national guard. we are very upset with this. we feel that our troops have been used and abused enough. we are starting groups that will pay for the impeachment of president barack obama. he ran on shutting down these wars and saying that we have to have an entire congress and senate to get laws passed to shut down these wars. he has that even bothered. host: how many people are in this group so far? guest: 5 -- caller: 5000.
host: are they all minnesota residents? caller: yes. host: how do you get them to sign up belloc caller: going door-to-door. host: what area of the state are you in? caller: north of minneapolis. host: our next call comes from jesse. caller: thank you for c-span. you are looking very well today. everything that the callers have said, in america we voted for this man. a lot of young whites and blacks voted for change. now, he says there is no money to give retirees this year, but
they will spend $30 billion for five years? c'mon. i thought i was voting for someone that was thinking about peace instead of war. host: from "the new york times" this morning, "president obama spent 40 minutes with nicolas sarkozy of france, who signaled that the french are not willing to send more troops to afghanistan. instead of troops, mr. sarkozy told obama that there would be a conference sponsored in london to rally support for afghanistan. it also says that the administration sent richard holbrooke to brussels on tuesday to begin briefing nato allies on
policy. stanley mcchrystal will also be briefing allies in his capacity. chris, independent line -- capacity." chris, independent line. what are your thoughts? chris, i am going to put you on hold until you turn your television down. monica, republican line. caller: good morning. merry christmas. host: what are your thoughts this morning? caller: the institution of war that has been declared in the middle east is a clutch. the country, at the time, voted? i do not think we should pullout until we have done our job.
the president said that he was going to support the troops. i think that he is doing the right things. you have to support the troops. you cannot make a move over there without listening to the chiefs on the ground. i feel that the president has to use more troops if he says so. we do not always like the fact that men and women are dying, but if you look at it realistically, 4.5000 people have died in conflicts over there. we saw just about that many in a few moments in the towers. we could lose a lot more if we pullout before the job is done. host: here is "the wall street
journal" with more headlines. "the u.s. is set -- spending $2.6 billion every month in afghanistan. the white house estimates 30,000 reinforcements would add about $30 billion in costs per year. the pentagon estimates that it will cost about $500,000 per soldier. independent budget analysts generally believe pentagon numbers to be more accurate. gardner, maine. independent line. back to you. go ahead. caller: i think that the situation is that yes, we have a large amount of troops there now
and we will spend more of that has to happen, but there is a war right here in the united states. a lot of people out there are trying to fight for their own lives, for employment. i do not think that we should be spending so much money over there to fight a war that has pretty much died down. host: do you have a job? caller: i have been laid off and i am struggling like a lot of people in this country. host: how are you making ends meet? i hear children in the background. caller: any way possible. i go to church been a lot of people there are helping, trying to make ends meet. no, it is not easy and i have three children. host: are you collecting unemployment? caller: yes, very little. host: the white house is having
a jobs summit later in the week. is that something you are going to be paying attention to? what do you think about that? what do you want to hear? caller: i want to hear that there is a to be a situation put in place for people on unemployment. right now all of the industry's have left them of many of us are losing employment. we need something to back us up to be able to live until we can find further employment. host: bob husak, you heard that caller saying that we should be sending that money -- we should not be sending out money to iraq because of the job situation in our own country. how should the president balance those issues? guest: it will be very difficult. he is very concerned about the deficit.
the debate on stimulus will go into the 2010 elections. without a doubt, the stimulus has not created as many jobs as the democrats predicted. it is not certain whether it would be paid for, which would negate whether it was a stimulus and that we should be paying for it. they are calling it a jobs bill, but it is not clear what it will entail. we do not know exactly what will be in the bill. there could be a lot of transportation provisions. bills that have been stalled in congress. this jobs summit is going to include lawmakers, business leaders, union leaders. unlike earlier summits this
year, there is a partisan atmosphere right now. it will be very difficult to get a bipartisan bill and i am not certain how large it will be. the opinion by many is that it was too small and it should have been bigger. there is just a massive ideological difference within the party on how to stimulate jobs. i imagine that this jobs summit -- there is going to be some back and forth on the best approach within the party. the house is aiming to have a jobs bill on the floor by the end of december. it will be very difficult to get that done in such a short amount of time. the senate is focusing on health care on the floor. host: back to the subjects that we began with, president obama
speaking tonight on afghanistan. this is a pole from "usa today." "65% of americans disapprove of obama's handling of afghanistan. in those areas he has scored the highest negative ratings. amongst all the issues, jobs are the number-one concern. -- concern." later in the week president obama is hosting a jobs summit at the white house. we want to continue for a few moments with more of your comments on the president's speech tonight, go to c- span.org for the schedule. jonathan, democratic line. you are next.
caller: the best thing that he could really do is announce a troop withdrawal. we simply do not have the resources to pay for a war on the periphery of the world's economy. if you look back at history in this country, look after world war ii. we had central bank failures that ultimately led to the situation that caused hyperinflation there. hugely destabilizing to spend all of your money on a vast military industrial complex. it does not generate exportable goods for workers. the reason there are no jobs, i have only been employed on a spotty bases lately and the
money that supports her armored vehicles and ied's, it is a big welfare project for the military industrial complex. people want to make it into a issue, saying that we have to fight them over there and over here, bull ship. they make $200 per year in afghanistan. these people have literally nothing. the bottom line is that if we continue this, it is like the neurotic people that dcomb and their hair -- that comb their hair until every single hairline's up straight. obama needs to find the courage to get the hell out of there. host: are you still there? caller: yes. host: i want to redo this line from james conway.
"there is an expense in bringing fuel and supplies into the area, nearly $1 per gallon, $400 per gallon for the marine corps. marines operating in southern afghanistan c 80,000 gallons of fuel per day. host: first of all, this is all borrowed money. our creditors are primarily the chinese and japanese. we have to pay the interest on that money. not only that, we are fighting to find resources for other projects. if you get beyond that, remember that economists have been saying that afghanistan is a peculiar country for hundreds of years. it is a cottage industry for them to fight wars against
foreign invaders. they only come together to expel foreigners. they keep the weapons and sell them on the black market. it is like kentucky with horse farms and bourbon. post all right. jim, maplewood. -- host: all right. jim, maplewood. caller: i am a republican. i do not understand why the rest of the americans have turned against this war. host: anything else? caller: i wonder why we think that war is easy. why accomplishing anything good is easy. the world needs to be changed. we cannot leave an enemy festering like an open sore. war is hell, it sure is. what are we going to do? build a big wall around america
and tell anyone not to hurt us again? asking please? host: "the wall street journal" has a suggestion for paying for the war -- a 5% increase in the gas tax would cover most or all of the war's cost and leave gas prices short of the 2008 levels. while most proponents of a higher gasoline tax want to use the money for higher infrastructure, congress could take the funding over once the war winds down. we do not expect a rush to embrace this idea. so far proponents of paying for the war in afghanistan heavily overloaded with those who want to end it. but if mr. obi or mr. obama
believe that wars should be governed by the pay-as-you-go principle, a means to cover this one is readily available." chris, albany. caller: i agree with a collar that said he should be impeached. if these politicians continue to trade the electorate, when he rewards the failed banks and insurance giants he rewards them with jobs and stimulus. $1 trillion in stimulus money. now he is going to escalate this -- why did we not just vote for john mccain or one of the other of warmongers? this is a betrayal of the electorate that we see over and over again. leaders had become addicted to power and more, they go hand in
hand. he should be trumpeting peace and nuclear disarmament between pakistan and india. that would sort of negates the force of the taliban. this president, especially obama, is letting everyone down. thank you. host: from "said usa today" -- from "usa today" "later in the week there would be a jobs summit, a health-care bill, and next -- and next week there is a climate change summit. the risk for the white house is that this becomes a political version of dodgem cars, where a
move by one could block the path of another." bob cusack, what happens to health care when the president is trying to do all these other things? caller: it will be very challenging. he really wants the senate to pass this bill. remember, the initial goal of the white house was to pass the finance bill by december 31. that is not going happen. the new goal is for the senate to pass the bill. obama said that if health care does not get done this year, it will never get done. this has a chance to drag out into the spring. blogger that the bill is out there, republicans would tell
you that they have to move controversial things through quickly and the longer it is out there, there is less of a chance that it will happen. it has been very slow progress, the upper chamber passing the bill by the end of this year. republicans are going to be doing everything, whether it is amendments or filibustering, to make sure that this drags out for a while. host: the said bill got a boost from a congressional budget office report according to one report. what does this say? guest: it is good news/bad news for democrats. on the one hand, it would be a better package of benefits for people out there without insurance. on the other hand, depending on
who you are, if you are a small company you might not get the benefit compared to a large company in premiums. depending on whether you have a job and where your job is that, the charles grassley is saying -- the cbo is saying that it could go up or down a bit. so, this is something that will use by both parties in the debate. host: for the next 20 minutes, what do they want from the health care bill that will ultimately come out of congress? what is it in this health care bill did you think of first when you hear about this debate and what do you want, ultimately, in a bill?
what have you heard about the major sticking points being resolved? guest: there are several of them. the legal immigratn@@@@@@@ the house passed version is more to liking the republicans and pro-rights groups. the senate bill, senator orrin hatch, republican from utah, he will be looking to amend the bill to make it closer to the house-passed version, a lot of liberals in the house were not pleased with the so-called stupak amendment that passed right before the overall underlying house health care bill passed. there are so many provision that is are going to be difficult. you have different ways to pay for it. you have the tax on the so-called cadillac plans.
and the very interesting thing here is that several groups on the left are not really pleased with how democrats are pursuing health care reform. you have trial lawyers who are weary of some of the medical malpractice provisions in there. not to the point where republicans really are touting the bill, they want the medical malpractice provisions even stronger. you have unions rallying against the so-called cadillac tax plan. and you have pro-choice groups who are very upset with the house health care reform bill. you have a fair amount of groups on the left looking to change this bill, but at the same time you have a lot of groups on the left pushing very hard and saying let's advance the debate. we can change the bill. both in conference and on the senate floor before it gets to conference. let's just get this done and certainly the white house is pushing for a bill that they have pushed for a public option, that's another major sticking point. it's unclear whether senator harry reid has the votes to pass
the health care bill now. that's why he's asked senator tom carper and senator charles schumer and senator landrieu to come up plan b to see if they could come up with some type of public option, maybe it's a trigger. many on the left don't like the trigger idea, to pass health care reform just through the senate. and then they have to get it through conference. they have an enormous way to go here. while they have made some progress, it's difficult right now to see how they get to 60 without some significant tweaks to the senate bill. to 60 on the senate bill. host: james, democratic line. atlanta. caller: [unintelligible] host: are you there? caller: i think that everyone in america should be able to get health care. we should have health care for everyone in america.
host: caroline, arkansas, what do you want from health care bill? caller: they should take the words mandatory out of it. completely unconstitutional. they should not force people to purchase something that they cannot afford, or force someone else to pay for it. that is ridiculous. host: chris, good morning. caller: on this health care bill i would like to see a little bit of both. mandatory for recheck health care for a few years -- 3 check out health care for a few years. people who have it should be charged more, people who do not should be receiving free visits. you just cannot have rich people
and for people with health care and without health care. they will have to implement a plan that will work out for all parties, democrat or republican. people looking at it both ways. host: let's hear from a democrat. drew, new jersey. caller: i think that there is no health reform without a trigger for the public option. by think that we should be able to pick and choose other legal medical procedures, besides abortion, that we do not want tax dollars going to. like niagara, for example. there should be no language that allows a legal procedure to be interfered with by the
government. host: west virginia, connie. what do you want from the health care bill? caller: i know that when they voted it was a 50/50 situation for me. i watched it on c-span. host: are you talking about the house or the senate? caller: the senate. host: the senate has not voted on the legislation yet, they voted on beginning debate. caller: well, ok. going through to the next process. i agree with what the other caller commented on the other day. i've been that it is a public issue and i think it is only fair to let the people decide
with votes. host: buffalo, tony. what do you want from this health care bill? caller: i do not think that the government needs to be going through this, like the other caller said, it is not constitutional. the government seems to be coming more intrusive and spending like drunken sailors. democrats want to spend on one thing and republicans spend on another. it seems like they want to bankrupt our country. so, i think that they should try to fix the system that we have. it is not as bad as they claim. host: fort lauderdale, florida, democratic line. john. caller: my name is john, i am an african-american.
i voted for president obama. i wanted change, not because he is black. because of the new change, man. i want a health plan with an option and i do not want to expand the war in afghanistan any further. i want him to pull the troops out. i want the troops to come home. let's take care of america. we need jobs. people here are suffering. host: jacksonville, florida. caller: i guess i am cynical. i think that your last two topics are tied together. i think that obama is sending troops into afghanistan to buy off republicans so that he can pass the health care troops --
health care bill. he is saying very little about the health-care industry. people like rush limbaugh and sean hannity, they could crush the health-insurance bill in two days if they wanted to. i think it was a trade-off. republicans get the war and they are happy, democrats get their health insurance and the people get screwed. host: roanoke, va. caller: no matter what they decide i would like them to be able to implement whatever it is and run it honestly. right now they're not doing a very good job. maybe they can put unemployed people to work.
host: dallas, republican line. your thoughts? caller: they need to start over again entirely. they need to concentrate on reducing costs, to start with, then see a thing need to increase. we are going to lose a lot of doctors in this country. ridiculous, thinking that we would add 30 million people to this health care situation. thank you. host: delaware, good morning. caller: good morning. i think it is sad but we do not all have rights to health insurance. i do not see what the bickering is about. why can we not all have health care? host: all right. bob cusack, you have been listening to the phone calls for
the last five to 10 minutes on what people want from health care bill, what is your reaction? guest: a lot of wants and needs out there. callers mentioned the costs going down, many people are frustrated with their insurance company. they want pre-existing conditions covered. also some interesting calls about the individual mandates in some of these bills that would require individuals to purchase health care insurance, just like car insurance now. there are some people that say that that is unconstitutional. one of them is senator orrin hatch, who says that you cannot put this mandate on the american people. the interesting thing about that mandate is that some people in news articles do not have health insurance and they say that they would rather pay the fee of
these bills to the government. which would be cheaper than paying the premiums. lawmakers are conflicted, they are hearing a lot of different opinions on what people want. that is why this was so difficult. the white house knew that this would be one of their most difficult tests going in. host: ben bernanke is going to capitol hill this week, it will be his confirmation hearing. what are you looking for? guest: this will be an interesting hearing. when he was nominated by president bush he was approved by a voice vote in the senate. only one senator voiced opposition. he is popular amongst members, but i expect in the grill on a
number of issues about the deficit. aking crop -- a proposal from ron paul to suggest that the federal reserve subjects to government audits. that has received many sponsors, even though barney frank wanted some version attached, but not what paul wanted. that will be an issue, whether it entitlement spending should be a commission in where we are as far as tar p funding -- tarp funding. should we have another stimulus? timothy geithner has been under the gun recently. timothy geithner and ben bernanke has worked closely recently, but ben bernanke's
relationship with congress is better than timothy geithner's. he reached out to the hill, had members over to his office, had breakfast and talk shop. he and a member of the senate famously talk about their love for the red sox. i think if he will be confirmed, no doubt about that, but there will be some grilling of him this week. host: bob cusack, thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you, greta. host: next caller, good morning. caller: you are beautiful today. obama wants to change things? start teaching medicine in high school.
host: we are listening, arnold. caller: we have a free education system, why not make medicine free and to make a nation of doctors and start healing the world? host: dean, republican line. caller: good morning, america. i do not want $500 billion taken away from the medical coverage of seniors. i do not want my tax dollars to pay for abortions. sunday c-span had a lady on from alternet, but i would call what altered minds -- call it aletered minds. if you listen to what the left is saying, you can be on single payer when you are young and healthy, then shifted over to
another plan when you are older. 10 minutes of her spitting out standard -- standard leftist talk, she made a comment about the fact that her hands were tied by the insurance companies. i have got to believe that these companies are going to make the huge killing off of the american people. speaking of, how in the world can we pay for something for years without using, like they're talking about? waiting until 2013 for the benefits. i am stunned when i watch the news every day. i cannot believe that our country is doing host: ok. thank you. sorry about that, dean, let's go
to nick on the democrats' line in manhattan. in manhattan. . host: nick, democratic line, manhattan. caller: we should be going after the countries that -- companies that rep off medicare. we should be going after them with a vengeance. i called to say that one word that we do not here, we hear about these pre-existing conditions, which is well and good, but we do not hear about exclusions. my policy at work has so many exclusions. if you have a health insurance policy, it should not be riddled with these vast amounts of exclusions. for example, my policy does not cover me for a cat scan or re colposcopy.
you need to simplify an insurance policy to provide the proper coverage for the individual getting a policy. host: you can read more in "the washington post" about the people that crashed the white house dinner. on monday, "a supreme court ruling was thrown out ordering the photographs of supreme court -- odor -- fort -- photographs of detainee is to be showed. that is the associated press this morning in "the washington post. from the front page of "the new york times this morning, a clear path for sailing with nbc.
comcast is going to acquire the network." the next call comes from ricardo on the republican line. good morning. caller: i do not want socialized health care. it will lead to corruption. you think that medicare is corrupt? to wait until you see socialized health care. that will lead to a medical class. in afghanistan, we have got to win. we cannot have another vietnam in afghanistan. the surge worked in iraq and it can work again in afghanistan. we are going to win. host: harvey, missouri. caller: hello? congress has never made out to their promises made to the
veterans in the 1960's, how host: ok last phone call this morning on what you want from a health care bill. >> at 8:00 p.m. eastern, president obama will deliver a national address from the u.s. military academy at west point. the president will lay out his plan for u.s. troop levels and american involvement in afghanistan. he's expected to announce an order to deploy 30,000 more troops and detail the afghan government's changing role in the war. we'll air the president's speech on one of the three c-span networks, along with c-span.org and c-span radio. a live picture on c-span2 of the -- of senator orrin hatch debating and the rest of the senate tonight continuing a second day of floor debate on
h.r. 4590, on the $848 billion plan to expand health insurance coverage. among amendments debated today, one by senator barbara mccullskey of maryland to include preventive kir for women. we spoke earlier today with a capitol hill reporter about the progress of the health care debate. >> how is the senate debate on health care going? >> it's going well so far, i guess, from the perspective of the senators. there hasn't been a lot of substantive amendments yet. senators have been talking in favor of health reform or in favor of taking from medicare or against it. we haven't seen substantive debate on the big issues like abortion or affordability for middle class people. all that stuff is in the days
and weeks ahead. but there are plenty of speeches going on. >> you mentioned abortion. senator ben nelson is apparently working on an amendment. what is that about? >> representative stupak of michigan succeeded in getting language into the bill tightening up restrictions on how abortion could be funded on the exchange, the national insurance exchange, envisioned under the bill. many of these plans will be private, these are not public plans, but the stupak amendment, as it's called here on the hill, restrict house abortion can be funded if you have insurance on that exchange, even with your own money. senator ben nelson is a pro-life democrat he favors the stupak language and he'll be offering an amendment in association with other senators that mirrors closely, if not identically, the stupak amendment.
we're likely to see the abortion debate in the senate that we saw in the house. the question is whether he can get 60 votes in the senate where they don't appear to be 60 quote-unquote pro life senators. >> senators landrieux, carter and schumer are working on something, right? >> they're working on a range of thing, the public option, affordability, of course the democratic caucus agreed to let this bill get on the senate floor but several of those moderate or conservative democrats like nelson, like landrieux, said they won't support the bill coming off the floor if the public option remains cat ehad taken it upon himself along with chuck shouper to find a compromise version of something called the
public option or something that functions like the public option, we're really -- the function is one of policy, the democrats believe that private insurance needs some competition to hold prices down. but it's also a political one. the democratic base strongly favors the public option but there aren't 60 votes for it. harper is trying to find a way to preserve the spirit and maybe the name public option in a way that lets democrats deliver for their base but also deliver the four or five democratic votes, maybe even delivers olivia snowe, republican. one thing is the trigger, there's no public option at first, but if states don't neat certain standards a public option or co-op or something like it would be triggered. >> majority leader reid's timeline, when is he expected to finish the bill? >> they said they want to get health care done this year, which presumably means before
now year's or realistically up to -- before christmas've. that's up to reid. if he wants to cut off debate before republicans and moderate democrats think they're ready. a lot of rank and file senators think it's going into next year for the senate to get done. there's no way the president will have a bill to sign before 2010. >> todd zw iskslskslsksiskscrsks is with "the takeaway" prork deuced by wnyc and public radio. >> the president announced an increase in troops. he announce the increase from the eisenhower office building next to the white house. this is just over 20 minutes.
>> good morning, please be seated. before i begin today, let me acknowledge, first of all, your excellencecies, the ambassadors in attendance. i want to acknowledge both the civilians and our military personnel about to be delay -- deployed to the region. i'm very grateful to all of you for your extraordinary work. i want to acknowledge general david petraeus, who is here, and who has been doing an outstanding job at sent come. i want to thank bruce rye dell, he's down at the -- bruce ridell, who has worked extensively on our strategic review. i want to acknowledge carl
ikenberry who is here, our ambassador designate to afghanistan and to my national security team, thanks for their outstanding work. today i'm announcing a comprehensive new strategy for afghanistan and pakistan. this marks the con clufingse a careful policy review led by bruce that i ordered as soon as i took office. my administration has heard from our military commanders and diplomats. we consulted with partners and nato allies and with other donors and international organizations. we also worked closely with members of congress here at home. now i'd like to speak clearly and candidly to the american people. the situation is increasingly perilous. it's been more than seven years since the taliban was removed from power, yet war rages on and insurge -- insurgents control parts of afghanistan
and pakistan. attacks against our troops, our allies and the government have risen steadily. 2008 was the deadliest year of the war for the united states. many people in the united states and many in partner countries have a simple question. what is our purpose in afghanistan? after so many years they ask, why do our men and women still fight and die there? they deseaverb straightforward answer. let me be clear. al qaeda and its allies, the terrorists who planned and supported the 9/11 attacks, are in pakistan and afghanistan. multiple intelligence estimates have warned that al qaeda is actively planning attacks on the united states homeland from its safe haven in pakistan and if the afghan government falls to the taliban or allows al qaeda to go unchallenged that country will again be a base for terrorists who want to kill as many of our people as they
possibly can. the future of afghanistan is inextricably linked to the future of its neighbor pakistan. in the nearly eight years since 9/11, al qaeda and its extremist allies have move aid cross the border to the remote areas of the pakistani border this almost certainly includes al qaeda's leadership, osama bin laden, and al-zawahiri. they've used the rain to hide, train terrorists, to communicate with followers, to plot attack, and to send fighters to support the insurgency in afghanistan. for the american people, this has become the most dangerous place in the world. but this is not simply an american problem. far from it. it is instead an international security challenge of the highest order. terrorist attacks in london and bali were tied to al qaeda and
its allies, as well as attacks in the middle east, islamabad and kabul. if there's an attack in the middle east, it's likely to have ties to al qaeda and pakistan. the safety of the people around the world is at stake. for the afghan people, it would condemn their country to brutal governments, a paralyzed economy and the denial of basic human rights to the afghan people, especially women and girl. the force would cast afghanistan under the shadow of perpetual violence. as president, my greatest responsibility is to protect the american people. we are not in afghanistan to control that country, or to dictate its future. we are in afghanistan to confront a common enemy that
threatens the united states, our friends, and our allies, and the people of afghanistan and pakistan who have suffered the most at the hands of violent extremists. so i want the american people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal, disrupt, dismantle, and defeat al qaeda in pakistan and afghanistan, and to prevent their return to either country in the future. that's the goal that must be achieved. that is a cause that could not be more just. and to the terrorists who oppose us, my message is the same -- we will defeat you. to achieve our goals, we need a stronger, smarter, and comprehensive strategy, to focus on the greatest threat to our people, america must no longer deny resources to afghanistan because of the war in iraq. to enhance the military, governance and economic
capacity of afghanistan and pakistan, we have to martial international support and to defeat an enemy that heeds no borders or laws of war, we must recognize the fundamental connection between the future of afghanistan and pakistan, which is why i've appointed ambassador holbrooke, who is hear to be special representative for both countries and work closely with general petraeus to integrate our civilian and military efforts. let me start by addressing the way forward in pakistan. the united states has great respect for the pakistani people. they have a rich history and a strug -- and have struggled against long odds to sustain their democracy. the people of pakistan want the same things we want, an end to terror, access to basic services, the opportunity to live their dreams and the security that can only come with the rule of law. the single greatest threat to that future comes from al qaeda and their extremist allies.
that is why we must stand together. the terrorists within pakistan's borders are not simply enemies of america or afghanistan, they are a grave and urgent danger to the people of the world. al qaeda has killed many civilians and police, they have blown up buildings, derailed investment and threatened the state. al qaeda and its extremist allies are a cancel -- cancer that risks killing pakistan from within. it's important for the american people to thauns pakistan needs our help in going after al qaeda. this is no simple task. the tribal regions are vast, they are rugged, and they are often ungoverned. that's why we must focus our military assistance on the tools, training, and support that pakistan needs root out
the terrorists. after years of mixed results, the -- we will not and cannot provide a blank check. pakistan must demonstrate its commitment to rooting out al qaeda and the violent extremists within its border. we will insist that action be taken when we have information about targets. to help pakistan weather the economic crisis we must continue to work with the i.m.f., the world bank and other international partners. to lessen tensions between two nuclear armed nations that teeter on the edge of confrontation, we must pursue diplomacy with both india and pakistan. we must make clear that our relationship with pakistan is rounded in support for pakistan's democratic institutions and the pakistani people and to demonstrate
through deeds as well as words, we must stand for lasting opportunity. campaign against extremism will not succeed with bullets or bombs alone. al qaeda offers the people of pakistan nothing but destruction. we stand for something different. so today, i'm calling upon congress to pass a bipartisan bill co-sponsored by john kerry and richard lugar that offers $1 billion in support for the pakistani people every year for the next five year, which will build schools, roads, and hospitals and strengthen their democracy. i'm also calling on congress to pass another bill that creates opportunity zones to develop the economy and bring hope to places plagued with violence. we will ask our friends and allies to do their part, including at the donor's
conference in tokyo next month. i don't ask for this support lightly. these are challenging times. resources are stretched. but the american people must understand that this is a down payment on our own future because the security of american -- of america and pakistan is shared. pakistan's government must be a stronger partner in destroying these safe havens and we must separate al qaeda from the pakistani people. these steps are also indy spenceable to our effort in afghanistan. security d demands a new sense of share responsibility, and that's why we'll launch a stand, trilateral dialogue among the united states, afghanistan and pakistan. our nations will meet regularly with secretaries clinton and secretary gates leading our effort. together we must enhance intelligence sharing along the
border while addressing issues of common concern like trade, energy, and economic development. this is just one part of a coomp rehencive strategy to prevent afghanistan from becoming the al qaeda safe haven it was before 9/11. to succeed, we and our friends and allies must reverse the taliban's gains and provide a more capable and accountable afghan government. our troops have fought bravely against a ruthless enemy. our civilians have made great sacrifices. our allies have borne a heavy burden. afghan have suffered and sacrificed for their future but for six years, afghanistan has been denied the resources it demands because of the war in iraq. now we must make a commitment that can accomplish our goals. i've already ordered the deployment of 17,000 troops that have been requested by general mckiernan for many
months. these soldiers and marines will take the fight to the taliban in the south and east and give us a greater capacity to partner with afghan security forces and go after insurgents along the board ethis bush will also help provide security in advance of the important presidential elections in afghanistan in august. at the same time, we will shift the emphasis of our mission to training and increasing the size of afghan cease security forces so they can eventually take the lead in securing their country. that's how we'll prepare afghans to take responsibility for their security and how we'll ultimately be able to bring our own troops home. for three years our commanders have been clear about the resources they need for training. those resources have been denied because of the war in iraq. now that will change. the additional troops we deploy have had already increased our training capacity. late they are spring, we'll deploy approximately 4,000 u.s.
troops to train afghan security forces. for the first time, this will truly resource our effort to train and support the afghan army and police. every american unit in afghanistan will be partnereded with an afghan unit and we'll seek additional trainers from our nato allies to ensure that every afghan unit has a coalition partner. we will accelerate our efforts to build an afghan army of 134,000 and a police force of 82,000 so that we can meet these goals by 2011. increases in afghan forces may well be needed, as are plans to turn over security -- as our plans to turn over security to afghan forces goes forward this must be joined by a dramatic increase in our civilian effort. afghanistan has an elected government but it's undermined by corruption and has difficulty delivering basic services to its people.
it is home to a booming drug trade that brings money into the country. we've seen the hope of a new day darkened by violence and security so to advance security, opportunity, an justice, not just in kabul, but from the bottom up, in the provinces we need education specialists, engineers, and lawyers. that's how we can help the afghan government serve its people and have an economy that isn't dom nate by illicit drugs. that's why i'm ordering a substantial increase in civilians on the ground. that's why we must seek civilian support from the united nations, international aid organizations, an effort that secretary clinton will carry forward next week at the hague. make no mistake, our efforts will fail in afghanistan and
pakistan if we don't invest in their future. that's why my budget includes indy spenceable investments in our state department and foreign investment. these investments contribute directly to security and make the american people safer and save us an enormous amount of money in the long run. it's far cheaper to train a policeman to secure his or her own village and to -- than to help a farmer seed a crop, or to help a farmer seed a crop than to send our troops to fight tour after tour of duty with no transition to afghan government. the days of unaccountable spending, no-bid contracts and wasteful spending will end. i call for a stronger inspector general at boston ends and
include robust funding for afghan reconstruction. we cannot turn a blind eye to the corruption that causes afghans to lose faith in their own leaders. instead, we'll seek a new contact with the afghan government that cracks down on corrupt behavior and sets clear benchmarks for international assistance so it is used to provide for the needs of the afghan people. in a country with extreme poverty that's been at war for decades, there will also be no peace without reconciliation among former enemies. i have no ill collusion -- illusion that this will be easy. in iraq we had success reaching out to former adversaries. we must pursue a similar process in afghanistan, while understanding it is a very different country. there's an uncompromising core of the taliban. they must be met with force. and they must be defeated. but there are also those who have taken up arms because of
coercion or simply for a price. these afghans must have the option to choose a different course. that's why we'll work with local leaders, the afghan government an international partners to have a reconciliation process in every province. as their ranks dwindle, an enemy that has nothing to offer the afghan people but terror and aggression, must be further isolated. we'll continue to respect the rights of all afghans, including women and girls. going forward, we'll not blindly stay the course, instead we'll have clear metrics to mick progress and hold ourselves accountable. we will measure the growth of afghanistan's economy and its illicit marketic production. we'll evaluate whether we're using the right tools and
tactics to make progress toward accomplishing our goals. none of the steps i've outlined will be easy, none should be taken by america alone. the world cannot afford the crisis that will come if al qaeda ompletes unchecked. we have a shared responsibility to act, not because we seek to project power for its own sake, but because our own peace and security depends on it. what's at stake at this time is not just our security, but the fact that free mations -- nations can come together on behalf of our security. that must be our common purpose today. my administration is committed to strengthening international organizations in collective action that will be my message next week in europe. as america does more, we'll ask others to join us in doing their part from our partners and nato allies we'll seek not simply troops but rather, clearly defined capabilities,
supporting the afghan elections, training afghan security forces. a greater civilian commitment to the afghan people. for the united nations we seek greater progress for its mandate to correlate afghan assistance and strengthen afghan institutions. finally, together with the united nations, we'll forge a new contact group for afghanistan and pakistan that brings together all who should have a stake in the region. our nato allies and other partners, put also the central asian states, iraq, india, and china. none of these nations benefit from a base for al qaeda terrorists. regions that descend into problems have a right to lasting peace. sacrifices have been enormous.
nearly 700 americans have lost their lifes. troops from over 20 countries have also paid the ultimate price. all americans honor the service are and cherish the friendship of those who have fowlingt and worked and bled by our side and all americans are awed by the service of our men and women in uniform, who have borne a burden as great as any other generation's. they and their family embody the example of selfless sacrifice. i remind everybody, the united states of america did not choose to fight a war in afghanistan. nearly 3,000 of our people were killed on september 11, 2001, for doing nothing more than going about their daily l. al qaeda and its allies have since killed thousands of people in many countries. most of the blood on their hands is the blood of muslims, who al qaeda has killed and maimed in far greater number
than any other people. that's the future al qaeda is offering to the people of afghanistan and pakistan, a future without hope or opportunity, a future without justice or peace. so understand, the road ahead will be long and there will be difficult days ahead, but we will seek lasting partnerships with afghanistan and pakistan that promise a new day for their people and we will use all elements of national power to defeat al qaeda and all who seek a better future. because the united states of america stands for peace an security, justice, and opportunity. that is who we are. that is what history calls on us to do once more. thank you, god bless you, god bless the united states of america. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> you can see president obama
easnounsment on future afghanistan strategy live tonight at 8:00 eastern. we'll air it on one of the television networks along with c-span.org and c-span radio. the house has returned from recess. earlier today, members debated the bills, including one on ovarian cancer and another dealing with energy and water dealing with energy and water research. by electronic device. this will be a 15-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to speak out of order. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, following the tragic shooting that took the lives of four police officers in lakewood, washington, early sunday morning, i strongly believe it is appropriate for the house of representatives to observe a moment of silence in the chamber today. these four officers, mark reninger, ronald owen, tina griswold, and greg richards, were preparing to start their shift on last sunday morning when they were brutally murdered by an assailant who has now died as police were trying to apprehend him. these were dedicated, talented members of the lakewood police force in my district. they were senselessly murdered, presumably at random, by a
deranged killer and they and their families deserve our deepest sympathy. i know my washington state colleague, congressman dave reichert who spent more than 40 years in law enforcement, understands the human cost of this tragedy and knows the risk all officers face each and every day to ensure that we're safe in our homes and safe in our community. i yield to congressman reichert. mr. reichert: i thank the gentleman for yielding. i know sometime it's hard to pause for a second in the busy lives we lead hear in the capitol of this great country, but today we must. we must stop and pause and think about first of all how safe we are and why. because men and women who are wearing the uniform across this country sacrificed their lives for us. and on sunday morning, two days
ago, three police officers and their sergeant went to work. went to work. they paused for a moment at the coffee shop, talking about the day about to begin. somebody walked in, and took their lives away. all four. in total, they left behind nine children, and this was just one month after the seattle police officer by the name of timothy brenton was ambushed and murdered who leaves behind two more children. all i can say is that we thank them for their service and when
you see somebody in uniform, pause, thank them for what they do, express sympathy for the loss of their partners and loved ones and please, i ask that you keep their families in your thoughts and prayers. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: members will rise and observe a moment of silence. the speaker pro tempore: thank you. without objection, five-minute voting will continue.
the unfinished business is the vote on the motion of the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch to suspend the rules and aee to house resolution 727 as amended on which the yeas and nays were ordered. the clerk will report the title of the resolution. the clerk: house resolution 727, resolution supporting the goals and ideals of national ovarian cancer awareness month. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and agree to the resolution a-- as amended. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
resolution is agreed to, and without objection, the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. without objection, the title is amended. the unfinished business is the question on suspending the rules and passing h.r. 3667, which the clerk will report by title. the clerk: h.r. 3667, to bill to designate the facility of the united states postal service located at 16555 spring street in white springs, florida, as the collide l. hillhouse post office building. the speaker pro tempore: the question is, will the house suspend the rules and pass the bill? so many as are in favor, say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspended, the bill is passed and without objection, the motion to
reconsider is laid on the table. for what purpose does the gentleman from colorado rise? a recorded vote is requested. those favoring a recorded vote will rise. a sufficient number having risen a recorded vote is ordered. members will record their votes by electronic device. this will be a five-minute vote. [captioning made possible by the national captioning institute, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives. any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]
ms. ros-lehtinen: permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. ros-lehtinen: mr. speaker, december 1 marks world aids day. 33 million people live with hiv-aids worldwide. this terrible disease is one of the most destructive epidemics of our time. the fight against hiv-aids is ultimately about individual lives in our communities. in south florida, i'm pleased to have such strong allies such as unity coalition and its president, men initiating action and mobilization for change, other known as miami and south beach aids project, the university of miami, care resources, pride lines, jackson hospital and all who are in the fight against this global men ace. united and through greater awareness, research, prevention
and treatment, we will save and improve countless lives and stop the spread of hiv-aids. thank you, mr. speaker, for the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? mr. paulsen: permission to address the house for one minute. mr. speaker, i rise today to recognize a great example of the academic -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. the gentleman deserves to be heard. the house will be in order.
the gentleman may proceed. mr. paulsen: i rise today to recognize a great example of the academic and business communities working together to create new lifesaving technologies. the medical device center at the university of minnesota is a shining example of what can happen when innovation is encouraged and sought out by an educational institution and aided by partnership. i visited the university's medical devices center and learned about this program that focuses on development of devices that have the strongest lifesaving impact partnering with others to bring this product to market. the results speak for themselves. from just one year in the fellowship program, we have had 15 new provisional patents, 12 new available technologies, one new startup among the program's
fellows. the approach between academics and business makes us a valuable program and a model for minnesota and the entire nation toll follow. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from florida rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. grayson: mr. chairman, as we await the president's speech regarding afghanistan, there is a point i wanted to make and as is so often the case that point is made by somebody else. i yield to the chinese general who wrote the following words 2500 years ago. in war, victory should be swift. if victory is slow, men tire, morale sags, seize essex haas
strength, campaign drain the public treasury. strength exhausted, treasury spent, then the lords will exploit and attack. this even the wisest will be powerless to mend. hace can be fawley, but never have i seen a delay that was wise. no nation has ever benefited from a protracted war. mr. speaker, that was true 2500 years ago. we do not benefit from the protracted war in afghanistan. thank you. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from indiana rise? mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. tonight the president is going
to say in his speech, i just got part of it, that his sending 30,000 american troops over there is a step in the right direction for stabilizing afghanistan, but then he goes on and he says, and it will allow us to begin the transfer of our forces out of afghanistan in july of 2011, the one thing that you should never do is tell gaff your punch. i can't imagine why the president is saying in his speech tonight he is going to start withdrawing our troops in july of 2011. even if he plans to do that, he shouldn't say it because he is telling our enemies exactly what we're going to do and it's just wrong and every military officer i ever met will tell you the same thing. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from ohio rise? >> permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
>> today i rise in recognition of the stark county district library located in canton, ohio. in october 6, 2009, the museum of library science asked the stark library to receive the medal of library service. this is the nation's highest medal for the libraries. it has served our community for 125 years and the staff set a fine example of leadership by responding to the changing needs of our community. i know firsthand the friendly faces and they provide resources to our county. despite budget cuts rkts it maintains the highest quality of service making sure our communities have access to the materials they want and need. through early literacy efforts for mothers and children for the stark county kids, employment assistance classes, the stark county library has enriched
lives in creating a stronger community. this national medal con firms the library's commitment to our community. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentlelady from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: ask permission to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady is recognized. ms. jackson lee: i want to acknowledge today, december 1, as world aids day when all of us focus on that devastating disease. i would like to pay a special tribute to the thomas street clinic in houston, texas, that for decades has served those who are hopeless and sometimes the helpless. i'm so very glad they are giving people life and opportunity. thank you tom at street clinic and i introduced legislation in support of them. on another topic, let me suggest
that the president has been deliberative and thoughtful. it is interesting that those who criticize created the havoc that is going on now in afghanistan by taking away from our focus in afghanistan after 9/11 and focusing on iraq, a distracted war, yet we loved those who served and mourn those who loss. we want to find a way to introduce diplomacy, democracy and getting the government in afghanistan to take care of its own people. this is a war of insurgents. this is a civil war. and therefore, we must find a way to handle this in a manner that serves all. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. abercrombie of hawaii for today, mr. barro of georgia for today and balance of the week, mr. davis of illinois for today, mr. davis of kentucky
for today, mr. kirk of illinois for today, ms. mccollum for today until 11:00 a.m. on tuesday, december 2. mr. shimkus of illinois for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the requests are granted. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? mr. poe: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into that the following members may be permitted to address this house, revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material, mr. wolf for today, december 2, 3 and 4. myself, mr. poe, for today, december 2, 3, 4 and 7. mr. paul for today and december 2. ms. miller today. mr. jones for today and december 2, 3, 4 and 7. and mr. deal for december 7. the speaker pro tempore: without objection.
for what purpose does the gentlewoman from illinois rise? california? ms. woolsey: thank you. mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore intered into the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey, california, mr. defazio, oregon, ms. kaptur, ohio. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. woolsey from california. the gentlewoman may proceed. ms. woolsey: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, president obama
will talk to the american people about afghanistan tonight. etion expected to announce a major new escalation of the conflict. i believe the president's apparent decision to send tens of thousands more troops to afghanistan is a mistake and i believe that because the past year has taught us that there is no military solution to afghanistan. that's why i've urged the president to change our mission and to emphasize diplomacy, economic development and humanitarian aid as the best way to stop vie -- violent extremism in afghanistan. as a californian, i'm proud to say that the california democratic party has passed a resolution that also urges president obama to change course in afghanistan. i want to recognize and i want to thank my friends at the progressive democrats of america and the state party's
progressive caucus for leading the effort to pass the resolution. the resolution states that far from eradicating the taliban and other insurgencies, the presence of foreign troops has instead strengthened them, creating greater insecurity, death and impoverishment of the afghan people. the california democratic party's resolution expresses deep concern for the honorable american young men and women who have killed and have been wounded and the terrible toll of the war on their families. our involvement in afghanistan continues to cost billions of dollars each month while the united states and particularly the state of california are in economic crisis without money to fund domestic needs. the resolution also calls attention to the plight of the afghan women who have suffered greatly during the war and it cause for an end to military action that causes civilian
casualties. it urges president obama to redirect america's funding and resources to include an increase in humanitarian and development aid. it also asks the president to encourage multiparty talks aimed a at ensuring a democratic and legitimate representation of the people of afghanistan as well as a multiparty regional diplomacy for the safety and civility of neighboring countries. mr. speaker, the resolution was adopted after the members of the california democratic party heard the powerful testimony of marine veteran rick graves. he has served in both iraq and afghanistan and he said there is no military solution to afghanistan. the problems in afghanistan are social problems, problems that cannot be fixed militarily.
mr. speaker, instead of escalating the war and bringing more destruction to afghanistan we must devote our resources to improving the lives of the afghan people. this change in strategy will achieve a number of very important goals. it will give the afghan people hope for their future, it will give them a reason to reject violent extremism, it will save the lives of our troops and it will save the lives of afghan civilians and it will save money. money that we need to invest in what will truly make our nation stronger and safer which includes energy independence, jobs, reforming health care so that health care doesn't actually strangle our economy. mr. speaker, there is a lot that we should be doing and this is what the american people want the obama administration to focus on. that's why i will join with millions of americans in the
days ahead to oppose the escalation of the war in afghanistan and to continue to urge our president to change course. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia, mr. wolf from virginia. >> i wish to claim mr. wolf's time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr. speaker. the navy seels are the united states navy's elite commandows and last week we learned that they have captured one of the most wanted terrorists in all of iraq. abed was behind the murder and mutilation of former blackwater u.s.a. security guards in fallujah in the year 2004. this ring leader of this ambush
planned the murder of these four americans in fallujah. and these four blackwater security guards, what they were doing was transporting supplies from one place to another. so he had planned an ambush against these individuals. they are ambushed, they are murdered, the bodies of these four murdered americans were then dragged through the streets, burned and hung from a bridge in fallujah. mr. speaker, i've been to that very bridge in the year 2005 and you still have an eerie feeling knowing that four americans were hung there in public view. u.s. military, by the way, has put a plaque on that bridge in honor of those security guards. and so congratulations are in order to the navy s.e.a.l.s. who captured the mastermind behind this ambush and the murder of these four americans. we should be celebrating this achievement and these navy seels
should be getting medals for their work doing what we've asked them to do. but that's not what's happening, mr. speaker. the military has decided to court marshall the navy s.e.a.l.s. it seems that this terrorist, abed, claimed that he was punched in the mouth by the navy sale's and he wants justice. he wants american justice. you know, it's the same mouth that preaches hate in the name of religion. the same mouth that demands death to america. the same big mouth that ordered the murder of the four americans. so the s.e.a.l.'s must answer to this accusation by terrorists that they captured. after all, the terrorists must have some of that american justice. next thing we know we'll be giving these terrorists on the battlefield their miranda warnings. oh -- we already do that. well, then after that they're going to want to be tried in civilian courts in the united states. but we're already doing that as well. have we gone a bit too far with
the kid glove treatment that we treat these madmen, these terrorists, these people who kill americans? the nation is at war, mr. speaker. you know, punch occurs in war. shooting also occurs in war. instead of a court marshall, the s.e.a.l.'s should be dispatched to go and kill another terrorist but that's not happening. they're going to be court marshaled because some terrorist supposedly got a bruised mouth. the s.e.a.l.'s in question are matthew mckay, he's a special operations petty officer, second class. petty officer jonathan keith and petty officer julio huertez are the three s.e.a.l.'s who are going to be court marshalled because some terrorist alleged they punched him in the mouth. it's ironic, mr. speaker, that the s.e.a.l.'s will be arranged next month -- monday -- arraigned next monday. december 7.
december 7 everybody in the united states navy remembers that day. see, it's been 68 years ago sinls the navy and america was attacked on december 7 at pearl harbor. and now these individuals, ironically, will be arraigned that day. mr. speaker, you can imagine someone in world war ii, a soldier, ma a rin, somebody in the united states navy, being tried for punching an enemy combatant in the mouth during world war ii? you know, we should be commending the navy sales for doing the job we've asked them to do. they're the best we have in this country, we've asked them to do tough assignments and we should be supporting them. the terrorists ought to be on trial for murdering americans. and the navy s.e.a.l.s ought to be getting medals for doing what we have asked them to do. and i say congratulations to the navy s.e.a.l.s for a job well done. and that's just the way it is.
the speaker pro tempore: congressman defazio from oregon. ms. kaptur from ohio. congressman paul from texas. the gentleman from is recognized for five minutes. mr. paul: thank you, mr. speaker. the federal reserve chairman ben bernanke does not want us to know any of the details of the fed's secret operations. this position is not surprising and has been typical of all central bank chairmen. bernanke's stated goal is, quote, to design a system of financial oversight that will provide a robust framework for preventing future crises, closed quote. during its 96 years of
existence, the federal reserve has played havoc with our economy and brought great suffering to millions through unemployment and price escalation. and it has achieved what only a central bank can, a steady depreciation of our currency. today's dollar is now worth four cents compared to the dollar entrusted to the federal reserve in 1913. 96 years should have been plenty of time for the fed to come up with a plan for preventing economic crises. since the fed is the source of all economic downturns, it's impossible for any central banker to regulate in such a manner to prevent the problems that are predictable consequences of his own monetary management. the federal reserve fixes interest rates, it levels inevitable lower than those demanded by the market. this manipulation is a form of price control through credit expansion and is the ultimate cause of business cycles and so
many of our economic problems generating the malinvestment, excessive debt, stock, bond, commodity and housing bubbles. the federal reserve's monetary inflation indeed does push the c.p.i. upward but concentrating on the government's reports of the c.p.i. and the p.p.i. is nothing more than the distraction from the other harm done by the federal reserve's effort at central economic planning through secret monetary policy operations. real inflation, the expansion of our money supply, is greatly undercounted by these industries. in response to our latest financial crisis, the federal reserve turned on its printing press and literally doubled the monetary base. this staggering creation of dollars has yet to be reflected in many consumer prices but will ultimately hit the middle class and poor with a cruel devaluation of their savings and
real earnings. the fed has clearly failed on its mandate to maintain full employment and price stability. it's time to find out what's going on. instead of assuring -- assuming responsibility for the fed's roll in the crisis -- role in the crisis, bernanke brags about, quote, arresting, closed quote, the crisis. i would suggest to mr. bernanke that it's too early to brag. bernanke decries any effort to gain transparency of the fed's actions to find out just who gets bailed out and who is left to fail. instead he proposes giving even more power to the fed to regulate the entire financial system. what he does not recognize nor does want to admit is that he is talking about symptoms while ignoring the source of the crisis.
the federal reserve itself. more regulations will never compensate for all the distortion and excesses caused by monetary inflation and article physically low interest rates. regulation distracts from the real cause while further interfering with the market forces thus guaranteeing that the recession will become much deeper and prolonged. chairman bernanke's argument for fed secrecy is a red herring. it serves to distract so the special interests that benefit from the fed policy never become known to the public. who can possibly buy this argument that the secrecy is required to protect the people from political influence? my bill, h.r. 1207, has nothing to do with interference in monetary policy. this was explicitly stated in the amendment voted on in the financial services committee. bernanke's argument for protecting the independence of the fed is his argument for
protecting the secrecy of the fed. chairman bernanke concludes that, quote, america needs a strong nonpolitical, think, goldman sachs, and independent, think secret, central bank with the tools to promote financial stability in the midst of a horrendous financial crisis and to help steer our economy to recovery without inflation. this belief is a dream that one day will become a nightmare for all americans unless we come to our senses, stop our wild spending, run ji away deficits, printing press money, massive bureaucratic regulations and our unnecessary world empire. a crucial step toward fixing these problems will be transparency of the federal reserve. i yield back the balance of my time. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the
balance of his time. congresswoman miller from michigan. congresswoman miller from michigan. the the gentlewoman from is recognized. >> this house passed what is known as cap and trade legislation that would place limits on co-2. and the reason needed is that global warming poses a grave threat to the future of our planet. we have been told that the debate is over and the science is uncontravertable. and enthough it would cause redistribution of wealth from our nation to others and would lead to massive job losses and outsourcing from the united states to the other nations. particularly hard heat would be heavy industry, agriculture and states that rely upon coal for like that production. mr. speaker, i voted against cap and trade because i wasn't convinced of the problem and because the solution would cause further economic devastation to
my constituents. i'm from michigan where we currently have the highest unemployment in the united states. we also derive 2/3 of our like that from coal and our number one industry is industrial manufacturing and our number two industry is agriculture. if cap and trade were to pass, michigan's economy would be devastated. but we were told that it had to happen because the alternative is worse. mr. speaker, a few weeks back, a series of emails from within the climate research facility at britain's university were either hacked or were leaked by a disillusiononned outsider that has blown away the global warming theory and being called climate date. these emails show that these scientists have used tricks to manipulate data, refused to release the data that is the
foundation for their research and attempted to silence any critics and even expressed dismay that they couldn't explain recent cooling taking place across the globe and these scientists have allies cooperating with them including some here in the united states. since the release of these emails it has become that the science is not settled and the debate is very much alive and that the tactics and methods used by the most trusted scientists have very serious problems. one email said this which suggests the manipulation of data. quote, i have added the real temperatures for the last 20 years and for 1961 to hide the decline, unquote. hide the decline? an inconvenient truth that temperatures were declining required a trick to hide it. and another email expresses frustration that temperatures are actually going down, quote, the fact is that we can't
account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't. another email exposes the attempt to silence dissent. quote, i think we need to stop considering climate research as a legitimate per review journal and encourage them not to submit papers to this journal, unquote. that is wonderful. call those who disagree with those cranks because they have not been published and when theyr to discredit the journal. in other words, mr. speaker, the fix is in. most troubling is the raw source data. the leader refused to release source data and now they claim that the data was lost. you know, it sounds to me like the old elementary school excuse, the dog ate my homework. that excuse doesn't work for third graders and it is
unacceptable from scientists who are asking us to up end our economy and even worse, emails exist that suggest that the data wasn't lost, but structs scientists to destroy data which was subject to britain's freedom of information laws and that is not just bad science, that is a criminal act. and now we are being asked to radically restructure our economy based largely on the research of these scientists. mr. speaker, congress needs to hold hearings into this matter. we need to investigate these very troubling revelations. if we are to make policy that will profoundly impact our nation, that policy must be made on fact, not on articles or manipulated data. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back. congressman jones from north carolina.
mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. again tonight i rise here to talk about the rule of law and the fact that there are those in our society who seem to want to circumvent the rule of law and think because of their position in either in congress or in the government that the laws shouldn't pertain to them the same as it pertains to other americans, that they should be treated sperblely even though our president stated that he didn't think -- he was going to fight there was no special treatment for people other than they get treated equally. we have this issue going on. we have been talking about this and i have been talking about chairman rangel and his issues with the tax folks and about how the rule of law didn't seem to
apply to him. tonight, i'm going to talk about secretary geithner, secretary of the treasury. before i start on talking about this, i was thinking as i was sitting here listening to people talk and everybody was very in formative that there may be people who don't understand what i say when i say the rule of law. it is a very basic concept. it is a prevailing concept that holds our republic together here in the united states. but in truth in fact, the whole world seeks a system where the rule of law prevails because it is that system which gives recourse to the ordinary person. so let me just point out some of the things we will talk about tonight that the rule of law is part of. when i say recourse, the average american citizen, if someone is breaking into their house, if
they hear a burglar prying open the back door, they call 911 and ask them to send out a police officer, a sheriff's deputy or someone to protect their home. and they know that we have procedures whereby that officer has the authority to come in and make an arrest of that person to protect the homestead of the person that's being violated. they know there is someone they can call who will help and that there are rules that the society they live in have established. so they get treated fairly and being protected by the law and the person who is accused of breaking the law is also treated fairly because we have rules and we have all agreed upon are the rules that our society will follow. that's the rule of law. when we talk about afghanistan, which is an issue that is
probably as i am speaking, the president is speaking on some other channel about this, the issue when you're talking about counterinsurgency cut down to its finest point is establishing the rule of law in a war zone, if you will. we did it -- we did it in iraq and basically we did it with a simple principle which we used in new york city to lower the crime rate, we used it in philadelphia to lower the crime rate, big cities have used it from time to time everywhere and that is community policing. that is the idea that there is somebody in your neighborhood you can turn to and say help me. i need your help. and really counterinsurgency is using the military to train up the local folks in their police
force and their army so that their citizens know they can be protected by their police force, their army and their court system and their government from those who would do them harm so they don't have to look to the strongest guy in the neighborhood, which may be the taliban, but can look to the government and the society that has been established by that government. and counterinsurgency is putting forces in place in neighborhoods all over afghanistan so that the afghan citizens realize there is someone there permanently to make sure that they are treated right and treated fairly. and so it's the beginning of the establishment of the rule of law. we in the united states have been blessed for our entire history with the rule of law and in fact, we don't salute a king.
we don't salute a dictator, we don't salute an individual that sovreignty comes to that individual, we salute a document. when those of us who are fortunate enough to be elected to congress and be able to serve our constituents back home here in congress and we have the opportunity to be in congress, we stand up and make an oath. and that oath is to the constitution of the united states that we will preserve, protect and defend that constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic, because the constitution is that beginning set of rules of law that we established this republic under. so we are very blessed nation. we started with the rules of law. today and many nations around this world, there are still folks who don't have some rules that they can feel comfortable or will be there to protect
their society. and a lot of what happens when you create a counterinsurgency force like we're doing in afghanistan, we're establishing that security to those people who live in that country. so that gives you the idea of how important it is that a people -- whoever the people are and exist on this earth have some set of rules that they will be treated like their neighbor next door or the guy clear across the country, they will be treated fairly and have a source that they can get recourse for something that happens to them. it's a very simple concept, but it is a foundation concept of a civil society, of a society that functions properly. and one of the things that