documentary's, their sophistication of the technical component of their documentary and narration rose to the challenge. that is why our grand prize winner over ticket from a high school. they accused skype technology for all of their interviews. they were able to connect with the co-founder of greenpeace. we noticed the technology the students are using is fascinating when it is coming to putting documentary together in teaching themselves above the issues they are facing. host: how great is it to occur of these videos? speak to us about how we can watch them. guest: you can go to a studentcam.org. you will see we have a list of all 75 winners.

we will also be airing of the winners and having a short interview of the top 27 starting april 1 through april 27. you can watch them on studentcam.org or tune into c- span. our website, to watch all the top ent

thank you. appreciate everyone coming back quickly from the break and getting back into the room. we definitely want to accommodate the secretary's expect, which is quite busy today. madam secretary, we're delighted to have invited you, delighted you accepted our invitation to come and speak to our conference today. you join a long line of your predecessors when i began in this organization donna shalala, secretary shalala one of the first secretaries, she came to our podium many times and participated in this conference.

followed by her successors. so we're delighted to welcome you as well. and i think on behalf of the working men and women in our community, a wonderful representation here this morning to hear your remarks. i think our colleagues would want me to make just a couple of points as you take the podium. one, we we entered 2009 with a major commitment to do something that was unexpected by various communities in the stakeholder arena, which is to commit to massive change in the way we do business. so we are on the page and fully committed to insurance reforms, not half steps, but massive change. administrative simplification, we are committed to mandatory requirements as part of reform, or through executive order. we are committed to that. we've talked with the administration about that. we've talked to doctors in hospitals about that. we are not pursuing voluntary

efforts. finally, we're committed to cost containment. we're not committed to incremental proposals. we have not proposed incremental proposal. we have proposed dramatic kpree hence everybody solutioning to get to the issue of affordable and predictability projection into the health care system. we understand that begins also with us. so we are fully committed to cost containment. not fingerpointing to other sectors, but also to say, we are prepared to take our place. in the last few days the discussion has been focused on insurance premiums, and i think everyone here would want you to know, and want the nation to know that our members are very concerned about insurance premiums and the trajectory. particularly in the individual market which serves 18 million people, and that's where the focus has been. not in the large group employer market and the individual market. and what we've seen is that our

members are alarmed about the exploding costs driving that and the bad economy that's really forcing families to drop health care coverage because they can't afford it. so as we come here today, we are pleased -- as the secretary and i were walking to the back holding area, i made the observation last week the secretary very thoughtfully requested that our members commit to this principle of transparency with respect to costs, rates, what's going on, and the secretary will be hearing from our members who joined her at that meeting at the white house last week very soon, but what she will hear is a strong commitment, as i think you heard at the white house, from our members to the concept of transparency. we believe in that concept. we also hope that that concept will be built upon, and that other stakeholders will be equally challenged to be transparent.

because it's the only way we're going to get at the rising cost of health care. and just one data point as i turn the podium over to the second. we are very disturbed about what's happening with costs, underlying costs. the department of health and human services data has indicate add sobering fact, that last year for the -- the -- was the largest increase in the rate, or the proportion of our economy being devoted to health care. the largest increase since the department has been tracking these data for 50 years. and the department also said that while the cost of medical care is going up, the share of costs has gone down for health plan administrative costs for the sixth straight year. we're working very hard. we do not have all the problems solved, but you have our commitment, madam secretary, to continue this work with physicians and hospitals, to free them up to practice medicine. we're committed to insurance

reforms. we accept the challenge that we must be committed to insurance reforms and that's why our members propose them, and we're committed to comprehensive cost containment. this morning the secretary takes the podium for the first itime t our conference and indeed has taken on the department stewardship with a long distinguished years of service, both as insurance commissioner in the state of kansas, a leader in the naic, which is a credit to the secretary's not only intellectual acumen, but also her skills at organizing individuals and she's been selected by her colleagues in that context for a very important leadership role. the secretary then went to be governor of kansas, was tapped by president obama to take on this important leadership role and the men and women in this room and in our community are delighted to welcome you here today to speak with us.

please join me in welcoming secretary sebelius. >> well, thank you very much, karen. karen and i have known each other for a number of years. worked together on a variety of issues, and she was kind enough to send me the address code memo today. gray suit. blue shirt. so i appreciate those nice touches. i'm sorry i could not make it here yesterday, and i'm apologizing for kind of dropping in and out today. i wanted a chance to come by. i'm due to go right from here to the, an event at the white house where president preval from haiti will be in town and a lot of the work done in response to

the tragic earthquake whereby hhs employees and part ever the group being honored and focused on in a little bit. so i apologize for coming in and out. you know, it was a year ago this week that the president held his first meeting on how to fix the health care system, the health insurance system, and at that meeting there were leaders there. some of you in the room were there, representing the doctors, hospitals, consumers, business groups, labor groups, key members of congress and insurance companies, and there was a general agreement that we have a real problem, that the system is failing americaning and failing small business owners. at that time the snapshot was that premium was rising about three times faster than wages. and the number of americans getting health care coverage from their employers had gone

down eight years in a row. tens of millions of americans were trapped in the individual market that karen has just described, and frankly, in the small group market where they often have sky-high prices and very, very limited choices. and tens of millions more have no insurance coverage at all. most of the rest of us were watching that scenario develop and grow, and felt we were just a pink slip away from that happening to us, or our families. a year later, the cracks in the health insurance system have opened even wider, and over the past few weeks i have to tell you, since the beginning of this year, we have been inundated with letters from consumers across this country who are expressing confusion and frustration and anger about the lack of their own control over their individual health care situation.

i had a woman in california who had a 30% increase in her premium who wrote to me saying, i'm a self-employed hard-working person, and i have no good options left to me for health insurance coverage. a small business owner from florida, whose premium had just gone up in 2010. 23%. he said, i'm near the breaking point with guaranteed annual increases at 10 to 15 times inflation, eventually we'll be forced to go out of business or just cancel our insurance coverage altogether. either way, it's a lousy set of options. and we have heard those stories about premium hikes really from across the country, from new mexico, from texas. from pennsylvania and georgia, and many of the people writing to me had some preexisting condition is they were worried about. themselves or their children. trying to find any other plan. some had just given up any

option having insurance coverage, and were taking a huge risk with their financial future and their personal financial situation. some were waiting until medicare could kick in a year or two or three from now. many are very unhappy. and -- but i'm happy that they feel powerless to confront their insurance company, because they're afraid of being dropped or even worse. so i've met with a number of you in this room over the course of the last year. we've had conversations. what you've shared with me is you're seeing more young, healthy americaning drop out of the market and in this economy, that situation has accelerated. forcing the plans to have an even worse risk pool, and, therefore, translated into higher rates in this marketplace. but i have to tell you, we've got to figure out a new

strategy. we've got to put ourselves in the shoes of the remaining customers just for a few minutes. the american medical association has recently come out way study talking about the metropolitan insurance market concentration, and essentially saying that throughout metropolitan areas, the market is highly concentrated. about 99% of all metropolitan markets of in a situation where there's very little competition and very little choice. that's up from 94% just a year ago. so the concentration has gotten even more serious. so only in a handful of cities across this country through individuals or small business owners found that there's any choice or cost competition. and when americans have no choices, they feel incredibly

frustrated. when their premiums go up faster than the cost of health care. faster than the trends we're seeing in the marketplace. the folks in illinois who contacted me after opening their newspaper to see that the profits for the major insurance r increases. i wanted to come today, because i think our conversation about how to fix the health insurance system has to start with asking, how can we put those families and business owners back in

charge of their own health care decisions? back in some kind of control over the situation? and i want to make it clear in response to some comments that karen raised earlier, i am certainly not here to vilify hard-working employees of insurance companies across the country, or blame insurance companies for all the problems in our health care system, but i do have i do have two requests make of you going forward. i want to repeat the request i made last week to the five coes who met with me about transparency. americans at the very least deserve to know what's going on and deserve to understand the connection between profits and premiums and what's happening in the market and what's happening with cost trends. they need transparency to make this connection. i'm asking not only those five,

but would make the same request of all of you. to make public the proposals when they are filed and the trends and justifications behind those promotionals. there a couple of states requiring the information and there will be a discussion about the template. i think that's a good idea. we don't want it redid you not ant, but shiping a light on what is happening and the cost trends and what your book of business looks like and what is driving the market place would be enormously helpful. i would also like to ask to you think about doing what they talked about doing last march. to work with us and 11 to american who is say the system is not working and help us pass comprehensive health reform. i know that a number of you think we should take it slowly or break it apart or start over

again bit by bit. but how many years in a row can we have the same discussion over and over again? how many years can we look at a market place which frankly is getting more segmented and difficult. how much pressure can be put on the remaining customers before the business model collapses on its own weight? the trend line for health insurance systems is as unsustainable as the trend line is for american consumers. yet over the last year we have seen tens of millions of dollars by the insurance industry spent on ads and lobbyists to kill health reform. we started with the conversation a year ago saying this was an important step. it might be understandable. if we were proposing radically

different than you put forward yourself. the premises that we should eliminate the private insurance market and go to a single pair system like europe or canada and as you know there members of congress who favor that structure. the president believes we should build on the current system. the plan put forward should start with solidifying the employer-based system which is satisfactory to a lot of americans and under the plan, people can keep the insurance they have and the doctors they have if it suits themselves and their fachllys. the plan keeps small business owners who can't afford insurance coverage and have no choices in the market place in the pool by creating a new competitive privately run market place by offering the largest middle class tax cut for america

in history to make sure that folks who are sitting on the sidelines not because they want to be, but because they can't afford the cost of coverage in bringing them into a system and creating a larger pool and the risk sharing that insurance is all about. strengthening the health care safety net by making sure for the first time in history all americans are able to secure coverage. it would be the most far-reaching health care cost cutting bill that congress has passed. i know there is a lot of discussion about it doesn't go far enough or some of the strategies won't work because people will eliminate them as we get closer. or something will happen along the way. frankly there has never been a proposal put forward that is this comprehensive and includes this many ideas. in fact a recent "wall street journal" analysis of the comprehensive proposal found

that the president's plan incorporates every major cost cutting idea proposed over the last year except one. the public option. when you say that companies are not responsible for cost increases in health care, remember that the very cost containment strategies that you said were essential to any meaningful reform are already part of this comprehensive proposal. there is a choice on the table. we can continue the opposition to reform and if you do and reform fails, i can give you a pretty good prediction of what happens next. by next march when you are meeting again, premiums will take even a bigger bite out of americans's wages. your market will shrink further and more americans will lose their employer-sponsored insurance and we will have a situation where the market is

unsustainable. small businesses will be looking at a situation where they are forced to cancel coverage and won't be able to hire new employers and enlist new employees to go down the corner to someone who has a better health care deal for themselves and their families. parents and children with preexisting conditions will be shutout of the insurance market or terrified about what happens if they leave their current job. americans will continue to dread opening the next premium statement or the next bill. that strategy may work in the short run. you read about recent goldman sacks investor call where there was advice about continuing to make money even if the customer pool drinkings because the rate increases will more than cover

the lost customers. that works only for a while. that kind of short-term strategy won't work in the long run. it won't work for the american people and it certainly won't work for the health care system. there is another choice. i am hopeful that you will take the assets that you have and the influence and the bully pulpit and use it to call for comprehensive reform to pass and look at giving americans some relief with market strategies from those facing the skyrocketing premiums instead of attacking the parts of the proposal that you don't like, come to the table with strengthening the parts that are there. you talked about from the beginning that are central to reform much the second choice may give up short-term profits,

but we also working together could create a sustainable health insurance market where americans will still be able to buy coverage. it's better for the american people and better for the insurance industry and the health care system. americans put a high value on health insurance and it's probably one of the most personal discussions that people will ever have in terms of how they are going to spend their money and how they are going to pay their bills. i just got a letter the other day from a man who has an incurable disease. he said my biggest fear is not my illness. it's that i won't be able to afford my health insurance and i will be a burden to my family and put my wife through more incredible stress and hardship. that conversation is going on across this country.

americans are willing to pay a fair price. president obama believes that we should help those working families afford health coverage. as long as it gives real security when someone gets sick. i think the much better long-term business model is to look at a way where we have a comprehensive reform system. putting a high quality price that americans are satisfied with in a stable market instead of taxing them with higher and higher premiums until they give in and cancel their coverage or a drop by their employer or have to decide between health care or hiring more folks. offering affordable insurance to all americans instead of denying coverage to those with preexisting condition who is need the product the most. it's not too late. you work on the issue for insurance companies to come to

the table and work with us around a notion that we have a broken system. work with us to pass reform that prevents americans from seeing their coverage dropped when they are sick and need it most. it will allow people to purchase coverage and help small businesses cover employees and relieve the pressure that skyrocketing premiums are currently putting on way too many families. if you do, i'm confident that your customers will be happier and our economy will be stronger and our nation will be more prosperous. i appreciate the opportunity to visit with you today. i look forward to these conversations into the future and look forward to working with you for a more stable, secure health insurance system that benefits all americans. thanks very much.

>> we very much appreciate kathleen sebelius's remarks and appreciate the challenge to our community to respond on the issue of transparency. we will do that in the affirmative and we have begun discussions as the secretary said with the national association of insurance commissioners. we will be roping everyone in this room into that process because it will be a fast track process. we also will accept the secretary's challenge to come back to her within a very short period of time with specifics that can be added to the legislation to bring costs under control. that goes directly to the concerns we have identified and we will further ex-playicate our

concerns about what can be done with respect to the problems we have identified. i want to let everybody know we will follow the practice of sharing information, making sure we are doing absolutely everything to make sure where we have diagnosed a problem, we will be offering solutions. that's what everybody has worked very hard on over the last three years in our process to make sure that we were leading change, not reacting to it. we will continue that process and you will all hear from us and hear from us very, very directly on the next step with the national association of insurance commissioners which will go quickly and be effective. with that i will turn the podium over and move to the center for disease control. now to hear about the important activity that we have been partnering with in many communities and i want to -- beth, whom am i turning the program over to in terms of

introductions? we are? i'm the last to know generally what's going on. as you can see, we are taking a short

the speaker pro tempore: the chair would ask all members to take their conversations from the floor. the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield myself

such time as i may consume. 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 understanding that you were going to go from berman to the republicans that may be speaking in opposition. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves th%a&ag':: i yield my self -- i yield myself as much time as i may consume. we are all aware that u.s. forces are engaged in battle against heavily-armed enemy forces in a strategic, important region of afghanistan. the brave men and women are making steady progress against a deadly enemy, and they are doing this at great risk to their lives. this is part of a strategy focused on dismantling al qaeda,

to deny them a safe haven and reverse the momentum of the taliban. ve 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, to mandate a withdrawal from iraq,

demoralizes u.s. troops. the request of my staffers to me as they embark on their mission to afghanistan is to provide them with all of the tools and all of the support that they need to defeat the enemy and to win. they ask that we strengthen our commitment, our resolve to the mission in afghanistan and pakistan. our enemies are redoubling their efforts. we must also. in june of last year, osama bin laden noted that u.s. efforts had been, and i quote, transferred to afghanistan and pakistan. thus, jihad must be directed at that region, end quote. bin laden later said in september, and i quote, not much longer and the war in afghanistan will be over. afterwards, not even a trace of the americans will be found there. much rather they will retreat far away behind the atlantic. then, only we and you will be left.

end quote. we must do everything possible to deny by laden and al qaeda such a victory. -- bin laden and al qaeda such a victory. for us to succeed in afghanistan we need america's support, but the afghan people will not be giving that support if they believe that we will abandon them. as admiral michael mullen, the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said, quote, when i'm in afghanistan i get the same questioned asked as when i'm in pakistan which is, are you going to leave us again, because they remember very well that we have in the past. and so there's a trust issue here. there's uncertainty through afghanistan's eyes as to whether or not we will stay, end quote. in cooperating with us, in trusting us, they know they are risking their lives and those of their families. our troops are listening as well. this debate today reminds me of

the many times that i have come down to the floor to speak against the force withdrawal in iraq and the need to support our mission there. mr. speaker, it is an illusion to believe that we can protect ourselves from our enemies by picking and choosing easy battles and turning away from those that require patience and sacrifice. this congress cannot, must not turn away from its responsibility to defend our country and our citizens simply because the task seems too difficult. the men and women in uniform who willingly risk their lives to defend our country do not believe that. mr. speaker, as with all of my fellow members and citizens, i hope for a world one day without war. but in the world we live in, some wars are forced upon us and we have no choice but to fight and to win them if we are to survive.

i urge my colleagues to resoundly defeat this resolution, and i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield three minutes to the gentleman from new york, mr. nadler. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. nadler: thank you, i rise in support of the resolution. i am not convinced that the united states and its allies can end the 35-year civil war in afghanistan. nor is it our responsibility. we should not use our troops to prop up a corrupt government. it's simply not good to sacrifice more lives and more money on this war. we must rethink our policy. if we do not we are doomed to failure and to further loss of american lives. in late 2001, we undertook a justified military action in afghanistan in response to the attacks of 9/11. and with moral clarity and singular focused, we destroyed the al qaeda camps, drove the taliban from power and pursued the perpetrators of mass terrorism. i supported that action.

today, however, our presence in afghanistan has become counterproductive. we are bogged down the longstanding war of feuding afghanistan of different tribes, classes and regions whose goals have little to do with our own. moreover, our very presence in afghanistan is fueled at the rising insurgency and embolden those who impose intervention or occupation of any kind who see us as foreign invaders. in seeking security and stability in afghanistan, we have supported corrupt leaders with the interest of ordinary afghans. by backing the afghan government, we have further distanced ourselves from the afghan people and empowered the insurgency. if our mission in afghanistan to indeed prevent the safe harbor of terrorists, that mission is largely accomplished. since we are told there are now fewer than 100 al qaeda in afghanistan. .

this does not mean we should stop pursuing terrorists. on the contrary. we must continue the multipronged effort to disrupt, states. we must continue to track and block terrorist financing across the globe, increase intelligence activities focused on terrorists, increase diplomacy to rally our allies to the cause of terrorism, and if necessary use our armed forces to attack terrorist targets wherever they may be. a function quite distinct from using the military to secure a nation so that it can be rebuilt. rebuilding afghanistan is beyond both our capability and beyond our mandate to prevent terrorist from attacking the united states. i believe assuring the timetable for withdrawing our troops is the only way to prevent further loss of life and refocus our efforts more directly at the terrorist themselves. i do have one reservation that the resolution before us seems to leave no room for military role in afghanistan under any circumstances. i believe we must reserve the

right to use our armed forces to attack terrorist targets wherever they may be and that would include terrorist training camps in afghanistan if they were re-established there. but those camps are not there now and our troops should not be there, either. mr. kucinich's resolution points us in the right direction. a direction far better than the direction in which we are now headed. accordingly i urge approval of the resolution. i thank you. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i'm going to recognize the gentleman from north carolina. mr. jones. for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. jones: mr. speaker, i want to thank the gentleman from ohio for presenting this

resolution and secondly for fighting for so long to get us to have this debate. i want to say to mr. berman, thank you for agreeing to let this be debated. i want to start by saying that peggy noon has called for this debate, a necessary war. i want to read this. so far most invade over afghanistan has taken place among journalists and foreign policy professionals. all of them have been honest in their opinions about the war in afghanistan. but when you really look at the facts, nobody elected these people to debate the war. washington has to get serious and the american people have a right to know the facts and options. so thank you both for allowing this debate to take place today. but i join my friends in saying that it's time to bring an end to this war. i have camp lejeune marine base in my district, cherry point,

brave men and women, god bless them all. i want to start my comments and would like to share this with you. marine times, march 1, 2010. left to die. they call for help. army leadership refuse and abandon them on the battlefield. four died. handcuffed to do their job for this country. that's awfully sad to me. then i would like to read also marine times, caution, kill my son. marine family blasts suicidal tactics in afghanistan. i would like to read the words from a father whose son died for this country. i would like to read the words of this man because he served in the marine corps, a sergeant himself. his frustration about how his son died because he was not helped led him to write to admiral mullen and also senator collins. this is his response back

through letters admiral mullen and his response back to susan collins. sergeant bernard said, the letter is smoke and mirrors. and overlooked his consistent concern counterinsurgency strategy won't work as long as afghanistan is filled with warring tribes and no empathy for the united states and its way of life. he further stated in his letter to senator collins, i have to senator collins, i have already spoken to your office, he said, did not let him say this. these are not my words. this is what he said to the admiral. his son died for this country, and i repeat that. do not let him say this. there is no indication that afghanistan has changed anywhere. the mission should be very simple, to kill the enemy. i just gave you a couple of examples of where we are not really fighting the war in

afghanistan. why in the world with those marines have been killed, when the army said, we cannot give you cover. the policy is we cannot kill civilians. but i have never been there, he has been there and he knows that this is ugly and mean. we say to the soldiers, we will be handcuff a new, and we will do what we can to protect those in afghanistan. you may have to give your life without firing a gun. that is not what we should do it in afghanistan. there is a book about the $3 trillion war. this is written by the economist, joe stiglitz. to take care of the wounded in iraq, there is a minimal cost

of $2 trillion. three years ago, congress and walter jones, myself, went to walter reed hospital to visit the wounded. mbers of congress in both parties do. we go into a room where a young man, 19, had been shot in the neck sitting in a wheelchair, will never walk again. and as gene and i speak to him and tell him we thank him so much for his service, his mom comes in and she looks at us like a deer in headlights scared. she should be scared. she doesn't know what the future is for her son. and then she said to gene taylor and myself, after we introduce ourselves, can you guarantee me that this government will take care of my son 40 years from now? he's 19 years old. one of us said to her, this country should take care of your son 40 years from now. but you know what i would tell her today? i'm not sure we can take care of your son. we need to understand, we can't police the world anymore. it's time that we protect

ourselves from the enemy, the terrorists, but going around the world and trying to police the world doesn't work anymore. so i want to thank the gentleman for giving me this time and i join you in this resolution and i hope that these debates will continue and continue so we will meet our constitutional responsibility. and we'll be able to say one day to that 19-year-old soldier or marine, we will take care of you 40 years from now. because right now we cannot do it. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from florida. the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. at this time i would like to yield five minutes to the gentleman from texas, judge poe, an esteemed member of our house foreign affairs committee, as well as the judiciary committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. poe: thank you, mr.

speaker. this is about our troops. this is about americans who have been willing to protect the rest of us when duty calls and in time of war. army specialist juriet grimmle was one of those noble americans. he was a patriot and joined the united states army right out of high school. he had completed basic training before he graduated from high school, his junior year, at a high school in texas. in 2008 he married his high school sweetheart in a small ceremony before the justice of the peace. she joined him in alaska where he was deployed by the army to begin their young married lives together. he was a patrol supply specialists assigned to the 428th brigade special troops battalion, fourth brigade combat team, 25th division infantry division battalion. june jared was killed killed at the age of 20 in afghanistan. this is his photograph. he is on this board.

the board with 27 other texans from my congressional district area. he is the latest to have been killed in iraq or afghanistan as a volunteer to go overseas and protect the rest of us in time of war. he believed in protecting our country. he believed in it so much he was willing to leave his wife and go half way around the world to fight an enemy on the enemy's own turf. and he believed it so much he was willing to give his life for the rest of us. so, we pass this resolution, what message do we send to jared's family or young bride? that his sacrifice just wasn't enough? that it was all for natt -- naught? we don't quit war because war is hard. war has always been hard. every good thing this country has ever achieved has been hard. we don't quit and run because it is difficult. we stay because we believe like jared that the fight against the enemy that has bent on our

destruction is worth it. that's the reason these other 27 from all races and both sexes fought in iraq and afghanistan. last december i had the privilege to go to afghanistan and meet americans like jared and these others who are risking their lives for us here at home. they told me that they miss their families. they miss their kids. but also they believe the work they are doing is worth it and they are eager to finish the job. and get back home. they continue to fight and fight hard and they want success. and we must remember, mr. speaker, they are all volunteers. america's finest. general mcchrystal's new strategy is effective and already leading to key victories and it makes no sense to all of a sudden pick up and leave when we are the ones winning this war. and the enemy is receiving crushing blow after crushing blow. we cannot pull the rug out from underneath our troops. of course al qaeda anti-taliban

would say i told you so. the americans, they just don't have the stomach for war. they will once again, these enemies of the world, creep back into the seats of power and darkness and would turn their countries back 1,000 years. women would once again not be allowed to go to school. political dissidents would be murdered. and afghanistan would once again become a safe haven for terrorists to plot and plan next attacks against people they don't like throughout the world. including americans. and all americans would be in danger. war is hard. the cut and run crowd do not understand if we retreat unilaterally and quit this war, the war will not be over because our enemies will continue the war against us whether we continue against them or not. and our troops, they would return home with one question -- why? why would you bring us home with victory so close? why did we fight so hard, make

so many sacrifices only to have those that believe in peace at any price say it's time to quit? now is not the time to retreat. this enemy is real. it must be defeated. this is not the -- about the politics of fear with some hypothetical enemy but assessing reality and supporting these men and women and others that are over there and protecting our home from terrorists. they want nothing more than to destroy us wherever they find us in the world. past successes don't guarantee future success. victory is close but we have not attained it yet. abandonment and retreat, those are not strategies. we stay because it's in our interest to stay and secure a victory against the enemies of the world. general petraeus said, we got to show that we are in this. that we are going to provide sustained substantial commitment. make no mistake about it, mr. speaker, the troops and their families are watching this debate today to see what we

shall do here in congress. they are looking for who will support them and who will not. we must defeat this resolution and the taliban and the al qaeda and support our military. last saturday, march 6, was the anniversary, the 174th anniversary of a battle at the alamo where those people walked across that line rather than give in to the enemy and they -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from texas. mr. poe: i thank the lady. they were led by a 27-year-old individual from south carolina by way of alabama. he said at the alamo, i shall never surrender or retreat. and they did not surrender or retreat because war was hard then. and it cost them all their lives. but victory was attained later. and freedom was obtained. war is hard. it is always hard. and we shall not give in. we shall not you surrender or retreat. it is in our interest and the interest of america to defeat the enemy and let them have no doubt in their mind we will be

victorious. that's just the way it is. i yield back. . the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio. mr. kucinich: i yield four minutes to mr. filner from california. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. felipe calderon yes, mr. poe, war is hard. i -- mr. filner: yes, mr. poe, war is hard. talk to nelson mandela. peace is harder. peace is really hard. victory is close, i haired mr. poe's words. what message are we sending to our troops? the alamo is a metaphor for this? come on, mr. poe. and mr. poe started out, this is about our troops. that's exactly right. this is about our troops. thank you, mr. kucinich, for allowing us to have a debate.

here we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars and we have had no real debate. so thank you for bringing this and allowing us to do this. and we need a debate in a democracy so everyone understands the costs, the cost of going to war and the cost of not going to war, the material cost, the human cost. this is about the troops, i agree with mr. poe. you know, we record, and i have been to iraq and afghanistan. i have met these incredible young men and women who are doing this battle, as mr. poe suggested. they are incredible. it's the policymakers i am worried about. we report 1,000 almost in afghanistan and we report around 40,000 casualties. let me tell you, i am chairman of the veterans committee in this congress. we have had almost a million

people from these wars show up at the v.a. for casualties received during the war. service-related injuries. hundreds and hundreds of thousands. this is not just a mathematical error by the department of defense. this is deliberate attempt to keep the cost of war from our people. we got hundreds of thousands of people with posttraumatic stress disorder. hundreds of thousands with traumatic brain injury. all of which were undiagnosed when they left the battle front. they don't want to know about these injuries. they don't want to tell it the american people about these injuries. -- to tell the american people about these injuries. this kind of war produces those injuries. i didn't hear that from mr. poe. what do we tell the mom? we tell the mom we shouldn't be sending her child there because of the nature of the war. there is no victory is close. i'd like someone define me what that victory is.

we have, as i said, almost a million people from these wars already come to the v.a. the sue sides among active duty troops in iraq and afghanistan are higher than the rate in vietnam which was the highest we had as americans. these are our children. these are our children.

several hundred of these were their own family members. they were so wounded, and they were not taken care of. they were not taking care of by the people who were there. we bring them home, and we say, we will bring them home and we have suicide and homicide. this is tearing apart the people who are taking part in this. this is this influence that vietnam -- influence that vietnam had on the civilian society. the rate of homelessness among the people of iraq and afghanistan -- >> i yield him 32nd. >> the rate of homelessness is now higher, by the soldiers today. more people have died from suicide and in the original award. -- original worar.

it is time to bring them home. let's follow the motion on the floor. >> the gentleman is recognized for four minutes. mr. skelton: >> mr. speaker, have we forgotten what happened to america, on 9/11? have we forgotten who did it? have we fore goten those who protected and gave them a safe -- forgotten those who protected and gave them a safe haven? let me speak in favor of those men and women who wear the uniform today that are doing something about it. i'm so proud of them.

every american should be proud of them and their professionalism, their devotion professionalism, their devotion to duty, their patriotism. i rise in strong opposition to this resolution, that threatens to undermine the recent gains in afghanistan with the coalition partners. six months ago, i wrote a letter to the president conducting a full review of the strategy in afghanistan, asking for the president to have a counter- insurgency strategy in afghanistan, and i still maintain that this policy offers the best chance for success. afghanistan is the center of terrorism. we cannot forget the attacks that killed thousands of americans.

we must do everything to make certain that this will never happen again, for this to be used as a safe haven. with no strategy in afghanistan, we were reminded that the success of this mission requires that we work with the international allies in afghanistan and, we are. the president announced that the military commander in afghanistan, gen. mccrystal, the best that we have in this kind of conflict, would receive 30,000 soldiers to implement this counter-insurgency strategy. these additional combat troops, combined with those already in theater, would allow our troops and civilian experts to partner with their afghan counterparts, reverse the momentum of the taliban and create conditions

needed for governance and the economic development. even if a fraction of these in place, we've already seen success. they launched an operation to push the taliban out of marja, a town of about 50,000 people that became a new hub of activity for the taliban and insurgence after our marines drove them out nearby. we successfully pushed the taliban out there and ban to re-establish the government there, the second phase of the operation. the new afghan administrator has been put in place, and the process of building that government has begun. additionally, in recent days pakistani forces made the most significant taliban captures since the war began, detaining the second in command, the former taliban finance minister

and two governors of the afghan provinces. this mission will be costly. it will not be easy. the afghan people have to recommit themselves to rebuild a government that is mostly free of corruption, that is capable of providing justice and security and it's unclear if there will be future captures in afghanistan and pakistan as well. but this counterinsurgency strategy is the best we have to prevent afghanistan from becoming a safe haven for al qaeda and those who wish to kill americans. if we pull out now and abandon those afghans who only recently been freed from the taliban, i have no doubt that the taliban would be able to re-establish their hold in southern afghanistan, if not the entire country. after eight long years we have a strategy for success in afghanistan and we have a president who appointed the

right leaders in general mcchrystal and ambassador -- we have the right leaders in general mcchrystal and the ambassador who is willing to provide those leaders with the military and civilian experts that they need. success is not guaranteed in this mission. but passing this resolution guarantees failure in afghanistan and poses a risk, a serious risk that we will once again face the same situation that existed on september 11, 2001. i hope my colleagues will join me in opposition to this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman from florida. ms. ros-lehtinen: thank you, mr. speaker. i proudly yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mckeeon, the ranking member on the house armed services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker.

i rise with my chairman, mr. skelton, the gentleman from missouri, chairman of the armed services committee. i join with my colleagues from the foreign affairs committee, my colleagues from the armed services committee in opposition to this resolution. i'm very disappointed that the house democratic leadership would allow this resolution to come to the floor at this time for a vote. one only has to look at the headlines to know that our military forces are making progress in their offensive against the taliban insurgents in hellman province even as they face snipers, mines, improvised explosive devices. the kucinich resolution does nothing to advance the efforts of our military commanders and troops as they work side by side with their afghan and coalition partners. representative kucinich's

resolution, if enacted into law, would mandate the withdrawal of all u.s. troops from afghanistan by the end of 2010. why consider this resolution now? why second guess the commander in chief and his commander so soon after the announcement of a new strategy? four months ago the president reminded us where we are in afghanistan. it was the epicenter of where al qaeda planned and launched the 9/11 attacks against innocent americans. the president recommitted the united states to defeating al qaeda and the taliban and authorized the deployment of 30,000 additional u.s. forces. a portion of those forces have arrived and others are ready to deploy. like most republicans, i support the president's decision to surge in afghanistan. i believe that with additional forces, combined with giving general mcchrystal the time,

space and resources he needs we can win this conflict. we do not have a choice. we must defeat al qaeda and the taliban. this means taking all necessary steps to ensure al qaeda does not have a sant wear in -- sanctuary in afghanistan or pakistan. at the end of last year i hoped that the war debate in this country ended and we would give a chance for this strategy to work, we would give a chance for those soldiers, marines, airmen, sailors who have been sent there to carry out their mission, to be successful. i had hoped as a nation we could move toward a place of action. we wouldn't be in a position of second guessing before we've even had a chance to complete that mission. during the debate last year, no one said that it was going to be easy. the current operation in afghanistan has been successful, but has not come without challenges. however, as we stand here today, the afghan flag is

flying in marja city's center, the taliban flag has been removed. this lone flag sends a clear message to afghans, that the central government is committed to people there, that we're not going to cut and run, we're going to be with them and help successfully conclude this mission so that they can finally have peace. some have compared our efforts there to russians or others in the past and have talked about the defeat of other nations in this country. we're not there to take over this country. we're there to provide them freedom. that's why we're going to be successful. however, this debate is not being conducted in a vacuum. our troops are listening. our allies are listening. the taliban and al qaeda also are listening. and, finally, the afghan people are listening. this resolution sends the message, pay no attention to the flag over there.

america cannot be trusted to uphold its own values and commitments. i'll be attending a funeral saturday. each of us, i'm sure here, have had to perform that duty. it's not one i'm looking forward to. i've attended several in the past. but at this point for me to go to that funeral and tell them that their son, sergeant galleg, lost his life over an effort that we're going to cut and run from is something i cannot do. mr. speaker, i want to send a clear message to the afghan people and government that our coalition partners, our military men and women, this congress, believes in you. we support you, we honor your dedication and your sacrifice. i urge my colleagues to vote no on this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from ohio.

mr. kucinich: you know, i just want to say that when -- you can talk about how the democratic leadership is bringing this up at a time that there is obviously a surge about to begin , but why question the timeliness of the debate when in fact my friend in the minority, their party didn't bring this up for eight years of debate? eight years. i mean, i think it's timely. that's the whole point. i want to thank mr. poe of texas. i yield the gentleman five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. paul: i thank the gentleman for yielding and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extends my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. mr. paul: mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of this resolution. i thank the gentleman from ohio for bringing this issue up. it is late. this war started 10 years ago, it's time we talked about it. it was said earlier on, it is hard to quit a war, and we shouldn't be quitting.

but i tell you what the real problem is, it's too easy to start a war, it's too easy to get involved and that is our problem. the founders of this country tried very hard to prevent this kind of a dilemma that we're in now, getting involved in no-win wars and nobody knowing exactly who the enemy is. the war was started and justified by quoting and using the war powers resolution written in 1973. that was written after the fiasco of vietnam to try to prevent the problems of slipping into war. yet that resolution in itself was unconstitutional because it literally legalized war for 90 days. so, it was -- it did exactly the opposite, so here we are, the 90-day permission for war, at that time, now it is close to 10 years. i'm afraid that this is a little

bit too little, hopefully not too late for us to do something about this. are we going to do it for 10 more years? how long are we going to stay? and the enemy is said to be the taliban. well, the taliban, they certainly don't like us and we don't like them. and the more we kill, the mortal been a we get. but -- the more taliban we get. but i want to quote a line, what the purpose of giving the president the power, which was an illegal transfer of power to the president to pursue war at will. it says, the authorities to authorize the use of united states armed forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the united states, the taliban didn't launch an attack against the united states, the government of afghanistan didn't launch it. the best evidence is that of those 20 individuals, two of them might have passed through afghanistan. a lot of the planning was done in germany and spain and the

training was done here in the united states. oh, yes. the image is that they all conspired, a small group of people, with bin laden, they made this decision. right now the evidence is not there to prove that. but certainly bin laden was very sympathetic, loved it and wanted to take credit for it. and one of the reasons why he wanted to take credit was that he said it would do three things for what he wanted. first, it would enhance his recruitment efforts for al qaeda and his attack against western powers who have become overly involved in control of the middle east and have had a plan for 20 years to remake the middle east. he also said that if we -- the consequence of 9/11 will be that we are bog the american people down in a no-win war and demoralize the people. and they're working on it. there's still a lot of moral

support but there are a lot of people in this country now, the country is totally bankrupt and we're spending trillions of dollars on these useful wars, the people will become demoralized because history shows that all empires end because they expand too far and they bankrupt the country just as the soviet system came down and that's what bin laden was hoping for. he also said that the dollars spent will bankrupt this country. and we are bankrupt and yet there is no hesitation to quit spending one cent overseas. we built embassies in baghdad, we built embassy in kabul, billion-dollar embassies, fortresses and the all necessary. nobody is really concerned. if people were concerned about the disastrous affect of debt on this country, we would change our foreign policy and we would be safer for it. we are not safer because of this foreign policy. it's a policy of intervention

that has been going on for a long time and it will eventually end. this war is an illegal war. this war is an immoral war. this war is an immoral war. this war is an and the least that you can say is that, legitimately, there is no real purpose. the taliban did not attack us on 9/11. after we had gone into afghanistan, immediately, the concern was shifting to remaking the middle east. we were using this as a justification. this was nothing more than an excuse. many americans believe that saddam hussein had something to do with 9/11, and that the taliban had something to do with 9/11, and this is not true. we have to make this country not

be the policeman of the world. >> who is looking for time? >> can i ask the speaker, time is remaining on both sides? >> certainly, just one moment. the gentleman from ohio has 68 minutes. the gentleman from california has 36 minutes. and the gentleman from florida has 27 minutes. >> i would just -- i would like to yield mr. kennedy 3 minutes. >> the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy -- from rhode island is recognized for three minutes. >> thank you. mr. kucinich, i would like to say that as i am is speaking on

behalf of the same resolution i could not disagree more that the interests in protecting the national security by being in afghanistan. . my opposition is our strategy. my opposition is that somehow we're going to control the ground by maneuvering ourselves militarily to control the ground as if it's a nation state. i hear my colleagues talk about the flag of afghanistan. as if afghanistan is a country. in case anybody has bothered to look at it, it's a loose collection of 121 different sovereign tribes, none of them get along with each other, and it's a mountainous terrain of rock and gravel and the notion that our soldiers are over there

laying down their lives to secure ground, we ought to be asking the taliban and the terrorists, anybody who is organizing to strike in our country, i am for that. but i am not for organizing an organized military campaign where we're having to go in and take in these towns and subject our soldiers to unnecessary threats where we are putting our treasure and our lives and our men and women in uniform on the line unnecessarily. now someone, i can't believe i even heard this, said, oh, i can't go to a funeral and tell the parents of someone who just died that they lost their child in vein. somewhere i heard that during the vietnam war. so what is it we got to do? we got to doubledown on a bad

policy to protect the honor of those who have already died? i don't think so. there isn't a soldier in this country who's laid down their lives for our nation that isn't a hero. and no one in here disagrees with that. what is shameful is our policy that puts them in harm's way when they don't need to be. and make no mistake about it, this is not about national security, because if it's about national security it's about whether we put our treasure and our lives on the line in afghanistan or whether we put it in kuwait or whether we put it in the sudan or whether we put it in some other place in the world, all of which is where we need it. where we need it the most, that should be the question. because we don't have the resources to put it everywhere. so don't come and tell me our national security requires that we have an afghanistan because that's not the only place we

need it. the question is where our priorities should be and you take it from one place, you have to put it somewhere else. 30 seconds. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. mr. kennedy: finally. if anyone wants to know where citizens is. there's two press people in this gallery. we're talking about eric massa 24/7 on the tv, we're talking about war and peace, $3 billion, 1,000 lives and no press, no press, you want to know why the american public is fit? they're fit because they're not seeing their congress do the work that they're sent to do. it's because the press, the press of the united states is not covering the most significant issue of national importance and that's the laying of lives down in the nation for the service of our country. it's despicable, the national >> the house leader reelected --

rejected this resolution calling for the resolution in afghanistan. five republicans and 60 democrats were supporting this measure. >> on sunday, your chance to speak to karl rove on c-span. the former adviser to president bush and the fox news contributor will take your phone calls on his memoir. the former defense secretary and his wife will speak on race relations in america, interviewed by john lewis. and coverage of the festival of bucks. find the entire weekend schedule, and get the latest updates on twitter. >> we announced the winner in the student can competition, and spoke to the students who made the winning entries. this is 15 minutes.

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> we get to announce the winners of the student competition. this year, we had more people enter than ever before. there were 1000 people speaking on the issues of the day. this is the grand prize winner as they have received the great news. >> hello. i am glad all of you are together. the education team is here this morning, and we have some good news. you have entered the competition and once again, you are the winners. congratulations. what is greater news is that you are the national grand prize winners. [laughter] >> there were so quiet, and i think that you got a reaction

out of them. >> we are very proud of you. as you may remember from last year, we have the winners in middle school and high school. you girls are the winners in the eighth grade, and you competed throughout most of the judging process for the middle school category. but for the grand prize, we look at everybody and you were able to defeat the high school documentary. >> did you say that there was -- there were 1000 people in this? >> we had 1000 videos. this video is terrific. let me start with you. tell me how you met the topic? >> i was talking about that and we were very interested in this, and we wanted to know more about this, because this is so

misunderstood. you learn, lauren? you learn, lauren? >> >> tell me what you have learned? >> we went to a power plant that her uncle is working at, and everything has so much -- precaution. >> samantha, what was your favorite part of the process? >> when we got to go to the nuclear power plant, it is hard to get in there. you cannot just have a school id. there was a lot of cool stuff in there. students have not been allowed in since 9/11, so that was my favorite part. >> we enjoyed the photograph of the three of you in the plan with your hard hats on. your student population for the

nuclear fission reaction, were they adults or students to participate on the playground? >> they were all students. in our school we had our four core teachers. >> it was very effective. this is quite a topic. you had access to a lot of people to be interviewed. your video was just so well done. do you want to hear what you want? >> sure. >> you will split the grand prize of $5,000. your teacher has won $1,000 in digital equipment for the school. pretty great news. did your minds change about nuclear energy? you did a great job showing multiple sides of this issue. what did you learn? what surprised you?

>> it was surprising the amount of security that it took to get into the power plant, actually. all of the precautions that they took. we also did a survey that showed how people really perceive it, it was so different from how it is perceived. >> you just did an incredible job in presenting this complicated topic. i learned from it, all of our viewers did. your video is available on our website. we thank our time warner cable affiliate in milwaukee for getting this on camera for you girls. we want to see you. just a huge congratulations from us and a big win in beating out all the other winners to bec the toam prize -- to be the 2010

studentcam prize winners. congratulations. >> thank you. host: meredith, tell us more about those young ladies, who they are, and studentcam. guest: as you saw, we were calling the grand prize winner of our annual c-span documentary competition for students. in the clip that you saw, those are eighth graders from racine, wisconsin. this year we had over 1000 entries and only 75 winners. what we would like to do right now is give some context to our viewers to show us the grand prize video. >> we have identified a

significant lack of knowledge in the general public with relation to nuclear energy. when we asked 100 adults and 100 students how many nuclear power plants are presently operational in the united states, responses were all over. >> i have no idea. >> two? >> many understood the concept of a nuclear fission reaction, where neutrons are absorbent by the nucleus of the uranium 235 adam, splitting and giving off more elements in each neutron. these ones strike other atoms, causing a chain reaction. this energy is used to turn water into steam, spinning turbine into electricity. is this challenge worth the benefit?

>host: quite a wide range of videos. what are we asking students to do this year, and what were the issues? guest: they could choose between two topics. a strength of the country or a challenge that the country is facing. our grand prize winners focused on nuclear energy as a challenge to overcome energy consumption. in the challenge category, our top five, the highest number were entries on the economy -- sorry, health care. second was the economy. third was education. fourth was the war on terrorism. the students could also focus on other things, looking at the strength that america has. the first prize winner in high ho