tv Washington Journal CSPAN June 9, 2011 7:00am-10:00am EDT
the center for american progress will talk about the legal challenges to the affordable care act. then the president of the national association of manufacturers and a look at nation-building efforts in afghanistan with the center for a new american security. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] host: on this thursday morning, a couple of the major national newspapers are reporting the governor of texas, rick perry, may now have his eyes on the white house. another says the governor thinks there is a void in the current field of candidates. new whispers of a perry bid is one of the headlines. we want to get your reaction to the news this morning. the news this morning. news this morning, texas gov.
rick perry may be warming to the idea for running for president. here is one of the ideas anin " the wall street journal." the piece by neil king says that for months now the governor has told potential donors and potential higher ups he has no interest in running for the white house for 2012, but over the past two weeks political advisor say he has changed his tune on a possible presidential campaign.
became president unfortunately, and that will be a guide for the current governor of texas. host: what is your thinking in linking one with the other. they are to separate men, no? caller: it is true. i did not think too highly of president bush, and i do not think too highly of gov. perry. >host: let's go now to bobbie. caller: i am just a static here. ep, but thisa bad ra is great. he is a decorated air force pilot veteran. he is extraordinarily good family man. texas has a booming economy. this is the greatest news i have had all week. host: for those who do not know
him, you laid out a little bit of the biography, but what is your sense if he is warming to this idea, what do you to think will make him want to run ultimately? what are you looking for? caller: i think first and foremost he smells blood metaphorically. he smells weakness in the obama administration, and he sees us in wars, economic crisis, weak, inexperienced man wandering in the office of presidency, and he knows that as chief executive and a decorated air force pilot he should get in and lead this nation. >host: you obviously are supporting the president, but can you tell us if there is a knock on his record? caller: the only been one could say is the classic weakness of
his strength. he tells it like it is. he is a classic straight shooter. he is not a mitt romney wabble politician. he is a hard-nose fighter, and i am looking forward to this. host: one more call, and then we will go back to the article. lou on the republican line. what is your reaction this morning? morning? caller: i am ok with rick perry boating for president. it seems like too many people in america keep looking to the government to fix things. the government policy since jimmy carter when he started the and reinvestment act and bill clinton fine-tuned it,
everything the government sticks their nose and becomes a disaster. host: we will move from connecticut. more of your calls in the second. want to remind you you can send in your tweets this thursday morning and every morning. we will get some of those streets on the air as well. back to this piece by milking. -- by neil king.
i do not see anything here, but why you bring it up. caller: because it is enormous, and that is why they did not bring it up. it is quite large, and we do not need this guy. in he wants to succeed from the union, and then he wants to become the president? it is ridiculous. host: let's here from arkansas where alices on the line for republicans. what do you make of this? caller: i am a republican, but i would never vote for rick perry. he puts more people in the electric chair in the state of texas than any other state of the union. i think he is the worst choice of all the candidates talking about running. i would vote for sarah palin before i would vote for rick perry. caller: good morning.
if you want another tom delay who is now in prison, get this guy in office. come you say that? caller: well, he does not like children to well. the powerless and the poor lose. what i have to tell everyone is there is a lady by the name of she is the oneois, who back the lawsuit that will clear the supreme court's, that made the supreme court allow corporations to get candidates as much money as they want, and they're throwing money at the republican party like crazy. host: we are reading about rick
perry this morning. they say that the governor, who is 61 years old, is making a number of national appearances this month, including an address this week and an annual dinner of the gop. last week he announced an august summit in houston and invited all the nation's governors to attend. he described the event as a day -- a week of prayer and fasting. -- he described the event as a day of prayer and fasting.
host: we will get to "the washington post" in a minute. from colorado springs. scott on the republican line. good morning. what do you think of rick perry? caller: i think he would be great. great. i think he has dealt with president obama and that administration more than anyone else. he is trying to get the border taking care of. a lot of companies are moving from california to texas because of what he set up for business is down there. if he does get into the race, i think president obama would appear him the most, because he knows how rick perry does not really care for him. he has been interviewed, they have flown the border and talk with him, and he is getting no support from this
administration. on debates i think he would tear obama up. grayson on the line for independents. caller: thank you for taking my call. rick perry? wowee. wowee. i think a lot of republicans now are smelling plot -- blood in the water because they think this economy will not go anywhere, which i do not think it is either. that is not president obama spa. i really hope that obama leaves it with these guys and let them fight over it, because he is too cool for the presidency. host: 1 twitter message this morning.
rick perry, and i would not vote for any republican government. i think they are much too intrusive. they are definitely trying to get rid of women's rights as far as abortion and birth control. they are making it hard for poor people and older people to vote, requiring a photo id. they are breaking down the unions that have always provided good jobs for americans. they're messing with social security, and i do not approve of any of that. people need to be very careful and pay attention and look at how these republican governors are balancing their budget. how are we going to improve the employment rate? host: "the post" piece goes on to say --
host: jerry on the line for democrats now from michigan. democrats now from michigan. go ahead, please. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the previous calller, obviously she was quite against rick perry running, but i think a lot of the tea party members better placed -- that are placed in
texas are concerned with rick perry because he does look like ronald reagan but does not have ronald reagan but does not have the true conservative criedrive e reagan, and we have seen that with the various groups see as made contact with. he is always contacted by what he does as opposed to what he says. we don't know he went in front of a special group -- we do know he went in front of a special group and he has special ordain meant. no potential canada has always gone in front of the build of your purse -- buildaburgers. there is a good chance he could end up being the nominee,, because that is away this things work. the tea party knows he never keeps his word, he always
changes his colors like a texas, million, so i urge the people of america to be aware before the make those decisions. host: next calller from texas. one more chance for tom from cranberry, texas. caller: by name is tom. caller: by name is tom. i'm a native texan. guy for thehed the skiehis last 10 years or so. he is an air force pilot. look at the last air force pilot we havd. every year force pilot we have we end up in some kind of war. rick perry is in the pockets of
the insurance companies. the insurance companies. he pours all young women to take an injection --[inaudible] think of the texas legislature overrode him. host: who did you vote for last time around? caller: obama. host: why? caller: i heard his speech in oklahoma about a year-and-a-half before the elections, and i was so impressed with the guy, the way he spoke. i have not been all that impressed with him since he has been in office. i think he has done the best job that i can do under the circumstances. host: is it a conclusion you will vote for reelection of the president or are you look -- looking, and what are you looking for? caller: it is a foregone
conclusion that i will probably vote for obama. what i am looking for is someone that will stick to what they say they will do on the campaign trail. as far as i am concerned, president obama has pretty well done as far as he could. the president cannot do it everything he wants to. i think he has a lot of integrity. host: thank you for your time. to the earlier questions about debt, we want to look at texas tech. you can see the population of about 26 million people. the jobless rate, a food stamp recipients. you can see the gdp in debt. we will let the role on so you can get a sense of what is happening in the state of texas.
mike, independent, what you make of rick perry possibly running for president? warming to the idea apparently? caller: i do not. he made a mess out of the state of texas. it is non-comprehensive he would ever become the president. i noticed the establishment is desperately trying to find someone who can run against president obama, unlike your previous calller, i will vote for obama. i am disappointed there was no public option and a few things, but here is a guy doing the best he can, and we have republicans doing the best they can to restore the middle -- the story the middle class and wreck the economy just so they can elect somebody. it is outrageous. host: back to texas. toby. what do you think? caller: i am a first-time
calller. they keep for c-span. they keep for c-span. they're trying to gerrymandered this. we try to educate our kids about science instead of witchcraft in schools. also, teachers are getting fired here in texas. rick perry is trying to fire teachers. there is no talk about honoring and administrators or anything else. and i have kids in the school. the kids are overcrowded. the only good thing about rick perry running is it would take him off our hands. i do not think he can win. he is inept and debate. sarah palin wasscar
wait till yoube in debate, see rick perry. he has personal skeletons in the closet that will come to light as soon as he hits the national spotlight. host: go ahead kirk. caller: i would support a pawlenty/perry ticket. they have both served a couple of terms as governor getting reelected. we have romney and pailin who have only served a term or part of a term and never got reelected. i think at this point it is important to have someone in the government who has what would be the equivalent of ceo experience, repeated ceo experience, and i think the big problem we ran into, and i actually voted for obama even
though i republican, the problem we ran into with obama in my opinion is just plain and simple he did not understand a few basic things especially about setting expectations for businesses. you cannot stall people on something like the health-care bill for three or four years and expect people to make decisions. everyone has to sit around and wait to see what will happen with the supreme court. whereas you have someone like rick perry where is going through many trials dealing with the public, with thousands and thousands of millions of people, and even though it is not a perfect comparison to the presidency, it is a lot better training going into the presidency than obama had. unfortunately president obama is
attempt or experience, even though i admire his attempt, and i would totally do differently under the circumstances this time, i think pawlenty needs to have someone heat across from stature and cane a start to shine a little bit. i am from minnesota by the way. just a nuts and bolts type of guy and tells it like it is. i did not know that much about rick perry, but that is my impression of him as well. host: i'm going to let you go and get some other voices in your. the republicans need a pit bull in this fight, not just lap dogs. we cannot be the street doglike obama with show dogs.
i say fascism, the same term they were using two years ago while they themselves were the actual all others in this kind of behavior. the author of the prophetic novel come in 1985 -- 1984 george o. welch says when fascism comes to america it will be wrapped in the flag in carrying a cross. welcome to the republican party. host: let's move on to sharon. sharon is a republican. caller: wow, i can really hear by the last calller how desperate the democrats are. my goodness. there is fear running through them. they are calling on all the they are calling on all the lines claiming to be republicans and independents who. i tell you, this black
southerner, i will be more than happy to vote for rick perry. i will probably vote the same way i voted in 2010. i registered as a republican, i change my registration. i could not wait to get to the polls in 2010 and correct my mistake. and we're gonna be camped outside the polling place in 2012 to get to clean up this mess and correct the mistake that we made. host: one more point in this piece.
seattle washington, you are on the line. caller: i do not know this guy that much. i would have to look into who he is as a person in canada it before i would endorse him either way, but since he is a republican and comes from that brand, one thing i have to say is that no time since i have ever been alive have i seen so much divisiveness and a drive to divide america as i have seen from the republican party. one of the things that distinguishes the u.s. as a country, that stands out from other countries, is the ability to be able to pull together during hard times, and it seems like during this recession that will probably turn into a
depression, it seems like i seek more money grab from the rich -- i see more money grab from the rich and trying to separate themselves from the four. it seems like we're not pulling together as a country anymore, we're just standing on our own and emphasizing the importance of what being individuals are and set of what we can do as a collective body of people. host: let's move on to fort worth, texas. another texan on the line. diana, a republican. caller: i am a republican since forever. please, we do not meet rick perry as a nominee.
somebody said, a democrat or independent said he is like a chameleon, he changes color, and they do believe that is what he does. does. well, i know he does. host: who do you like in the current field? caller: well, that is hard. anybody but obama please, but my husband and i really like guiliani. this time i hear he is thinking about it, but i do not think he has a chance. mitt romney, i am softening on met ronnie. rick perry, i love texas. he has been the governor, but that is because our state senate, congress, is so good.
host: thank you for your time this morning. one viewer writes the gop has yet to use a kit that can compete with president obama on the national stage. this is a charge about how -- chart about how americans are feeling. republican satisfaction with candidates now is at the same point it was four years ago. in 200720% were very satisfied. currently 16%. 60% very satisfied. that has dropped to 45. not very satisfied 28% today up from 21% four years ago. not at all satisfied 11%. and that is more than doubled the number from may of 2007.
that was in the 11th search -- 11th u.s. circuit court of appeals. we will talk with the center of american progress rep about the new health-care law and the challenges to it. another event is leon panetta and his confirmation hearing today for defense secretary. this piece says he is a budget for year. moving from cia to defense. they point out he is issue and for senate approval. washington insiders expect the hearing may offer new clues about plans to rein in federal spending. they predict, some officials, and congressional aides predict he will either accelerate or increased 4 billion in cuts that the white house has already ordered at the pentagon over the next 10 years. we will hear about that this morning. the show will end at 9:30 and go over to the hearing. over to the hearing. that is before the senate armed
services committee. next call on rick perry. steve from indiana. caller: rick perry, that is ridiculous. he wants to succeed from the union and all this stuff, but if the people want to elect a republican, go ahead, and you will lose your medicare, social security, you will lose everything because they do not care anything about the normal people. all they care about are the rich, and if you vote in the rich, and if you vote in the republican, then we will be like mexico one of these days. host: body on the line for republicans. -- bobby on the line for republicans. caller: i heard several people
from texas call in, which much beat the handful of people that voted for obama that live in texas. most people supported a republican president, and most people voted for rick perry. as far as whether he would do a good job, he would. he has the credentials. the state has run well. we have added jobs. we are not in the hole from a housing standpoint. all those things that have happened have happened while he was in office. the rules that we passed here were loss were that you could not borrow more than 80% when you refinance a house. in other words, you cannot be in debt that way. that has helped the housing situation. most of the people that know anything about rick perry know
he is one of the best candidates that has been considered. he probably will not run, but if he does, i would certainly support him, and so what the people of texas. host: independent calller from overton, texas. caller: i think he is a joke and anybody that calls in from texas speaking for me like that, do not speak for me like that, because i would not vote him. we are losing too many good teachers. we're having trouble finding jobs down here, because most of the jobs he has brought down here are going to be illegal immigrants, and i am sorry to have to say that, but that is what it's happening. the third thing is i am stuck in the $6,000 per month trailer bill. it makes no sense to me. he needs to go, but if he runs i
would love to see president obama clean his clock. host: a couple of new developments in the anthony wiener story. reporting eight democrats on the hill are urging anthony wiener to with the house now. a handful of democrats called for him to resign, and the news broke he is president. and his wife, a senior aide to president clinton, is in the early stages of pregnancy with the couple's first child. they point out that clinton and she leapt for a schedule toour of africa. he had virtual relationships with at least six women. the group included rep allison
schwartz. having the respect of your constituents is fundamental for your congressman. in light of his offensive behavior on line, he should resign. but the news of the pregnancy make tamp down such calls out of respect for the couple's privacy at such a delicate time. and the new york daily news editorial writes this this morning. anthony we bette they say quite simply in the
third paragraph a real man would quit. "the new yorkin the post." host: next calller. caller: i would never vote for a man who wanted to succeed from man who wanted to succeed from the union, and also, bonita mazzoli me said that corporatism -- fascism was corporatism. the woman who called it earlier,
and the republican party is very much a fascist party. she was not crazy, she was absolutely right. it frightened the hell out of me. they want to destroy government so big business and big religion can come in and take over. that is exactly what has happened in italy and germany. host: now to edward on the independent line from illinois. caller: i am learning about rick perry like everybody else is on c-span this morning, but we will not be able to fix nothing until we get rid of the lobbyists of washington, d.c., and for everyone to come together, the house, senate, and everything. it will just keep on going on with people pointing blame and everything else, and i think you very much. -- i thank you very much.
host: a couple of other headlines this morning. opec dashed expectations when iran rally by countries to block saudi arabia's pushed to up production. production. "wall street journal" says exxon has unveiled a big kind. they are making the first major splash in the u.s. gulf for decades. it was a minor presence in the gulf, but now it says they are finding big finds in the gulf of mexico. that is a wall street journal story. the end of the new york times says there is a new move to condemn syria. britain and france will condemn
the syrian government for using force against its own civilians but would avoid a call for military action or any sanction against the government. in one more quick thing in case he mixed it. -- in case you missed it. debit card fees story. the headline says senate okays cap on devotees. the senate cited with retailers over bankers on wednesday, voting to let the fed move forward with a plan to cap this white piece that financial institutions charge. it is still unclear what impact this will have on consumers. they got 54 votes for an amendment to delay the reorganization of these fees. last couple of calls on preparing. nancy, republican from north carolina. caller: i just want to say this
may be -- must be democratic morning, because everything they say about the republicans as applying to them. -- is applying to them. and there is a song by don henry called dirty laundry. and everything they say -- i other places,rom and everything they say is applied to them. i have watched the house every day for years. host: last call, eric. caller: i absolutely would not under any circumstances vote for rick perry for a guy like him.
i have my own little test that i have been forced to employ in some game of when or take all in this dictatorship where seemingly people tend to believe there is some sort of massive difference between the parties, and they're really hardly is any peer yen they are both bought and paid for by corporations that basically right their own legislation and it -- and them.nd it to the scary part for me with a guy like rick perry is the evangelical christian is just about in every part of his speech. someone mentioned earlier his inarticulate this, which is absolutely there. he sounds like w. all all over again. he is not a guy that represents
as well. the scariest thing to meet in this theological attempt to regulate morality. no way. i am thinking about running for europe at this point. they do not have a separation provided for in the founding documents, and they are very christian and catholic nation, but the practice it much better than we do. host: thank you for your time. that was eric from pennsylvania. one other story we are tracking today. president biden is set to host another meeting on the budget, specifically the debt with senators today. the new york times story says the current woes shift the focus of the budget talks, all of the talk about further slowdown in the economy amid urgency for a deal there is
concern over in the deal effect on the recovery. you can read that in "the new york times" as well. we will takeme, a short break and let you know that coming up and about 45 minutes j. timmins will join us with the national association for manufacturers. he is president and ceo to talk about the president's approach -- approach to manufacturing. be right back. after this, we will talk about the health care law. the health care law. >> connect with c-span on line but the latest schedule and
updates. connect with four square and programming highlights on you too. c-span and social media, connect today. >> this weekend on c-span3, more than 20 years after the end of the cold war, a new york historical panel reflect on ronald reagan. from elections in history, anything connally on the civil rights movement and the promise of suburbia. in rick rhodes on restoring civil war photographs from charleston, south carolina. get the complete schedule at c- span.org. >> this weekend on c-span to come reckless endangerment. they talk about the role of fannie mae and freddie mac and the 2008 financial collapse.
afterwards, henry kissinger on whether it is possible to form a true economic partnership with china. he is interviewed by monica crawly. also, paul allen talks about his memoir "ideal man." sign up for book tv alert. >> on this nomination, the nomination is confirmed. to go on monday the senate urilly to donald for reall succeed elena kagan. he is one of the millions of people you can search free anytime on line. it is washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us is the chief
operating officer for the center of american progress here to talk about the health-care law. we want to start with the 11th circuit argument that happened yesterday. here is one of the argument yesterday in "the usa today." what was your take away from the argument yesterday? guest: actually i thought there were a lot of questions about it the individual mandate was struck down, then you ought to strike down the whole wall. actually the panel, which is made up of to clinton-appointed judge, and won a special appointee judge, so it is a moderate to conservative court, but they actually raise a series of questions about whether the individual mandate is the
economic activity, whether economic activity, whether regulating insurance decisions or people have the decision to not have health care insurance is economic activity, and they seemed skeptical of the plaintiffs' case in that regard. i think you can never really tell from oral arguments, but there was a critique on both sides. scrutiny on both sides. guest: we have legislation that existed since the 1960's that said for example, if you need emergency care, hospitals have to provide it to you, so health care is different from other kinds of goods and everyone interacts with it and a problem with health care is when someone chooses not to have health insurance, everyone else pays for it.
i think it makes sense in that situation for the government to regulate it. it makes sense for the government to regulate the need for health care insurance. host: we want to revise the viewers to phone in with their questions and comments with the chief operating officer for the center for american progress. she will be with us for 35 or 40 minutes. phone numbers on the bottom of the screen. we're talking specifically about legal challenges around the country to the new health-care law. maybe not so new and more. line for republicans and democrats and independents. we will get to your calls in a couple of moments. a little bit of background on the challenges to what was named the affordable care act. as we know, it was signed into law march 23, 2010, and there have been panels in cincinnati in richmond who have heard arguments in the past three months. three federal judges have
upheld the law. a florida judge invalidated the entire lot. -- the entire law. what are you seeing come and where do you think it is going? guest: 0 ultimately to the supreme court in 2012, toward the end of the supreme court's term. i think that will be the earliest they will hear this case. i think ultimately they will decide on the individual mandate itself. it is not necessary to the whole legislation, so i think what is most likely to come before the court is whether or not the individual mandate is constitutional and whether the pre-existing conditions regulations or regulations that protect consumers that are tied to the individual mandate, whether those will stand as well. i do not think the supreme court will likely invalidate or even question the entire legislation,
but most likely will look at that specific and more narrow set of questions. host: what else are you expecting around the country? guest: i think right now there is some activity in a fair number of states to start implementing the legislation. we're in a case where we've seen the first phase of the legislation, which are insurance protection coming in. we of millions of people who have benefited from the laws already. small businesses are getting tax credits to help pay for health insurance for their small- business employees. seniors have received subsidies to afford prescription drug coverage. going on, and is in a few years we will see the actual needs of the law, which is insurance protection for millions of americans that depends on the states setting up
a new insurance market, and that process will take a while. some states are getting active on it, and others are dragging their feet. host: what are the biggest challenges in getting this implemented? guest: i actually think the implementation has gone remarkably well. there are a lot of moving parts to this, and i do not think there have been a tremendous number of complaints from a lot of the stakeholder groups about how implementation is going. there have been criticisms of the number of waivers in order to ensure the flexibility, but when you think about what is happening, the loss getting implemented, people are really benefiting. kids who are age 26 can be on their parents' insurance. slowly and surely people are feeling the benefits of the law. host: just about all the papers
focusing on this. in oregon 30 lawsuits filed around the country. are you expecting more legal action around the country prior to the supreme court? guest: what will actually happen is this appellate court is looking at the decision of the florida decision that invalidated the law. we will see a series of decisions move forward, and i think they will move relatively together to the supreme court, so we will have a steady drumbeat of news stories like this, because we will have appellate decisions coming. host: to our calls. dallas is the name of the calller. the tape -- the name is thomasville, georgia. caller: good morning. i am an insurance broker, and i have a little different perspective than your guest. certainly i agree with her as
far as implementation has been surprisingly handled well by most of the companies. one thing she has not mentioned, which i have seen in my markets, every renewal i have gone from my group customers have had significant increases, much more so than in the prior-year years. i heard we were going to have all of these decreases. right now i have not seen that. i will be in the business and we will see three years from now it their projections and decreases are coming. i would like decreases, because i would like to stay in business. businesses are strapped, and everyone knows they are. they are questioning if their foreign to keep coverage or not. that is what i deal with every day. i wish all the government promises were reflected and actually would come true for the betterment of my family, but i can tell you that the rates have had -- have gone through the
roof with the mandates of all of the different mandates better almost too many to mention on health care. host: if you could comment on the issue of rates. guest: that is a very important issue, because we haven't seen rate increases. and blue cross blue shield of california announced they're going to rebate customers and money, but most of the trend has been an increase in premiums. according to the insurance companies, and other insurance companies, what they are saying, the reason why we're seeing dramatic increases in premiums is because what is happening right now when we do not have an
individual mandate in the system is because of the economy lots of people are actually moving to forgo coverage, so the people left in the entrance pool for private insurance are sicker and have higher costs. that makes the premiums for everyone in those polls skyrocket. it is actually the insurance companies that are saying what is happening with the economy that is driving of these costs? that is why we need a system that brings everyone isn, because that will stabilize costs, and you will not have the sickest people driving up costs for everyone else. host: if you want to read this story that we're mentioning, it "the washington post."
host: but here from birmingham, alabama. b.j. on the line for democrats. caller: i have been following this, the appellate cases on the news, and i think everyone that watches c-span should become more informed, because this is regulating health insurance, and it is disingenuous about the argument that are made by politicians because they see this as an onerous law. most of them come if you go back to 1991 or 1992, they actually tried to implement the same mandate on health
insurance. everyone screams about the regulations. they want to get rid of regulations. we see what the lack of regulations did in the gulf of mexico and what the lack of serious regulation on the insurance industry has done. i have gone from paying maybe $30 through my employer in the early 1990's to $200 a month for health insurance. so, i think when you reduce the regulations, these private companies will run up the poorhouse. guest: two important ideas. where does the idea of individual mandate come from? who really supported it? initially, for the idea of the individual mandate came from
think tanks. a very conservative think tank in washington was the champion of the individual mandate. and their argument was for a liberal critics -- they believe that it made sense for everyone to have health care but they needed to pay for eight but the government could say everyone could have health insurance and the individuals could choose. at that idea was championed by a number of conservatives in the congress. there was a national legislation put forward by a senator in the 1990's to promote health care. senator dodd, the majority leader, supported that. at that had an individual mandate as well. so, actually, many will probably remember that in the 2008
primary, president obama did not support a mandate, but it made its way through the senate finance committee with bipartisan support, so he decided to support an individual mandate. host: our guest is a graduate of ucla with a law degree from yale, the chief operating officer at the center for american progress, a senior adviser for health reform at hhs, and prior to that, was the director of domestic policy for the obama-joe biden presidential campaign. the next call is from georgia. welcome, rose. caller: good morning. you said premiums have increased due to the economy, but clearly,
that is not true. president obama keeps saying that our economy is improving, but my premiums have increased 17%. when i questioned them, they told me it was because of obamacare. this is not an entitlement. this is a group blue cross plan that i pay for monthly. could you address that? guest: thank you for your call. i appreciate that insurance companies can tell you the reason why premiums have gone up is because of obamacare. is because of obamacare. as we all know, the gist of the law has not taken place yet. there are insurance protections in place for children so that no child can be denied coverage because they have a pre-existing
condition. there has been no independent study saying those insurance protections are driving premiums. there have been a lot of independent analysis showing that because we have an economy that is not recovering at a pace that it would like, we do have a large increase in the uninsured. that number is validated by the independent government analysis, a conservative think tanks and others recognizing that we have a large increase in the uninsured. that is what is driving it. insurers and the national health insurance plans are making that argument. host: yesterday, usa today writes --
guest: -that is really the central argument around it. i don't think it actually indicates that they are placing an incredible scrutiny. if you are going to have a three-hour oral argument, it should be asked maybe a few times. i think the response to that is relatively simple. health care is on like other things. we have a law in place today that says if you need emergency care, you can get it. you have guaranteed rights. private hospitals have to provide coverage to you. the challenge really is it is not like if you want an ipad or an ipod, the government says you
have to get it. we treat insurance as a right in some respects. or, at least, you have the right to not die because you have health insurance. so, we all end up paying for it. this is simply a way for the government to regulate those costs. not to provide them in the first place, but to regulate them. the conservatives have created this argument that health insurance -- the decision to buy health insurance is not really economic activity, and the decision to buy health insurance is not real economic activity. the challenge is the government has exceeded its commerce clause in the constitution. what is interesting about the debate that the judges had it is that they really agreed that
healthcare is an economic decision and the choice to have health care is an economic decision. that made many people to support the case that it will likely sign that that it is an economic sign that that it is an economic decision and therefore it is part of the congress clause powers. host: you can listen to the argument on the website at c- span.org. we will put it on tv again for you this weekend. the republican line, ohio, good morning. caller: good morning. i am sitting here watching you on the television and i am just laughing at it disingenuous statements coming from your guest. apparently, she is a new round of the fact that the court system is set up -- she is ignorant of the fact that the court system is set up where if you have won the judge, his
decision stands. unless he is overturned by the 11th or overturned by the u.s. supreme court, his decision stands nationwide. eight makes no difference what the other judges say because they are only making the decisions for their own little corner of the state or the world. what the judge in florida did -- he had 25 different states. therefore, under the judicial system of the united states, his decision stands until it is overturned and is law nationwide. therefore, the health-care law until it is overturned is unconstitutional. you can make any argument you want to make about the deal, but until this decision is overturned, it is the law of the land. guest: i am sorry that the caller does not like my answers,
but they are the truth. the district court rules in florida that the entire law was unconstitutional. not only does that judge not dictate the findings for the entire country, but he specifically took the position of sustaining his own ruling. that means the law is currently being implemented because he took that position himself. in every state, the law is being implemented going forward. so that is at the fa -- so that is the facts of the case going forward. there have been three judges, district court judges, that are at the same level of this judge. they are all district court judges. but they ruled on the merits of
the case and found the law constitutional. because our system could not allow for the different rulings and judges, the district court judge does not make that determination. i am sorry, the caller is wrong on the facts. on the facts. host: good morning, alabama. the caller: just like the lady called in a little while ago about her premiums going up because of obamacare, that is what is wrong now. bluecross knows a that is not true. that is the problem. we listen to what anybody says. when this health care -- when president obama first pass the health care law, republicans had
all these talking points and made everything look so disillusioned and so bad. which is what they are doing with the economy right now. we have to start [unintelligible] find your stuff on your own. do not just listen to anybody. the heritage foundation started a lot of it. we have to listen. so, ok, we have to listen to what is going on. stop listening to republicans, talkingts, independents' points. find out for yourself. guest: i think this caller raises a lot of important issues. health care is an issue and we found this during the debates on the hill -- health care is an
issue that is unlike decisions of congress. people feel intimately about their health care decisions, and they should. so, it is an area where people to get very anxious and can be easily scared. i think one of the sad parts of the debate on health care reform has been that people see it as a political opportunity. things like death panels and making decisions about whether your grandmother would receive the care which is totally false. they are leading members of the opposing party on those charges. i think it makes sense to find out information about the law, and i think it makes sense for people to look at independent news sources and other information to get real information on the benefits and
any pitfalls of the law. host: there was one wall street journal story that talked about the threat of companies cutting health insurance for individuals. i think one number thrown out there was 78 million people. guest: and that was actually a very interesting story, and i am glad you asked me about it. mckinsey put out an analysis of a survey that they did with employers. i actually would challenge callers to find this study from mckinsey because i called them and asked for the survey, the actual questionnaire, because no other study has found this level of data. other independent analysis of the law has never found data like this. it is all based on its survey of
employers. we do not know what the questions are. i simply asked for the survey itself. when a respected paper, a media outlet, covers a poll, you get to access the survey. it is a complicated series of decisions, and i have not been able to find the study. host: one last call for our guest, florida. peter is an independent. good morning. caller: good morning. we have no problem spending money on it nation-building. we have given iraq universal health care. why is that not good enough for us? maybe we should send all of our sick over there.
that is coming out of the military budget, i guess. guest: there is a challenge with the budgeting that we do in washington. i really think this is an important debate and one that we should have. but right now, we have people on both sides of the aisle, the vice president leading the reduction talks, and we are having a big car decision about what we can afford as a country. i think it makes sense for us to have a conversation about everything that we can afford as a country, which means what can we afford to do in afghanistan, iraq, in the military, and in domestic spending and health- care spending. also, what will the texas before the richest amongst us who have seen a dramatic tax increases? it makes sense to bring everyone to the table and share in the
responsibility. i think that includes military spending as well as health-care spending as well as revenue. host: our guest is neera tanden, the chief operating officer at the center for american progress. thank you so much for your time. coming up, senior fellow at the center for a new american society. the topic will be afghanistan. after a short break, we will talk to jay timmons, president and ceo of the national association of manufacturers. first, some news from c-span radio. >> robert gates delivers his final speech as defense secretary in brussels today. he previewed his remarks today in a meeting where he named names of nato members he thinks should be doing more in the libya. germany, poland, spain, and the netherlands. the secretary went on to say that the consequences have shown
in libya with the alliance has depended heavily on the united states. the new york times says the obama administration has intensified the covert u.s. war there in recent weeks. american officials, according to the article, are hoping the strikes will help prevent militants from consolidating power. a report today says airline companies are changing baggage fees for troops after two soldiers from afghanistan posted a video on youtube completing that 36 reservists lost more than 28 $20 in and out of pocket baggage expenses because at delta air lines charged them for a fourth bag. as of last night, they changed their policy. united continental and american airlines have done the same. those are some of the latest
headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend on c-span2, the role of fannie mae and freddie mac in the 2008 financial collapse. henry kissinger on whether it is possible to form a true economic partnership with china. also, microsoft co-founder paul allen talks about his memoir. look for the complete tv schedule. sign up for alerts. >> every weekend, it is american history tv on c-span3 starting saturday mornings. 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. watch personal interviews. our history book show features some of the best known history book writers. visit college classrooms across
the country during lectures in history, and go behind the scenes at museums on "american artifacts." get our complete schedule at c- span.org/history. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jay timmons, president and ceo of the national association of manufacturers. thanks for being here. first question, what is the condition of manufacturing and america? guest: manufacturing has had a bit of a rebound in the course of the past few months. we have added about a quarter of a million new jobs, and that is good news but you have to take that into context because we lost 2.2 million jobs in the recession. there is still a long way to go.
our concern is perhaps some policies in washington are making it more difficult to see the renaissance we think it is ready to bloom. host: a couple of policies that in place that are not working or new ones you would like to see in place? guest: is 18% more expensive to manufacture in the united states than anywhere else in the world. the three most relative factors our tax policies, energy policies, and our regulatory burden. host: the phone numbers are on the bottom of the screen for our guests, jay timmons. we will take calls from republicans, democrats, and independents. i wanted to talk about the presidential event yesterday. here is of the washington times --
he said -- >> last year, we brought together the major companies and community colleges to launch a new campaign led by business leaders from across the country called "skills for america." we could match up schools and businesses, which could create pipelines are right from the classroom to the office or the faculty floor. this would help workers find better jobs and would help companies find the highly educated and trained people that they need in order to prosper and to remain competitive. today's , we are announcing several new
commitments by the private sector, colleges and the national association of manufacturers, to help make these partnerships a reality. through these efforts, we are going to make it possible for 500,000 community college students to get industry accepted credentials for manufacturing jobs that companies across america are looking to fill. because even though a lot of folks are looking for work, there are a lot of companies that are looking for skilled workers. there is a mismatch. we can close it. host: tell us more about this idea that he speaks of. guest: one of the issues -- i mention problems that manufacturers face. another problem that manufacturers have, ironically, we still have a number of manufacturers that cannot find
the skilled workers that they need to fill vacancies that they may have in their facility. our goal is to credential 500,000 potential manufacturing workers in the next five years so they are prepared and have the skills necessary to be able to start a job in a facility right away. right now, there is a pretty big pool. there is a some retraining going on and some new entrants into the workforce of those looking for skills. we are working largely with community colleges across the country to develop these programs that will help train and provide the technical skills that are necessary. host: the first call for our guest, cleveland, an independent. good morning. host: start over again if you
could. caller: high and may stay at home mom who stumbled on an idea for a product. when we got to the manufacturing point of the product, i checked here at home in the u.s. and to manufacture, it cost three times more for me to go to a plastics manufacturer here than in china, and the price per piece was passed in china than it was here. how are accidental entrepreneurs supposed to manufacture products in the united states? guest: that is a great question. i am glad to have and my first question comes from my home state of ohio. the issues i talked about earlier are exactly the problem that you face and many manufacturers and face when they are making decisions on where to do business in the world. we are a global economy. manufacturers that are making decisions about where to produce
products have to decide where the best or the most efficient cost of doing business exists. there are three issues that i mentioned before that are so critical to determining the cost of doing business. first, our tax policies. we have the highest corporate tax rate in the world right now. it is really startling when you think about how 20 or 30 years ago we were constantly evaluating where we stood in the world in regard to our corporate tax rate to decide how competitive we could be. on energy policy, we are not developing our own natural resources. we are highly dependent on unstable sources of energy around the world. the cost we face are largely because we are not taking advantage of our own resources. the regulatory burden -- some regulations are good. most, if not all, are well intentioned. it is how they are executed that
drive up the cost of doing business. we want to bring down that 18% cost differential of doing business here in the united states. host: what actions have you encouraged? guest: with this current congress, the new regulations or new cost pressures. we have been working with congress and we have a lot of folks on both sides of the aisle as well as the president who has been talking about reducing the corporate tax rate. this is probably going to happen in the context of more comprehensive tax reform overall that will include more than just the corporate tax rate. also talked with members of congress about a comprehensive energy strategy, and we have seen some members interested in opening up new areas for exploration and development.
the administration has at least given an indication that they would like to see that as well, although the permitting process has slowed down our ability to do that. on the regulatory front, we have stopped some bad things in congress from happening. a few years ago, legislation would have created a regime to cap carbon and put a price on carbon, and we did in independent analysis to show that that would cost 300 million jobs in the long term. now the question is how do we roll back some of those things that have been so harmful? we are pleased the administration has asked agencies to evaluate all regulations to see what their cost benefits are for the american economy. unfortunately, that executive order does not extend to independent agencies like the epa or some of the most
egregious and most costly regulations are being promulgated. host: a quick thumbnail sketch on nam. the largest industrial trade association. it represents manufacturing in every industrial sector in 50 states. at 11,000 manufacturing companies across the country are represented. that is almost 12 million workers. how has that number changed? guest: it is dropped off 2.2 million. we have regained about a quarter of a million of those that were lost during the recession. there is still a lot of capacity out there. host: can you get that back up to 12 million? guest: we would love to go beyond 12 million. so many opportunities in this
country have been lost because of policies here in washington. we want to be able to print as opportunities back to the united states. we have a manufacturing strategy we have outlined, and we have three major goals. we think the u.s. has to be the best country in the world in order to had quarter a business or attract investment. we believe the united states has to be the best country in the world to innovate. third, we think the united states has to be the best country in the world to manufacture anin. also, to serve as an export platform for the rest of the world. 95% of potential customers reside outside of the united states. host: back to calls. pennsylvania, ralph, good morning. caller: good morning, sir.
how are you? why is it ok for companies to be so unionized and yet so against the workers to be unionized? guest: i think one of the great freedoms that we have in this country is the ability to form a union. the relationship between a company and its workers is really unique to each company. some companies or some work forces decide they do not want to unionize because they prefer the relationship that they have with the management of the company. some decided that they want to unionize. some states have the right to allow individuals to decide not to join that union. those are all individual to
states and companies. how do we ensure that the workers of this country are protected against policies that harm our ability to compete in the world and our ability as manufacturers to insure that we can keep our work force here and keep them employed and make sure they have the right benefits. i'd go right back to the policies that we talked about, making sure washington has a reasonable tax burden, making sure washington has a reasonable regulatory burden and allows us to take advantage of our domestic energy resources to drug and the cost of energy in this country so we can invest here, not only in expanding facilities in this country, but insuring that workers continue to enjoy the best quality of life. host: the republican line from los angeles. caller: biance had one of the --
host: independent caller, curtis. caller: i do not know if i can top that last caller about beyonce. go, buckeyes. one of the things that has always bothered me is we have a huge manufacturing base from the 1950's to the 1980's, and it continued on. can we ever get back to that level where we can get back to the big manufacturing base? i have always thought this. if we start producing our own oil and energy, wouldn't that cause a world crisis on the market for oil and energy because we will not be buying as much on the world markets? i will hang up and listen to your answer. guest: thank you, curtis.
i think most people would be surprised and i am always surprised about how many people say to me do we really manufacture anything in this country anymore. manufacturing, if it was its own country, would be one of the top 10 countries in the world economically. our manufacturing base is strong and robust, but at the same time most people understand and policy makers understand, because everybody is talking about the importance of manufacturing, most understand that manufacturing is key to a strong economy and economic growth. we want to see the manufacturing sector grow and be even stronger in this country. one of those costs i have mentioned is affordable energy in this country. if we were developing oil and
natural gas resources in this country, the effect it would have on the world economy would be quite positive. as we are a large consumer of energy in this country and manufacturers' consumer the percentage of output in our country, other countries around the world are growing. their appetite for energy is growing along with that. the more that countries like china develop economically, the more energy they are going to consume and the less resources and there are for the rest of the world. that is why energy prices are that is why energy prices are going up and that is why we need to develop more natural resources. we have got to not only take advantage of our own will and natural gas resources, but we have to develop nuclear and alternatives, and make sure we are investing in clean coal
technology because we have an abundance of technology in this country. we need to take advantage of that so we are growing our own economy. host: the financial times tells us that china has become the leading user of energy now in the world. host: exxon on filling -- unveiling big finds in the gulf. they were previously looking for more exotic locations. the springfield, va., elise, good morning. caller: i want to thank you for allowing me to have the chance to speak to you. want to make a couple of statements and then i have a
question for you. i listen to what you said about the global economy and also the excessive tax burden that this country has for manufacturers. after watching "60 minutes" expos day on corporate taxation and having essentially paying no taxes, and then there are states that have invited foreign corporations to build cars there where the communities have actually paid for really write- off, so we are essentially giving them a negative net tax burden -- i just find that when i hear that and i know there are so many things written off and so many loopholes, and we keep hearing this mantra about excessive taxation. what i want to say to you is
before the philosophy of the global economy became the predominant belief in the world, the united states is manufactured a great many products, so many of which were of high quality. for those of us who do not shop in wal-mart, who shop in other stores, we are seeing nothing but chinese-made goods that are completely inferior and not cheap at all. materials that lose their colors after being washed. things that fall apart as if they were from a dollar store. yet we have manufacturers flocking to these countries who claim they are giving us this great bargain. it is not a great bargain. as an organization, you are not really giving us a great
product. americans have done things better, and the quality has always been so far superior, and yet the only benefit is the manufacturers are making a windfall in profits. as far as i am concerned, your organization is nothing but another union. host: jay timmons. guest: thank you for that comment. everywhere i go, everybody says that the made in america label is really a show of pride. everywhere around the world. everybody wants something made from america, including americans. our challenge is to bring manufacturing back or to retain the manufacturing we have in this country and to bring it back in this country where it makes sense. sometimes, it does not make sense to manufacture a large
equipment product in this country if it is going to be shipped to india or another developing country because of the transportation costs. one of the ways that we bring manufacturing back and to make sure the manufacturing that is here stays here is to ensure that we are able to compete with the rest of the world. a couple of points that you made. one is the statutory tax burden. i can tell you that many companies paid nearly that amount. it causes them a very difficult -- it is a very difficult impediment for them to be able to compete with other manufacturers around the world. the companies that have lower tax burdens or simply paying the tax rates that are available to them via the tax rate today, and manufacturers in total would like to see the lowering of the tax burden by getting rid of
some of the preferences that exist out there. the lower the statutory tax rate in the effective tax rate, the more competitive they will be in this country and the more able they will be able to hire workers. at the second point he made i at the second point he made i think is a very good one. i used to work for a governor in virginia. every state has the ability to create incentives and attract businesses to their state. businesses to their state. jobs are a good thing. they are good for the community and good for our tax base. they are good for local schools, local firefighters, and all the other amenities and services that we expect. the united states does not have the ability to have that same competitive edge. we cannot provide incentives to
say we are going to eliminate the corporate tax rate. other countries have that ability. we all lose business to companies like, say, singapore or thailand when they can compete and say we are going to eliminate your corporate tax rate for 10 years, we are going to give you incentives to locate a facility at this particular location. i am not saying we want to do that at the federal level. host: we have time for a couple of more calls. in manufacturing summit will be here next week. guest: thank you for mentioning that. host: what will be the purpose? guest: of the goals are for our manufacturers to have meetings with our members of congress, real people in the real world struggling to keep a business and employees employed in the
companies. we will be talking about those three issues. fair tax rates for this country for corporations, energy supply, and our regulatory burden and the fact that it is 18% more expensive to do business in this country. host: in november, you are going to host a presidential candidates in iowa. guest: our chairman is the ceo of a manufacturing company in iowa. iowa is a rather busy area when it comes to presidential campaigns. on november 1, all presidential candidates are invited. host: one last call, brian from north carolina. hey there. caller: kudos to the previous caller by the way. quick question.
the government knows of this tax burden that is so vicious to gain in manufacturing jobs -- what is taking so long to bring it down to par? the second one is more of a statement of what obama had to say. he wants to educate 500,000 people for the work force. you are asking a bunch of people to go to schools to take classes for a job that might not even come. thank you so much. guest: thank you, brian. we do have a shortage of skilled workers in manufacturing. that is the strange paradox right now. there are facilities across the country that cannot find the workers that they need to possess the technical skills necessary for the jobs that they have open. this will help people transition very quickly into jobs available around the country.
the more people that are trained, obviously, the more competitive they will be in the job market. it to your first point, on the tax burden and why it is taking so long, i cannot answer that but to say that washington is kind of a broken right now. republicans and democrats cannot seem to work together in a bipartisan way to tackle the major problems that this country faces. i do not think there is one person or one appointee in the obama administration who would not say they're creating more jobs in this country is our number one priority. getting agreement on how to do that has been extremely difficult even though most folks say our corporate tax burden should not be the highest in the world. we are very hopeful that congress will get serious about the corporate tax burden and do some things that they're going to help us compete and succeed
in the future. host: jay timmons is president and ceo of the national association of manufacturers. thanks a lot for your time. we have about 45 minutes left in the "washington journal." when we come back after a short break, noral bensahel will be us, the senior fellow at the center for a new american society. first, c-span radio. >> economic numbers just in the show the number of people seeking unemployment benefits hardly changed for a second straight week, remaining at a high level suggesting a slowing job market. the labor department says 427,000 people applied for benefits last week. more from defense secretary gates to nato members, saying there will be "no rush for the
exits by the united states and afghanistan." his comments follow the secretary general who says he is confident that u.s. troop withdrawal due to start next month will not affect security in the country. earlier, germany urged washington to not call to many troops next month, saying a major reduction in american forces could risk nato's strategy in the conflict. the wars and the impact of deficit spending will be on the agenda at this morning for leon panetta. he currently is the director of the cia and testified before the senate armed services committee. c-span television and radio will have live coverage of that meeting. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> this weekend on c-span3, more than 20 years after the end of the cold war, a panel reflects
on ronald reagan and mchale gorbachev. and on "american artifacts," rick rhodes. get the complete we can schedule at c-span.org/history. >> this weekend on "book tv," the role of fannie mae and freddie mac in the 2008 financial collapse. henry kissinger on whether it is possible to form a true economic partnership. also, microsoft co-founder paul allen talks about his memoir. look for the complete schedule at booktv.org. sign up for booktv alerts.
>> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest now is noral bensahel, senior fellow at the center for a new american society. the topic is nation building in afghanistan. what is your definition of nation building? guest: it is a tough term to define. we have done it in places like kosovo, bosnia, haiti, and other places. trying to rebuild state capacity in a place where states have stopped functioning whether because of civil war or a humanitarian disaster. host: there is a lot to talk about with afghanistan, but let's talk about the confirmation hearing. here is one of the headlines. that point. your overall take away?
guest: i think the point that the ambassador was trying to make was that any effort to reduce u.s. military forces reduces the chances that the current military strategy will succeed because it is based on a long-term presence and protecting the population, and of those things require u.s. troops. i think the decision before the president as he comes up doing the review saying he is going to withdraw some forces in july is whether he wants to stick with that strategy or whether he wants to change eight. -- it. host: this meeting was preceded by the release of the report. they spoke about aid and i think the word "disproportionate" was thrown out there in the report. what was your take on that report that came out?
guest: i think it pointed out some significant challenges that the u.s. has had with its aid program in afghanistan. it is not talking about cutting it significantly or anything drastic, but it emphasizes the need to retool the kind of aid that is given. they came out very strongly and said a lot of the programs that the united states is supporting it is not necessarily a sustainable after 2014 when many troops are expected to be gone. host: our guest will be talking about afghanistan. here are the phone numbers on the bottom of the screen as we talk about nation-building in afghanistan. again, our guest is noral bensahel, a senior fellow at the center for a new american society.
before we get to calls and some of the testimony from yesterday at the hearing, i wanted to point out some statistics that are rather interesting from the senate foreign relations committee report. host: your thoughts? guest: i think it is important to note that those total numbers is totalled over 10 years but it is increased rather significantly in the last two years. $4 billion of that was in 2010. it has not been evenly distributed over a period of time.
it is since 2009 with the obama strategy that the u.s. efforts have begun to focus in on some of the more difficult tasks of reconstruction and a stabilization. host: the 2012 budget request is more than $3 billion for afghan reconstruction. here is another interesting fact. 97% of the afghan gdp is from foreign and military aid. that is linked to the idea of a withdrawal of u.s. troops and what it would mean in the country if it was a little bit too radical, the subject of much debate. guest: there is the possibility of significant recession in afghanistan if u.s. troops and all of the money that they spend and the programs are withdrawn. i think the report is trying to warn that we must make preparations now so that does not happen.
it is true in any post-conflict situation, and that international intervention as a distortion on the economy. host: before we get to calls, what is the way forward in your view? guest: we do not have an official position. my own view is that a focus on sustainability of aid projects is imported. of the decision facing the president and what he is going to announce in july i think is more important than any specific debate we can have about eight or troop levels because all those things should a flow from the overall strategy. host: let's hear from maryland first. ben is on the republican line. caller: my concern is, in iraq, when bush was in office, we were doing and nation-building there. you had dense population centers. so, you could imagine policing
them. afghanistan is a little bit different. karzei -- we moved him in. much, much different lay of the land and the terrain. now, we are nation building there. now we are policing there. the terrain is so much different. i am really concerned about our troops being so spread out and so far apart from each other, that they are pretty much just out there like waiting for the guys to shoot at them and then they can shoot back. guest: there are very significant differences between iraq and afghanistan. the common point that the caller is pointing out is that nation- building is incredibly
difficult under any set of circumstances. the afghanistan makes a big difference because it has a more spread out population. the key issue in afghanistan is not so much the terrain but what came before. there were not terribly strong government institutions. it is a country that has been decimated by 30 years of civil war. the task of putting together a government to exercise some control over the country is a fairly significant task. at the u.s. decided to pursue that policy not just to get rid of the al-qaeda present in the country that was directly responsible for september 11 but also to try to prevent afghanistan to become a safe haven of terrorists. that mission in itself required some amount of nation-building because if you do not have the
government back in control its own territory, you do not have the government that will be able to prevent terrorists from operating there. caller: i would like to know why it is that the u.s. spends as much time and resources giving aid to other countries, but yet when do we get any aid from these other countries? going back to world war ii, we forgave japan to get back on their feet. we continue to give more and more aid to other countries, not to mention sending troops over there to help them out. when are we going to get some of the help? host: besides the u.s. effort at rebuilding the country, arthur other countries involved monetarily? guest: yes, there are many involved. there are troops for more than 30 countries that participate in
the international security force, and even a larger number of countries that of come together as aid donors. some of it is put into trust funds that the afghan government is able to spend. some of it is just direct assistance, the equivalent of the u.s. agency for development is there and operating. it is far from a u.s.-only aid program. host: corruption has been brought up within afghanistan. i want to get your take on that. this is the chairman asking ryan crocker about the issue of corruption. we will watch that and come back to our guest. >> clearly, the issues of governance, rule of law, and corruption have to improve if afghanistan is to go forward as a stable state.
>> are you saying corruption is essential to achieve our goals? >> i think corruption, mr. chairman, and i draw on my experience here, corruption totally unchecked becomes as how iraqis put it as a second insurgency. it undermines confidence on the part of their government, and it makes groups like the taliban look attractive. mr. chairman, we are not out to clearly create a shining city on a hill. that is not going to happen. that would apply to all of these sectors that i mentioned, but there needs to be progress. we went through the same thing in iraq.
we chipped away at it over time. we got them to take some measurable, if not partial, steps on the issue of corruption so you have a situation today that is not, again, a city on a hill, but where they have a good chance of carrying forward without u.s. forces on the ground. host: your reaction? guest: i agree with the ambassador, that corruption is a big problem in afghanistan because of the tribal structure of afghan society and the weakness of the central government. there are u.s. efforts to try to address some of the roots of the corruption. there is a task force that has civilian representatives on it. corruption is a fact of life in afghanistan. what the task force and other
efforts are trying to do is to minimize that as much as possible when it comes to government services to try to get the government to provide services for the population with as little amount of corruption as possible. host: the next call, ga., a democrat. good morning. caller: the question caller: what happened to the oil revenues? host: can you speak to that? guest: afghanistan does not have oil reserves. it has been underexplored. host: maybe he's thinking about iraq. long island, new york. caller: might one question -- nation-building, we've been over there for eight years.
i love the country i live in. what is the difference between nation-building and controlling their government and all that, and the terrorism? it kinda seemed that that is an act of terrorism. we're overthrowing their government. to me, that kind of seems like terrorism. the war on terror will never end. i think it is pretty funny that they keep spewing that out. it.t is basically about eigh guest: there is a difference between war and an active terrorism. the u.s. didn't intervention to overthrow the government in
afghanistan. that has a specific legal definition. the need to rebuild afghanistan was driven by u.s. strategic interest in trying to prevent this from happening again. the u.s. has been in afghanistan and in iraq and other places -- the whole purpose is to handle the power as soon as possible. it takes awhile to build up the institutional capacity in order to be carefully to execute these responsibilities. we have seen the afghan security forces are improving but still problematic. the need to transition it over and we hope to do the same in government ministries. they are a sovereign power that controls their country.
the u.s. is not making the day- to-day government decisions in afghanistan. host: one of the takeaways in this "the new york times" piece -- host: too much money there at once? >> each province has a governor. it is a challenge for afghan officials to spend this money. the purpose of the program was in line with what we are talking about before, and never to give
locals more control over what goes on in their area and to build up their capacity of the governors. it does have its downside. providing that amount of money does lead to opportunities of corruption as well. host: american financing is paying inflated salaries, according to this report. guest: the report notes the problem of a brain drain. you're taking people with skills and instead of working for the afghan government or as translators for the military, it is a significant problem. the challenge is how do you go about trying to rebuild the country, trying to encourage aid programs focused on the long
term development of the country. the report notes that as u.s. aid is going to go down, the u.s. military presence is going to go down, that will lead to setbacks. host: we have a call from butler, new jersey. caller: the reason i'm calling is nora's definition of nation- building including haiti, i think that that is certainly -- the tubes are not compatible -- the two are not compatible. in haiti, we're just helping out because of a natural catastrophe, as opposed to afghanistan, in which we're intervening militarily. we're going to impose a government that will see to --
the direction of that particular nation in our direction. my mother, would be a that one of the problems that we're facing -- my other problem is that, the leaders that we have propped, especially hamid karzai, has not seen to the needs of their own people. karzai is some sort of a failing dictator. guest: i should've been more clear. when i mentioned he come i was talking about 1994 and the military intervention. it is very different, as the caller pointed out. it does try to get to the same means. it has been decimated by the earthquake. aid programs are trying to do some of the same functions.
it is a different context because this particular crisis was not affected by conflict. this is the difficulty with nation-building. for the u.s. not to be beneficial occupying force does mean that we do with the local leaders we have. hamid karzai it has won two elections. there is no other viable leadership in the country right now was the entire constitution is to be abandoned. we're stuck working with karzai. he has his own power dynamics in this government. he is trying to figure out what the power politics are going to look like when the u.s. commitment goes down. he estimate some decisions now that the u.s. is not going to like because it is in his
interest in governing the country. host: here is a question for our guest via twitter. [laughter] guest: we have been involved in nation-building for about two years. we have been involved overall for 10 years. if we focus on some of the nation-building task 10 years ago, we would be in a better place. it does not mean we would be completely successful. we would have been further along. host: what has been effected general petraeus? guest: he is committed to implement the counter insurgency strategy that was so successful in iraq. gerald mcchrystal be forum has been successful -- general mcchrystal.
host: john in atlanta. caller: i heard the guest said -- [unintelligible] host: keep going, caller. caller: that is all i have to say. host: general petraeus is moving on to the cia. who'll be replacing him? guest: general allan. host: let's go to randy, kentucky, independent caller for nora bensahel. caller: i was wondering what they do not spend the billions of dollars to rebuild this country when we are spending billions in other countries. parts like joplin. katrina was never rebuilt.
new orleans. rebuild this country. they export, what, heroin? rebuild to what? corruption and the taliban. host: not an uncommon theme. put it in terms that people may be able to understand in terms of nation building. i am not asking to defend all of that. guest: the argument the administration has made -- both administrations -- some amount of stability in afghanistan is crucial for u.s. strategic interests. if afghanistan collapses, if it becomes an govern territory, it would provide a fertile ground for terrorist to operate from, as did did for september 11, and that poses a great threat to the
united states. the rationale for this is not just feeling good about doing good work around the world. we do that through our record foreign aid budget, which is much smaller than people think they are. they are less than 1% of the federal budget. we're talking about relatively small amounts of money in the scheme of the federal c government budget. host: what is your sense of the president's current thinking about the pace of troop withdrawal? how many and how fast? guest: there has been little leaking out of the white house. we have that outsiders talking about the correct troop numbers. some folks have been talking among the democrats about withdrawing all 30,000 troops from the surge that occurred that president obama announced in 2009.
others said around 3000 troops would be the correct number. there is no number, from the white house. there are questions of strategy that need to be questioned before we get to a numbers game. i think the president is more likely to withdraw a larger number of troops they might have otherwise in the aftermath of osama bin laden's death. that increases public pressure. you're seeing that in some of the calls and then brought spectrums of the american people. where we enough gas -- why are we in afghanistan now that osama bin laden is dead? even so, the numbers that we have been hearing still represent only at the maximum about 1/3 of the troops. there will still be a significant military commitment. host: we have about 50 minutes
with our guest, nora bensahel -- we have about 15 minutes left with our guests. chris coons of delaware talk about a generational presence, long-term presence in afghanistan. here's a look. >> i was concerned, one visit to afghanistan as a relatively new center to hear about the generational commitment to the stability and security of the nation of afghanistan. in your opening testimony, you cited secretary gates' comments that we walked away with disastrous consequences and that we cannot afford to do so. a number of us are trying to get at the question, if we're not going to walk away, how long are we going to stay, and that what level? there is a lot of focus of the
immediate decision of a drawdown. i am more interested in the structure of what looks like and was surprised to hear in country assertions that we were committed to assisting in more than 300,000-member afghan security force, which meant paying for it, and we sustained u.s. military presence of a decade or more. host: any thoughts on the part of the testimony? guest: the united states is going to be involved in providing aid for afghanistan for some time. there will be long-term aid program. the question is, how much will entail? that is where the question the sustainability of what the united states is doing it has come up. there are concerns about the
security forces right now. the security forces' cost between $6 billion and $8 billion a year. there are real questions about where that money will continue to come from. host: how about the training itself? guest: the training is better. it was in dismal shape through 2008. the arm is stronger than it was. the shearson rates are down -- desertion rates are down. they cannot function as the kind of police will know in the united states, cops on the beat of local communities. one of the things we may see would be relatively small
number of traders that would continue to work their. that is maybe a few thousand personnel. that is likely to be a long term commitment. host: the report spoke to some positives. education is one of them. guest: it mentioned the number of kids going to school has increased. the tone of the report was somewhat critical about what has been going on, particularly about how we need to shape effort's going forward. it is important to note the report did not call for terminating these programs per it did not say the aid was not being used properly. there were questions about how the u.s. should conceive that aid and but for is to take in the future. host: massachusetts, rob.
thanks for waiting. caller: good morning to you. hayseed and i don't ever way in -- weigh in. i remember mr. bush said, "i will win this presidency but no new nation building." we were just coming off the heels of kosovo and bosnia. we have had some money weather- related -- like the tornadoes. we have nation-building to do around here. how long do we spend nation- building in kosovo and bosnia it c ost?uch did becaus
i see these numbers we here are way low. . estimate high-pow guest: the current military operations in afghanistan and iraq are significant in terms of u.s. government resources. that is one of the things that is been playing into the the debate about how many troops should be withdrawn and how soon. you are hearing financial arguments with the challenges the budget faces and the debt ceiling. the caller mentioned previous operations in bosnia in kosovo. those went on for long periods of time. kosovo is still ongoing. bosnia, more than a decade. the united states is not
involved with the european forces in kosovo today. host: augusta, maine. caller: son of a -- host: let's drop the call. michael, a democrat. good morning. caller: i have a couple of points. if you cannot help yourself, you cannot help anybody else. there are too many people in america that need help. i say we give afghanistan at 3 under thousand dollars -- $300,000 over the next 10 years. our constitution has gone out of whack. it is nowhere will have to be.
we have to help ourselves before we can help anyone else. missouri. in mi caller: i have been over there and from what i've seen, the only reason we were there is to have places to watch from afghanistan and india to monitor the the nuclear warheads in pakistan. i wish one government official would tell us the truth. guest: the presence on the ground in afghanistan does help the united states gather intelligence in pakistan, not just about the nuclear situation but about some of the terrorist groups that operate in the provinces along side afghanistan. that is clear. but i don't think that is the sole purpose as to why the
intervention has been. maybe that is why the u.s. will maintain some kind of troop presence as part of the regional strategy. i want to give back to the first of the callers because it is comment given the u.s. fiscal challenges today to say we should now be spending money over there, which should be spending money here. it is not meant either or choice -- it is not a either or chorechoice. the present lofty rhetoric in his july speech when it announces a truth which rolls if you want to keep american support, that that is something that the nation values as well. and that we talk about the civilian aid, the park we're talking about in the report is very small amount.
military budget is a big part. the civilian aid is small in terms of the overall federal budget. host: in just about 10 minutes, we'll take you live to a hearing, a confirmation hearing for leon panetta to become defense secretary. he will move moving from cia over to defense. his nomination is probably a shoe in. we'll have that live here run c- span. one of the nora bensahel articles that points out -- one of the articles of that nora bensahel points out, talking about pentagon spending. guest: that will be the major challenge the next secretary of defense faces. the dod budget is enormous. it has been direct it to cut
$400 billion over the next 10 years. that is small in terms of the overall pentagon budget and there'll be more pressure to cut. host: back to afghanistan. we have a tweet. speak to us about the strength of the security forces, how strong the government itself might be becoming in afghanistan. as soon as we're out, the taliban is going to come back. what you think? guest: they are making great progress against the talbot and i think that is true from an operational perspective. -- they are making great progress against the taliban. they are having trouble recruiting. there will probably be a significant military clashes this summer as the taliban tries to reassert itself.
right now, the talbot is very much on the defensive. the question is what happens over the next three years. to the extent it continues before the u.s. withdraws most of its military forces, if that will become a more sustainable situation. that progress which is being made will carry through will fundamentally undermine their support and make it much more difficult for them to come back. that is a real question as to whether three years is enough time to do that. that will be one of the key points of debate. host: does that mean the taliban comes to the table in terms of negotiating? guest: it may. there were huge treasure troves of information found in the compound where bin laden was living. you have to assume in a talk about links with the taliban.
to the extent they are disassociating themselves, and may bring them to the negotiating table. but countering that come if they expect the u.s. to lead in short order, there's a large number of troop withdrawals announced the some appear to have consented to just sit it out. they just sit and wait and maybe not conduct a love attacks and then we engage in three years. it is not clear yet how that is going to play out. where are public sympathies right now? how are people feeling right now? guest: the view of the afghan population is very much that the do not want instability. most afghans want a basic normal life for their families and kids got the same way people everywhere else would.
is overlaid with the situation of trouble dynamics. local power brokers who have great fear that other groups will take all the resources of the state will persecute them or some not leave them out. there's a lot of fear about what the future government looks like and the possibility that the taliban at the come back in. to not be better working with the americans right now. beyond that basic desire for stability, there is a lot of confusion, a love the question marks about what is going to be the road for and who should they support? host: maryland, good morning. caller: good morning. first of all like to say, we send our love and blessings to our troops. our troops. with all due respect, miss
ensahel, these people, you're saying the need more training and policing and whatever support the military -- these support the military -- these people chased the russians back with their tails between their legs. these people are just playing us for fools. what does president obama have to be involved in yemen? i saw this this morning and my jaw brokoe. we cannot police everyone. we cannot take care of things here a home. please hear us. our senators and representatives. we do not want to be paying for other people's wars. host: morrison -- more
sentiment there. guest: i think that message is getting through. popular support in the u.s. for the war in afghanistan has gone up since the bin laden raid, but it is still below 50%. host: 4, patrick, a democrat -- florida. caller: i wanted to know -- they say we need pakistan to win afghanistan. that is the general consensus. that is the crap they have been shoving down our throats. what are we defending a country that paid for 9/11. we might as well start leasing
land over there. i have two children and i am raising my 14-year-old brother. all be damned if i have to pay for missiles and bombs when i can barely keep milk in the house. it is a joke that we're still helping the people that conspired to pull off 9/11 and did it. host: jim, a republican. caller: i would like to know where of violating one of the first principles of war. what we're forced to fight all these piecemeal bells all over the world. then's less revenue spent when you fight the battles we have been fighting. one caller asked the wrong
question. president bush said that iraqi oil would pay for the costs incurred in iraq. we about had -- oil prices keep going up. going up. we are being squeezed at the gas pump. thank you. host: final thought from our guest. guest: it wide range. the main point of u.s. assistance and pakistan is to help intervention in the tribal areas that border afghanistan. the need -- if the taliban has sent a short areas or they can go over the border a comeback into afghanistan once they have regroup and rearm, that makes it very difficult to defeat the
insurgency in afghanistan itself. that has been most of the focus of what the u.s. is doing in afghanistan. host: our guest has been nora bensahel from the center for a new american society. we'll be back tomorrow. we're going to capitol hill now. you can see some of the protesters in the foreground. leon panetta is up for defense secretary. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> good morning, everybody. -- overmittee meets to so the course of this long and distinguished career in public- service, we welcome you to the
committee today and we thank you, mr. panetta for your decades of dedicated service to our nation and your willingness to enter the call once again. we know your wife is not able to be here with you today. she has made her own sacrifices over the last 50 years, supported your efforts in the public and private sectors. i know that i speak for the committee when i say that we love to think her in person for the sacrifices that she has made. please let your wife know of the committees gratitude for her support and your sacrifice. if confirmed, director panetta will replace secretary robert gates at the helm of the department of defense. he was asked to stay on. it provided a welcome continuity in our defense leadership.
director panetta's nomination represent change and brings an impressive level of continuity as well. the next secretary of defense will face a complex set of demands on our armed forces. for most of the ongoing war in afghanistan and iraq. we continue to have approximately 150,000 troops deployed. in addition, even after the extraordinary raid that killed osama bin laden, terrorist threats against our homeland did seem to emanate from pakistan, yemen, somalia, and elsewhere. the risk of a terrorist organization getting their hands on and detonating an improvised nuclear device or other weapon of mass destruction remains one of the gravest threats to the
united states. the defense department is working with the departments of state, energy, of insecurity, and other u.s. government agencies to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and dangerous technologies. a number of key national security decision will have to be made in the coming weeks and months, even as the drama of some kind ofaq -- continuing u.s. military presence beyond the december 31 which role does not agree to by president bush and prime minister maliki in the security agreement between our countries. another key decision point is looming in afghanistan. regarding reductions in u.s. forces starting in july. president obama said the other day that, "it is now time to
recognize that we have accomplished a big chunk of our mission and that it is time for afghans to take more responsibility." the president has also said that the reductions starting in july to will besignificant -- will be "significant and i just a token gesture -- and not just a token gesture." to assume security responsible for all of afghanistan. i support the so-called transition strategy, which calls for afghan security forces to take more and more of the lead in providing for their countries security. the more that afghan security forces do that, the better the chances of success, because the
taliban's biggest nightmare is a large effective afghan army, an enormous party perspective of the afghan people and control of afghanistan security. having security forces in the lead would deprive the taliban of the biggest propaganda target, the claim that foreign troops are occupiers of afghanistan. there is nothing inconsistent between transitioning security responsibility to afghan security forces and long term strategic relationship with afghanistan, which is also important to sustain a successful outcome. another major issue facing the department is the stress on our armed forces after 10 years of nonstop war. the repeated applause of four military has resulted in many of our service men and women being away from their families and
homes for two, three, or four torours. military families are also stress. our men and women in uniform can t to answer the call. the next secretary of defense will be required to juggle the competing demands on our forces while washington struggles with an extremely challenging physical environment. the defense budget will not and should not be exempt from cuts. this will require congress working with the next secretary of defense to scrub every program and expenditure in the defense budget and to make tough choices and trade-offs between the requirements of art were fighters today in preparation for the threats of tomorrow. the administration in february submitted a defense budget for fiscal year 2012 which included
some efficiency savings. in april, president obama announced he wanted to reduce security spending by foreign billion dollars over 12 years -- by $400 billion over the next 12 years. including the departments of state and homeland security. we have asked the a ministration what parts of the $400 billion reduction to the recommend the pentagon cuts and how many of those for fy 2012? so far we've done no answer. hopefully say we'll get mr. panetta's understanding on that matter. his service is invaluable because he understands the into
workings of the budget process and because he shaped the decision that helped achieve the budget surpluses of the late 1990's. fort lee, director panetta brings a compelling record of achievement and experience as well suited to the demands of the position for which he has been nominated. leon panetta has repeatedly demonstrated an ability to work across party lines. since entering public service, he worked on the staff for the republican whip in the u.s. senate, headed the office of civil rights in the nixon administration. he served eight terms and became chairman of the house budget committee. leon panetta has been indicted by a clear compass. he has said, "in politics, there has to be a line beyond which you do not go.
too often people don't know where the line is. my family, how was arrays, my education all reinforce my being able to see that line." leon panetta has been involved in the most pressing national security issues of our time during his tenure as president obama's director of the cia. this includes overseeing the manhunt for osama bin laden and the impressive operation that brought an end to al qaeda's murderous leader. this operation epitomizes the way in which the cia and the defense department are finally working together to support each other in the counterterrorism operations. the assault on bin laden's hideout is the first significant instance, i believe, of an operation that
could have been conducted under defense department authorities, but that was instead executed under the authorities of title 50, with the director of the cia exercising operational control over our elite military force. then the conclude by expressing on behalf of this committee our gratitude and are a deep admiration for the man whose shoes director panetta's has been nominated to fill, secretary robert gates. service to thes' country has been extraordinary. he worked under the administration of eight presidents. he filed a long career in government and served his country again in the critical post of president bush's secretary of defense a difficult time in our history. to route his tenure, --
throughout his tenure, his leadership and kantor have earned him the trust and respect of all who have worked with them. secretary gates has combine business with the toughest and cleric and courageous, a firm decision making. secretary gates is devils a direct and open relationship with congress -- secretary gates developed a direct and open relationship with congress. his time has been exceptional. senator mccain. >> let me welcome director panetta. i am grateful for its remarkable career of public service and is a lotus to serve in this new and important capacity. i am appreciative of your family and the support they have given to you. i also welcome my colleague from
california who was wrote underscore your important qualifications to assume the position of secretary of defense. your successor as director of the cia over the past two years, and have been many, or credit to you at the men and women of the intelligence committee. you and i know the director would be the first to limit that he has big shoes to fill if confirmed in a person of robert gates. i have seen many secretaries of defense and i believe history will long remember secretary gates as one of america's finest, most effective and most impact all secretaries of defense. one of the key criteria that we should be looking for in the next secretary of defense is continuity. the county was of the wise decision making that characterized secretary gates' leadership at the department of
defense. things to is -- thanks to the good work of this team, the next secretary of defense will take all this with a good deal of positive momentum. many challenges remain. our countries faces decisions that will echo for decades to come, this is a double determine whether it would remain the world's leading global military power able to meet our many commitments worldwide, or what we will begin abandoning that role. will have perhaps the most impact on this outcome is the stated goal of cutting $400 billion in defense spending on top of the $178 billion in reductions that secretary gates already announced.
this cuts into the muscle of our military capabilities. defense spending is not what is sinking this country into a fiscal crisis. if the congress and president akbar that flawed assumption, they will create a situation that is truly an affordable, the decline of the u.s. military power. i know there will be cuts to defense spending and some reductions are no doubt necessary to improve the efficiency of the department of defense. but also remember -- more rubber when the former chief of staff of the army warned in 1980 after cuts were made and testify before this committee that we have had a hollow army. that is not an experience that we should repeat in the years to come. we must learn the lessons of history.
how the proposal could be implemented. another major decision involving how we achieve our objectives in the three conflicts in which u.s. forces are now engaged -- iraq, afghanistan, libya. in iraq, the key question is whether forces will remain in iraq beyond the end of this year to support their continued need in our in our national interests. i believe such a presence is necessary, as secretary gates has argued. in afghanistan, the main question is the size and scope of the drawdown. i would agree with secretary gates that any drawdown should be modest celesta maximize our ability to lock in the gains of our troops during the next fighting season. in libya, there are signs that muammar gaddafi may be starting
to crack. the odds of a stop remained far too high. i believe u.s. treasury to be to reduce those odds as much as possible and quickly force muammar gaddafi to leave power. another significant challenge department defense pa -- secretary gates has made some courageous decisions to get major weapons to kermit project's contractor is similar focus is brought to of the defense department chooses to buy billions of dollars in services to maintain the highest degree of readiness. as best in this budget a farmer, it will be important to continue to limit weapons programs that are over cost, behind schedule, and not providing improvements in combat power and capability. we must continue to eliminate every dollar and wasteful
spending that siphons reserves away from our most vital need, enabling our trooped to succeed in combat. director panetta, you are nominated to lead our armed forces. this has placed a major strain on our armed forces and our families. our military is performing better today than at anytime in our history. this is things to the thousands of brave young americans in uniform who are writing a new chapter in history of our great country. they have shown themselves to be the equals of the greatest generations before them. a: all + + enter is to be equal and for ever faithful to the sacrifices of these amazing americans. we have a quick 10 second comment. >> thank you.
i have an unavoidable conflict. i have served with mr. panetta and i consider him to be a close friend. but for to support his confirmation and serve it with him in is the capacitor think you for the opportunity. >> thank you, senator mccain. our two colleagues from california are here to introduce mr. panetta. it is a treat the you're with us. senator feinstein, the chair of the intelligence committee. she has a lot of direct experience long before then with director panetta. >> thank you, mr. chairman and members of the committee. it is distinct pleasure for me to introduce the director of the central intelligence agency and distinguish california, leon
panetta, who was nominated by president obama on april 28 to be the 23rd secretary of defense. as members of this committee will know, it is 47 years of public service, director panetta has held positions of congressman, chairman of the house budget committee, director of the office of management and budget, chief of staff to the white house, co-director with his wife of the leon and sylvia panetta institute for public policy, which i've had the pleasure of speaking before, a member of the iraq study group, a secondof the caia, and first lt. as an intelligence officer. trusted adviser to the president and respected member of his national security team. in the course of two years, he has mastered the intelligence
field, led the cia three very tumultuous time, restored badly damaged relationships with congress, and with the director of national intelligence, and carry out president obama's personal instruction to him to find osama bin laden. i have no doubt that his past experience and is capabilities prepared leon panetta to meet the major challenges before the department of defense. with knowledge of cia operations and analysis, he will come to the pentagon with a thorough understanding of the situation in afghanistan as well as the aggravating factors of our relationship with pakistan. through cia analysis, he has also well aware of the other contingencies around the globe, where the united states military may be called to
deploy. director panetta is also well positioned to guide the department to the constrained budget environment which the chairman spoke of along with the rest of government. he possesses the credentials and experience to make cuts are needed and were prudent. i am confident that he will do so in a way that keeps the military strong and capable, and in a way that maintains the cohesion of the department's and its services. finally, let me recognize the there many officials in government with the intellect and management skills to do this job. leon brings something more. he has an interesting leadership style, with a deft personal touch that matters to the people in his charge and that really benefits the oversight responsibilities that we in congress have. then give you an example.
it was early in his tenure at the cia in 2009 when director panetta requested an urgent meeting with the intelligence committee to brief us on a program he had just learned of and that he had learned had never before been briefed to congress. he found that unacceptable and we very much appreciated his position. in the two years since, he has never declined to answer a question or provided with this -- or provide us with this candid views. i believe center chambliss can testify to this -- i believe senator chambliss can testify to this. let me conclude -- a national public group into the last week with secretary gates noted that the health care budget of the
department of defense was bigger than the entire budget of the cia and that no other position could fully prepare someone to be secretary of defense. i have great respect for secretary gates and praise him for a service to this country beyond all reasonable expectations. he has been in debt stemming secretary of defense. but i would suggest to you that leon panetta, who has served honorably and successfully in congress, at omb, at the white house, and of the ca, is prepared and uniquely qualified to be another outstanding secretary of defense in this very challenging time. i think the committee. -- i thank the committee. >> senator boxer. >> i appreciate every word my colleagues about my friend, leon
panetta. i will try to add more of a personal side because i've known this man and work with them since 1982. he became one of my mentors. eventually, i served on the budget committee or he was the chairman, and i watched him very carefully reach out across every kind of line that would divide us. republican, democratic liberal, conservative, moderate. we were facing a lot of new, complex issues. one was the eighth crisis -- one was the aids crisis. i remember saying there was a new disease and we have not done anything about it. he said, what do you hold some hearings and bring in the republicans, and we did. we were able to get the first
funding for aids research. was ready to listen. he gets it. we have seen that in every single job that he has fulfilled. this is a man who has dedicated himself to public service, and we're so grateful to him. i won't go through every job he has held. it would take too much time. senator feinstein highlighted anye many of those -- so mn of those. to be someone who could be such a trusted advisor that two presidents have chosen him. i could go on the about leon. let me say what is meant to the
people of california. he has recognized the importance of our resources in our sta te, namely our coast and our ocean. he said it this is an economic issue for us. he preserved the coast. he is a visionary. we saw the move into the cia and the work he did and the latest issue and he can talk about does not do that much in terms of making sure that osama bin laden was finally taken out. this was a brave mission by our military. leon panetta was a part of the decision making. i think at this time were york in gazed around the world and so many difficult conflicts, so many difficult conflicts, he is bringing out the intelligence perspective to the job.
i would ask unanimous consent that my formal -- i want to turn to leon as a senator from california and say thanks so much for everything you have done throughout your career for this country. i know your origins. i know how proud your family is. i think we'll sure that pride in nyou. good luck and help the committee does as quickly -- good luck and i hope the committee does this quickly. to stay.e both welcomed tuesda >> we have a bill on the floor. i will be going to the floor. >> you never miss a point to point.ur
linda colorado mr. panetta -- let me call on mr. panetta. thank you again for your service to correct thinking, chairman -- think you for your service. >> thank you. i am deeply honored and humbled e as the e at new-paragraph hers president's nominee. i thank my fellow californians who are dear friends and it dear colleagues for the role of secretary of defense, without question, it involves