he told us that you not develop that. i'm wondering what tactics you might use to respect your colleagues time on the bench? >> as a law clerk, i think i know what he is talking about. the discussion in conference is a very important parts are conference. he made a judgment, he knows what they will say. it is moving along. it is a difficult part of the job, they will move this along

in a profitable way. i will look to justice thomas for advise on how to do it. >> what are your opinions on the ninth and 10th amendments. >> i cannot answer a question like that. >> last year, you had 9000 requests for -- do you think that our methods of dispute resolution are the most effective? how could we adjust to account for the litigation issues? >> there are very serious

problems. it is a very expensive process. only the very wealthy or people with a lot of resources can look to them to resolve the disputes were people who have no resources and their being represented in a way that takes that into account. if you are a medium sized business with an important dispute, the last place you want to look is the federal judiciary. the judiciary knees to have a basic economic life of the nation. i think that reforms are seriously needed in the discovery process. you have a dispute over a particular question, you file for an e-mail documentation to be handed over. then you have to go through them to make sure they are not

privileged. it becomes the determinant factor in any case. we need very serious reforms and how litigation is conducted. discovery was a wonderful innovation at the time and day or moving away from the reforms. this is different than the way that was anticipated. we need to make this more accessible. >> do you have any reservations about hearing on your reservations in this country? >> this is a very important office. i feel very and privilege to occupy it. it was quite a week.

the hearings were supposed to start the next tuesday. when i get nervous, i don't get a lot of sleep. my wife told me that chief justice rehnquist would die. president bush asked me if i would accept the nomination for the chief justice. in a very short amount of time, a mentor who i respect it and it mired died -- admired died. i felt my own inadequacy one most nominated to replace justice o'connor. it is not quite nervous but i was aware of the significance of

the opportunity. i felt very privileged to have the opportunity and to serve a country that has been so good to me and my family. i think that anyone who is given that sort of opportunity appreciates the significance of it. we have the if two conference rooms and they have the pictures of the chief justice's. there isn't room for another one. the first 8 in one room, the second 8 in the other. you go in to look at them in a quiet evening. you see john marshall and all that he has done. one of them was a huge success,

the other is a failure. the chief justice during roosevelt's court packing, the way he handled that crisis was critical to maintaining the independence of the judicial branch. you wonder if he will beat john marshall. the answer is, you will certainly not be john marshall. you try to study them and figure out how they approached the top differently. on the consequences can be enormous. marshall established the judiciary as an independent branch of government in the framers vision. this protected our liberties and insured the supreme court would be able to do that. and dread scott almost ruined the court.

it took two generations before they recovered. there is a lot at stake. there is something that justice rehnquist taught me. this is an important responsibility on which some much rides. you have to do the best you can with the limited abilities you are given and then move on to the next case. i am comforted every day by the fact that is not my decision then the court's decision. i have 8 colleagues and i cannot do a thing until four of them agree with me. that spreads would be an almost unbearable responsibility. >> i was wondering if you thought the court was an insult institution given that most of the justice and kurds are

graduates from a handful of the most prestigious institutions in the u.s.? >> they would benefit from a broader representation. i know that justice rehnquist always trying to broaden the scope of schools that he tried to take first. i think it would be better. as far as the justices go, i don't know. i think that presidents should pick the people that they think are the most talented and accomplished and the best suited men or women. i don't think they should be concerned about where they went to law school. >> how do you feel about the top we have heard that perhaps in their opinion, if the federal courts have not done enough to look into certain allegations, american citizens should be subject to international court

jurisdictions. >> that is the kind of question i cannot answer. you will enjoy your life in the senate. >> i don't qualify or look like a student but i was a student right here in this very room. thank you for recognizing me. as chief justice of the supreme court, i want to thank you on behalf of the state judges we have in alabama for coming to alabama. i hope you truly appreciate that due to the generosity, you have this opportunity that i promise you that one of my trial judges would love to trade places with you to have this privilege. thank you for being here. as someone who was on the board

of directors for the conference of chief justices and being involved in the chief justice's association. the chief justices have an increasing concern about the amounts of money that are required to elect a judge is in the trial courts. this is a significant issue for the justices across the state. as one of the former justices of the supreme court, sandra day o'connor, a sense she stepped down, she has spent a significant amount of time on the issue on the increasing amounts of money in judicial elections which are possibly impacting the impartiality and the independence of the state courts. and do you share her concern? >> well, i do share her concern.

the question becomes what to do about it. there, the subject is more open to debate. these days, if you have elections, there will be the issue of what role money will play. it will be difficult and important. ththis doesn't implicate broader issues of funding of elections in general. there are broader public policy questions. i don't think it makes sense for me to share them. >> mr. chief justice, there is an excellent article in the most

recent journal from the former chief justice. it speaks of his frugality. i wondered if you could share some stories about the character. >> it was not my year but back then he had three clerks only. he liked to play tennis. even though there was a lot more work, one of the clerks would drive from the court to the tennis courts, it is a very short ride. it is about a half mile or something. one time the chief leaned over and they gave a dollar. i am giving a dollar for them to get gas, and think that you should do the same.

he was quite concerned about the gas money that was being spent. >> do enjoy what you are doing? >> every day. i was talking to the faculty earlier. i have given some talk about why that was the case. the thing that was great about the job is that you have a limited amount of things that you do. you have to do a lot of thinking about cases. you have the flexibility. if you are reading and you are not getting a lot, you can put it aside. if you are writing and the words are not coming, i will talk to my law clerks about these upcoming cases. they will focus on some of the administrative conversations.

he should not have a day where you don't enjoy something. i am privileged to have the opportunity. >> we have one announcement to make. the chief justice, if he will stay where we are, you can see him in person. it has been a wonderful afternoon. thank you for joining us. >> thank you all, appreciated. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> coming up next, house debate on the war in afghanistan. then a defense department briefing from iraq. gordon brown is asked about the war in afghanistan from prime minister's question. the health and human service secretary speaks before a health industry group. >> c-span, are content is available to become a radio, on line. send up for our alert e-mails at c-span.org. >> in the house, members debated a resolution that called for the removal of troops from

afghanistan. here is the debate, starting with the bill's sponsor. mr. speaker, in 2001 i joined the house in voting for the authorization for the use of military force. in the past 8 1/2 years it has become clear that the authorization for the ice of military force is being interpretted as carte blanche for sir couple -- interpreted as carte blanche for circumventing congress' role as a co-equal branch of government. my legislation invokes the war powers resolution of 1973 and if enacted would require the president to withdraw u.s. armed forces from afghanistan by december 31, 2010. the debate today will be the first opportunity we have had to revisit the 2001 authorization for the use of military force which the house supported following the worst terrorist attack in our country's history. regardless of your support or

opposition to the war in afghanistan, this is going to be the first opportunity to evaluate critically where the authorization for the use of military force has taken us in the last 8 1/2 years. this 2001 resolution allowed military action, quote, to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the united states, unquote. those of us who support withdraw from afghanistan may or may not agree on a timeline for troop withdrawal, but i think we agree that this debate is timely. the rest of the world is beginning to see the folly of trying to occupy afghanistan. the dutch government recently came to a halt over the commitment of more troops from their country. in britain, public outcry over the war is growing. a recent bbc poll indicated that 63% of the british public is demanding that their troops come home by christmas. opposition to the war in germany has risen to 69%.

russia has lost billions of dollars in the nine years it spent attempting to control afghanistan. i suppose nation building in afghanistan has come at the destruction of our own. the military escalation cements the path of the united states down the road of previous occupiers that earned afghanistan its nickname, as the graveyard of empires. one year ago last month the report by the carnegie endowment concluded, quote, the only meaningful way to halt the insurgency momentum is start withdrawing troops. the presence of foreign troops is the most important element driving the resurgents of the taliban, unquote. . so this debate today, mr. speaker, we will have time to reflect on troop casualties that are now reaching 1,000, to look at our responsibilities for the cost of the war which approaches $250 billion, our

responsibility for the civilian casualties and the human cost of the war, our responsibility for challenging the corruption that takes place in afghanistan, our responsibility for having a real understanding of the role of the pipeline in this war, our responsibility for debating the role of counterinsurgency strategies as opposed to counterterrorism, our responsibility for being able to make a case for the logistics of withdrawal. after 8 1/2 years it is time that we have this debate. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. berman: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in opposition to the resolution and i yield myself four minutes. mr. chairman, i think the gentleman from -- first of all,

i think i have to say that i've quite enjoyed working with the gentleman from ohio on this issue and issues we've dealt with since i became chairman. it is right for the house to have an open, honest debate on the merits of our ongoing military operations in afghanistan and outside, outside the context of a defense spending bill or a supplemental appropriations bill. this is -- this is a good thing to be doing. by vesting the war -- to declare war with the congress the united states -- it is incumbent on this body to debate as thoroughly as possible to committing u.s. forces to battlele. now, as a procedural matter, i take issue with the invocation of section 53 of the war powers resolution as the basis for this debate because that

section authorizes a privileged resolution, like the one before us today, to require the withdrawal of combat forces when congress has not authorized the use of military force. there really can't be any doubt that congress authorized u.s. military action in afghanistan. the authorization for the use of military force passed by congress in late september, 2001, explicitly empowers the president to use force against the terrorists responsible for the 9/11 attacks. president and those harbored them, and president obama is doing just that. at this particular moment we would demand a complete withdrawal of our troops from afghanistan by the end of the year without regard to the consequence of our withdrawal, without regard to the situation on the ground, including efforts to promote economic development, expand the rule of law and without any measurement of whether the whole strategy

now being implemented is indeed working i don't think is the responsible thing to do. our troops are fighting a complex nexus of terrorist organizations, al qaeda, the taliban, all of which threatens the stability of the afghan government, and they demonstrated their ability to strike our homeland. if we withdrawal from afghanistan before the government there is capable of providing a basic level of security for its own people, we face the prospect that the taliban once again will take the reigns of power in kabul. that will be a national security disaster. i'm keenly aware that even if we remain in afghanistan, and here i want to emphasize this, there's no guarantee we'll prevail in our fight -- in this fight. but if we don't try we are guaranteed to fail. president obama has taken a very deliberate are a tif approach. he's examined -- delib tif approach. he's -- deliberative approach.

he's examined and talked to relevant officers and allies. he has no issue unvetted as part of this review. he deserves an opportunity now to implement his strategy. he's given us the timeline for when he expects to see results and there will be a reassessment of our strategy in 18 months. general mcchrystal, the commander of the u.s. forces and international forces, indicated that we have made progress since the new strategy was announced on december 1. witnessing the first major joint nato afghanistan military operation in the city of marja, considered a strategic folcrum for ridding the taliban. they are ridding their afghan counterparts. they are making the afghan people their number one priority, which is the basis for this counterinsurgency

strategy. and to that end state department, usaid, they have been working hard to develop a concrete governance strategy. i was here during the frenzy debate during 9/11 when congress authorized the use of force against those responsible for the horrors of that day and those who chose to provide the perpetrators a safe haven, and i was here for the vote a year later -- i yield myself 30 additional seconds. and i was here for the vote a year later to authorize military force against iraq. please don't conflat the two. the fight in afghanistan is the fight against those who attacked us. i'm not endorsing an open-ended commitment. i'm not advocating we remain without assessing our progress, but i do believe the strategy of our president's deserves support and i urge opposition to the resolution. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman from ohio. the gentleman from ohio is recognized. mr. kucinich: inquiry to the chair. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. mr. kucinich: i was understanding that you were going to go from mr. berman to the republicans that may be speaking in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. does the gentleman reserve the balance of his time? mr. kucinich: i'll reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized. ms. ros-lehtinen: i rise in strong opposition to this resolution. as we are all aware, u.s. forces at this very moment are engaged in battle against heavily armed enemy forces in a strategically important region of afghanistan. our brave men and women are making steady progress against the deadly foe and are doing so at great risk to their lives. this offensive is part of a new strategy in afghanistan focused

on the immediate goals of disrupting, dismantling and defeating al qaeda, denying al qaeda a safe haven, and reversing the momentum of the taliban. this offensive is already producing dramatic success, including the capture of senior taliban leaders, the rounding of their forces and the stabilization of key areas. it should be supported, not undermined. we must not give taliban leaders and fighters a shield against u.s. forces that they would otherwise -- that they otherwise cannot stop. no enemy was ever vanquished, no victory was ever secured by running away. those who wish to destroy us would surely follow us, convinced that we had been beaten and eager to attack us wherever we go as they would be confident that we can in fact be beaten again. mr. speaker, let us dispel any myths or illusions about the

consequences of a forced withdrawal. as general petraeus has warned, and i quote, i was in kandahar, it was in kandahar that the 9/11 attacks were planned. it was in the training camps in eastern afghanistan where the initial preparation of the attackers was carried out before they went to hamburg and flight schools in the u.s. it is important to recall the seriousness of the mission and why it is that we are in afghanistan in the first place and why we are still there after years and years of hard work and sacrifice that have passed, end quote. one of the principled reasons we have been spared the repeat of those attacks is that u.s. forces quickly toppled the taliban regime that was protecting the terrorists and drove it and its al qaeda allies out of their safety zone and into the remote mountains. years of constant u.s. military pressure have forced them to

turn their attention from planning more attacks against our homeland to fighting for their own survival. to leave afghanistan now would pave the way for the re-establishment of a vast and secure base from which al qaeda and other deadly enemies could strike americans around the world. having withdrawal and abandoned our hard won positions, our allies and the people of afghanistan -- well, the u.s. credibility would be significantly and perhaps irrevokably damaged. this in turn could leave the u.s. alone and more vulnerable than ever to the threats of radical islamic extremists. our retreat would be seen around the world by friends and opponents alike as a surrender, as a sign that america no longer has the will to defend herself. we might attempt to fool ourselves into believing it was merely a temporary setback, that we have suffered no

long-term blow, but no one else would be fooled. it would be proof to every group that wishes to attack and destroy us that we can be fought and we can be beaten, that eventually america will just give up regardless of the consequences. we should support our troops. by supporting their efforts to disrupt and dismantle and defeat al qaeda and the taliban. as many of you know, my daughter-in-law, lindsey, served in iraq and afghanistan. i also have two committee staffers, one in the army reserves and one in the marine reserves who are on their way now to afghanistan. this is not their first time in battle. both of these gentlemen have served bravely in iraq, but the prospect of entering combat never becomes routine. they, like my stepson, douglas, who served as a marine fighter pilot in iraq, have recounted to me how the debates in congress,