having among our group if i'm not doing a lot of talking outside and basically don't get in the business of trying to debate the issues outside of our group. and then that's not just -- that's not just an approach i've taken with regard to this particular effort. i'm generally not having as many press conferences as some in the congress and i'm more comfortable with that. i think the public -- i hope that most of the people who vote for me in new mexico are confident that i'm working away trying to get the right thing done and that's where i hope it will come out. >> i wanted to close this, switch gears a little bit. you're still chairman of the energy committee. that's been lost in the last few months with the furor. what can we expect for the rest

of the year? you've got an energy bill that's been passed out of the committee. there's a lot of talk about trying to mitigate climate change. a cap and trade bill that may or may not come up. what's the forecast? do the democrats have the stock stomach for another big fight? >> i don't know what's going to happen on cap and trade. as you point out, the committee that i chair, the energy and natural resources committee, has reported a bill that deals with the energy issues more directly, doesn't try to do a cap and trade. that is in the jurisdiction of the environment committee primarily and to some extent in the finance committee. but i hope we can get the bill that we reported out of our committee up and considered by the full senate. i hope we can also do something on the issue of cap and trade. but that's still in the work in progress category. >> maybe a next year type of thing? >> i don't know how quickly

it's going to be. my impression is that at the end of this month the environment committee is going to release a proposal and then try to mark manage up in october. >> finally back to health care. senator, illegal immigrants. you have a border state, large illegal immigrant population. how does the senate deal with illegal immigrants with health care legislation? >> well, frankly we have about 4% of our population in new mexico that are determined or estimated to be undocumented right now. they don't have access to health care except to the extent that they show up in an emergency situation and ask for health care. and that would continue to be the case. they would not have access to health care. to the extent that we set up the state exchanges that the president's talked about and that all of us have talked about, and provide some type of a tax benefit to people so that

they can purchase health care through those exchanges, those tax benefits would not be available to undocumented immigrants. i think that's as clear as you can make it in the legislation as far as i'm concerned it's both in the health committee legislation and in the legislation that we're likely to report in the finance committee. >> senator jeff bingaman, member of the gang of six. thank you. and we'll be right back with our reporters. we are back with michael coleman of the albuquerque journal and jeff young of the hill newspaper. michael when we were talking with senator bingaman, you mentioned that you had been attending town hall meetings in new mexico. what was the senator's reception? >> it was really a mixed reception. senator bingaman doesn't generally do town halls and i think he was pressured to do them. he said he wasn't going to do them. then people clamrd.

passions were running pretty high. new mexico is a swing state. we're pretty closely divided. you've got a lot of people upset about things he was doing and then you've got a lot more liberal people who were happy about the reform. when he came out in august and said he was maybe ready to abandon the public option, the liberals nearly hit the roof. >> did you learn anything from the senator and their deliberations today? >> i think the most interesting thing from the way he talked about what the issues are, what needs to be done and the indications that there are some things that he believes in that he is willing to compromise on a bit, what makes all of that interesting to me is how closely it tracks with the way the president talks about this issue. and the way the congressional leadership has. and it's been an evolution there. there's been a lot of focus on the public option and i agree with the president on one thing definitely which the it is only one part of the reform package but it's gotten most of the

attention because it triggers feelings in people about what is the appropriate role of the government. so it's interesting to hear him articulate his view on why that's important but why it's not the be all and end all of health care reform in the way the president did in his speech the other night and in a way we heard senator reid on thursday, and you mentioned this, talking about how maybe these co-ops could do the same thing the public option is supposed to do in terms of giving people an alternative to prive health insurance. the president mentioned that in his speech as well too. this public option issue has taken a long journey with democrat's and there are many of them, particularly in the house, who feel very, very strongly that it has to be in the bill. senator bingaman is i think one of a relatively small number of a democratic members of congress who have been open in saying i support this but i'm not willing to hold up the entire process for it. and i think that we heard him say that again today. i think it's significant.

>> the house has already passed or the house committees have already passed legislation. the health committee has passed. president obama has spoken. is the gang of six still relevant? they might craft legislation or come up with an agreement that the rank and file members don't agree with. >> i think there's been so much attention paid and pressure put on them and the spotlight, they've got to come up with something to at least present. and if it is something that the two republicans who have been walking away from it could ultimately support, i think that would give them momentum. but it's yet to be seen. >> if they come out with a bipartisan bill that vindicates senator baucus' support in this for staying in this for so long, when so many democrats were getting frustrated, feeling they were moving too far to the right to accommodate the three republicans they're negotiating with. that would be huge. because if they can say we have a bipartisan bill it would be

very difficult for the white house or the senate democratic leadership to say we don't care, we're muing ahead on our own anyway. and i think that would flow through the rank and file at least the way senator baucus puts it, for instance, ultimately how many democrats are going to be voting against a major health care reform bill on the floor despite what it may or may not be in it. even if they fail to get those republicans, i think eist probably important from the democrats point of view that they can say look how hard we tried. we tried to give them everything. we may compromise on things that matter. we spend months and months. at the end they walked away. they don't really want to do health care reform. and i think that that talking point could be helpful to them in trying to win the public over because they can say, hey, look, we didn't force this through. we tried really, really hard to get republicans and they weren't interested. >> senator reid has vowed or has made a goal of passing a bill by thanks giving. but the real test comes down into the house and budget

conference committee meeting and crafting something to send to the president. >> right. and they've also got appropriations bills to start doing this fall. i think if they don't get it done by the end of the year it looks like a big failure. they've got to -- they feel they've got to get something done. and we'll wait and see what happens. >> at the end of the process, i mean, it would be unbelievable to me if they didn't pass something and then call it health care reform. i mean, even if it's a small bill. if the president doesn't have something that has the word health care on the top of the page that he can sign at the bottom, it's shades of 1993 all over again and it would be very, very bad for them. i think ultimately that's what the leadership is counting on is that at the end of the day, even if there are people on the left or middle of the democratic party who are not happy with parts of that bill, the argument that the white house has been making privately to people is that it's bad for all of us if we don't pass

something. so find a way to like this. >> and we'll have to see if nancy pelosi and house leadership is going to be as intract yable as they've been. >> the gang of six meets again tomorrow. so stay tuned. thanks for being on "newsmakers." >> my pleasure. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> next, president obama's speech laying out his health care priorities to a joint session of congress. this is 55 minutes. madam speaker, the president of the united states. [applause]

thank you. thank you. thank you.

[applause] >> members of congress, tiff high privilege and distinct honor to present to you the president of the united states. [cheers and applause] >> thank you. thank you. thank you so much. >> thank you. thank you very much. thank you very much. thank you. thank you very much.

madam speaker, vice-president biden, members of congress, and the american people, when i spoke here last winter, this nation was facing the worst economic crisis since the great depression. we were losing an average of 700,000 jobs per month. credit was frozen, and our financial system was on the verge of collapse. as any american who was still looking for work or a way to pay their bills would tell you, we are by no means out of the woods. a full and vibrant recovery is so many months away. i will not let up until those americans who seek jobs can find them. [applause]

beeuntil those businesses that k capital and credit can thrive, until all responsible homeowners can stay in their homes, that is our ultimate goal. thanks to the bold and decisive action we have taken since january, i can stand here with confidence and say we have pulled this economy back from the brink. [applause] now, i want to thank the

members of this body for your efforts and your support in these last several months and especially those who have taken the difficult votes that have put us on the path to recovery. i also want to thank the american people for their patience and resolve during this trying time for our nation. but we did not come here just to clean up crises. we came here to build a future. so tonight i return to speak to all of you about an issue that is central to that future. and that is the issue of health care. i am not the first president to take up this cause but i am determined to be the last.

the president: it has now been nearly a century since theodore roosevelt first called for health care reform. and ever since, nearly every president and congress, whether democrat or republican, has attempted to meet this challenge in some way. a bill for comprehensive health reform was first introduced by john dingeller is in 1943, 65 years later his son continues to introduce this same bill at the beginning of each session. our collective failure to meet this challenge year after year, decade after decade, has led us to the breaking point.

everyone understands the extraordinary hardships that are placed on the uninsured who live every day just one accident or illness away from bankruptcy. these are not primarily people on welfare, these are middle class americans, some can't get insurance on the job, others are self-employed and can't afford it since buying insurance on your own costs you three times as much as the coverage you get are your employer -- get from your employer. many other americans who are willing and able to pay are still denied insurance due to previous illnesses or conditions that insurance companies decide are too risky or too expense to have cover. we are the only democracy, the only advanced democracy on earth, the only wealthy nation that allows such hardship for millions of its people. there are now more than 30 million american citizens who cannot get coverage and just a two-year period, one in every

three americans goes without health care coverage at some point. and every day 14,000 americans lose their coverage. in other words, it can happen to anyone. the problem that plagues the health care system is not just a problem for the uninsured. those who do have insurance have never had less security and stability than they do today. more and more americans worry that if you move, lose your job or change your job you'll lose your health insurance, too. more and more americans pay their premiums only to discover that their insurance company has dropped their coverage when they get sick. or won't pay the full cost of care. it happens every day. one man from illinois lost his coverage in the middle of chemotherapy because his insurer found that he hadn't reported gal stones that he didn't even know about. they delayed his treatment and he died because of it. another woman from texas was

about to get a double mastectomy when her insurance company canceled her policy because she forget to declare a case of acne. by the time she had her insurance re-instated, her breast cancer had more than doubled in size. that is heartbreaking, it is wrong and no one should be treated that way in the united states of america. then there's the problem of the rising cost. we spend 1 1/2 times more per person on health care than any other country but we aren't any healthier for it. this is one of the reasons that insurance premiums have gone up

three times faster than wages. it's why so many employers, especially small businesses, are forcing their employees to pay more for insurance or are dropping their coverage entirely. it's why so many aspiring entrepreneurs cannot afford to open a business in the first place and why american businesses that compete internationally, like our automakers, are at a huge disadvantage. and it's why those of us with health insurance are also paying a hidden and growing tax for those without it. about $1,000 per year that pays for somebody else's emergency room and charitable care. finally, our health care system is placing an unsustainable burden on taxpayers. when health care costs grow at the rate they have, it puts greater pressure on programs like medicare and medicaid. if we do nothing to slow these skyrocketing costs, we will eventually be spending more on medicare and medicaid than

every other government program combined. put simply, our health care problem is our deficit problem. nothing else even comes close. nothing else. now, these are the facts. nobody disputes them. we know we must reform this system. the question is how? there are those on the left who believe that the only way to fix the system is through a single-payer system like canada's where we would severely restrict the private insurance market and have the government provide coverage for everybody. on the right there are those who argue that we should end employer-based systems and leave individuals to buy health insurance on their own.

i've said, i have to say that there are arguments to be made for both these approaches. but either one would represent a radical shift that would disrupt the health care most people currently have. since health care represents 1/6 of our economy, i believe it makes more sense to build on what works and fix what doesn't. rather than try to build an entirely new system from scratch. and that is precisely what those of new congress have tried to do over the past several months. during that time we've seen washington as its best and at its worst. we've seen many in this chamber work tirelessly for the better part of this year to offer

thoughtful ideas about how to achieve reform. of the five committees asked to develop bills, four have completed their work and the senate finance committee announced today that it will move forward next week. that has never happened before. our overall efforts have been supported by an unprecedented coalition of doctors and nurses, hospitals, seniors' groups an even drug companies, many of whom opposed reform in the past. and there is agreement in this chamber on about 80% of what needs to be done. putting us closer to the goal of reform than we have ever been. but what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many americans have toward their own government. instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tackics. some have dug into unyielding

ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points even if it robs the country of our opportunities to solve a long-term challenge and out of this blizzard of charges and countercharges, confusion has ranked. well, the time for bickering is over. the time for games has passed. now is the season for action, now is when we must bring the best ideas of both parties together. and show the american people that we can still do what we were sent here to do. now is the time to deliver on health care. now is the time to deliver on health care. the plan i'm announcing tonight would meet three basic goals. it will provide more security and stability to those who have health insurance. it will provide insurance for

those who don't. and it will slow the growth of health care costs for our families, our businesses and our government. it's a plan that asks everyone to take responsibility for meeting this challenge. not just government, not just insurance companies, but everybody. including employers and individuals. and it's a plan that incorporates ideas from senators and congressmen, from democrats and republicans and, yes, from some of my opponents in both the primary and general election. here are the details that every american needs to know about this plan. first, if you are among the hundreds of millions of americans who already have health insurance through your job, or medicare, or medicaid, or the v.a., nothing in this

plan will require you or your employer to change the coverage or the doctor you have. let me repeat this. nothing in our plan requires you to change what you have. what this plan will do is make the insurance you have work better for you. under this plan, it will be against the law for insurance companies to deny you coverage because of a pre-existing condition. as soon as i sign this bill, it will be against the law for insurance companies to drop

your coverage when you get sick or water it down when you need it the most. they will no longer be able to place some arbitrary cap on the amount of coverage you can receive in a given year or in a lifetime. we will place a limit on how much you can be charged for out of pocket expenses, because in the united states of america no one should go broke because they get sick. insurance companies will be required to cover with no extra charge routine checkups and preventive care like mammograms

and colonoscopies. because there's no reason we shouldn't be catching diseases like breast cancer and colon cancer before they get worse. that makes sense, it saves that makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives. that's what americans who have health insurance can expect from this plan. more security and more stability. now, if you're one of the tens of millions of americans who don't currentry have health insurance, the second part of this plan will finally offer you quality, affordable choices. if you -- if you lose your job or you change your job, you'll be able to get coverage. if you strike out on your own and start a small business, you'll be able to get coverage. we'll do this by creating a new insurance exchange, a marketplace where individuals and small businesses will be able to shop for health

insurance at competitive prices. insurance companies will have an incentive to participate in this exchange because it lits them compete for millions of new customers asms one big group, these customers will have greater leverage to bargain for better prices and better coverages. this is how large companies and government employees get affordable insurance. it's how everyone in this congress gets afordable insurance. it's time to give every american the same opportunity we give ourselves. for those individuals and small businesses who still can't afford the lower priced insurance available in the exchange, we'll provide tax credits the size of which will be based on your need. all insurance companies that want access to this new

marketplace will have to abide by the consumer protections i already mentioned. this exchange will take effect in four year, which will give us time to do it right. in the meantime, for those americans who can't get insurance today because they have pre-existing medical condition, we'll immediately offer low-cost coverage that will protect you against financial ruin if you become ill. it was a good idea when senator mccain proposed it during the campaign, it's a good idea now. now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those, especially the young and healthy, who still want to take the risk and go without

coverage. there may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers, by giving them coverage. the problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. if there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. if some businesses don't provide workers' health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workest get sick and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek, especially requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions, just can't be achieved. that's why under my plan, individuals will be required to carry basic health insurance, just as most states require you to carry auto insurance.

likewise, businesses will be required to either offer their workers health care, or chip in to help cover the costs of their workers. there will be a hardship waiver for those individuals who still can't afford coverage and 95% of all small businesses, because of their size and narrow profit margin, would be exempt from these requirements. but we can't have large businesses and individuals who can afford coverage game the system. by avoiding responsibility to themselveses or their employees. improving our health care system only works if everybody does their part. while there remains some significant details to be ironed out, i believe a broad consensus exists for the aspects of the plan i just outlined. consumer protections for those with insurance.

an exchange that allows individuals and small businesses to purchase affordable coverage, and a requirement that people who can afford insurance get insurance. i have no doubt that these reforms would greatly benefit americans from all walks of life as well as the economy as a whole. still, given all the misinformation that's been spread over the past few months, i realize that many americans have grown nervous about reform. so tonight i want to address some of the key controversies that are still out there. some of people's concerns have grown out of bogus claims spread by those whose only agenda is to kill reform at any cost. the best example is the claim, made not just by radio and cable talk show hosts but by prominent politicians that we plan to set up panels of bureaucrats with the power to kill off senior citizens.

such a charge would be laughable, fit weren't so cynical and irresponsible. it is a lie, plain and samplee. -- plain and simple. now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. this, too, is false. the reforms -- the reforms i'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally. it's not true. and one more. -- one more misunderstanding i want to clear up.

under our plan no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions and federal conscience laws will remain in place. now -- now my health care proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a government takeover of the entire system. as proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly sponsored insurance option. administered by the government just like medicaid or medicare. so let me set the record straight here. my guiding principle is, and always has been that consumers do better when there's choice and competition. that's how the market works.

unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. in alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. without competition, the price of insurance goes up and quality goes down. it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly, by cherry picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest, by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage and by jacking up rates. insurance executives don't do this because they're bad people. they do it because it's profitable. as one former insurance executive testified before congress, insurance companies

are not only encouraged to find reasons to drop the seriously ill, they are rewarded for it. all of this is in service of meeting what this former executive called wall street's relentless profit expectations. now, i have no interest in putting insurance companies out of business. they provide a legitimate service and employ a lot of our friends and neighbors. i just want to hold them accountable. the insurance reforms i've already mentioned would do just that. an additional step we can take to keep insurance companies honest is by making a not for profit public option available

in the insurance exchange. now let me be clear. let me be clear. it would only be an option for those who don't have insurance. no one one force -- would be forced to change it. it would not affect those of you who already have insurance. based on congressional budget office estimates, we believe that less than 5% of americans would sign up. despite all this, the insurance companies and their allies don't like this idea. they argue these private companies can't fairly compete with the government. and they'd be right. if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. but they won't be. i've insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it

collects. but by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at a private company by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers. it would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies afordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and university prossvide additional choice and competition to their students without inhibiting the vibrant system of private colleges and universities. now, it's worth noting that a strong majority of americans still favor a public insurance option of the sort i proposed tonight. but, its impact shouldn't be exaggerated by the left or the right or the media. it is only one part of my plan.

and shouldn't be used as a handy excuse for the usual washington ideological battles. to my progressive friends i would remind you, for decades, the driving idea behind reform has been to end insurance company abuses and make coverage available for those without it. the public option -- the public option is only a means to that end. we should remain open to other ideas that accomplish our ultimate goal. and to my republican friends, i say that rather than making wild claims about a government takeover of health care, we should work together to address any legitimate concerns you may have. now -- for example, some have

suggested the public option go into effect only in those markets where insurance companies are not providing affordable policies. others have proposed a co-op or another nonprofit entity to administer the plan. these are all constructive ideas worth exploring. but i will not back down on the basic principle that if americans can't find affordable coverage, we will provide you with a choice. 8:45. >> and i will make sure that no government bureaucrat or insurance company bureaucrat it's between you and the character that you need. -- gets between you and the care that you need.

finally, let me discuss an issue that is a great concern to me, the members of this chamber, and to the public. that is how we pay for this plan. here is what you need to know. first, i will not sign a plan that adds one dime toward deficits, either now or in the future. [applause] i will not side it -- sign it it adds one done to the deficit now or in the future. to prove i am serious, there will be a provision and a plan that requires us to come forward with more spending cuts if the savings we promise to not materialize.

now, part of the reason i faced a $1 trillion deficit when i walked in the door of the white house is because too many initiatives over the last decade were not paid for. from the iraq war to tax breaks for the wealthy. i will not make that same mistake with health care. second, we've estimated that most of this plan can be paid for by finding savings within the existing health care system. a system that is currently full of waste and abuse. right now too much of the hard-earned savings and tax dollars we spend on health care don't make us any healthier. that's not my judgment, that's the judgment of medical professionals across this country.

and this is also true when it comes to medicare and medicaid. in fact, i want to speak directly to seniors for a moment. because medicare is another issue that's been subjected to demagoguery and distortion during the course of this debate. more than four decades ago this nation stood up for the principle that after a lifetime of hard work, our seniors should not be left to struggle with a pile of medical bills in their later years. that's how medicare was born. and it remains a sacred trust that must be passed down from one generation to the next. and that -- that is why not a dollar of the medicare trust fund will be used to pay for this plan. the only -- the only thing this plan would eliminate is the hundreds of billions of dollars in waste and fraud as well as

unwarranted subsidies in medicare that go to insurance companies, subsidies that do everything to pad their profits but don't improve the care of seniors. and we will also create an independent commission of doctors and medical experts charged with identifying more waste in the years ahead. now, these steps will ensure that you, american seniors, get the benefits you've been promised. it will ensure that medicare is there for future generations. and we can use some of the savings to fill the gap in coverage that forces too many seniors to pay thousands of dollars a year out of their own pockets for prescription drugs.

that's what this plan will do for you. so don't pay atext to those scary stories about how your benefits will be cut. especially since some of the same folks who are spreading these tall tales have fought against medicare in the past. and just this year supported a budget that would essentially have turned medicare into a privatized voucher program. that will not happen on my watch. i will protect medicare. now, because medicare is such a big part of the health care system, making the program more efficient can help usher in changes in the way we deliver health care that can reduce costs for everybody. we have long known that some places like the intermountain

health care in utah or the health system this in rural pennsylvania offer high quality care at costs below average. so the commission can help encourage the adoption of these commonsense best practices by doctors and medical professionals throughout the system. everything from reducing hospital infection rates to encouraging better coordination between teams of doctors. reducing the waste and inefficiency in medicare and medicaid will pay for most of this plan. much of the rest would be paid for with revenues from the very same drug and insurance companies that stand to benefit from tens of millions of new customers. this reform will charge insurance companies a fee for their most expensive policies which will encourage them to provide greater value for the money. an idea which has the support of democratic and republican experts. and according to these same experts, this modest change

could help hold down the cost of health care for all of us in the long run. finally, many in this chamber, particularly on the republican side of the aisle, have long insisted that reforming our medical malpractice laws can help bring down the costs of health care. there you go. there you go. i don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet. but i've talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs. so i'm proposing that we move

forward on a range of ideas about how to put patient safety first and let doctors focus on practicing medicine. i know that the bush administration considered authorizing demonstration projects in individual states to test these ideas. i think it's a good idea and i'm directing my secretary of health and human services to move forward on this initiative today. now, add it all up and the plan i'm proposing will cost around $900 billion over 10 years. less than we have spent on the iraq and afghanistan wars and less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few americans that congress passed in the beginning of the previous administration.

now, most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent but spent badly in the existing health care system. the plan will not add to our deficit, the middle class will realize greater security, not higher taxes, and if we are able to slow the growth of health care costs by just 1/10 of 1% each year, it will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long-term. now this is the plan i'm proposing. it's a plan that incorporates ideas from many of the people in this room tonight. democrats and republicans. and i will continue to seek common ground in the weeks ahead. if you come to me with a serious set of proposals, i will be there to listen. my door is always open.

but know this, i will not waste time with those who have made the calculation that it's better politics to kill this plan than to improve it. i won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. if you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out. and i will not accept the status quo as a solution. not this time. not now. everyone in this room knows what will happen if we do nothing. our deficit will grow, more

families will go bankrupt, more businesses will close. more americans will lose their coverage when they are sick and needed it the most and more will die as a result. we know these things to be true. that is why we cannot fail, because there are too many americans counting on us to succeed. the ones who suffer silently and the ones who share their stories with us at town halls and emails and letters. i received one of those letters a few days ago. it was from our beloved friend and colleague, ted kennedy. he had written it back in may shortly after he was told that his illness was terminal. he asked that it be delivered upon his death. in it he spoke about what a

happy time his last months were, thanks to the love and support of family and friends, his wife vickie, his amazing children, who are all here tonight. and he expressed confidence that this would be the year that health care reform, that great unfinished business of our society, he called it, would finally pass. he repeated the truth that health care is decisive for our future prosperity but he also reminded me that it concerns more than material things. what we face, he wrote, is above all a moral issue. at stake are not just the details of policy but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country. i've thought about that phrase quite a bit in recent days. the character of our country. one of the unique and wonderful

things about america has always been our self-reliance, our ruggle individualism, our fierce defense of freedom and our healthy skepticism of government. and figuring out the appropriate size and role of government has always been a source of rigorous and, yes, sometimes angry debate. that's our history. for some of ted kennedy's critics, his brand of liberalism represented an affront to american liberty. in their minds, his passion for universal health care was nothing more than a passion for big government. but those of us who knew teddy and worked with him here, people of both parties, know that what drove him was something more. his friend or enhatch, he knows that -- oren hatch. he knows that. they worked together to provide children with health insurance. his friend john mccain knows that.

they worked together on a patient's bill of rights. his friend grassley knows that. they worked together to provide health care to children with disabilities. on issues like these, ted kennedy's passion was born not of some rigid ideology but of his own experience. it was the experience of having two children stricken with cancer. he never forget the sheer terror and helplessness that any parent feels when a child is badly sick and he was able to imagine what it must be like for those without insurance, what it would be like to have to say to a wife or a child or an aging parent, there is something that could make you better, but i just can't afford it. that large heart of his, that concern and regard for the polite of others is not a -- plight of others is not a partisan feeling. it's not a republican or a democratic feeling, it, too, is

part of the american character. our ability to stand in other people's shoes, a recognition that we are all in this together, that when fortune turns against one of us, others are there to lends a helping hand. -- to lend a helping hand. a belief that in this country hard work and responsibility should be rewarded by some measure of security and fair play and an acknowledgment that sometimes government has to step in to help deliver on that promise. this has always been the history of our progress. in 1935, when over half or our seniors couldn't support themselves and million hassd seen their savings wiped away, there were those who argued in 1965 when some argue that medicare represented a government takeover of health care, members of congress,

democrats and republicans did not back down. they join together so that all of us could enter or golden years with seven basic peace of mind. our predecessors understood that government could not and should not solve every problem. they understood that there are instances when the games and security from government action are not worth the added constraints on our freedom, but they also understood that the danger of too much government is matched by the perils of too little. but that the leavening hand of a wise policy, markets can crash, the vulnerable could be exploited. they knew that when any government is subject to score and, when any efforts to help people in need are taxing on

americans, and we can no longer engage in is an " -- civil conversation with each other over things that truly matter, that at that point we do not merely lose our capacity to solve patrologist, we lose something essential about ourselves. that was true then, it remains true today. i understand how difficult this health care debate has been. i know that many in this country are deeply skeptical that government is looking out for them. i understand that the politically safe move would be to kick the can further down the road. to defer reform one more year. or one more election. or one more term. but that is not what this moment calls for. that's not what we came here to do. we did not come to fear the future. we came here to shape it. i still believe we can act,

even when it's hard. i still believe, i still believe that we can act when it's hard. i still believe we can replace act ro -- acrimony with civility and gridlock with progress. i still believe we can do great things and that here and now, we will meet history's test because that's who we are. that is our calling. that is our character. thank you. god bless you. may god bless the united states of america. thank you. thank you. x

>> shortly after president obama's remarks, at charles boustany delivered the republican response to the republican speech to congress. he focused on government run health care and the potential impact on taxes and national debt.

district from the region is about to give a response. i am a heart surgeon with more than 20 i am a heart surgeon with more to lower health costs. republicans are pleased that president obama came to the capital tonight. we agree that much needs to be done to lower the cost of health care for all americans. republicans already and we have been ready to work with the president for reforms that our nation can afford. afford is an important word. our country is facing many challenges. the cost of health care is rising, spending is soaring, we are putting huge debt on our children. families are struggling with more than 2.4 private sector jobs lost -- 2.4 million private

sector jobs lost. the people want their elected leaders to get health care reform right. many americans wanted president obama to tell congress is time to start over on a common sense, bipartisan plan focused on lowering the cost of health care while improving quality. that is what i have heard in talking to thousands of my constituents. replacing your family's current health care with government-run health care is not the answer. it will make health care much more expensive. that is not just my personal diagnosis as a doctor or a republican. it is the conclusion of the nonpartisan congressional budget office, the scorekeeper that determines the cost of major bills. i read the bill that democrats passed in july. it creates 53 new government bureaucracies, adds hundreds of billions to our national debt,

and raises taxes on job creators by $600 billion. and a cut medicare by $500 billion while doing virtually nothing to make the program better for our seniors. the president had a chance tonight to take the government- run health care off the table. he did not do it. we can do better with a targeted approach that tackles the biggest problems. here are four important areas where we can agree right now. one, all individuals should have access to coverage regardless of pre-existing conditions. two, individuals, small businesses, and other groups should be able to join together to get health insurance at lower prices, the same way in labor unions do. 3, which can provide assistance to those who still cannot access a doctor. after you are, insurers should be able to offer incentives for

wellness care and prevention. that is something that is particularly important to me. i operated on too many people who could have avoided surgery if they simply made healthier choices later in life we do have ideas that the president has not agreed with. we hope the president is serious about liability reform. we need to establish tough standards, in courage a speedy resolution of claims, and deter lawsuits that drive up the cost of care. real reform must do this. let's also talk about letting families and businesses buy insurance across state lines. i and many other republicans believe that that will provide real choice and competition to lower the cost of health insurance. the president disagrees. you can read more about all these reforms at health care

.gop.gov. these are common sense reforms that we can achieve right now without destroying jobs, exploding the deficit, rationing care, or taking away the freedoms that american families cherish. this congress can pass meaningful reform soon to reduce the fear that families are feeling in these very difficult times. working together in a bipartisan way, we can truly the with the cost of health care while improving quality for the american people. i am dr.ñ >> let me go ahead.

i have been asked about my reaction to the president's remarks last night. 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 with those of whom he had disagreements with to attempt to reach a bipartisan compromise, it seemed to me that he failed significantly on both counts. i do not think you reach out to people by continually referring to people in the way that he did. i have listened to five presidents now as a member of the house and senate. the terminology he used like

partisan spectacle, and he'll dig ideological, bogus claims, the president is good at setting up strongman and knocking them down. -- setting up strong men and then knocking them down. the arguments are false. it is a lie. to my republican friends i say that rather than making wild claims. here is an issue that has been made subjected to a distortion. then he said i will not waste * who did the calculation that it is better politics to kill this plant rather than improve it. how about those who have legitimate difference since -- differences in opinion? it sounded very much like the

chicago politics that i know he is familiar with. it appeared as if he was trying to ram something with political power rather than refer to what the people have been saying to all of us. no reference to what the american people have said, no reference to their opposition to this 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 wpoint has to do with the clarification of what is in his plan. at some point i was not sure what he was referring to. when he talked about there would be no deficit he was not

referring to the plans that have gone through the congress because both of them have a deficit. i think more than the loss of specificity -- lack of specificity was the decision went -- disingenuous and met of his argument. let me give you examples. for months he has been saying if you like to insurance, you get to keep it. has anyone not heard that phrase? we called him out on that. it is not true under the bill. if there is a good chance you will not be able to keep it. finally, i gather some of his staff have said you cannot keep saying that, it is not true. they got the lawyers to say -- they got the lawyers to come together and say what he could said.

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. he referred to the subsidies to the medicare advantage plan. a lot of seniors, in fact over 10 million seniors, have medicare advantage plants. arizona has one of the highest rates, about 39% of our medicare beneficiaries are enrolled in medicare benefit plan. under the estimates about the reduction in subsidies, about 7 million will lose their medicare advantage plan. as a direct result of policies in the legislation, people will lose the coverage they now like and enjoy.

if a government run plan is part of this legislation, a bipartisan -- a non-partisan 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 a government run plans. not because the government requires that the because the penalty established in the legislation economically makes sense for the employer to drop below -- to drop the expense of coverage. there are other reasons as well as those of the primary reasons why. it has always been the case that if you like your insurance you will not necessarily be able to keep it. the point is the way he cleverly said it is to suggest that

anyone suggests that is incorrect. he is technically, legally correct but it totally misses the point. he did not deal with the critical commentary that we have made. i do not think he wants to engage in 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 go to the states and encourage them to dispute resolution mechanisms. after three different boatvotes where democrats defeated a medical liability reform, they said at least wish to talk to the states about what they should do. there was many -- there was never any effort to pursue it. this is hardly medical liability reform. if he is serious about taking us

up on that effort, she will entertain the idea s that we have proposed -- he will entertain the idea is that we have proposed. that was not a genuine proposal. by putting the secretary in charge i think we will see what will happen. he talked about the proposals -- he said the proposals i am for -- i am recommending -- this should correct the statement. it is also correct that democrats defeated the proposed amendments that would have required some verification of eligibility. if there is no verification of eligibility required, it is

quite likely improbable that a lot of 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. representative kantor should speak to this -- cantor should speak to this. finally, of the points of disingenuousness -- not a dollar of this plan will be used to -- not a dollar in the medicare fund will be used to pay for this plan. if what he is doing is -- what he is doing is cutting payments to providers and cutting the allotment to the insurance plans

that provide medicare advantage options. those will result in a reduction of choice and ultimately are rationing of care for seniors. medicare advantage plans largely go away and when you pay the doctors and hospitals less, even though they are being paid today, something has to gives. seniors are concerned it will be their health care, and i think that every reason to be concerned. the point is not that we're taking money out of a trust fund to pay for something, the fact of the matter is instead of helping to make the medicare trust fund healthier, they reduce payments to providers and cut the allocations to medicare advantage in such a way as to disadvantaged seniors without really creating any money to pay for anything else. i did not hear anything of all these plans are going to be paid for last night. we could go through all of the different ways in which people

are taxed, individuals are tax, big businesses are taxed. no detail about that. bottom line, i thought the speech was partisan, and informative, 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 is we can achieve that. you know about our ideas, we have repeated that many times and would be happy to repeat them again here. that is what we'd like to see. push the restart button in the gauge and real bipartisan discussion, rather than the kind of threats that were the major thrust of the remarks last night. my colleague and counterpart,

rep eric cantor. deegan good afternoon. there is no question that the bar was set very high. -- >> good afternoon. his performance did not match expectations. i do not think he did reach that far. if we listen to his speech, while 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 specifics, a lot of us did. what we heard is much of what the president has been allyson before, in fact there were at least 100 speeders prior year in which this president talked about health care. -- what we heard is much of what the president has been out

saying before, in fact there were at least 100 speeches prior to this with the president talked about health care. 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 once our input, i think we should start in three directions. we should provide and make sure the american people know that we will guarantee that there will be no government substitute for the decision making power that patients and doctors have over their health care. there will be a guarantee for

the american people that there will be no government rationing, there will be no government- forced discrimination on any basis as far as health care access is concerned. and third, to guarantee to the american people that we're not going to break the bank in passing a health care bill. people are very cognizant of the enormous amount of debt that is being piled on by this town. they're asking this question all of the country, who will pay for all of this? if we can get straight on these types of prerequisites and have substantive agreement on that, there are things that we can work together on. the president mentioned senator mccain and his proposals that had to deal with pre-existing conditions. these are individuals that may

face a disease such as ms disease that tend to cause insurance premiums to skyrocket. they might find themselves in the individual market. senator mccain has a proposal. i like the term universal access programs. these are efforts i think we can have a bipartisan agreement on and deal with. the other issue is the issue of portability. the president was right in saying that you should not have to necessarily lose your health care if you lose your job. let's go ahead and work on that. we can do that. we can provide flexibility to make sure no one has to lose their health care if they lose their job. lastly, the area of medical liability reform i was very disappointed by the proposals

being suggested by this president, and that somehow we will be able to accomplish real medical liability reform, the end of lawsuit abuse, somehow engaging in pilot projects. i think we know and the american people know you cannot affect real tort reform unless you do something in washington to affect the operation of state law to finally address giving the lawyers out of the examining room, which would bring down the cost of health care in this country. think you. -- thank you. >> the president wants most of these reforms to be paid for with [inaudible] . is this possible? >> one reason they have not been achieved before because it is a

very wrong notion that we can cut waste, fraud, and it used for a long time. it is very hard to do. there is nothing specific in these bills that suggests how that is going to be done, which leads most people to believe that the waste that medicare reductions will occur is the reductions in the allocations to the medicare advantage plans, something less than $200 billion and by reducing payments to providers. the other half of the trillion dollar cost comes and all of these taxes that i mentioned, the taxes on jobs, the taxes on small businesses, the chronically ill, the penalties for the middle class and so one. there are a series of new taxes, which are designed to raise the

other 1/2. teague >> [inaudible] >> i think all of us who know joe wilson know that he did the right thing in apologizing to this white house. i do not think anyone except -- accepts the type of outbursts and a lack of decorum in the house chamber. i think he has also said as much, and i think he did the appropriate thing in apologizing. the other type of protest going on in the house, i was unaware of it around be, 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 is severe disagreements on how we're going to affect 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 white -- on the part of the white house. the american people are clearly in a position where they think washington will produce a replacement for the health-care system that they know. if you then take the fax that most people in this country have health care, those people that have it like it, it is just too expensive and aggregates the number of uninsured. if we can start with what works and then try to affect the peace that does not, i think we can all move towards a final product that actually gets it right. if the president would

demonstrate that it is more important that we get it right then just get it done, i think that would go a long way as well. >> [inaudible] . .

>> better assumptions than those made on the other pieces of analysis i have seen. no one has contended that they have not approached their work in an objective and constructive way. >> [inaudible] >> someone else needs the room, but i would be happy to finish this question. first of all, republicans have been talking about a variety of approaches for months, both in the house and the senate.

my personal suggestion is that we should simply go ahead and introduce a series of bills that embody these individual principals so that we can take it one bite at a time. it will not scare anyone if we create a piece of legislation that allows small businesses to join together and negotiate with insurance companies with the same power as big business. you should not scare anyone to have a big piece of legislation that allows insurance to compete across state lines. that will cause some insurance companies to get better because they do not like the competition. but if you buy your auto insurance from some co. in new jersey, they will sell the same policy all over the country.

the senator and i are working on our own bills, senator colburn has legislation as well. starting with those things that most people agree are good ideas and do not try to reform the whole way that health care is delivered today, but try to target specific situations to specific problems. my own personal preference is rather than put them in a comprehensive bill, because it is harder to get a big bill until further notice. republicans have those proposals, introducing legislation. >> thank you.

>> let me take this last question. >> [inaudible] >> correct. >> [inaudible] >> it is not constructive to have bipartisan dialogue. when asked for my honest impressions of a president who spoke in a very partisan way last night, a way that is not constructive, it is my obligation to point out that this is how you get people to cooperate. do not say that we will call you out if you disagree. if it is harsh for me to criticize him for doing that,

and it may certainly seem that way, i think it is honest. i am trying to convey something. you want cooperation? throw it over war -- overboard and talk about things that you know we have been concerned about four years. do not say that we will simply meet you halfway on medical malpractice by encouraging states to increase -- engage in alternative dispute resolution. if my words seem harsh, it is because i am trying to make a point. i think that it needs to be pointed out in clear, honest language. i am ready to drop that at this moment to engage in real bipartisan conversation. thank you. >> now a news conference with harry reid, charles to win, and

patty murray. 15 minutes. is all about. i think that it is also important that, from the morning shows, even republicans have acknowledged publicly and clearly, we are not providing

health care for illegal immigrants -- the illegal immigrants, there are no death panels as well. senator mccain said that clearly and i appreciate that. the president acknowledged all members of congress, they even took a page out of president bush's book and indicated his cabinet to start studying. there is no question that the president is sincere that this is the time that we do something rather than just talk about it. in spite of the efforts of those who've tried to derail the health care plan and maintain the status quo, as the president said last night, we are 80% to

90% done with the hard stuff. we have got to get the details done now. when the chairman lays down a bill next week and starts to market up one week from monday, we are going to find that there will be room for healthy and vigorous debate on what takes place in the senate. but the bottom line is that we have to bring -- bring in the costs that are skyrocketing, breaking the back to the american people today some 14,000 americans will lose their health insurance. that says it all. 14,000 people.

we will continue work finishing the last of the proposal that has to come before the american people. we have a schedule that has been announced by the chairman of the finance committee, we will move it forward as quickly as we can. senator durbin? >> before the president's historic address last night a few questions were asked over and over again, particularly to the senators here today. first, will the president be specific? he did. he spelled out exactly. for those that have insurance, there is security and stability. they can afford it. how about those that do not? the president basically said that we will give you the same option that members of congress have, to see -- to choose from an exchange that is insurance that you can count on, that will not cut you off for pre-existing conditions. truly, concerned about the

deficit? we all are. if you are concerned about what this means the families and businesses, he was specific. he called for this join session of congress last by, he said he wants to be the last president to bring this up before the american people. is he willing to be bipartisan? come up with a good idea, the president's phone is there, his door is open. his approach from the start. i thought it was a great moment. since what happened as the house chamber was filled with emotion, it reached the point where he was referring to senator kennedy's letter. more importantly, it was an

amazing message from his presence -- president. >> clearly, the president's speech was a tour de force and it could be game changer when it comes to health care. what the president did last night was stakeout high moral ground. republican, we are willing to reach out. he praised senators mccain, grassley, hatch. he even spoke about court 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, independencts in particular, to get a national health care bill he is willing to reach out.

the ball is in the course of the republican party. will they continue to say no? or are they going to meet us part of the way? that is the question. the president, he laid it out explicitly. i will say this, he was not speaking relate to the senators as much as he was to the american people. independent voters, who had clearly been questioning whether we needed health care, moved in the president's direction. he is reaching out in a bipartisan way. with perhaps the exception of olympia snowe of. why are all just saying no. this was a vital moment for the democratic party.

the question is, were they right for the occasion? are they going to come up with a strong, bipartisan bill so that medicare, and health care, do not go broke? >> last night the president forcefully told us, as the leaders of this nation, it is time for the squabbling to be over. the status quo is not sustainable. this is what i heard from my state when i went home when i talked to a young boy who was 8- years old who had lost his mother because she lost her job because she was sick and they could not get a doctor's appointment because she lost her health care and wound up buying. a woman who owned a restaurant on capitol hill in my neighborhood in seattle.

she said she was trying really happen -- really hard to get health care insurance for her 35 employees, wanted to do the right angle, knew it was the responsible thing to do for her business and community, but was denied coverage over and over and finally have one insurance person tell her it is because of years ago that you cannot get health insurance. she came to me with a pile of papers to feet high, saying that she had been paying her insurance for years and years. every insurance claim, the pilot papers in front of her was a correspondent she had had with her insurance company over last year to get paid what she was due for all of the insurance coverage she had been paid for years. this is the status quo.

every day more and more americans are facing those kinds of obstacles. we have a responsibility to move forward and get health care reform done in a right way. the health committee that i sat on set for weeks on bipartisan amendments, getting a bill out, we cannot sit back. we have a responsibility to solve this challenge. that is what the president called on us to do. >> you say this is a game changer, but if you cannot pick up republican votes, how did you change republican minds? >> you pundits have said that we

have had the most successful legislation in months rather -- except for the roosevelt administration. each one of those, we had a few republicans. that is why we are working on health care. we look forward to a bipartisan bill. everyone knows the way to health care reform now. we want to continue on the road of bipartisanship that we have traveled so far. we can always go to a reconciliation. >> what do you think of the proposal that the senator put out? >> frankly, i have not read it. it was distributed over the weekend this week. it is just an outline.

i guarantee that when he comes out with it, we will read every word. but i am satisfied with the progress that have made. they have truly got 95% of the work done. >> nonprofit cooperatives are in the proposal. [inaudible] >> i would agree with everything you have said it set it is not a public policy at all. that is in the eye of the beholder. we have a firm, strong public option in the health bill. i favor public option. we have to put those together. the ultimate decision will be made on different variations of the public option.

>> they have said that the public option cannot happen. >> i think that the public option, there are different types of them. we will look at all of them. >> what about your own democratic moderates? >> we will be fine with them. i have had a number of conversations with them. a member, what we were talking about initially were procedural votes. emily? to do have your hand up? if not, it is a ran it -- it is a rare occasion. [laughter] >> [inaudible] >> well, this week was a typical

week in the senate if you have the republicans doing what they have done for the first eight months of the session. they are doing everything that they can to stall and get as little done as possible. this week we finished the travel promotion act. dozens of hours on that, waiting for the republicans. we got 80 some odd votes. they used up the entire 30 hours on that. we got 63 or 64 votes on that. just wasting time. we have a lot of work to do that takes time. wheat finished four appropriation bills. we have eight to go. the next one is chairman

murray's subcommittee on transportation. we should be working on that right now. we should have started on that on wednesday, or even tuesday. we have not had the opportunity because of their stalling tactics to get things done. ok, senator murray's bill, i tell you what, if you do not file a motion to proceed with clotures, we will let you go. then you can have some votes on monday. they are stalling for time, which is what they have done all year. i hope that the american people can see that. in spite of that we have been able to get some things done. we should be finished with all of our appropriations bills. they have stalled on everything. remember the last congress? 100 filibusters? they may try that again this time.

>> [inaudible] >> i hope that we can get it done well before thanksgiving. i would hope that we could beat the thanksgiving day. >> what about the flexible time line for drawing troops out of afghanistan? >> the speaker and i met with the president on tuesday. as far as i am concerned, let's just take it easy. we have a new commander over there, mcchrystal. he has made certain

recommendations the president. the president said he spoke to the defense secretary. i will wait until the president makes up his mind. we will have ample opportunity. in the meantime, we do not need 100 secretaries of state. we will see what he recommends. final question? >> do you consider the senator baucus proposal as a public option? >> the purpose of a public option is this -- to create competition, which is so important, and creating quality health care. as you heard me say, if there were ever an industry that needs

competition, it is the insurance industry. they are the only business in america except for baseball that is not subject to the anti-trust laws of this country. that is what we are talking about, keeping insurance companies on this. insurance companies can conspire. so, if we can come up with a cooperative that does just that, it will make for more competition, making insurance companies honest. that would fit the bill. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> monday, on "washington journal," the role of the white house czars in the obama

administration. then, part of the five weeks series of the meltdown of the legacy. also, and look at the response to the collapse of lehman brothers, with the chairman of the commodity futures trading commission. later, a discussion with rachel van dongen. that is live at 7:00 a.m. eastern, here on c-span. on monday, the house considers authorization for nearly $3 billion through the year 2014 for energy department based research on hybrid vehicles. also, consideration of a measure that would change federalese subsidized student loans. the house gavels in on monday for general speeches, but legislative work starting at 2:00 eastern. the senate also returned on monday to work on the fiscal

year 2010 federal spending. senators are considering $122 billion for transportation and housing programs. they will gabble in at 2:00 p.m. for general speeches, then give it -- and beginning legislative business. >> 1.7 million immigrants each year are followers of islam. tonight, reflections on europe, immigration, islam and the west, on c-span's "q&a." >> next, a hearing from -- a hearing on the testimony on the situation in iraq with an update from the field. first, remarks from senator john kerry. this is one hour 15 minutes.

have you back. i also want to recognize the efforts of all of our very capable and courageous diplomats that are serving in harm's way. they often, almost always, do not get the credit that the soldiers get on the front lines, but in many ways they are equally at risk and they deserve our gratitude. we extend it to them today and always.

6.5 years after going to war, we are finally entering the endgame of iraq. by next august american troop levels will be down 50,000 or lower. nearly one-third of where we are today. a residual force will leave by december of 2011, in keeping with the bilateral security agreement that provides the legal framework for our ongoing presence in iraq. these redeployments are going to take place in a complex, and evolving security landscape. when iraqis go the polls next january, they will elect a new parliament and government, participating in a referendum to ratify the security agreement. if the iraqi public rejects the agreement, we have no choice but to withdraw our forces as quickly as we can.

this would complicate the the point and curtail our ability to assist the iraqi security forces. at this point, i am not sure how we would justify asking our soldiers to stay one day longer than necessary if they are formally this invited by the iraqi people. in a sense, the bush administration security agreement made moot the old "should we stay, should we go" argument. even so, iraq remains a were checked test for pundits and policy makers. on the one hand, a person could look at the security since 2006. sectarian violence threatened to tear iraqi society apart, but the conclusion is that they have stepped back from the brink. it is true. since the worst days, by evans

has dropped 85%, even with the recent attacks. american fatalities are at the lowest rate of the war. al qaeda and iraq, while still deadly, are only a shadow of their former self. there has been a local progress as well. january elections, unlike 2005, sectarian identification is likely to be the sole organizing principle of iraqi politics. i know that the ambassador is willing to share thoughts with us on that. the group that evolved out of the sunni arab insurgency has been talking openly with an alliance -- about an alliance. such an announcement would have been unthinkable 18 months ago, but electricity production, which have long been stalled, quietly increased last year.

that is the optimistic side of the register. one can also look at the same tax on the ground and come to a more complicated conclusion. mainly that removing an american presence would lead iraq back into a downward spiral of violence. frankly, it is too soon to know whether the rise in violence since american forces withdrew in june is an uptick or an upswing. whether it is a blip or a trend. recent violence has been troubling. august was the deadliest month for iraqis in more than one year. the devastating bombings against the iraqi foreign finance ministry last month was a stark reminder that forces opposed to reconciliation remain capable to devastating attacks that could alter the direction of the country.

the attack was also a blow to the iraqi people's confidence in their own security forces. and, of course their own problems do not end there. arab-kurdish tensions remain unresolved. corruption is rampant. millions of refugees and internally displaced persons remain far from home, waiting to be resettled. their relations with their neighbors are volatile. there are a few of the many challenges that are faced by iraq in the coming months. which view is it? which view represents the real outcome? is iraq beginning to unravel again? or are these just the inevitable bombs in the road? what will happen after we leave?

as one has long advocated the responsible redeployment of troops from iraq, i think that the president has made the most of the difficult situation has inherited. at this point, we approach iraq with a dose of humility. there are limits to what we can accomplish. we might be approaching those limits. as our troops leave the cities, we no longer have the ability to dictate outcomes in places that we did. while the american people stand ready to help iraqis, it is time to take the training wheels off and allow the iraqis to define their own future. the task ahead is to provide help here and there, to make sure that iraq does not crash when the wheels come off. in the last year the government has been keen to signal that it is in control, capable of

maintaining security. we should anchorage this. their ability to keep their own house in order is the key to a stable iraq. in the meantime, perhaps the tragic bombings will persuade the leaders to take a more honest look at their own capabilities and needs. today politics has room to breathe in a way that it did not have before. the real test remains, not just for the prime minister but for all of the senior leaders. are they willing to make the political compromises necessary to forge a sustainable political compact that provides the foundation for a sustainable iraq? the answer will go a long way toward determining their future. mr. ambassador, as evidenced in this room to some degree, it has become the forgotten war,

whereas afghanistan was largely pushed off of the headlines and the evening news. that does not make your task any easier. i do not need to be the one to tell you that. the families of the 130,000 troops and diplomats in iraq need no reminder that their loved ones remain in harm's way. two days ago, four american soldiers were tragically killed. afghanistan is going to receive a lot of attention in the coming weeks, but i hope that this meeting will serve as a reminder that while it is coming to a close, our mission in iraq is not yet over. i will look forward to hearing your testimony and i look forward to make -- or making the trip back to washington. >> thank you, mr. chairman. welcome back to the committee. two months ago i had the privilege of meeting with the prime minister in turkey.

he predicted that exports from his country would fill half of the pipeline. two weeks later the prime minister met with this committee here on the capital, presenting a confident face to members as he was questioned on everything from iran and kurdish relations to the readiness of his security forces and the government's readiness to deliver to the iraqi people. in the international arena, he is traveling extensively, making the case that his country is ready to rejoin the community of nations, emerging from chapter 7 status, carrying on responsibly. domestically he was asserting

iraqi sovereignty, the advancing iraqi-first agenda. however, the devastating -- devastating attack inside of the security zone three weeks ago, which killed scores and injured hundreds more, it stripped away the confident veneer. the explosions that targeted the foreign finance and ministry buildings rattled the government, as well as the prime minister, who was wagging fingers. senior members of the government questioned the reliance on u.s. forces for security. the answer was that a smooth ride was very unlikely. the political accommodations sought by the united states, the

central government remains weak and ethnic and sectarian divisions remain. it appeared that -- it appears that influence in control, while the government models through, for our own part serious questions remain about our policies going forward, as well as our strategy. the president and vice president continue to speak about troops coming home at the end of 2011. we do not have a clear understanding of how that will occur under optimal conditions, much less worst-case scenarios. metrics coming out of the embassy point to positive directions. reliable, that would be a welcome change from earlier this year. to that -- today the ambassador advocated for realism, to assess

whether the strategic foundation was firm. key questions for you today. in the last few years many critics charge that we were taking our eyes of the ball when it came to afghanistan. are we taking our eyes off of the other ball? by diverting attention from tasks and priorities that lay ahead in iraq, particularly beyond the january election? are we developing lasting relationships and institutions? second, are we developing having moved away from construction, it is not as easy. what are we doing to make sure that iraq does not backslide? what or who will fill the power voted -- power avoid as u.s.

troops withdraw? m the entire while the kurdish region has been calm, the entire destructive political content, as the iraqi army and kurdish forces were in opposing formations. can this confrontation be resolved? kurdish forces raid in opposing formatio formations. can this be resolved, and what are the consequences if it it's not? and fifth, are iraq's neighbors playing constructive roles? what what about iran? as prime minister maliki seeks re-election and puts together a coalition, is there a chance that the platform will develop in a way that lurt breaks down sectarianism. and finally, do we and the iraqis see eye to eye on the priorities going ahead? are the policy foundations firm?

are you receiving the clarity of directions you need from washington? as we work to complete appropriation bills for 2010, the answer to these basic questions are essential to the work of the congress and to this committee. as much as we like you to be the one with the critical ball to tell us what things will look like at the end of 2011, it's more important you give us your best sense of how things are progressing toward that date, and how things stand today. we thank you so much for coming. >> thank you very much, senator luger. ambassador, we look forward to your testimony. thank you for being here with us today. >> thank you, very much chairman kerry. i would like to -- of i a statement which i would like to -- >> we'll put the full statement in the record as if read in full, and if you would summarize that would give us more time to have a good dialogue. thanks. >> very good. chairman kerry, senator luger, members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today about our opportunity in iraq as we

transition from a military to civilian-led mission and about our efforts to develop strong, long-term relationship with iraq. this is the start of a 12-month period at the end of which all combat forces will be withdrawn. is that my phone or someone else's? oh. it's not mine. this is the start of a 12-month period at which all -- during which or at the end of which all combat forces will be withdrawn. we have huge interest in capitalizing on the opportunity in iraq. iraq is at the center of the middle east, bordering key countries like saudi arabia, iran and our nato ally, turkey. it is the -- it is the border between kurdish lands and arab lands that is really where sunni meet shiia, it is a central part of the middle east and a country

of which we should have enduring interests. for the first time in decades, in fact, iraq has a chance to become an engine for regional stability and regional economic growth, rather than a source of regional tension and dispute. a convergence of events present the possibility of genuine advancement. our civilian effort will help foster security through active diplomacy to begin to resolve internal disputes and foster longer term facility by showing iraqis a generally representative and accountive government. over time, as we make progress in the economic and political goals, we will see significant reduction in our civilian presence, both in the province and at the embassy in baghdad. but for now, during this transition, we intend to actually strengthen our civilian presence as our military begins to ramp down. we need to show that we are taking over some of the tasks that our military is -- has been engaged in. and that will mean an even

strengthened civilian operation after which we look to see the civilian effort begin also, to ramp down. mr. chairman, as iraq has indeed suffered a series of attacks over the last weeks, and including, actually, several on minority communities, particularly horrifying were indeed the attacks on the iraqi and foreign and finance ministries on august 19th. but in fact, the reality is that iraqi people have stood firm and rejected retribution. and that -- and so far, they have prevented the beginning of a new cycle of violence. doesn't mean that these attacks don't need to be taken seriously. they need to be taken with great seriousness. but we have found that the iraqi people are reacting well to this. we have found that the iraqi security forces are reacting well to this. and is we believe that this is really quite a change from in

the past. also, there's been some good news in iraq, as well. they've staged two rounds of successful elections, a provincial council elections in january, and elections in the curt stan regional government just a couple months ago in july. in both cases, voting was free, fair and peaceful. today, there are new provincial councils operating, and they know that the voters will have an opportunity to judge their performance. preparations have begun for national elections scheduled in january 2010. the council of representatives is working on an election law to govern the conduct we will continue to work with the iraqi leadership to ensure that this process is completed. in the economic area, the iraqi economy remains very much a work in progress. as production and export levels have begun to increase, oil

recovered in recent months, their budget has improved somewhat. nevertheless, we have many near term fiscal concerns over stability. iraq is going to have to work very closely on a standby agreement with the international monetary fund. we are pleased that it is doing so. they need to undertake economic reforms, laying the groundwork for greater help from the world trade organization. we can be helpful, but in the economy and it's time for us to step up to the plate. there's no question that iraq has the resources to be stable and successful, but the resources have to be better mobilized. the iraqi people are blessed with enormous oil reserves, estimated to be the no. 3 country in the world. the iraqi they ministry of oil hel

for six oil fields ry with 32 international oil companies competing for six oil fields, one field was awarded. it is a major field, and if it lives up to its expectations, it's possible that iraq's oil exports could actually double from this one field alone. iraq needs to do more in this area, we need to work closely with iraqis, because we need to see increasingly iraq paying for its own bills, as we ramp down our bilateral assistance. iraq needs to work on a more diversified economy, and we are very pleased that prime minister maliki and we have worked together on a u.s./iraq business and investment conference to be held october 20th here in washington. 200 representatives from iraq will attend the conference. it will be a delegation of senior government officials. and we hope that this conference, together with the high level -- with the discussions with high-level iraqi officials, that dialogue

of economic cooperation will really act to spur investment i iraq. but beyond some of these economic issues, i want to stress that iraq issues do not exist in a vacuum. a look at the map shows that iraq is located in the center of a complex neighborhood. iran's influence is very much a reality in iraq. we recognize that elements of iran's influence such as trade and religious tourism can have a positive impact, but too often, iran is played a negative role, mettling in iraq's internal interests and training violent militi militias. with sir i can't, tensions persistent between baghdad and damascus, turkey has certainly interest in the north. iraq's history with kuwait is difficult, and the problems reach back beyond 1990. there is a fundamental question, is the sunni arab world prepared to make room for an arab state that will be led in all probability, although not dominated, but led by the shiia.

now iraq deals with its neighbors will define what kind of region emerges in the coming years. we need to help iraq find solutions to some of these long-standing regional issues. i think our diplomacy in iraq both internally, in bilateral terms, but also multilaterally will have a role to play. we have expanded our efforts to facilitate, first containing and then beginning to resolve disputes in northern iraq between curds and arabs. i was just in iraqi kurdistan discussing how we could move forward on the oil sector, and how to begin to address the thorny dispute in kirkuk. we need to get ethnic communities engaged in settling disputes. the u.n. has an important role here, and we want to work very closely with the u.n. our diplomatic tract is designed

to fully complement our fill tear efforts to foster cooperation between regional security forces, and those of the central government in baghdad and general odierno has been very much engaged in this area. i think helping -- we need to -- we need to understand that the decision or the first milestone of the security agreement, that is the removing u.s. cities from the -- or u.s. forces from the cities and villages in iraq on june 30th turned out to be a very important day, more important than many people thought, i think. because for many iraqi people, they looked to the question, would the u.s. fulfill its obligations under the security agreement, and i think the overwhelming majority of iraqi citizens do believe we have done just that. this decision or this date has turned out to be a very important date, because iraqis

now see that the u.s. can be trusted in the agreements we sign, and i think the iraqis are now very interested in moving on to see if we can implement the strategic framework agreement. the strategic framework agreement, a sort of companion piece to the security agreement, lays out all the elements of a long-term relationship with iraq, and this is the agreement that we very much want to follow and to guide us in the years ahead. the -- to be sure, the transition to a civilian-led mission presents many challenges for us. we need, first of all, to make sure we have the funding to take up tasks that our military has been providing in the past, and the state department has been working very hard to make sure that we have that funding. there are elements of assistance that, for example, police training that the military has been engaged in.

these will be transferred to the state department, and we are very much -- we are very much on these issues. i think this strategic framework agreement that we are -- that we are pursuing was very much the focus of prime minister maliki's visit to washington in july. he and secretary clinton convened a second meeting of the higher coordinating committee. we established joint coordination committees in a number of areas, and will continue to be very much -- very much engaged on these issues. mr. chairman, were those comments of our overall trends in iraq, i stand ready to hear your questions. >> thank you very much, ambassador. i want to do a seven-minute round since we have a number of senators here and try to expedite. you mentioned in your testimony a strengthened civilian effort. what do you mean by that? we have largest embassy anywhere in the world. are you -- envisioning a larger -- civilian -- >> first of all, the embassy is

indeed very large, and frankly, it's -- it is unsustainable in its current configuration, and will need to get smaller. just on the issue of housing for our employees, we are set up for about 600 employees. we have some over 1,000 people there. we've taken one-bedroom apartments, put sheetrock divider through a small living room and made them into two-bedroom apartments for two unrelated employees. so just in terms of the physical infrastructure, we are not set up for the size we are, and we need to get smaller. that said, there are certain tasks in the very near-term that we need to take up and take up with great seriousness to make sure that, first of all, the iraqis understand that the u.s. is not leaving. u.s. forces may be leaving, but the u.s. is not leaving. chief among these, of course, is the issue of the police training. a function that was taken by -- that was performed by the

military which will soon be performed by people from the state department. so in doing that, we need to look at the overall, you know, what the -- you know, how we protect these people. are we going to have to have additional security for these people now that we no longer have u.s. forces to do that. so there will be some near-term issues like that. the overall footprint of the u.s., indeed, the overall funding for the u.s. will go precipitously down. the issue is how in some areas we have to take over for what the military has done. but i to assure you, mr. chairman, i want to see that embassy smaller. >> mr. ambassador, you also talked about the issue of reform in iraq, and you know, we've been sitting on this committee listening to this talk. i mean, i can remember secretary rice down in the lower building, the lower room of the burkeson

testifying to us in january three or four years ago. saying the oil laws on those were ready, we're moving forward on this and that, et cetera, et cetera. we are at least three or four years later now, and still those contentious issues remain contentio contentious. share with us -- i mean, it seems to me that those may be the explosion point also in the absence of an american presence. would you lend your view on that, and on the prospect of actually resolving these? >> well, first of all, i'd like to say that i think getting the economy there operating, namely getti getting oil starting to be pumped out the ground is essential to the future of that country, and frankly, we cannot be funding things that should be funded by the iraqis, and would be funded if they -- if they were able to move on the oil sector. with regard to the hydrocarbons law, i went out there with the expectation that we would move

on that. but i know -- you know, it was held -- it's been held up for three or four years. i have really worked that issue. we have tried to break it down, find out where the real differences are between the kurdish government and the iraqi government. it's a complex piece of legislation. actually involving four separate pieces of legislation, having to do with revenue sharing, having to do with institution building. having to do with, you know, how the ministry would operate. and i think realistically speaking, it will probably not get done before the january elections. so our concern has been, we cannot have iraq's future held up, or simply held hostage to this one piece of legislation. therefore, we were pleased that the iraqis did move ahead with the beginning of something they hadn't done for decades and decades. and that is begin the process of bidding oil fields to foreign concerns. they didn't do it during saddam.

they didn't even do it pre-saddam. so they have begun that. they began it in june. >> that's all well and good, but if all those revenues are piling up, in even greater amounts, and without some distribution mechanism, you have -- >> yeah, well, there is a distribution mechanism, the 17% is basically -- is agreed by all sides. so even when they -- when the -- on the kurdish regional government, when they were able to export some oil with an agreement with baghdad, they did it under the provision of 17% -- 17%. so i think these things can be properly distributed. the issue is in the -- i won't say long run, but certainly in the medium run, they're going to need this law, because the main issues go to things like infrastructure. iraq's oil sector is very much in trouble with very aging infrastructure. they have to have agreements on how they're going to pay for that. is that the responsibility of local authorities? there are other issues having to do with the southern part of

iraq, and their own regional concerns. so i think they can deal with some of the key elements, but it would be much better if they dealt with the hydrocarbon law. but i'm giving you my sense of the situation, and i don't think we're going get there before january. and therefore, we really want to focus on getting them to bid out these fields, because getting british petroleum in there is a good development. >> mr. ambassador, syria and iraq indicated a willingness to cooperate on the borders and deal with the foreign fighter issue, which is very much in our interest, and we have been pushing that on both sides. but the bombings on august 19th have now seen, you know, sort of an explosion between the two countries. they have pulled their ambassadors. and traded recrimination. so where do we stand on that? what, if anything, can be done to end that? will turkish mediation make a difference? is there something that, you

know, we should be advocating at this point, and what do you think is the prospect for getting back to the place that we hope to be? >> well, i think we would like to see iraq and syria have a good relationship. and it was rather ironic that on august 18th, one day before the bombing, prime minister maliki was in damascus, and they signed a number of economic agreements. obviously, things are in a difficult state, and things are frankly on hold right now through this -- through this downturn in the relationship. the iraqis are very concerned about the fact that some senior baathist leaders went and found refuge in syria and remain in syria, and the iraqis have understandably called for their return to iraq. that issue needs to be -- frankly, needs to be worked through. in terms of foreign fighters, there has been a diminished flow

of foreign fighters from syria to iraq. but i don't think anyone should say that's gone to zero. and the issue of foreign fighters in syria is also an issue that we need to be -- i think everybody needs to be focused on. the iraqis in their investigation of august 19th, come to the conclusion that this was more than an al qaeda strike. they believe there is considerable external influence in this. their fingers tend to point toward syria. we would like to work with the iraqis on what evidence they have. we would like to share with the iraqis what evidence we have to try to come to the -- to try to understand precisely what happened, and then get o . syria is obviously a troubled neighbor for iraq. i think that in the long run, they need to