what is going on. they do not understand the foundation of what is going on. >> other people see it every day on tv, how do you explain it to them? >> hopefully, there are voices out there that are rational and can explain it. .

[applause] i want to close by saying this. until you get principal leadership in the united states that it was willing to say that because we will never defined who this enemy is. we stood find their objectives

and not only secure our republic of secure western civilization. thank you. >> following the near fatal christmas day incident in detroit, "the wall street journal" reported there were 540,000 people on the confirmed or suspected terrorist list, but only 1% whir of the no-fly list, and only 3% were on the list of people who were required to have more rigorous scrutiny. can you shed some light on what the rest of us should sid five of suspected terrorists and -- should sit by a suspected -- why the rest of us should sit next to a suspected terrorists and not know it? >> if you read the book, in terms of what led up to that

attack, i forgetçó what page it was, but there is a paragraph that shows there is an enormous bias against putting someone on the no-fly louis. in my book, it should be really easy to put one on their fan really hard to get off. >> why shouldn't they all be on there? >> we're operating on a philosophy where every organism on planet earth is an american waiting to happen, born with constitutional right, and that is the way the people making the laws feet, and notwithstanding that, we are now in a security environment where the war is not just a symmetric, but we are dealing with illegal alien combatants, so your suspicion levels should be hired, and the

fourth amendment should allow you to do warn, because the fourth amendment only prevents you from doing unreasonable searches, so you would think we would be here, but unfortunately, because of political correctness, we are down here, and i do not think there is another explanation. ñerñ thank you very much. it is a pleasure talking to you. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> in a few moments, a discussion with members of congress on health care and jobs. in an hour, a hearing on the federal budget and deficit, and after that, we will be air the

hudson forum on foreign policy. foreign policy analyst robin wright joins us tomorrow morning to discuss u.s. relations with iran, and we will focus on the economy and jobs with the republican representative, marshallñi blackburn, and bruce reed, head of the democraticnb council. that is live every day at 7:00 a.m. eastern. a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow. thad allen speaks at the national press club.

later, witnesses include members of the federal reserve board of governors. >> his film, "hillary: the movie" was the focus on a recent debate about campaign finance. sunday night. >> now look at congressional efforts on job growth and health care. members of financial services and small business committees joined us for an hour. >> now joining us from syracuse, n.y., is a democrat from new york. he represents the 25th district around syracuse. on, d.c., representative maffei. if you could tell us a little bit about your district economically? guest: my district has been challenged economically really over the past 20 or 25 years.

we were a heavily industrial district. my grandfather and his brothers worked in the auto plants here. the auto plants were closed somewhere over the last 10 or 15 years. carrier, which made a lot of air conditioners here, big manufacturing facility -- they still have a research facility but all the manufacturing jobs have left. the region has been lately grown up over high-tech kind of businesses, particularly green technologies, detection technologies, the world capital in terms of radar and sonar and magnetic resonance. all sorts of things we do for military and civilian staff. there is a new economy but not quite the transition from post- world war ii economy. one of the main things for me is to help make the transition run smoothly. host: what exactly can you do as a member of congress to assist

your district? guest: i really think we need to encourage these kinds of new jobs. we are not going to see a very large business move into central new york suddenly or peoria, for that matter, or any. in the country but we could grow organically our own small businesses. you recently had a jump in the call in from i think the seattle, washington, area. those kinds of start-ups. we do have a lot here. i have been supporting both in terms of getting federal money -- also in terms of other kinds of support, green business incubators. those are the kinds of things we can do. green universities, from the campus of syracuse. we have the state school of environmental science and forestry, the best in the world. we have all sorts of educational institutions. even our community colleges. the spinoffs from the students and faculties are really

creating the kind of business that will take us into the future. what i tried to do is help make sure the policies are going to encourage that kind of environment. i really don't believe the government itself necessarily can do things to directly create jobs. what we can do is provide the kind of environment that is going to help private industry, working with other kinds of organizations, to create jobs. host: representative aaron schatz joins us from peoria, illinois. same question -- it was a snapshot of peoria economically. guest: good morning, peter. . is home to one of the largest employers in america, fortune 50 company, caterpillar tractor co.. headquartered here in peoria and employs a large number of my constituents. i have a 20-county district. i parts of decatur, eleanor, of course home to archer-daniels midland, one of the largest food processors -- decatur,

illinois. but the largest employer, despite all of that, is actually agriculture. so, both agriculture and large manufacturers like caterpillar, john deere just outside my district, rely on a growing economy, not over here in our country but around the world. i was specifically interested in the president's mention of free trade agreement in his state of the union if you weeks ago. he said but for us moving in that direction, we are going to lose out with expanded opportunities for companies and industries in our own country to grow. i know that to be true in my district. but caterpillar, who sells 70% of the tractors the build and our country to other people in other countries, and the large ag industry in our district that relies on people buying our crops and foods. we only have 5% of the world's population in our country, and

if we want to be serious about growing industry -- whether manufacturing, small or large, or the ag industry, it will be through trade around the world. host: as a member of congress and small business committee, what do you and what can you do? guest: i was pleased to hear representatives maffei, a good friend, mention that he did not think government could create jobs. i agree with him. the important part is that the obama administration this year has spent a lot of money, a lot of political capital, spending a lot of future generations money trying to create jobs. the reality is it is not going to the government spending that creates jobs but creating an environment for entrepreneurs, risk-taking, an investment is the water. unfortunately this past year we spent the year talk about $1 trillion stimulus bill which did not stop unemployment from going up, then we talked about a cap- and-trade bill and then health care, all which had a whole host

of taxes and fees in them. it created a lot of uncertainty within both the public market as well as the private small- business entrepreneur who says, wait a minute, i don't know if i'm going to go out and expand my business, i don't know if i'm going to go out and meet the capital investment because i don't know what the rules of engagement were going to be. cost of the employees, health care costs, i don't know what my cost of energy and production of goods is going to be vis a vis cap-and-trade. will we have done is create a lot of uncertainty in the small business sector. we need to instead talk about pro-growth initiatives. maybe there is something we can do what the research and development tax incentives. i sponsored a bill with a democrat from idaho called the relief act which would create payroll tax holiday, which many of the business group suggested would create millions of jobs if we allow more of those employers

to keep the money to reinvest in their business. so, capital is important. i have to have access to capital. the president is talking about that now. that is a good step in the right direction. but we also have to create a level of comfort that, if an entrepreneur here in our country is going to stick their neck out, invest their life savings as one of the earlier callers mentioned, into a business, that the federal government is not going to step in and change the rules in the middle of the game either by raising the cost of producing those goods with an energy tax, raising their cost of health care or some kind of payroll tax as been discussed this year. creating a level of uncertainty -- putting in pro-growth tax policies that incentivize the risk-taking we are looking for. host: congressman maffei in syracuse, anything there you would disagree with? guest: very little, i think he has good points. he is a very good friend of

mine. i think it does show there is some bipartisan agreement that can be had. i would stay things a little differently. the government can even -- create jobs, even directly like wpa. but that is not what is needed now. but the government can do is help facilitate the private sector. that is what aaron is talking about. i may go about things a little differently. i think some government spending is in order, particularly advanced lending to small businesses and other kinds of developers and things like that who, if they could just get a loan or even close to reasonable interest, would be investing right now in america and creating jobs. but i think he is also right. tax cuts are a big part of that. i would like to see an investment tax credit. that has worked in the past. and my guest may agree with this -- maybe you want to ask him -- maybe major corporate tax reform

bill where we can get rid of the loopholes that are encouraging investment overseas in manufacturing, but then dramatically lower the corporate tax rate to make it competitive i certainly agree, and if there are loopholes and incentives to drive business outside of our country, i am interested in closing those. i am interested in keeping the united states competitive in the global market. one thing the administration talked about that would have been extremely detrimental that i have heard from around my state -- boeing is another important company that does international business. president obama originally talked this year about taxing multinational profit overseas, and that would have been extremely detrimental to business is growing around the world for them to keep their

headquarters here in the country. obviously, something like caterpillar, which does 70% of its business outside of our country, we do not want to incentivize is fit to have headquarters outside of our country. we have to be careful to incentivize what we want more of and making sure we remain competitive in the global market. i know dan agrees with me on that. >> we say why are companies moving to china and india. while we are the greatest of power and country in the world. in order to remain on top, we have to remain competitive host: for those of you watching, this is your chance

top call in. >> a member of the small business authority. worked for a long time at the house ways and means committee as a staffer. he's a member of the financial services commity. serving in your first term. correct. >> correct. aaron makes me feel like i'm an old and senior. >> gentleman, you both have

been talking about what good friends you are. >> the media is not going to cover all the trains that arive in their station. the most couldn't row versey gets the most coverage. >> when the auto companies start to get their bail out funds the dealer agreements are thrown out.

trying to restore some of those rights crib utility to rotary and little league. worked with the administration to get to something everybody could agree with. with the auto companies themselves. they didn't get as much play. this is some bipartisanship. we road in the cock pit of a c 130 transport plane. you get to know somebody more as a person when you experience those things together. caller: i auto degree. we have a fantastic group of freshman. we know part and parcel to

getting anything done is to know someone as a human being. unfortunately, i think this year has been extremely partisan. with all due respect, the majority who holds the gave el has to be the one that wants to engage the other side. the reality is, on issues like the stimulus bill, there was no time for republican input. there was no time to massage that bill to bring it to the center. there were no republican votes. same thing on cap and trade and same thing with the health bill. it is sort of the my way or the

highway attitude. >> the senate henl care bill is dead now. the senate has talked about the need to clue republicans. that's a good time we are starting to hear things and recognize we are not the party of know but actually throwing out proposals and ideas to him.

it takes that person of authority to want toen depage the other side it's in our best interest to work well together once the election is over, they expect tuesday work together. the vast majority of us that work in congress really want to work on common sense solutions in the middle of the road where most person people are.ñrñi guest: i have two questions. should governmentsçó set up si

teem yick risk insurance policies by collecting premiums instead of merely picking winners andñi losers with taxpayer collars and with regards to healthcare, if democrats are going to get more leverage in the debate. are democrats ready to implement some of the strategies providing safe guards to protect the doctor -- patient relationship. host: let's start with the congressman. guest: we did include a fund

that would help unwind. it would help unwind in a fairway some would say there is some a couldn't row versey about who should pay into the fund making sure the companies really do have systematic risks and really should be paying it out of insurance as opposed to other kinds of financial issuance i don't want to charge for those financial services just because they are financial services. that doesn't mean they shouldn't do it. we want that backstop. i think it is a pretty moderate model. in terms of the healthcare

debate. the president met with republican leaders on healthcare specifically he said, yes, the democrats are willing to consider many republican ideas.ñi some of them have already been incorporated across state lines for a comprimise he also made it clear that it can't simply be the couple of republican bills that there are and you don't incorporateçó any democratic ideas either. it has to be añr true comprimis i think the democrats we are the majority party right now. the democrats need to and want to work with republicans if they will meet us half way. if theyñr won't, there's nothin we can do.

host: we have a tweet from craig. has congressman shock received any stimulus money and is willing to return the money since it has not worked in other states? guest: first, let's back up and address what the stimulus was supposed to do. when the president introduced the bill, its issuance was supposed to keep unemployment from going past 8%. argueablely, it haint worked for its purported goal, which is to stop unemployment from

increasing past 8%. the sweeter is suggesting that because i did notñi supt port t stimulusñi bill that the 18th congressional district in illinois should not get its fair share of federal spending. this is the same argument that people get that the reality is we need to have a serious debate on bonal sides about responsibly federal spending. even the president said, we need to get our financial house in order. regardless of how voters vote on the spendingñi a large part

that went to the state of illinois. it was handed out by our governor. there's been very little money for members of conditioning res to go in and fight. there were no earmarks. i'm not sure it was spent that much more as a result. certainlyly, i'm not going to advocate for our taxpayers, when they are going to be on the hook to pay that money back. >> hairy son, eark. you are on the line. guest: thank you. i was amused at the comment

earlier that the government should not be involved in business. i would remind it's standards. in this country, we have standards that are mandated. if you don't like the standard, you change it.çó a communist country, call that trade and bring it back. now it is a question of which government do you want to support, and as i see it, the free traders are truly supporting a communist system,

and i just think the other way. host: i will give you a chance to answer that question. guest: i want tothank the caller for his question. we need to promote the goods in our country as well as other countries, but the idea that trade with countries like china or india or russia or other partners means the goods are manufactured there and not here is completely untrue. i represent one of the largest manufacturers in our country -- caterpillar. as you mentioned earlier, 70% of the tractors caterpillar bills are sent to other countries, and china is one of the largest customers, this -- so to suggest we do not want partnerships with these countries is to really stick our head in the sand. we only have 5% of the population in the world, so it is a defeatist man of --

mentality to suggest we would be better off just buying or selling from those in our country. greatest technologies and the best minds inñr the world. it's our company's employee's best interest to want to sell and compete with 95% of the world's population. the columbia, panama and south korea trade agreements on the table right now would be a huge boom. the large mafferers it our district that sell their manufactured goods around the world.ñiñi

80% of the wheat of columbia is provided by u.s. farmers. columbia just signed this year a free trade agreementçó with canada. if we don't pass a free trade agreement, they are going to begin buying their wheat from canada.çó we are going to be put at a competitive disadvantage. >> right now, we buy their flowers and coffee all tarrif free. it's our advantage now to eliminate those tarrifs. i agree ks it needs to be free and fair trade. we need these trade agreements for new customers toñi grow and

employ more people guest: i agree we need free and fair trade. all of the trade agreement that's follow on this model aren't working not because it is trade but because it is not on a level playing field. it would be like two teams coming on to a playing field and they haveñi to play by different rules. with china. china won't even float its own currency.ñrñixdñr

it has undermined our industrial base. we as a country have to have a strong manufacturing base. we have to have a strong agricultural base, too. i have a strong base in my state as well. we cannot be naive. if we have to put up with other countries and in the rules or having different rules will we continue to do things with the utmost quality of weekend.

host: next c virginia on the indianapolis line. >> good morning. >> how can we take you seriously if you are not going to crack down on those who hire illegals. what are you going to do about that? my follow up question is explain to people that have lost their job and ended up homeless because you failed to protect american workers and make employment varification mandatory for our jobs. host: we'll start in syracuse. >>

guest: i think she is right. we have to crack down on employers that do hire illegal workers. currently, there aren't those folks. a lot that could not, cannot find enough americans for these jobs. they do depend on seasonal workers right now. while we have to crack down on any employer who hires undocumented workersçó.

we hope that will be dealt with this year. >> that simple. the caller is right. we have we need to fix it. there is a large

>> a matter of national security we also need to inporm the process. it takes 8ñi years on the avera for people to become an american citizen. i don't think the people that game here would have waited to find out if they become an american. we need a more ago i'll system that works. to the caller's point, we need to insure that the same system that the federal government mandates for itself is used and required on employers to make sure people they are employing are in fact paying taxes for residents who are supposed to be here.

given the president's interview with blume's new week he did on february 9. congressman shock. and congressman, then you can answer. guest: it's more than a perception. anyone would have to argue that it is reality. let's step back. whose view really matters? you walk in to the small business guy especially has been discussing business caps this year.

those business people trying to sulling and create jobs. the two mainlyor pieces the president has talked about, which is the cap and trade he continues to talk about their corporations. the reality is we need employers in this country.

whether it is the policies like risk taking through tax credits. that's a bill i'm working on with a democrat member of our small business committee. we are trying to get the r&d tax credit permanent. the original question, is this perception a reality? absolutely. the policies promoted is anything but probusiness, it is anti-business. there's a lot of capitol sitting off the street a lot of

folks making the investment we need. guest: of course the president isn't anti-buys. this isn't enough done in small businesses. there was enough stuff in the stimulus bill. the stuff passed for hope for homeowners and cash for clunchingers, real estate businesses and autos in the other. i agree withçó a lot of aaron's point. i think when you are being

attacked by the extremes on both sides, maybe you are doing something right. i think the president is neither anti-business but not going to give away to the big business either. we are going to try to encourage big business and small business. they didn't exporter jobs because they can't. they are in our communities. that's where we are going to focus on. instead of worrying about our debate, we should just move forward. particularly in my district, that means getting access to capitol and reasonable interest lones. >> leon, go ahead with your question. >> this is for representative shock. have you paid much attention to

the wind farms coming up in illinois. much of the president's energy plan. i think we can get there as a country we created more wind energy in the country over the past decade, after the wind energy tax credit was put into effect by congress, and the next year- end production went up 40%.

we are the fastest-growing wind energy producers in the world now with those in wind energy tax credits. i am aware of them. there are a ton of them going up in my congressional district. i know in central illinois and northern illinois, you have to of a wind farm. most of the farmers are having to lease or sell the small amount of ground required -- are happy to lease or sell the small amount of ground required. it is important to make sure they are a part of the energy platform, and one downfall to wind energy is it is not as reliable depending on where the wind is, so your question about whether they are paying for themselves -- it would be a matter of time. their life cycle tends to be around 20 years that they need to be replaced, but i've seen

the financial models. obviously, people would not be interesting if they did not think they were a wise investment, but over the next 20 years, a windmill put of today should not only pay for itself but added quickly replenished the energy supply system it took to build it. it took to build it. i just wanted to say to the american people, be ware of the globalist. they need to repeal nafta i also had a question making it a million dollars if you could give me a definition of how

many people with the amount of revenue so a company in take could be construed as small business would be appreciated. guest: if it's an s corporate, the person who owns the business is looking to move it. maybe the number of employees and there areçó a number of way small to medium type businesses and not to say that big's big

business. we have the financial companies that couldn't be valued i do agree with the caller. we need a different kind of trade policy i try to ask people, don't impune anyone's patriotism. i really think most people are trying to do their best but name calling doesn't necesarily help.

guest: i have hundreds of small businesses in my district and i represent caterpillar in my home town. look, from a truly definition stand point, you say small businesses between 50-200 employees. your caller asked what is the revenue threshold what may be a lot at one business. the work that we did together this summer trying to save the local car dealerships that are extremely important they sell

millions of dollars but work on very little money they depen rate $5-$10 million in revenue. we need to reward people who make investments and take risk and who make a profit. at the end of the day, the question callers need to make, what happens to that profit. they are either going to reininvest it in their small business and hire more business. all of those actions with that prift create jobs. at the end of the day, the taxpayer is a lot more responsibly with his or her money

>> good morning. i changed my regular tration, i am now an indianapolis host: what were you before? >> i was a democrat. a proud democrat. i'm now just a proud american. host: why did you change? caller: why? are you calling me? if you have the majority in the house and can't get a healthcare passed, you don't deserve to be there. it's that simple. i'm 75. please don't ask representative shock a question because he filabusterses. host: were you in favor of the house medical bill?

caller: i was in favor of all of them. i have insurance. i have my health insurance but i don't need it. my grandkids need it. our federal government is the largest employor in the united states my tax dollars pays for every benefit these two men get. every tax dollar is paid for, their cost of living is paid for by my tax dollars they get automatically. they don't even have to ask for it. they just get it. what business in the united states gives automatic cost of

living raises? the only one are these politicians that give it to themselves. host: there's a lot to work with there. guest: a bill that we did pass in the house. i agree with the caller. at a time when americans were sacrificing. it's hard to argue with her in washington and how frustrating it's. after a year of work and the healthcare bill hasn't been passed. a lot of that, if you listen to the president's state of the union address, you could piece together.

if we have that kind of process, we can come to some real agreements on healthcare. it's very important for future generations. she had the right attitude about it. this isn't just about us. it's hard to disdegree with the caller. it's frustrating for us too. it is part of being in a dem

crassy. certainlyly, this have been many times in history where we have been able to get through these log jacks i do think you can go too far. the senate bill burns the village in order to save it. ñi we need to have better system incentives to make sure they are treating patients and not

just ordering tests. it really kills the whole thing if you are going to tax one person's health insurance. you are robbing peter to pay paul. there are limits. there are a lot of good things in the senate bill as. we could get there. >> congressman shock. >> peter, i agree with much of what dan said. many americans are frustrated your great station, c-span was supposed to be included in much of the discussion, which it was not. there have been a lot of broken

promises. let's talk about the future and focus on this next year and how we are going to improve things talking about the republican party they control the white house and senate. with a huge majority. an 81-seat majority in the house. a 60 seat majority so we can

get democrats and republicans on the board. that's what many people fail to recognize is the fact that people who stopped this healthcare bill from passing were not republicans they were the folks who showed they did not support the house or senate version. that's why the house leaders that went home for the weekend and listened to their district said, i can't support this bill. that's why the bill didn't pass both chambers and in the white house being one party. she talked about our benefits. look, i agree with dan, members of congress should not be getting pay increases during a time of economic uncertainity. we should not be increasing our pay? i don't believe we should be increasing the pay of federal

workers. we have dealt with much of the out of control spending. american taxpayers are equally outraged the increases in spending on the federal government. you look the discretionary spending that has deprone by double digits at a time when everyone is pulling back. the republican line. >> hi, gentleman. if you are too naive to realize that, you go through the same scenario. it is a gigantic company. they were making refrigerating containers to go back and forth between countries with trade with.

they said, we are going to make the containers in china. they are going for low-wage workers. it does not matter how much you lower the tax rate. if you have real low-cost labor, you are going to lose it. caterpillar is moving out of the united states, and you are naive if you think differently. they're going to go the same way as carrier. >> let's start with peoria, and rep, you get the last word. >> they employ tens of thousands of american citizens, tens of thousands of my constituents, and if i want my constituents to remain employed, they have to have products, so there is a big difference between removing

tariffs on our goods being sold to another country, and incentivizing them to move their operation to another country, and that is something dan talked about earlier the they agree with. we should not be incentivizing a u.s. corporation moving overseas, but we should also work to remove the barriers, the competitive disadvantages our equipment have right now. panama is spending hundreds of billions of dollars to expand the panama canal, but right now a caterpillar tractor that is sold -- a foreign competitor does not have to sell as it is sold to columbia -- columbiombi. is making it so that companies whether it be mafferer or our grainsñi there

are smart trade policies we can promote so that we don't loose these companies and subsequent employees so that they are reap tiff in my district and others around the country. i appreciate the caller's perspective but i just would disagree. the united states has to get tough. the president got a lot of criticism both from the international community and economic community. if other countries aren't

playing fair, then we need to say fine. if you are not going to play with a set of rules, then we are not going to play with you. the other thing we have to focus on. the other thing is education. part of the problem is that we are not graduating enough scientists and engineers, we are not with enough skilled labor. even if it costs a little bit more here, we are going to produce better products and continue to doñi that in the future. we have to make sure we have good, decent schools and make sure these people are getting the kind of education they need. >> we have a lot of research facilities. some things we'll probably not manufacture here the bigger, higher s skilled stuff, we can

.

to wages and growth of wamings. so unless we change the way the formulas are calculated, growth

doesn't help us all that much on social security. >> do you think the index should be more fair than wages? >> i think it is not exactly a question of fairness. not for people who are retired now, then i think we could index the benefits, the initial benefits to devices for people above the middle or above the 60 percent aisle or something. that could be one way to do that, would be to phase in an indexing, which would be less generous for people in the top than people at the bottom and that would help a lot. >> i would say that i just -- in

the snow, read in fortune magazine, they had four of the top five investing people. one was mr. rose at pimco and two others. three of the four said the new normal is low growth and they attributed the low growth for the next decade. mr. segel said productivity, technology advancements could help us do that. that was pretty grim. people telling people how to invest their money and they were not optimistic about the future. the biggest point that you made, here is the my recollection because i was going over this, with some intensity last year. my rough recollection was if we

have 1% more growth than estimated, because they are estimated very low growth for the next 50 years in the united states. they are -- >> 2%? >> 2%. something like that. if you have 1% more economic growth, my recollection is that takes care of about 75% of the problem. here's the dirty little secret. from a budgetry standpoint it doesn't take care of the problem at all, or very little.

.

because political control switches. you know, i've been here 23 years. i'm a democrat. sometimes we have been in control. control. a lot of times we haven't and it goes back and forth. it is going to go back and forth again. that's why it is my personal belief we've got to find a way to do this together because when the political winds change next, if we don't have a plan that all of us basically think has got merit, it will be abandoned and if you look at the trend lines, it really is sobering. this is no joking around now. i mean, we're headed in a way

that could take this nation to second class status. that's how serious this is. so i just urge my colleagues. let's really make our best, best effort to work together and try to come up with solutions. and i know we can do it. i know we can. it is going to take all of us to give. i've got all kinds of things. let me just say, i come from a farm state. one of the most heavily dependent states of agriculture programs of any state. i am ready to take on farm support and to reduce even what was in the bill that i just helped pass. that's how serious i am about doing what has to be done. so look, it is time for all of us to get out, every sacred cow and face up to this death threat. final thoughts, senator

sessions? >> well, thank you for this and we've got to confront the problem. you are doing so. i know you share with administration, realities that we are facing and i can only hope that that will help us deal with it. but i am -- you know, the president never was a mayor, never was a governor, never ran a company. it took me a number of years to understand some of the complexities about debt. to submit the tpwhaunlt calls for a $170 billion job stimulus over the next several years, ok. what's not stated is a $100 billion that they are going to be offering this year, all additional debt is really a $270

billion and all $100 billion of that would be emergency spending, adding to our total debt. what i'm saying is i'm thinking that our president is going to have to lead onñr this issue an he can't tell us about the health care bill, we're going to save money. he can't say us his bill is $170 billion when it is $270 billion. we've got to get straight about it. mr. chairman, one question and i -- i think this came to me clearly in reading these financial people their comments, and i think you said it, when we surge our debt from $5 trillion, $7 trillion it was a year or so ago to $17 trillion in 10 years,

tripling it, that money, that's the public debt. so that is borrowed either from our individual americans or other countries and that is money that wouldñr otherwise be available to be loaned into the commercial economy creating jobs and it crowds out and drives up borrowing costs for the private sector and i guess that's one of the factors that dr. rhinehart was mentioning and why it slows our growth down. would you elucidate on your comment on that? that will be my last question. >> well, i think you summarized the point very well. that money we borrow comes out of something. there isn't a free lunch here. and whether we use domestic savings to borrow or use foreign savings to finance our deficit, it will ultimately reduce our

standards of living. i don't think you can get around that. whether the line is as bright as 90% and that ratio, i find that a little hard to swallow in their work but certainly the higher the deficit, the more it impacts negatively on our potential to grow. >> the other two? >> i think that is a good point. i was actually trapped in my car on tuesday trying to get into the line to get to the grocery store only to find that there was no food. the only thing that kept me from having road rage is that i got to listen to the hearing on c-span and it was really an interesting hearing. i think it is important, the public debt matters is when you're looking at financial markets when you're taking this capital out of the economy. that's the point you're making, senator sessions.ñr

right now, you're taking away the capital that could go to job creation and so we need to weigh those tradeoffs and i also think it is right to point out, especially this budget committee needs to be aware of the total debt because that is one that affects what we are committed to this the future. we are allocating our resources in the future, losing the control we have over the budget. usually you say we care about our kids. i just spent four days locked in the house with my kids. i know when i go back i will feel the same sent meant at that it is important we do this for the next generation. but it is -- the debt right now is threatening our economic recovery in the short-term as well as the long-term. and i think that is critically important. when we think about stimulus job creation, it is not in a vacuum. the dependency on the borrowing

that is allowing us to do that, we have already lost our fiscal flexibility so it is hurting us to have stimulus programs. i think it is a great point. >> i substantially agree with all of that but we are in a very deep recession. the result of this financial mismanagement. we are not in a situation which we can return to budget balance quickly, nor should we raising taxes or cutting spending to create a balance very quickly would be disastrous and i think we should remember that. >> i'll agree. maybe we can refrain from making it more bad than it is. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator sessions. i want to thank the witnesses. i deeply appreciate your coming out given these conditions, especially. i very much appreciate the effort and the energy that you

have put into your testimony here today and the committee has certainly benefited by your expertise and by your thoughtful consideration of these issues. with that, we'll stand at adjournment. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> when the senate is back in session on february 22, majority leader harry reid will bring up a jobs bill with several parts. we spoke with a reporter who is covering the issue. senate majority leader harry

reid said there are four provisions in the jobs bill. what are they? >> yes, the jobs bill that senator reid is planning on moving forward now, he is planning to include four provisions that were out of a larger package that the finance committee put together. one provision would basically modify and extend build america bond programs that was part of the stimulus package last year which gives tax credit bonds to state and local governments to help them work on infrastructure projects and raise money for infrastructure proms and another section, 179 expensing, basically a tax break for small businesses again that was in the stimulus package again that allows them to write off certain capital extendtures that otherwise might depreciate over time. the centerpiece of the whole thing, though, is this schumer-hatch hiring tax credit written by charles schumer and orrin hatch.

basically reimburse for the social security payroll tax that they pay when they hire a new employee in 2010. >> why did senator reid change direction and offer this slimmed down version? >> basically there has been some blow back from the rest of the democratic caucus. the bill they were negotiating had become a lot bigger and attracted a lot ofed a-ons like the patriot act extensions. it was becoming somewhat of a christmas tree and getting away from the sort of pure job creation focus. >> you mentioned senator grassley, the republican. what is the republican reaction to this new version? far. most have not brought into the baucus-grassley compromise. the approach that senator reid is taking now is probably going

to get less support off the bat. he seems to be trying to dare challenging them to support it and show that they are ready for a bipartisan compromise. >> when will work begin on the legislation? >> they will be behind the scenes over the next week. we're expecting when they get back from recess they will really get into it. you may see today or tomorrow is that right reid try to bring his bill up on the floor. it is unclear whether that will happen. >> bill schatz of congressional quarterly. thank you. >> thank you. >> in a few moments, a hudson institute forum on national security and foreign policy and wourge is live at 7:00 eastern with segments on u.s. relations with iran and congressional efforts on health care and job creation.

a couple of live events to tell you about today. here on c-span. coast guard commandant thad allen speaks to the national press club at 1:00 eastern. witnesses include a member of the federal reserve board of governors. now a forum on the obama administration's foreign policy hosted by the hudson institute in new york. panelists include retired general richard myers, the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. this is an hour and 45 minutes.

we knew that there was an enemy called al qaeda. since then, since then what has evolved? what threats do we face? two things that are going on in the american public, everyone says america is at war but the public is at the mall. america's military is at war. the military people, the c.i.a. are out there risking their lives every day. they are at war. a lot of us have not had that brought home to us. sop of the people on our panel know that better than anyone else, though. i experienced it very briefly on a flight from baghdad. on the back of the flight there were four flag-draped coffins. we are now in the position of trying to define how we reclaim our american liberty.

one of the things we must do first is recognize how we must protect it both here and abroad. i'm going to do a little bit different from what herb did and introduce each of our speerks individually for a particular reason. our first speaker is someone you have seen on the news many, many times. he retired in 2005 after 40 years in service of the united states air force. general richard b. myers was the 15th chairman of the joint chiefs of staff from 2001 to 2005 and previously he rose from a young fighter pilot, which i think accounts for about 600 combat hours in an f-4 and rose through various levels of command to become the president's principle adviser on military manners. he is the author of a book that i read and recommend to everyone called "eyes on the horizon" and i would like to welcome general richard myers with a question. sir, have we defined the enemy

correctly? who are we fighting? what is this war and do we have the strategy in place necessary to win? ladies and gentlemen, richard b. myers. [applause] >> well, thank you very much. i within the to start by saying as a fighter pilot listening to that last panel, i found myself coming to two conclusions. one keeping my money buried in the backyard is still prudent and i had better get one of my children to go to medical school if i want to be healthy. that was a great panel. thank you. i want to talk about two issues, basically. one jed knows about and one jed doesn't know about. about national security. 20 days after 9/11 i was sworn into the office of joint chiefs of staff. that colors my view of what our

primary security threat is. and that is to me, anyway, the threat that we have from violent extremists. people that would use terrorism to create fear and perhaps get us to act in ways that is not logical and not with optimism. i think my own view is that this threat is the biggest threat to our country and to our way of life, specifically since the civil war. maybe it is fitting we're in this particular building. let's just review the facts. it was osama bin laden who declared war on the united states in 1988. at the time i was a just space command. we were a little slow on the uptake on this thing. the basic philosophy is what can a handful of people from the middle east, what impact can they have on the people from the united states of america for goodness sakes? and then we had bombings in kenya and tanzania and responded

with cruise missile attacks but the impact on the adversary was not what we intended. we did not commit our treasure to the task and then we had the u.s.s. cole bombing in aidan harbor, of course and then 9/11. i skipped some things but those are the major events and then 9/11. that was perhaps the real wake-up call. i think president bush summed it up in our first national security council meeting after 9/11. we knew al qaeda was the perpetrator of 9/11. we knew they trained in afghanistan. we certainly didn't have any -- this was the next day. we didn't have any idea what exactly we would do but his last comments that ended the meeting were, you know, we're probably going to have to do some things that are going to be unpopular and if that makes us a one-term presidency, so be it.

i thought that was a pretty bold statement for a president to make. not everyone in the room was nodding. the political handlers, you could hear the wind roaring through mole ars pretty fast. i'm convinced that he absolutely meant that. why is this threat so -- such a concern? first of all, i mean, we see it almost daily that this is a very ruthless adversary. willing to die for their cause thinking all along that they are going to please their god. they will absolutely kill innocent men, women and children. just not give a thought to it because again, it is for the cause. if you look at with violent extremist groups like al qaeda want to go, they have a vision for the future and their vision used to be laid out in the al qaeda website, as a matter of fact, where they would turn the

globe red, where their vision of this extreme view of islam and their political process that went along with it where they turn countries red and in 100 years they turned north america red, canada, the united states and mexico, we have all been converted and viewed in this extreme view. so they have a vision and most of all, they are patient and they have the will and resolve to carry out their particular vision. they are particularly dangerous, as i mentioned before, because they use terrorism. why do they use terror? because it chris fear. what happens when you're afraid? you can't think clearly. when you think back to 9/11 and how many of you probably reacted to the events of 9/11 or the events of the airliner coming into detroit, that affects the way -- you can see it in all the

comments right after that attempt to bring down that aircraft how people start to respond in ways that really aren't logical and certainly some without a lot of optimism. so fear is a very dangerous thing. we know that and that's the whole game here with these violent extremists that use terror as their method to get things done. i think a lot of things that have been done since 9/11 have made us safer as a country. i believe that. i was part of a lot of that and certainly on the periphery of much more. i think we're a much safer society today than we were before. one of the elements, though, that is missing and has been missing for a long time, probably goes back to when osama bin laden declared war on us, is that we've not come up with a strategy, a strategy to deal with this global extremism. we've come up with, in my view,

tactical strategies for afghanistan and iraq and maybe yemen to some degree but those are all -- i mean they are important in their own right, but to me, they are more the tactical fight and they are not the strategic fight because we haven't really defined that fight. and the many times that i've been in the white house talking about terrorism and violent extremism, i can count probably on one hand the number of times we've talked about the overarching strategy. a number of times we would talk about iraq or afghanistan and that was all appropriate so once more what happens i think in most bureaucracies and probably sometimes in the private sector, the urgent always displaces the important. so the important part is trying to get a strategy down and the urgent was ok, how do we work our tactical and operational problems in iraq or afghanistan. the elements of a strategy, of

course, are important. i would say there is three fundamental pieces to that. one is that we have to correctly identify who the adversary is. when i was putting together my book, i spent some time going over some work that i did with four really bright people that i took off the staff and sequestered for a couple of months. i said think about this whole issue. this is in 2004. think about this thing in the broadest terms you have and come back with some ideas. some of those ideas, we worked those ideas around and what we decided that we're facing is really a global insurgency. i think you see this if you just take a quick trip around the globe and i'm not going to do that for you. i don't think we have time today. but if you take a quick trip around the globe, there are elements of violent extremism and acts of terrorism that go on essentially daily around the world. and these other things that --

the noose all the time, not the tactical fight, not saying what is really going on here and that is this global insurgency. i characterize it by saying it is primarily a struggle within islam to capture the continuing quest for an islamic reinsurgent. if you listen to the extremists, they say no, this is about islam and the west. this is about the west against islam. that's how the extremists would point it. but really the struggle is within islam. the goal of the global insurgency is to limit american influence so extreme views can be the basis for governance. this global cal fate that has been mentioned. in this quest, al qaeda currently leads but that's going to morph over time and they are not the only organization that has the same view.

there are lots of organizations. i mean, there is hundreds of organizations. i haven't counted them up. my guess is as i've read through, probably hundreds of them. this particular enemy, this global insurgency is conducting two campaigns of persuasion. one inside islam to assert its vision and the other outside islam to intimidate the west and to distract muslims from their internal struggle and at the same time enhance extremists' global stature. it is my belief that this enemy has no discreet theory of victory. certainly not like when we think about victory, our minds go back to recent conflicts. when i say recent, i'm talking about world war ii and korea and so forth le we think about victory in a certain way. my view is that we have a

cumulative strategy where basically fighting is winning. if they can have victories that can be humanitarian, they can even be rhetorical and they don't always have to be military. clearly the afghan taliban is trying to discredit and displace the elected afghan government. which is the legitimate government, of course, of afghanistan and you see the same sort of thing happening in pakistan where they tried to destabilize or at least give the impression that the central government of pakistan can't handle the issue and therefore maybe gain lenltmassy in perhaps gain some power. i think those are probably two

pretty good examples of what i'm talking about. that is one element of the strategy identify who go this adversary is. again, to summarize, i think it is a global insurgency with al qaeda in the lead but not necessarily exclusively al qaeda. the second fundamental is in any strategy to me you have to involve all instruments of national power. nothing was more frustrating as chairman of the joint chiefs of staff than not being able to get all instruments of national power to address this problem with the same sense of urgency that the department of defense or the military did. and i think it is still a problem today. there is lots of reasons for this. it is not because people are bad. sometimes their resource issues, both money and manpower. but the fact is, in my last year, i was very frustrated that, for instance, the embassy in afghanistan in august of

2005, when i asked, what is demanding of the -- the -- they are going flow through an embassy that is only 40% manned, you can imagine a lot of things are going to fall through the cracks. i'm sure it is much better today. this strategy has to involve all of its national power, not just the military strum. it will certainly play a role. the political and the economic. i would say there are a couple of others that are not mentioned. instruments of power that need to be harnessed to bring to this fight. and third, along with identifying the adversary, coming up with a strategy, we've got to organize to execute the strategy and if i were to ask this audience, in my tenure,

2001 to 2005, as the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, who was in charge of our efforts against the global insurgency, but let's just make i easier, our efforts in afghanistan and iraq, who do you think was in charge? i heard secretary rumsfeld. well, that's good. we're going to go with rumsfeld but you can use any of those names and it is the same thing. assuming that you can't have the president be in charge of everything and being in charge of the execution of everything, if you say it was secretary rumsfeld, he was certainly the point person in all the media. that was clear. to be in charge, you have to have both responsibility and authority. so you have to ask yourself, ok, what authority did secretary rumsfeld have over the national

security council? over treasury? over homeland security? well, the answer is he didn't. and so you may think that secretary rumsfeld was in charge or vice president or whomever, it's the way we're organizeds for national security came out of world war ii. it has been modified many times. in a way we are pacific northwestly organized for another world war ii but that's not the kind of adversary we face today. it is a much different adversary. all of these things need to be harnessed in a way to address that threat. i would propose that we are not perfectly organized for that. haven't been for a while. it is no one particular administration's fault. it is just the way that we are organized. so that's my part on what i

think is the gravest threat. the exsent the rble threat to i believe our way of life. listening to the economic panel, though, and the folks that were up here before, i have one other comment to make and this is on -- on our fiscal situation. the department of defense budget right now is relatively robust. partly due the fact that we're still involved -- we are a nation at war and we're involved in iraq and afghanistan in a very major way. but you have to fast forward 10 years and ask yourselves ok, what kind of military budget are we going to have? what kind of military are we going to need? and what i worry is going to happen is what happened in the 1990's when we took our peace dividend after the end of the cold war and the budget went down precipitously and the part

of the budget that went down the fastest was the precurement and research and development part of the budget because we had a lot of operations and maintenance that we had to do and we're not quite in that dilemma today because we've got this fairly robust budget and we have additional funding for afghanistan and iraq. but at some point that is going to go away. and then you have to arrest yourself, ok, are degrees, ask yourself, ok, are we going to make the investments in research and development, training, all those sorts of things, that that part of the budget goes for? excuse me, training is not really part of that budget but the research and development, procurement. are we going to leave ourselves with the tools we need two decades from now or three decades from now? i don't know the answer to that. it is just one of the things we need to think about and another issue in this security issue. thank you very much. [applause]

>> thank you, general myers. let me just add to that. my college roommate has a soon who is flying a k.c. 145 that is nearly as old as i am. that is part of issue. certainly the national defense part of it but america and america's military of course suffers from the fallacy that america's military is the victim of its own success. everybody believes what america's military can do whatever is required whenever it is required. there is another part of the issue, though. not only just intelligence but america's legal system. we have two of the experts on that today here for you. one is our next speaker. the other is general mike mukasey who'll speak later. america is at war but america's legal system sometimes seems to

be at war with the war fighters. our next speaker, andy mccarthy is a former federal prosecutor who was responsible for leading the prosecutions of some of the most important cases that have come through the american courts. the 199 a effort when we led the team prosecuting the blind sheike for the first world trade center attack. after being decorated with the highest honors since 2003 he has become one of our nation's most knowledgeable authors on national security. now with the national review foundation and perhaps he is most importantly, he is a native of the bronx. andy? [applause] >> well, jed, i should begin by

asking you a question, which is why i was chosen to speak between two authentic american heroes. it is a great honor to be here today but it is a particular honor to be on this panel. and the topic i was asked to talk about was our legal architecture. do we have the -- do we have the right architecture in place to try to turn back the threat that we're confronted by? and i thought that in trying to answer that question, i would throw out an example. imagine a terrorist regime overseas, or terrorist entity that trains its operatives, sends highly trained terrorists to the united states to conduct operations against civilians and

civilian infrastructure, to increase the chances of infiltration and success, they even include american citizens in the venture. they come into the united states , they conspire to conduct their terrorist attacks but they are captured by the f.b.i. and interrupted. the president of the united states decides that they are not going into the civilian justice system. he's going to designate them as enemy combatants. not only is he going to designate them as enemy combatants so that we can hold them under the laws of war rather than allowing them to lawyer up and hold back who they know from us, he instantly decides they are also going to be tried by military commission. that example is not something that i actually pulled out of the air. that's something that actually

happened in 1942. eight german saboteurs came to the united states sent by the nazis and landed on long island and in florida. they were quickly captured in june of 1942 by the f.b.i. they were designated by f.d.r. as enemy combatants. they actually got their military commission trial not in a place like guantanamo bay. we were not back at that time hung up on the idea that we not only had to give them a military commission, we had to make it look like one. they actually were tried in what is now the robert f. kennedy department of justice building in washington. in the middle of that trial, which there wasn't much delay in those days. the trial actually started about four weeks after they were captured, they thought habeyuss corps us from the -- habeus

corpus. people that were arrested by civilian authorities in the united states could be treated as enemy prisoners and not brought to the civilian justice system. they wanted to challenge being treated as enemy combatants. the president, f.d.r., got wind of that, probably the most legendary progressive in american history. he brought in his attorney general, the legendary progressive and civil libertarian, francis biddle. he told biddle that he should let the supreme court know that while he looked forward with great interest to what the justices would say about the whole matter, he didn't really particularly care and he had no intention of releasing the prisoners regardless of what the justices thought of the matter.

biddle took that piece of information to the chief justice of the supreme court and somehow the court found it within itself to unanimously affirm everything that f.d.r. wanted to do with the enemy combatants and they were executed. six of the eight of them, two got life in prison. they were executed about seven weeks after they were captured. that actually took place from june of 1942 until august of 1942. [applause] so the question is, do we have the legal architecture in place and i guess the question really becomes what's different? what is different now? from 1942? and i think the answer to that is that in a half century after saving the world for freedom, we

had forgotten two of the essential lessons about that victory. the first one is that there are worse things that war. there is iran theny, for example. i must -- there is tyranny, for example. i wholeheartedly agree with general myers' remarks. i add to that i think the enemy is broader than the jihaddists. i think we have a much more insidious challenge on our hands. it is amazing that after all of these years after the world trade center bombing, which i still regard as the declaration of war in the united states, that we don't really even understand what jihad is. but the purpose of jihad, you should understand, is not to blow up buildings or to kill infidels. the purpose of jihad is -- it has a rationality. the purpose is to establish --

and if you can, by blowing up buildings they will do it. if you can establish it because the enemy is going to roll over and appease you, they are more than happy to take whatever gains they can get without having to blow up buildings. and the problem isn't just the al qaedas that want to blow us up. it is the muslim brotherhood and the islamist organizations that combine them and are making their own long march through our institutions. so it is not a legal challenge that we're facing simply to confront terrorism. the problem, the threat to our way of life is a lot broader than that. the other -- the flip side of tyranny, i think, is freedom. freedom is not the natural condition of mankind. i think we would like to think it is but it simply isn't. it is something that has to be fought for and if we don't fight

for it, if we're not willing the fight for it, if we're not willing to have the system in place that allows us to fight for it, then we lose it. so that is one lesson. i think the other lesson is the premise of the question is that we're supposed to be able to fit this war into some kind of legal architecture and the fact is you don't fit war into a legal architecture. when you fight war, it is because the united states goes to war and needs to win in order to preserve our legal institutions and all the rest of our institutions. so your obligation is actually to fit your legal institutions into the endeavor of making war to achieve victory over the enemy. i think if we get that wrong, we're certain to lose. home, -- holmes, another legendary progressive said in about 1918 when it comes to matters involving the life of the state, judicial processes

have to take the backseat to executive processes. that is the system we have. that's the system the framers designed and the framers, i think unlike us, understood that the united states might not owls necessarily be here. certainly -- always necessarily be here, certainly not if we don't defend ourselves. let me compare what happened to the german saboteurs to a combat antwerp holding. he was able to challenge his status as an enemy combatant because that's the way we do it now. the courts having started to take that power, that ability to review the detention of our enemies. congress actually made it so they can go into court and make that challenge. a federal judge in washington said that we had to -- that heck not be considered an en-- he

could not be considered an enemy combatant despite the fact that the government proved he was identified as an al qaeda hard core extremist before 9/11 ever happened. he traveled to afghanistan right after 9/11 using a known al qaeda smuggling route. he contributed money to an al qaeda front that is designated as a terrorist entity under u.s. law. he fled toward tora bora after the u.s. invasion using the same route as al qaeda and taliban fighters. his name was found in an al  qaeda safe house on a roster that mujaheddin. what happens is when people come to train they have to turn in their passports which gives them more control over their fighters. the judge decided that was

insufficient evidence to conclude that he was an al qaeda fighter. this is not just any judge. you know, we have lots of judges. we have lots of crazy rulings with lots of judges. the judge who made that ruling is colleen collar cotelli. you may have heard her name. you may know her it is a chief judge of the foreign intelligence surveillance court. in 1970, we took a power that was an executive national security power for as long as there has been the technology to do it, namely conducting surveillance, trying to penetrate enemy communications and we turned that power over to a court. so now judges, rather than the people who are in our government,xd~aa=m to make these sorts of decisions, have the power to decide or the final word on who we conduct surveillance on. the judge that runs that court is the same judge that made the decision on just -- i just described to you.

to compare again, back to 1942, let me read to you something that was written on behalf to have supreme court, actually in 1948 by justice robert jackson, who was i think an interesting guy. he is sort of a giant in both the political world, having been the at÷ot+htp& for f.d.r., the chief prosecutor at nurem berg and then in the judicial world as a justice of the supreme court. in 1948, he sat on a case which involved the question of how much involvement courts ought to have in our national security matters. here's what he said.ñrçó these decisions are wholly confide i by our constitution to the political departments of the

government. executive and legislative. they are delicate, complex and involve large almosts of prophesy. they are and should be undertaken only by those directly to people whose welfare they advance or impair. the jury has near think aptitude, facilities or responsibly and which has long been held to belong in the domain of political power not subject to judicial intrusion orrin quirey. the framers gave us -- or inquirey. the premise of that system was that there was supposed to be an accountability necksñiñiñiñiñiñ they wanted thoseñiñr decisions be made by the actors who were answerable, responsible to politically to the voters, to

american people whose lives were at stake so that when those people got those decisions wrong, when they struck the wrong balance between liberty and security, we could fire them. we could get rid of them. we could vote them out of office. we were not born as a legal community. we were born as a commill community. the idea was that we were going to be self-determined. that we would make the ultimate decisions about our security. and when you do what we have done since the 1970's, when you take your national security decisions and you move them out of the realm of politics, and you move them into the judiciary, what you have done is taken the crore decisions that are made by a self-determining political community and move them from the actors who you have control over and can do something about to the politically insulated judicial branch which you cannot get rid of if they get it wrong and

because of the institutional nature of their responsibilities are hard-wired to increase due process rights rather than concerns for national security. they have to be. their role in the system is to do justice to the parties that are before them. they are not given a national security responsibility. now, how do we solve this? what do we do to get out of this mess? well, werked probably talk about that for the rest of the day but let me just leave you with one thought and that is that as f.d.r. knew in 1942 when we actually faced another exten rble threat to the united states, this system, this problem, this challenge, doesn't change unless there is an executive branch, physical there is an executive branch that is -- until there is an executive branch that is willing to face down the courts. now that -- i may sound

revolutionary. i don't think it should. the question and answer period at the end of the last session talked about why haven't we had more debate about whether the health care bill is constitutional? it seems to me the answer to that is another measure of how far we have traveled from the 1940's until now. it used to be understood that it was the responsibility of every branch of government to interpret the constitution and to incorporate the constitution in its decision making on behalf of our government. it was not thought that the executive branch of the legislative branch could let it roll and see how much could they get away with, meaning how much will the courts rubber stamp or not? and the fact is that when congress does something that's violative of the law, presidents don't enforce it and judges have no trouble saying that it is

unconstitutional. when presidents go outside their authority, they get reigned in by the legislature and the court. the courts are no different. they are a part of the government but occasionally they act lawlessly and when they act lawlessly, it is the obligation of the political branches to say no, not just to go along with it. probably worth remembering these words and i'll end with this. governments derive their just power from the consent of theñr governed. when a form of government becomes destructive to that end, it becomes our dutyxdñi to alter those are the words of -- drawn from the declaration of independence and it is not any different today than it was in 1776. but until we face down this whole notion thatñr we can take

our own -- the decisions that go to the core of our self-defense to the core of whether we're able to preserve ourselves and hand them over to actors whom we can't reach, we're headed towards disaster. thank you. [applause] >> a little while ago, andy said that my role here today was to make him look calm. let me just suggest that might not be entirely correct. i think one of the things we're facing here with the congress right now and the executive branch that we have right nlg s not that they pass things that are unconstitutional but they don't care if they do. they don't thinkxd first. they don't analyze first. they don't consult the constitutional lawyers. i'll grant you, i only got a b-plus in constitutional law in

high school. when i look at the con husk irer kick back and they are saying that 49 states are going to be paying for nebraska's medicaid, i don't think you can get there from here because there is an cal protection clause in the way. going on from here, there are so many things we can talk about in the legal framework, and i hope we'll get to them in your questions. not the least of which is the k.s.h. trial. our next speaker is an american hero, as of course is general myers. allen west is someone who i met quite a while ago. he is -- he has been there and done that. this is a professional soldier who served in iraq, at breakfast general myers asked him where he was when saddam was captured and he was right there in tikrit, saddam's hometown. he is now a congressional

account, which means he could speak today because weñr did no want to have any elected officials on the panels. allen is someone who has been there and done that. when he left the army he did not want to stayçó out of theñiçó f. went back to afghanistan for two careers serving thereñi helping what our forces were trying to accomplish. ladies and gentlemen, let me just ask allen west a question. allen, we hear a lot in our counterinsurgency efforts in afghanistan about the rules of engagement. about the air force holding firr to prevent killing of civilians. are we sacrificing american lives unnecessarily in that process? what do you think should be the rules of engagement in afghanistan? ladies and gentlemen, allen west. [applause]ñi >> thank you so much,ñi jed, an thank you for having me,ñr dr. london, thank you for the invite to be here.

r(know. when you look at this panel, you have two contrasting personas here. you have the opportunity to see what happens when you take the flight test and pass it as general myers did and also jed babbin but also the example of when you fail the flight test you get in the other line for folks who just jump out of airplanes. with that being said, that give you an understanding withñi my level of intellect. one of the things we have to understand when we talk aboutçó the rules of engainl identical. we have to clearly -- engagement. we have to clearly recognize the 21st century battlefield which is totally different fromñiñr w i grew up as a young lieutenant. they taught you about soviet formations and you fought against these type formations and of course my first tour of duty was in italy and i did toursñi and patrols against bulgarian board irand the czech

border. when i went to desert storm in 1991, we fought an army that pretty much so applied those rules. i was in the first infantry division. we attacked them and broke through their lines and brought them to their knees in five or six days. but when i went back to iraq in 2003, it was a different type of enemy. it was a different type ofñr battlefield. we are now -- we had now become faced with an enemy that took off those uniforms and morphed themselves within the populace and that made it different for us on the battlefield. and then when i went back again to kandahar afghanistan, we saw that the whole thing about state oriented militaries have broken down. now what we're dealing with is nonstate nonuniformed belligerents on the battlefield, illegal enemy combatants yet we

have rules ofñr engagement to provide them an advantage and initiative against our soldiers. let me give you some examples of things that i have been involved in. when you get into a fireñiçóñi you got maybe about five seconds. after five seconds people are doing with to start to lose their lives. if you have rules out there how the saying youth engage until the enemy shows some kind of hostile intent, we had a fire fight not too long ago where we lost another 16-20 of our soldiers. it took. one hour to get reinforcing aircraft to come in because they continually asked them can you verify that there will not be any collateral damage to civilians. when you're a commander of a company in a fire fight, you don't have time to stick your head up and look and see are

there civilians out there? and not only that, they watch this enemy assemble themselves in the local village malls and they were not allowed to engage that enemy. back when i was in afghanistan, we had a fire fight down there and we hut a lot of hurt on the taliban forces and what the taliban did was to enable them to go back and retrieve their dead and wounded from the battlefield, they went into a local village and they got children and they brought the children and held them up close to them and that is how they retrieved their dead and when the canadian forces came down and started an operation in the fall of 2006, and the -- the lower area, the taliban went into houses with women and children and we continue to see that. i mean, one of the things we sar recently was the haditha

incident. when the enemy knows what the rules that you apply to yourself, he uses that as a gap by which which he exploits you. houment how many of you have had the opportunity to read the book by the navy seal "lone survivor." i was there at the time. back in 2005. their mission had been compromised and instead of following the normal seal special operative protocols they decided within themselves to let those afghan goat herders go. those people in turn went to the local taliban and all of a sudden you had upwards of 100 come upon the seal team. they were able to call in a reinforcing team but that helicopter was shut down. because they were more so afraid of being prosecuted by our own legal system, as andrew talked

about here, we lost 19 of ourçó most highly trained special operators that day in afghanistan, 2005. now what must we do with our rules of engage identical? first of all you have to know your enemy and know yourself and know the terrain and in countless amountsñr of battles u will always be victorious. we called it a war on terror. well, a nation does not go to war against a tactic. how the we call it an overseas operation. when i went overseas for a mission, that was not war. if we were going to have the right and proper rules of engagement, we have to understand who is on that battlefield. we have to understandñi we're fighting againstñr an islamic t tal tearism. the thing we have to do against our rule of engagement,ñr who bt knows