Skip to main content

tv   U.S. House of Representatives  CSPAN  February 25, 2010 5:00pm-8:00pm EST

5:00 pm
doing is securing the american people. we know that right now, there is a major debate that is occurring with leadership dealing with health reform. we will be addressing the question of jobs, but let it be very clear, nothing is going to stop us from addressing the question of national security. chairman conyers has been working on the reform and the patriot act to make sure that it provides more security for the american people. i just came from a hearing on homeland security in which i am a member, with the secretary of homeland security, asking hard questions about the reinforcement of security, the provisions of support for personnel at the department of homeland security and the ability to get more resources so the traveling public can be more secure.
5:01 pm
in this instance we are acting expeditiously and responsibly. we are providing for the extension of the patriot act so we can, in fact, engage the other body and work constructively, one, to with no doubt, commit ourselves, as the president has done, in committing to use every instrument of national power to fight terrorism, including intelligence and military operations as well as the criminal justice system. that's the judiciary committee. there has never been a doubt about the commitment of the obama administration or the judiciary committee, the chairman and our colleagues in the other body. but it is important for us to handle our business and do our duty and that is to look at a fine tooth comb, the patriot act, to ensure it doesn't violate the rights of americans, no matter what your political persuasion. you have a sense of understanding of the constitution.
5:02 pm
you understand due process. you understand unreasonable search and seizure. so it is our obligation to do so. . as i listened to the debate on the intelligence bill, i was struck by the efforts made to shore up any of the missing links to provide us a pathway away from the fort hood incident or the christmas day bombing and one of the things i want to emphasize is the important for horizontal i want grigs. homeland security, department of justice, the agencies dealing with national security as we attend -- attempted to do after 9/11. we must ramp up the coordination of information and there must be a focus on not only enhanced coordination, which is the premise of the patriot act to get information and to ensure the obligation to ensure your civil liberties but we must also be somewhat unique and distinct on how we assess
5:03 pm
who might be a threat. i have constantly asked we consider this thing called human assessment and behavior. a lot of people call for profiling. that's the way to do it. and i can tell you, colleagues, that you can profile from this morning until the end of time and you will miss someone who doesn't fit the caricature, if you will, of what you might think happens to be a terrorist. timmy mcveigh didn't -- timothy mcveigh didn't fit the profile. there needs to be human behavior assessment that would have been an appropriate approach to the captain at fort hood. it's not profiling, it's assessing the behavior, of interacting on the internet, very conspicuous behavior in washington before he was transfered to fort hood, behavior that was not transmitted in the right way.
5:04 pm
and we can look at the christmas day bomber we had the shoe bomber, behavior there sent up a red flag. when we look at the premise of the patriot act, it is gathering information and i know my colleagues would not want us to rush to judgment. so what we have in place now is the opportunity for america to be protected to use this cross signal of information. might i also mention the assessment of the actions of the department of justice. there's not been one moment of a decision that has jeopardized the american people. yes, there's been a decision that initially was accepted by local officials as we understand it to try individuals in a particular area. there were provisions, obviously, to be made for that. that decision alone and whatever happens on the decision after about where that trial will be held has nothing to do with undermining america's security. we have mirandaized people
5:05 pm
before and they have given us information and we have garnered that information to use for our security. we have tried people in civilian courts, under our legal system and we have found them guilty on the basis of what they have done and we protected the american people. so i am concerned that there is some label going on that there are not the convergence of resources in the obama administration, not the work on behalf of the judiciary committee, chaired by chairman conyers that steadily puts together building blocks to secure the american people. i hope we will rise to vote for this extension of the patriot act to allow this congress, bipartisan, to sit down and do its work. but in the meantime, would we not be irresponsible if we did not come to the floor today to protect the american people, just as we've done with an authorization of the intelligence bill, which has never been done for a large number of year, has not been done, we are not doing that because we believe in the
5:06 pm
security of the american people. i look forward to moving forward on this legislation. i look forward to pressing the intelligence community on human behavior assessment, not tomorrow, but now. i look forward to us going forward on securing the american people with the tools the obama administration is working on. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i yield two minutes to the gentleman from mississippi, an active member of the judiciary committee, mr. harper. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. harper: the purpose of the patriot act is to keep suspected terrorists under surveillance in an attempt to prevent another attack on our country like we had on september 11, 2001. i believe it has been successful and i support its extension. i believe that our safety for
5:07 pm
the nearly 8 1/2 years since 9/11 is due in part to the patriot act and the fine men and women who are able to use it each day to keep our country safe from harm. i particularly believe that the lone wolf provision, which allows for the surveillance of individual terrorists who might not be part of a larger international terror group, is very important. i'm very happy to see its inclusion in this extension. i applaud those who worked in a bipartisan manner to pass this legislation in 2001 and i look forward to seeing that provision of the patriot act continue to be used in an effort to keep americans safe. while i wish the bill with the intention of extending the patriot act for longer than a year would have been before the house, i support the bill before us today. i hope my colleagues will join with me in supporting this very important counterterrorism tool. i yield back.
5:08 pm
the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i continue to reserve. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to my colleague from texas, senior member of the intelligence committee, mr. thornberry. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. thornberry: thank you, mr. speaker. i appreciate the distinguished ranking member yielding to me. mr. speaker, it is very, very important that we ensure that our intelligence professionals and our law enforcement professionals have the tools and the support they need to do their job, and we should never forget that their job is to protect us. and prevent further terrorist attacks from killing americans. now, over the course of the day today, as we consider the intelligence authorization bill, there have been a lot of words spoken in support of those intelligence an law
5:09 pm
enforcement professionals. but i would suggest that actions matter more than words. one of the actions we can take is to ensure that they have the tools they need to gather the information to stop terrorist plots. and these three expiring provisions of the patriot act that are being renewed for a year under this bill are some of the critical tools they need to gather that information and to protect us. mr. speaker, i count about eight plots or attempted terrorist attacks since last summer that have made the press, that have been stopped or thwarted in some way or another. one of them, unfortunately, was successful and that was the attack at fort hood. one of them was stopped out of sheer luck and the awareness of passengers on the christmas day
5:10 pm
bombing attack over detroit. but a number of the others, attempted attacks or plots over the past few months and years have been stopped, i believe, because of the tools included in the patriot act that have helped prevent american casualties. and i would suggest we cannot afford a single day without those tools, including the three that are extended over the course of this bill. i would prefer, as others have said, that it will -- that it were longer than a year. but it is absolutely critical we not allow them to expire and that we put them at least on somewhat of a longer term basis so these professionals can actually do their job. i would just say, mr. speaker, that in addition to the tools, legal authorities, financial resources that are necessary to -- for them to do our job to
5:11 pm
protect us, we also must provide these professionals and intelligence community and the law enforcement community the support they need to do their job. and it is not supporting them, for example, to have the -- a special prosecutor appointed by the justice department of this administration to reinvestigate interrogators that have already been investigated and it would not be supportive if we adopt the provision we talked about earlier today to establish new crimes against interrogators. they deserve the tools and support, both can come today with the right votes. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i'm pleased to recognize the former senior member of the intelligence committee for over 10 years, she served as ranking member and i yield jane harman as much
5:12 pm
time as she would consume. mrs. harman: i thank mr. conyers for yielding and thank him for his leadership on the judiciary committee. he has authored many bills i'm proud to have co-sponsored, one of which is to design careful amendments to these three ex-pifering provisions to the patriot act. i rise today because i think, mr. speaker, we are missing an opportunity. i think there are good opportunities, good ideas in this house, about how to curb the abuses we've heard about with national security letters, how to clarify that roving wiretaps are limited to a single, identifiable target, and how to, in my provision, eliminate the lone wolf provision, which has never been used and for which existing title three authority can suffice. those ideas have been the subject of hearings in the
5:13 pm
judiciary committee but they're in the being debate on this floor. instead, we are hearing that the only way to protect america is to extend the patriot act, as is, for another year. my comment about missed opportunity is that we could have extended it for a shorter period and fully debated how to extend the patriot act on this floor, so i think this is a real missed opportunity. as one who was here when we first passed it and who has been here for the votes we've had, i know that my approach to this has been controversial. i'm one of very few members who, for example, initially opposed rolling back the so-called library provision, which i would agree was an overreach in the initial patriot act, but i opposed rolling it badge because the rollback amendment as initially drafted included rolling back
5:14 pm
access to internet sites at libraries and as one who studies the terrorism threat carefully, i know that terrorists use the internet frequently as a way to communicate. when the library provision was finally drafted to exclude internet sites, i proudly voted for it. at any rate, my point is the patriot act is a valuable tool. those who spoke on the other side are right that we need it, but we have enough knowledge in this house to tweak it to be much more fair to innocent americans who have inadvertently been caught up in its web. that's point one. number two, let me mention that under intelligence reform, the intelligence reform act of 2004, we provided that the white house would name members to a privacy and civil liberties commission that would oversee the development and implementation of many of the
5:15 pm
laws that we now have on the books with respect to catching terrorists. that commission was never fully implemented in the last administration and this administration has yet to name a chairman and a vice chairman for the commission. i would call on the president again to fully implement the provisions of the 2004 intelligence reform act, standing up that commission would send a message that i'm trying to send with my remarks on the patriot act too that we can do both. we can protect our security but we can also protect our liberty. this is not a zero-sum game. let me finally talk about something that i think we will hear in -- as we close debate later on the intelligence authorization bill and that is, a view by some that we should bar trying terrorist suspects in u.s. federal title three
5:16 pm
courts. most people understand that the prior administration tried virtually everyone it charged with terrorism-related crimes in federal court, most of those people were convicted and are now incarcerated. there was a 90% convict rate, over hundreds of trials, since 9/11. in contrast, military commissions convicted three people, two of whom are no longer serving. if you just look at that, we are safer if we use article three courts. my point is what secretary gates and attorney general holder have made in a letter dated today to the leadership in both the majority and minority leadership, and they write to express their opposition to any legislation or amendments that would restrict the ability of the executive branch to effectively prosecute alleged terrorists in federal courts or reformed military commissions in the
5:17 pm
united states. their point and my point is we can have reformed military commissions, and i know that the president and many here are considered how to do that. and i may end up supporting that idea. but we also must have a robust use of our federal courts. i think it's disingenuous to claim now after 300 people have been sent to jail for long sentences we can't be safe trying terrorists in u.s. courts under federal law. and i think that as secretary of defense gates, as attorney general holder, such legislation would make us less safe by removing one critical tool from the nation's arsenal and that's the use of our federal justice system. in conclusion, we must live our values. when we fail to do that we offer a huge recruiting tool to those who would attack us. if we -- if we live our values by carefully considering how to
5:18 pm
extend parte act provisions by standing -- patriot act provisions and saying that the rule of law applies typically, that is the rule of federal law can apply to those we apprehend for terrorists and related crimes we have the best chance of winning in this era of terror. i want to commend chairman -- i want to commend the chairman for yielding to me and to say to everyone here that i take a backseat to no one in this effort to defeat the terrorist threat against us. i take it very seriously. i read the legislation very carefully. today we should have, as mr. nadler suggested, done a shorter term extension and we should have had a robust public debate on a better approach to the patriot act extension than
5:19 pm
the one i will guess vote on a bit later. thank you and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: i am prepared to clowe. we have no other speakers so -- i'm prepared to close. we have no other speakers so i will reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield the final two minutes to my friend from ohio, dennis kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. the gentleman from michigan has two minutes remaining. you may use it as you wish. mr. smith: i'm prepared to close on this side. the gentleman from michigan reserves. the gentleman from texas. mr. smith: mr. speaker, i yield myself the balance of the time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. smith: mr. speaker, extending the expriring provisions of the patriot act will give our law enforcement
5:20 pm
officials and intelligence agents the authority they need to meet terrorist threats. it is unfortunate, though, that some reject a long-term re-authorization. refusing to re-authorize our national security laws for the long term signals weakness to our enemies. it says we are not serious about protecting american lives. repeated extensions of this law creates uncertainty for intelligence officials and increase the danger that intelligence is missed and threats unidentified. the patriot act is not broken. and if it isn't broken we shouldn't try to fix it. congress has already undertaken a sweeping view of the patriot act following meetings in the jewish, we had a re-authorization in 2006 that made permanent all but three provisions and enhanced important civil liberty protections. the obama administration, a bipartisan senate and house republicans all support a
5:21 pm
long-term re-authorization of the patriot act. mr. speaker, while i support this bill, our national interest would have been better served if we had considered a long-term extension. mr. speaker, i urge my colleagues to support this legislation even though a long-term piece of legislation would have been a much-improved situation, and i'll yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yeepeds back. the gentleman from a the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from michigan. mr. conyers: i yield to the gentleman from ohio, dennis kucinich. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. kucinich: i rise in opposition. three provisions being extended today include the roving wiretaps which allow the foreign intelligence surveillance court to wiretap any target without having to specify the target or the device. this extension also includes the long wolf surveillance
5:22 pm
provision which allows intelligence agencies to conduct investigations of non-u.s. individuals not connected to a foreign power or terrorist group, a provision that the administration has never had to use. finally, this legislation would extend section 215, powers of the patriot act, which allows the government to order any entity to turn over any tangible things as long as it specifies the foreign authorized investigation. section 215 and orders -- constitutes a serious violation of first and fourth amendment rights, to deny access to records, also associated with the exercise of first amendment rights such as library records. to use a documentation evidencing abuse of these provisions during the bush administration, the department of justice has failed to hold bush administration officials accountable for legal domestic spying by barring any lawsuits to be brought against those officials. months into this administration "the new york times" reported
5:23 pm
that the national aeronautics and space administration had intercepted private -- national security agencies had intercepted private phone calls. and the practice was significant and systematic. passage of this legislation continues to make congress complicit in the violations of constitutional rights. a letter written by the american bar association in 2005 to congress expressed grave concern over inadequate congressional oversight of government investigations undertaken pursuant to the foreign intelligence surveillance act, to conclude that such investigations does not violate first, fourth and fifth amendments. if they want to protect the rights afforded to us by the constitution, we have the responsibility to exercise our oversight powers as fully and significantly reform the patriot act, ensuring the privacy and civil liberties of all americans are fully protected. more than eight years over the passage of the patriot act we failed to do so. as a national correspondent put it, we've witnessed the rise in
5:24 pm
american surveillance state. we've come to love our fears more than we love our freedoms. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. all time for debate has expired. pursuant to house resolution 1109, the previous question is ordered. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, further proceedings on this motion are postponed. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 8 of rule 20, the chair will postpone further proceedings today on motions to suspend the rules on which a recorded vote or the yeas and nays are ordered.
5:25 pm
or on which the vote incurs objection under clause 6 of rule 20. recorded votes on postponed recorded votes on postponed questions will be taken later. for what purpose does the gentleman from washington rise? >> mr. speaker, i move to suspend the rules and pass h.r. 4691, the temporary extension act of 2010. the speaker pro tempore: the clerk will report the title of the bill. the clerk: h.r. 4691, a bill to provide a temporary extension of certain programs, and for other purposes. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from washington, mr. mcdermott, the gentleman from california, mr. herger, will each control 20 minutes. the chair recognizes the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent that the members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks. the speaker pro tempore:
5:26 pm
without objection. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, i yield myself as much time as i may consume. this bill provides a short-term extension for a number of programs. when you have the senate basically -- when you have the other body -- excuse me -- basically operating, filibusters continuously on everything, it's not surprising that suddenly somebody wakes up over there and figures out that they're going to have to go to work and pass the legislation. by the end of march, 1.2 million people will run out of unemployment benefits. so we're extending unemployment benefits through the eighth of april, 2010. that's another month.
5:27 pm
-- for whatever reason they want to come out and do this when they can see the problem and they want to drag the american people through this process over and over again i cannot understand. the republicans over there using filibusters to stop the senate from doing anything simply don't care about workers in this country. now, there's also an extension of cobra assistance. we're extending that to the 28th of march, 2010. so people have health insurance for another month. thanks a lot. and we're extending surface transportation programs. which makes related expenditures for surface transportation until march 28, 2010. we're extending the medicare physician update which extends the increase in physicians' payments until march 28, 2010. we're extending the medicare
5:28 pm
therapy cap exception until march 28, 2010. we're extending the poverty guide lipse. -- guidelines. and i could down this list. i have a whole bunch more. the fact is we passed in december out of this house a six-month extension of unemployment benefits, but somebody decided we had to have a filibuster in the senate. so they stepped on the bill and suddenly we come to 5:28 on the 25th of february and somebody says exoh, my god, there are going to be people in my district with no check. they have been calling my office for the past two weeks, are they going to extend my benefits? will my benefits be extended? what's going to happen to us? well, here's their answer. we'll give them another month's reprieve. so i urge all my colleagues to
5:29 pm
vote for this bill, and i will reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. herger: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. this legislation provides for a one-month extension of several important programs, including unemployment insurance and health coverage for americans laid off in this recession. a postponement of severe cuts in medicare payments to physicians and satellite television law that allows americans in rural america -- areas to get access to local news and programming. it's important to realize that this is not a jobs bill. on the contrary, the extension of unemployment insurance is needed because the 2009 stimulus bill didn't create the jobs democrats promised. laid off workers should not be punished for that.
5:30 pm
instead of creating 3.7 million jobs as promised, the stimulus bill was followed by 3.3 million additional job losses, a record 16 million are now unemployed and americans are asking, where are the jobs? the legislation before us continues the payment of a record 99 weeks of total unemployment benefits, but millions will soon be exhausting those benefits and wondering what comes next. they will face a job market that, on top of everything else, is burdened by mammoth unemployment payroll tax hikes, caused by all the unemployment benefits paid today. so the need to pass this bill today is the result of the failure of the democrats'
5:31 pm
stimulus bill to create the jobs they promised. if it had created those jobs, and unemployment were now under 8% and falling, as democrats predicted it would be, we would be in a position to start winding these benefits down. instead, unemployment is near 10%, and even the administration thinks it will remain so through at least this year. c.b.o. has estimated this bill will add over $10 billion to the deficit. less than two weeks ago, after the democrats' pay as you go bill was signed into law, we are already seeing billions of dollars designated as, quote, emergency spending, so we don't have to pay for it. with abundant unused tarp and stimulus money that could pay for this bill, it's clear
5:32 pm
democrats are not serious about fiscal responsibility. we also need to craft policies that will actually create jobs, sown employed workers can get back to work. that will require ending the massive taxing, spending, and borrowing plans this democrat congress and administration has. these policies have created severe uncertainty among american workers and businesses, causing economic stagnation and discouraging hiring. we could eliminate this uncertainty and get the private sector american job creation engine humming again by immediately extending all expiring tax cuts. scrapping plans for a government takeover of health care. scrapping plans to impose a national energy tax via a cap
5:33 pm
and trade program. repealing wasteful stimulus spending. and committing to not increasing taxes until the economy has fully recovered. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: i yield three minutes to my distinguished colleague, mr. levin. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. levin: i ask unanimous consent to address the house and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. levin: what we face is the highest number of lo long-term unemployed -- of long-term unemployed for over 60 years. 6.3 million people. long-term unemployed.
5:34 pm
we have 50 million people looking for work. i came in just in the middle of the statement from my friend from california. i don't think this is the time for us to be arguing over past programs. i've never understood what the minority was thinking about in terms of job creation. they have voted against recovery act bills. but this isn't the time to be using the plight of the unemployed to try to make points about previous actions. this is the time for us to once again face up to the fact that we have huge numbers of people who are looking for work and can't find it.
5:35 pm
this is the time for us to understand the pain for individuals in this circumstance. we have passed a jobs bill here some months ago, unfortunately without bipartisan support, but i don't want to argue about that. we should be talking about providing -- it's really not a safety net. it's a subsistence issue. it's people who have been laid off through no fault of their own, who need a continuation of unemployment. if we do not do this, the estimate is that over a million people nationally will lose their unemployment benefits in march. that's one month alone, 1.2
5:36 pm
million people. and if that isn't sobering enough to get us to focus on extension of unemployment comp and health benefits for these people, i don't know what else will do. so i hope we'll come here and pass this bill and not use it as a vehicle to be talking about something other than the plight of the unemployed of this country who can't find a job, six or seven people looking for a job, for every job that might open up. i urge that we pass this and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. herger: i have no further speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington.
5:37 pm
mr. mcdermott: it's my understanding that we close, i have no other speakers. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. herger: i reluctantly support this legislation. while it has major flaws which i outlined earlier, the current job market in so many parts of the country, including my own congressional district in northern california is so bad that the health, especially for long-term unemployed individuals in this bill is needed and merited in the weeks covered by this legislation at the very least. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from washington. mr. mcdermott: mr. speaker, as i listen to my friend from michigan, mr. levin, talk about the situation, it's almost -- it brings you almost beyond anger to realize that one person in the other body has
5:38 pm
stopped the unemployment extension for several months. we don't know even as we pass this bill over there today what will happen if that gentleman does not lift his restriction on the senate bill. we may be into a closure situation again. now what they did before, they put -- they held up unemployment insurance, held it up and held it up, then when it came to the end, everybody voted for it. it is clear from the first words out of my colleague from california's mouth that this is about trying to prove to the people that the democrats can't run the congress. they can't run the congress with the filibuster in the senate stopping issues like this that are going to go through here unanimously.
5:39 pm
nobody in his right mind is going to vote against health care and unemployment benefits for people who are out there struggling. and nobody's going to vote against flood insurance for people and nobody is going to vote against small business loan guarantees and a lot of other things in this extension bill because of the filibuster in the senate. i urge my colleagues to vote for this and i urge the senate, i urge the other body to think about changing the filibuster. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: all time has been yielding. will the house suspend the rules and pass h.r. 3561. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, 2/3 being in the affirmative, the rules are suspend and the bill is passed and without objection the motion to reconsider is laid on the table. pursuant to clause 12a of rule 1, the house stands in recess sudget to the call of the
5:40 pm
chair.
5:41 pm
5:42 pm
>> discussion on george orwell as part of c-span to2's "book t" weekend. >> connect with us on twitter, facebook, and youtube, and sign up for our e-mails at c- span.org. >> at today's pentagon briefing, questions focused on the afghan war, the don't ask don't tell policy, and the shooting at fort hood. this is just under 50 minutes.
5:43 pm
>> hey, guys. i apologize for being late. i will make it up with a short opening statement. it is good to see you. the secretary is now on capitol hill, meeting with about 40 senators at the democratic policy committee luncheon. this is the second such luncheon that he has been invited to attend, and it is part of his on going out reach with the help. there is no set agenda for this luncheon. it is an opportunity for an open and frank discussion between the secretary and the democratic caucus. when he returns to the pentagon later this afternoon, the secretary will sit down with the israeli minister of defense in the latest of a series of ongoing consultations with our close allies, reconfirm our unshakeable commitment to israeli security. over the course of the past year, they have met four times
5:44 pm
and exchange multiple phone calls. today, they will pick up their discussion on a range of issues such as bilateral security, ballistic missile defense, the mideast peace process, our support of the process of training palestinian security forces, and i ram's nuclear program -- and iran's nuclear program. their failure to react to outreach has left the international community no option but to resort to sanctions. i will be happy to take your questions. >> there was a report today of a cia strike against an al qaeda target. what should we make of these captors and killings as they relate to the war? do you see this as something that will turn the tide of the
5:45 pm
war? >> i can go through this again. i am happy to. i will not speak to any specific operation, and the specific capture or kill. generally, i will say to you, as we have been saying for practically the last year, that the commitment that the pakistan government, the military and intelligence forces, have demonstrated over the last months to battling the threat in their midst is commendable. we lost them for it. we are still -- we are here to help them in any way possible as they pursue not only a threat to us but to the pakistani people. as to whether or not this will be a game changer, time will tell. i am not in a position -- i do not think anybody is in a position to tell you whether or not this will -- what has taken
5:46 pm
place over the last several weeks, if not months, will change the course of events. clearly, the momentum at least has been perceived to have been with the taliban in afghanistan. to some extent, the situation is the same in pakistan with the pakistani tell them. just as we are attempting to change things in afghanistan with the surge of coalition forces, and we are now seeing signs that the deterioration that had marked the situation for months in afghanistan has now halted, i think that people with regards to pakistan are hopeful that the same trend is taking place there, that their efforts are paying dividends and that the tell them -- that the
5:47 pm
taliban feels they are under more pressure within the past few years. we are hopeful that our combined efforts on both sides of the border will undermine the confidence and the capability of the afghan taliban and the pakistan taliban and more of their members, low-level fighters, will turn to us, laid down their weapons, and respect the democratically-elected governments in both countries and what to integrate into society. at the upper levels, we hope for reconciliation between some of the leaders. the key, as you know -- you have heard us say it. the key is changing the dynamic on the ground, reversing the dynamic slide in both
5:48 pm
afghanistan and pakistan so that the momentum is with the governments of both countries and so that the enemy field -- the enemy feels enough pressure that they want to become part of society. >> the meeting with mr. barack -- >> are we still in the afghanistan/pakistan region? >> we are trying to figure out -- getting a sense of how they are doing the troop drop. do they wait for the nato force generation conference? that conference was held this week. not surprisingly, the contributions were disappointing. there are still not really i think half the trainer's you need. is the secretary disappointed in the conference, and what is the next step for the u.s. government to try to get the trainers everyone says are the key? >> i have not heard the
5:49 pm
secretary expressed disappointment about that specific effort this week, with regards to the force generation conference. i can look to my nato counterpart, who tells me there were commitments of another 600 trainers on top of the thousand previously committed. i think that is getting us where we need to be, with regard to making up the deficit, the gap, the shortfall in traders. i think what we tried to do, and you were with us so you saw this effort -- which it tried to work with some of our allies who have committed additional forces to afghanistan in the wake of president obama's decision to send additional u.s. forces, and work with them on whether to reconsider the mix of forces they are sending so that it more -- and they can perhaps get more trainers over there, rather than trigger-pullers. you saw the italians do it.
5:50 pm
you have seen other countries look at that right now, trying to figure out if the demand really is the trainers, if that is the key to our ultimate exit from afghanistan. yes, let us figure out if we can provide more of them. you see a number of countries figuring out if they can't send more. yes? >> with this change of attitude, policy, and action in pakistan, how satisfied are department officials about the role of the isi in all of this? >> i mean -- i do not know that i am the best person to speak to the isi. i would direct you to the cia. i am not familiar enough with them to speak to it. overall, i've spoken to it several times. i have noticed the government's efforts, the military efforts,
5:51 pm
the intelligence efforts -- i think they all need to work together to bring about results. what has been done over the last several months could not have been done without the support of the isi. beyond that, i am not capable of going into it. >> which you say there is a sense of playing both sides of the issue? >> on these events in marja, how do you see this as supporting the military operations that are there? what is the significance of the ceremony today? >> you are speaking of the turning over of the government at the government center. listen. i think what we have seen over the last several days are things trending in a very positive direction. i would note to you that yesterday, at least -- this is just anecdotal, but i think it does speak to how things are progressing. yesterday, there were more and shurahsshurahs taking place in
5:52 pm
then there were troops in contact. fewer than a handful of our troops came in contact with the enemy yesterday. that is the kind of progress that we have been looking for and that we are heartened to see. i think the transfer of the government's center is symbolic of where we are in this operation. we are transitioning from the clearing phase into the holding phase. i think that in talking to my colleagues in afghanistan, it looks as though much of marja is now under afghan and coalition control. the locals have been very welcoming of us. many of them are returning to their homes. the number of internally displaced people who are signing up for assistance with the government is diminishing each day as more people return to
5:53 pm
their homes. bazaars are open again. they are full, i am told, of goods, which speaks to a freedom of movement that allows commerce to re-emerge. that said, although signs point to progress. it is still clearly a dangerous situation. we are still losing troops. an announcement went out today that was not collected -- that was not connected to marja, but we are still losing troops. the biggest threat remains ied's. we have to be careful how we progress in areas that are not under afghan and coalition control. we're doing so in a methodical way so as to alleviate any potential for civilian or coalition force casualties. >> then we switched to iran?
5:54 pm
>> i will finish one thought on this if we are going to leave afghanistan. some of the reporters, i guess over the weekend -- one piece was taking issue with the performance of the afghan national security forces. i was a little bit taken aback by it. historically, and i think most reporting reflects this, no one has ever had any beef with how the afghan security forces fight, or their willingness to fight, to engage in combat. and i have gone back to people downrange, people in this building, trying to get the truth of this. i am hearing that our units do not have issues with their willingness to fight. in fact, these guys are every bit in the midst of this operation. they match bus 141 on the ground -- they match up one for one on the ground.
5:55 pm
all the other things -- the ability sustain themselves, intelligence, logistics, those kinds of things -- we have known that we are building an infantry centered force. we are trying to get as many people into the fight as possible so that the afghans can take ownership of security in their country. we have always realized we will have to support them for some time in all of those other support components to the fight. no one has ever questioned their willingness or their ability to fight. what i am hearing from our guys is that they are every bit as if it as we could help them to be. -- every bit as in it as we could hope them to be. >> i think make asked that last week. how is that reflected in the casualties?
5:56 pm
if u.s. forces are taking casualties and the afghans are not, that would seem to indicate they are not in the fight. the enemy has a say in this as well. we are clearly a more prized target band and afghan security force member would be -- and more price target than -- a more prized target than an afghan security force member would be. our unit would rather be out there, forward. they are making sure the roads are clear and are coming into more immediate contact with ied's. >> [unintelligible] >> he is welcome to attend. [unintelligible] >> i edie's do not choose a nationality. -- ied's do not choose a
5:57 pm
nationality. >> are units that move forward to clear the routes -- those are most lead u.s. forces going forward. any suggestion that there is a lack of willingness on the part of the afghan forces -- >> let me go back to your opening statement. you mentioned the government center. what do you think this building can offer to help the mission in the middle east? given the israeli position regarding iran, do you think the united states is on the same page regarding how to deal with iran? there are sort of contradictions between the u.s. policy of pushing the sanctions and the israeli policy of thinking about military actions. >> the first question was about what can this building due to
5:58 pm
support the peace process more than it is doing now? right now, our primary focus has been through lieutenant general dayton's efforts to build a security force in palestine that is able to bring up a measure of confidence on the israeli part that the palestinian force will be able to maintain security within their boundaries so there will not be a tax from either the west bank or gaza that would endanger innocent israelis. that is where the focus of our efforts is. i do nothing beyond supporting general dayton and his efforts. with regards to whether we are on the same page as israel, i think that is a question for the state department. i think the israelis have been understanding, if not outright
5:59 pm
supportive,'of president, of pra 's trying is engagement with the iranians. we have reached the point where that outstretched hand has not been reciprocated. it has been largely spurned. we are now simultaneously not closing the door on engagement, but simultaneously pursuing the path of pressure. i think that is clearly welcomed by the israelis. i would note that even as we go down the pressure track, even as we go around the world trying to solicit support from our allies to bring sanctions against iran to make them compliance with the international strictures on their nuclear program, we keep that door open to engagement.
6:00 pm
just because we are going down the pressure track does not mean the engagement track is closed off. time is clearly of the essence, and we need to pursue pressure even as we keep an outstretched hand. >> mr. barack said in an new york that israel considers iran as an eminent nuclear threat. >> let us let the conversation take place. you and i can talk afterward to see if there were any points of disagreement. let us let the conversation take place. >> general of the year dierno -e requested that we stay in iraq past the deadline? >> he has made no such proposal, nor has one been approved by this department. it is still very much our plan,
6:01 pm
here in this building, to meet the president's policy guidelines, to have our forces in iraq down to 50,000 by the end of august. . .
6:02 pm
and go to the president and say that endorse it? >> again, we are conflicting things. there is an issue of combat troops and troops. regardless, there has been no request made. we are going to stay at 50,000 forces come the end of august. that is as far as we can foresee it. >> has general odierno come back and said that? >> yes. as i have said, there has been
6:03 pm
no such request. how can i respond to something that has not happened? that is a hypothetical at this point. >> you have talked about this situation and the numbers of troops fluctuating. you said it would depend on the situation on the ground and the best advice. it seems like a straightforward question. if odierno comes back and says, the president has this plan -- >> the operative word there is if. i can i give you an answer on something that has not happened yet. thus far, he has set a very clear course. by september 1, there will be no more than 50,000 u.s. forces in iraq and there will longer be combat units there.
6:04 pm
will there be men and women in uniform carrying m-16's? yes. but the mission itself is going to transition by september 1. this transition started back in june when we pulled some of their units. we have become more of a support force. it will be entirely a force providing and assisting the security forces for their country. obviously, as the president laid out a year ago at this point, back in february a year ago, we will still be conducting counter-terrorism missions along with the iraqis. there will still be a need to have the capacity to go after people who threaten the innocent iraqis and the government itself. so that capability will reside
6:05 pm
with the units that remain after september 1. but the function of that force will be to a advise and assist the iraqis. >> are the secretary and the chairman and the branch of chiefs not on the same page when it comes to this? >> they have all now testified at nauseam on this. they're the ones were bused to speak to their positions on this -- they're the ones who are best to speak to their positions on this. before we do anything, before congress takes any action on this, we need -- the rest of this year or thereabouts -- to review the potential impact on the change in this law on the
6:06 pm
borscht. -- on of the force. i saw universal agreement among the chiefs that this time line is necessary. i think you saw some of them incaution some of the members that it would be in their -- saw them caution some of the members that would be in their best interest. this would drop -- this would mark a dramatic change on how we do business. it would come at a time when we are obviously under extraordinary stress. i think that everybody involved believes that we need the time it will require to conduct a review of this to make sure we'll understand all of the potential applications of changing the law. >> the commandant thinks that the current policy works at his best advice -- this policy
6:07 pm
works and his best advice was to not change it. >> that is his obligation under the law to provide them his best military advice. he was fulfilling his statutory responsibility by doing so. i think you also heard from the commandant that he supports the review that is going on right now. he looks forward to being informed of what comes out of it. i think he is close to the notion of learning something out of this process. we do not know what is going to be the end of this or what in this review is going to tell us. there is no dedicated u.s. military specific analyses that have been done that can inform us yet about what the impact would be. we have had a lot of stuff done on similar organizations, foreign military is.
6:08 pm
this is going to be entirely focused on our particular culture, our particular needs. i think everybody is supportive of this process and we could perhaps see what the challenges come up with the opportunities may be associated with the change in blog. >> -- in the long. -- in the law. >> [unintelligible] >> he has pledged that this will be done before the end of this calendar year. i think he also said that it would require some time for implementation. i would urge you to go back and look at that. but clearly we would need at least the time to do a thorough review of the impact of the change on a 15-year-old policy. >> has the president been
6:09 pm
reviewed on general ham's -- >> you had your hand up. >> and general casey earlier said about women in combat, where it is the secretary on pushing and more women into combat positions? -- on pushing more women into combat positions? >> i think that what general casey said was that it was time to look at it. i do not know that he expressed outright support for it. you need to look at his words. your fundamental question is whether this is something that the secretary has thought about or supports.
6:10 pm
frankly, i don't think is anything that he has discussed with the general casey or anyone else. they are the ones who are closest to it and probably should be the ones you should address your questions to. he, like all of us, recognizes the enormous contribution that women in uniform are provided to air war efforts in iraq, afghanistan, and elsewhere. even though the law prohibits them from the playing in combat units that are of lobelow the be level, effectively, many women in uniform are in combat situations every day, be they helicopter pilots, medics, but fiscal support personnel, supply missions -- whenever it may be. women find themselves in dangerous combat situations every day. i think we have lost, over the course of these two wars, 125
6:11 pm
women in uniform. whether or not designed to be in combat, whether or not that is what the law and what our policy is, they are clearly finding themselves in those situations. i know of no move internally to try to adjust to the laws that are currently constituted a that would create more latitude for women to find themselves in a dangerous situation. >> billing back to fort hood, has the secretary received -- >> d.o.a. back to fort hood, has the secretary seat -- >> going back to fort hood, has the ear secretary received a review? >> at some point, secretary
6:12 pm
mccue has rendered the decision on how he wants the accountability reported on this. >> will it be made public? >> i do not know. most things in this building, even though they are not designed to be made public, are made public. [laughter] let me go to chris and then we will go that way. >> the investigation found a number of problems with contractors in afghanistan. in light of some of the problems that the detail that the lack of oversight, does the pentagon need to take another look at continuing to award contracts to companies like black water and another look over whether or not it does exercise enough oversight? >> we have learned a lot of lessons over the past eight years or nine years. clearly, contract and oversight
6:13 pm
is one of them. we have made a lot of mistakes, both in iraq and in afghanistan. we have tried to address those mistakes in the number of ways, one of which was in the 2010 fiscal year budget. the secretary has added -- i would have to get you the precise numbers -- nearly devore our contract riverside, especially in house, to monitor the awarding of execution of contracts to guard against fraud, abuse, waste, and i think that the 2011 budget reflects the same commitment. while we had some problems efficient -- initially, particularly in iraq, afghanistan was never as bad as it was in iraq. the general went over and took a look at things and he came back with the belief that they had learned lessons in afghanistan without being told based on the
6:14 pm
mistakes made in iraq. that said, clearly, there is room for improvement across the board. we continue to look for ways to tighten our controls so that there cannot be in the waste, fraud, or reduce. -- or abuse. we are constantly working toward that end. >> it is one thing to say that we have learned from mistakes early on. but the guns were being taken in 2007 and 2008 that they were not authorized to use. contractors are now charged with murder. these are not in the very distant past. this is seven years or eight years after the war started in afghanistan. >> what i would say is that, clearly, there have been individual cases where there have been problems with individuals, small groups of people. i think that those people have
6:15 pm
been held to account, whether it be by of whatever oversight we have over them, by the host nation in which they're operating as well, because these people are not immune from prosecution there. i think it would be misrepresented tiv of the situation to suggest that -- it would be misrepresenting the situation to suggested that a state of violations of the law have not been addressed. certainly, there have been things that happened, i'm fortunate incidents appeared not to dismiss them by any means, but we -- unfortunate incidents. not to dismiss them by any means, but we have learned hard lessons. we will be better when things happen.
6:16 pm
as far as i know, people are being held to account for the mistakes, the violations that they have made. ok. tony. >> [unintelligible] >> on the tanker. let me guess. >> you are wrong. >> really? one day after the release of the much-anticipated rflp and no questions from tony -- much anticipated rfp and no questions from tony. >> and report said that you were looking at the short term benefits, rather than the long- term benefits. can you address these concerns? >> i do not know what particularly was sent up to him.
6:17 pm
the bottom line is that the secretary has made it clear to the congress that the pursuit of a second engine, in his estimation, is a colossal waste of money. it will not result in any competition between companies. what will likely happen is that the different services will purchase their own engines. our foreign partners will likely purchased the rolls royce engine. the navy and the marine corps will likely purchase one engine. so the only question in regards to competition becomes the air force. i don't think he believes that this would result in a true competition between engines.
6:18 pm
it is akin to the great engine wars of the 1980's, which, despite the revision of history would say that it resulted in a great savings to the taxpayer, the actual analysis shows that, if there was a benefit, it was negligible. but the bottom line is that we have added between $1.3 billion that congress provided, since 2007, in rdt funding for the alternate engine and despite our recommendation that it be terminated, to complete that engine would cost us another $2.9 billion. so we're looking at $4.2 billion being spent on an engine of that we believe is not necessary and that will likely have the same problems in development that the whitney engine has already had
6:19 pm
end of this money could clearly be better spent buying capabilities that our war fighters do need. this is a luxury that we cannot afford. it is such a red line with the secretary that he announced to you upfront when he ruled out the budget that is no longer a conditional veto recommendation on his part. in his estimation, if it is indeed included in the market that is done on the hill, he will recommend to the president that the bill be vetoed. >> [unintelligible] >> he said very clearly to all of you last month. >> skelton's report says that you focused on the short-term prospects appeare. what is your response to that? >> i would have to look at it, tony. i am not sure that i am armed
6:20 pm
with the life cycle cost of this. we already know that it costs too much. the bottom line, this is like the tank. some say that the solution to the tanker is to split the by. that means that you have to contract enough planes up front to make it economically feasible for both companies to want to produce these airplanes, which would then force us to buy more airplanes up front than we want or can afford. in the near term, it cost us too much. it is $4 billion that we cannot afford to spend on things that we do not need or are duplicative. we need that money to support our war fighters in the fights that they are in right now. that is what our focus is on. yes, my jayhawks friend. ford is up to?
6:21 pm
-- what is that? >> there was an an article that says, in 1966, the u.s. military secretly shot footage of nuclear weapons in violation of an agreement. here was a u.s. government official who knew what was going on. >> i was not here in 1966. >> according to your document -- >> i was not born in 1966. thank you. [laughter] just barely. i cannot speak to this specific allegation. i can repeat to you our policy on this matter. we understand the special sentiment that the japanese people have with regard witwo
6:22 pm
nuclear weapons. yes, in the far back. >> what above to the heaand do t ask/don't tell policy? >> and there is a new team headed by a four-star general, carter him, and j. johnson, the general counsel for the department, and they are building a team that, over the next 10 months or so, will be reviewing every aspect of the potential change pindoloin alon. we are reviewing the potential
6:23 pm
consequences of such a change. we want to let them do their work and focus on it. at some point, probably in december, we will get a sense about what they found. in the interim, there is a 45- day effort underway to see if we can do some things within the confines of the current law to apply it more humanely, particularly to people who have been added by third parties. that is something that we will probably be able to share with you in the coming days or weeks. i think it will be before the 45 days. ok? yes, sir. >> my question is about [unintelligible] a party as the japanese government to coordinate with the u.s. government on having a
6:24 pm
small helipad in [unintelligible] >> did you say a helipad? >> yes. does the pentagon have any new proposals or ideas on this idea from the japanese government? what is your position on this new idea? >> i am not going to get into the business of responding to every slight development that comes out of different parties associated with this issue. when i will do is repeat what i have told you time and time again -- what i will do is repeat what i have told you time and time again. we are cooperating with the japanese government with the
6:25 pm
relocation issue. we respect the prime minister wanting to review this issue internally. our position ponzi facility and -- our position on the facility have not changed. we believe that it is fundamentally the best route to ultimately reduce some of the stress that is associated with all of our forces in okinawa while providing the security that the japanese truly wish to have by having u.s. forces in and around them. so let's let this course follow- through over the next few months. it is only a couple of months away until may. we will know more then. as i said you, i am not want to
6:26 pm
get into what we have or have not received what the person says or this idea or that idea. the prime minister of japan is reviewing this with in his government. in may he said he would report back. we anxiously look forward to hearing what conclusions they have reached. what i can tell you in the interim is that we still believe that the realignment road map that is the best way for both of us to proceed in the best way for the region, for that matter. >> on the odierno issue, you said there's nothing being sent to the secretary and that nothing was in the pipeline. is the secretary expecting anything from general odierno? [laughter] >> you are asking me to look into his mind and foretell what he is expecting. >> it telegraph. >> now. -- no.
6:27 pm
no such proposal has been presented and no such proposal has been approved. we will have no more than 50,000 forces in iraq, septembe come s. that is where we are right now. i am not comfortable getting into the commanders discussions with the secretary of defense at this point. >> it is fair to say that the plan is the priority as opposed to the commander on the grounds recommendations. the commanders recommendations would have no bearing -- >> of the commander on the ground has offered no proposals at this point. >> going forward. >> billing ford? -- going forward? let's see what happens going forward. so far, no plan has been submitted and no plan has been
6:28 pm
approved. we are on track to meet the president's plan to have only 50,000 forces in iraq by september 1. >> the no. 6 advisory and brigade have been associated belonging and the 50,000 forces captured is it feasible -- forces capture. is it feasible [unintelligible] >> this is a significant transition in our seven-year effort in iraq. the commander-in-chief is clearly involved in the decision making about forces levels and the composition of their of going forward. this is not something that is mandated by the security of the
6:29 pm
iraqis. this is a presidential policy. it is one that the secretary fully supports. it isn't in that the commander in the field support. -- it is what the commander in the field support. he and a remedy in this building are working toward what is the president's -- he and everybody in this building were working toward what is the president's goal. >> [unintelligible] >> whenever the composition of that force is or will be, -- what ever the composition of that force is are will be, i can assure you, will be determined by the commander. >> so will it be six?
6:30 pm
>> i do not know. could be five. the policy mandates the number. the composition of those forces, obviously, the commander has latitude in dealing with the that in consultation with the secretary, the chairman, and the president of the united states. thank you a, all. >> we expect to the u.s. house to follow shortly.
6:31 pm
the house has completed debate on several bills today, including a bill that extends through provisions of the patriot act. we expect voting to begin shortly on the house floor.
6:32 pm
>> while we wait for the house to come back into session, just
6:33 pm
a reminder, a group of lawmakers met with president obama for most of the day in a bipartisan summit on health care. during tonight's of those, we will be bringing you parts of the debate and reaction from both republicans and democrats following the summit in blair house in washington.
6:34 pm
6:35 pm
6:36 pm
>> we are waiting for house members to return to begin their votes for the evening. the house will be voting on an intelligence authorization bill. after that, there will be a bill to extend the three provisions of the counter terrorism law known as the patriot act. and there will also be an additional suspension bill. they will be in shortly. the speaker pro tempore: the house will be in order. pursuant to clause 1-c of rule 19, precedings will now resume on the motion to concur offered by the gentleman from michigan. the clerk will report the title. the clerk: h.r. 3961, an ability to amend title 18 of the social
6:37 pm
security act to reform the medical s.g.r. payment system from all
6:38 pm
6:39 pm
6:40 pm
6:41 pm
across the country, constituents from every walk of life. and i can tell you that at least two, sometimes five of the ten letters, relates to the challenges that people are experiencing in health care every single day. i'll get letters from parents whose children have preexisting conditions and maybe those children were able to get health insurance when they were young, but now they're grown up, about to move out, and can't get insurance no matter what job they find. i hear from small businesses who have just opened up their new rates from their insurance company, and it turns out that their race have gone up 20, 30, in some cases 35%.
6:42 pm
i hear from families who have hit lifetime limits, and because somebody in their family is very ill, at a certain point, they start having to dig out of pocket, and they are having to mortgage their house and in some cases have gone bankrupt because of health care. so this is an issue that is affecting everybody. it's affecting not only those without insurance, but it's affecting those with insurance. and when you talk to every single expert, and you just talk to ordinary people and you talk to businesses, everybody understands that the problem is not getting better, it's getting worse. right now, it's projected that premiums for families with health insurance, not people without health insurance, but with health insurance, will
6:43 pm
almost certainly double over the next decade, just as they have doubled over the past decade. in the individual markets, it's even worse. of businesses are having to make decisions about just dropping coverage all together for their employees. if they're not doing that, then the money they are spending on health care is money that otherwise could have gone to job creation. and i don't mean to tell people here about the effects on the federal budget. you know, we have got some people who have been working a very long time on figuring out how can we control the huge expansion of entitlements. almost all of the long-term deficit and debt that we face relates to the exploding costs of medicare and medicaid. almost all of them. and that is the -- that is the single-biggest driver of our federal deficit. and if we don't get control over that, we can't get control over our federal budget.
6:44 pm
now, i'm telling all of you things you already know. maybe more personally, i should just mention the fact that i now have about as good health care as anybody could have. i've got a doctor right downstairs. and all of us when i was in the senate, and all of you as house and senate members have good health care. but remember maybe when you were younger, when you were first starting off? i can certainly remember malia coming into the kitchen one day and saying, "i can't breathe, daddy." and us having to rush her to the emergency room because she had asthma. or sasha, when she was a baby, getting meningitis and getting a spinal tap and being on antibiotics for three days and us not knowing whether or not she was going to emerge okay. in each of those instances, i
6:45 pm
remember thinking while sitting in the emergency room, what would have happened if i didn't have reliable health care? my mother, who was self-employed, didn't have reliable health care. and she died of ovarian cancer. and there's probably nothing that modern medicine could have done about that. it was caught late. and that's a hard cancer to diagnose. but i do remember the last six months of her life, insurance companies threatening that they would the no reimburse her for her costs, and her having to be on the phone in the hospital room arguing with insurance companies when what she should have been doing is spending time with her family. i do remember that. now, everybody here has those same stories somewhere in their lives. everybody here understands the desperation that people feel when they're sick.
6:46 pm
and i think everybody here is profoundly sympathic and wants to make sure that we have a system that works for all americans. you know, i was looking through some of past statements that people have made. and i think this concern is bipartisan. you know, john mccain has talked about how rising health care costs are devastating to middle class families. chuck, you know, you have been working on this a long time. you have discussed the unsustainable growth in medicare and medicaid in our budget. mike enzi who has been working on this and worked with ted kennedy on a range of issues, said small businesses are finding it nearly impossible to find health care coverage for their employees. and you said the current system is in critical condition. and mitch, you know, you've said that the need for reform is not
6:47 pm
in question. and obviously, there are comparable statements on the democratic side, as well. so here's the bottom line. we all know this is urgent. and unfortunately, over the course of the year, despite all of the hearings that took place and all of the negotiations that took place, and people on both sides of the aisle worked long and hard on this issue. you know, this became a very ideological battle. it became a very partisan battle. and politics, i think, ended up trumping practical common sense. you know, i said at the state of the union, and i'll repeat, i didn't take this on because i thought it was good politics. this is such a complicated issue that it's inevitably going to be contentious. but what i'm hoping to
6:48 pm
accomplish today is for everybody to focus not just on where we differ, but focus on where we agree. because there actually is some significant agreement on a host of issues. now, i've looked very carefully at john boehner's plan that he put forward. i've looked at, you know, tom co burn and senator byrd's plan that's been put out there. paul ryan has discussed some of the issues surrounding medicare. i've looked at those very carefully. you know, mike enzi, in the past, you have put forward legislation around small businesses that are very important. and so when i look at the ideas that are out there, there is overlap. it's not perfect overlap. it's not 100% overlap. but there is some overlap.
6:49 pm
now, what i did, what the white house did several days ago, was we posted what we think is the best blend of the house and the senate legislation that's already passed. the basic concept is that we would set up an exchange, meaning a place where individuals and small businesses could go and is get choice and competition for private health care plans, the same way that members of congress get choice and competition for their health care plans. for people who couldn't afford it, we would provide them some subsidies. but because people would have some pooling power, the costs overall would be lower, because they would be in a stronger position to negotiate. we think it is a plan that works with the existing system, the
6:50 pm
employer-based system. the private health care system. but allows a lot of people who currently don't have health care to get health care. more importantly, for the vast majority of people who do have some health care, it allows them to get a better deal. we also have some insurance reforms in it there, that, for example, prohibit people who have preexisting conditions from being banned from getting coverage. we also talk about how we can help to make the medicare system more effective and provide better quality care. in each of those cases, there are corresponding ideas on the republican side that we should be able to bridge. so i promise not to make a long speech. let me just close by saying this. my hope in the several hours that we're going to be here
6:51 pm
today, that in each section that we're going to discuss, how do we lower costs for families and small businesses, how do we make sure that the insurance market works for people, how do we make sure that we are dealing with the long-term deficits, how do we make sure that people who don't have coverage can get coverage. in each of those areas, what i'm going to do, i'm going to start off by saying, here's some things we agree on. and then let's talk about some areas where we disagree and see if we can bridge those gaps. i don't know that those gaps can be bridged. and it may be that at the end of the day, we come out here and everybody says, well, you know, we have some honest disagreements. people are sincere in wanting to help, but they've got different ideas about how to do it. and we can't bridge the gap between democrats and republicans on this. but i would like to make sure that this discussion is actually
6:52 pm
a discussion. and not just us trading talking points. i hope that this isn't political feeder, where we're talking to the cameras and criticizing each other, but instead we're actually trying to solve the problem. that's what american people are looking for. as controversial as the efforts to reform health care have been thus far, when you ask people, should we move forward and try to reform the system, people still say yes, they still want to see change. and it strikes me that if we have got an open mind, if we're listening to each other, if we're not engaging in sort of the tit for tat and trying to score political points during the next several hours, then we might be able to make some progress. and if not, at least we will have better clarified for the american people what the debate is about. so with that, i just want to say, again, how much i appreciate everybody for
6:53 pm
participating. and i'm going to now turn it over to senator mcconnell, so that he can make some opening remarks. and we'll just go back and forth between the democratic leaders and the republican leaders, house and senate. and then we'll just open it up and start diving in. all right? >> thank you, very much, mr. president. john boehner and i had selected mr. alexander from tennessee to make our opening framing statement. and let me turn to him. >> thanks, mitch. and john. mr. president, thank you very much for the invitation. appreciate being here. several of us were a part of the summits that you had a year ago, and so i've been asked to try to express what republicans believe about where we've gotten since then. as a former governor, i also want to try to represent governors, because they have a big stake in it. i know you met with some governors just the last few days.
6:54 pm
we believe that we -- our views represent the views of a great number of the american people who have tried to say in every way they know how through town meetings, through surveys, elections through virginia and new jersey and massachusetts, that they oppose the health care bill that passed the senate on christmas eve. and more importantly, we want to talk about -- we believe we have a better idea. and that's to take many of the examples that you just mentioned about health care costs, make that our goal. reducing health care costs. and start over and let's go step by step toward that goal. and we would like to briefly mention -- i'll briefly mention, others will talk more about it as we go along, what those ideas are. what some of them are. of what some of the suggestions we have are. i would like to begin with a story. when i was elected governor, some of the media went up to the democratic leaders in the leslature and said, what are you going to do with this new young republican governor, a few years ago.
6:55 pm
and they said, i'm going help him. because if he succeeds, our state succeeds. and they did that for -- that's the way we worked for eight years. but often, they had to persuade me to change my direction to get our state where it needed to go. i would like to say the same thing to you. i mean, we want you to succeed. because if you succeed, our country succeeds. but we would like respectfully to change the direction you're going on health care costs. and that's what i want to mention here the in next few minutes. i was trying to think about if there were any kind of event that this could be compared with. and i was thinking of the detroit auto show, that you had invited us out to watch you unveil the latest model that you and your engineers had created. and asked us to help sell it to the american people. and we go, and you do that. and we look at it, and we say, that's the same model we saw last year. and we didn't like it, and neither did they, because we don't think it gets us where we need to go, and we can't afford it. so as they also say in detroit, again, we think we have a better
6:56 pm
idea. your stories are a lot like the stories i hear. when i went home for christmas after we had that 25 days of consecutive debate and voted on christmas eve on health care, a friend of mine said, i hope you'll kill that health care bill. and then before the words rattled out of his mouth, he said, but, we've got to do something about health care costs. my wife has breast cancer. she got it 11 years ago, our insurance is $2,000 a month. we couldn't afford it if our employer weren't helping us do that. so we've got to do something. and that's about -- that's where we are. but we think to do that, we have to start by taking the current bill and putting it on the shelf and starting from a clean sheet of paper. now, you have presented ideas. there's an 11-page memo on the -- i think it's important for people to understand, there's not a presidential bill. there are good suggestions and ideas on the web. we have made our ideas. but it said it's a lot like the senate bill. it has more taxes, more subsidies, more spending. so what that means is, that when
6:57 pm
it's written, it will be 2700 pages, more or less, which means it will probably have a lot of surprises in it. it means it will cut medicare by about half a trillion dollars and spend most of that on new programs, not on medicare, and making it stronger, even though it's going broke in 2015. it means there will be about a half trillion dollars of new taxes in it. it means that for millions of americans, premiums will go up. because when people pay those new taxes, premiums will go up, and they will also go up because of the government mandates. it means that from a governor's point of view, they're going to be what our democratic governor calls the mother of all unfunded mandates. nothing used to make me madder as a governor as when politicians would get together, pass a bill, take credit for it, and send me the bill to pay. and that's exactly what this does, with the expansion of medicare. and in addition, it touches 15 to 18 million low-income
6:58 pm
americans into a medicaid program that none of us want to be a part of, because 50% of doctors won't see new patients. so it's like giving someone a ticket to a bus line where the buses only run half the time. when fully implemented, the bill would spend about $2.5 trillion a year. and it still has a sweetheart deal in it. one is out. some are still in. what's fair about taxpayers in louisiana paying less than taxpayers in tennessee? and what's fair about protecting seniors in florida and not protecting seniors in california and illinois and wyoming? so our view, with all respect, is that this is a car that can't be recalled and fixed, and that we ought to start over. but we would like to start over. when i go down to the floor, i've been there a lot on this issue. some of my democratic friends will say, well, lamar, where's the republican comprehensive bill? and i say back, well, if it you're waiting for mitch mcconnell to roll in a wheel barrow in here with a 2,700 page
6:59 pm
republican comprehensive bill, it's not going to happen. because we have come to the conclusion we don't do comprehensive well. we have watched the comprehensive economy-wide, cap and trade. we have watched the immigration bill. we have the best senators we have got working on that in a bipartisan way. we have watched the comprehensive health care bill, and they fall of their own way. our country is too big, too complicated, to decentralized for washington. a few of us here, just to write a few rules about remaking 17% of the economy all at once. that sort of thinking works in a classroom, but it doesn't work very well in our big, complicated country. it doesn't work for most of us. and if you look around the table, and i'm sure it's true on the dimmic side, we have got shoe store owners and small business people and former county judge. and we've got three doctors. we've got people who are used to solving problems, step by step. and that's why we said 173 times on the senate floor in the last
7:00 pm
six months of last year, we mentioned our step by step plan. for reducing health care costs. and i would like to just mention those in a sentence or two. of you mentioned mike enzi's work on the small business health care plan. that's a good start. it came up in the senate. he will explain why it covers more people, costs less. and helps small businesses offer insurance. two, helping americans buy insurance across state lines. you've mentioned that yourself. most of the governors i've talked to think that would be a good way to increase competition. number three. put an end to junk lawsuits against doctors. in it our state, half the counties pregnant women have to drive to the big city to have prenatal health care or to have their baby, because the medical malpractice suits have driven up the insurance policies so high that doctors leave the rural
7:01 pm
counties. give states incentives to lower costs, number four. number five, expanding health savings accounts. number six, house republicans have some ideas about how my friend in tala houma can continue to afford insurance for his wife who has had breast cancer, because she has a preexisting condition, it makes it more difficult to buy insurance. so there's six ideas. of they're just six steps. maybe the first six, but combined with six others and six more and six others, they get us in the right direction. now, some say we need to rein in the insurance companies, maybe we do. but i think it's important to note if we took all of the profits of the health insurance companies' entirely away, every penny of it, we could pay for two days of health insurance for americans. so that's why we continue to insist that as much as we want to expand access and to do other things in health care, that we
7:02 pm
shouldn't expand a system that's this expensive, that the best way to reduce costs, to increase access, is to reduce costs. now, in it conclusion, i have a suggestion and a request for how to make this a bipartisan and truly productive session. and i hope that those who are here will agree, i've got a pretty good record of working across party lines, and of supporting the president when i believe he's right, even though other members of my party might not on that occasion. and my request is this. is before we go further today, that the democratic congressional leaders and you, mr. president, renounce this idea of going back to the congress and jamming through on a bipartisan -- i mean, on a partisan vote through a little-used process we call reconciliation. your version of the bill. you can say that this process has been used before, and that would be right. but it's never been used for
7:03 pm
anything like this. it's not appropriate to use to write the rules for 17% of the economy. senator byrd, who is the constitutional historian of the senate, has said that it would be an outrage to run the health care bill through the senate like a freight train with this process. so this is the only place the senate, where the rights to the minority are protected, and sometimes, as senator byrd has said, the minority can be right. i remember reading alexis de topil's books, and he said that the greatest threat to the american democracy would be the tyranny of the majority. when republicans were trying to change the rules a few years ago, you and i were both there. senator mccain was very involved in that, about getting majority vote for judges. then senator obama said the following. "what we worry about is
7:04 pm
essentially having two chambers, the house and the senate, who are simply majorititarian, absolute power on either side. that's just not what the founders intended." which is another way of saying that the founders intended the senate to be a place where the majority didn't rule on big issues. i mean, senator byrd and senator reid in his book, writing about the gang of 14, said that the end of the filibuster required 60 votes to pass a bill would be the end of the united states' senate. and i think that's why lyndon johnson, the '60s, passed the civil rights bill. of because he understood that by having a bipartisan bill, not only would pass it, but it would help the country accept it. senator pat manahan has said before he died that he couldn't remember a big piece of social legislation that passed that wasn't bipartisan. and after world war ii in this
7:05 pm
very house and in the room back over here, president truman and jenmar shall would meet once a week with senator vander berg, the republican chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, and write the marshal plan. and general marshal said that sometimes van was my right hand, and sometimes he was his right hand. and we know how -- john boehner and george miller did that on no child left behind. mike enzi and ted kennedy wrote 35 bills together. you mentioned that in your opening remarks. you and i and many other others worked together on the american competes act. we know how to do that, we can do that on health care, as well. but to do that, we'll have to renounce jamming it through in a partisan way. and if we don't, then the rest of what we do today will not be relevant. the only thing bipartisan will be the opposition to the bill. and we'll be saying to the
7:06 pm
american people who -- i've tried to tell this in every way i know how, town halls and elections and surveys, that they don't want this bill, that they would like for us to start over. so if we can do that, start over, we can write a health care bill. it means putting aside jamming it through. it means working together the way general marshal and senator vandenberg did. it means reducing health care costs and making that our goal for now, not focusing on the other goals. and it means going step by step together to reearn the trust of the american people. we would like to do that.
7:07 pm
7:08 pm
7:09 pm
7:10 pm
7:11 pm
7:12 pm
7:13 pm
7:14 pm
7:15 pm
7:16 pm
7:17 pm
7:18 pm
7:19 pm
7:20 pm
7:21 pm
7:22 pm
7:23 pm
7:24 pm
7:25 pm
7:26 pm
7:27 pm
7:28 pm
7:29 pm
7:30 pm
7:31 pm
7:32 pm
7:33 pm
7:34 pm
7:35 pm
7:36 pm
7:37 pm
7:38 pm
7:39 pm
7:40 pm
7:41 pm
7:42 pm
7:43 pm
7:44 pm
7:45 pm
7:46 pm
7:47 pm
7:48 pm
message from the senate. the secretary: mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: madam secretary. the secretary: i have been directed by the senate to
7:49 pm
inform the house that the senate concurs in the house amendment to the cincinnati amendment with an amendment to h.r. 227 in which the concurrence of the house is requested. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentlewoman from florida rise? >> mr. speaker, i ask unanimous consent to be considered as the first sponsor of h.r. 1103, a bill originally introduced by representative wexler of florida, for the purpose of adding co-sponsors and request printing pursuant to clause 11 of rule 12. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. the chair lays before the house the following personal requests. the clerk: leaves of absence requested for mr. bishop of new
7:50 pm
york for today and mr. dent of pennsylvania 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 persons may be permitted to address this house, revise and extend their remarks and include therein extraneous materials. myself, mr. poe, march 4, mr. jones, march 4, mr. moran, march 4, mr. thompson for today. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. for what purpose does the gentleman -- the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> i ask unanimous consent that today following legislative business and any special orders
7:51 pm
entered into, the following members may be permitted to address the house for five minutes, relt rhett their remarks and include therein extraneous material. ms. woolsey of california, mr. davis of illinois, mr. mcdermott of washington, mr. defazio of oregon, ms. kaptur of ohio for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the house will be in order. the house will be in order. will members please clear the well.
7:52 pm
the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previoused orer of the house the following members of the house are recognized for five minutes each. mr. moran of kansas. without objection. mr. burton: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. burton: sometimes i just do not understand this place. we're fighting people that will cut off your head, they'll blow up a building and kill 3,000 people with an airplane, they'll do anything they can to destroy america, yet when we pass an intelligence bill, we want to do everything we can to treat them with kid gloves.
7:53 pm
it doesn't make any sense to me. the bill we're going to be voting on tomorrow in the manager's amendment says this -- it says, it would define cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in intelligence interrogations and provide a penalty of up to 15 years in prison for the use of this treatment during an interrogation. they're talking about our c.i.a. people that are interrogating a terrorist, an al qaeda terrorist, a taliban terrorist, somebody threatening the security of the united states and i want to read that again. it would define as cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment in intelligence interrogation and provide penalties for up to 15 years in prison for the use of this treatment during an interrogation. now what intelligence agent in his right mind would go that extra mile to get information from a terrorist who had information about flying a plane into a building to kill a couple thousand people, because
7:54 pm
if he used anything that didn't fit within this category, he could be jailed. he could be prosecuted and go to jail for 15 years. that's insane. then it goes on to say that it would also provide a criminal penalty of up to five years in jail for medical professionals who enable such activities. now, look, i don't believe in torture and i don't believe in mistreating human beings, but when you're talking about the security of the united states of america, that's number one. that is number one. when we take our oath of office here, we swear to uphold and defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. if these terrorists are enemies of the united states we need to do whatever we can to make sure that we get information from them to protect this country and the people who are doing that job front line are the f.b.i., the c.i.a., our d.i.a. and all of our intelligence
7:55 pm
agencies. to hamstring them makes no sense to me whatsoever and my liberal colleagues on the other side they want to pat them on the head and give them jell-o for lunch and do all the crazy things you should do, they're living better at guantanamo than people in our prisons here in the united states, americans. yet we want to make sure we treat them with kid gloves. right now, we have three navy seals going to be court-martialed because they captured an al qaeda terrorist in fallujah, in iraq, who dragged four american contractors through the streets, burned their bodies, tortured them and hung them from a bridge. in addition to that he cut the head off richard pearl, a newsman in iraq, and put his head on a pike. that guy, i'm sure he deserves a little extra sweet treatment. but i don't think so. and the three navy seals that captured him because he said he was hit in the mouth and had a
7:56 pm
bloody lip and got hit in the stomach, they're being court-martialed. it makes no sense. this place is going nuts. we ought to be doing everything we can to defend and protect this country, that means doing whatever is necessary, with certain limits to extract any information we can from a terrorist. for us to put language in there like we're going to give a 15-year penalty in prison for a c.i.a. agent who goes a little beyond by using cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and boy, i don't know how you define that, what c.i.a. agent is going to want to take that risk. i just don't understand it, mr. speaker. we are in a war against people that want to destroy us and our way of life, they're willing to do all kinds of things, fly planes into buildings, cut off heads, torture people, yet we want to make sure we treat them with kid gloves. it makes absolutely no sense. i will not vote for that bill tomorrow or anything that looks
7:57 pm
like it and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does the gentleman from north carolina rise? >> to address the house for phi minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. etheridge: the house passed house resolution 1066 recognizing the bravery of the first responders and operation unified response if for their swift and coordinated action in light of the devastating -- devastation wrought upon the nation of haiti after the 7.0 magnitude earthquake struck port-au-prince and surrounding cities. i have the honor of representing fort bragg, where many people were critical to
7:58 pm
the relief effort and soldiers were involved in the rescue and recovery operation as well as mue hew mantarian relief, passing out food and water to victims of this disaster. i would like to thank the military and civilian personnel who responded effectively and quickly to this disaster, serving honorably under less than ideal conditions. the 18th airborne corps were among the first responders with hundreds of people on the ground within days of the disaster and thousands within a week. the second of the -- the second of the third 319th airborne soon joined them. the entire garrison at fort bragg came together and deployed unit fless 82nd airborne and 18th core in -- corps in their support for our neighbors to the south. in times of disaster, restoring and support of the most basic requirements of life become the challenge.
7:59 pm
the 43ed and 440th maintenance operations and the 43rd logistics readiness quadrant provided support for the resources needed by haitians, water, meals and basic shelt . even the most needed -- basic shelter. even the most needed supplies were useless on a tarmac. the support squadron of the 440th air wing and others got the materials where they were need the 145th air wing of the national guard worked to make these deliveries happen. matching the supplies and the need is no small task. the 43rd operation support squadron and the communication squadron brought it all together under the able direction of the command post and the assistance of the 43rd security forces. the devastation of haiti was tremendous. the infrastructure was

149 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on