conversations we had with our source, which we had with every single source we talked to. we would talk in great detail about how the interview we were about to conduct would be used in the book. we would go almost like a speech. there was no sexual script but there might as well have been, we said, this is how the interview is going to go, this is what we'll use, what we can't use. i can say there's no case in which the way we explained what we were going to do, that in the end we didn't live up to that agreement with any source we talked to for the book. i think it's important that people understand that deep background, as many of -- as many people have written is not a concept etched in stone. every journalist has rules of the road and the rule they was road we laid out were rules we stuck to at every instance. . - guest: with new ones, you can describe different things. we did not violate the agreement

with anybody that we made for the book. unlike a lot of exchanges and washington and journalism generally, between reporters and sources, with the terms are not defined but there is assumed to be commonality, or they are defined on the fly, we have meticulously and carefully in every exchange we had a free interview we did went through the project, the terms we are discussing, and we did not violate those terms for any person to talk to a to the book. host: melvin on the democrats' line. caller: i have more of a comment and i wanted to address a couple of issues. there are people saying that barack obama is not living up to his campaign promises. but my main point -- you heard a lot of people talk about concern about deficit spending. i don't think they realize that when ronald reagan took office in 1980, the deficit was $980 billion. one him and george bush sr. left

office, it was ordered $5 trillion. clinton left a surplus -- it was $405 trillion. clinton left a surplus, and the deficit was $10.90 trillion when obama took over. where democrats get all the blame for the spending when it is actually republicans who created all this deficit? the democrats never seem to address that issue, and they continue to be demonized for the spending, and republicans used fiscal conservatives -- host: at some of this is playing out, what he is getting at, in the special elections in messages, about democrats' big spenders -- special election in massachusetts, about democrats being spenders and raising taxes. i am wondering if you could compare your debts from hillary clinton's campaign, the staffers

-- your notes from hillary clinton's campaign, the staffers that she had, and reports this morning that hillary clinton's staff for new england is helping to run martha coakley's campaign. guest: mark would know more about this. we have been so busy with this book that i don't know the details of this spirit is the case that republicans have historically and traditionally and successfully in many cases portrayed the democrats as a big spending party. they have been are successful in doing that and in massachusetts it has been playing out where you have martha coakley is not getting the kind of support from the democratic base that she would expect. much more importantly, she is having a very hard time getting a number of independent voters that she would need, who are accessed with these questions of tax and spending and deficit. -- obsessed with these questions

of tax and spending and deficit. guest: one of the most serious moments in the book is clinton's attempt to get teddy kennedy to endorse hillary over barack obama, and the frustration and anger that both clintons felt. they had gone sailing with him. president clinton would tell people how angry and frustrated he was that he had done so much for the kennedy family as president and they were drifting towards obama. hillary and bill clinton have incredible political support in massachusetts, and one of the satisfying moments for them on super tuesday was despite the fact that senator kennedy had endorsed barack obama, hillary was able to win massachusetts. some of her field operatives in massachusetts and new hampshire are now, as i understand, working for the democratic nominee there. they probably should have been there a little sooner. most people watching the race closely believe that their

involvement is being done at the last minute, very quickly, and may be too little, too late, if i may use a cliche on c-span. host: steve on the republican line. caller: i'm wondering if you could talk about mitt romney, the conflict between his public image and private conduct. and also mike huckabee. thanks. guest: for a variety of reasons, we did not spend as much time on the republican race, because it lacked the drama. but there are some things on it romney could to the specific question, there is one of very striking example of the striking public image and private reality and the kiss of romney. mitt romney's public image, if anything, was defined as a competent ceo character. he was an arch catalyst and had run -- arch-capitalist and had run bain capital.

he could run government like running a board room. throughout our coverage in the book of romney was the fact that the staff was totally frustrated that he was totally indecisive. he could not decide on something as elemental as picking a campaign slogan. they never came up with a campaign slogan. the consultant side of him actually dominated in some ways. he would ask for more and more input and constantly take more and more time and wanted more and more data, and the deluge of data that he sought actually cut paralyzed and 34 people around him, -- actually kind of paralyzed him. for people around him, the worse died. -- they were stunned. we have details of how much john mccain, how much mike huckabee and others disliked commit money

to he was sort of a preening -- this like to make romney. he was sort of eigha preening prima donna. they would malkin behind his back, and that he would rocked -- would mock him behind his back, and he would walk into the room and it would be kind of a hushed. host: could you tell us about the difference between rudy giuliani on the campaign trail and in private? guest: the book is about politics and the sense that we write about presidential candidates and their spouses, but our goal was to write about the personalities and the high human drama. we knew all the time that we had an interesting set of characters. pretty giuliani is the seventh--- we knew we had an interesting set of characters went rudy giuliani was the

seventh-the most interesting candidate. a clean up new york city and stood up to terrorists after 9/11. but on the campaign trail, he was not a tiger, but a pussycat. when he was shown at negative ads point out against him, he would laugh at them and said that all of those were silly. in debates, when he was challenged by opponents, he laughed. he never showed the toughness and hunger to win. rinceau counter to his image. -- it ran so counter to his image. his inability to define himself and reinforce his greatest strengths, the image of being tough, was a big part of his downfall. the person who knew him best in the old, was john mccain. they had been friends since back when rudy giuliani was mayor. when mccain was starting to

fall, he was never worried about rudy giuliani. he said [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> wednesday morning, prime minister's question time from the british house of commons. gordon brown's weekly meeting with the british parallelment. see it live at 7:00 a.m. eastern on our companion network c-span 2. >> this weekend on c-span 2's book tv, john mueller that a terrorist attack in the u.s. is far smaller and presents his case and then impact of the automobile in modern society from annual operating costs to

global warming and possible increases in obesity and asthma rates. and get the latest updates on twitter. >> do you know one of the top free news is c-span radio? now you can get quick and easy access to three channels, c-span radio plus c-span and c-span 2 and tabs with links to our podcasts. and it's all agree and available from the store. >> now conservative charles crout hammer and reflects on the first year of the obama administration. this event from the heritage foundation is 50 minutes.

>> i would like to welcome all of you to the heritage foundation and special welcome to those joining us online for this very special event, our sixth margaret thatcher freedom lecture. we created this lecture series in 2006. we wanted to weigh not only to honor lady thatcher but to bring greater clarity and attention to the policies of freedom itself not only in the united states but around the world. for the first lecture we asked, is freedom for everyone? the speaker did so eloquently that our subsequent speakers have matched.

we have heard from economic freedom, religious freedom, on whether the united nations advances the cause of freedom and the important relationship between security and freedom. advancing freedom is a major goal of the heritage foundation and important work that we do here. in fact tomorrow, we will release in hong kong and washington the 16th edition of the index of economic freedom. you will want to stay tuned because there is a bit of big and i'm afraid bad news in the index score for freedom in the united states. our speaker today is dr. charles krauthammer. on december 25, he described president obama's first year in office the year of living fec tilously.

most of us know that he writes a column for the "washington post." less known is that he is a harvard educated medical doctor who was a resident of psychiatry at massachusetts general hospital. in 1978, he decided to leave medical practice and came to washington to write for "the new republic." in 1980, he became a speech writer for vice president walter mondale and 1985, he began writing a column for the "washington post" which we have enjoyed every week ever since. in addition to this weekly column, he pens a monthlies a for "time" magazine and commentator on tv and a popular public speaker. over the years his commentary has received many honors, including a pulitzer prize in 1987. he has the nag magazine award

fores as and criticism, first bradley prize. in 2006, the financial times named him the most influential commentator in america and they it is remarkable how much charles has contributed to the lexicon and coined phrases like the reagan doctrine and described the era u.s. influence and dominance and democratic realism to sum up his view of international relations since september 11. many of of us have read his columns and found ourselves saying yes, that is exactly right. that's because his writings, and thinking is so clear that it crystalizes our own thoughts perfectly. charles is not just a commentator. more than any journalist today

he is the aha moments because he gives voice to what so many of us believe. i believe we would would all be poor in thought without his comments and also less free. thank you charles for honoring us today for the sixth margaret thatcher freedom lecture. please welcome charles krauthammer. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you, kim, for that kind flukes. i feel when i hear my checkered past recalled, i should respond, especially to the mondale bit. people ask me how you go from walter mondale to fox news. the answer was, easy.

i was young once. perhaps i should have subjected the title of my address, how do you celebrate the first anniversary of the second coming. [laughter] >> that was a slow fuse. six months ago when i was thinking of my subject for this address, obama was halfway on his trajectory, downward trajectory from divinity to mortality. but now that we have arrived at the last day of the first year, the magic has worn off and the charisma has gone cold. in massachusetts, the bluest of the blue state is thinking of electing an object score republican to a u.s. senate

reserved for the kennedy family. where the obama approval rating is at 46% and where his disapproval rating is the highest ever a year after a presidential election. no need for me to trace and explain his remarkable decline. instead of talking about where obama's domestic agenda has brought him, i propose to speak about where his foreign policy agenda has brought us. they received a second look after his speech in norway in accepting the nobel prize and talked about the existence of evil and the occasional necessity of what. this led to some enthusiastic

talk about a new obama doctrine. described as christian realism and a fusion of realism and idealism. i hate to rain on this parade, but i find it hard to join in the general swooning over this newly found foreign policy sophistication. yes, it's good that we have a president who says that gandhi would not have done well against hitler, but is this really a great philosophical advance for a president of the united states? this is the kind of issue that you dispose of. in your first evening pool session in the freshman dorm. pacificism is for sweet adolescence or a way of life for

certain eccentric sects who survived because they live among noneccentric sects that fight pacificism and fight to keep those cells free. and yes, obama did offer a defense of war. but remember, he just announced a 30,000-troop deployment in afghanistan, an obligation he in herted and he declared a vital national interest. and he so agonized about providing his generals with an adequate troop level that it took three months of public wrestling with both his conscience and his vice president before he came to that decision. what else can the leader of any

serious nation do but defend the necessity of war? how can a man who ran his commander in chief do otherwise? what leader of a serious nation even raises pacificism as a serious foreign policy issue. indead, when a president's recognition of evil or rejection of pacificism jumps out at us as something startling, that tells us much, none of it good, about the baseline from which he is operating. the internationalism that obama has been operating under during his first year in office. and remember after this brief foray into the obvious, affirming america's role in protecting the peace, obama felt compelled to spend the second half of his nobel address returning to the

internationalist themes that had garnered him the prize in the first place from that overdressed, underemployed jury who gave him the prize. and what is the baseline? what is the essence of the obama foreign policy? there are many places that can be found in the cairo speech, in other legs of a tour, but the interest was expressed by him in his address to the u.n. general assembly in which he laid out his understanding of what is the international system. quote, where our destiny is shared, power is no longer a zero sum game. no one nation can or should try to dominate another nation. no world order that elevates one nation or group above another will succeed and alignments of nations rooted in the cleavages

of a long gone cold war make no sense in an interconnected world. where does one begin? power is no longer a zero sum game? tell that to the demonstrators in the streets of tehran, tell that to the tigers or to the newly liberated nations of the battleic states. no nation should try to dominate another. well, perhaps. but that's merely adolescent you topianism. the world is a hobbsian state of nature and the very essence of international life. no nation can dominate another? this is simple nonsense. how can a man of such high intelligence allow him to say that? most disturbing is the notion of what he called the cleavages of

the long gone cold war being obsolete and senseless. these chiefages were actually the dividing line between the free and unfree between democratic and communist, between the west and evil empire that stamped out the face of freedom in half of europe, in europe, of colonies from cuba to vietnam to nicaraugua. this was no accidental dividing line. yet in place of the so-called chiefage, obama wants to bring a universal understanding and accommodation. and for that, the u.s. is to be the healer, the moral example, led by a man floating above it all, a fellow citizen of the world as obama called himself in

berlin. it was in berlin in that remarkably bizarre setting that candidate obama offered the best insight as to how he sees the world when he asserted that the berlin wall had come down because, quote, there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one. as one? if anything, the world stood as two. those for decade strove to bring the wall down and those for the same decades strove to maintain it, indeed the ones who put it up in the first place. the wall came down of a group of nations coming together, but because the united states, acting often alone but certainly with a few allies at a very high cost into two hot wars, korea

and vietnam and one cold war that carried the constant threat of nuclear destruction resisted in maintaining the fight relentlessly to maintain and ultimately to destroy the soviet empire. only someone who could actually think that the cold war was won by some common exertion of common humanity in the service of common universal norms could actually believe that these fictional forces hold the key to security and peace in the world today but obama apparently does. at the heart of this internationalist fantasy is the very notion that a community of nations with its common norms ultimately determines the course of history. common norms? the taliban and us have very

different visions of the good. some do the arabs of the northern sudan and the christian sudanese who live in the south and have been in near perpetual civil war in the last several decades to say nothing of the north and south in this country in the 1860's. even if people share the same aspirations, harmony does not necessarily ensue. resources enriches land and power does not gain stride to what others have. this is all totally elementary. classes of values and the struggle constitute a constant in human history and they account for the other constant, conflict and war. and yet against all this, the center of obama's world is what he calls the international

community. he calls on it to quote stand up to north korea, to restrain iran's nuclear ambitions, to bring about his ultimate dream of nuclear disarmament and it is to this fancy entity to earn its support that obama offers demonstrations of national virtue as he sees it as closing guantanamo and enduring terrorist matterminds. the idea of the international community lies at the center of the obama foreign policy. unfortunately, it is a fiction. there is no such thing. different countries have different histories, geographies, necessities and interests. they may occasionally eli themselves in coalitions like

they did in the second world war, but there is no natural inherent or enduring international community. what community of interest actually exists between say the united states, iran, burma and zimbabwe. the international community has no universal recognized goals. anarchy is kept in check not by bureaucracy on the river or world opinion, not by par muchment promises adorned with disingenuous signatures but by the will and power of the great powers and most importantly in our time by the one superpower namely the united states. one highly revealing analysis of obama foreign policy relying on leaks from inside the white

house spoke about obama's approach to foreign policy owed much to his experience as a community organizer, the idea of listening, understanding and seeking common ends. this is all rather good but a community organizer in chicago operates within and under the protection of a very elaborate, very secure, highly regulated and consensual domestic civil society. what holds civil society together is the supreme central authority. the sang activity of contracts and december sensey of its members. the international community lacks all of these things. what keeps it from degenerating is not central authority, not the phony security of treaties, not the best of goodwill among the more civilized nations.

what civility we do have is due to the overwhelming power and threat of a superpower like the united states that defines national stability as a national interest. nonetheless, we seem almost devoted to the quote, international community. making ritual obeyance to its manifestations. the united nationses and variou parties such as the human rights council and the climate change conference which demonstrated spec task can you larly the lack of common purpose, common interest and common governance. the failure of these international institutions and paper agreements seems to leave no lasting impression. did we really learn nothing from

the earlier 20th century experience with its repeated and doomed attempts to regulate the capital ships of the great powers through naval conferences? did we really learn nothing from the kellogg pact whose signatories included germany and japan that abottle issued war forever and one that frank kellogg? sound familiar? but at least kellogg got it for an actually signed useful treaty. [laughter] >> obama got it for the imagined useless treaties, most notably the one he has been insisting on from prague to new york on universal disarmament.

the depths of obama's knife yet can be seen in this goal. the most dramatic instance of which as the president of france will not easily forget occurred on september 24 one day after obama's speech to the general assembly when he asked and presided over the security council the first time an american president has ever done so. at the time, unknown to the world, obama had knowledge that iran had constructed a secret uranium enrichment facility. the french and the british were urging him to use that dramatic setting at the security council to stun the world with that revelation and thus to be in a position to call for immediate powerful action. not only did obama refuse, but

president sarkozy was forced to scrap any mention of it from his speech. obama only revealed the news a day later in pittsburgh. why did he forego the opportunity? because, the white house explained, obama didn't want anything at the security council meeting to get in the way of his dream of a nuclear-free world. he did not want to die lute his proposed disarmament resolution with a diversion to iran. iran as a diversion? it's the most important security issue on the planet. a diversion from the fantasy of nuclear disarmament? sarkozy was watching and could hardly contain himself. with obama at the chair, he

pointedly observed, quote, president obama has said -- has even said i dream of a world without nuclear weapons, yet, before our eyes, two countries are currently doing the exact opposite. and then he informed the president that we live in a real world, quote, not a virtual world. now this critique of liberal internationalism does not mean that we reject all treaties or all notions of communities of nations. you can, of course, have transnational agreements between like-minded nations that do share norms and for whom, therefore, these agreements are real. a commercial treaty between rule of law states such as the united states and canada, for example, or the various agreements that are in the european union have near the power of domestic law

as does a common defense pact such as that which holds nato together. but universal treaties necessarily include all states, democratic and tyrannical, compliant and generally noncompliant. such agreements will not be adhered to by rogue states, who will cheat as suits their purposes. rendering the treaty not only useless but worse than useless. for example, alleged violations of the nonproliferation treaties are referred to the iaea, a procedure that leads to complacency, to say nothing of endless delay because it gives the delusion of enforcement. these agreements are almost never enforced. indeed the one act of enforcement in recent times, the

removal of the rogue regime of saddam hussein after a decade of serial violations of security council resolutions demanding disarmament has been widely deflounced around the world that obama has spent much of the last year apologizing for it. as for this community of nations, this does not mean that there are no such communities. margaret thatcher and ronald reagan did not lack for a sense of community. and that was the community of free nations. these communities have a reality, they have their own norms and ideals and policies, and some like nato, even a security apparatus to back it up. it is precisely this kind of community of the democratic nations that the margaret thatcher center for freedom so

courageously and effectively defends and supports, which makes obama's internationalism particularly troubling, because as he stated at the u.n., true universeity denigrates these subcommunities as mere cleavages such as those that created the cold war. he says so rather directly in his u.s. address when he says no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed. but isn't that what nato, for example is about? isn't that a group of nations claiming exclusive ity and enforcing the nornls which they believe? what was the u.n.'s rescue of

bosnia if not nato elevating itself above other nations and groups of people to declare that genocide would not be carried on in the ball cans and nato acting without the quote, unquote, international community as expressed in the united nations security council? this whomage to internationalism and den gracious of internationalism and individual sovreignty but the commonality and special relations among the community of free nations has very practical impact on america's actions in the world. and that impact is already being felt by friend and foe, ally and adversary. if our ultimate aim is to earn a place as a good international citizen, we must abandon any signs of arrogance, any act of

prideful self-assertion and begin to constrict and constrain our often irresponsible power and act as one among many. to do that, we must undertake two things. first, for giveness of past since and outreach and it has been engaged in relentlessly. that's the apology tour, from president's eisenhower's role in 1953 to the first use of the atomic bomb and mistreatment of native americans for allegedly disparraging and disrespecting europe by not recognizing its quote leading role in the world and and might that be because it has lived under america's protection for 60 years, but i

digress. above all, we must apologize for showing insufficient respect for the muslim world, this from the leader of a nation that has conducted five military campaigns in the last 20 years, each of which was intended to defend defenseless muslims against -- and to deliver them from their oppressors. bosnia, cost ofeo, kuwait, afghanistan and iraq under sudan. and after the confession, here comes the extended hand to the clenched fist. we have had a year of this as well. what is clear is that reconciliation, the resetting of relations starting from scratch

from adversaries has its consequences. why? because these conflicts did not come out of no where. they have their roots in a clash of interest and values and we had allies in these clashes. that is why starting the worlda new as obama imagined he does in most everything, pressing the reset button all over the world has conquenses not the least of which is among our allies. for example, resetting relations with russia and caving in on missile defense, the czech republic and poland, which had taken risks in joining us in this venture. it meant once again leaving them wondering about american reliability and about ours and

theirs post-cold-war independence and running to the limbo where that sovreignty is constrained by detante of moscow. obama's three-day bowing and scraping in china after refusing to meet with the dally llama and without so much of a gesture and insisting on elevating china to near superpower status. at one point in the visit, obama suggested a chinese interest in stability in the indian subcontinent, a suggestion not well received in india, part of a pattern of giving shore slift to india, china's indian rival and our ally in the region with a common tradition, common democracy and common enemy in

radical islam. the indians had to settle for a white house state dinner and almost without even the salihis. [laughter] >> other consequences? the pressure of israel over the issue of nonsettlements to create daylight between the united states and israel precisely to gain favor with the palestine and the arab states. hence also the comedy of errors in honduras where obama supported a chavez want-to-be while opposing constitutionality that would oppose a dictate according to article 239. hence also and i'm yite shocked

that lebanon's recent demonstrations to syria. syria had been ostracized from the bush administration for its role in the assassination and obama administration is offering reconciliation and return of the u.s. ambassador. the pro-western lebanese know how to read wind direction, hence the recent astonishing visit of lebanese president to da mass cast to bend -- damascus to bend a knee to a man he knows is behind the murder. but now who is now the once again regional power as the obama administration resets relations with lebanon-syrian

overlord. accommodation with enemies is not a free lunch. it has its price. and finally the policy of this expensive accommodation, iran, where obama has consistently upheld the legitimatey of the clerical regime insists on maintaining good relations with it and has been slow and often silent in support of the democratic demonstrators in the streets. the basic critique of this foreign policy is not just that it is naive and that it is unseemly a stain on the american tradition of supporting democratic forces around the world, but that worst of all, it has been a failure. we chose russia over eastern europe and what did we get in return?

cooperation with iran? nothing. and from china? from china, we received explicit statements that they would oppose any sanctions on iran in the security council. what have we gotten for our pressure on israel? the complete breakdown of negotiations. for 16 years, the palestinians have negotiated with israel without a settlement freeze. until obama arrived to re-invent the world. the arabs now refuse any negotiation as they prefer logicically to sit back and let the united states extract unilateral concessions from israel. this is only the beginning. in his first year, we have only begun to see the fruits of obama's internationalism, but the signs are unmistakeable. should this policy continue for the next three years yet alone for the next seven, it will have

profound consequences throughout the world. it would consfute a growl american restreet -- constitute a grad you'll american restreet. obama insisted that the restreet begins there as well and will have consequences easily stated. when allies see the american umbrella beginning to be withdrawn, they will begin to accommodate themselves to those countries we were protecting them from. so obvious are these con see questions -- consequences of the disconnect between the real world and what france has called obama's virtual world it is hard for me that the current policies can continue indefinitely because at some point empirical

reality must intervene. the reality of iranian aggressors, of china's headlong pursuit of its own national, regional and international interests of russia's interest to regain its near abroad, of the arab states refusal to accept any settlement of the kind that israel has offered under several governments, of syria's designs on lebanon of chavez's designs on the weaker countries in latin america. maybe i'm wrong. maybe this kind of foreign policy can persist indefinitely. perhaps obama will prove himself imper viaous. in which case, all these accommodations, the weakening of the alliances, the strengthening

of centers of adversarial power in moscow, beijing, ca rack ast, tehran and elsewhere will continue at a pace until something brace us all. such of living in a virtual world. i pray we leave it soon. thank you very much. [applause] >> charles, thank you very much for that excellent speech. you managed to cover every issue i was hoping you would touch. you hit the right points.

thank you very much for that. we have some time for some questions for charles. we have a microphone over here. if you would like to ask a question, raise your hand and it would be helpful if you could identify yourself. >> i'm from the young conservatives coalition and i teach a class on the history of the conservative moment. thank you for coming today. could you expand your thoughts a little bit more on u.s. foreign policy in the western hemisphere, particularly with hugo chavez and the consequences of obama's policies in the next seven years if that's the case. >> i think the honduras situation, the calling of a coup without considering what the conditions were and the constalt

of honduras. it was a demonstration of where his instincts are. in the end, they lucked out because the would-be dictator proved to be so inept and so little domestic report that it fell apart. there was an election that in the very end was accepted which was obvious we shouldn't have accepted it in the very beginning as the clear solution to the issue. there's that which sends a signal about where we stand. i think there was some improvement towards the end. it was the first time actually where i think empirical evidence intervened over time and there was a maturation but the wrongheadedness decreased slowly and rather effectively over

time. that, i think was the first example of a crisis. the other i think is interesting how the obama administration will subordinate domestic concerns over pressing international concerns and one example of that is the free trade agreement with colombia. it is a classic example of a country overcoming enormous obstacles in the name of freedom and doing it with great success against a neighbor adversary in chavez who has been intent on damaging it. and here's a way in which we can express our support both symbolically and materially with that agreement but it's being held because of the democrats' -- the influence we wielded over the democratic party by the

labor unions. so in one example it's neglect and the other was sort of active mistake. i'm not sure that the crisis are going to come, which is why i think it is a lower scale of urgency which is why i think the direction is wrong, but the internal problems that chavez has has strained him but it's not going to be under the sfration of this united states. -- administration of this united states. >> thank you very much for your interesting lecture. my question is growing up in the wonderful regime of ussr, we looked at reagan's movement to bring down the berlin wall as

something hopeful and unrealistic at times. i watched the celebrations of the mr. berry: lynn wall, there was no mention of president reagan or margaret thatcher except communist gorbachev. so do you see a problem in rewriting the history and why there hasn't been any resistance on our part to sort of counterattack the efforts to rewrite what took place in the 1980's? >> i think that's a very telling comment you made and it was a very telling incident. the president of the united states who removes himself to bring home the chicago olympics, he removes himself for climate change and removes himself to oslo to receive a prize but

doesn't show up in berlin on the 20th anniversary of an event of biblical proportions one i'm sure most of us in the room never imagined we would ever see. that tells you how he sees the world, reinforces that quotation. i could have used one of dozens. the one i used was from the general assembly where you can see his priorities and to speak of the cold war divisions as sort of arbitrary and not to see how rooted they were in the fundamental values of the united states as cleavages is simply staggering but it tells you a lot of his world view. and i thought the berlin event was very, very telling, particularly as you say, leaving out the great figures, reagan,

thatcher, pope john paul, sharansky and others. gorbachev was the happenless caretaker. to his credit, he didn't shoot people in the streets and i give him credit because you have to make a choice. but the unraveling was arguable and it was the pressure that was applied relentlessly and i remind people who don't remember that everyone now is a post-cold war cold war i don't remember. like in france, the marquis, the ones who went underground after the war, people forget that the struggle, largest demonstrations was one in new york against reagan's nuclear policies. it was a freeze demonstration.

the demonstration thatcher had to face when she sat down whe she placed the per shings and the cruises. it was extremely partisan, the arguments on all of those measures, the rearmament, et cetera and that history has been obscured and largely forgotten. >> israel has stated that a nuclear-armed iran is a situation for them and it appears that europe and the obama administration have more or less accepted a nuclear-armed iran. do you suspect that israel will

attack and if they do, how do you foresee the consequences of all of that happening? >> i think in the end, israel will and the consequences will be very, very grave. the only question i think for these now is a technical one. can this be done? do they have enough intelligence? is it accessible by air or not? do they have the resources and refueling capacity to do major damage that would set them back a few years? the israelis are not imagining they are going to get a solution but gives them time but when you are a small country and have a history that the jews have, even a few years is important, even if you have to -- if you only have a temporary rest. but what will happen is

predictable. the iranians will try to strike back, probably scuttle ships in the persian gulf to shut down the oil trade, double the price of oil around the world and set off a worldwide recession, unleash hezbollah, which probably has about 40,000 rockets to attack israel. hamas would do the same in the south so involve israel in two hot wars immediately. it will be very dangerous and difficult for the israelis to -- a very hard choice to make. i find it almost impossible to believe that they will accept six million jews living under the threat of nuclear destruction particularly given the history of the jewish people. and i think that will trump all other considerations. they can deal with the other problems i think they think,

which are at a conventional level. they have dealt with those in the past. but a nuclear country pledged openly to the eradication of israel and the killing of all of its people is a threat that i don't think the israelis will live with. >> we have time for one more question. .

repay, you're in trouble. i think the threat over time is that they may try to wean themselves off. the dollar may be part of a basket of international currencies and we lose our place as the international currency of the world which is a huge advantage for us. it would be catastrophic for the chinese, if they send the dollar into a spiral, they're holding a lot of dollars and that evaporates. they worry we're going to inflate our way out of debt so there'll be a gradual loss of what they're holding, which is

why i think if they're clever in the long run they'll try to diversify their holding out of dollars into other currencies. but to not show up at the auction and unload their dollars is a way of impoverishing not just us, but them. i'm not sure it's a mutually assured destruction. the old, what applied with the nuclear world with the soviets applies with the chinese. they are a rational people with a long-range view of history. we look to the next election cycle. the chinese look to the next century. >> charles, thank you. we will be publishing charles' speech as a thatcher center lecture, probably in a matter of a couple of days, once you approve of it. thank you for being here today, thank you for the excellent speech, we hope to hear your strong voice for many years to come and hope to -- like to

thank all of you for being here today and hope to see you again at our next thatcher lecture series. if i could ask everyone remain seated for a moment while we exit, thank you very much. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.] >> live, this february, on in depth, book tv welcomes british historian and former advisor to margaret thatcher paul johnston, author of other 40 books, his latest on winston churchill. join in live with your phone calls for 35u8 johnson live on february 7 at noon eastern. >> now a look at airport security challenges following the attempted christmas day

bombing. former t.s.a. administrator lloyd was a guest on this morning's "washington journal," this is 25 minutes. is here to talk about airport security in our country and around the world. this is a fox news story on their website. is this true? guest: not at all. there are a variety of focus elements that different countries take to when you look at screeners. the principal difference is the number. we have 60,000 people here in the u.s. their training program is excellent, totally redesigned after 9/11 and provides the basis for them to do their jobs well. host: there are about 29 dozen full-time and part-time tsa employees. what kind of jump card.

is there to be an tsa officer? guest: first of all, it is much different from where we were before 9/11. we have structured federal employees who are compensated well for the jobs that they do. that is an attraction for the kind of person that you want to put in there. we are looking for solid high- school or college graduate-level of the education. the kind of folks that can be trained well to the responsibilities of their job. the training program they received, it is not as if you walk in and you begin. ukraine carefully for the job that is expected of you. host: the article notes that tsa officers must past drug and alcohol screenings.

they must complete a medical evaluation, be able to lift 75 pounds, have customer service skills, and be able to walk up to 2 miles per shift. it goes on to say that key skills, according to the tsa web site, is the ability to learn the factors in this screening process. operating machines, working with people of diverse backgrounds. those are criteria, but critics say the skill set does not match the job. do you agree? guest: no, i do not. if he were an observer, as opposed to the traveling public experiencing, i think you would watch those skills on the mines in that job description has been very much in evidence. but, quite a bit.

-- i travel quite a bit. part of my experience allows me to be a critic of my own. how is this working compared to what we envision in the beginning? frankly, they do a good job. host: where are the vaults? guest: -- faults? guest: i think it focuses on -- i think it is about focus. whenever your shift starts, you have to be sharp and focused with respect to everyone that is moving through the line. there's almost an aphorism now that these screeners have to get it right 100% of the time and the bad guys have to get it right only once. that degree of focus is something that i believe every

manager has to the conscience of every day. this notion of perseverance and fighting against complacency, which is natural to all of us, is huge. host: you mentioned compensation. tsa officials start at $12 an hour and can earn up to $43,000 annually. you must also pass a credit check and be less than $7,500 in debt. this article talks about other countries security systems and they know that canada's officials must be fluent in english and french and include up to 40 hours of training. language. it is that something the u.s. should be integrated into the job requirement? guest: i think there is a capacity. for example, on the southwestern border, folks moving through the

houston airport, the capacity to speed the spanish language is an important part of the deal there. there are the same kinds of qualifications in the israeli system to speak english and another language. i remember people saying as we were setting up the new agency back in 2002, the challenge we got all the time was, one not just do it the way the israelis do it? after all, they have lived under the threat of terrorism day in, day out. we have an awful lot to learn from them. i personally experienced the training that their trainers go through. they put a great deal of emphasis on behavior observation. we are getting around to adding that to our system here in the

u.s. but the challenge in terms of why we do not do it the way that they do, invariably, came down to the fact that they were dealing with two airports and 30 airplanes. the scale ability differential, to be able to hold a skill set, to the task of that when a spectrum, did not allow us to become the primary way to do business. rather, we defaulted to the layered system of security. host: were their economic concerns of having as much security in place as the israelis do? guest: in the stand-up process, it was pretty specific in congress. there were 36 mandates to be accomplished. we finished everyone of those on

time. the challenge for each and every one of them -- for example, it detecting explosive devices. of course you are dealing with a cost factor in that. so the question is, have we provided an adequate amount of money to produce the security we want at the airports? i believe we have. the system we have in place today is pretty extraordinary. host: vancouver, washington. ethan on the democratic line. caller: these full body scanners, is everyone going through them? who is funding them? isn't it the airport or the federal government? -- is it the airport or the federal government? guest: there is a prototype

program going around the country dealing with that right now. there are federally-funded full body scanners being installed in a select number of airports around the country. the challenge them will be whether the economic appetite is there for a dramatically water installation of those assets, not only in this country, but around the world. host: who foots the bill? guest: the government has the bill for the prototype system. the tsa budget has provided the machines so far. i imagine that would continue. host: the tsa plans to install about 300 machines across the country, leaving about 500 airport without that sort of

technology. does that concern you? guest: a bit, but american people need to understand that the notion of getting ourselves to a perfect system is a rhetorical goal. the concept of the post-9/11 security for most americans put them in a position where the skills of managing risk for a very big part of how we do business, especially in the federal government. so it is an economic and security ballots. -- balance. i remember when the ideas of enhanced security came up.

we ended up having a four-way conversation with everyone there. what is the security assessment? what are the economic implications of that idea? what are the civil liberties implications of that adjustment idea? and finally, what are the international implications? i think what ought to be reassuring to the american public is that cent of the conversations goes on with the virtually every one of these ideas that comes across. what is also a pretty important to recognize it is we are pretty reactive to what occurs. it was not too long until we were worried about shoes, box cutters, liquid, and then whatever comes nex this is an extraordinarily adaptive enemy if you want to think of the terrorist as the

enemy. our adappings to what he tries is one thing, anticipating where he might go and being half a step ahead of him is always the goal of t.s.a. as it relates to commercial aviation security. >> salem, oregon, on the independent line. caller: can you hear me ok? host: we can. caller: my question if you bear with me, i'm a junior at a high school here in se lem, i was just thinking, could these considered to be legal, i hear in the news all the time that body scanners can be considered illegal, i don't listen to all the details but we heard it could be illegal, but admiral i was wanting your personal opinion, could these -- are these legal? r personal opinion. are they illegal?

guest: there is no doubt they are legal. it is up to the cultural acceptance of this piece of equipment that would enhance the security of the traveling public. this goes back to that conversation i mentioned a moment ago, talking about civil liberties. to whatever degree folks feel violated by the nature of that, the search -- there will be arguments on the other side of the coin, not a sense of illegality, but not consistent with american values and civil liberties. that is the question that secretary napolitano and her team have to go through whenever they are confronted with these notions on how to deal with something that just occurred. this was petn in someone's underwear.

how our challenge wraps to that will be the next step of the installations or training adjustments made between the work force and technical capabilities to facilitate a security for our country. host: queens, new york. caller: i am interested in asking one important question of the pre-9/11. on june 1, 2001, the directive was changed that in case of the hijacking, no norad commander or air traffic controller could respond, unless donald rumsfeld could respond. of course, on 9/12, he changed the directive. i have met many commanders who said this is an outrage.

i was at the hearings. if this directive was not changed, 9/11 may not have happened. host: admiral james loy? guest: i do not know if i have an opinion about the issuance in the cancellation a few days later, nor on the responsibility of secretary rumsfeld and the defense department. those events become extraordinarily ad hoc depending on what you are dealing with in the moment. my sense is we have totally reorganized our structure as a nation to cope with this notion of terrorism, having as one of

its favorite targets commercial aviation. one of the ways we deal with it today offers the traveling public better security than it did before 9/11. host: admiral james loy was the tsa administrator from 2002 through 2003. the secretary of homeland security from 2003 to 2005. what are you up to today? guest: i am a senior counselor at the cohen group. we are trying to solve problems for companies around the world, and here in the united states. it is a fascinating job on tha daily basis. it is an opportunity for me to continue to contribute to the handful of problems that i was

frustrated with that we have not done better at. those phrases that we remember so dramatically from 9/11, to have them back on the front page in 2009, 2010 was disappointing and offers a chance for all of us to recognize this kind of thing mandates perseverance over time. host: are you recommending any of these companies you are helping to assist the government to respond to what happened over christmas? guest: no, there are various legitimate vendors doing that. what is more important is this laboratory system up in new jersey as part of the tsa, has

in their charter, the responsibility to look at the systems, work on certifying them to be capable of doing what is functional in the next that of technological advance. that is all going on in new jersey. host: florida. and georgia on the independent line independentgeo -- george on the independence line. caller: i know you have to go through security. i was going to fly to new hampshire to deliver a christmas present i called the airport and asked if i could put it in my luggage. they said, yes, but it would have to be in a locked hard case and i would have to sign a slut.

it was quite busy at the airport. -- sign a slip. i was there for about three hours and not one person looked at me. i could have had guns in theire, if i was a terrorist. i do not understand why no one approached me. it was obvious that it must a gun csase. guest: let me make a point about the israeli system. they make a dramatic with larger investment in what i will call roadside checks, even before you get into the building. drivers are asked where they came from, a visual review is done in terms of what is inside the car. perhaps a system like that, --

again, scalable to the 450 airports that we have in this country -- would give us a chance to look at that question more deeply. the guidance you've got my answer came from the airline as it relates to check your baggage. obviously, that will not be allowed as part of your carry-on luggage. the guidance you received was from the airline itself. again, this comes back to the balance that we eat in the united states treasure as a result of our openness as a society, and to whatever to agree it would be a security step-up to mandate that no libel cases -- rifle cases be brought through the airport. so my concern in that regard

would be a consistency that which airlines provide guidance in a fashion, so that whatever is going on to the aircraft is tucked away in a cargo hold. host: what about the security of the cargo in the underbelly of the airplane? that has been brought up many times since, and security was created as an ongoing security risk. what is the challenge with effectively screening everything that goes into the underbelly? guest: i think we are in pretty good shape with luggage. what we also understand in our country is there is a lot of other stuff being transported from point a to point b. the system which is now being mandated to have 100% screening,

you find yourself in the midst of congressional intent on the one hand -- and quickly the words screening becomes part and parcel to what constitutes satisfactory behavior. tsa is going through that question at the very moment. again, for the listening audience, we have to be as concerned about what is happening at our airports, as well as what is happening at airports around the world. so our international efforts to put into place what we believe is a bipartisan, and in some

cases, multi lateral agreements between countries, go back to that risk management profile i was speaking about. the arrangement we have the g-8, a number of other international organizations, probably have us dealing with about 90% of flights coming in from overseas. but again, is 90% adequate? i would offer in this bill, there will simply never be a day when secretary napolitano or any of her successors can say, we have the last piece of the puzzle. i can report to you that the aviation system is 100% to care. as much as we would like to stress that, it is a melee that went out the window on 9/11.

>> fort ann, new york. caller: it seems to me that homeland security is drowning in extraneous information and procedures. you know, the terrorists only win if we're terrorized. my question is, is there any program under way to give a citizen like me, 53 years old, never left the country, never had a parking ticket, a permanent exemption from all this rigmarole? when shoe bomber nonsense hit, and everybody had to take their shoes off, that's the last time i threw. i'm a true patriot, who believes in the constitution. as a citizen with an exemplary background, i'm not taking my shoes off for anyone. host: admiral loy. guest: that's a good question. there's room in our system for what we began to design as a registered traveler program. this would offer to citizens

like yourself, you were willing to evidence that perfect record by way of a little bit more intense background information, the means by which you'd be able to dealt with a little bit differently at the airport than your counterparts would be very real. now the challenge at the airport itself, i think all of us are still going to be going through magnetometer, that's the last momentary check before anyone gets on the airplane to provide the security we're all looking for. whether or not there are deviations, i think we'll get a deviation from the shoe bomber instance and shoes being taken off at the airport when we have advanced technologically to be able to scan properly, shoes while they're still on your feet. same with overcoats, liquids, we're sort of caught between the human engineering of the really good screener at the check point and the technical

engineering associated with what the machine can do, so to speak, in terms of validating that there's no threat on that person going through the magnetometer. host: one last call, palm beach, florida, on the republican line. caller: good morning. the callers bring up several good points i'd like to address. the most recent caller mentioned it would be nice to get an exemption. i think that's one of the reasons that we just have the -- had the christmas bomber situation because the -- the passenger got on the plane because he was said to have been a somaly refugee, he got a pass. nobody talked about that breakdown in the security system and a body scanner would not have helped. a body scanner also would not have helped 9/11. until we acknowledge the motives and are able to read what somebody is thinking,

that's not going to help. another caller also said -- asked you if this was illegal and the answer is, in part, it is illegal for anyone under 18 to go through the body scanner under child pornography laws. you were remiss on mentioning that and i thought i'd bring that up. i think that should be addressed. guest: thank you for catching me up on -- >> we're leaving this recorded program. the house is coming back in for votes on bills debated earlier today. now to live house coverage. consideration of the bill h.r. 3254, to approve the pueblo indian water rights agreement and for other purposes. for consideration of the bill h.r. 3342, to authorize the secretary of the interior acting through the commissioner of reclamations to develop water infrastructure in the rio grande

resolution is agreed to and without objection, the motion to

reconsider is laid on the table. the house will be in order. women the members please take their conversations off the floor -- will the members please take their conversations off the floor. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order.

will the members please take their conversations off the floor. and will the members please clear the well. the chair will now entertain the requests for one-minute speeches. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, tonight i'm introducing a resolution to urge

the senate to change a filibuster rule. the filibuster has in effect created minority rule. it wasn't the intent of the framers of the constitution to allow any one person the power to bring legislative process to a halt, which is exactly what the filibuster has given each senator the ability to do. the framers very clearly outlined the five instances when they believed a supermajority was needed. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. the house will be in order. please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman may proceed. mr. mcdermott: the day-to-day business of congress was not one of them, but the use of the filibuster has become such common practice that it now requires a supermajority in the senate to pass virtually every piece of legislation, no matter how mundane. the filibuster has begun toe road the integrity of our

democratic process. my colleague, senator tom harkin from iowa, who has been a leader on this issue since 1995, recently announced he will introduce legislation to change the filibuster rule and i'm offering a resolution urging the senate to do the same. the filibuster was not intended by the framers of the constitution and is certainly not good for the country when we try to solve the difficult problems that face us today. the time has come for the senate to change its rule. i yield back the -- i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> permission to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> i would like to recognize the cuban-american bar association for its contribution to our community. for nearly 40 year the

cuban-american bar association has raised awareness on jurisprudence, fostered respect for the law and increased diversity in the judiciary and legal community. the members of the cuban-american bar association are keenly aware of the importance of the rule of law and dedicated their professional careers to its implementation and preservation this saturday, the cuban-american bar association will celebrate its installation of a new executive board. incoming president manuel garcia and president-elect for 2011, victoria mendez, will build on the example of leadership left by the outgoing president. their dedication and professionalism are not only testaments to their character bus also to the cuban-american community and to hispanics in general. thank you, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> to address the house for one

minute and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. cohen: thank you, madam speaker. as the world watches the crisis and tragedy in haiti, many people are coming forth with charitable contributions to help, different organizations that are sponsoring efforts. it's commendable and wonderful. but it's discovered that the credit card companies are charging their customary 3% fees on those contributions. that's wrong and the credit card companies, i believe, saw it was wrong and put that off for 60 days for contributions given to certain groups. what i'm looking into introducing as legislation or through letter and requests to the administration is a suspension of credit card fees except those for processing on contributions to 501 c 3 charities. when people make contributions to charities, and contributions are down because of the recession, all of that money should go to the charity.

complete contributions should be permitted and the credit card companies should work with us, at least in a disaster like katrina or haiti or the tsunamis or tornadoes in our nation. thank you very much, madam speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, the new orleans saints had a 45-40 playoff victory. next week, they will compete for the n.f.c. championship title and will win. their success has benefited our district and i have provided my constituents with a chance to honor them. today's statement is from tripp from new orleans he writes, they have done more for new orleans than any other professional sports franchise has done for any other american city. aside from the short-term joy brought to new orleans, the

saints' record has put the city back on the map, december playing to the nation that we are back for the long-term. the endless media coverage and nonstop showcasing of the region's unique culture and the undeniable camaraderie created among the new orleans who dat nation is wonderful. new orleans is better than ever, in large part due to the saints. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee 13k to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. ms. jackson lee: i'm overwhelmed as i've seen the outpouring of support for the haitian people and the concern of this congress. i would ask that we move forward on one particular interest and concern and that is the orphans of haiti. already before the earthquake, there were 1.5 million orphans. now we see hundreds of thousands of children who are now without parents. over the weekend, i was able to

secure and be able to send two plane loads of doctors and nurses and supplies. thank you, texas. in that, they were operating on a number of individuals, particularly children, 150 surgeries, 600 patients, it is important that we are able to airlift the most badly injured of children and other, particularly children, out of haiti. i'll be introducing legislation and working with the administration to establish refugee status so the children can be airlifted in an organized manner to have surgery, otherwise they will disme it is important for us to join together both sides of the aisle to find constructive ways to expedite caring for those who are now dying. our children are our priority. as chair of the congressional children's caucus, that will be my focus to save the children of haiti. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from california rise? >> to address the house for one minute and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> thank you very much, madam

speaker. there are a lot of issues before this congress, very, very serious issues. but on christmas day, we were reminded of one that we do not always think about, and that is the fact that we are still the subject of those who would use terror to take away our liberty. i would hope that as the president has found it appropriate to use the word war and talk about the war with al qaeda, that he understands it is more than words, it is actions. that we need to treat those who would attempt to kill us in this way as this what they are, unlawful enemy combatants, not common criminals. we should not turn them over to our criminal justice system, we should allow them to be interrogated by the military. madam speaker, those who say that they're attacking us because of guantanamo do not understand history, both long-term and short-term. they're not attacking us because of guantanamo, they're attacking us because of the statue of liberty.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from minnesota rise? >> to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> madam speaker, i rise to congratulate the oak grieve church of minnesota for receiving the 2009 human rights award, named for the first chairperson of the bloomington human rights commission, it's given to individuals and organizations that have made a significant contribution to improving the rights of people in their community. the selfless works of oak grove presbyterian church include tutoring for the economic disadvantaged as well as improve dige log and understanding across different religions and cultures. in a letter to the human rights commission, oak grove was described as an outstanding community organization with a long history of working with community partners to improve the lives of the diverse residents of bloomington. this award shows the dedication of oak grove to the pursuit of

justice and freedom, rights we can all inspire to -- aspire to protect, i'm honored to congratulate them today and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. tiahrt of kansas for today and mr. young of alaska for today and the balance of the week. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the requests are granted. does the gentleman from texas seek recognition? mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following member mace be permitted to address the house, revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material. mr. paul for january 20, and 21, myself, mr. jones for january 21, 22, and 26.

mr. burton for january 21 and 22, mr. ingells for today, mr. 340 ran for today, january 21, january 26, mr. smith for today and mr. mcclintock for today. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois seek recognition? >> i too ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders heretofore entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, to revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey, mr. defazio, mr. blumenauer, mr. quigley, ms. kaptur, and mr. gleison, all for five minutes. -- mr. grayson, all for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previoused orer of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. ms. wool seve california.

ms. woolsey: madam speaker, president obama is certainly doing the right thing when it comes to the humanitarian crisis in haiti. he's responded quickly and effectively and pledged that the united states will do all that we can do to alleviate the suffering of the haitian people and help them rebuild their lives. poth because ma has shown that america stands for hope, decency and human rights. which is, of course, the kind of moral leadership the united states must always show. but while the administration is getting it right in haiti, we still have a lot of work to do in afghanistan, where the president plans to ask congress for $33 billion in emergency fund to pay for the escalation of the war there. madam speaker, we do need to appropriate more funds for afghanistan, but not for more troops. because there is no military solution to the problem there.

sending more troops makes us look like occupiers, which will help the taliban to recruit more violent extremists, who will attack their own afghani neighbors and the united states. so instead of investing in the military in afghanistan, we need to invest in smart security, which means investing in economic development, health, infrastructure, humanitarian aid, better law enforcement and government. smart security also includes helping the afghan people to build schools where girls and women can be offered an education as well as the boys. madam speaker, general mckristal, our commander in afghanistan -- mcchrystal, our command for the afghanistan, said the taliban looks for young people with no education when they're looking for recruits.

that's why i believe investing in books, not bombs, is a way to stop violent extremism in afghanistan and every other part of the world as well. we also need to invest in our own economy. in our own people right here at home. because we can't keep our country safe unless we have a strong economy, well-educated and with everybody having jobs that they can afford to support their families on, so that's why we must invest in jobs. we must invest in housing. we must invest in child care and health care. and we must especially be concerned about those who are facing their own humanitarian crisis in our community. so just consider some of these facts, madam speaker. one in every 50 americans is now living in a household where food stamps are the only source of income. the effective unemployment rate today is really over 17%. middle class families are now earning less than they did a decade ago, adjusted for

inflation. the economic disaster right here in our own country is unprecedented in american history. unfortunately, the congress will soon be presented with a record pentagon budget, however, for the next fiscal year and i would suggest that instead of increasing the pentagon budget, we should reduce it by cutting out funds for useless cold war weapons, which would slash the defense budget by 25%. isn't that amazing? we could slash the defense budget by 25% if we would just stop building useless cold war weapons. and we could make those dollars available to invest here at home for smart security to work in afghanistan as well. .

peace and compassion for the people of the world. we must put these values to work in haiti, in afghanistan and right here at home. and i urge all of us and our president to do just that. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: mr. poe of texas. mr. poe: request permission to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. poe: an al qaeda jihaddist committed an act of war over the skies of detroit on christmas day. umar farouk abdulmutallab he sewed explosives in his underwear. he tried to blow it up but he was captured by passengers. counting on faulty detainers is not a sound national security. we should be stopping boarding terrorists in the first place. he was on a terrorist watch

list, but boarded the plane anyway. after the 9/11 attacks, the state department was ordered to open visa security units at all of our embassies. eight years later, only 14 of the 220 american embassies have security units. why is that? ment the underwear bomber got his visa in lond and and got to keep it even though his father said his son was a dangerous radical. american embassies in london and nigeria don't have a visa security unit. and when the father said he was dangerous, the information was ignored by our state department. the underwear bomber paid cash for a ticket, had no luggage and was on the watch list. united states state department was warned by his father he was a threat. he had been denied entry into the united kingdom because he applied for a visa to go to a college that doesn't exist in

the united kingdom. buts authorities let him fly the friendly skies anyway. he should not been allowed on that airplane. the american people need to know why this person was allowed to enter the united states with a visa knowing all of these facts. after the failed attack, umar farouk abdulmutallab bragged about 20 more terrorists ready to attack and said they were training in yemen. according to a member of the 9/11 commission, quote, he was singing like a bird and then we charged him in federal court, he got a lawyer and quit talking. instead of turning over the terrorists for interrogation or letting him keep on talking, the administration treated this individual like a two-bit car thief and told him he had a right to remain silent and they got him a lawyer and he quit

talking. under the new policy, america has lost the ability to get vital information about al qaeda. america is probably less safe as a result. the bomb could and should have been tried in an military court. as an eneconomy combatant he should have been held and interrogated by military officials under existing law. in federal court, they are talking about offering this terrorist a plea deal to get information that he was willing to offer earlier with no deal. now we are making a deal with the devil so the terrorists can a he void justice and making a back-room greefment with authorities. another problem these jihaddists have, they aren't your average-day criminals. they want to kill every american. a few years in prison is not going to deter their mission. to the contrary, those who kill

in the name of religion try to kill prison guards. it has happened in the united states. louis peppi was a correctional guard. 10 months before the 9/11 attacks, two al qaeda inmates were held there, these are the ones who bombed the embassy in east africa, killing over 200 people. a federal judge gave these two al qaeda terrorists permission to buy hot sauce in the prison. what they did is made it into mace to incapacitate with the guards. they stabbed him in the eye and smeared a cross on his chest in his own blood. he was left permanently blinded, partially paralyzed and lost most of his ability to speak. these terrorists were trying to get the keys to the cell block to take more hostages. isn't that lovely. jihaddists are at war with this

nation and when captured, they should be treated like military criminals. when radicals are on a threat list, don't let them on the airplane. why is that difficult to comprehend? meanwhile, the band keeps playing while the ship of common sense is sinking in the ocean. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: mr. defazio oforing. for what purpose does the gentleman from -- without objection. mr. blumenauer: we commemorate extraordinary people and events on the floor of this house and madam speaker, there is no more extraordinary speaker than i have known than dr. dennis west. low key, insightful. dennis west had a remarkable career, the city of portland has been well planned, thoughtfully

governed and providing thought-cutting initiatives and creating a model of live built. citizen involvement and getting the most out of scares resources. there have been many heroes, civic leaders who helped create this great city. no one has done more as a public servant than dennis west. he started his public service as an intern in the office of one of my predecessors, congresswomanned igget green. he walings at school of urban studies. over the course of these four decades, portland state, oregon's largest university has emerged as one of the center of urban scholarship, a laboratory of live built, a mecca for planning and sustainability and a critical driver for the vitality of portland. denny played a critical role of

the chief of staff to the commissioner of public works in an area where the city was taking bold action in the development of its dournts plan and creation of 38-acre waterfront park. denny helped play a role for his engineer boss developing division and becoming a respected political leader. he was recruited by the new chairman don clark to establish the financial and budgetary system to help modify personnel procedures and give coherent to what had been an old style typical county operation. the county did not just modernize its administration. it was involved in justice, health, environmental and transportation initiatives and dennis west was the intellectual force helping guide and

implement that vision. then denny was deputy director of the port of portland. a powerful reach to deal with critical freight and movements, airport, docks and economic development and played a critical role in the port capacity and professionalism of its staff as a key element in the evolution of our metro area. the oregon health science university has played a critical role in research breakthruse, economic development and the delivery of high quality health care. denny west was a key administrator for research and economic development helping to create pt economic and power house that is one of the state's most important institutions and our city's largest employer. denny concluded his career serving as director of the portland housing authority,

dealing with the problems of homelessness, special needs and low income housing and community revite lization. portland won national awards for its innovation, cost-effective delivery and the capstone of his career was the columbia village a successful hope 6 housing project, making a deteriorated world war ii vintage housing project into a point of pride. denny west was a gifted straightor. in agency after agency, so important to our community, he played a critical role, often as the go-to guy who perhaps didn't have the title but made things work. with the housing authority of portland, he was the guy in charge and the results are a testament of his vision, administrative skill,

sensitivity and compassion. over these last 40 years, the half dozen agencies provided the infrastructure that drive the national recognition all of which blended to make portland a unique community. while his name my not be well known, his fingerprints were on the critical developments on all of these organizations. denny's career and achievements were made while being an extraordinary human being, a friend and a determined civic activist. his later yoors were marked by illness, he never lost his spark and drive and willed his body to do things that young people can't imagine. we go out to his wife sue who played an vital role and his circle of friends who had a vital support in his support.

we join the life of this extraordinary man, denny west. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from kansas rise snr mr. moran: to address the house for five minutes. mr. moran: israel was involved in protecting its country from terrorist attacks. it was exercising its right to protect its citizens. many in the international community condemned israel's actions. many more refuse todd recognize its right to self-defense. i'm here to speak up for the right of sovereign nations to defend their people. israel has a right to defend itself. the u.s. is a strong ally of israel and must be vigilant in supporting this basic right. i read a story in "the jerusalem post" about life in israel a year after the operation. before the war, israelis were

enduring relentless rocket and mortar attacks in gaza. terrorists launched 12,000 rockets and mortars in gaza at israelis and over the course of eight years, 12,000 attacks. these rockets were not aimed at military targets but the goal was to kill civilians and instill a sense of fear. thousands of yalies living within range had their whole life changed, locating the nearest shelter became second nature to them. israelis living in a town have just 15 seconds from the town a warning is sounded from missle attacks. young children did not know that this way of life was not normal. when it visited israel last year, i had the opportunity to meet several families and they told me stories about living

under the constant barrage of terrorist activity and raising a family under these conditions. yet, their attitude was, this is our home, this is our community and we are going to stay and surmount this adversity. the families under attack face difficult circumstances, but they weren't willing to give up on a place they considered home. nor should they have to. since operation cast led, things have improved. yet we should know the attacks still occur. since the end of the war, there have been additional 300 attacks. there is far less than the 3,200 attacks in 2008, but still 300 too many. at the time of the story, 242 attacks had occurred since the end of the operation cast led. the writer said that it was both shocking and said that her friends would say, only 242

attacks. she asked, in what other country do you think it's a reasonable number of rocket attacks aimed at civilian targets in one year? any terrorist attack is unacceptable. israelis hope for peace and do not want war or conflict with their neighbors, but feas is a two-way street. ben jap minimum netanyahu has reiterated israel's commitment to peace. he placed a 10-month moratorium on the construction of new homes to jump-start the peace talks. it is my hope that israel's willingness to make peace is resip pro indicated. if attacks continue, israelis must be able to defend their homes and we must assist in their effort and support their basic right to do so. i yield back the balance. .

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from illinois rise? >> to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> isaacs a move once said if my -- isaac asimov once said if my doctor told me i had seconds to live, i wouldn't complain, i'd type faster. that's true for an author, who last year was diagnosed a year ago with cancer he lost his life last week hisms courageous fight showed his strength as a person and a journalist committed to the ideals of a more responsive and transparent government. there have been numerous

tributes to him, from the president of the united states who he graciously covered when no one outside of springfield knew his name or how to pronounce it. carlos made it impossible not to endure him. whether it was a winning nickname or spot-on impression of a politician, carlos brought everyone down to earth with his sense of humor. he had an enpsych lo peedic knowledge. he could remember names and the tails from election cycles and court cases as if they'd happened yesterday. as a person, this was just his nature he asked his nurses about their families and recalled lyrics to obscure beatles songs without missing a beat. his energy was infectious and his passion for life was unmistakable. to know him was to love him. carlos attended quigley

preparatory seminary no relation, and studied philosophy at duh paul -- and depaul university. he said if he wasn't a reporter he would have been a priest. he worked for the "chicago reporters," "chick public radio" and most recently, cltv. with his fedor rah and thick-rimmed glasses, he was a throwback to another era in journalism. as producers tried to slow down his quick delivery. while he heeded the words he would sneak in at the end of his broadcast, carlos hernandez gomez into one syllable. his signoff who was so familiar

that taxi drivers who listened to him on public radio right hand recognized his distinctive voice would give him free rides. he was a sons mat chicogoan who loved his town like family. he loved the official facets of the job, interviewing officials, pounding the pavement, but he also knew he could get people at their most real on a bar stool at the billy goat tavern or other a pa straw mi sandwich at manny's. he covered the famous and the feign mouse, from mob bosses to george ryan, the news of whose indictment he was the first to break he wasn't afraid to criticize the status quo but did so with such credibility that even the powers that be whose feathers he ruffled respected him. he was determined not to dumb down the news. he would rather do a complicated

story than a quick hit. he also loved "star wars," beef, the guitar and his wife. when someone said he was leaving us too soon and 36 years wasn't enough hurricanes brother jason and cousin mark agreed but said he packed more life into 36 years than many of us hope to do in twice the time. today, it is thoord find solace in that revelation, for his family, friends, aened all of us who knew carlos, this is no way to begin 2010. on sunday night, i heard news of some questionable choices made by a local candidate and smiled. this is the kind of story carlos would have loved to cover to find the truth, report it meticulously and with panache. 9/11 death, carlos hernandez gomez will brighten our days.

he will be missed. the speaker pro tempore: mr. jones of north carolina. mr. burton of indiana. >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: madam speaker in eight minute the polls close in massachusetts and i don't know whether mr. brown's going to win or whether he's going to lose but one thing i do know is that this shows very clearly that the people across this country, moderate, liberal, conservative, are all concerned about what we're doing in this chamber and the chamber across the capitol. you know, a lot of people say, it's all about health care. i don't think it's just health care. i think shk a big part of it, madam speaker, but i think it's also the kind of shi cannery we're seeing -- of which i cannery we're -- the kind of

chicanery we're seeing right now. if you buy somebody's vote in louisiana and buy somebody's vote in nebraska and when the union starts squealing because they think they're going to be pay, too -- paying too much for health insurance and you give them a $60 million tax break, a break on their premiums, people across the country say is anybody up there honest? you're buying votes with taxpayers' money that $60 billion break the unions are going to get is going to be be made up in part from a new tax or adecisional tax on prosthetic devices and wheelchairs. the people who need help have to pay high taxes for those things because you're giving a $60 billion break to the unions. so madam speaker, i'm not going to talk for the whole five minutes, i want to make this point very, very clear, i hope my colleagues back in their offices are listening as well. there's a message being sent to members of congress.

there's a message being sent to the senators across the capitol. it is that people want honest, fair government. they don't want a socialist government. they don't want the government controlled by -- they don't want the congress to be controling their lives. they don't want the doctors they go to see on a regular basis have a bureaucrat in between them and the patient. in short, they don't want that health care bill. and they certainly don't want more taxes. and they certainly don't want members of the senate and house being bought off by bribes being given to them by the leadership in order to get their vote on this health care bill. regardless of what happens in, now, six minutes, i think that the people of this country have got the message. they don't want socialized medicine. they don't want more government control over their lives. i hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle who may

not be here right now, i hope they take a hard look at polling results and what happens tonight. win, lose, or draw it's going to show clearly that an awful lot of democrats and independents, as well as republicans are very concerned about what's going on here in washington. i hope my colleagues who have political goals in mind down the road, i hope they'll take all this to hart when -- to hart when they start casting their vote on the health care bill when it comes back from the senate. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: i'd like to remind members that personal admonishments against the senate are not allowed. mr. burton: i beg to differ, i think as long as i'm speaking in generic terms, it's not something that's not allowed. we talk about the senate all the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman must refrain from

mentioning the senate or its members. ms. kaptur of ohio, mr. inglis of south carolina. for what purpose do you rise? >> to address the house for five minutes, madam speaker. mr. inglis: thank you, madam speaker. i rise to remember private first class jeffrey a. fitfit, 21 years of south carolina, army airborne, serving in after dwan stan, heading for special forces training, hoping to become an army ranger. jeff was two weeks shy of his 22nd birthday when on january 13, an improvised explosive device was detonated near the humvee he was driving, killing jeff, his sergeant and seriously wounding their gunner. some taliban or al qaeda operative out there might be thinking their killed an infidel. they didn't. they failed at three levels.

first, jeff is no infidel. he was a believer. he was a believer in america and a believer in the king of all creation. a citizen of the freest, most blessed land in the world and a citizen of the kingdom of heaven. jeff wanted that kingdom to come, he prayed for that kingdom to come he worked for that kingdom to come he served for that kingdom to come. in the end, he went there before the invisible became visible here. those who detonated that i.e.d. failed at another level. they think they frightened jeff's family. his friends and his countrymen. they're wrong. my wife and i visited the whitfits last night. their faith in america, their faith in the author of our

salvation, the prince of peace, the king of kings, is undiminished. they know that jeff's -- that others jeffs, will run the hills and woods that skwleff loved to run in the northern -- that jeff loved to run in the northern part of our county. they know another jeff will come in last in his first cross-country meet and finish 16th in the state by the end of the season. they know that another jeff will take what he learned of love and books and faith in his home school and greenville tech charter high school and volunteer to serve his nation. they know that another dad will take another jeff to the banks of the river for fishing and for talks about the essence of life. those who detonated that i.e.d. failed at a third and higher level. they think that jeff is dead.

he isn't. he lives. he lives in our hearts and minds because he's one of our heroes. he lives in the heart of his older brother steven, serving with steely determination in the united states navy. he will always live in the hearts of his mom and dad. they loved him, led him, admired him, and gave him up for the rest of us. their gift reminds us of the gift of all gifts, a father who had sovereign control over all aspects of his son's substitution nare death and who gave him up for us all. jeff lives in the nail-pierced hands of that savior and no one can snatch him out of those

were definitely on to something.