candidate in this election. our only interest was to have a result that accurately reflected the will of the people. that is what we will continue to support as the votes are counted and as we wait for official results from the electoral commission and the complaints commission. meanwhile, we will work with our partners to strengthen security, governance, an opportunity. our goal is to defeat al qaeda and their allies. that goal will be achieved and our troops will be able to come home. . . .

i want to congratulate the afghan people on carrying out this historic election. i wish them a blessed month as they come together to welcome this. thank you, everybody. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] continues. >> host: our guest is paul lite, professor at new york university. good morning. >> good morning. >> host: thank you for being with us. you have tracked the obama administration, their changeover in power and how things are going, give us a sense of how the public is feeling about president obama right now. >> well, it has been a bad 100

days for the obama administration. pretty upbeat and lots of things happening the first 100 days. really rolling forward with the stimulus package and so forth, but the second 100 days have been tough. his approval ratings are down. there's bitter, emerging fight over healthcare, obviously. i think that in many ways he's given too much power to the house and the senate. too much hour to nancy pelosi, speaker of of the house, and harry reid, the senate majority leader, to push legislation forward. he hasn't exerted the powers of the presidency really to push this debate forward on a plan that he favors. he's quite equivocal on healthcare from week to week. do we require a government option? do we not? he's flip-flopped on that issue.

this is a pretty tough time for him and unless he comes out of the august recess focused again, i think it's going to be a very difficult september through the end of the year. >> recently quoted in a piece in "the hill," written by sam youngman, analysis has been disaster for obama. you say that capitol has spent a bit at a time on a piece of legislation. light said, eventually it runs out. >> well, you know, lyndon johnson came into office huge congressional majority, just great political capital after lumping barry goldwater in the 1954 election. he had a large number of bills that had already been drafted that he had embraced as his own

and he pushed and pushed for that first six months. he was saying all along that everyday you spend your political capital you got to move it or lose it and get it done. and the longer you sit out there without firm legislation for congress to consider, the more you skwaquander your capital. nancy pelosi and harry reid are great individuals, they are not great legislative movers. we're ready stuck on capitol hill with the obama agenda and president obama has a very limited stock of political capital. he's using it up at high rates. pelosi and reid are using up his political capital. it is giving your checkbook to your neighbor and basically saying, go ahead and get me some home improvements and it is hurting obama right now and it

is looking like a pretty tough fall. >> host: in that piece in "the hill" you mentioned one reason obama spent so much political capital is aside from the ambitious agenda, he allowed congress to set the tone of for example, healthcare reform. >> well, you know, you come in and the senate was the great incubator of policy ideas, they were chunking bills out regularly and the president could come in and like shopping at a department store, could pick and choose a handful of priorities and really press forward. that is what obama did with the "serve america" act, a significant piece of legislation that has been forgotten in this kind of early history of his admin stragsz. he picked it up and it it had been co-sponsored by kennedy and hatch. it was ready to go and he jammed it through. perfect example of how past presidents have extended their

political capital. but then he let the house design stimulus package laden with pork. a lot of vulnerability to fraud and abuse. the stories are already starting to come out and he's let the house and the senate develop the energy package and now healthcare and it's recipe for disaster. the president has to use that bully pulpit for more than exhorting the president to act. the president needs a substantial proposal to submit to congress and cannot waffle back and forth publicly. there is a time for negotiation, private negotiation with congress and there is a time for public conversation with the american public. and we've got those confused right now and i think the american public is quite confused and that is why many attacks are ringing true to the

american public because they don't know what president obama really stands for here. >> host: what is your impression of what we've been seeing at healthcare town halls throughout the country? >> oh, they are really not useful conversations. i don't know how much is scripted. people are terrified. even president obama is talking about not getting insurance and government bureaucrats in the middle of the decision about healthcare. americans don't have a lot of confidence in the federal government to deliver services, to deliver goods. president obama has yet to rollout an agenda that would reassure the public that the federal government could actually run a healthcare program, let alone the details of the healthcare program. americans are looking at this and saying, i don't want the federal government involved in it my healthcare. it is the devil they know, which is their own insurance company. most americans say they are

satisfied with their insurance companies, but when you get down to nitty-gritty they are telling us it is a hassle to deal with their health insurance companies. we have done nothing to reassure them the federal government will get better at delivering service, so practically any attack will stick. the death panels and so forth and so on, there's a lot of of muddiness in this it debate and it's a bitter debate, much more bitter than you would have is thought and it is not all scripted. a lot of it is is i think genuine and you have the counter attacks and so forth. americans are really quite confused about what is going on and this is becoming a sink hole for attitude on all sorts of issues from immigration to the iraq, afghanistan wars. >> host: mary is calling on the democrat line from washington. good morning, mary. >> hello. >> host: welcome, you are on the air. >> hi. i'd like to say i think obama,

you know, is a lot more popular than what is getting out. i think the reason he was put into office was because he supported healthcare. i think it it is our biggest civil liberty we'll ever have because healthcare, if you don't have healthy workers, you don't have a good economy. if you have people that are putting everything they earn into paying healthcare and the policies being offered in the private sector really are lousy policies that people do not know until they are sick what they really have and at that point it's too late. the gentleman that called in about his wife and the liver transplant, there is a prime example. 500,000 dollars for something that cost $250. the reason it is that skewed is because the healthcare insurance industry has pushed these prices up really high to force people to have healthcare and that's not a fair system. the united states government is paying for a whole sector of of

people to have healthcare, so the private health insurance companies don't really want the small business people and i'm somebody who was self-employed person, paid in taxes my whole life, thought i was upper middle class until i got stage four breast cancer. within eight weeks of that my healthcare went from $369 to $479, a year later $569 and as soon as i went on disability, i was cancelled. now this is unfair to someone who has paid for healthcare for their whole life and stuff when they need it the most there is laws and rules that allow them to be put in this position. fortunately i am in the state of washington where they offer good healthcare for people like myself, you know, when the situation happens. i was able to go on to a basic health program, state run. i tell you, i felt as though i've had a lot less stress in my life because i know it's going

to get covered. my bills get covered and stuff. a middle-class person shouldn't be wiped out because of one illness. >> guest: i agree with you. i'm not an expert on healthcare. you want to talk about death panels, every insurance company has one. they decide what the percentage of possibility from treatment is. they decide whether treatments are coverable. we've got that problem across the healthcare system. we've got high expenses across the healthcare system. i think the problem here is that the debate has shifted entirely to the obama proposal and the obama proposal is not clear to most americans. it is fuzzy. and i think that's because we're dealing with five or six packages that are moving forward on capitol hill and the

president hasn't made clear what it is he actuay wants so that he can beat nothing with something. i mean, what we basically have is debate between no action, nothing, continuing with our current system and we don't have a something to really talk about. so what we have are people who are against healthcare constructing a reality around an obama plan that may or may not be true, we just don't know. the president has not seized the initiative. he's working the issue of whether or not we need to act or stay in the current tense. what he needs to do is focus on what he wants and then harness that gigantic engine of support that we saw in the campaign. young americans, middle-aged americans are on the sidelines on this issue. they don't know what they're supposed to do and we need to get the obama admin stragsz, if

they want to, from a political standpoint, just from sausage making that congressional phrase for how you put together a legislation. if obama wants to win on the issue, he's got to mobilize supporters behind a specific plan. that is what johnson did on medicare in 1965. >> host: a recent gallup poll shows that americans disapprove the handling of healthcare. 43% do approve and that number has shifted only slightly from a month ago. and gallup says of four issues tested in the august 6-9 poll, the president fares worse on healthcare. his ratings on the economy are slightly better with americans divided in how he is handling that issue and president gets better ratings for handling foreign affair and reducation. >> guest: presidents astart ou

high in the polls and tend to drift away a few percentage points at a time until the approval starts down into the low 40s into the upper 30s. and 30% range. and what we are seeing right now is a classic pattern. the president is running out of steam. he has a very brief amount of time left to really harness what approval he has and stick the real skill of being president is what it called the focusing skill, and the ability to tie your approval, the seat you have in congress to a specific piece of legislation. what we are missing is clarity regarding what the president wants. you can one week say he covers the government auction before the american medical association

says that it has to be part of the solution and then the next three say well, that is actually not a priority. the american public gets confused. the opponent of action are able to to face him with any charge they want. they are doing focus groups are enough to figure out where the president is weakest. they see the death penalty is one major option. that is what you are seeing in the town hall meeting. caller: good morning. guest: welcome, you are on the air. caller: thank you. this is my first time calling. guest: go ahead. you are talking to paul light. caller: good morning. host: nice to talk to you.

caller: we and not giving the president a chance. i am 72-years old. i have worked all my life. we need to give him a chance pitt. it is not a government-run program. talking about. the people are for america. we need to think about that. so what do you think about this? >> guest: well, i think the president should stop talking about the need for healthcare coverage, sit down in a conversation with the public. he might look back to the fireside chats that franklin l roosevelt had with the american public and layout his healthcare plan. tell us exactly what he wants. then he can go to the wall with his public approval, his support

in congress and push forward on that plan, make it it clear what's in it and what is not in it and then get into the negotiations with the house and the senate. >> host: is it too late, when has the train left the station? >> guest: well, you are letting the opponents of healthcare, of of the obama plan if there is one, concrete in form. you are letting the opponents define what it it is and they are very good at it it. just as democrats are very good at painting republicans into a corner, the republicans, conservatives are very good at painting the president into a corner. so what's happening is that they're punching at every possibility, every possible component of the plan and the president has yet to say, this is what i favor and here is the bill that i favor. he's letting these bills move through congress. they got this in them and that in them. you had a caller earlier who

said he's read the entire bill. good for him. he can't find anything that says you get to keep your own insurance. which plan was that? which bill was that? there are five or six of them floating around and that is just the ones that are in committee. i don't think it's too late. i think you have the august recess here where you can reset the agenda and really get the american public to focus, maybe write in early september he sis down and has a candid conversation with the american public and instead of talking about the fact our current system isn't working, talk about how his plan will work better because if there is one thing i've learn friday watching congress it's that you can't beat nothing without something. and he needs to really tell the american public what he has in mind for his agenda. >> host: o guest paul light is professor of public service and founding principle

investigator of the organizational performance initiative. he worked at brookings institution where he was a senior fellow and was founding director of its center for public service. our next caller is from minnesota. good morning, marge. marge, hi, you are on the air. >> good morning. >> host: welcome. >> thank you. thank you to c-span. i guess i'm looking for the truth. i'm looking for some answers. >> guest: i think we all are. it is nice to hear from minnesota. my father lives in brainard. he's 95. he's on medicare. he also has medigap. he's well covered by the federal program for older americans. you know, i'm hoping to hear the truth, as well. and i think that's partially the president's job.

no matter who it is, for the president to come out and say, here is what we've got. the debate is clouded with assertions from both sides about what's going on, how much we're subsidizing charity care in our insurance premiums, what is covered by the drug companies, did they pull a fast one with the obama administration? there is just lots of interpretation right now and it is occurring in a vacuum without a clear answer from the president about what he wants and that i keep coming back to, that is the president's responsibility. that is how you get legislation through congress these days. that is how you get the big bill through congress. that is how we got the big bills through during the bush administration, how you get the big bills through. we need a plan and then we need to really take a look at it

using more thoughtful methods than shout-downs at town hall meetings. >> host: next caller is palm on the democratic line from new york. >> good morning. that is a perfect sedway. yesterday there was a reporter on c-span who said she'd been to four town halls. she'd asked dozens of people at town hall fist they had voted for obama and not a single one had. i wanted to make the point also we hear a lot of callers saying, we need tort reform, why isn't tort reform in the bill. we need cross state insurance purchasing pools, why isn't that in the bill? well, both of those are state issues and i'm afraid that if obama came out for tort reform and across state line insurance pools then the same people would be screaming, have you ever read the constitution? we believe in state rights,

blahblah, blah. this is a wound-up gang of people who are generating a lot of great television and little serious debate. thanks very much for listening. >> guest: i think there is some truth in that argument. i think that a lot of the town hall upset has been brood and promoted from washington and elsewhere, but when you listen to the town halls and listen to the individuals who are not shouting, there are good questions about this. there are people who are stepping forward saying, what's going to happen to me? how does this affect me? i think there is desire for inform ag information about that issue. it is in the devil, i know. we don't particularly like the way we're getting healthcare right now, but we're getting healthcare. it is a pain. we have to file form after form, but we don't have a good sense

of what is coming. so i agree that a lot of the town hall shoutdown is generated from outside. it's being promoted from outside, but when you look into the town hall, sometimes you hear a question that's just so painfully personal about how this will work that you beg for an answer. you beg for the truth that our friend in alexandria, minnesota was calling for. >> host: and sam from central city, kentucky. good morning, sam. >> good morning. how are you today? >> guest: just fine, thanks. >> good. good way the lady from new york just called, i was going to talk about tort reform. i believe this is not healthcare reform. this is healthcare welfare that is being pushed on us and will be passed on us because this is what the liberals want. if it was reform, tort reform

wod be a big part of it because we know the trial lawyers and ambulance chasers play a big part in the cost of overall healthcare. trial lawyers and democratic party do not want this so it will not be passed. as far as things in the bill, we are told there are myths out there about healthcare. one of them is taxpayer money for abortion with the public. as of date, there have been nine amendments presented that would expressly prohibit taxpayer money on any public option of going toward paying abortions. it has been defeated. what does that tell you about the agenda on taxpayer money for abortions and public or anything. i'm not one of these town hall crazys, i'm just a person who looks at the whole thing. i believe that we -- the government should serve us, not

us serve them and i feel healthcare thing is essentially the thing that is going to enslave a lot of americans to the government. going to be tied to it. a lot of security and welfare and things are going to be tide to healthcare. it is going to be provided by the government. >> well, i mean, i think there are a number of issues being debated in town halls and elsewhere that would better be debated behind closed doors where you are really working out a package. i don't know what will happen with abortion. for example, i don't know if we end up funding it or not f. this is going to be even a tiny bit bipartisan, you are going to have to deal with some issues. we know where the big cost drivers are toward the reform at least as i read the papers and look at it is is not the big driver. it's technology. it's the testing.

it's the multiple, the heavy investments and end of life care and so forth. the big cost of insurance in part big chunk of our insurance payments that end up in charity care for people who aren't insured. it is a complex debate and we're throwing it all at americans in just a big gulf in a short period of time. and i think that's difficult because we end up saying each one of us ends up saying what does this mean for me? what's going to happen to my family? am i going to get the treatment that i need? am i going to get the choice of doctors that i currently have? we don't have a good sense yet of what it means for each one of us and that has to be communicated in order to get legislation done, especially of

this particular size. it's just huge and we just need more information that's perhaps coming from independent sources like congressional budget office or the government accountability office where we can be told what is in this thing and what is not in this thing. we don't yet have the president articulating a plan and that is essential as i've said before for taking advantage of the president's popularity and it's also the president's responsibility. he's letting congress do too much of the work without really telling the american public what he favors. >> host: from jackssonville, florida, bruce is calling on the independent line. >> yes, good morning. >> host: good morning, welcome. >> how are you this morning? i only had a few things to say. one was concerning the president and as the gentleman was saying, backing up what he said or

whatever and being exchanged from healthcare reform to insurance reform and back to healthcare reform and then we're doing the different back and forth public option. not the public option, it's not. it's just -- he's not, you know, he ran centers when he was running for office and we had the economic stimulus bill and i call it chicken little syndrome. they flew a senator or congressman back from somewhere in the midwest to vote on the bill to pass it through and that was valentine's day weekend and the president went off to chicago with his wife for their favorite dinner and then he flew to denver to announce signing of the bill. then he went to arizona to do the mortgage recovery act and the economic stimulus is pork. he wasn't going to have any more pork and like the gentleman

said, there is a lot of things that he said he was going to do that he hasn't done. then we have the omnibus spending bill that was, you know, that was george bush's bill left over that had 9000 porks in it. >> host: bruce, i want a response from paul light before we have to say goodbye to him. let's hear what he has to say. >> guest: there is traditional it is loaded. there have been some significant success is coming out of the obama administration. right now i think americans want to hear from the president specifically on what he proposes on health care. he need to sit down with us. i think it is in the form of a fired -- fireside chat not a press conference to explain what

he wants. let that debate be the one that shapes what is happening out there. do not let the opponent define this. you define it. that is what the president's job is. host: thank you for being with us. guest: it is always a pleasure. host: he is the author of numerous books, paul light. >> tomorrow wrote on "washington journal." we will talk about future policy challenges for the obama administration with heidi shierholz. tomorrow ron kirgeffer talks about americans with offshore accounts. you also talk to ronald kessler.

that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> now i discussion on security operations in afghanistan. later, a hearing on wartime contract team. then a representative lundgren host a town hall meeting on health care. after that, "washington journal ." >> he is interviewed by the founder of normal, an organization for the reform of marijuana laws. saturday at 10:00 p.m. eastern on c-span2. >> now i discussion of security operations in afghanistan. the country held its affections

on thursday. in the days leading up to the voting, the taliban issued threats and executed a number of suicide bombings. the center for national policy hosted the event. it is nearly 1.5 hours. he is not simply a moderator, he is someone who has some tremendous experience. >> i have a much shorter hair cut. >> i have one of my questions from graduate school. i watch my time quickly --

closely. >> thank you very much. i look forward to a great discussion. i will touch on some of the questions on the comprehensive list that paul has pose. i know that alex is going to go deeply into the election contest itself. i'll take a broader look and perhaps use that as a setting in which the election could be evaluated. we have had a significant number of changes in our approach to a canister and since the arrival of the obama administration in january. some of my testimonies, i pointed out that success in afghanistan is a bit of a map equation. it is a combination of leadership plus strategy plus resources. we have to get the leadership, strategy, and resources correct in order to deliver on our strategic objectives. since january of this year, we

have seen it could begin changes being rolled out in all three of those areas, leadership, strategy, and restores. i will go in depth on those. we are on the course of change right now. that course has not yet been determined. it is only beginning in many respects. that is important to recognize and where we are in the timeline for our enterprise both in the administration with this policy and for the military effort which i will talk a bit about today. the generals are only just beginning the enterprise here. it is a bit different from the normal approach in washington. we have to think about this in a broader context of time.

over two or three years at a minimum. the will of this equation for the leadership dimension, we have had a major changes in both personalities in afghanistan from a u.s. and nato standpoint and from the standpoint of the organizational structure. we have a new u.s. ambassador in afghanistan. we have a new deputy for the first time. david rodriquez. we are going there a change in the organizational structures there to camp up the scientific abilities of the american embassy and work with the military headquarters and to change the military structure to make it more responsive at the appropriate level.

the president has laid out his policy for afghanistan. he has been quite clear on what the strategic goals are there. we have a policy overview emplace try now that is now being offered rationalize or made into reality on the ground. that is going to play out over time. general make crystal and our allies are going to be building a joint campaign plan that allows us to see the road ahead clearly to lay out a road map that they will measure our progress with maria in progress -- progress will not be apparent in 30 days or 45 days or 60 days. it will take some time for the best of all these changes to actually gain traction. we have committed a substantial amount of troops, 17,000 on the ground, soldiers and marines,

and 4000 more as trainers. we have additional nato forces to support that effort. with several hundred in the u.s. embassy to reinforce the capability not just an hour, but around the country. those are going to be held over the next six months or so. a cautionary note of the we had to be careful of looking at the speed at which we annihilates -- evaluate progress. on the eve of the afghan election, i was the u.s. overall coalition military commander in the country. with 21,000 american and coalition forces. we spent the previous nine months focused on the election in setting conditions for a successful election. we were on the edge of our chairs in 2004 as to whether that would actually play out as hoped.

the united nations who generally ran in under position expected that about 5.5 million afghans will come out and register to vote. when the registration was done, at some 0.5 million registered. on election day, 8.5 million afghans action came out to vote. it was an 80% turn out rate. that is an astonishing number. in today's election, when we have registration numbers for potential voters summer in the 50 million-70 million range. we are not sure what it said members are. there is great debate about what numbers should be seen in the turnout for actual voters and whether it'll be a legitimate numbers and whether the number will be adequate to be representative of overall populations in afghanistan. will it be heavily hansard to

certain areas? we really are not certain at this time what success looks like in terms of turnout and what we can expect to see in the results of the election. president cars he garnered 55% n the first ballot. over 50% level was required in order to have a first round when. that happened. we do not know. there are 40 candidates running in this election. several are pulling in substantial numbers. some of had numbers as high as 25%. the uncertainties are fairly substantial. waddell securities look like tomorrow?

tomorrow will be a violent today in afghanistan. the violence in afghanistan peaked on election day in 2004. it was also an order of magnitude less that we have seen. american soldiers, marines, and sailors killed in action in 2004 were 52. this year only with had 160 americans killed in action. coalition casualties in 2004 were 59 for the beshear it is 279. -- 59. beshear it is to under 79. -- this year it is 279. we are going to face again violence tomorrow. the election will be well supported by the afghan people.

the aftermath is the point to be known tomorrow. it is going to take some kind of time to count those votes. this should be a significant concern for us once refined of what the ultimate polling numbers turn out to be. if no candidate gets zero or 57 votes, the possibility is a we go immediately to a runoff election as we look ahead, it will create a result. we have to live with the result that comes out. we collectively have with the afghan people. this is going to be their government for the next five years. as a look at the threats to our enterprise, i think the ineffectiveness of that

government is an issue that is raising to the very highest level of return here in the united states. we clearly have expectations. i think we will clear the work very hard to help this new afghan government. we will be able to improve security in afghanistan. general crystal come in with what his requirements are. his plan in leadership is going to improve. we collectively are working with the new acting government and the institutions that are emplace in the country now. many pundits today are asserting we only have about a year or 80 months to show results in

afghanistan. i think we had to be very careful putting our return markers on our overall enterprise there. one of the common issues i think we have is the degree to which the adversary there really looks at this as a game of burning out the clock. there are -- they are their fundamental strategy is running out the clock. [unintelligible] americans may have all the wrist watches, but we as this caliban have all the -- as the taliban have all the time. we have to look at this be on the immediate -- beyond media sound bites. we have to be careful we do not inadvertently convey the message

that is about us leaving the region once again playing right into the hands of a taliban strategy that they believe is the right solution. we have a history of leaving the region. the result of not a positive for u.s. security interests. many of our friends and adversaries believe we are on that track. i think that is a debilitating of it for us as we look at what we are trying to achieve our ability to be steadfast, to show resolve, to partner with our friends -- until we succeed in the next two years or so, it is going to be critical. that will be one of the most difficult scissions that the administration is one to have to make over the next room for a five or two years. -- over the next 1.5 or two years.

it can be resolved with the neighbors who are watching this equally closely. let me turn its back over to the moderator. i look forward to your questions. >> just before we walked into the room, they noted -- alex turned to me and said he would be speaking for millions. >> i just got back from kabul a few weeks ago. i am happy to say that as i am sure you have all surmised, at the same time election fever has gripped afghanistan. in 2005, people express skepticism about the value of potential elections. it is always important to

remember that even if these elections are problematic and they may well become it afghanistan's institutions are not strong enough to support democratic processes, it is not to say that the afghans are not democratic in do not want to choose their leaders. people loved elections. the afghans have proven in 2004 and 2005 and 2009 that they understanding of the political process, they want to engage in it, and they are willing to take great risks to engage. there is a provincial council election that is going on in a vigil -- in addition to the presidential election. they ended up without a strong mandate. they were largely frustrated by their position. more people are running for

elections this time with the violence than last time. there are different reasons for that. i think that the actions of the minister did they want the democratic process. [unintelligible] is there going to be an election tomorrow? what i mean by that is that when you think about a democratic election, what we are picking about is the people coming out, voting for candidates, and that candidates being the one who goes on to lead. i am happy to report that the monks afghans, there is skepticism that there is going to be an election tomorrow in that sense. what i mean by that is afghans believe that the outcome of the election is going to be determined in part by the international community,

particularly the united states. they will defy that retroactively. i think that you have to take this not as a conspiracy theory, but also as borne out by 30 years of experience. why would afghans believe that their leader was chosen by democratic process when the united states provided over 50% of the entire afghan budget, built its army, provided the salaries for most of the people who surrounded president, and basically maintains a lot of the sovereign capacity in the united states in terms of how we act with our military forces? we also act independently. people are not likely to believe that the afghan president is going to be someone who's chosen, even if that is not true. i'm not suggesting that is the case. that is a widespread perception.

the second perception is that everything is done through a back room deals. they believe they are selected through a back room talk. certainly the role that he has taken as campaigner has not been a popular campaigner in this election but has brought in everybody he could to keep things represent the voting bloc. most problematical, we solve the attorney general drew days ago into afghanistan who represents in some ways a voting bloc. he also represents the worst of afghanistan over the last 30 years the fact that the afghan government has successfully managed to exile the baddest of that actors to turkey -- [unintelligible]

it shows the steps he is unwilling to go to to try to secure this election by securing leaders who he thinks carry a block of voting. the third thing and the most problematic as far as tomorrow is the perception of fraud. there are a lot of concerns about the role of fraud in this an election. there is a huge overhang from the iranian election in the perception of the afghan elector right now. this plays out in two ways. one is that people think that if he wins the commanding majority of the vote, that people will say, no way, not possible, they cannot have received 60% of the boat. this was due to fraud. there will be an outcry.

abdulla has already worked this into all their speeches to do the year saying this will have been the result of fraud fraudkarazai wins in the first round. one is that if he ekes out a win 51-52%. this may be the likely scenario. the problem there is that this election is much more fiercely contested than the last election and because expectations of fraud or higher, people are going to complain that there are problems with the election but they will complain that due to security problems that voters could then get to the polls. they will say the indelible ink did not work. they will say there is massive fraud in the voter registration exercise. all of these things together

will make a narrow margin of victory dangers we do there will be a lot of complaints. people will charge that is a few percentage points will have been easier to reagan a significant number of percentage point. my fears of the political system, the electoral complaints system and the supreme court -- that the system is not strong enough to withstand the really fears pull of a contested election with protests and riots. the third outcome is that the election goes into a second round. in some ways, that could be the healthiest for afghanistan. the big danger there is a gives another target for destruction. it costs a lot of money. there is the the tender for some ethnic divisiveness.

there will be likely charges that the press tends will say that in security depressed the votes in the persian -- pushtin area. all of these outcomes do have some risks. i think that we are looking for some turbulence. let me briefly go to significance. the first significant of the election is the outcome. who will the next leader of afghanistan be? i think that it is fascinating. i have been involved in an informal poll of people who are on the ground and outside of whether it will go into a second round. there is some exit -- expectation that it could go there.

some people began may not. we think it may not. -- some people think it may not. i think that the more important idea of the afghan leadership is not who wins, but what they do. i'll come back to that. the second significant of the afghan election is of the legitimacy of the afghan leadership. it the next president, and i think this weighs most heavily on president karzai, comes out with question the legitimacy than we are in trouble. his legitimacy has plummeted in the last few years. this is primarily due to the insurgency which is the fact that.

this is corruption that has to do it in justice and people taking money. it has to do with the fact that he has been unable to fulfill some of the major promises that he has elected four and he has run for. there is also the question of impunity. the people are seen mean to act with impunity. there the rumors about his brother. this is all dragged his administration down. there are some good things of the government is doing. do not get me wrong. overall, this perception is deeply problematic for president karzai. what i won't -- what i wrote

yesterday is that if he does win, he is going to really have to do an about-face and demonstrate that his government is about something different. my fear is that in the run of the election that because his reached out to the different groups that he essen that opposite message. my greatest fear about this election is that we come out with president karzai with the tarnished legitimacy and we go into a five-year cycle with increased violence, increased military presence, propping up a president who is not seen as legitimate. that is as dangerous as we can be. let me say something about the next presidential agenda. obviously there is security. as david indicated, we are in so

much of a worse situation than we were five years ago. when you look at the fact that we are approaching eight years of engagement in afghanistan, we do read the have to wonder about our capacity as the united states and international community to create the asking capacity. i think that everybody has acknowledged that it is ultimately one to rest on the afghan security force to deal with the insurgency. that is in addition to the political question to have to do with. without a credible afghan security force to do the fighting and the policing, we are nowhere. that 12-18 lead time line will be with drawled. -- that 12 @ -- that 12-18 month

time line will be withdrawn. they are having grave problems with police. our failure to create a credible police force has set us back with the afghan public. we need to really redouble our efforts particularly in that regard. that requires leadership all the way from the top to root out corruption of and to appoint the right people. the second is the question of justice and impunity. i believe it is the thing that action determines whether afghans will see the government as legitimate as not and whether the insurgency will game popular support. there is all this talk about taliban justice. i was in afghanistan from 1993- 1996.

they did not lead with the islamic foot. they try to prevent that is not what got support. they lead with the law and order for it. they lead with the notion that when you have to pay off, we will provide you a basic security and swift justice. emailing gruesome to us and a lot of afghans, but it looks better than in security and injustice. do not think that the thing the afghans are weighing in their own minds is whether what the constitution says that we help the afghans vs. the taliban. that is that the choice they see. the choice they see is corruption of the local level versus what the taliban offers. then the taliban starts to look a little bit better. the final thing that we do not talk about and not its political coalition building. this is what the afghan president needs. first is the question of how to do with the taliban. we will come to that.

there is not a coalition with in the major parties about how to deal with this problem as far as the afghan president is making deals of the television, that is in no go.

be most of the charges are with the old contract. i will point out that i think it was general or deer now add debt -- odierno identified certain

things. loss of planning and lots of effort -- it is not happening " -- what are some of the challenges with the lack of withdraw in iraq? >> there are a number of factors. they have been planning for this -- whether they have done enough planning to accommodate the downsizing in the ramp up, we do not know yet. >> what opportunities are there with rapid withdrawal? >> s troops are withdrawing from iraq as an example, we probably

will have to rely on contractors to remain there to close down those bases or to pass them on to the iraqis. one difficulty that was brought to our attention shows the lack of planning and for thought on this is they pulled out the air conditioning units in buildings that were going to be passed to the air iraqis and then had to go back and reinstalled again. they just did not think enough about when they took the equipment out that it would still be needed because the iraqis were going to take over that period all the decisions, which equipment gets sent back here for rehab, which is going to go to the reserve component, which would be scrapped or turned over to the iraqis, all

of those planning decisions are currently being made. i am not yet comfortable that there are not a lot of holes in the process. >> i might add as an example that we were on one of the bases that the military enlisted person that is going to be involved and some of the port activity and a look at all of those containers. i do not know what is in there. we have accumulated material. now we are going to have to take inventory of it -- if they're given 90 days to get out of it, they will leave in 90 days. the contractors will have to go out there and figure it out. you just cannot give them that expensive equipment. as we see a decline their love a declines in the contractors. my go the other way than of the

activity. 65 line items have to be contacted. >> with others one cutter for every six. as we get out of iraq, we may have more contractors dimly have a military. there is wide property, property in the hands of the contractors on by u.s. government. the only have items on bass and no one knows who is responsible for. i would like to reiterate that commissioner grant talked about. we can't return it to the united states, uses elsewhere -- we can return it to a united states for use elsewhere, let, and if it has no commercial value, scrap it. we're asking people to make those decisions. they may not know what is needed at another base.

they may decide that we need to give it away we could purchase a from somewhere else or bring it to the united states to afghanistan when it was in iraq and we could have gotten it from there. >> it means more ordination. >> it is simple to say give it to the iraqis. to follow up on the first point, i think we need to think hard as does this subcommittee. there is an inherent concern that we have too many contractors. whether we do or not, i am not prepared to answer that there is a task force looking at what things are appropriate to be contacted out. to governmental and those things. how do you get to this point?

what decisions are made by the services for ooooosd -- osd and by the congress? more important is what are the options? do we increase certain structures so that we have and not just the contrasting oversight expertise but we have people to do some of the jobs that are now being done by contractors. do we change the emphasis within the services to push more things into the sustainment forced out of the operational force? to provide less service as well as quality services or do we

just accept the fact that this is the way we are going to go to war. i think those questions we need to focus on and and listen to ways of fraud and abuse. >> that is a piece of the work that we seriously want to have done. >> thank you. one last comment. i think we have a far too many contractors. we have to under 40,000 contractors in these places put together and 80% are foreign nationals, it seems to me that this is a gravy train of money. for these defense contractors and i think almost anybody in this country in the average

american would say that this is ridiculous. we're still spending all this money on all these foreign nationals and committing all of the waste, fraud, and abuse and allowing it to go on. i think it is really sad and it is rather shameful. thank you. >> i think the other question that we ask this what is the government responsibility? what are we doing with some of these people? are we doing a job that should only be entrusted to somebody that is a u.s. citizen or a member of the armed services for responsible for the chain here to some extent? who is protecting home within these countries? we have had hearings on that in the past. we want to inform the many

definitions of the governmental responsibilities and how are we going to make that determination. i agree, nobody has discuss what the proper number of contractors is out there. there are different ratios over time. it went up again and down again. the back of the matter is at some point the argument that we have heard is that there is nothing we could do about its and people were in the white house before our day where it is cheaper to contract it out. i do not think there is any evidence of that at all. how could it be cheaper when we look at these numbers and the degree of difficulty that has been going on? if we get the numbers right, we have to determine who should be doing what correct. we have to have dramatic oversight. it is going to be critical we

have people stationed in over 1000 bases all over the world. over 1000 bases elsewhere that for some reason it is incapable for us to review and determine if they should be there, what their function is, are then adding value to our national security and what those people are doing. some of them men have technical expertise. certain things that may have been valid years ago may not be valid today. the national guard and the reserve have expertise particularly securities in other areas where better identification of lowest in these forces would put them in the proper position to create police officers and other things

for security on that base. somebody in the management sector has to look at these issues in a much more sophisticated and better way, and even the seventh or that we are now developing should be more helpful. it is not happening as fast as we would want. did anybody think of putting this on it does so that you did not have to connect? this is beyond the capacity of the university? >> they told the individual to look at it on line instead of putting it on a desk. if you cannot have a desk, you cannot give them a desk. that would cement way to do it. >> the book together on that basis. i am concerned that contractors are not using the technology they should use.

all of the good guys and the bad management that is being said -- these organizations of which to their people and to the taxpayers of this country to put the kind of technology in there so that we can track these things and follow through. they owe it to us to speak up when they are repairing one place and spending money on another place. it may be profitable, but it is not dead. they owe it to the taxpayers to not double the numbers a and pass it on without making a note of it. there is enough criticism to go around on that. we need management oversight. if we can trust them to do everything on the up and up, we would not be so concerned about it. we have a capacity issue. we have to get the oversight in

their and move forward on that basis. we have lots we want to talk to you about if we have time. regretted to for the work you have done, the agency situation. with the 42 expanding certain parts. the work -- we look forward to expanding certain parts. we need to do certain things in terms of legislation and oversight so that we can help people to do better management. thank you for your time. the offer remains to work with the. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we will take a five minute break before the second panel starts.

[unintelligible] . >> we will not receive second testimony from the panel today. one person is responsible for the association of the federal act policy. he was vice president of at&t government services prior to this. he has served several other positions with the government. it has a j.d. degree from american university school law. do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and

nothing but the truth? >> i did. >> thank you very much. the can make any remarks at this time before we start the questioning. >> mr. chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today. we have over 3 1/3 to companies represented of different sizes recut -- 330 companies represented of different sizes. we are engaged in policy issues regarding contractors in iraq. we have testified before the senate and this committee on three separate occasions during the past few years.

we have submitted, relative legislation -- comments on relative legislation. we note the commissioners appointed to conduct this review and we have worked with them professionally many times in the past. each individual brings a perspective and expertise to this important task. we've had the opportunity to work with many of the few agencies involved included in the oversight activities. we appreciate the challenges that they have shown to fill the government commission. we've been polished to work with dozens of companies and executives -- we've been privileged to work with dozens of companies and executives.

we have worked with u.s. citizens and third country persons who have given their lives regarding these issues. these issues that we are dealing with a very complex and often changing. while it is possible and certainly easier, the value of any analysis of the contract activity must take into account several sets of realities. iraq contacting is not one activity. it is three different subsets. the support of the military and military related activities, the reconstruction of iraq, and economic development assistance provided for iraq and afghanistan. the must look at the time frame for our nation's efforts in

iraq. there are a different set of on the ground actions from the work taken and different from the rapidly changing physical security environment and use the subcontracting directives, some initiated by congress and undertaken by the joint contacting command for iraq and afghanistan. the final set of reality is situational confecting. to understand the nature of the contract in activities in iraq, you have to understand the differences between emerge as a contract thing during a heightened military action, tenn. action, and sustainment action which can characterized -- characterized by what we see today. we have known from almost the

out of the conflict that there were some professionals assigned to support the u.s. operations in iraq. we have known that many of the contractors awarded business were overwhelmed by the rapidly changing magnitude of the work. they had a lot of pressure put on their businesses as a result. for those that have been watching this in the private sector, and i hope it is not a surprise to the government, debt the lack of qualified confecting representatives to supervise contractors and the lack of technical skills as well as other deficiencies had an impact on the government able to execute oversee and manage these capabilities.

we were struck by the fact that these examples to not speak to abuse or fraud. they spoke to some of the structural challenges that are well known. the building of a dining facility is not a case of contractor fraud or misconduct, it may be inefficient or race, but it is not a broader misconduct. -- waste, but it is not a fraud or misconduct. the commission has held only two public hearings and government officials were invited to testify but only if you. the council stands ready to further the commission in any way of purpose as they do the outrage.

this is not a conclusive document. the need for additional import -- input is needed. we are trying to determine the would cause for these issues and develop an action plan for future occurrences. congress should expect the men and women who never served in iraq and afghanistan the support of the u.s. government. thank you for the invitation to provide this news. i like to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. we appreciate the testimony. bowhat if any areas do you disagree with of the recommendations of the panel? >> i have had a chance to look at the report quickly last night. the focus of the panel of

oversight is appropriate. i think it misses an appropriate part, the front end of the process, making sure there is a resource available to execute the work in the first instances. i support oversight. it is an important element of the entire system. if we do not have the right people doing the right things at the beginning of the process, the oversight function will find errors and mistakes. we have been strong proponents of increasing contacting officers and representatives in increasing the amount of program management, bringing the work in afghanistan closer to certain areas. with more resources on the ground on the front end, we will address both issues and some of the issues that the commission identified as management deficiencies. >> what damage is done to the

contractors? >> there are many allegations of fraud. allegations of mischarging by the contractors. many do not prove out to be the case. there are litigation issues. the justice department does not pursue every allegation of fraud. sometimes the case is not there for the discretion is not there. everyone of those damages the reputation of the company and calls into question the bunching of the entire acquisition system. if there is no credibility in the system from the requirements generation to the contract or the contractor's responsibility if allegations are made simply for the fact of making allegations, it damages the con job itself with the entire acquisitions system. >> the controversy surrounding the dining hall facility was

similar to that in a refurbishment and got a contract for $30 million. the commission pointed to the lack of coordination paul and that nobody knew those overseeing the contract or the contractor. they did not know that any refurbishment have been done. what if they have been asked to do in the facility when they have been working on the old one. is there a contract that they abide by in this case? there would seem to be some responsibility that lies with the contractor. >> i have read about this case for the first time last night in the report. if it was the same contractor, and would be very surprised if during the course of the worst

-- work, the in contacting officer did not say that they were doing similar work to the superior. i would hope that the contractor would take that obligation and initiative to do that. many times because of the rotational assignments and the resources, it is the contractors who have the visibility -- visibility of those. i would like to ask around and see what i can find out about those and the work they have done. >> it would be great if you could forward whatever you find. >> i would be happy to share anything i learned. >> i am certain that in many of these cases, members of your association a community are upset because they would like to bid on these contracts.

see you sometimes ask for these -- you review the material and what form do you have to go to the agency and say certain things? i am sure those types of situations come up. what kind of remedy do you have to make sure that the agencies abide by their own roles in terms of contacting things out? >> that is a very important question. >> our members tell us where there is a lack of competition. they welcome the opportunity to compete for work and compete aggressively. they understand the importance of competition and the importance of a predictable process. with those issues are raised, we ask that question.

congress last year required the defense department when issuing awards over $100 million to make those justification's publicly available. that process will soon start with the regulation put into place. we do not have access to a lot of the government's decision making. we ask the question frequently why wasn't competition inappropriate or undertaken. there are national security reasons and certain things in a wartime environment that may prohibit it. we were strong performance -- if there was a need for an award because of an emergency situation to support the troops, it did not necessarily have to have a five-year contract. it could've been a better plan for the competition process. some of its resources or a changing environment in iraq and

afghanistan. we are stronger on as a competition. >> thank you. thank you for giving your perspective on this. we will close the meeting in time to let the members vote. this meeting is adjourned. >> thank you for the opportunity to come before the panel. [unintelligible] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] up next on c-span, rep lundgren

hosting a town hall meeting on health care. live at 7:00 a.m., "washington journal." . >> the columnist regarding marijuana trafficking. he has an interview regarding the national organization for marijuana reform law. that is tonight at 2:00 p.m. eastern -- 10:00 p.m. eastern on book tv. >> now propose health-care legislation will be discussed -- discussed during a town hall meeting. similar meetings are being held this month. this is from california and is about 90 minutes.

>> thank you all for being here. we oftentimes wonder if anybody will come to our meetings. we do not have to worry about that now. this is a great demonstration of democracy in action in our third congressional district. i thank you for being here. [applause] normally i stan be closer to you, but we thought we would add a few more chairs because we have a little bit of an overflow crowd here. a lot of people cannot get in. they are outside. we want them to hear. we will see if we can have some

people come in with questions from outside as well as those of you who are here and can see and see if we can get this off in a proper way. let me introduce members of my staff so that you know who they are, you can contact, if we cannot answer your question tonight, you can give us your question to one of our staff members and they will do their best to get back in touch with the. this person comes to may after a few weeks of vacation with his wife. she is a captain in the ninth estate army and just returned from afghanistan.

debbie jones. a senior field representative to join our staff last month. we have another fill representative who is over on the side. it is a career person in the press. we are happy to have him. oliver is in the back. you need to contact him if you have issues with immigration or citizenship. it is a great job on military questions. michelle is a constituent services rep. for those of not been to a meeting before with the barman of state, we often hear from

people the day before they are supposed to go to europe and not realize they need their past for. sometimes we can work magic, but it helps to give us more than 24 hours' notice. a congressional aide is in the back. i was privileged to me to have a discussion with is that last week. he is a pow from vietnam. he spent many years in a prison cell on our behalf. he is a great guy. we are happy to have him working for us. i have a few people here from our washington d.c. staff. i would like to say this one person left me for horses.

this person has worked on -- for the senior republican on one committee. for those of us dealing with federal government agencies in our area, she has done an outstanding job. let me just, even though the manner in which we operate these town hall meetings will allow it and any question you want about any new issue you want, it has been suggested to be a health care were primarily a health care issue forum. this will be the second one i had. and had one of one month ago. i have done it three town halls were the primary subject was health care.

let me just say this. i think the outpouring and passionate the ears of the public have made a huge difference in washington d.c. [applause] after i had my town hall meeting one month ago, i went back and i told my colleagues what i had heard and seen, the passion and interest and knowledge people had about this issue. i said, this is something i have not seen on a domestic issue in 30 years. it is something that is personal to people and is important to people. they want us to get it right. there should be no rush to judgment. we have to try and figure out what the right thing is, what they want us to do and how we do

not destroy a system that is in many ways affective. why we do not get rid of the best parts of our system. [applause] there were some people were surprised the one of us, and to just trust them and not read the 1000 page bill. the president gave at a deadline. i thought it was wrong. i've fought against it. had it not been for the response of average, everyday americans at town hall meetings and meetings on the street, people

stopping me in the airport, if that had not happened we would not yet had any breathing room to allow this to happen. i just want you to know that it is because of the public. [applause] here is what we are going to try to do. i think we still have a comment cards for people to ride out said that i can get out more than just the questions that i will get today. we will try and have the first question on the inside, the second from the patio, the second and third from the outside and try to rotate to give people a fair chance. we have some tv cameras here. c-span is televising this. this is not live.

they will show this some time. so that they can have the questions properly heard, but we ask you to ask your question of from this microphone or from that far from over there. if you do not get to the microphone, you will not be heard by the people viewing c- span. i will ask you to please do that. here are my ideas as we look at this health-care issue. my dad was my hero growing up. i wanted to be like him. i used to go on house calls with him at the little kid. some of you may have heard that i wanted to be a doctor like my dad. sophomore year, i was taking

organic chemistry. god sent me a clear message. i did not fall -- fail, but i figured i better do something else. i never lost my sense of service or appreciation. when i look at health care, i look at it through the eyes of someone who grew up with a father who was a primary care physician, board certified in internal medicine, cardiology, he took care those who cannot pay and some famous people. it was an infantry position in landed on normandy. he received a purple heart after being injured.

that was in an artillery -- artillery barrage. i saw him get angry at nurses as they did not do the right job. he was the greatest supporter of doctors and nurses. i heard them on the phone many times and the conversation would go like this, you want me to release my patient from the hospital? she is 85 years old and just had a procedure. i am afraid if she goes home, she will not be able to take care of herself even with assistance. if she slips and falls, she will be back in the hospital and subject to other illnesses including ammonia. by the way, where is your medical degree from? you're not a doctor or a nurse. you just work for the insurance company. i want your name and i want to

know where i can reach you, because i am putting it in my medical charts so that if something happens to my patient, you will be held responsible. [applause] the only reason i mention that is there is always going to be the need for the doctor to be your advocate for the care you believe you should receive. in all of the discussions that we have had on health care reform, it is important that we never lose sight of that. i enough staff to call the insurance company if someone gets sick in my family. i say, let me get a hold of my doctor and find out how we are going to handle this, what is best for my child. i think we can learn from that.

if you analyze medical care in the united states, we have the greatest innovation, new technology, advances of any place in the world. weather is -- whether it is new pharmaceutical products, i would not want to go anywhere but the united states. we have to recognize those that we have some problems. there is a significant problem of people who are uninsured. it is summer in the 40 million range. when you break it down and take out 10 million people who are not citizens, and millions to our young people who have sufficient salaries to be able to buy insurance but decide not to buy insurance during the healthiest years of their lives, and take out for those

people who are uninsured before a time but were insured before and will be injured after words, for those hard court uninsured is about 9.3 million people. we have to deal with that. that is 3% of the people who are chronically uninsured and have difficulty getting care. should we turn over the entire system that generally works for the greatest number of us in order to try to take care of 3%, or should we try to figure out how we can specifically come up with a solution for the 3%? there are problems with insurance and with coverage. i'd like to see a number of things. i will like to see us come up with portability.

if you move from one job to another, you do not have to change your insurance or your doctor. you should decide when you want to change your doctor not based on insurance coverage. we want to have a reasonable way to bring costs under control. we always are going to have arguments. we do not want to stop the high quality that we have. how do we do that? there are those that believe the best way to change what we do now is to have government-run health care system.

there are those that believe if you look at the model in canada or france, they do better than we do. i disagree with that. [applause] there are those that disagree with me. the way that i have analyzed it -- if you're trying to keep costs down, there are only a few ways to do it. there is a government-run system done by rationing. or you can try and have greater transparency. all of us have more information -- if you are going to have this surgery, he should know what the infection rates are at the hospital. you should know what the success

rates are. that information should be available to you right away to help you make the decisions. you should know how much they are charging. some hospitals may charge differently than others. that helps us as individuals make decisions. competition, i would rather see more possible insurance programs -- we are talking about co-ops, expanded opportunities in choices that you would have. one thing i believe that may help us in that direction is you or your employer should be able to choose a plan that is legal in any state of the union, rather than just in california. [applause] that way you would have many more opportunities. i think that would help us.

others are talking about co-ops. they have a different view than others. here is the idea as i see it. knights of columbus, kiwanis club, alumni from a particular university, you would allow them to establish health associations are co-ops thus having tools large enough so you could bring cost down, because -- this would give you greater opportunity for those types of things. i know there are a lot of questions and opinions out there. i will love to get them from you. please use the microphone.

i will try to take one question here from the inside, one from the patio, and from the outset. >> i have read through the bill myself personally. [applause] in the stimulus bill, the digital format of our medical records and then in the health care reform bill, the government would have access to our financial records. if those are not disturbing enough for you, if you continue on throughout the rest of the document, there is a whole

section that exempts the government from protecting our privacy. section 1301 on pageboy 455, section 1866e on page pop-up 476. my question is why would i ever agree with a bill that invades our privacy and exhibits the government from the current obligation to protect us? [applause] >> thank you for that question. you talk about the stimulus

bill going to computerized records. as a general rule or idea, the computerizing of medical records is a good idea so long as we have strong privacy protection. here is what i need. most hospitals are computerizing their records which is helpful for a couple of reasons. i can tell you this from looking at the handwriting of my dad. my dad would write as notes when we went to summer camp and his secretary would have to type of force because we cannot read his riding. there are mistakes that are made because people cannot read the writings of physicians. many are setting up systems where the doctor can enter records by computer. the question is can we do that

with doctors' records are medical records and would that be a benefit? it would be a benefit in one sense. if you were traveling somewhere outside of your own region, you had an accident and became ill and one agreement, it would be very good if that new medical provider had the opportunity to review your records and your permission and you would be able to be able to grant them permission to do that. it would probably eliminate some do with it test or it would allow them to compare the new tests with previous that. second lane with they are prescribing something for you,

if you minimize the potential of them prescribing something for you that our country indicated, you may have taken something in the last few days and may not remember it, they could check your records and would no. in those ways, it would be effective. the devil is in the the cells. we just had someone who is being prosecuted for having into over 1 million -- 140 million credit histories of people. i get mixed up because in dc we talk trillions. [laughter] if that can happen, think what would happen if they could get into your medical records. the principle is a good one, we have to be careful how we do it. we have to be very careful with how we do it.

there are some sections of the bill that are supposed to go towards your eligibility for various programs. there are many programs where people are eligible depending on their income level. i am always concerned about the government getting too much of my financial records and so should you. i do not think we have done the proper investigation of the privacy protections that should be here. even though i strongly agree with a digital application for health care, i didn't think the protections are in there that need to be in there. i do not have the perfect solution. we have to do a better job. that is part of the problems with a big bill that is 1000 pages. you almost have to take all or nothing.

i think we could reach across the aisle on a number of things that are not big overhaul of the system but changes in the system that most of us would think would be common sense. that is what i would hope we would do. [applause] >> we are bringing in somebody from the patio. thank you for being here this evening. >> i recently returned from canada. i have heard for years how great the health care is at home. one of my difference a year ago fell from a ladder and broker need. they did some minor surgery. she would go to calgary of october of this year to get the final treatment after a wait of 17 months. i am not happy with the idea of let's following canada. [applause]

i had a friend and i recommend that we quit all this talk about the health plan. can we make it so that all of the american citizens that [unintelligible] [applause] on sure your father who is a doctor within that is a give plan. thank you. [applause] >> in consideration of the bill, we tried to deal with that question by saying that if the public option or part of the program, all members of congress would be required to be in the public auction.

in one committee it was adopted and in another it was voted down. i do not know if it will be in the final package. that mechanism where people have options to make choices that we have as federal employees is one that american people should have. i would expand its beyond the four or six options that we have and allow americans to have access to the different options that are available in different states, so people could make their decisions there rather than me deciding which ones you should have the option for. in canada, i with their recently last month, the best i have a 2001 survey asking american and canadians about health care and

their country. 51% of canadian doctors said there emergency care was good or excellent well a higher percentage of americans did. 88% of intensive care units in america were rated good or excellent versus those in canada. a 4% of american the doctors spot that technology was up to the great a need it compared to those of canada. the top doctor in canada announced this week that he is about to take over as a physician that they had a

serious problem in canada. it is a woman as she described the canadian health system as in a crisis. she said canadians have to understand that the system we have right now is not sustainable. we all agree the system is imploding. we all agree that things are more precarious than canadians realize. i am not doing that to condemn the system. what i am saying is i think our system operates better for americans. it has problems that we have to deal with rather than find something that is entirely new. do we have a question from outside? >> thank you for coming in hearing s. i feel like we are not being heard in washington and being dismissed.

i have never been involved in politics before. this is something that is very important to me. my mom is in florida. she does not understand what is going on. she does not know how to voice it. i told her i would come here and help out. i have some children as well. it is came to say that i have been unemployed it has taken me over six weeks to get a phone call to get a check. i am wondering how a government run health care is going to work with its bureaucratic and i am concerned. what are republicans doing and what are you going to do to make