these subsidies if it is 400% of poverty in those bills? >> that is one of the ways it will be paid for. at least half the bill would be paid for by squeezing excesses' out of the system. . >> less than half of it will be

finding other ways to pay for it. to the extent that we can change the way health care is delivered and lower-cost, that is where we want to focus, but we will need some expect >> one of the key things -- he wants to introduce an amendment on the floor of the house to keep abortion funding out right now. >> i cannot talk about amendments until we see what the bill is, and as the president stated last night, the bill does not expand in the spending for abortions. again, when we see what the bill is, if there is a need for an amendment, we are open to men is in many categories as we go to the fore, but we cannot talk about amendments until we see what is in the bill.

when we have a bill, the rules committee will make decisions as to what amendments will go to the floor. as we organize these three bills, the rules committee will weigh in as to what will go to the fort to resolve some of that difference is that still exist. -- that go to the floor. there one aren't -- 1 order 35 up or down as that people want to put in the bill rejects 135 up or downs. >> have you been briefed on the mcchrystal report, and if you are open to the idea of sending more troops? >> we have not been briefed on the report, which i understand is an assessment of what is happening, not a recommendation. september 24 is fraught with meaning for us. this is the day, according to

the supplemental, that the metric as to what is going on in afghanistan are to be reported to congress. i am more interested in that report. i hope that we will be briefed when the president receives it, perhaps next week. i do not think there is a great deal of support for sending more troops to afghanistan in the country or in the congress. thank you. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> the house has completed legislative work for the week. next week, democratic leaders say members will consider a new energy department program for research on gas efficient turbines and hybrid vehicles. also, legislation changing help private lenders participate in the federal student loan program. live house coverage continues here on c-span when the house nevelson monday, 12 of 30 eastern with legislative work starting at 2:00. -- 12:30 eastern. >> is there more than one definition of conservative? saturday, sam tanenjaus on the death of conservatism. a look for the complete schedule online at booktv.org. >> this weekend, the world of cut -- the role of conspiracy

theories in american politics with catherine olmsted, on c- span 2's book tv. >> congressional minority whips jon kyl and eric cantor held a briefing today. from capitol hill, it is about 25 minutes. >> my counterpart in the house, eric cantor will be here momentarily, but not to waste your time, let me go ahead. i have been asked about my reaction to the president's remarks last night, and i must say i am disappointed. for a couple of reasons, first

of all, if his goal last night was to clarify the specifics of his proposal on health care reform, and to try to reach out to those with whom he has had some disagreement, to attempt to reach a bipartisan compromise, it seemed to me that he failed significantly on both grounds. let me start with the second. i do not think you reach out to people by continually, throughout your speech, referring to their arguments in the way he did. i must say, i have never heard a more partisan speech by president in that house chamber, and i have listened to five presidents now as a member of the house and the senate. the terminology he used sleight of partisan spectacle, unyielding, ideological, bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at

any cost. nobody can have a disagreement with him based upon a valid difference of opinion. it is always the motive of the other individual is a bogus motive. the arguments are false. it is alive. to my republican friends, i say that rather than making wild claims. here is an issue that has been subjected to demagoguery and distortion. and not paid teaching to the scary stories. of course, you did not hear any scary stories in the president last night in his remarks. i will not waste time with those who think it is better politics to kill this plan than to approve it. how about those of us to essentially have legitimate differences of opinion? if you misrepresent what is in the plan, we will call you out. it sounded very much like the chicago politics that i know he is familiar with, but i was perplexed by the fact that

throughout the entire speech, it appeared as if he was trying to ram something through with political power rather than to refer to what the people have been saying to all of us over the last six or seven weeks. no reference to what the american people have said. no reference to their opposition to his plan. no concept of listening to what they have to say about what they want. it is basically his way or the highway. the second point has to do with the clarification of what is in his plan. at some point, i was not clear what he was referring to. for example, when he talked about the fact that there would not be any deficit, clearly was not referring to either the house or senate bill that has gone through committee. somehow, there is going to be a different bill which is going to solve the deficit problem, i gather. we did not hear any detail about that.

i think more than the lack of specificity was the disingenuousness of his arguments let me give several examples of why i use that pejorative term. for months he has been saying if you like your insurance, you get to keep it. has anybody not heard that phrase? well, we called him out on that. it is not true under the bills. even if you like your insurance, there is a good chance you will not be able to keep it, as i will mention. finally, i gather some of the staff said mr. president, you cannot keep saying that, it is not true. so the got the lawyers together and must have said what can you say that is true? >> nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or dr. you have. and he repeated that. of course, that is true. nobody ever said there was anything that would require that. but the fact remains that for at

least three reasons, people who have coverage now and like it will not get to keep it. start with the cuts in medicare, and he referred to the subsidies, as he calls them, to the medicare dennis plan. a lot of seniors, in fact, over 10 million seniors, 22% of the medicare eligible folks have medicare advantaged plans. arizona has one of the highest rates, about 39% of our medicare beneficiaries or enrolled in medicare in bennett's plan. under the estimates about a reduction in subsidies, about 7 million of those seniors will lose their medicare advantage plan. so as a direct result of policies in the legislation, people will lose the coverage that they now like and enjoy. if the government run plan is part of this legislation, a bipartisan, a nonpartisan

recognized expert entity has estimated that over 88 million americans who are currently employed will lose their coverage at the job and be put into the government run plan feerick why? not because the government requires it, but because a penalty is established in the legislation economically. it makes sense for the employer to drop his expensive coverage and simply pay the penalty, which is much less than the cost of the coverage. those are the two primary reasons why it has always been the case that under this legislation, it will not necessarily get to keep it. in fact, close to 100 million americans will not be able to keep their insurance. the point is, the way he cleverly said it was, to suggest that anyone who suggests this is incorrect. technically, he is legally correct, but it totally misses the point. so he did not deal with the critical commentary we have made.

i do not think he wants to engage in an honest debate about the details of the plan. he talked about medical liability reform. here again, very disingenuous to say i will take you up on it. we will revive the bush and ministration idea to go to the states and encourage them to develop dispute recognition mechanisms. after three different votes on the senate floor, at least there were too, and i think there may have been three, where democrats defeated medical liability reform, the bush administration said at least to keep the debate going, we should talk to the states about what they could do. there was never any effort to pursue it. the idea was to at least encourage states to develop alternative dispute mechanisms. that is hardly medical liability reform. the president is serious about taking this up -- taking us up on this effort, he will entertain the idea is that we have proposed about medical liability reform, including things like health care courts.

since corn and and i have legislation that mirrors the texas reform. by putting the secretary of hhs in charge, i think you can see what will happen to it. he talked about the proposals -- he said the reforms i am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. by their terms, that is correct. it is also correct that democrats defeated his proposed amendments that would ever occur some europe -- verification of eligibility. it is probable that people who are not eligible will end up receiving the benefits of the legislation.

he says no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions. represent kantor should speak to this, because that is where the amendments were in the house of representatives, but when senator hatch offered an amendment to permit tax funded abortions under the legislation, it was defeated. i wonder what that tells you. finally, on the point of disingenuousness, not a dollar of the medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan. first of all, they are not any dollars in the medicare trust fund. it is broke. nobody suggested we were taking dollars at a nonexistent trust fund to pay for the program. what he is doing is cutting payments to providers and cutting the allotment to the insurance plans that provide medicare advantage options. those two things will result in a reduction of choice, and i submit ultimately, a rationing

of care for seniors. the reduction of choice because the medicare advantage plans largely go away, and when you pay the doctors and hospitals less even than they are being paid today, something has to give. obviously seniors are concerned that it will be their health care, and i think have every reason to be concerned about that. again, the point is not that we are taking money of the trust fund to pay for something. the fact of the matter is, instead of helping to make the medicare trust fund healthier, the reduced payments to providers and cut the allocations to medicare a bandage in such a way as to disadvantage seniors without really creating any money to pay for anything else. i did not hear it anything about how these plans were going to be paid for last night. we could go through all the different ways in which people are taxed. individuals are tax, big businesses are taxed, small businesses are taxed, and premium holders will end up paying the taxes.

no detail about that. bottom line, i thought the speech was partisan, uninformative, disingenuous, and not likely to encourage those who have honest disagreements with him to be able to work toward some kind of common solution. republicans remain committed to working together, if we can achieve that. you know about our ideas. we have repeated many times and would be happy to repeat them again here. that is what we would like to see. push 3 start button and engage in real bipartisan discussion, rather than the kind of threats that were the major thrust of the president's remarks last night -- pushed the start button. my counterpart, representative eric cantor. >> thank you very much, senator. there is no question that the bar was set very high for this president in his speech last

night. his performance did not match those expectations, and i do not think he did reach that bar. if we listened to his speech, what was so striking was there was a disconnect between his message and where the american people are in terms of their fear of for washington is headed in terms of changing their health care. i know that i wanted to hear some specifics. a lot of us did. what we heard is much of what the president has been out saying before. in fact, there were at least 100 speeches prior in which this president talked about health care. not much new came out of this speech. the president did say he is open to the republicans bringing forth ideas. i am going to take him at his word, just like we attempted to

take him at his word when we began the process in january over the question of a spending stimulus bill that was in the making stand. i am hopeful that this process will result in a better product, for sure, especially as we are dealing with something that is so personal to the american families. if the president is serious and wants our participation and our input, i think we ought to start in three directions. one is to provide and make sure that the american people know that we are going to guarantee that there will be no government substitute for the decision making power that patients and doctors have over their health care. two, that there will be a guarantee for the american people that there will be no government rationing, that there will be no government force discrimination on any basis, as

far as health care access and delivery is concerned. third, to guarantee to the american people that we are not going to break the bank in passing a health care bill. people are very cognizant of the enormous amount of debt that has been piled up by this town, and they are asking the question of the country, who is going to pay for all this? so if we can get straight on these type of pre requisites and have some substantive agreement on that, there are some things that we can work together on. the president mentioned senator mccain last night, and his proposals that had to deal with pre-existing conditions. these are individuals who may face a disease such as ms, crones disease, or what have you, that might cause insurance premiums to skyrocket. they may find themselves unable

to afford insurance coverage. senator mccain has a proposal. i like the term universal access programs. these are efforts i think we can have bipartisan agreement on and deal with the question of pre- existing conditions. the other issue is the issue of portability. the president was right in saying that you should not have to necessarily lose your health. you lose your job. let's go ahead and work on that. we can do that. we can provide the flexibility in the insurance laws to make sure that no one has to lose their health care if they lose their job. lastly, that area of medical liability reform. ike was very disappointed by the proposals being suggested by this president, and that somehow we are going to be able to accomplish real medical liability reform, the end of lawsuit abuse, but somehow administratively engaging in

pilot projects. the american people know you cannot effect real tort reform in this country unless you do something that state law or something here in washington to affect the operation of the state law to finally address getting it the lawyers of the examining room, which would bring down the cost of health care in this country. thank you. >> most of the reform would be paid for cuts to -- is this possible, and if so, why haven't these savings been achieved before? >> one reason is because it is a very amorphous notion that somehow we can cut waste, fraud, and abuse from medicare. politicians have talked about doing that for longer than each of us had been in congress, and is very hard to do.

there is nothing in these bills that specifically suggest how that will be done. the two ways that medicare reductions will occur or the reductions in the allocations to the medicare advantage plan, something less than $200 billion, and the other 60% by reducing payments to providers, precisely what i mentioned would reduce care. the other half of the one trillion dollars cost comes in all these taxes that i mentioned, the taxes on jobs, small business, chronically ill, the limitation on flexible said his account, the penalties for the middle class, and so on. there are a series of new taxes which are designed to raise the other half. >> we saw a number of members waving signs.

[unintelligible] your reaction to congressman wilson's outburst. >> i think all of us who know joe wilson know that he did the right thing in apologizing to the white house. i did not think anyone accept the type of outburst and the lack of decorum in the house chamber. i think joe wilson has also said as much, and he did the appropriate thing in apologizing. as far as any other type of protest going on in the house, i was unaware of it around me, but i will tell you that we all do need to dedicate ourselves to working in a civil manner to try to address a very important issue for the american people. there are some severe disagreements over how we are going to effect health care reform in this country. if you listen to what the

president said, it is almost as if there is a certain amount of tone deafness on the part of the white house. the american people are clearly in a position where they think that washington is going to produce a replacement for the health-care system that they know. if you then take the facts that most people in this country have health care, most people that have it like it, it is just too expensive which then aggravates the number of uninsured. if we can start with what works and guarantee that we will preserve those principles and the operation of what works, and then try and affect the peace that does not, i think we can all seem to move towards a final product that actually gets it right. if the president would demonstrate that it is more important we get it right than just get it done, i think that would go a long way as well.

>> could you address the complaints that [unintelligible] >> the lewen group has been a highly respected group that advocates all kinds of proposals, and i have never heard anyone contend that they have been biased or that they have an agenda which they pursue in their work. if anybody would like to make that presentation, it can certainly be evaluated. there is a difference in assumptions between the cbo and that group with regard to some of the proposals. that is why there are some different outcomes in the research. i happen to think the assumption is they made were better than those made on one of the particular pieces of analysis i

have seen. i have seen nobody contend that they have not approached their work in a totally objective and constructive way. >> could you envision a time where you might put together with the kinds of things you mentioned in a book and present on the floor? [unintelligible] >> first of all, republicans have been talking about a variety of approaches to the cost and access issue for months, both in the house and the senate. they are fairly well known. a personal suggestion is that we should simply go ahead and introduce a series of 67 bills that embodies individual principals -- six or seven

bills, so that we can take it one bite at a time. it is not going to scare anybody if we create a piece of legislation that allows small- business is to join together and negotiate with insurance companies with the same purchasing power as big businesses. it should not scare anybody to have a piece of legislation to allow insurance to compete across state lines. that will cause some insurance companies to get their backs up, because they do not like the competition, but it is a good thing for consumers that they do have to compete. you can buy your auto insurance from a company in new jersey, and they sell policies all over the country. i mentioned a center in seat and senator coburn have bill -- center enzi and center cockburn

have bills as well. -- centesenator cobern. rather than put them all in one comprehensive bill, it is harder to get a big comprehensive bill done. first of all, people do not read, and secondly, it scares people. republicans have those proposals. i think some of us will just go ahead and introduce the legislation and see if we can get people to buy into that. >> let me just take this last question. >> the president said that prominent politicians have been involved in spreading lies.

[unintelligible] do you think the congress will be able to get beyond this level of personal attacks? >> it is not constructed to bipartisan dialogue. when i am asked for my honest impressions of a president who spoke in a very partisan and political way last night, i think it is my obligation to point out the fact that this is not the way that you get people to cooperate with you. you do not say that if you disagree with us, we are going to call you out. he used all these the ga. terms. if it is hard for me to criticize him for doing that, -- he used all these pejorative terms. if you want cooperation, then let's throw all that overboard

and push the reset button and talk about things that you know we have been concerned about for years. do not just say we will meet you halfway on medical malpractice by trying to encourage states to engage in alternative dispute resolution. that is not meeting us halfway. if my words seem harsh, i am trying to make a point here, which is i did not think the president advance the bipartisan all last week by the way he discussed thing. -- discussed things. i think that needs to be pointed out in clear language, but i am willing to drop that at this moment to engage in real bipartisan work if we can do that. thank you. >> senate democratic leaders hold a briefing next on health- care legislation and what is ahead for the ongoing debate. they spoke earlier today with reporters at the capital for about 15 minutes.

>> i think it is fair to say that the president's speech was really a game changer. he spoke directly to the american people and to the american congress. the details the allied will provide guidance for what we are of going to do here -- the details he outlined will provide guidance. everything he talked about, but legislation that preserves patient choice, lowers choice and improves the quality of care. that is really what this whole debate is about. i think that it is also important that on some of the morning shows, even republicans have acknowledged clearly that any legislation we have talked about does not provide health care for illegal immigrants. there are no death panels, and

that speaks well. senator mccain was on "the today show," and he said that clearly. i appreciate that. the president came to congress and offered an olive branch to all members of congress. included republican proposals in his plan and referred to specifically a number of senators, mccain, hatch, he even took a page out of president bush's book and indicated some things he was going to study and direct his cabinet to start studying. there's no question the president is sincere about this is the time that we do something rather than just talk about. i think that in spite of the efforts of those who try to derail the healthcare plan and maintain the status quo, as the president said last night, we are probably 90% done with the hard stuff. we have to get the details done now.

when chairman baucus lays down a bill next week and starts the markup a week from monday, i think we are going to find there is going to be room for a healthy, vigorous debate on what is going to take place in the senate. that is the way it should be. the bottom line is that we have to rein in skyrocketing costs that are breaking the backs of american people. today across the country, nevada, washington, illinois, new york, all over the country, 14,000 americans will lose their health insurance. the number in nevada is 220 every day who lose their health insurance. 14,000 people from the 50 states and 220 from nevada. we will continue finishing the last 15% or 20% of the health care proposal that has to come before the american people. we have a schedule now that has

been announced and we will move forward to get this done as quickly as weekend. >> before the president's historic address last night, there were two or three main questions asked over and over again of members of congress. the first question is, will the president be specific? will he tell us exactly what it wants in health care reform? he did. he spelled it out exactly. for those who have insurance, stability so that they know the entrance will be there when they needed and they can afford it. how about those who do not have insurance or not very good insurance? he said basically we will give you the same option that members of congress have. it will be insurance you can count on that will not cut you all for pre-existing conditions. he said we have to bring down the cost of this. if you are truly concerned about the deficit, you have to do something about health care. if you are truly concerned about what it means to families and

businesses, we have to do something about health care. so he was specific. he called for this joint session of congress, and i think his commitment was clear last night. he wants to be the last president to bring this up before the american people. the final question is, is he willing to be bipartisan? the president said he was. for those who really want to improve this plan and come up with a good idea, his phone is there, and his door is open. that has been his approach from the start. i sat next to center reid -- senator reid. he reached the point when he was referring to senator kennedy's letter when you could have heard a pin drop. >> clearly, i thought the

president's speech was a toward force. it could well be a game changer when it comes to health care. what he did last night was stake out a high moral ground. he said i have ideas and plans, but republicans are willing to reach out. he praised senators mccain, grassley, hatch. he even spoke about for reform, something that republicans have felt is very necessary in the bill, and many democrats feel is not. he was saying to the american people and two independents in particular, that i am willing to reach out. the ball is now clearly in a record of the republican party. are they going to continue to just say no, or will they need us part of the way?

that is the question. the president laid it out explicitly. i will say this. he was not speaking really to the senators as he was to the american people. what i think will happen as a result of the speeches that independencts who had been clearly questioning whether we need health care are going to move in the president's direction, because he is reaching out in a bipartisan way. up to now, the republican party, with perhaps the exception of olympia snowe, is just say no. so this was a bottle moment for the democratic party, a vital moments for the president', and it was also a vital moment for the republican party. the question is, will the rise the occasion, come sit at the table with us, and come up with

a strong bipartisan bill, so that both medicare, private insurance, and health care will not go broke 10 years from now? >> last night, the president forcefully told us, as the leaders of this nation, as the adults in the room, it is time for the squabbling to be over. it is time for us to move on. the status quo is not sustainable. this is exactly what i heard throughout my stay in august when i went home, when i talk to a young boy who is a years old who lost his mom because she had a job. she lost her job because she was sick and ended up not being able to get a doctor's appointment because she lost her health care and ended up dying. it was a woman who owned a restaurant in my neighborhood in seattle who told me that she was trying really hard to get health care insurance for her 35 employees. she wanted to do the right

thing, knew it was responsible thing to do both for business and for her community, but was denied health insurance coverage over and over by companies, and finally had one insurance person tell her it is because of your zip code that you cannot get health insurance. it was a woman who came to me with a pile of papers to feet high who told me that her husband got sick. she had been paying her insurance for years and years. he got sick, and of a sudden every insurance claim she filed was denied, and she had to fight it. the pile of paper she had sitting in front of me was the correspondents she had to have with her insurance company over the last year and a half to get paid what she was due for all of the insurance coverage that she had been paying for for years. this is the status quo, and every day more and more americans are facing those kinds of obstacles. we have a responsibility to move forward and to get health care

reform done in the right way. that is what the president challenged us to do last night. we have done a lot of work this year. the committee that i sit on sat through weeks of bipartisan amendment, 161 of them, and got a bill out. the finance committee is moving it forward now and the house is moving forward. it cannot sit back and say the status quo is ok. we have a responsibility. that is what the president calls on us to do. >> you said that the speech was a game changer. [unintelligible] >> we are working on very narrow margins here. pundits have said we have had the most successful legislating in history except for the first six months of the roosevelt

administration. each one of the measures we passed, we had enough republicans to get it done. that is what we are working on health care, and the president understands that. we look forward to a bipartisan bill. we want to continue on the road of bipartisanship that we have traveled so far. there are republicans that are out there willing to help us and i am confident of that. if they are not, we can always go to reconciliation, which we do not want to do, but that is our second choice. he has put out an outline, and frankly, i have not read it. it was to shoot it over the weekend to the six, and members of the finance committee got it earlier this week. it is just an outline. when it comes out next week, i will read every word of it.

i am satisfied with the progress the finance company has made. they have gotten 9% of the work done. -- 90% of the work done. >> [unintelligible] do you think it is appropriate looking toward the future? >> i would agree with everything you have said, except it is not a public policy at all. that is in the eye of the beholder. we have a very firm, strong public option in the health bill. i favor a public option. we have to meld those two together. the ultimate decision will be made on the senate floor. we will have votes on different variations of the public option. [unintelligible] >> i think the public option is

in the eye of the beholder. there different types of public options, and we are going to look at all of them. >> what about your democratic colleagues that have had doubts? >> i have had a number of conversations with moderates, and remember that what we are talking that initially are procedural votes. >> [unintelligible] >> this week is a typical week in the senate. if you have the republicans

doing to the american people what they have done for the first eight months of this session, they are doing everything they can to stall and get as little but as possible. this week, we finished the travel promotion act, an important piece of legislation, but we have wasted dozens of hours on that waiting for the republicans. we had a cloture vote for got 80 votes. they used up the entire 30 hours on it. they are using the full 30 hours oppose cloture on that, just wasting time. we have a lot of work to do that takes time. we have finished four appropriation bills. we have eight to go. the next one is chairman murry's subcommittee on transportation. we should be working on that right now. we should have been able to start on that on wednesday or

maybe even tuesday, because we literally have not gotten it yet we have not had the opportunity because of their stalling tactics to get things done. if you do not file a motion to proceed to that, were cloture is in vogue, we will let you go to that. they are stalling for time. that is what they have done all year, and i hope the american people can see this. they do not want us to get things done. despite that, we have been able to get some things done, but it has been very hard and take a lot more time that it should. we should be finished with all our appropriation bills. we are going to have to have a cr because they have stalled on everything. remember the last congress, 100 filibusters? they may do that again this congress.

>> when do you think bill can be brought to the floor? >> i hope we can get it done before thanksgiving, but senator biden has been more time in the senate that i have. i hope we can be the thanksgiving date. >> we do support a flexible timeline for withdrawing troops from afghanistan? >> the speaker and i met with the president on tuesday. we discussed afghanistan. as far as i am concerned, i think the thing i am going to do, and i recommend to my caucus, let's just take it easy. we have a new commander over there, mcchrystal. he has got his feet on the ground. he has made certain recommendations to the president and to the president only. the president said he spoke to the defense secretary at some length. i am going to recommend to wait

until the president's makes his mind up what he wants to be done. i do not think we need 100 secretaries of state. i think we should wait and give the president an opportunity to see what he recommends. >> you said the public option was in the eye of the beholder. [unintelligible] >> the purpose of a public option is this, to create competition, which is so important, and create quality health care. as you have heard me say, if there were ever an industry that needs competition is the insurance industry, because they are the only business in america except for baseball that does not have -- they are not subject

to the antitrust laws of this country. that is what we are talking about, keeping insurance companies on this. insurance companies can conspire to fix prices, and they are not subject to civil or criminal penalties. if we can come up with a concept of a copper to that does just that, that is -- of a cooperative that does just that, it makes more competition and makes insurance companies honest, yes, i think that would fill the bill. >> the house has completed legislative work for the week. next week, members will consider a new energy department program for research on gas efficient turbines and hybrid vehicles. also legislation changing help private lenders participate in the federal student loan program. like house coverage continues here on c-span when the house gavels monday, with legislative

work starting at 2:00. 1.7 million new emigrants each year, half are followers of islam. sunday, reflections on the revolution in europe rick from christopher caldwell, on c-span q&a. president obama met with a nurses' group at the eisenhower building. afterward she spoke on health care reform. it is about 15 minutes. -- afterwards he spoke on health care reform. >> thank you so much. [applause] it is good to be with all of you. please sit down, everybody. it is just great to be with nurses again, and it is great to

be with becky. i want to knowledge linda and sophie. i also want to acknowledge dr. mary wakefield, our highest ranking nurse [applause] thank you, becky, for your leadership, on behalf of the nurses. i want to just thank you for leading an extraordinary organization, the american nurses association. [applause] i was mentioning the first time we met that when i was in the state legislature, one of my

strongest allies in springfield, ill. it was the nurses association. we have done a lot of work together to make sure that nurses were being treated properly, getting paid properly, getting overtime needed, and getting the time of the needed. -- the time off they needed. i have a wonderful history working side-by-side with all of you to make sure that we have the best healthcare system in the world. as a consequence, i want to say thank-you for all the support you are providing for health insurance reform for the american people. i am so pleased to be joined by all of you. i have said before, and i will say it again. i just love nurses. i do not know what it is. [applause] i love nurses. michelle knows about that. [laughter]

i will never forget how compassionate, how professional, and how dedicated nurses have been to michelle and i when we needed them most. when our daughters were born, one of our best friends was and is and ob/gyn. she presided over the delivery, but the truth of the matter is, we only saw are for 10 minutes. the rest of the time we spent with nurses, who not only ease the nerves of the anxious father, but made sure michelle was doing all right and caring for newborn babies. when our youngest daughter was diagnosed with meningitis when she was just three months old, it was one of the scariest moments of my life. we had to have a spinal tap administered, and she ended up being in a hospital for three or four days, and it was touch and go. we did not know whether she

would be permanently affected by it. it was the nurses who walked us through what was happening and make sure -- s made -- sasha was ok. that continued in tougher times, when my mother passed away from cancer, when my grandmother passed away. each time, nurses were there to provide extraordinary care, but also extraordinary support. so i am thankful for that, and as a father and as a son and grandson, i will forever be in debt to the women and men of your profession. i know that millions of other families feel the same way. you are the bedrock of our medical profession. [applause] you are on the front lines of

health care in small clinics and in large hospitals, in rural towns and big cities all across this country. few people understand as well as to why today's health care system so badly needs reform. [applause] one or the problem is the uninsured. this morning, the census bureau released new data showing that not only the poverty rate increased last year at the highest rate since the early 1990's, but also the number of uninsured rose in 2008. we know from more up-to-date surveys that since the recession intensified last september, the situation has grown worse. over the last 12 months, is estimated that the ranks of the uninsured have swelled by nearly 6 million people. that is 17,000 men and women every single day.

we know that during this period time, the number of adults who get their coverage of the workplace has dropped by 8 million people. i do not have to tell you about all the problems plaguing health care system, and the fact that they do not just affect the uninsured. most americans do have insurance and have never had less security and stability than they do right now. because they are subject to the whims of health insurance companies, many people fear that they will lose their health insurance that they move or if they lose their job, they change jobs, or that insurance just will not cover them when they needed the most, because insurance companies can deny coverage if the person has a pre-existing condition. many people fear they will not be covered when they get sick, because there is no cap on how much a person can pay in and out of pocket expenses each year. many others fear that a single illness will lead them into financial ruin, even if they have insurance.

every day i get letters from people. i just got a letter from a woman who had been changing jobs, had just gone to sign up for new bluecross blueshield policy, but in january, before she had taken her new job, she had felt a lot and been referred b.g.e. she felt a lump and then referred to do a damn gramm -- she felt a lump and had been referred to get a mammogram. she lost her a job and now owes $250,000. you see it everyday. it is heartbreaking, it is wrong, and nobody should be treated that way in the united states of america. [applause] the reason i need nurses so badly is because now is the time

to act, and i will not permit reform to be postponed or imperiled by the usual ideological divergencrsions. we do not need more partisan distractions. if there are real concerns and differences, let's address and resolve them. we have talked this issue to death, year after year, decade after decade, and the time for talk is winding down. the time for bickering has passed. we are not the first generation to take up this cause, but we can and have to be the last. [applause] just in case boats were not soon again last night -- just in case folks were not tune in last night, in case they were watching "so you think you can dance, " that me explain more

briefly than i did last night what health insurance reform will mean for ordinary americans. simply put, it will mean that as folks go about their daily lives, that will not have to worry as much about their health care. it will provide insurance to those who do not have coverage, and slowed the growth of health care costs for families, our businesses, and our government. for the hundreds of millions of americans who have health insurance, nothing in this plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. nothing will change for you if you have insurance. nothing in the plant will require any changes. what this plan will do is make the insurance you have were better for you.

we will put in place strong consumer protections that will make it illegal for insurance companies to deny a person coverage on the basis of a pre- existing condition. [applause] we will make sure that we place a limit on how much folks have to pay for out of pocket expenses. for the tens of millions of americans who are uninsured, we will create a new insurance in the insurance exchange, a marketplace where uninsured americans and small businesses can choose health-insurance at competitive prices from a number of different options. by pooling the uninsured and small businesses together as one big group, we give insurance companies an incentive to participate and give consumers leverage to bargain for better prices and quality coverage. as i have said from the outset, and repeated last i, one way to give people a real choice when it comes to their help coverage and keep insurance companies honest is by making one of the

options available in such a marketplace a not-for-profit public auction. [applause] but let me just repeat, because this is the source of the rumor that we are applauding some government takeover of health care, it would just be one option among many. no one would be forced to choose it, and everybody believes that the vast majority of people will still be getting their insurance through private insurance. , . . the cost of this plan will not

add to our deficit. the middle class will be rewarded with higher security and not higher taxes. if we are able to solve this by just a fraction of a percent, we will reduce the deficit by four trillion dollars over the long term. by the way, when we stop spending money on things that cannot improve it quality, -- that did not improve quality, then we can start spending money on things that to improve quality, which means we can start paying nursing professors at more to train new nurses so that we can actually have the fine quality care that we need. just one example. a random example that i chose. [laughter] now, amid all the noise on radio and tv, with all the falsehoods that are promoted by not just talk show hosts but sometimes politicians, sometimes it can be easy to lose sight of what the

debate over reform is all about. it is about stories like one told by an oncology nurse named theresa brown. a few weeks ago, she wrote a post about a patient nurse who was in his 60's, recent grandfather, steelers fan -- [applause] spent the last three months of his life with mounting medical bills. she wrote, "my patient thought he had planned well for his health care needs. he just never thought that he would wake up one day with a diagnosis of leukemia. but which of us does?" she asked. that is why we need health care reform. i am absolutely confident that if you continue to do your part, nurses, you have a lot of credibility, you touch a lot of people's lives. people trust you. if you are out there saying that it is time for us to act, we

need to make a change, if all of us do our parts, not just here in washington but all across the country, then we will bid farewell to the days when our health-care system was a source of worry to families and a drag on the economy and america will join the ranks of every other advanced nation by providing quality, affordable health insurance to all of its citizens. that is our goal. we will need it this year with your help. thank you very much for your help. god bless you. [applause] thank you. thank you. thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> next, today's white house briefing with press secretary robert gibbs.

topics include the president's speech to congress last night, the ongoing health care debate, and military operations in afghanistan. this is one hour per the -- this is one hour. >> good afternoon. before we get started, let me just run through it will quickly, just for planning purposes, some events that the president will be doing in and around the meeting later this month with the united nations general assembly. we will have more detail on this. i just want to give you a quick sketch. the president will deliver his first address to the u.n. general assembly. secondly, he will attend and deliver remarks at the climate

change summit. that would be good if i have them. i do not at the moment. third, the president will attend the secretary-general's luncheon for heads of state and host the traditional american reception for other heads of state. the president will also host a lunch for heads of states of governments from sub-saharan africa, to discuss building 20th-century partnerships to increase economic and social development. here is one date that i do have. in september 24, the president will share his summit-level meeting of the u.n. security council on the topic of nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament. this is only the fifth time in the history of the u.n. that a head of state level security council has been convened, in the first time ever a u.s. president will chair the u.n. security council summit.

we asked for it, and lastly, the president will host a meeting with countries that contributed the largest amount of troops in that u.n. peacekeeping operations. again, of more detail on this -- again, more detail on this as we get closer. yes, host a meeting with countries that contributed the largest number of troops and the police to u.n. peacekeeping operations. >> will the heads of state be at the reception? >> i do not have a list of who has rsvp'd. >> will president mahmoud ahmadinejad be invited? >> i doubt it. this is an american reception. now back to our regular the scheduled program. yes, ma'am?

because iran has failed up to live up to its international obligations. >> there is no other nation in the un -- >> i think there are others that might miss out on the hors d' eouvres. >> earlier today, speaker policy said she salt middle support for sending more troops. -- speaker nancy pelosi said she saw little support for sending more troops. >> as we have discussed before, obviously the assessment that has been delivered to central command, to the pentagon, to the white house from general crystal is part of their rigorous assessment process that the president wanted to be instituted upon coming to office to reassess our strategy in this very important region of the world. that continues to be discussed

here and at the pentagon. as we have also talked about, the several resource decision reports will be coming in the next few weeks, but have not been received as of yet. the president will make a decision based on what he thinks is in the best interest of the national security of this country. >> what is his time frame for making the decision? when he does make the decision, how will we know? >> the evaluation process is ongoing from the original assessment. we have not yet received a resource report from commanders in afghanistan to begin to consider. so there are several different assessments that will happen prior to that, and this is an ongoing policy. i >> have they been told not to

ask for more troops? >> not yet. >> speaking of iran, yesterday said the administration wanted to see progress with iran in progress -- wanted to see progress with iran on proposals they submitted yesterday. have you seen them? also, iran is saying that the policies did not deal directly with its nuclear activities. is that the case? finally, russia came out awhile ago and said the u.n. security council would nonsupport oil sanctions. does this administration agree? >> i have not seen the russian plans. let me speak more broadly about iran. obviously, this week's discussion at the iaea makes further clear the concern that the international community has and the gravity that we have

about iran's illicit nuclear program iran has failed to address past violations, failed to comply with u.n. security council resolutions, to suspend its nuclear activity. the offer is still being evaluated by p-5, plus one. i would say that iran's proposals have time and again failed to live up to its international obligations. we have discussed at iran obviously has two paths that they can choose. one of those paths leads to increased international isolation if they did not take concrete steps to end their program. as we get closer to the un and g-20, obviously there will be a time of discussion and evaluation as to where we're

going, as we move forward together with the international community. yes, sir? >> the president last night said that the health care reform bills, whatever he signs will be deficit-neutral. the democratic bills that have been introduced in the house and senate so far, according to the congressional budget office, will not do that they will increase the deficit, and they will not drop the cost, the cost curve will go what. does the white house except what the cbo director says about the bills? if so, what pressure is the white house conveying or using on congress, democrats, to improve these elements that the president said was so important to him? >> let's take the separately.

a first and foremost, it is not up to was to judge. we take at face value would never he says about the legislation as we have discussed. the proposal that the president outlined last night is in some ways different than what we -- what has been discussed on capitol hill as far -- thusfar. i think it would be the first to tell you that one way to bend the cost curve is to go after and discuss how to prevent what the president called cadillac health insurance plans. those that tend to make the curve steeper going upwards. one of the things that the cbo has said is that addressing that will put downward pressure on cost, and obviously the

president as part of his plan last night outlined a fee on insurance companies that offer these cadillac plans at a certain rate. i think that, first and foremost, is one of the things the president outlined. secondly, the president outlined a trigger, deficit trigger that would evaluate whether or not savings have been achieved. if savings have not been achieved before moving forward, how that can be achieved before the plan is fully implemented in 2014. i think those are two ways that the president outlined last night to address those concerns. but, jake, you heard him say clearly say that this has to change the direction of

government spending on health care, and it has to not add to the deficit. the president is very serious about keeping his promises. >> how firm is he being with democratic leaders? we have heard that hillary read and nancy pelosi, they say 90% there, -- hillary read and it's a policy say they are 90% there. will it be that significant? are these major steps that are going to change the impact of these bills according to the cbo? >> again, i think the cbo has evaluated and number of cost cutting mechanisms that have been outlined. the one that they think has the greatest ability deals with these cadillac health insurance plans, as the president talked about last night. i think the president believes that will have an impact. yes, ma'am?

>> joe wilson apologize, and how was that conveyed it to the president last night? >> my understanding is that congressmen wilson called the chief of staff last night -- i could check on the time that we got that, about an hour or so after the conclusion of the speech, to express his apology for what he had said. the chief of staff accepted it on behalf of the president. >> was that conveyed to the president this morning? >> last night. to reiterate what the president said in the cabinet room, we can disagree -- we have said this millions of times, we can disagree without being disagreeable. that we can have an honest debate about our views on health care and what we think is best for the american people, but we can do so without what you saw

last night. i think it is obvious that congressman wilson agrees. >> any details on this meeting that the president had with centrist democrats? >> i think if we have not already put out a list of senators, who will be there, i think there are 15 to 17 who will be there. >> what time? >> i think for clock 15 this afternoon. >> what will the president's message be. -- i think that will be at 4: 15 this afternoon. >> what will president's message be? >> i think some of the proposals that he outlined last night, some of which we just talked about that have enjoyed their support. and figuring out how we can continue to move this process forward. we will have a short readout from after the meeting. i think the schedule is probably

30, 45 minutes. yes, ma'am? >> he has satisfied liberal democrats? what is he going to do to keep momentum? >> i think most of you have seen that we will travel on saturday to minnesota to talk, again, this saturday about the importance of health care reform, to keep this going. in terms of -- i think what the president outlined last night is something that can appeal to democrats and republicans and bring people together to solve this problem we have been talking about for so long. i do not want to speak directly for members of congress, but judging from many of the comments i have seen in the reporting today, i think the president did a good job of appealing across the political spectrum in outlining a proposal, the elements of which

he thinks can represent an important step forward in health care reform. yes, sir? >> a. senator said today as far as he is concerned, it's not like the president was reading his plan. he said, "it sounds like we are in sync, deficit neutral, deficit trigger." was the president making a conscious effort to move in the direction of the gang of six? >> obviously, the president fully supports and has lauded efforts of the finance committee to continue to work on getting a plan out of their committee. we have seen him talk about four, five committees of jurisdiction, something that has never happened before. senator baucus announced earlier yesterday that the committee would convene on the 21st note to mark up legislation -- on the

21st to mark up legislation. i think it is an important development, continuing health care reform through the congressional process. look, i think there is plenty of room for agreement. the president has used the figure, 80% agreement. i think a lot of which he reiterated last night. we certainly hope that the finance committee, the gang of six, republicans and democrats, will find enough to like in all these pieces of legislation and in this proposal to move something ford. >> -- to move something forward. >> some of the pundits said the president was making an argument for public options, been making clear that he is open to either the co-op or the trigger. he is basically saying he is moving them the direction of bacchus and company.

at some point you have to face reality. it was that the president's message last night? -- was that the president's message last night? >> without referring to my good friends, the pundits, i would like to work directly with the president said. i think there is no doubt that the president laid down the notion that we have to have options, particularly in private insurance, a small group insurance markets. that, as the president noted, is 75% -- more than half the states are dominated by just five companies in each state. i have used the example many times of alabama being 89% of that insurance market dominated by one company. we have to have that choice and competition, and we have always thrived in this country with choice and competition in what ever.

i think that he reiterated that the public option is not the be all, and all of healthcare reform. that he is open to ways of achieving choice and competition and wants to work with congress to see that happen. i think that is part of the process of bringing people together and getting a solution. >> what you just said it is kind of the death knell for a robust plan. >> i think if you watch with the president says leslie, he is very clear. yes, sir? -- i think if you watch what the president said last night, he is very clear. yes, sir? >> is it fair to say that actions are speaking louder than words, the president meeting today with his democrats come saturday traveling to minneapolis, a state that gave you the 68 u.s. senate seat --

that gave you the 60th u.s. senate seat. >> i don't remember if it was a swing seats -- swing state. >> my point is the president talked a lot about republican ideas, bipartisanship. it should we expect to see a meeting here at the white house with republicans? >> i presume we will have republicans and democrats down here to talk about the proposal. the president did not go to capitol hill just to give lip service to both sides of the aisle. i do not think that you can judge one day's effort, one afternoon's effort one day after the speech. the president is focused on hearing all of those ideas. he reiterated that not once but a second time at the cabinet meeting today, when you all were

there. again, minnesota was a swing state for quite some time in the general election. so i don't know that i would throw minnesota -- >> a lot of times we see president's, when the have initiatives, trying to win votes, they show up in states where they're trying to get some support. i am just saying, should we not read into where you are going? >> no, the state was not picked for represents its in the senate, nor was it who represents it at any level of the government. it is a state that the president has not been too, and it looks toward the going to on saturday. it -- and he looks forward to going to on saturday. i would have to go back and look

at my call list. >> recently? >> i did not have the call list. i have to go back to that. >> following up on afghanistan, does the president believe there should be an exit strategy at some point? >> absolutely. first and foremost, the president has always discussed, particularly since coming office, that there is not a military solution long term and afghanistan. we do not have -- long-term in afghanistan. we do not have the troops or the money to be there in perpetuity. i think the secretary of defense has been clear that we're not there to build some utopian democracy. we have very clear goals and we are working with congress on

those benchmarks, as the speaker mentioned in her press availability today. we're trying to disrupt, dismantle, and destroy al qaeda and its extremist allies. but, no, the president is not in any way envision us being there forever. >> should we expect to see the president say, look, we have an exit strategy, here it is? >> i think the president will continue to talk about the objectives and goals that he has for his policy, and _ -- and underscore that. we do not have the human- resources or military resources. about what is the strategy? >> the president and congress are work on very strict benchmarks to measure our progress, as i just said, in

dismantling, disrupting, and destroying al qaeda. >> how long? >> that is part of the current assessment. obviously, this is an effort, helen, that started in 2001. i think it is fair to say that the president was a credit of lack of attention and focus paid to this effort for quite some time. he asked that the strategy be reassessed during the transition. part of that reassessment was changing commanders on the ground. as part of that change, we now have received general mcchrystal's assessment of his first two months in afghanistan. john? >> pre-afghanistan, is democratic unity the first objective after the speech in

the legislative strategy? are you thinking right now about avoiding reconciliation? >> we have always discussed on any topic the notion that we want, first and foremost, democrats and republicans to work together to solve the problem of the magnitude that health care areas. -- of the problem of the magnitude that health care is. i think every vote in congress is created equal, and the president will be pleased and happy to have each and everyone. again, i think it will be extensive consultation with congress, democrats, republicans, independents, on how to move forward on this legislation. >> can you tell us what other folks like the chief of staff,

what their roles are right now, what they might be doing today? >> all four of those guys spent over an hour and a cabinet meeting or health care was discussed extensively. could somebody check on -- at least have them turn that off? >i have no doubt that it will be reaching out through capitol hill to democrats and republicans. it will be meeting with groups of lawmakers to discuss how we best move forward. >> the vice president was called on at the end of the stimulus process. i was wondering what role you might see the vice-president take? >> obviously, the vice president brings extensive knowledge of a number of members of congress, knowledge that the president

relied on it in the build up in the days ahead of the speech and in the policy discussions that we had here, and he will continue to rely on his knowledge and expertise in moving this legislation forward. vice-president biden, on this topic and many other topics, plays an incredibly important crucial role for the president and our team. >> can you elaborate beyond the one sentence in your written readout on what the president said to prime minister brown about the release of the pan am 103 bomber? >> the president restated to prime minister brown our opposition that was conveyed to the scottish government prior to their decision, and the president related during this conversation the disappointment in the decision that had been made. he thought this was a mistake.

he continues to think this is a mistake. obviously, nearly 200 americans lost their lives in that terrorist tragedy. the president and the administration had communicated clearly to the scottish government that we believe any release would be a mistake and this individual should serve the remainder of their term in scotland. >> is the president satisfied with what brown responded? >> he is satisfied, but he underscores its opposition to in disappointment with the decision. >> did prime minister brown respond differently? >> we have a practice not to read out what other governments have said. i would ask you to speak with the british on that. >> is there any health care event beyond saturday coming up in the early days of next week? >> i have not looked that far

ahead on schedule. >> later this month, in new york, the person is on to speak before the world leaders. will khaddafi be invited to the reception? >> you'll get a list of who is and who was not invited. having not been here for an administration's effort at the u.n. general assembly, we will see. >> of the $900 billion cost over 10 years, could you outline how the white house is getting that? >> i will outline in broad effect. obviously, we have discussed in some detail the waste, fraud, and abuse that is prevalent in medicare through spending health

care dollars more wisely and insurance subsidies to medicare's advantage. obviously, you have some amount of revenue from agreements with the hospital's and with the pharmaceutical industry, some of which will be used in the pharmaceutical industry's example to close the doughnut hole for seniors and strengthen the medicare program as we know it. also, some that will be used for broader health care reform. and then, obviously, the fee that we talked about on insurance companies is a broad part of that as well. >> is there any estimate of how much that feet -- >> i do not have that with me. i think that is one of the things that we will work through and discuss with congress as we

move forward. >> is there an incentive threshold? >> not that i know of perry -- not that i know of. >> how with the medicare malpractice aspects that the president talked about last night work and when will we likely see action? >> as you know, the president directed the secretary of health and human services to begin working on these projects immediately. i will give you a couple of different examples of how some of these things might work, and as these get developed, we will report on them. the president introduced legislation with now-secretary of state clinton in 2005 and the senate -- in the senate that builds on very successful programs that medical systems and hospitals in areas have tried it seeks mediation in ways

of solving some of these disputes. i think the president and his team will look very closely at what congressman mark gordon put in the energy and congress legislation which requires prior to a suit being heard in court, prior to that litigation moving forward, a certificate of merit that is given by a board of medical professionals that certifies the validity of any litigation moving forward to cut down on unnecessary costs and, as the president said, the defensive medicine. >> is that to suggest that part of this could become part of that legislation, or will you handle it through the administrative process? >> i think both.

>> and the president talked about this trigger, hinge mechanisms. is that they must have and the legislation? >> it is one of the president's proposals and i think one of the things that he will insist on being in the reform. i think it shows that this must not add to the deficit, and it is probably an uncomfortable moment for democrats and republicans when the president reminded many in that chamber that we have watched over the past many years, sometimes very popular programs added to the government's tab without being paid for. right? $1.6 trillion for tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. several hundred billion dollars -- i forget the final price tag -- for medicare part d.

wars in iraq and afghanistan that never went through budget process. we have troops in two countries, and you are going through an emergency supplemental process that is not counted on the deficit. those are three broad examples of big chunks that we are now paying for that were not paid for when we start it. the president is determined, as we address the challenges that this country faces, that one of the challenges that we face is paying for what we want to do. i think that is what the president outlined. >> is that only up until 2013 or continued after? >> the president extended that going forward. you had a follow-up? >> since it is so important keep this deficit neutral, one not outline this?

-- why not outline this? >> i just outlined some specific ways. again, we're going to work with congress. it would be hard to estimate the total amount raised by the fee on cadillac insurance plans, the fee on insurance companies without a threshold. that is something we will discuss with democrats and republicans alike to have come to the table at this point in the debate, understanding this proposal can do several things, including cost-cutting. >> is there some sense how it will add up? >> it is a broad range of different things. >> i hope you have some general analysis that you could give me on this. but a union representing u.s. tire makers won a claim against china for a surge of tire imports in the united states. the president has until the 17th of this month to either follow the international trade

recommendation of three years of tariffs against china or do something else or nothing at all. what is his approach? how is this being handled? is he more in favor of sanctions, terrace, or some sort of negotiated mediation? -- is he more in favor of sanctions, or tariffs, or some sort of negotiated mediation? >> it is something that the administration, we cannot have an economic daily briefing with the president today because of scheduling reasons, this has been touched on in a couple of those. it is being worked on with representatives from the department of labor, the department of commerce, the u.s. trade representative, and as we get closer to that deadline, we will have more. >> your response to the view on terrace, is that protectionist, or is that a natural response -- the response on tarriffs? >> we will not get ahead on

that. >> the meeting today about the 2016 games in chicago. international olympic committee makes its decision october 2 and apparently it is very important for a leader to be there. spain, tokyo, and brazil have committed to being there in copenhagen. is the president going to go? >> not that i am aware of, no. but me double check on the president's schedule. obviously, i anticipate having representatives there. >> there had always been a thought, i thought, on -- >> no, pleas3. >> gentlemen yields is time to the gentle lady representing chicago, yes? -- the gentle man yields his

time perr. >> i said that as far as the schedule i had seen, that was not planned. i >> copenhagen -- >> i will, because of those several million note years that have such -- that have since perked up, i will check. >> if it was thought that he might not go if the city's bid was in trouble, that would be useful in the picture. >> look, i think the last set of articles that i read on worthy ioc was on olympic bids had america's bid in chicago at the top of that list. without getting into chicago

politics on that, i think our bid is very well represented and it seems to me progress. reclaiming your time? >> could this be a today thing? >> i will endeavor to call up the schedule when i get back to my office. i guess the million or so ears include quite a few dozen in here. yes, ma'am? >> a couple of statistics questions. i noticed last night the president said more than 30 million american citizens without insurance, and i was struck by that figure. the census figure was 46 million people without insurance. why did the president limit it to 30 million citizens? was it some way to draw a distinction between american citizens and those who are

illegal immigrants? >> obviously, this has been a point of contention. during the speech, as i recall. the legislation, the proposals that the president outlined covers american citizens. i think it was clear for almost everyone that the legislation does not cover -- his plan would not cover illegal immigrants. if you subtract a rough estimate from that 46.3 million, you get a number that is somewhat unknown, but in the 30's that represents american citizens. i would go one step further to point out that last night was not the first time that the president has talked about the fact that illegal immigrants are not covered, would not be covered as part of his plan. he said that most recently in an interview, real interview that

it was done here, and he also said that in the campaign. >> the fact that he is saying that a quarter or more of the people who currently lack insurance will still lack insurance once the plan is passed, is that correct? >> again, i don't -- >> that is presumably driving up health care costs, correct? >> i think president would look at how many american citizens are covered under the proposal, rather than looking at different numbers that cannot include american citizens. >> is it his vision that there could still be at the end of the day as many as 60 million people living in this country without health insurance -- as many as 16 million people living in this country without health insurance? >> again, the president outlined

a plan that does not cover a legal immigrants. the number that the president seeks to cover is to provide universal access to coverage for american citizens. i think you heard the president even discussed last night that there are going to be some american citizens who decide that they do not want or do not need health insurance it will also be living here. it -- who will also be living here. >> how much does this have to do that you are not legislating of negative here, that it wanted triple check that there are no illegal -- but i go along with that fact? -- why not go along with that fact? >> i got how many questions

about how many weeks about what the president has not offered his views on the legislation, right? how come he has not introduced his plan. we did that last night. the president said in his plan, it would not cover illegal immigrants. the president, the legislation that the president will sign will not cover illegal immigrants. >> where they including illegal immigrants? >> i think it was a reference to the larger number. >> but you knew that included a large number of illegal immigrants. is it not logical for people to assume that for a long time that you are including illegal immigrants? >> no more than i would assume the logic of them listening to what he said during the campaign. it >> joe wilson this morning defended his outburst sang that illegal immigrants distilled by money -- sang that illegal immigrants could still buy money. >> i sat appear in caught a lot

of spears for many days about what the president's plan was. it was delivered last night, 10 minutes after 8:00, zip code 20015. the president reiterated that his plan would not cover its legal immigrants. i am not going to get into -- i am not a member -- >> in his plan, would he say that an illegal immigrant cannot take money out of his pocket, go on the federal exchange, and by an insurance policy with his money? >> the policy and the plan would not cover illegal immigrants, period. >> the house bill says that none of the subsidies would go to illegal immigrants. >> right. >> some of the criticisms of it is that people who are illegal, as john points out, are able to buy insurance, as they already do -- >> basically, i think it would

be somewhat of a bad source of events if you are here illegally and you sign up for a gun permit, for example. >> just put the dot on it, there are illegal immigrants that are covered by emergency medicaid, millions. as a result of the 1986 law signed by president reagan. >> the last time congress put out immigration reform. >> the bill would expand medicaid, and that could lead to the expansion of emergency medicaid that would cover possibly -- >> again. >> when you say that illegal immigrants will not be covered, does that mean embassy coverage, the cannot buy and help exchange? >> let me check with the health care guys on how this would affect the 1986 law. but they would not be covered

under the health care exchange and the proposal. >> they would be prohibited from buying it through the exchange? >> to follow-up, this texas to another issue that the president says he wants to address which is immigration reform. i wonder would be his vision when he addresses immigration reform to bring those people who are illegal immigrants into a path toward citizenship and ultimately into a status where they could be insured? >> i do not what would -- i do not know what would be involved or what has been involved in that perry -- in that. >> he keeps saying that you have a range of choices, one of them being a public option, which means if an illegal immigrant wants to get insurance and is not a public option, how could there be documentation or any

way of forbidding them to do it? >> you have taken your confusing question and confused me. i did not have the slightest idea what you are talking about. >> on the fees- >> you are as befuddle as i am? >> simple question, ok? the president has talked about imposing a fee on insurers that offer high and policies, -- that offer high-end policies. why is he backing off of that? >> i think the proposal the president outlined last night is very analogous to what senator baucus has in his plan and what senator kerry has offered, with senator kerrey first devised. >> is analogous, but it does not change the tax code.

>> ask the insurance company whether there fee or whatever you call at, it is the same thing. >> the 9/11 anniversary, we are interested in what you could give us on any preview of the president's remarks. we have also talked about, as the president since taking office made a conscious effort to tone down some of the war on terror rhetoric we have heard over the air from the bush administration, specifically on the 9/11 anniversary sperry -- on the 9/11 anniversary? >> let me outline what the president is going to do. the president will visit with families at the memorial, at the pentagon, speak there. we just announced that vice- president biden and his wife will visit new york and take part in that official ceremony. if i'm not mistaken, that is the first time either president or

vice president, sitting president and vice president has taken part in the official ceremony. the official ceremony. i think that is the case. but certainly, we lost the vice- president go back -- i will check. look, i am not sure exactly what you are trying to get at in your question. i think if you look at how the president observed this last year as a candidate for the presidency with his republican competitor for the same office, there was a conscious effort on both sides, i think quite frankly, to remove the politics of 9/11 and instead remember the sacrifice that so many made, the

tragedy that was involved, and do it in a way that removed political labels from such an important day. i do not know if that answers that part of the question. >> let me ask this way, president bush used to say that america is a nation at war. he did so on 9/11 and other occasions during the year. my impression is that since taking office, president obama is purposely trying to turn down the seat on the rhetoric. >> i think we have cut down on the use of the phrase, but again, our focus is on getting the policy right. i think the president spends a part of each of his day in meetings about, thinking about the men and women that we have in iraq and afghanistan, stationed throughout the world,

to protect our freedom and to address islamic extremism. that takes up part of his day and it is something, sacrifice of which he is thankful for, all of us are thankful for each and every day. regardless of how it is phrased, he is mindful of the effort of some money on our behalf. suzanne? >> are you saying that the president's plan, in contrast with what democratic plans are right now, would expressly prohibit illegal immigrants from buying private insurance on this exchange? >> let me double check. that is my impression, yes. >> we all know that the house bill says no government subsidies. >> i will double check. again, i think the president was pretty clear on not covering

illegal immigrants. yes, ma'am? >> but illegal immigrants, if they were previously injured, would be able to receive the same emergency care that they do now. it is a basic human right, right? >> i do not know whether the legislation envisions changes the 1986 immigration law that went for congress and was signed by then-president reagan. >> have you guys, and i think as follows on charles' question, it is sort of a catch-22, right? there is the political reality of including support of illegal immigrants and cupboards of care bill, then there is the reality of the way we treat people in this country, which is if you are injured and you go to a hospital that you get care. am i think i would go back and point you to the president's interview -- >> i think i would

go back and put it to the president's interview, where he last talked about this. >> is insufficient cost savings if you still treat illegal immigrants to emergency care because it cannot do with the other way? >> certainly, the president believe so. if you are taking some on told no. out of 46 and reducing them -- if you are taking some untold number out of 46 and reducing them, i do not have the latest number handy, but i think it is 10 to 11, -46.3, it is about 35.3. i'm in politics. i am not good at math. i think that is between two- thirds and three-quarters. >> those 10 million out there will not be in the equation? >> i think that the president

believes three series of proposals he has outlined, we can achieve significant cost savings. and the president during the campaign -- >> the president during the campaign talk about his vision. with the outburst was on the house last night, given some of the anger that we saw and the town hall meetings over the summer, is that project still alive? is it feasible to try to ratchet down that tempo? >> quite frankly, i think that is what congress meant wilson did it at around 10:45 last night -- i think that is what congressman wilson did last night. the president said, look, we all make mistakes. sometimes our emotions get the better of us. but i think the president outlined a series of ideas last night, many of which republicans have talked about. we talked about one today, medical malpractice reform. it may not be everything that everybody wants, but i noticed a

number of people on that side of the chamber stand up and applaud. i have seen remarks from republicans throughout the political spectrum discussed the need to get something done this year. we always take them at their word on that. we are working with democrats and republicans to get something done, and i think there is a genuine chance to see reform this year. >> robert, a follow-up, understanding that the republican party and this white house want to see this story go way -- >> what? >> the liar comment story go away. >> i think the story largely goes away because the

congressman admitted a mistake, called the chief of staff to apologize, and the president today accepted publicly that apology. >> that is the point. >> i knew it. >> either way, there is a large segment of this country that is still very upset with the fact that the quorum was breached and other issues, and what is meant either step down, resign, what have you, something to happen to him. with this policy being accepted, that is still not going away. what do you say to some of these americans who still want some type of punishment, even people still asking for a public apology? people want a public apology. >> i do not think that anybody in this building or anybody on capitol hill is here to absolves

what was said. we take congressman will some at his word that he apologizes -- we take congressman wilson at his word that he apologizes for help. he regrets. that was the message that was communicated to the chief of staff last night. the president strongly believes that if we're going to deal with many of the big problems in our country that for years and years have not been settled, partly because we get into these very convenient, washington games were seeking a solution takes a backseat to political points being scored and name calling and what have you. the president is determined to break that cycle. he is determined to seek solutions for and its solutions past for those problems. -- and get solutions passed for

those problems. i think millions of americans would rather see their president and congress, all of their congress, focus on providing that security and stability for those who have insurance and providing a route to accessible and affordable coverage for those who do not, rather than debating the back-and-forth. >> a follow-up on that, there is a bigger issue here, which a lot of people see, which is, one, the decorum of the house and respect of the presidency of the united states, no matter who it is. some have said a fee just let him get away with making a phone call to rahm emanuel, you just encouraging other people to do the same thing. >> if i could talk to the press secretary of the congressmen today, i would not think that he

has gone unpunished. my sense is that phone hook run off the hook. >> does that establish that kind of behavior for other people, no matter who the president is? >> i doubt that anybody wants to do that and then have to stand up and publicly apologize. i do not think that is what people want to do. george? >> two weeks ago, he said the president was willing to go to the moon if necessary to get health care reform. >> i will check on that and copenhagen, as well. it [laughter] it could be on the way. >> house republicans have been waiting since may to try to get a meeting with the president. are they somehow in orbit beyond the moon? why has he not respond it? >> it is tempting to answer that in different ways. no, the president -- i mentioned that the president would meet with many groups and many different leaders, and i believe

that includes senate republicans. he has talked with them. includes house republicans. many of which have constructive ideas and want to see this process move forward. it. . . >> phil will be the ultimate arbiter of whether the health care legislation -- who will be the ultimate arbiter? will it be the omb? will it be the cbo, another

entity? >> i do not know that it has been designated, but obviously cbo is by law charged with letting you and america and more importantly, congress know how much legislation is going to cost. i certainly believe that they are going to enter a verdict in to what they bill costs, and i think that would certainly be a large part of this. i would not say binding, but it goes a big way. thanks, guys. i would it that date and we will get that out to you. -- i will get that date and we will get that out to you.

>> on the house for today, democratic leader steny hoyer was asked by republicans when health care legislation might come to the full house for debate. the conversation is just over 10 minutes. >> we heard the president last night, and we are all coming off from an august recess were watched america wake up and really pay attention to what is going on here in congress and voice their opinion when it comes to health care. having watched that and having my own town hall meetings, watching other town hall meetings throughout the country and some of the questions raised, i listened to the president last night talk about ideas and a public plan, and other gentleman such as yourselves had talked to another town halls. the gentleman from maryland said it does not have to be exactly a public plan in there.

the democratic leadership plan include a government auction for a trigger? i yield to the gentleman. president's comments last night, i agree strongly with the president and the speaker and i think frankly there's no difference in the three of us. we all believe that a president option is an important option. money to give consumers options that they might not otherwise have. and bring prices down for consumers as well as for government. so that there's no difference there on the importance of the public option. i'm for a public option. i don't know if you watched my town meeting. that question was asked and i responded i'm for the public option. what i have said is essentially what the president said last night was there is much in this bill that i think advantages consumers, businesses, individuals and families. and i think the public option

is important but there are other things in the bill which are important. but i expect to bring the bill that we're -- that we're going to bring a bill to the floor. i'm certainly hopeful that has a public option in it. the president has indicated that he thinks that's the best alternative. he did, however, say and i share his view if there are other ways that people think we can do it, provide that competitive model to bring prices down and to make sure that consumers get the best product available, if there are other ways to do it then we're certainly open to hearing them. >> does the gentleman -- mr. mccarthy: does the gentleman believe that health care will come to the floor in the house and senate? mr. hoyer: i think the bill will come to the house when it is ready. we need to have a consensus on how the bill should be fashioned.

we believe on this side that the committees are some 85% in agreement, as you know, the energy and commerce committee, the educational and labor committee, ways and means committee. as you also know, there are differences between those bills. we're working on that at this point in time to see how we can make those compatible. the president's comments last night will obviously be taken into consideration. and so we will bring to the floor a bill that we believe reflects the president's view, our view and hopefully the views in part, at least, some of the members on your side of the aisle. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. reclaiming my time. i notice you refer to the bill and sometimes another bill and you have this bill h.r. 3200 done by one side of the aisle, passed three committees. i know last time when president clinton was in and they took up health care and they produced

the bill in ways and means, it took seven weeks of debate. i know this one was 48 hours and others were a short time period. when you refer to that bill are you referring to 3200 coming before this body, this house? i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman. first of all, let me say i don't know where he gets two weeks. the ways and means committee i know was in discussion -- you may mean formal hearings on the bill, but we had 80 hearings in the committees over the last 24 months on health care and reform. so it was an extensive part of the debate of every candidate for president over the course of 2008 and frankly prior to 2008. this bill has been -- and many of its facets have been considered extensively. many parts of which were in plans presented by presidential candidates on both sides of the aisle, democrat and republican,

and clearly the president of the united states talked extensively about his ideas and where he wanted to go on health reform. and much of what he said and proposed was included in the bills that have been acted upon. and i think reflect his views as well as the views of many people not only in this body with you throughout the country. from that standpoint we believe this has gotten very extensive consideration. i think it's unprecedented we had over 1,000 town meetings on our side. i'm not sure -- i know you had a number of town meetings on your side. i'm not sure the number. but literally i think thousands and thousands of americans had an opportunity to participate and are continuing to participate in discussion of the specifics of this bill. so we think it's gotten very widespread and very thorough consideration. given that consideration, there

are still differences that we're working on. mr. mccarthy: reclaiming my time. just referring back to what i said was, when the clinton administration did health care, on ways and means they debated for seven weeks. when taking the bill up itself. when we did it this time it was 48 hours of presenting the bill, the amendments, being voted out of committee. knowing the call for the american public about transparency and we all heard that during the month of august, would the gentleman allow before any bill comes to the floor, and i guess the bill will be 3200, from what i'm hearing the gentleman say -- mr. hoyer: will the gentleman yield on that issue -- will the gentleman yield because i want to clarify? mr. mccarthy: yes. mr. hoyer: 3200 was a base bill that was put together by the committee, staff as a mark. my expectation is that there

will be a companion that will be put together and will probably have a new number on it. so i don't think 3200, which was a base mark, but you understand this was a bill, as you well know, in three committees. so there may well be a bill fashioned from the product of the three committees. mr. mccarthy: reclaiming my time. it will be a different number but in essence the same bill. will the gentleman allow before that bill is voted on this floor when you come to the conclusion of where that bill ends up, would we be able to have the time to go back to the american public and again all of us have town hall meetings against for the transparency of saying this is the bill that would be voted on in the house, and i yield to the gentleman? mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. there has been unprecedented, i reiterate, i don't think you can remember and i've been here 29 years and i can't remember a bill that was been more widely

vetted than this bill in terms of the american public. maybe the social security proposal from the president some years ago. that was pretty widely vetted but i don't think as widely vetted as this proposal. i say to the gentleman, you go, you vet the bill, you discuss alternatives and you then come back after having listened to those alternatives and fashion a bill. you don't have new committee hearings. whether it's a health care bill or any other bill, you amend it, you perfect it, pursuant to hearings, and then you bring it to the floor. i don't think we'll expect to treat this bill any differently. mr. mccarthy: i thank the gentleman. the only thing i ask knowing that the american public did have this bill vetted but the majority of the american public disagreed with this bill, disagreed with the public option. and having the transparency here that the american public is asking, have the american public so engaged and educated on health care and being such an issue, i think it would be good for this body to go on and

vote again, whatever comes before that bill to come to the house that you enlight the opportunity for members to go home and have a town hall and explain what's in the final version of the bill before that vote takes place. i think the american public would appreciate it and be a great opportunity for both sides. mr. hoyer: if the gentleman would yield, i want to say clearly that the bill that the base bill, the mark bill from which the three committees worked, as you know, was put online before the august break so that it's been online for a very long period of time. now, there will be changes. there will be amendments. there have already been amendments in the three committees. and those have been online. so i think the gentleman's concern is correct. we share it. we want to make sure the public has the opportunity to know what is being done, that we transparently have the specifics for the american public to know what we're doing

and for the members to have that knowledge. and we intend to do that. now, whether or not we're going to have a time frame in which somebody can have a town hall meeting which may take a month to notice and get together, i think you would be shocked if i responded to you that, oh, sure, we'll just wait around until you have your town meetings. so i'm not going to say that, but i do appreciate the gentleman's point which is we want to make sure that the public does in fact have notice. mr. mccarthy: well, i appreciate the gentleman and i appreciate his answers. i did no notice. i didn't do a mailer. get an opportunity where we have an opportunity now that it will be in october, i have 3,000 people. it's 1% of the whole city's population turn out. and very engaged, very knowledgeable of the bill itself. i hope the opportunity comes that knowing maybe there's a different number on this bill but it is still 3200 that the but it is still 3200 that the public would be able to see,

>> i would tell the gentleman that the republics on this side have a lot of ideas on the way we could lower the cost and actually make health care is better for all americans, and i appreciate the time and yelled back. >> this weekend, the role of conspiracy theories in american politics, with katharine olmsted. >> the obama administration has pledged a january 2010 deadline to close the guantanamo bay detainee facility. we hear more about the issue now with the general counsel for the defense department. this event, hosted by the american bar association, is 45 minutes. >> good morning. let me begin, thank you all for

coming. we very much appreciated. -- appreciate it. i am the new chairman on the committee for national security law. i am taking over from our party. allen has become the chair of our advisory committee. as many of you know, we are what the oldest communities in the american bar association. we were founded in the early 1960's. our mission has always been to educate the public about the importance of the rule of law, preserving the freedoms of democracy in our international security. there have been many distinguished shares in his wake i follow, from stuart baker to others. many of them are in the room today. as you know, we have a number

upon series of projects we get over the summer. we are continuing our due process and terrorism series. we also did a series that will be coming out on piracy and one on cyber. these will all be up on our website which i will announce after the discussion. we are here today and is an honor and pleasure for me to introduce j. charles johnson, the general counsel for the department of defense who is joining us today. he is a columbia law school graduate. he has had a history of distinguished public service. he prosecuted public corruption cases in new york. from the 1980's to the early 1990's, he was a federal prosecutor and tried some high- profile cases and has argued a

number of cases on appeal. he joined the law firm of paul weiss and from there went on to do high-stakes commercial cases. he had corporate clients to ranged from armstrong industries, cd group, and smith barney. in 2004 he was elected a fellow in that distinguished american college of trial lawyers. he was appointed be general counsel of the department of airports. he served in that position for 27 months and return to private practice again at paul weiss in early january 2001. while in private practice, he was active in numerous professional activities. he chaired a fiduciary committee of the american bar association, which reads and approves all the state and local judges in new york city. he was a director or trustee of the delphi university, the fun

for modern courts, legal aid society, lawyers committee for civil rights and new york city are fun. he works with the film society of lincoln theater. he is also on the board of governors at the franklin and eleanor roosevelt institute. january 2007, mr. johnson was one of seven nominated by the new york state commission on judicial nominations to be achieved up -- to be chief judge of new york state. it was lucky for us that mr. johnson did not -- he served on president-elect obama's transition team and became general counsel in february. last but not least, he is also a member of our committee -- of our committee for a number of years. it is my great pleasure to introduce mr. johnson. he will speak for about 20 minutes, and then we will have a question and answer period.

[applause] >> thank you for reminding me of all of the committees and affiliations and directorships i have had to resign to take this job in public service. it is a real pleasure for me to be here today. can everybody hear me? it is a real pleasure for me to be here today and to see so many really good friends associated with this committee, associated with my previous life at the pentagon, general norman who was judge advocate general was general counsel of the air force, mary alfred who was my special assistant then, some personal friends here, distinguished members of the judiciary. one person i want to sing aloud

and paste that -- i want to single out and pay special tribute to is bill coleman. the first time i met bill coleman, he will not remember the first time i met him. it was june 1974. i was in philadelphia and was at the wedding of my first cousin. michael, who was a position in philadelphia -- michael was a physician in philadelphia. i was 16 and did not know what i wanted to do. i thought i would probably end up playing left field for the new york mets. michael, in his wisdom, said to me, -- might ogle said i want to take you by a neighbor of mine in philadelphia. --uy uncle. for me, the thought of an

african-american who was in corporate law was about as unfathomable as the fall of serving in this administration for barack obama then. i went by to meet mr. coleman, and my on kohl told me all about him and his practice. -- mike uncle told me all about him. that left a huge impression on me even at age 16. bill coleman has been a trend setter in law. he has been a role model for me. it is probably no coincidence that he was the first african- american lawyer at paul weiss, and i am the first african- american partner at that law firm. so it is good to see mr. coleman here. thank you for being here. [applause]

thank you for the invitation to be with you today. i was a member of this committee for several years and attended many of its conferences. i learn much every time i spend time with this committee. i have encouraged many of my colleagues in the department of defense to become more involved with you. i received this invitation many months ago and spent considerable time thinking about what i would say here today. i consider sharing with you the nuts and bolts of the legal issues surrounding one or two major litigation is pending against the defense department right now, or my insides from my personal involvement. i testified four times before congress in july alone on legislative reform of military commissions, currently pending is the senate version of our defense authorization act. then i realized that there is a much larger, overarching issue we face today, something that in the day-to-day grind of my own

job, i must recall for myself every once in awhile. tomorrow marks the eighth anniversary of the day that, along with december 7 1941, and november 22, 1963, as one of the darkest single days in american history. many of us have vivid, very personal firsthand connections with the tragic events of that day. i suspect some of you in this room or in the pentagon that day and acted heroically to care for the lives of your colleagues. for me, there are certain vivid recollections of the day that i will never shake. i had been back in private law practice in new york for nine months after having served 27 months as the general counsel of the air force in the clinton administration. it was primary day in new york city. the day voters in your were going to vote for the democratic and republican nominees for mayor and other city offices.

i drove from my home to my law office in midtown manhattan. back then, i was driving to work two or three days a week, taking the bus or train the other days. depending on traffic, my commute was almost always one hour 10 minutes. i would leave home around 6:30 before the tunnel got back up, parked at the garage, and be at my office around 7 of 45. many here will remember that the weather that day in the northeast was picture perfect, clear blue sky, temperature in the 70's, no humidity. i remember thinking that that september does not usually bring such great weather. i recall all of this about that morning because the september 11 as much work they. that day i plan to leave work early, separate -- celebrate my birthday the way i always like to spend a, a quiet in the quiet dinner at home with my wife and two kids. my office at paul weiss was on

the 28th floor of 1285 avenue of the americas. my office was on the east side of the building, near the southeast corner. step out of my office, and from the associates office a few feet away was a clear view down sixth avenue and the world trade center. i was an eyewitness to the flames and destruction caused by the first plane. the impact of the second plane that 9:03, the collapse of the first tower and the collapse of the second hour. the images of smoke and destruction against the backdrop of a clear, beautiful sky or burned into my memory. after the pentagon was hit, many of you will recall as a lesson in crisis management the number of false reports about attacks elsewhere that day. i remember seeing the fighter jet over manhattan, and i remember the drive home over the george washington bridge.

all the traffic on that great bridge was 0.1 way, headed out of the city, although traffic was allowed in. the city that they had been attacked, and it did indeed feel like a war zone. politics aside, i recall feeling terrible that i had left federal service, powerless to do anything, that the position of general counsel of the department of the air force was nine months into the new administration, still bacon, and i was not at the pentagon that day with my career colleagues -- still vacant. i wanted to do something. i walk the streets looking for a hospital that would accept blood donations. by december 7, 1941, and november 22, 1963, september 11, 2001 is the single day that changed the direction of our country like no other. one major military operation in afghanistan was launched as a direct result, and a second military operation in iraq, some

will argue, was launched as a direct result of the environment created post 9/11. we face an ill-defined enemy that had penetrated our borders. we knew of anthrax attacks, but we did not know when and where they would end. our leaders warned us that the next terrorist attacks would be even bigger than the attack on 9/11. the psyche of the american public changed. we were afraid, in fear for safety and that our children. it was within the context of this environment that certain national security legal judgments were made which conventional legal wisdom now says were plain wrong. we read now declassified legal opinions and are stunned that senior lawyers of our government would in very detailed and graphic terms approve waterboarding, confinement in cramped spaces, slapping a man in the face, or depriving him of

sleep, all in the name of national security. read these opinions from 2002 and 2005, and what you see is the thinking of an era. suddenly we faced a national security crisis that did not and does not fit neatly within either of law of war or the law enforcement -- i raise all this not to criticize, accused, or score political points. my job is to get it right, for now and for the future. out of the legal judgments that were made in the years that immediately followed 9/11, there are a few that our president has referred to in a very is -- different context, teachable moments. this morning i would like to share with you my own observations in this regard, after only seven months on the job. i am still learning, and i hope to continue to learn.

first, as national security lawyers, we must be cautious about the legal judgments we make during times of fear, uncertainty, or national emergency. as justice o'connor, who in my opinion is the most of -- influential supreme court justice of modern times, wrote, it is during our most challenging and uncertain moment that our nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested, and is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home for the principles for which we buy abroad. one of my personal pledges in this job is to adhere to that principle. as lawyers, it is our job to be steadfast in our application of the role of law, regardless of the political climate and changing times. we must help shape policy to fit the law. we do not shake a lot to fit policy. b.g.e. shape the law to fit policy. one of my closest family friends

is a retired ivy league professor. he is one of the most courteous, dignified, and mild better friends you'll ever meet. in the 1960's he was considered by many to be one of the intellectual engines of the civil rights movement. he was considered by others to be a dangerous radical subversive. our own government wiretapped his home phones and sent informants to sit in on his classes, reflecting the fear and anxiety of that period. we must all be wary that with the knowledge and approval of its lawyers, or government can go too far. second, policy makers, lawyers, judges, and lawmakers cannot claim a zero tolerance for torture but then try to render opinions the car out exceptions for enhanced interrogation techniques. we simply cannot issue a rule or legal opinion that says you can hit a man, but do not hit him too hard, and expect thousands

of personnel in the field to know exactly where that line is. as our commanders in the field know, issued a rule of law or opinion like that, and the exception will quickly eat up to rule. the message to the interrogator in the field as a senior officials of our government are willing to tolerate a lot more. third, we were reminded in the political debates of the last few years that torture, cruel, in human, or degrading treatment of those three capture or contrary to american values. this is more than a legal judgment. it is a judgment about who we think we are as americans. as american as george washington, as the value we place on the dignity and basic human rights of the individual. indeed, in 1776, after the battle of trenton, it was george washington who wrote an order covering the treatment of hessian prisoners and said, treat them with humanity, and let them have no reason to complain of are copying the

brutal example of the british army in their treatment of art and fortunate brethren. this is the history -- this is our history as a nation, and others in the world community look to us to set and live by this example. in december 2005, i attended a meeting of retired generals and admirals gathered to sign a letter in support of the mccain amendment. i recall 185-year-old retired to star general who had seen the worst -- and 85-year-old retired 2-star general. they were all unequivocal in declaring simply, americans do not pour, with no exceptions. this is not about protecting the bad guys. it is about who we say we are as americans. that was the consensus in the room that day. this is why i am pleased that in the area of military commission's report, banning the

admissibility and evidence of statements that are taken as a result of cruel, in human, and degrading treatment, is one of the very first things we did in this new administration. i am also pleased that this was done with the unanimous support of the judge advocate general of the army, navy, air force, and staff judge advocate to the, not of the marines. this potential for the use in evidence of such cid statements was the most controversial item about the military commissions act of 2006. in my opinion, it costs the commission system more in credibility that it could ever benefit us by obtaining a few extra convictions. the ban on cid statements was a change we put forward in may 2009. among the five rules changes to military procedure, and it is a change further codified in the pending senate legislation on military commission's reform. fourth, as i have preached many

times before, a collaborative an open working relationship between our excellent civilian attorneys and our jags produces better quality legal judgments and the bus. the five rule changes i spoke of a moment ago were the joint work product of our jag and civilian lawyers. in july testified before congress and promoted one standard for the admission of a detainee statements on behalf of the obama administration. the judge advocate general of the service testified and proposed another. in early august i put us all together in a conference room in my office. lawyers from dod, the white house, and doj, jag and civilian. at that meeting came an agreement on language that we submitted to congress. if all the lawyers could agree to it, it must be pretty good. fifth, in having said all i have said about the fantastic work we lawyers are doing, we must guard

against over lawyering national security. we are at war with al qaeda. the new president reiterated that and his speech at the national archives on may 21. we must guard against viewing this war is a global law enforcement operation, and we must guard against devising legal guidance that only a lawyer can comprehend. i am pleased to be part of an administration that has made the rule of law a cornerstone of its national security policy, and to have a central role in that policy. president obama is a lawyer, and a smart one. he believes, and i agree, that by promoting our own country as a nation of lawyers, we promote national security, by operating -- occupying the moral high ground in which al qaeda must recruit. senator obama campaign that on this.

on a more immediate level, we must do this to restore our credibility in the courts. the courts are now into the business of national security to an extent no one could have imagined eight years ago. this is not because we invited them there. it is because we drew a sharp line in the sand and dared them not to cross. even judicial appointees of the prior administration are showing an increasing impatience with our claims that there are areas of national security and to which courts cannot intrude. no person is above the law, and no area of government operations is beyond the reach of the law. this morning i have tried to describe to you the principles that guide me in office, but there are no easy answers to the questions that we face. i say that all the time. i would like you to all be patient with us. we are doing our best. thank you for listening. [applause]

with that, i will dare to take a few questions. >> thank you very much for coming. i just wanted to ask the question i have asked all the speakers since taking on this post. i am curious to know what your advice would be to individual attorney seeking careers in international security. what would be the personal characteristics they might bring to the table in terms of supporting commanders are policy leaders? -- or policy leaders? >> my first thought is become involved of leaders in this section of the aba. it is a to reduce organization.

every fall, when i came down to participate -- the lawyers in private practice who participated in this committee's conference -- i remember chuck allen, who is our deputy for international law, participated in several panels. he had just come back from iraq. the work of this committee provides terrific insights. i would say that what would be most important, and we have lawyers in the general council office of dod who have been alongside the operators in the field with special forces who have served in four were deployed areas who have had the experience of advising war

fighters to then come back to the pentagon and work in the un. that is a terrific perspective that not -- not all of us have. we have lawyers like that now in the general counsel office, and i certainly value their experience. i would say what is most important of all is a varied and diverse career. working, for example, in a large law firm in new york or washington as an associate is an excellent training ground for skills and developing skills and tools as a lawyer. i am a huge fan of public- service myself, having been an assistant u.s. attorney and having served twice in washington. so i would say a varied career, but i am a huge fan of involvement in bar association work.

any other questions? >> i wonder when you testified, back into light your view then was that the administration was on track with the deadline. is that still your view of guantanamo being closed? would you share with us what you view as a single biggest challenge that will have to be resolved? >> what i think the said was that in terms of the review process, the detainee by detainee review, we are on track, and i believe that is still the case. as of july when i testified, we had reviewed more than half of the detainees'files. we are well past that. closing guantanamo obviously is

something that this president and this administration is committed to doing. we believe that is something that should be done as a matter of promoting national security, a bipartisan group of distinguished americans, john mccain, a number of generals in the field, a number of senators, republicans and democrats, have called for the closure of guantanamo bay. george of the bush at one point said he would like to close guantanamo bay -- george w. bush. secretary gates believes the same thing. our administration's view is that bureaucracies work best with a deadline. so we set ourselves a deadline. there are many challenges to closing guantanamo bay and transferring detainees, releasing detainees to the parapet places, but we all

remain committed to doing this and we remain committed to doing this on the deadline that the president's set, but there are many challenges. any other questions? yes sir, mr. secretary. >> [unintelligible]

[unintelligible] >> he said all i have to tell you is my name, rank, and serial number. [unintelligible] >> an interesting thought. thank you for that. >> you have made a convincing case that under lawyering in the face of fear can get us into trouble. you have understandably advised us against over lawyering.

what are the factors that policymakers, including lawyers, need to apply in making that judgment as to the correct and appropriate measure of lawyering? particularly when we are faced with so much the else's -- somebody else's fear? >> you have struck upon the essence of my job, and i guess i would start by answering that -- i would start my answer by saying it does not make common sense, and my philosophy is, as lawyers we should help the policymakers build the policy from the ground up. we should not come in at the 11th-hour and say yes or no to

something that has been constructed over the last 12 months. we should be involved in the construction of that policy from day one, so we can help guide the construction of the policy or the rules of engagement or the security agreement or what have you from day one. i always come back to does it make common sense? will it make common sense to work clients that we come out the way we come out? most of the time, i think it does. sometimes it does not, and you have to scratch your head and say, how did the lawyers get to where they get? i have found instances where we were actually able to take a step back, apply some common legal sense to our judgments, and make it work for everybody. when i talk about over lawyering

the process, one of the things i am thinking about is as lawyers, we like to provide guidelines. we like to fill vacuums and codify things. when i find a lot of legal jargon going into the guidance that we give, and we are all very good at legal jargon. that is what we do. we learned in law school, and would like to use it. when i find a lot of legal jargon finding its way into the guidance to the war fighters and commanders, i ask our lawyers to take a step back, and let's try to restate this in common sense language so people can understand, because if you put out guidance that only the jag in the field can interpret, then i am not sure we are doing the war fighters a real service. it is obviously a balance. the other thing that i have in

mind is that because, as i said in my prepared remarks, the current conflict is unconventional in the sense that it sense thattwo nations fighting -- it is not two nations fighting a declared war against each other, you cannot fit everything neatly into one box or another. we work hard to find the appropriate rules and the appropriate rule of law for the situations we face, and we have to be careful not to view everything we do as law enforcement. when i testified in july, i said several times that the central mission of our nation's military is not evidence collection. it is to capture and engage the enemy. we do not want to change the war fighters mission in the

battlefield and for deployed areas on the possibility that there might be a criminal prosecution for violations of the laws of war. that is not their mission. that is what i mean when i say we should not over lawyer the process, so i hope i have answered your question. >> i agree with your point that it is a careful balance, and a fine line between over lawyering and under lawyering. one of the difficulties that the administration basis is that there are different legal principles. you made reference to slapping a prisoner. in u.s. law, the standard is not common sense. you can throw a guy in a truck and he can be wrapped up a little bit, and court is not really care. the fact that we have that

standard shows how difficult it is, and a test would not satisfy the court in that case. in europe, there is a writer line, but they can try people in absentia, in a way that we cannot. how is the defense department dealing with international liaison and counterparts to try to reconcile the different international legal views on some of these issues? >> very carefully. when i was in afghanistan and i would visit jag offices, some of them would be populated by military lawyers from our coalition partners like canada, for example. i would start talking about u.s.

law and how we apply u.s. law in the field, and the canadian lawyers would pipe up and say that is not how they do it. that is not the international standard, either. we would have very interesting discussions about how you apply that in a forward deployed area. it is difficult, and we have international roe that seem to work. they are not perfect, and it is striking a balance. we value the contribution of our coalition partners, so it is not easy. there is no simple answer, but we do our best. >> you were asked earlier about it earlier about guantanamo.

can you address the policy issues surrounding that the pension -- the detention of prisoners, that there are more prisoners there than the ones we read about in the newspapers every day? why is the administration taking the position that there should not be a review? >> we are in the process of building a new facility, which i think will be first rate. i believe that the guards and the force that we have employed there is first-rate. the population is a much more in and out population. there is more turnover in the population. many of them are transferred to the government of afghanistan.

the nature of the population is different, and we -- we engage in very much with the cooperation and participation with the government of afghanistan. i think it is a fundamentally different exercise. there is litigation involving whether the habeas remedy should extend to a certain segment of that population, which is on appeal right now. i regard afghanistan as a fundamentally different place, and it is the case, and the supreme court said this in 2004, that a fundamental part of the mission of the military is to capture and detain the enemy. as long as there are military,

they will be in the business of capturing and detaining the enemy. it is part of what they do. guantanamo has become an international symbol, counterproductive to our national security interests, and we are determined to close it. it is fundamentally different. >> "the wall street journal" reported -- can you comment on the department's position? >> i have not read the story and i cannot comment. i have time for one more question. >> as an outsider, i recall reading that opinions were

developed by -- i am wondering what kind of interagency approaches your taking to cure that problem. i realize it can be time- consuming, but it seems to be an important aspect of how we proceed. >> my answer to that was reflected in my prepared remarks. for example, the five rules changes we came up with in may for military commissions was done very much in collaboration with a broader array of people within the defense department's , in the interagency process. the worker originated within the defense department in march. -- in march, i put together in a big room lots of lawyers who were involved in the prosecution of military commissions, the defense of military commissions,

and we talked about what do we think we can do to reform the system? i fervently believe that the best legal judgments and the best legal a vice come from collaboration with lots of people. you make the healthiest decisions when you collaborate with lots of different people and get lots of points of view. as practical matter, somebody is cut out of the process and a legal judgment is wrong, they are going to let you know their work cut out of the process. more fundamentally, i believe that the best legal judgments are made when you include lots of people in the process. we have a very good relationship with olc. i speak weekly, maybe several times a week, with lawyers in that office to get their advice. they consult us in the department of defense. i think we have a very good working relationship with them

right now. more broadly, in this administration, this administration likes collaboration. they like the participation in the interagency process of lawyers and non lawyers. i am at the white house two to three times a week for meetings and it decisionmaking sessions. anyway, i hope i have answered your question, and thank you all very much. i appreciate it. [applause] >> thank you for your wonderful remarks. i have every cassette of administrative announcements. our next program will be september 21, exposure with the catholic university school of law.

the program will address classified matters and professional challenges to attorneys with the legislative and executive branches. people watching can go to our website to see the particular of it. we also have our annual review, which has been quite a success over the last couple of years. our 90 the annual review will be taking place on november 12 and 13 -- our 19th annual review. we will clued panel discussions. jay has already agreed to participate in that particular panel. we will also have panels on cyber security, piracy, and narcotics trafficking along the border. you can register on our website, or we have forms in the back. i want to help -- to thank those

of the summer who have worked on our projects. finally, we have to thank holy mcmahon, who is the glue of this organization. -- holly mcmahon. we cannot think heard enough. -- thank heard enough. [applause] that concludes the program. thank you all for coming. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]