few days has come the winter fuel allowance, which is paid to everyone over 60, and is higher for the over-80's. it is one contribution that we can make to help with the heating bills of the poorest in our society, but it is a contribution made to every pensioner and everyone over 60 in our country. i hope that there is now a consensus that that is the right thing to do. >> john mann. >> when i was out with the police on a friday night in my area, only 14 police officers were on duty in the division, out of a total complement of 2,380. will the prime minister intervene directly and swiftly to sort out the organizational malaise that nottinghamshire police has become? >> the home secretary tells me that her majesty's inspectorate of constabulary is looking into nottinghamshire police at the moment, but i have to say that the whole purpose of

neighborhood policing, which we have developed over the past two years, is to get more police on the streets. for that, we need to invest in policing and emphasize the concept that the police serve the neighborhood. that is exactly what we are doing. >> adam holloway. >> thank you, mr. speaker. does the prime minister agree with ben bernanke that the prime minister's decision to strip the bank of england's supervising role led to a "destructive run" and a "major problem for the british economy?" >> no, mr. speaker. i think that anybody who looks at the global recession knows that it started with the problems of the banking system in america that spread right across the world. our tripartite system is the right way to deal with these problems, because it brings the bank of england, the financial services authority, and the treasury together to deal with these issues.

i noticed that only yesterday the leader of the opposition changed the shadow chancellor's policy on the future of the banking system, and that he also talked yesterday about introducing "flatter taxes". flatter taxes mean less tax paid by the very wealthy. before the conservatives come to give us lectures on economic policy, they should go back to the drawing board. >> emily thornberry. >> will my right honorable friend give the public a guarantee that he will never lift the ban on hunting with dogs? >> i am surprised that one political party wants to fight the next election on withdrawing the ban on fox hunting. in fact, that is the only job creation policy you have, to create a quango to run fox hunting. i believe that they are making a terrible mistake, and they will pay for it at the next election. >> order. >> each week the house of commons is in session, we air

prime minister questions, live on c-span2, and then again on c- span on sundays. at c-span.org, you can find an archive of past premise to question. ons. >> up next, a political roundtable on the news of the week and a portion of today's senate debate. and then it is "q&a," with author michael fauntroy. after that, another chance to see prime minister gordon brown in the british house of commons. >> richard newell announced projections for the u.s. energy supply, demand, and prices for

the year 2035. we will have coverage tomorrow at 9:30 a.m. eastern on c-span3. >> more on net neutrality and its effect on the industry. monday night on c-span2. >> and now a discussion of the news of the week on "washington journal." this is just about an hour. sunday roundtable, executive director and author, things for joining us. and matt, the editorial page editor. let me begin looking back on the president's speech on wednesday.

norm, let me begin with you. guest: seems the more that barack obama goes in the centrist direction the more he becomes willing and able and even eager to escalate the war in of guinness stan, the more that centrist penance like david broder enthused. unfortunately, obama is damaging his base within the democratic party. whether you talk about abandonment of the public option, escalation in a canister and, rigid escalation in afghanistan, you have a problem in the obama party. it will matter.

republicans were cheerleading the warlike speech in oslo. they will have the ninth cell of next year. the base will matter within the democratic party. host: what did you think? guest: rather than war-like i would characterize this as perhaps the best speech that the president has given since his inauguration speech. that is principally because he acknowledged something that we among the conservative pun docracy have been looking for -- as you said, norman, is because you recognize that there is indeed number one, evil in the world, and number two, recognition in the fact that for the last 60 years it has been the u.s. that has been the principal guarantee of stability and progress on things such as human rights. host: let me share an excerpt

from the president's speech from oslo on thursday as he talked about the line getting a lot of attention -- the so-called just wars. >> i do not bring with me today a definitive solution to the problems of war. what i do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistence of those men and women who acted so boldly. it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just or and the imperatives of a just peace. we must begin by acknowledging a hard truth. we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. there will be times when nations, acting individually or in concert, will find the use of

force not only necessary, but morally justified. host: you wrote that eloquence in oslo cannot change the realities of war. how so? guest: talking about a just war and sunbury area that does not change what the political or closet-theoretical justification's are brought to bear on it just war. for those who experience it is a just war, more expenditure, more expenditure of badly needed funds to the u.s. treasury that could be going to have carrot, housing, education. as in afghanistan which is terribly impoverish, it is suffering under the twin shadows of war. and also enormous impoverishment. i found it disturbing that the head of the nobel committee introduced president obama with the statement, dr. king's dream

has come true. that is a rewriting of history. dr. king denounced what he called "the madness of militarism." rather than challenge that madness, unfortunately, and i say that as a former delegate to the obama nomination in the democratic convention, obama is endorsing that militarism today. host: yesterday there was a demonstration outside the white house, some of those calling mr. obama's and nobel speech propulsive. but political impact if any does this have? guest: i think it has immense potential for political and that. it will be particularly interesting to watch as the glove, the democratic party base faces the same problem that the right does -- to watch as the left faces the same trouble as the right. we could see another ralph nader or another french lefringe left.

those do not make it in america. so there will be some very pressed for the people on the left. guest: there are some places democrats can go. one is much deeper into our own party. one month ago although the national press did not really notice, we got passed through the statewide executive committee resolution called "end the u.s. war and occupation in afghanistan." it is a call for withdrawal of u.s. troops. obama is doing a 180 , the largest state democratic party has called for. dennis kucinich stated in the "new york times" peace the

recall of an indictment which was done in recognition of what happened during the vietnam war. when the executive branch ran roughshod. this is a crucial test next month. will the leadership on the hill the talks about its reservations concerning an escalation, regardless of who, çóñiwould thy step up to the play to put some teeth behind their misgivings? so far no one in the administration will. host: you say barack obama and the democratic congress are feeling of public frustration with the explosion of authoritarian centralized government? guest: did i miss anything? i think that is exactly katrina. nowhere better illustrated than what we're seeing with the healthcare debate. the senate is apparently preparing to pass what is

undoubtedly the biggest expansion of federal power. certainly in modern history. this will have an incredible impact on daily lives of all americans. ñithey will not begin tax. -- not be good and tax. -- not be good impacts. at a certain point, for sure she will be vented and printed in about one year at the polls. i think we will see a big change in congress. host: we were talking about the deficit and the overall debt abridging $12 to win. it approaches nearly $2 trillion this week. guest: received the worst of both worlds when the white house and the speaker and majority leader harry reid are leaving the party on the hill and in the

white house in a direction that keeps splitting the difference with republicans. republicans will never be satisfied anyway. these are right wing forces opposing the new deal since it began a. there is a pattern here whether in afghanistan, where leaders of opposition way in the buckle -- and then buckled, or with health-care. if there is any change in any positive direction -- but we see now and abandonment of the public option, cave in to the insurance industry. yet months ago speaker pelosi's announced says no big never mind who months ago said it was essential. harry reid says the same. this is opening the democratic party to inevitable tax.

we're not even getting the new deal kind of program we need. such as guaranteed. health care for guaranteed this is a travesty. we're giving the insurance industry huge subsidies. the medicare proposal floated in the senate -- now we find out the premiums for just one individual between 55-64 each person could be paying $7,600. this is not a social compact that guarantees health care. it perpetuates the idea or reality of healthcare apartheid. host: good afternoon to our host: good afternoon to our viewers are watching us you can also send this a twitter comment or e-mail us. before i get you to respond,

this was set off the senate floor. >> we saw in the gallup poll that there was a 9% more americans to oppose the bill that supported it. in another poll, 14% more americans oppose the bill been supported it. and now we see in the cnn poll, 61% opposed and only 36% in favor. the argument i hear our friends on the other side making is that they are sorting their members to make history. many things have been done in history, and many of them have been mistakes. if this bill were to pass in the face of the overwhelming opposition of the american people, having failed to keep down health-care costs, it would be viewed as a historic mistake. historic mistake.

guest: i still enjoy these kinds of conversations where you get to the fundamental issues separating left and right. norman talks about a social compact as if we did not have one prior to franklin roosevelt when fact we did. it is called the constitution. it includes the 10th amendment which says all power is not specifically given did not given specifically to the federal government are given to the people. the healthcare bill is a nuclear bomb for that. secondly, i am fascinated when i hear people like norman say, the frame progressive policies as positive. it is not positive, norman, to give the american people less freedom. this country is about freedom. you guys on the left keep taking it away from us. guest: it is not really positive

to have children in emergency rooms right now around the country will die without health care. is not positive to have 45 million people in the country without any health insurance whatsoever. we heard that argument against social security and unemployment insurance. medicare and medicaid. about the 10th amendment and states reserving rights. but in one of fact we take for granted now some of the things people fought for against what fdr called the economics royalists of the day. it is not really a matter of left versus right, per se. a good thing about c-span is weakened talk about more than two sides to an argument. the republican party can strongly hew to a line that i believe opposes all the social progress measures we revere, and

the obama administration which keeps splitting the difference, corporatizing and militarizing policies. you have progressive voices say we will always oppose republicans, but we will fight like hell against this obama administration when it pursues policies detrimental to people's well-being. host: let we put one more issue on the table. 40% staff cuts over the next couple of weeks. some question of whether the times will stay in business. that is your competitors. what will happen? guest: i wish that i knew. i am a former "washington times" reported. frankly, i hope it survives. i do not know that it will. host: why? guest: 40% staff cut. my understanding is they have

given notice to all the employees of the potential of being terminated. which is not encouraging. host: let's get on calls the mechanic joining us from indianapolis. caller: good morning. the like to make a comment about president obama's speech the other day, and just a lot of things i hear about the evil people who we call the hottest seat -- jihadists, islamic radicals. the question i would ask, why would they attacked our so- called way of living 50-100 years ago? guest: that is an interesting question and i'm not sure that they were not doing that 50-100 years ago. we just did not see it manifested so directly are manifestly as we did on 9/11

when more than 3000 americans died. guest: you know, if you look of the bombing raids in afghanistan, the u.s. has quadrupled its monthly bombing runs in terms of actual warheads dropped. that is experienced by terror as many there. we say that we are the good people and they should know. we can quote president obama say that there is evil in the world. but frankly the little girl i met in kabul loss one of her arms due to the bombing raid by the u.s. in helman one year ago might be excused for believing that the government dropped the bomb on her neighborhood -- that has a bit of evil in its. especially since she at age seven will live the rest of her life with only one hour. rather than get on our high scores, we might try to apply a

single standard of human right. host: let me read to you what "the weekly standard" has this morning. "peace is generally good in itself but never the highest good unless it comes as the handmade of righteousness. and it becomes a very evil thing if it serves merely as a mask for cowardice." those are the words of teddy roosevelt as he expected the nobel peace prize on. guest: he helped concoct rationale for the invasion of iraq. this is standard boilerplate stuff. you can flash that more than four decades in washington. we heard the same kind of rhetoric from those trying to justify the escalation of war in vietnam. when you hear the lyndon johnson tapes on the phones such as

those aired on bill moyer's show a couple weeks ago you hear leaders on the hill saying privately, even pleading with the president not simply to get carried away with the militarism. as one leader from the appropriations committee pleads with the president now -- yet there's something in this repeated compulsion, president bent on war who insists, no, we are the smart guys, the best and brightest. we will do a ride. host: norm solomon, the author of "or made easy." and this ismark, a reporter. caller: good morning. i want to talk about the fact that when president obama was running, running for office, he

said that he felt the war in afghanistan was the right war to fight. he made it very clear. he really got in and listen to what everyone had to say. he made the decision he thought best for the country around how we face afghanistan. i think if we look carefully at what he has done, he is not just sending troops over there to fight, but to do the social things neglected to the bush administration. guest: thanks for your comment. more than 90% of money spent is for military operation.

only a few pennies per dollar is by any stretch for humanitarian assistance. i'm glad you brought it up. i was an obama supporter against john mccain. i was glad obama 1 november a year ago. he has broken many promises. he has broken a promise for habeas corpus in civil liberty. one year ago he said that a public option is crucial. now it has disappeared and he does not really care. he has not broken really bad promise which was to focus more resources on afghanistan. he could have and he has chosen not to. host: disappointed in the president? guest: very disappointed. i did not have extremely high expectations, but my dearly low these petitions have not been

met. i was reading many forces to help get him host: collected do both of the tweet? guest: absolutely, a little bit. that is absolutely not true. there have been at least 14 repuican alternative proposals. the problem is, harry reid and barack obama and nancy pelosi made a decision at the outset to ignore public and. that is exactly why we continually hear this idea. host: david is joining us for nashville. caller: good morning. mr. solomon, you and i are living in very different worlds. the last time i checked the democrats had 60 votes in the senate and the overwhelming majority in the house.

republicans, all we can do is play four-cornered defense. we have not had control of congress sent 2006. what over gotten? we have gone from 4.4% unemployment up to something like 17.5%. i am over 60 years old and i have never seen the economy in such disarray. it is because a democrat. they are going to vote for democrats because it does not matter. host: here is a twitter from john. guest: well, under fdr the new deal was to announce the socialist all the time. the economy went into a tailspin

under the administration of george w. bush. the official rate of just around 10% right now does masked the deeper and wider unemployment. i would say that we are now looking at a situation where the stimulus package from the obama administration as has been ward by others to be inadequate. there has been a bailout of wall street, not relief for main street or for homeowners under water. what we need is a progressive populism that really can negate the charges coming from the right that some of the democratic party is elitist. guest: we have had progressive policies in this country since, actually before the new deal beginning with president wilson. particularly in the last 30 years when the federal government took over officially, responsibility for maintaining the initial growth, we have seen what happens with big

government. you get big problems and is the ability to take care of them over time. now we see the fruits of too much government. guest: the real feel that trickle-down economics under president reagan during the 1980's was somehow progressive policy? guest: the federal government in the 1980's as now officially assumed the responsibility for maintaining economic growth. from the perspective, yes. ronald reagan took a different policy approach. it does not change the reality that the government has responsibility. host: tim joins us from austin, texas. caller: thanks to the uk audience about the iraq war policy. concerning the is really a tie

with the war. there is an excellent piece from a couple of years ago about the israel lobby. guest: well, i think a single guest: well, i think a single standard of human rights is a reliable compass. otherwise, we get jerked around are drawn into various eddies and hurricanes of ideologies and theology. if you look at the question of human rights, how people have lived in their land occupied by others, of virtual siege on dodd's of -- gaza, and if we use a single yardstick for human rights, we should be critical of the israeli government, particularly because taxpayers are helping to subsidize it. guest: the problem with this

perspective is that everyone agrees there ought to be one standard for human rights, and that is, a maximum amount of individual liberty. but people like more on the left never want to say this far and no further. even with hitler, he would not respect any code of human rights, and neither like the plo. but the problem is that you have to make a decision at some point to not go any further. as far as the little girl who lost an arm, there were millions and millions of millions of little girls who lost their lives because the west did not stop hitler early enough. that is the issue that separates the left and right. you want the rights without be willing to defend them. guest: the right to be -- the right to not been bombed is fundamental.

host: there is a photograph of president nixon with mao. it would be indefinitely better if he would follow their example and win the peace in our time for street. even alfred noble created by an inmate before establishing his peace prize. i use that as background to share something that you put together for your book. . easy -- and then it you" this senator who served from 1945 until 1969. he began as a republican and became a democrat. this is from the interview of cbs. >> the sole responsibility for the conduct of foreign policy. >> could not be more wrong. it could not make a more unsound it could not make a more unsound legal staff and then the when

you just made. this is a promulgation of an old fallacy that foreign policy belongs to the president. that is nonsense. it belongs to the american people. >> where does the president fit in? >> under our constitution of the present is is an administrator of the people's foreign-policy. i plead the american people be given the fact. >> the american people cannot formulate and execute foreign policy. >> you are a man of little faith. i have complete faith in the ability of the american people to follow the facts if you give them. we're not giving them the facts. host: first reaction frommark tapscott. guest: i'm surprised. the journalist actually asked

tough follow-up questions which we hardly see any more. he did not notice the two most recent democrats. former vice president al gore and former president jimmy carter. guest: the clip from 1964 is a voice that really casts into sharp relief the failures of leadership on capitol hill now. you look at senators who were supposedly raising questions about the president's policies for afghanistan and their relatively weak voice is. really, what he was raising in that interview resonates today. article one, section 8 of the u.s. constitution says it is up to the congress to decide whether the u.s. goes to war and stays there. that is through the power of purse and appropriations process.

the resolution to be invoked next month on in capitol hill in the house by congressman dennis kucinich and several others really raises and sharpens that question. i think that while he is no longer with morris, will be there in spirit as this resolution comes to the floor. host: will joins us from london. caller: thank you for receiving michael. i have two questions. the first is [unintelligible] with the advent of new technology we can find out any piece of information or news development in minutes. and comments about president

obama's decision. [inaudible] it seems that commission on military strategies are not necessarily working. maybe we should introduce more covert actions, but at the same time, -- we want full disclosure. but oftentimes that puts military action into a compromise.

is it necessary to enter into black operations? host: with a couple of issues on the table we will get a response. guest: the caller raises a very interesting questions. we're just beginning to sort out, even to realize much less supply, the possibilities presented to governments through the internet. this is a different world in a fundamental sense. the call lawyerspoint about the conflict between on the one hand, because we are in democracy versus the practical reality that you cannot conduct of covert military operation by definition in the open -- that cannot be solved. it takes privet leadership to figure out with the answers are.

host: let me get your reaction to this piece this morning in "the washington post." the headline concerns the terraced recruiters leveraging theweb. developers point to the dangers of the dangers and extensive network of using the on-line network for recruitment. guest: it is really fascinating that there is a tendency to swing in one direction or the red. either the internet is going to make us all democratic participants in governance, or it is a source of subversion and evil that must be jon ash -- be

challenged. the capacity to communicate is fraught with positive opportunities, and also people can do what they have tried to without the internet in previous centuries. that is sometimes to plan to destroy. it always is a hazard to have the first amendment functional. but as thomas jefferson and many others said, we are much better off with it again without it to. host: a question for you, mark, and the essence of the story is that after years of delay, those familiar with talks say the obama and mr. shen realizes more nations have been developing cyber weapons. there are talks between the u.s. and russia to control the

strength of the internet and limit military use of cyber space. guest: as president ronald reagan said, of course you can talk to them. you trust, but you verify. if you cannot verify, don't talk to them. this is encouraging as a development, but let's not kid ourselves. the russians are going as the chinese already are, and i'm sure every other major nation, seeking every possible means they can on the cyber front and every other front to protect their self-interests. host: miami, on the line for democrats. caller: c-span is a good mechanism to deal with issues. we have never had this before.

mark, what is happening is coming home to roost. sins of our fathers. there was never a plan in the republican party to incorporate the type of socialism, socialistic, social conservative mentality. it was already in the democratic party the democrats got mad. did not have their way, pulled out, it influenced some officials of the republican party. therefore now, 40 years later, they are dominating. what happens is we don't give- and-take in the republican party. the socialist-type republicans. but the fiscal republicans basically do share the frustrations of what has happened with bush.

it has led them to want tomorrow's go for change. this is what obama is doing. my point is, and all you said coming never said anything about yes, -- we are saying no. that is the easy way out if you do not agree, to just say no. guest: there are number of threads there. the political descendants of dixiecrats are largely the republican party on capitol hill. if you go back 10, 15 years right after the 1994 takeover of congress by republicans few from the key leaders in committee chairs were southern whites whose base was overwhelmingly the dixiecrat voters. the was migration through the successful use of the so-called southern strategy by richard nixon in to the republican party. now i think we have the

opportunity to refrain this entire debate. i don't think it is necessarily a republican/democrat debate. he needs to be a more profound question of who we are as a society. health care, are we responsible to each other? priorities that create full employment. are we responsible to create that? or do we simply draw to the market as republicans would do entirely? or as obama would be largely? on that note, i think we need a jobs program. mark, you mentioned earlier the terrible, rising unemployment rate. the jobs stimulus package passed is now creating jobs at a cost of of boards of $200,000 per job. it is funneled into a corporate version of trickle-down job creation. if you have something like the works progress administration that fdr launched, you can create jobs through federal jobs

programs at a much lower cost. and with much greater effect. host: along those lines, mark, you say that the conservatives offer nothing but fear -- that is what is said to you. guest: i have to respond about no atrm said about the do cigarettes. the 1964 civil rights bill would not have been passed without republican support, particularly that of the then-senate minority leader. it is robert byrd, a democratic senator from west virginia who was a former ku clucks klan leader. it was democrats who maintained segregation to route the south. it is democrats today who are trying to impose a new form of segregation through speech codes and he crimes that single out people and silence them because of their views. guest: briefly, the cigarettes

migrated into the republican party precisely because of passage of the 1964 civil rights act as lyndon johnson said, there goes the south for a generation. he was absolutely right. cold water carried only a few states. all of them in the deep south. he opposed civil rights legislation. with very few exceptions -- dirkson was willing to stick out his neck for civil-rights against the state's rights argument. host: norm solomon with the institute for public accuracy. institute for public accuracy. mark tapscott is caller: this really is an honor and privilege. did you think it was dereliction of duty not to have every mp battalion and ordinance disposal

unit on standby when we went into iraq? and also, did you think the president did not show enough care to be concerned to read the newspaper? host: you need to explain your question, so we can get you an appropriate response. caller: the question is, did he think it was dereliction of duty not to have everything impede italian and ordinance disposal unit on standby or alert so that we could deal with what obviously we were going to have to deal with? a lot of men lost their lives because we just buried explosives and ordnance. to make an ied out of an artillery shell, all you need is a postal bigger.

guest: i am not sure the specific situation that the caller is referring to. the opening days of the 2003 invasion of iraq -- i would point out that most of the ied's now and for the last seven years have been produced in iran and shipped into iraq, specifically for the purpose of killing american soldiers. those are not products of leftover ordnance from u.s. actions. they are ordinance designed specifically in iran to kill americans. host: we will listen to read from new york city. on twitter. we will listen to greg from new york city. caller: i love the debate we're having here. mr. solomon, i love your

intentions and intelligence. mr. tapscott, i find you are skirting any solid question with any value towards the american public. i have three questions for you. first, the beginning of the u.s. when the boat came over and basically was welcomed by the natives of there in new england. and talked how to live on this land. yet the result of that kind this was turned back them with murder and mayhem. the country moves toward. you brought up barry goldwater and want brown points for the civil-rights movement. the white democrats did not want to pass it down south. we wanted to do it. as a kid in 1964 i remember, eight years old and barry goldwater's speed all the racist haiti can.

i hear many conservative, right- wing republicans always want to: barry goldwater, yet you never go back to his change of heart. the same meeting with mr. kkk byrd that we know from west virginia and his thought process. if we get to be one, a few mr.tapscott listen to mr. solomon a little more and get away from the no and try to get a little more to the yes, . can't mr. solomon, a want to applaud you for your intelligence and intentions. host: we will stop you there to let the harvard debate continue. guest: this was your brother, right? if guest: not literally, anyway.

guest: where do i start? i commend the caller for his passion. it is too bad we don't have more for american politics today. i would simply say that the caller obviously has a the conventional wisdom of american academia today which is that somehow these evil europeans came to america and took over and murdered and killed for 300 years. that is a total misreading of american, western history. people who have that perspective are not generally open to contrary opinions. i commend the gentleman for his passion. host: coming from james, i

host: coming from james, i thought that the "haters" took sunday off. caller: good morning. only to quickly comment on health care issue. i am for reform, but i tell you what i. if i were watching across the parking lot and is on became up to the my flesh -- i would think that i could get these things are down. the democrat would walk up to zombie and demand healthcare. that is how prophetic the left is. the road to hell is paved with good intentions. i do agree that we need to get out of afghanistan. there's no logical reason that our men and women should be dying in the mountains fighting men who have fought and triggers for 1000 years.

no matter where the interest come from. our problem from terrorism is in saudi arabia, in the culture of is on. i want to tell c-span thank you for this debate. this is the kind of debate that in joy. intelligent men on both sides of the aisle debating the issues. guest: a couple quick thoughts. i would recommend "the people's history of the united states." the racism and brutality is reality, part of history. the selling of the u.s., what became the u.s. by europeans brought with it beginning with christopher columbus tremendous slaughter of native people. we urge other countries to confront their histories and we may as well do that as well. on health care issue, i happen to think it is a human rights. we may not like or empathize

with some people. still, it is a human right as should be education. if someone's house of business were burning down, with the look of their insurance card to decide whether to send the fire department first? people's bodies are sometimes on fire with disease and illness. if we do not believe it to be a public trust are human right, then we have not yet ascended to a sense of human responsibility and social compact to each other. host: let -- back to the president's speech in oslo. the president tried to address history in terms of the evil we have faced in this country and around the world. >> another is nothing week, nothing passive, nothing naive in the greed and lives of gandhi and dr. king, but as the head of state sworn to protect and my

nation, i cannot be guided alone by their principals. i face the world as it is an cannot be idle in the face of threats to american people. big mistake, evil does exist in the world. and non-violence movement cannot have halted hillers armies. negotiants cannot convince al qaeda's leaders to lay down their arms. to say that force may sometimes be necessary it is not a call to cynicism. it is a recognition of history. the imperfections of man and the limits of reason. host: mark? guest: this is a very commendable recognition of reality. people in positions like the president must make decisions based on the way the world is not simply the way that we wish was. guest: it was a slick rhetorical

maneuver by the president to not come to terms with what martin luther king spoke for and live for. and you might say died for. fortunately, particularly in the democratic party base, so many people understand more profound messages from martin luther king, including the essential task to oppose what they call the madness of militarism that obama i am afraid is trying to negate the history very much alive for us in terms of dr. king's legacy/ . host: another caller from britain. caller: good morning. my question is for mr. solomon. first of all, i want to echo the same thing the previous caller said about your level of intelligence. i think you are very intelligent and it is fun listening to you. do you think president obama's

speech at oslo was carefully crafted a? carefully crafted to appease the republican base for some reason? it seems to me that he said a number of things he does not truly believe. am i wrong? by the way, i do agree with you on health care. it is right for everyone. it is a basic human right. if it does not get past, america is in trouble. guest: it is a quixotic and not for a full effort to understand what a president believes at the bottom of his heart. we need to look at his actual policy. lyndon johnson gave an eloquent , progressive and doggerel address and proceeded to escalate the war that caused a few million deaths in vietnam and destroyed the hopes of a

great society and his own domestic program. i think that barack obama has shown himself despite his protesting too much that he believes there's not a pearl between afghanistan and vietnam, -- not a parallel between them, i think he has set a course of destructive policy in escalation. it is most profoundly destructive for those there and here. it is guaranteed to split the democratic party. host: many of those are tweeting about the back-and-forth about these issues. along those lines on a domestic issue ,joe says ed health care was the right, then how would the government have the power to regulate? guest: that is the problem with the approach taken by the democratic party.

if you tell everyone in society that they have an unlimited right to all the health care they could possibly consume, you guaranteeing that there will be rationing. many million people will not get the care they need because there is not an infinite supply. there must be a mechanism one way or another. either bureaucrats or free- market to allocate the available healthcare resources. frankly, in the experience of the world, the freedom way of doing that is free markets. the way to have a government rationing is bureaucracy. guest: we have a rationing now. corporate rationing. the first question when you get to an emergency room is where is your insurance card? guest: exactly, right. guest: if you want to have a society where there is a hierarchy, then you have a good

non-system. i wish democrats on capitol i shall were pursuing a goal of health care for all. i think there has been an abdication of the possibility. guest: don't forget, big insurance, big business, big pharmacy's supports obamacare. guest: we see that with a bill which is quite good so that canadian drugs could come over the border. it is disturbing that the obama what else is trying to prevent access to canadian drugs because of the deal cut. . .

guest: congress is on tract, before or after christmas to pass a bill, like a guthrie song, things get so thin that you can read a newspaper through it. and the health care is getting so thin. guest: what is this? guest: guthrie song.

specifically the free choice act. i just lost my job in april because the labor union created an environment in the workplace where work was an option, and the company had no choice but to go along with that. specific members could just not work and totally shut down production. labor unions are job killers, which would be one way to make money, would be to repeal the free choice act. >> these are the folks who got a steep 40 hour work week, pay for overtime, conditioned protections. the bill you mentioned, the employee free choice act, obama said that he would support when he was campaigning last year in contrast to president bill clinton early on in his first

term who met -- who went to the mat for the corporate family nafta legislation. obama basically has not lifted a finger for the employee free choice act. unfortunately, it shows why many republicans have reason to be somewhat content with what the white house is doing and not doing. what is not being done. host: this question about americans pay half their income to provide health care for third world? guest: the deeper question is what is our priorities and what to we want to do as a society. host: joe is joining us this morning. caller: thank you, god bless c-span. the health debate is affecting a large part of the economy,

and prior they looked at the senators and 85 to 90 voting. the way politics is so bitter, if they ran through on party lines, that would make the politics worse. i think they need 85 people or it's worse. democrats and republicans both have good ideas. guest: i fundamentally agree with that assessment in this respect, when you have a situation where the majority is insisting upon another expansion of government, you will have a strong reaction from those of us who want less government and more freedom. and as long as that's the basis narrative of this politics, we will have this situation. guest: a lot of narrative injected by president clinton that big government is over,

and that's a çrhetorical ascension and the big guns were lotted for big government. guest: actually that was not an ascesion by the government but the americans. host: we have robert joining us, good morning. please go ahead. caller: yes, sir, i am a 75-year-old african-american from mississippi and i am also a vietnam veteran, i]i have a problem with the way that thew3

republicans go around and say they are the moral authority onç civil rights. i mean in mississippi, i am sure that the gentleman on the right he cannot imagine america being in the 40's and the 50's in mississippi about civil rights. i think we should straight -- straighten up our own act before we go to vietnam and afghanistan and iraq before we talk about somebody's civil rights. and that's all i have to say. guest: first i want to thank caller for his service in vietnam, you can never be appreciated enough. and i did grow up in a segregated society and went to

a segregated school in the 50's, and i came to a conclusion early in my life that this country had to have a civil rights revolution, if you will. precisely because government was getting so much bigger and the violations of civil rights are initiated or protected by the government. that we had to the civil rights resolution of 1974 to reduce the power of the government. host: a look back at 2009, carlos says that the year is over, but was it history. was it a historical year of how we look at 1959 or 1865, at the end of the civil war, would you put it in context? 1776 or 1919? guest: my sense that the united states and a lot of the world

were traumatized by eight years of the george bush administration and the obama administration, and the nobel peace prize is a standard to the military center that obama has shown himself to be. and that's why we are, it's a tipping point. it didn't have to be this way, that could have been an asserted, nondogmatic aggressiveness pursued by the obama administration. obama is not pursuing an aggressive policy. this year is a tipping back to a center policy that has a lot in the negative sense of terms of effects, domestically and ç foreign and that's going to be

an issue in a year or two ahead. guest: 2009 has been a transitional year, i wrote a column saying that if president obama would make him a symbol of what is wrong with the government, which is too much government, he would be a one-term president. and everyone that has happened in my view is that he's on a one-term strategy. host: before we let you go, this network and this town, the subject of political humor last night on "saturday night live." >> senators held a press conference earlier today to criticize the media's excessive coverage of tiger woods' extra martial affairs.

>> good evening, i am senator john edwards and senator from north carolina. the three of us are here today because there is something very wrong going in this country. and we can't keep silent about it. in the last two weeks our media has participated in an orgy of tiger woods and his extramartial affairs. the coverage has overshadowed the coverage of our extramartial affairs. >> like tiger woods, we have abused our vows and violated the public's trust. it's a big deal but the media doesn't care less. >> where is the coverage? >> where is the outrage?

>> we are still in office. >> i had a love child. host: your response? guest: i swear the fella like >> tomorrow on "washington journal" a preview of president obama's meeting with the heads of several large banks to discuss the economy. matthew leavitt from the washington institute for near east policy discusses the rest of several americans in pakistan, author walton francis talks about his books. "washington journal," live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span.

the senate approved a 1.1 trillion dollars spending bill for fiscal year 2010, providing for 10 federal departments. the final vote was the 87-35. after the vote, senators resumed debate on health care. now, portions of today's session. we begin with senator john mccain on the spending bill, and then senator harkin talks about health care. mr. mccain: mr. president, i understand that there will be debate until 2:00 and then a vote on appropriations consolidated, consolidated appropriations conference report. what is consolidated appropriations conference report? it means that there are six bills, three which were never considered on the floor of the senate. that's what the senate means by consolidated, my friends. and so three of the bills were never -- we're never allowed to debate or amend or accept or reject. they are now spending

spending $450 billion loaded up with 4,752 earmarks, totaling totaling $3.7 billion. 1,350 pages long. and of that, 409 pages are dedicated to listing congressional pork-barrel spending. i know that most americans are watching nfl football today, and they probably don't pay much attention to what we do on a sunday afternoon here on the floor of the senate, but if they knew, if they knew what we're about to pass, a bill that's increased spending by 14% over last year's level, with the exception, of course, with veterans which is only -- our veterans' care which has increased by 5%. so here we are with with $1.4 trillion, now now $1.5 trillion debt this year, an aggregate debt of over over $12 trillion, unemployment at 10%, 900,000 families lost

their homes in 2008, and the numbers -- in 2008, and the numbers for 2009 will be greater. so what do we do here? we spend and spend and spend and spend and earmark and earmark and earmark. so that the -- the price index went down 1.3%, so we're going to increase spending by 5%. what could the american people do with the $3.7 billion in earmarks that are on this bill? let me tell you a few of them. and you won't believe it and i'm not making it up. $2.7 million to support surgical operations in outer space at the university of nebraska. now, i know trekkies -- trekies all over america will approve of that. i know that leonard mccoy, dr. leonard mccoy, bones, and even dr. spock and captain kirk will call them all to the bridge

and be happy to know that that $2.7 million is going to go to dr. leonard mccoy and his friends to support surgical operations in outer space, while thousands of americans are losing their homes. now, another one that i -- i have been unable to describe adequately without violating the rules of the senate. $655,000 for cedars-sinai medical center, los angeles, california, for equipment and supplies for the institute for irritable bowel syndrome research. the only thing i can say is that that problem will not be reduced when people read this legislation. so there may be a need for it. so -- so what -- so here we are. and the list goes on and on. i mean, it's crazy stuff. $200,000 for a visitors' center in bastrop, texas, population

5,340. $292,200 for elimination of slum and blight in scranton, pennsylvania. the cast of "the office" are rejoicing. $200,000 for design and construction of a public market in the northern marianas. the woodstock film festival youth initiative is going to get get $30,000. it's -- it's -- it's beyond imagination when you put it into the context of americans are suffering more than they have at any time in their lives, thanks to the greed and avarice of wall street, main street is under tremendous dur rest. -- duress. so this is shameful. so when signing a huge -- i want to remind my colleagues, jus just last march, the president signed another bill, and what he

said, "i am signing an imperfect omnibus bill because it is necessary for the ongoing functions of government, but also be this as a departure point for more far-reaching change." he also said "the future demands that we operate in a different way than we have in the past, so let there be no doubt, this piece of legislation, must mark an end to the old way of doing business and the beginning of a new era of responsibility and accountability that the american people have every right to expect and demand." mr. president, if the president is going to carry out those words, he will veto this bill and send it back and tell them to get rid of this pork. tell them to get rid of it. what's going to happen in a few minutes. by a very large vote, the senate

of the united states is going to vote in favor of this bill. now, there will be -- there will be on this side of the aisle the party of fiscal conservatives that lost the last two elections, one major reason because we let spending get out of control, there will be members on this side of the aisle who will vote for this pork-barrel bill. on the other side of the aisle, a majority over there, overwhelming majority, all but maybe one or two, will also vote for the bill, and then they will go home -- if we ever get out of here -- they will go home and they'll say i'm a fiscal conservative and i'm going to appoint -- i'm all for a commission to cut spending, and let's appoint a commission. let's not take any responsibilities ourselves. let's appoint a commission. and that commission will recommend how we can reduce spending. if you really want to reduce spending and eliminate unnecessary and wasteful spending, vote against this bill that increases spending over last year by some 14%. and if you want to vote for it,

fine, but isn't it a little hard with a straight face to go back and tell your constituents that you really are against elimination of this waste and pork barrel and corrupting spending? it corrupts, my friends. it's a gateway drug to corruption. we have former members of congress in federal prison because of this. so i urge my colleagues -- first, i urge the president -- since it's going to be passed, i urge the president of the united states -- no, i don't urge. i demand the president of the united states keep his word when he signed another pork-barrel-laden bill last march to veto this bill, and i urge my colleagues, i urge my colleagues let's stand up against this for once! a bill that has $3.7 billion in earmarks. immediately, colleagues of mine are saying well, this is a legitimate earmark, this is important, that's important. the problem with it is nobody ever saw it before. it never competed. maybe we need a -- to support

surgical operations in outer space. do we need it at the university of nebraska? no, it's eermd for the university of nebraska -- it's earmarked for the university of nebraska. i don't think, except for trekies, that many americans think we need to spend spend $2.7 million to support surgical operations in outer space. so all i can say, mr. president, do not be surprised when the american people a little less than a year from now, next november, rise up and reject this kind of behavior and practice of irresponsible spending while they are hurting more than they have ever been in their lives. they deserve better than what they are getting out of this legislative process, and they have every right to demand something different. let's -- let's show some courage and vote against this bill, send it back to the president, get rid of the pork-barrel spending and send it back and let us vote for it. we could do it immediately. i urge my colleagues looksenatoe recognized for 13 minutes. mr. harkin: mr. president, i don't intend to use it more, if

others on my side are seeking it. but, mr. president, today and every day an estimated 14,000 americans will lose their health insurance coverage. the historic legislation before us takes unprecedented steps to expand this coverage to the great majority of americans. while cracking down on the abusive practices of the health insurance industry. however, expanding coverage alone is not going to solve our problem. the additional 31 million americans who will gain coverage, thanks to this bill, are going to need health care providers. mainly primary health care providers. the doctors, the nurses, many other health professionals whose skills an hard work -- and hard work provide patients with the high-equally health care they need. we're going to need public health care professionals who can provide assistance during times of emergency, such as the current hn1 pandemic, they'll

need places to go. today there are shortages of primary care practicers and other health care providers. this map here gives an kaiftion the lack of primary health care providers in america. the darker areas is where we have the lowest number of health care -- primary health care practitioners. and you can see it's mostly -- mostly rural america. but that's not entirely true. but mostly rural america in which we lack that kind of care. currently 65 million americans live in areas suffering from a shortage of health care professionals. the department of health and human services submits it will take more than 16,000 additional practicpractitioners to meet ou. as i'm sure that our constituents can tell you that they don't have the primary care

practitioners they need in america. i was up this morning, working out, watching cnn news, along came a blurb about primary health care people in america that's going to really put a crunch on us in terms of meeting our health care needs. so people are now beginning to pick up on this all over the country. so what are we doing about it? well, first of all, we have to recognize some of the root causes of this. one of the root causes is debt. and it's the amount of money that health care students pay to go to school. here's the debt right now of graduates of medical school. 44% had over $175,000 of debt. another 14% in here -- you can see that -- that the vast majority have over $125,000. some -- almost half have ove over $175,000 of debt. and, so, what happens is with

this huge debt, they can't afford to go work in rural areas or areas where they don't get re recompense. and a shortage of members are not admitted because of a shortage of faculty members. 50,000 applicants were turned away from bac schools of nursin. this is unacceptable. not only do we have to have more primary care practitioners, we need the faculty. well, it's a growing problem. the bureau of labor and statistics estimates by 2016 we'll have a shortage of over one million health care workers, including home health aides, nursing aides, and others to care for our aging population much that's why expanding access to primary and preventive care has been a key focus throughout the health reform efforts. with senator murray's leadership

of the workforce group, the "help" committee has focused on expanding resources to provide qualified health care providers. senator baucus made expanding access to primary care a righty as well as expand -- priority as well as expanding residency for a primary care practitioner. under the majority leader reid's helped to combine the "help" committee and finance committee provisions to expand our health care workforce, especially our primary care workforce. let's see what this does. first of all, the bill will train an additional 24,000 primary care physicians, via the hlt services. it provides loan repayment, scholarships and higher reimbursement for primary care providers in underserved areas. it increases the supply of

public health workers at the tribal health agencies. we provide new resources for more community health centers and nurse managed health centers. we expand primary care residency and training initiatives at hospital and community health centers. our bill, mr. president, will improve health care providers' ability to serve the increasingly diverse population by providing training in cultural competency, in working with individuals with disabilities, in providing care within the medical home model. because innovative health home care delivery models emphasize team-based care, we invest in health care professionals from physicians to dentists to nurses to home health aides to all alld health professionals. to increase the capacity of our school and faculty to train new

providers, we offer loan repayment programs to doctors, nurses and dentists who will serve as faculty members at the schools. we will have a national independent workforce commission to examine and provide recommendations to congress on how federal workforce programs can be improved and how federal dollars can be most effectively spent. mr. president, it is critical that we act on this historic legislation for many reasons, most of the debate has been about expanding coverage. cracking down on health insurance abuses. expanding preventive care to keep people healthy in the first place. but there's also one other aspect of this bill that's not been talked about. and that is what we're doing to increase the number of people that we're going to have to have -- have to have for primary care, for our community health centers, for our faculty members

in the future. this is something that we have ignored for far too long at our own peril. so we can't forget while we're expanding coverage, and we're going to cover 94% of the american people can this health care bill. while we're going to make it more affordable. while we're going to protect medicare, while we're going to do all the things to really make our health system more affordable, more quality conscience, cover more people, make sure people can get in to get their primary care first rather than go to an emergency room, we can't forget that we need the faculty. we need teachers, and we need to help in the debt repayment, loan repayments by giving more scholarships to these young people, the nurses, the nurses aides, the physical therapists, the people that work with people that work with disabilities, doctors, dentists, the people involved with primary care. we have to help them get through

school so they don't have a mountain of debt on their head, so they can practice medicine where they want, not where they're forced to go in order to pay back their debts. so, mr. president, i just want to thank senator murray on the "help" committee who did so much to put all of this into our bill. this is, again, a major provision of the health care legislation that we're not hearing debated about here on the floor of the senate very much. but it is one of the most critical parts of the bill. again, i thank senator baucus, and all the work they did on the finance committee to put in the tax provisions and other provisions that are going to help us, first of all, invest in and grow the primary care workforce, and also to make it possible for people to become faculty members and teachers by helping them pay back their loans and their debts. so i wanted to take this time, mr. president to, again, highlight this part of the bill. not talked about much. but i believe it's one of the most important

>> the senate approved a fiscal spending bill for 2010. three democrats voted against the bill. republicans voted for the spending package. the only spending bill that still needed to be approved is the defense department. senators will resume debate on health care legislation when the gavel and tomorrow at 2:00 p.m. eastern. like coverage of the senate on c-span2. up next, it's "q&a" with political commentator michael fauntry. later a state department discussion on u.s.-latin american relations with secretary of state hillary clinton.

the peterson-pe commissionw on budget reform hosts a condition on the federal debt. former has been the house budget committee members, live tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> american icons, three original documentary is from c- span, now available on dvd. a unique journey through the iconic homes of the three branches of american government. see the explicit detail of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices. go beyond the velvet ropes of public tours into those rarely seen spaces of the white house, america's most famous song, and explore the history, art, and architecture of the capit