for clinton, it's out of like he was against nafta, because i was totally against it and he stood up during the debates and said, "how can the average american worker compete?" one of the first things he signed into office -- he signed when he got into office was nafta. guest: that last point was dead on. i remember the 1992 campaign very well. bill clinton said he was against nafta, said that he was going to protect the american economy and jobs against privation from a foreign nation states and foreign corporations. in that election, even though he said that, we should remember that ross perot won 19% of the vote that year but there were a lot of angry people who voted to protect the american economy in the fall of 1992. and you are absolutely right, that what bill clinton did is pretty much straight off the mark -- he put all of his chips

into passing nafta. from the beginning, he basically did abate and switch. -- a bait-and-switch. what we need now is to look at what actually exists, -- in a clear, and clear away all of these ideologies, all these weird interpretations of what is going on, all this free market stuff, and just look at the political reality of our political and economic system, and if we admit what is out there, we can really face it. host: barry lynn, now at the new america foundation, and the co author of this article in "washington monthly," "who broke america's job machine?" and his new book, "the new monopoly capitalism and the economics of destruction."

thanks for joining us this morning. that will do it for the monday edition of "washington journal." ? have you with us. " we have you with us tomorrow morning at 7:00 a.m. eastern. see you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] . >> healthcare continues to be a topic of discussion across the nation. president obama is traveling to the philadelphia area. he will be talking about health insurance. we will have live coverage beginning at about 11:00 a.m.

eastern. of a collector, a look at the environmental protection agency with lee said jackson. shall be at the national press club'. over 1000 students entered this year's contest. we will announce the 75 winners on march 10 and show you their winning videos. c-span -- our public affairs content is available on television, radio and on line and you can also connect with us on twitter, facebook and youtube. sign up for our e-mails at c- span.org. >> now paul bremer, recently spoke to the leadership program of the rockies.

he was joined by margaret hoover at this 50 minute event. [applause] >> thank you, there is much, congressman schaffer. i was reminded one there was a point from "newsweek" a comment about all of the socialists, i would like to ask the socialists to leave now please. [laughter] >> i want to pay respect to this wonderful program. you mentioned the problem of the snow and washington. i live in washington. the fact that we had so much snow, the government was closed down for a number of days, which was probably -- [laughter] [applause]

>> one of the congressman has a sign behind his desk that says the republic is never safe for them when the congress is adjourned. there was also the story of this mother going into her son and st. the schools are closed this morning. she said i do not want to go to school to date. he said give me two good reasons. in the first is, the students hate me, second, the teachers hit me. she said of the not good reasons. he said in a two good reasons why i should go to school. the schools are reopened in washington we face today, three main foreign-policy challenges. we will deal with the first to

deal briefly. the first is china, which is in the process of emerging as a great power. it certainly has required enormous strength over the last few years and has become the world's second largest power. china has benefited greatly from economic growth. it is true that china has a hunger for natural resources and indeed gradually is becoming less dependent on the american markets which will reduce our leverage. secondly, the chinese and mensuration is still a totalitarian administration. will continue to have political friction with china. finally, a chinese foreign policy is becoming increasingly more assertive, not the least in the which for natural resources. will continue to have tension for us and the chinese and rising tensions in the region.

history is full of examples of the problems of dealing with emerging new problems. the second promise that i will not deal with at great lengths is what -- is russia, which presents a bizarre combination of the design with weakness. people cannot realize how isolated russia really is. none of her former colonies want to the colonies again. russia is facing a democratic collapse. some estimations are that the population will fall to less than 100 million from 140 million. there is a real contrast between the stated aim of the russian government to reestablish its sphere of influence in the region combined with this witness. we have seen russian defense

spending quadrupled in the last six years and russia intimate neighbors like georgia. there will be a problem. russia presents a rather bizarre combination of earlier 19th century tsarist nationalism with the weakness and resentments that characterize germany, but with nuclear weapons. you might hear more about that from my good friend john bolton. those two problems could be dealt with by tough-minded american diplomacy. the bad news is we are not likely to find much support from our traditional european allies. let me turn to the third, and in my view, a major threat to american security, is on extremism. -- islamic extremism.

i want to leave you with three thoughts about this problem today. first, this is a global threat, not just against america, but against the west. secondly, the threat has an important nation-state dimension, namely iran, and thirdly, the u.s. need comprehensive strategy to deal with this. i'm not sure we have a strategy yet. what is the threat of terrorism? most of us think of september 11. that is right. i have to say that the national commission on terrorism, which the congressman mentioned, which i chaired, reported to you, the american people, to congress and to president clinton 15 months before september 11 that we face a new direct from islamic extremism and that these

extremists would conduct attacks on a pro harbor scale. we said that in june of 2000. why did we say that? we looked at the evidence. the evidence suggested the real change in the face of terrorism had taken place in the late 1980's and early 1990's. i was involved in the war on terrorism in the 1970's and the 1980's. the terrorists we faced then, are very different from the ones we face today. they basically used terrorism to get attention to their cause. they would kill enough people to get the press there, but not so many people that the public would be turned off of their cause. they wanted to draw attention to their cause.

>> the practiced restraint. they did not want to die. the old strategy that we put together -- that we put together, treating terrorists as criminals, it makes sense. in no longer makes sense with these new criminals. the national institute on terrorism says there were three new trends that took place in the 1990's. terrorism was becoming more deadly. the number of terrorist incidents was declining in the 1990's, but the number of casualties was going up. secondly, suicide attacks were becoming an increasing number in percentage of attacks. thirdly, the bipartisan national commission pointed to this fact, all of the known terrorist- supporting states were all in

place programs to acquire national -- weapons of mass destruction. in the case of iraq, it had actually used them. the syrian program contingent until just recently when the israelis bombed a nuclear plant in syria. they're running program continues today. i will have a lot more to say about a run in a minute. -- about iran in a minute. we face something new here. these new terrorists must have a different motive. they're completely different. what do we know? we actually know and not because terrorists have talked a lot about motives. they started talking about it in the late 1980's. these islamic extremists profess an extreme version of it is long which they define as being

unnecessarily at war with the west. -- has been necessarily at war with the west. they have been very clear. they basically have a goal, which is the conversion, by force if necessary, of the entire world to their work version of islam. they want to establish a universal tell a thing. there is an egyptian who is very important to this. his name is sayyid qutb. he was the founder of the islamic brotherhood. he wrote "a muslim has no nationality but his belief." the strategic plan published in 1991 said, and again, i am going to " a granted g hyde -- a grand

jihad." two years ago, a pakistani cleric said the call of islam is to rule the entire world. these islamic extremists are motivated by a burning hatred of everything that is western. a burning hatred. we are not talking about our magazines, our phones and western culture. they hate those, too. they hit the foundations of western civilization, the kinds of things this nation was founded on -- separation of church and state, universal suffrage, women's education, trade unions, free press. these things they hate and more. osama bin laden called democracy a satanic project.

it puts god and not man in charge of how society is run. his deputy, another an egyptian, said one we have the 1 digit one we have the run-up to the first iraqi election, he denounced the elections the same democracy is a new religion that must be destroyed by war. think about that. democracy is a new religion that must be destroyed by war. this suny extremism is only half of the problem. there is also a shiite dimension. for 30 years, under six successive american presidents of both parties, including this administration, iran has been

identified as the major state- sponsor of terrorism in the world. it was a round that created a shiite terrorist group that is most active in lebanon. until september 11, they had killed more americans than all of the other on -- all of the other terrorist groups in the world combined. iran, today, sponsors shiite extremists as far away as yemen. iran in support has been economical. iran it is, in effect, at war with america because they are killing our soldiers in iraq and afghanistan. these are the facts. like sunni extremism, this shiite extremism is anti- democratic. the basic premise is that the

supreme leader rules by divine right. a senior iran in cleric -- around in the cleric, has said that "except in islam is not compatible with democracy -- accepting islam is not compatible with democracy." after the june elections, we saw that islamic leadership of nothing but contempt. radical, extremist islam, whether it is sunni or shiite, resembles in many ways the 20th century totalitarianism creeds like not system. the -- like not see is some. the revolutionary malteds of

these extremists reject the revolutionary motives of these extremists have -- the revolutionary malta's of these extremists have consequences. some of you will remember that there was a first world trade center attack, which took place in february of 1993. they drove a truck into the basement. good work by the federal bureau of investigation led to us capturing those six terrorists who then told us that their objectives had been to kill 21 50,000 americans that day. that was their objective. the new dimension, therefore, which makes these terrorists, these extremists so terrifying with the possibility of getting their hands on weapons of mass

destruction, they could in fact have the capability of killing us by the hundreds of thousands. this is the crucial nexus. the nexus between terrorist supporting states, weapons of mass instruction and islamic extremism, which is the major threat to american national security in the early 21st century. the clock is ticking. another bipartisan commission chaired by senator bob gramm reported in december that extremists will use weapons of mass destruction in an attack in the next four years. once you get this in your mind, people often say, what is the root cause of all this hatred? why can we not deal with the root cause? why can we not just get along? the root cause is not poverty. osama bin laden is a

millionaire. he could buy and sell all of us. sayyid qutb is a well educated, upper-class medical doctor. the christmas bomber was a college-educated man from an upper-class, highly respected nigerian family. it is not poverty. the root cause of this terrorism, i believe, is nothing less than the existence and i would argue success of western civilization. they hate us for what we are. there is no compromise. we are who we are. america stands behind to 30 years of independence which it wanted 30 years of independence. -- 230 years of independence.

this is a clash of civilization. bernard lewis, who is a professor at princeton, and one of the country put the best observers of the middle east, believes his hatred comes from a deep sense of failure on the part of islamic societies to reconcile their vision of islam with the modern world. i think he is onto something. this analysis has very important implications for our strategy, which i will come to later, and in the titular for the role of promoting -- and in particular, for the role of promoting governments to swamp out this behavior. the vast majority of muslims are not terrorists. the vast majority of terrorists

are muslims. secondly, there is, in effect, a civil war going on inside of islam to define appropriately what is islam's role in the modern world. we have a big stake in the moderate moslems winning that civil war. let me turn to iran. that is in many ways where my concern is the greatest. iranian government, for years, has lied to the united nations, the international community, about its program to get nuclear weapons. today, they're simply can be no doubt that this program, despite denials is directed at acquiring nuclear weapons. i will quote two top american- asserted officials. in early of fed -- in early

february, admirable -- admiral blair told congress that united -- iran has enough ability to produce enough uranium. i was at a meeting in january where it was said that ron "has a strategic intent to develop nuclear weapons. iran has paid no price for lying about its nuclear program, disregarding the success of u.n. security council solutions and for mocking the expressed concerns of the international community. the europeans have pursued a constructive dialogue. it has been neither constructive nor a dialogue. all negotiations have been fruitless, as was the case in north korea.

in the past year, president obama has given iran several deadlines by which time they should comply with their u.n. security council and demands, only to move in the sand he has transe excessively as iran's has -- only to move the line in the sand that he has drawn up excessively. they announced that they had increased uranium. even with that announcement, american policy seems to be based on the hope or the wish that iran might somehow see the light and seek stopping their nuclear program. it is difficult to exaggerate the consequences of a nuclear iran. six come to mind off hand.

a nuclear iran would represent a major shift in the geopolitical balance in the world and the most unstable region. secondly, as a consequence, we would see more nuclear proliferation as non-persian neighbors would seek to redress that balance by acquiring nuclear weapons themselves. thirdly, it would promote proliferation in other parts of the world, countries like north korea and japan are watching closely what happens in iran. fourth, it would lead to more bold iranian interference in the neighboring countries of iraq in afghanistan, threatening american interest in both of those countries. fifth, peace between israel and the arabs would be less likely.

i think in a measurable way, the possibility of nuclear proliferation toward super terrorism, that is to say the possibility that nuclear weapons or materials would be given to or find their way into the hands of extremists. let's face it. diplomacy is failing no package of sanctions on iran, even the robust package the administration talks about, even if you could get that robust action -- package of sanctions to the security council, which i doubt, even that type of regime is unlikely to dissuade iran in from continuing their nuclear program. the president of iran is on record as saying that the program is a trained without breaks. he has an apocalyptic view of

the end of the world. calling for a destruction of israel, and often welcoming the idea of a world without america. our options for dealing with iran are rapidly disappearing. the only peaceful way to stop the nuclear program is regime change and failing that, the only option is military action. despite the obvious and down sides of that auction, it must remain on the table and more importantly, it must be seen to explicitly remain on the table. when he was a center, senator obama said it was unacceptable for iran to have nuclear weapons. that was the stance of the bush ministration. if it is unacceptable, we will

need to do something about it. to defend against this general is on the threat, america needs a grand strategy. that grand strategy has three components. conceptual clarity, good intelligence and the mobilization of the country's entire scope of powers to deal with the threat. how are we doing? in each case, i think there are reasons to be concerned about the administration's, approached. first, a lack of clarity about the threat. but the start by saying that to his credit, president obama continued a number of the essential elements that his predecessor had put in place, continuing most aspects of the patriot act, wiretaps and he

mail intercepts, the indefinite detention of extremist killers, and continued president and the clinton policy of rendering a terrorist extremists to third countries. those things, he has done. but, the president admitted last month that "we are at war. the problem is, policy to not need -- to not seem to follow that. let me give you examples. look at the response to both fort hood and the christmas bomber. in the case of fort hood, two high officials, in their immediate reactions showed the problem. in the case of fort hood, it was clear. the perpetrator was in -- and

islamic extremists. the secretary of security went on television and said "the most important thing now is to see that justice is done." what? is not the most important thing to find out how it happened and -- prevent it from happening again? the secretary of the army, in his first two or three reactions to the same attack expressed his concern on the impact it would have on the "diversity of our service." how about on the safety of our servicemen and women? isn't that what should be the concern of the secretary of the army? the after-action report that the department of defense released last week talked and talked and talked and in 86 pages never

mentioned the word "islam." how could you do a serious investigation of the fort hood thing without examining what happened? words have meaning. they reflect ideas. ideas have meaning. the ideas can digit they reveal a conceptual -- the real feel a conceptual framework. then, there was the handling of the christmas bomber. we know the story. he was questioned for 50 minutes, mirandized and shut up. we're left with the spectacle of the senior counter-terrorism adviser, lauding the fact that we are now in a plea bargain with a man who tried to kill 3300 americans. then, we have a decision to try

the mastermind of september 11 inning criminal court,. he is an enemy combat, not just a criminal. this would be the first time in history, that no enemy combatants captured abroad, will be tried over -- in a court. moreover, the rule of law was signed into law in 2006. there is no reason why a terrorist cannot be interrogated by the military, and eventually turned over to a civilian trial. it leaves us with some questions, for example, if we were lucky enough to capture osama bin laden would he be mirandized? it is a serious question. it may sound funny, but it is a serious question.

what he did -- would he be mirandize? would he be tried in a u.s. court? would we, the american people be let to the spectacle of plea bargaining with that man? those are the logical consequences of that this administration's approach. they're still thinking this is a problem of law enforcement. so, it appears there is a real problem with conceptual approach. but return to the second problem which is good intelligence. there is no area in the world that is more important than counter-terrorism. the terrorists working in cellular structures, very difficult to penetrate. it takes a very high-risk- taking approach to find out what they are doing.

the objective is to find out what they're doing, before they are doing it and stop it. that is quite different than saying your job is to capture the guy after he estimate and prosecuted. there is a big difference. a risk-taking the intelligence service requires two things, political leaders who understand that risks will be taken so mistakes will be made, that is the nature of risk, and secondly, a group of intelligence gatherers who understand that when mistakes are made, political leaders will back them up and not just throw them overboard. [applause] >> it is also the case that because of the very high stakes involved in fighting islamic extremism, a president may very well decided to preempt attacks

before they happen. it is a very different approach if you are in law enforcement. in montforts but, you would for the crime to be committed. you move in, you prosecute them. you cannot do that in terrorism. in need to be prepared to preempt. in many cases, the president will make that case on the presence of incomplete intelligence. there are signs, i think that the current administration is repeating some of the mistakes we have made in this area of intelligence in the past. some of you will remember that back in the 1970's the church and pike committees conducted a vigorous which fund -- which hunt which hampered the cia could operations for years.

the national commission on terrorism reported that in 1994, the cia imposed highly restrictive restraints, rules on agents in the field in terms of how they could basically penetrate terrorist cells. those highly restricted -- restrictive rules were in effect on september 11. are we seeing a repeat of the same problem? and i am afraid that we may be. this administration, as you may recall, released by the classified information. last summer, the attorney general announced that he would reinvestigate cia officials who had already been investigated and cleared. he was going to we investigate their use of enhanced interrogation techniques. these actions have an impact on

the morale of our intelligence services and also raise questions in foreign intelligence services about the benefits of cooperating with the united states. there is reason to be concerned about this area, also. finally, where is the grand strategy? where is the mobilization of all of the political, economic, military and covert weapons we have? first of all, we need to kill or capture the hard core extremists, whatever they are. to the president's credit, he has had -- he has made the more aggressive use of predator's in afghanistan than bush did. but, a grand strategy to deal with islamic extremists also has to deal with their ideas, in the titular their idea that islam is not compatible -- in particular,

their idea that islam is not compatible. some argue that to say a war with terrorism is wrong because terrorism is a tactic. terrorism is something they are thinking about, it is symptomatic of that underlying hatred i talked about. a grand strategy has to also deal with the underlying hatred. at the heart of the strategy must be promoting representative government. the objective is to help moderate muslims when that civil war i talked about early. we should support them wherever possible. the promotion of representative government in the muslim world no longer appears to be a high priority of the said ministration. budgets have been cut. the discussion of democracy is

no longer a standard part of either the private or public discussion that american officials have and there is a way to do it. for example, in the case of iran, we should be supporting the green mold and me the green movement, the democratic movement that was crushed. we need to support the grain movement and movements like that everywhere. in particular, we need to support the one in in those societies who aren't -- who are in many ways ahead of their male counterparts in their desire for freedom and democracy. at the finish with my summary of all of this. we face a serious and brought threat from islamic extremism.

iran is a major element of that threat. it's possible acquisition of nuclear weapons threatens to destabilize the entire region. thirdly, while the administration has taken some steps to deal with the extremist threat, there are reasons to be concerned about whether it fully understands the concept and whether it is really working to bring the intelligence agencies to bear on this threat. what we need is a broad, global strategy to defeat this islamic extremism. by the way, as was the case with the cold war, it will be a long struggle. it is a generational struggle. that means we need to try to build bipartisan support. no one of the two parties can carry this on as long as it needs to be carried on. we need to find a way for both

parties to agree this is a threat. i thought after september alignment we might have had a chance of doing that. after september 11, we might have a chance of doing that. america has never failed to step up to the challenges we face. we will do it again, but it will be a tough struggle. thank you very much. [applause] >> yes, sir. >> could you speak to the risk to seed of a sunni nuclear problem in afghanistan? >> well, pakistan is a nuclear power. i do not think there is much

likelihood they would use their nuclear weapons against iran. the iranians are surrounded by nuclear states, russia, somewhat removed now because there are no longer in central asia, pakistan on one side, israel on the other. it is clear that it is not in america's interest for iran to get nuclear weapons. that is the bottom line. the bottom line, as the president is to say, it is unacceptable. >> yes, sir. i am up from colorado. i would like to know at what point you think israel will step in and act to defend itself against iran in nuclear-weapons. >> that is a question that only

and israeli government official could answer if he would, which he will not. from an israeli point of view, it is understandable that they would be very concerned about a nuclear iran, particularly and iran with the government is an extremist islamic government. i am not going to say that if iran was democratic that israel would not be concerned, but obviously much less. we're not concerned that france has no nuclear weapons for reason. it is not all equal. i would not want to predict what israel might or might not do, but i could certainly see their concerns and i think they will grow. yes, sir. >> this relates to the answer your just gave. some apologists for iran seem to

think that the measures taken to restrain the soviets might restraint iran. appearing crazy enough to use nuclear weapons -- is that a tactic back -- is that a tactic? >> the psychologist in my family is my door. i will lead off the second one of those. i think it is a dangerous form of a pre-emptive capitulation to assume that we can't deal -- that we can deal with iran through deterrence. this might be the direction which this is ministration is heading, and just saying we will have to live with a nuclear iran. i think it is a dangerous assumption that a leadership which claims is its right to

roll through divine right regularly defers to the belief of the return of the 13th osculating in bonn and talks regulatory about the destruction of israel. it is a bit anxious -- it is a bit dangerous to assume the government like that would not be prepared to use nuclear weapons. i think you have to make the assumption that it is far too dangerous to let it happen. we cannot accept that it happens. >> ambassador, thank you for your message. i am john andrews. you referred to a civil war going on within islam over the central problem of hate, violence and aspiration to dominance that you identified. i would like to think it so, but i did not see much evidence in the muslim world, europe, or in this country that there is a

civil war in terms of a moderate side fighting against the violent, hateful side. would you elaborate on that? >> it is a good point. i think we have in the muslim world what we used to call a silent majority. i think that is more or less right. i think there are governments, and i know many islamic leaders that i have met are genuinely -- genuinely hate these extremists. if you look at the polling in the country's across the belt from north africa over to pakistan, there has been aimed at -- a rather dramatic drop in expressed support for islamic extremism. are they willing to stand up and say it publicly? nope. they are afraid.

one of the things they will not to support from us, they will get left out there. one part of the strategy must be to encourage those people to be brave and to go out and say you are the people who are not carrying out the true meaning of islam. i agree, it would be helpful if more muslims, particularly muslims in the west would stand up and make that point. i believe that the vast majority of muslims are not terrorists. >> how did airtran come into contact with nuclear -- how did iran come into the means to create nuclear weapons? >> the lineage of the iran in

program actually goes back to the days of the shaw, when both the united states and france were involved in what at that time was a peaceful nuclear power program in iran. i think there is a lot we don't know about kahn and his role in a lot of places. there is certainly in north korean connection that comes up from time to time. the central point is not to do the bureaucratic archeology, the central point is to stop it. >> thank you for your service, mr. ambassador. would you comment on pakistan and its ability to deal with its internal security problem and whether it can be a help or hindrance in this security effort? >> it is a very good question. i am not in -- i am not an expert on pakistan.

i think the pakistan government, in the last year, has begun to show movement in the right direction, particularly their operation and recent rather important captures of intelligence operatives from the pakistan and afghan taliban show that the intelligence service and the military is beginning to move. they have a problem, which is the indians still have about a half-million people in kashmir on their border. it would be helpful if the indians would work to reduce that pension, which would allow the military to focus more on the west. some of that is happening, and i think as long as the pakistani government, military and intelligence services are confident the united states is there to stay and to win, we'll

continue to see improvement. the concern of many of these is that while the president agreed on the surge in afghanistan, he unfortunately connected it immediately with the withdrawal. in that part of the world, our relationships are very finely measured. they watched to see who will be up, who will be up, -- will be up, will be down, and who will be there. one of the challenges for the administration on the political side as a move forward on the military side, is to persuade the people that we really mean it. >> your comments seemed to be supportive of the patriot act. there are a number of people concerned about the threat to our own civil -- civil liberties. i was wondering if you could provide a defense. >> it is always a hard trade-

offs. i take a back seat to no one in respect to our liberties and rights. there is a trade-off. we cannot be 100% free in our civil rights and also be 1% safe. i would not get into commenting on particular aspects of the picture it act other than to say that on the whole, i think it is a good dad and i think it is commendable that for the most part -- it was a good act, and i think it is commendable but for the most part, the administration has carried it out. >> i appreciate your time. had we persuade china and russia, which has this southern

bell line that could be rattled by islamic interests, how do we go about persuading these two countries? >> i think it would be an ideal outcome if we could get them to, as you say, side with us. i think it is a mistake to make that the first step. i know you will hear from my friend john bolton tonight. if you don't, you should asking the question. dean rusk said he always admired what went on in the united nations. he said it reminded him of underwater ballet. all of those intricate maneuvers

with no air. [laughter] >> i think the russians are more easily persuaded to understand the islamic threat because they have been dealing with the problems of islam for nearly 300 years. their former colonies are almost all islamic. the chinese is a more difficult problem. get him leverage on the chinese on any subject is going to be increasingly difficult for us because our economic leverage is declining. the main point is we should not let the russians or the chinese hold hostage something that is central to american national security. if we can get them to go along, that is great. it did not want to go along, that is fine. we have a problem with iran in program and a clear weapons. every minute we sit here, the

centrifuges are spinning and time is running out. >> ambassador bremer my concern is stealth jihad is a radical islam that is already within our borders. why isn't the congress and the justice department investigating organizations that are fronts for the moslem brotherhood. it seems to me that right here in our borders there are things that could be done that are not being done by our representatives. >> i think it is an appropriate concern, particularly with what kind of recruiting is going on in our prisons. again, there is a balance to be drawn here between our freedoms

that we all hold very dear and security. one of our tenants is a freedom of religion. you have to find some predicate. >> @ think we are making progress. we are making progress. i think it is not fair to say that nothing is being done. it is fair to say that not enough is being done, but finding that balance, particularly when it concerns activity within the united states is a lot more difficult than finding that balance of said of the united states. it is a good point. >> it has been said that insanity is doing the same thing time after time, expecting different results. how much longer are we going to

wait with the united nations and the sanctions that we continue to put on iran and some other countries with no results? >> you should ask john. i think his answer would be that we have done it too long. the united nations is not a world government. it has its uses. as long as a lever is in power in washington understands -- as long as whoever is in power understand the limits of those uses, it can be a useful diplomatic tool. if you think the u.n. is one to solve our problems, particularly our tough ones, you have not studied our history. you can go back to the league of nations. the united nations has not been a great success in a lot of really crucial areas. in the end, and here i think is

where philosophically this is the restoration differs from the previous and ministration, it is going to be american leadership that will protect the american people. american leadership, sure, you can use diplomacy, but to do that effectively, you have to start with a tear -- a clearer context of what the threat is. that is where we still have a lot of work to do. thank you very much [applause] >> president obama is in the philadelphia area this morning. he'll be talking about increased premiums. he is making an appearance at arcadia university, about 15 miles north of philadelphia. this is live coverage here on c- span.

>> again, waiting for the president to appear at this gathering, talking about health insurance while we wait for the president, a look at his visit from this morning's ""washington journal"." >> president obama will be in philadelphia today. tom fitzgerald, where will the president be speaking? guest: he will be at acadia university. it is not far from the city line. host: he is elyssa talking about pushing his health insurance reform -- he is obviously talking about pushing his health insurance reform.

in the philadelphia area, how does this health-care debate played out? guest: especially the area he is going to, it is kind of an independent voting area that has been trending democratic in recent years. independent voters, are some of the people but are unsure and shaky about health care reform, worried about costs and disruptions to parts of the current system that they light. he will reach out to a skeptical audience directly today. not only at the university, there will probably be supporters. the folks at will be seeing it on television are the people that he wants to reach.

host: overhaul -- "the philadelphia inquirer," had a story this morning. all told, 15 more -- 15 million more people could joined medicaid. how much is that a problem in philadelphia? it is a problem in parts, in the city of philadelphia. the first congressional district in philadelphia is one of the poorest in the united states with a poverty rate of close to 40%, i believe. that will be welcomed the news for many people that are not covered with health insurance in

the city, especially. this prevents host: -- guest: t always takes a couple of questions. i am not sure if you will today or not. it is a quick hits. i do not think airforce one war reached cruising altitude. he will be here and go back to the white house. i am not sure how many questions he will take probably a few. host: are some of the members of a congressional delegation in that area, montgomery county, are they on the fence on the second round of health care of voting that is ahead? guest: we are talking about democrats. the republicans are opposed.

in new jersey, 3, a freshman in a highly competitive the district is facing a tough opponent. keep voted no the first time. he is on the fence but sounds like he is leaning towards note because of his concerns about the legislation not doing enough to bend the cost curve, is the phrase everyone uses. there is a congressman patrick murphy and pennsylvania to the north of the city, he voted yes the first time. he he wants to read the language and he is taking a cautious stance. in fact, he has an even up in his district where he will prevent grants to first responders and will not be here today. so people can read into that what they will. host: he will not be at the

president's event today? guest: no, he had a long scheduled thing with an important group in his district. and i guess they were having difficulties scheduling it, or something. it was hard to get a date. so he is not going to be able to make it. people might raise their eyebrows. although, of course, he is a blue dog democrat but he is also close to pelosi and stenyny hoyer and the leadershi >> we're standing by at arcadia university in glenside, up pencilling. the president will talk about health insurance and what the legislation in congress can do to help bring in cost. the president is expected at any

moment. live coverage on c-span. until then, your phone calls on "washington journal." can we close guantanamo safely? gary, indiana. john, first of on our independent line. caller: how are you guys doing today? host: fine, thanks. caller: i don't understand. it seems like everything is done backwards. we have something that is working better than what anyone has proposed from what i see. we don't have the money to do it. and it just seems like a political agenda for groups or for something. i don't undd@ >> it seems backwards. -- it seems backwards. host: you are saying the idea of

closing guantanamo seems a backwards to you? caller: all it will do is say fire your long-term employee. host: springfield, ky. joseph. caller: it makes no difference whether they call a gitmo or put their prison in illinois or new york. they will still complain. they put a man with a put these prisoners. there still will be a target. why spend another five wonder million dollars for the same thing you have in cuba. -- why spend another $500 million tax host: the mystery americans in pakistan. this is from "the new york post." palestinian authorities busted

an american-born al qaeda leader. it is unclear which one. the captured terrorists may have been adam gadahn. he became the first american charged with high treason since world war ii. caller: donald trump said the 9/11 hijackers, 16 had saudi passports. that is how they got on the plane. they were favorable to the saudis. so he said saudi arabia when this entire thing. they should have this trial in new york city where the murders

occurred. cross-examination by top lawyers rather than a military court, which is a high-speed court. we have taps at the saudi embassy. let's have taps brought in to the court room and let's find out whether the prince and the rest of these people from saudi arabia new about this attack. host: you find yourself in the minority in new york. caller: i think it is a campaign. people want to know the truth about 9/11. it is not a conspiracy. they want the truth. if you run it into a military court, it will be quick. people in new york city and throughout the country want these people -- donald trump is not stupid. somehow this man made $1

billion. when he says wake up, this wasn't all-saudi arabian operations. 16 of 19 people had passports from saudi arabia. can you imagine if israel -- the 16th of the 19 people had israeli passports? host: north carolina, democrats line. caller: do not cut me off. this whole thing about guantanamo bay, these people, we do not know who they are or were they come from. somebody said kay were citizens and they made them go there and everything. we need to find out what was going on and find that what happened and go back to the past administration and get dick cheney and karl rove and george bush and let's find out what

happened. we need to find out what happened and said with a said. the have not been charged with nothing. they ain't done nothing yet. host: the deal seems to keep the secret of gitmo in gitmo. by secrets, i mean atrocities. democrats line. caller: hello? i would like to say that i do not think the 9/11 conspiracy theorists will ever go away. if present a public trial. i do not think it is possible. any more comments along that line, i would appreciate it. host: republican line. your thoughts. go ahead. towson. i will put you on hold.

hang in there. we will come back to. long island, new york, independent line. caller: it would be better to close down washington, d.c. they spent trillions of dollars in debt. they're trying to passed legislation that nobody wants. they are trying to put women in submarines. they have no concept on how to create jobs. i say closed down washington, d.c., and we will be better off. host: back to florence in towson on a republican line. caller: my thing is this. i wish mr. gramm -- it doesn't matter whether you closed the place. these people do not need a reason. we need to take them out of the

way. people are wicked by nature. that is all i have to say. host: toms river, new jersey. caller: hello. host: i am fine. go ahead. caller: this land we love so dearly and so many have died for, it is unbelievable, the allies and the deceit in -- the wilies and deceit in congress. host: we're asking about lindsey gramm and his comments on "face the nation" and proceeding with military tribunals. the headline of the associated press story.

he said reversing eric holder's plan in new york would be seen as an act of leadership by the public. the white house is reviewing the plan. a decision is not expected for several weeks. john in maryland. good morning. a democrat. caller: guantanamo has been a thorn in america's side for a long time. closing it is not going to do anything for american image over the middle east. the people who care are the american people. they know what happened to guantanamo. they know who did it and who it was done to. the people in guantanamo would not have picked up until after we invaded iraq. then we went into afghanistan.

all the people involved with the plane crash are all dead. how many leads could the have? to people that were in there where they're from the occupation of the illegal war in iraq and the dumb think we're doing in afghanistan. close guantanamo? until the world sees there is justice in the american courts for a big lies at the bush administration committed. nothing will change that image. they saw what was done. host: we're asking you this morning about closing guantanamo a day after the iraqi elections. a rocket women see to ensure their voices are heard -- the roiraqi women seek to insure

their voices are heard. a director says the female parliamentarians have far better representation than women in any of the neighboring countries, according to data collected. connecticut, frank, independent. what are your thoughts? caller: good morning. i think it's been left open. any means should be made to get the intelligence -- to extract the intelligence. i think the detainees should be eliminated. that takes care of the problem. host: we go next to the louisiana. go ahead, edward on the independent line. caller: i did not catch the

beginning of your program. is there a special guest? host: we're talking to reaction from senator gramham's comments. caller: i think this is a good point. i think the president should stick with eric holder's idea. in other words, we can house these terrorists in illinois. why not bring the trial there? if it will be there, why cannot we have the trial there? if we provide security for 50 years of their life, we can provide security for one year to of the trial. host: thank you for the call. we're joined by tom fitzgerald. president obama will be in

philadelphia today, one of several spots talking about health insurance reform. where will the president is speaking? guest: he will be at arcadia university in glenside, pennsylvania. west of the city line. host: he is talking about health care reform, the legislation on capitol hill and some of the changes he has talked about in the philadelphia area. how has -- how was this debate playing out? caller: especially the area he is going to come it is kind of an independent voting. , trending democratic. independents are some of the people shaky about health care reform, worried about cost and

disruptions to parts of the current system they like. he is really going to reach out to a skeptical audience directly today. not in the gymnasium. this will probably be supporters. the folks around there who'll see it on television are people he wants to reach. host: there was a report in philadelphia.com, health overhaul would help the child support. it would be a beneficiary. the plans in washington, 15 more -- 50 million more people could joined medicare. these issues in terms of childless adults and also folks who have lost their jobs, how much is that a problem in the philadelphia area? guest: it is a problem in the

city of philadelphia. the first congressional district in philadelphia is one of the poorest in the united states, with a poverty rates of close to 40%, i believe. it will be welcome news for many people of federer not covered with health insurance in the city host: especially this event -- host: this event, it is a town hall style format? guest: it has been described as a rally. he almost always takes some questions. i am not sure whether he will today. a very quick hit. i do not think airforce 10 reached cruising altitude. he will be here, and then go

back to the white house. i am not sure how many questions he will take probably a few. host: are any of the members of the congressional delegation in month permit county and in philadelphia, are they on the fence on this second round of health care voting that is around. that is coming around? guest: the republicans are opposed. in new jersey, 3. representative john adler in a highly competitive district is facing a tough opponent. he voted no the first time and he is on the fence, but sounds like he is leaning towards know because of his concern that the legislation does not do enough to bend the cost curve, it is defrays everyone uses. there is a congressman patrick murphy in pennsylvania voted yes

the first time. he wants to read the language and is taking a cautious stance. he had -- he has an event in his district or he will present grants to some first responders and he will not be there today. people can read into that what they will. host: so he will not be at the president's event. guest: he had this long standing thing with people in his district. they were having difficulty scheduling it or something. it was hard to get a date. he will not be able to make it. people might raise their eyebrows at that. he is a blue dog democrat but he is also close to pelosi and steny hoyer and the leadership. host: tom fitzgerald.

you could read his work at philly.com. thank you for joining us. we go back to your calls on the comments yesterday on "face the nation" on a closing guantanamo. this is a look at something else he said yesterday. >> where is this situation right now? what you have said to the white house is if you will agree to try these people in a military tribunal, i will help you in getting the republican votes that are needed to close guantanamo. >> president bush said we need to close guantanamo. we need a legal system that gives due process to the detainee. we are at war. some of this information is sensitive and classified. can this administration reversed

course on khalid sheikh mohammed? that would be well received by the public. he is getting beat up badly but the left. but i think they are way off base. those who want to waterboard underwrite and believe we should keep gitmo open forever and use any technique to get information, i think they are equally off base. it is a war. host: we come back to your calls on this topic. a y. caller: -- hawaii. caller: who will pay for guantanamo bay if it closes? host: what would you like to see done? caller: i like to say guantanamo bay stay open. host: clinton, illinois.

this is robert. caller: guantanamo should be kept open for the marines, as far as i'm concerned. as far as the people being held there from al qaeda and other insurgencies, they should be brought into the united states and several the consequences of their actions by our justice system. it should be a justice where they're equally represented just as if the work any other person. when the united states takes over an area of the world by military means, the people who are taken into custody at that time are under the jurisdiction of the united states and should be held accountable to that standard. if we do not do that, we're not a country of laws. >> we will leave "washington journal" to go live to glenside,

pennsylvania. president obama is one of their talking about health concerns. >> what a wonderful crowd. [cheers] i am -- i am kind of fired up. i am kind of fired up. [cheers] so listen -- we -- this is an extraordinary crowd. i love you back. there are some people might want to point out who are here who have been doing great work. give lesley a round of applause

for wonderful introduction. [applause] somebody who was been working tirelessly on your behalf and doing a great job, kathleen sebelius. she is in the house. [applause] one of the finest governors in the country, ed rendell is in the house. [applause] everybody noticed how good ed is looking? he has been on the training program. eating egg whites. keeping his cholesterol down. [laughter]

your senior senator who has been doing outstanding work in the senate, arlen specter is in the house. [cheers] one of my great friends, someone who supported me when nobody could pronounced my name. bob casey. [applause] your congressman, the person who gave me confidence i could win even though no one could pronounced my name. they are in the house. [applause] -- no one could pronounce my name.

a couple of other outstanding members of congress. from pennsylvania, alison schwartz is in the house. [applause] somebody who has rendered outstanding service to our country before it is also in the house. [applause] one of the sharpest members of congress, technically not his stayed but he is from new jersey. he is practically -- we have some jersey folks here. rob andrews in the house. [applause] and the great mayor of philadelphia in the house. [applause]

are right. -- all right. it is still ha littltetle hot. and to arcadia university -- [cheers] thank you. thank you for hosting me. i was asking about that castle on the way in, by the way. i thought the white house was pretty nice. but that castle -- >> yeah! >> it is great to be back here in the keystone state.

it is even better to be out of washington d.c. [laughter] the people of d.c. are wonderful. they are nice people. they are good people. love the city, the monuments, everything. when you are in washington, folks respond every decision, every issue, every debate, no matter how important it is with the same question -- what does it mean for the next election? what does it mean for the poll numbers? is this good for the democrats or good for the republicans? who want the news cycle? that is how washington is -- who won the news cycle? they are obsessed with the sport of politics. that is the environment in

which the elected officials are operating. you have seen the pundits pontificating on the table shows, they are yelling and shouting. they cannot help themselves. that is what they do. but out here and all across america, folks are worried about bigger things. they are worried about how to make payroll, how to make ends meet, what the future will hold for their families and for our country. they are not worried about the next election. we just had an election. [cheers] they are worried about the next paycheck or the next tuition payment that is due. [cheers]

they are thinking about retirement. you want people in washington to spend a little less time worrying about our jobs, more time worrying about your jobs. [applause] despite all the challenges we face tw,o wars, the aftermath of a terrible recession, i want to tell everybody here today i am confident that america will prevail, that will shape our destiny as past generations have done. that is who we are. we do not give up. we do not quit. we just keep on going. that is who we are.

but that only happens when we're meeting our challenges squarely and honestly. i have to tell you that is what we are fighting so hard to deal with the health care crisis in this country. health care costs that are growing every single day. i want to spend some time talking about this. the price of health care is one of the most punishing costs for families and businesses and for the government. [applause] it is forcing people to cut back or go without health insurance. it forces small businesses to choose between hiring or health care. it's plunging the federal government deeper and deeper into debt. the young people who are here, you have heard stories -- some of you still have health care while you are in school.

some mid be on your parents' plan. some of the highest on insurance rates are among young people. a lot of you feel like you are in vincible so you do not worry about it. let me tell you -- when you hit 48, you start realizing, things start breaking down a little bit. [laughter] and the insurance companies continue to ration health care based on who is sick and who was healthy, on who can pay and who cannot pay. that is the status quo in america. it is a status quo that is unsustainable for this country. we cannot have a system that works better for the insurance companies than it does for the american people. [applause]

we need to give families and businesses more control over their own health insurance and that is what we need to pass health care reform. not next year or five years from now, but now. [cheers] since we took this issue on a year ago, there have been plenty of folks in washington who has said that politics is too hard. they have warned us that we may not win. they have argued now is not the time for reform. it will hurt your poll numbers. how is it going to affect democrats in november? do not do it now.

my question to them is, when is the right time? if not now, when? if not us, who? think about it. we have been talking about health care for nearly a century. i'm reading a biography of teddy roosevelt. he was talking about it. peres about. we have failed -- teddy roosevelt'. some people say do not do it right now because the economy is weak. when the economy was strong we didn't do it. we talked about it during democratic administrations and republican administrations. i have all but republican colleagues saying we want to focus on things -- you had 10 years. what happened?

what were you doing? [cheers] every year the problem gets worse. every year interest companies denied more people coverage because they have pre-existing conditions. every year the drop more people's coverage when they get sick right went they need it most. the raise premiums higher and higher and higher. last month, blue cross in california try to jack up rates by nearly 40%. 40%. has anybody paycheck gone up 40% ta? what is it that we think this is

normal? in my home state of illinois, rates are going up by as much as 60%. you just heard leslie who was hit with more than a 100% increase. 100%. one letter from her insurance company and their premiums doubled. just like that. because so many of these markets are so concentrated, it is not like you cannot go shopping. you are stuck. you're taking a chance that if someone gets sick, you will go bankrupt and lose everything you have. or you keep on pony up money you cannot afford. these insurance companies have made a calculation. the other day, there was a conference call organized by goldman sachs.

you know goldmansachs. you have heard about them. they organized a conference call in which an insurance broker was telling wall street investors how he expected things to play out over the next several years. this broker said insurance companies know the palooza customers if they keep on raising premiums. -- they know they will keep on losing customers if they keep on raising premiums. they are ok with people being priced out of the market. people will be stuck. the oldest still raise money. it will keep doing this for as long as they can get away with it. there is no secret. they are going to keep on making big profits even though a lot of

folks will be put under hardship. how much higher do premiums have to rise until we do something about it? how many more americans have to lose their health insurance? how many more businesses have to drop coverage? all those young people out here, you will be looking for a job. think about the informant that will be out there when potential employers say, we cannot afford or we will have to take thousands of dollars out of your paycheck because the insurance companies have jacked up our rates. how many years can the federal budget handle the crushing cost of medicare and medicaid? that is the debt you have to pay, young people. when is the right time for health insurance reform? is it a year from two now, years, up five years, 10 years from now?

i think it is right now and that is why you are here today. [applause] leslie is a single mother. disliked my mother was a single mother. she is trying to put her mother through college -- just like my mother was a single mother. she knows the time for reform is now. a self-employed cancer survivor wrote to us a letter. her insurance company charged her over $6,000 in premiums, paid about $900 worth of care. now have decided to jack up rates 40% next year. it may cost her the house her parents built. she knows it is time for reform.

laura, a friend of mine, some i met when i was campaigning in wisconsin. green bay, wisconsin. she is a young mother. she two has kids. she thought she had beaten her breast cancer but it spread to her bones. she and her husband had insurance. her medical bills when did them with tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt. now she spends her time worrying about that debt when all she wants to do is spend time with her children. she knows the time for reform is right now. so what should i tell these americans? that washington is not sure how it will play in november? that we should walk away from this fight? or do something, do something

like some on the other side of the aisle have suggested -- we will take baby steps. so they want me to pretend to do something that doesn't help these folks. we have debated health care in washington for more than a year. every proposal has been put on the table. every argument has been made. a lot of people view this as a partisan issue. both parties have found areas where we agree. " we have ended up with is a proposal that somewhere in the middle, it incorporates the best from democrats and republicans. the best ideas. think about along the spectrum of how we can approach health care. we have the results of those who wanted to scrap our insurance

and replace it with a government-run system. it worked in places like canada. i did not think it would be realistic to do it here. on the other side of the spectrum, there are those who believe the answer is just to loosen regulations on insurance companies. they said, if we had fewer regulations on the insurance companies, whether it is consumer protections are basic standards on what kind of insurance, they sell, market forces will make things better. we have tried that. i am concerned that would only give insurance companies more leeway to raise premiums and denied care. [applause]

the bottom-line is i don't believe we should give governments or insurance companies more control over health care in america. you should have more control over your own health care. [applause] that's why my proposal builds on the current system, where most americans get their health insurance from their employer. if you like your plan, you could keep your plan. as the father of two young girls, i do not want a plan that interferes between a family and their doctor. we will preserve that. my proposal would change three things. first, it would end the worst practices of insurance companies. within the first year of signing health care reform, thousands of uninsured americans with pre-

existing conditions would be able to purchase health insurance for the first time in their lives. for the first time in a long time [applause] . this year, insurance companies will be banned forever from denying coverage to children with pre-existing conditions. [applause] [cheers] this year, they will be banned from dropping your coverage when you get sick. [applause] and they will no longer be able to arbitrarily hike in premiums just like they did to leslie or

millions of other americans. those practices will end. [applause] if this reform becomes law, all new insurance plans will be required to offer free preventive care to their customers starting this year. free checkups so we could catch preventable diseases. on the front end. [applause] starting this year. there'll be no more lifetime or restricted annual limits on the amount of care you can receive from your insurance company. there is a lot fine print in their back wind up costing people thousands of dollars because they hit a limit. if you are young adults, which many of you are, you will be able to stay on your parents' policy until you are 26 years old.

[cheers] and there will be a new independent appeals process for anyone who feels they were unfairly denied a claim. you will have recourse if you are being taken advantage of. [applause] so --so that is the first thing that would change and it would change fast. insurance companies will be held accountable to the american people. that is number one. two number, the second thing that would change about the current system. for the first time in their lives, uninsured individuals and small business owners will have the same kind of choice of

private health insurance that members of congress get for themselves. [applause] beeif it is good enough for congress, it should be good enough for the people paying congress' salary. that is you. the idea is simple. it is one -- i am sorry. go ahead. let me explain how this would work. it is an idea some republicans have embraced in the past. if you are part of a big group,

if you did not work for a big company, you can be part of a pool which gives you bargaining power over insurance companies. it is straight forward. suddenly, disliked federal employees, you ask an individual or small business owner could be part of this pool which could give you more negotiating power with the insurance companies for a better deal and at lower rates. right? now -- [applause] if you still cannot afford the insurance that is offered, what we will do is give you a tax credit to do so. these tax credits and up to the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in history. [applause]

that's --because --the wealthiest among us can afford to buy the best insurance there is. the least well off are recovered through medicaid. it is the middle class that gets squeezed. that is who we need to help with these tax credits. that is what we intend to do. now, to be honest, let's be clear. this will cost some money. it is going to cost about $100 billion per year. most of this comes from the nearly $2.5 trillion that america already spends on health care. right now, a lot of the money is being spent babbitt or wasted. with this plan, will make sure the dollars we spend go to

making insurance more affordable and more secure. we will eliminate wasteful taxpayer subsidies that currently go to insurance and pharmaceutical companies. they are getting billions of dollars a year from tax paris when they are making a big profit. i would rather see that money goes to people who need it. [applause] we will set a new fee on insurance companies that stand to gain as millions of americans buy insurance. they all have millions more customers. they can pay some of the freight. we will make sure of the wealthiest pay their fair share, just like the rest of oz. -- is like the rest of us. our proposal is paid for. all the new money goes back to

small business owners and individuals in the middle class car right now are having trouble getting insurance. it would lower prescription drug prices for seniors. it would help train new doctors and nurses to provide care for american families and physicians assistants and a therapist. i know there are great programs arcadia here at. [cheers] -- i was hearing about the program to had in the health- care field. you know what? we will need more health care professionals of the sorts that are being trained here. we want to help you get that training. that is in this bill. [applause] now -- i have mentioned insurance reform and making sure the people who don't have health

insurance are able to get it. finally, my proposal would bring down the cost of health care for millions. families, businesses, and the federal government. [applause] you keep on hearing from critics and some of the republicans saying we want to do more about costs. we will have inc. almost every single serious idea from across the political spectrum about how to contain the rising cost of health care. we have ideas including programs like medicare. we do this while protecting benefits. we extend the financial stability of the program by nearly a decade our cost-cutting measures mirror many proposals which produce most people's premiums and brings down our

deficit by up to $1 trillion because we are spending our health care dollars more wisely. those are my numbers. [applause] -- those are not my numbers. they are the savings determine by the congressional budget office, the independent referee of congress for what things cost. that is our proposal. insurance reform, making sure you can have choices in the marketplace for health insurance and making it affordable for people. and reducing costs. [applause] now -- i think -- how many people would like a proposal

that holds insurance companies more accountable? [cheers] how many people would like to give americans the same insurance choices that members of congress get? [cheers] and how many would like a proposal to bring down costs for everyone? [cheers] that is our proposal and is paid for and is a proposal whose time has come. [applause] the the united states congress owes the american people and upper down vote on health care. -- an up or down vote on health care.

[cheers] it is time to make a decision. the time for talk is over. we need to see where people stand. we need all of you to help us win that vote. i need you to knock on doors, talk to your neighbors, pickup the phone. when you hear an argument, somebody says this or that, you say, hold on a second. and we meet you to make your voice is heard all the way in washington, d.c. they -- they need -- they need to hear your voice is because right now the washington echo

chamber is in full throttle. it is as definite as it has ever been. as we come to the final vote, the echo chamber says, think about the politics. instead of thinking about doing the right thing. that is what mcconnell said this weekend. his main argument was, the schoothis will be bad for democ. i would not take that advice. but setting aside that, that is not the issue here. the issue here is not the politics of it. but that is what members of congress are hearing right now on the table shows and the gossip' columns in washington. it is telling congress comprehensive reform has felt

before. remember what happened to clinton. yes, it's hard. it's hard. health care is complicated. health care ills a hard issue. it is easily misrepresented and miss understood. it's hard for some members of congress -- and misunderstood. there's no doubt. what else is hard is what leslie and her family is going through. that is hard. [applause] possibility that a woman might lose her house because she might lose her health insurance, that is hard. [applause] laura in green bay having to worry about her cancer and her death at the same time, trying to explain that your kids. that is hard.

what is hard is what millions of families of small businesses are going through because we allow the insurance industry to run wild in this country. so let me remind everybody. those of us in public office were not sent to washington to do what is easy. we were not sent there because of a big fancy title. we were not sent there because of a big fancy office. we were not sense there so everyone can say how wonderful we are. we were sent there to do what is hard. we were sent there to take on the tough issues. we% there to solve the big challenges and that is what we are there. [cheers] -- that is why