automotive state of, and don't forget that karl rove will be on c-span tv, and don't forget it's daylight savings times and you will have to set your clock forward. on a final note, if you called in, you have talked to kensy harvey, she not only does that but other things. i say that because she leaves us after today to take to a new job, we are excited for her. for those who call into the program, you won't get a chance to talk to her, and we won't get to work with her, and ours is the greatest loss. kensy, we wish you the best. that's it for "washington journal," see you tomorrow.

>> we will hear opening remarks from secretary of state,

hillary clinton. >> every year the secretary of state hosts a briefing like this one. and while in that sense it may seem routine, this event is extraordinary. because of its connection to who we are as a country and the universal aspirations we seek to make real through our foreign policy. the idea of human rights begins with a fundamental birth right of every man, woman and child. progress of human rights begins with the fact. and for the last 35 years the united states has produced providing the most comprehensive record available of the condition of human rights around the world. these reports are an essential

tool for activists who struggle to protect rights around the world. and for journalists and scholars who report on the words that champion the vulnerable. and for governments as we work to craft protections of human rights of more individuals in more places. the principle that each person possesses equal moral value is a simple, self-evident truth. but securing a world in which all can exercise the rights that are naturally theirs is a challenge. to craft the policy we need good assessments of the places on the ground, we want to make a difference. we need a sophisticated,

strategist to create an environment in which human rights are secure. we need to recognize that rights protecting democracy and rights respecting development reinforce each other. we need the right tools and partners to implement the right policies. human rights may be timeless, but our efforts to protect them must be grounded in the here and now. we find ourselves in the moment when increasing governments are putting new restrictions working on protect rights and enhance accountability. new technologies have proven useful both to oppressors and to those who struggle to expose the failures and the coardess

of the oppressors. and challenges like food security and climate change and economic crises and violent extremism impact human rights today and affects g çthe conce of how we advance human rights the long-term. human rights are universal but their experience is local. this is why we are committed to holding everyone to the same standard including ourselves. this year the united states is participating in the universal periodic review process in conjunction with our participation in the n;au.n. h rights council. in the fall we will have a report for citizens and mgo's and online, attended across the

country by government officials. to attend in this process and solicit this in engagement is one way to provide our commitment to guide us to a more perfect union and peace around the world. we remember that human rights begin, as eleanor roosevelt said, in small places close to home. when we work to secure human rights we are working to protect the experiences that make life meaningful. to preserve each person's ability to give them their god-given potential. the potential to learn and discover and embrace the world around them. the potential to join freely with others and to shape their communities and societies so that each person can find

fullmentment. to share laughter and tears with the people they love. the reports released today are a record where we are, they provide a fact base to inform the united states of economic and strategic policies towards other countries in the coming year. these reports are not intended to prescribe policies but to provide everyone in the united states government working on them. i review these as an important tool of practical b?vand effect human rights strategies by the united states government. that is a process to which i am deeply committed. the timeless principles enshrined in the democracy, is

a north star, we want to inhabit a just world, where president obama has put it, peace rests on the inherent rights and dignity of every individual. with the facts in hand and the goals clear and our heads and hearts, we commit ourselves to the hard work of making human rights a reality. and to invite the secretary of human rights to the podium. >> thank you, i want to say a few introductory words about the report and something about the trends we see and then open up for questions. the report covers 194 countries, it's the work of probably close to 1,000 people

in reporting, writing and editing. it's a massive document. it's over two million words, we can't figure out how many pages that is, but if you try to print, it will take realms of paper. it's the single most comprehensive production of human rights in the world. i want to thank everyone in the state department that worked on it, including steve isenbum and people that have worked on this report. the original purpose of this report was to inform congress in the 1970's, congress frasier and hartman introduced legislation linking human rights to aid and policy.

this is used throughout the executive branch, this building and other agencies of government. it's used by journalists like yourself, and it's a great source of information for people around the world, that are learning things about their own countries by reading the report. we are doing more to translate the reports to disseminate them throughout the world. there is a huge readership of these reports. the reports are based on three broad assumptions that secretary clinton and the president repeated. one she said, we believe in a principle engagement. part of that engagement requires us to be informed and have an understanding of a world. that is what it report is seeking to do. secondly we hold every

government, including our own, to a single universal standard. and third we have a commitment, fidelity to the truth. and this report, the production of this report in publication tests that assumption probably more than anything we do in government. as the secretary said, the report is not a policy making document, it's a predicate, it's the foundation, it's the starting point, not the end. in terms of trends, there are three things and some of this is spelled out in the introduction. we live in a world of conflict. more than 30 wars and internal conflicts fueled by ethnic, religious differences. these conflicts affect

vulnerable populations, often women and children and in places like afghanistan, the congo, sudan, it's often these vulnerable groups on the receiving end. we see these vulnerable groups in other contexts, the wgtd group where the conduct affects the death. and other countries including czech republic. and discrimination of hate crimes and the swiss population is 50% of banning of areas

built. and throughout europe and middle east. we need to pay attention to promoting tolerance and underlying context. the president's speech in conga and the council that passed a resolution of 1820, preventing sexual violence in war. and greater access to technology is also an opportunity to promote rights and giving governments greater energy in curtailing freedom of others. we see that as part of a broader debate or tension where governments are trying to find ways to curtail local advocacy.

no less than 25 governments in the last years have curtailed the right to organize or assemble or gather and collect funds from abroad. a third broad category we see is the use and misuse of initial security legislation and emergency legislation. to apply broad curtailments on basic civil liberties. we see that in egypt, we see that in russia and sri lanka, i want to mention a couple other places specifically. one is china where the government human rights' record remains poor and worsening in areas of increased cultural and

religious minorities. and increase the harassment of activities and public intention lawyers that are under surveillance and repeszed. -- repressed. there is continued repression in tibet areas. iran a poor human rights area, with clashes and thousands were arrested and another thousand were arrested in demonstrations in december. it's a place where we continue to see severe repression and are continuing to pay great attention^j i want to mention the situation of prisoners in cuba, savira died after a hunger strike and

several others are on a hunger strike in solarity. their plight reflects the broader problem, of the range of problems of the prison conditions in cuba. and finally we continue to monitor, and this is not in 2008, but in recent weeks the violence last weekend in nigeria and calling on all parties and communities there to work together and to prison an escalation of that violence. last point, there are some positive trends, i want to end with that. we are continuing to work closely with the president of liberia, and she and her government undertook and completed in 2009 a major truth and reconciliation report and held 700 hearings and 18,000

statements. they released a report that ought to be a model. and the prosecution of charles taylor. in georgia there was new criminal procedures legislation for better legislation in trials. and ukraine had anticorruption and with a successful election. and a system following the kings' voluntary relinquismment of authority. we continue to live in a world with human rights in society, and it's hard to change those from the outside. and the willingness to take

risks and their determination to form organizations fighting for women's rights and children's right, this is the future. and we see an increase in creativity. and it to me signals the great hope of human rights going forward. let me stop there and take questions. >> you talk about civil rights and how do you see the situation in gaza and the lack of humanitarian aide or shortage. isn't access to clean water, shelter and food, electricity

those kinds of things, also are human rights. people regardless of whether in a middle of a conflict deserve. >> let me answer that in two respects, the broader discussion of gaza in the last year, and it's very much in the report, focused on operation cast elections at the beginning of the year. and the goldstone report that followed at the u.n. and our assessment is that there was an inadequate attention to the report of this urban conflict. where there needs to be an evaluation by israelies and others. in the way you can preserve and

protect humanitarian issues. and this has not gotten the attention that it deserves. and we have said to the israelis and all parties to conduct a review and investigation and have an accountability mechanism. >> if i can follow up, i am not asking, does it matter what the nature of the operation is, and not about the cast and how both sides were violated. i am talking about the day-to-day quality of life issues, regardless of who is at fault and things like that. you talk in other areas of the report about places where people are suffering and sri lanka because of the conflict. does it really matter that hamas is ruling gaza and committing human rights. the fact there are so many

roadblocks and the inability to get aide in. >> let me come back to your initial question, the issues of humanitarian access and concerns are definitely a part of what we are paying attention to. and senator mitchell and others in the u.s. government are constantly in these discussions. i was in israel in january, and the kinds of things you are describing there is movement on. but access to food and medicine, all of that is something that we favor and ñto be supportive of. we are supportive financially to 70% of the population of gaza. it's more complicated to be sure, to deal with humanitarian questions in a place where hamas is largely in control. it makes the effort more

difficult. it doesn't mean there is not a responsibility. it does not mean we will not continue to do what we can to promote humanitarian assistance and support. yes. >> yes, i have two questions, a question about the longest sentence of the prisoner, and have they included that in the report, he's been there for 17 years and that's dissension of a lot of people around the world. the second question is about saudi school books, we have received those in the organization and it's the same textbooks since september 11. why hasn't the united states

been able to affect change. do you have a plan or a timeline for affecting change? because the textbooks still promote the murder of jews and christians and other religions. >> on your first question we do continue to raise the case. we are deeply concerned about it, it's an ongoing discussion between the embassy and the government of saudi arabia. the report, if you read it, is extremely frank about prison er -- prisons and conditions. on the issue of the textbooks, i did testify in the fall after the release of the freedom report. i share the concern that the textbooks continue to have details, passages that i consider, and we consider

unacceptable. we have accelerated our efforts in the bureau to review those books from young age on. we are looking at several of them as representative and we are now trying to look at across the board from fifth grade on. this is an important subject and it's important to me because they are not only used in saudi arabia and they are disseminated through the world. we have committed to pursue this and keep it on the agenda. and i talked to ambassadors about it as well. >> like you said, many kingdoms are changing to democracy. why not saudi and others are still not changed at all. and second, as far as this report is concerned, when you go to new york or the united

nations or human rights council, do you think that the mood of those on the council who do not believe in human rights will change? >> the answer to your first question, we can do what we can do to be clear about our commitment to democracy and human rights. to delineate what we mean by that. i think that the secretary did an excellent job in december in her speech at georgetown. democracy is a broad forecast throughout the year and it provides democracy and women and free press. and we are trying in various places to work with those countrys and build those building blocks. the countries are along the

spectrum in terms of how far they are. our commitment is to be helpful where we can, in libya where you have a strong believer. and at the same time other countries that are more resistant. we have 194 different approaches to this. depending on where we are and what our relations are. how countries react to the u.n. or how the human rights council will change. we're determined to be at the human rights council and be a leader and determined to have our allies work with us. and we are determined to break the log jam where there are blocks of voters are frozen in irreconcilable differences. part of the process is to get information out. and that's what this report does. everyone may not love it report

but they read it. and pay attention to it, including other governments and that's the value of it. >> of those u.s. citizens who die abroad from non-natural causes. and from the report mexico has the highest number of u.s. citizens that die from homicide. in the mexico report it speaks of kidnappings and murders, but doesn't address the u.s. citizens, why is that? >> we deal with those through the council and affairs and people working on the embassy on the ground. there is a lot of violence in mexico, and because we are neighbors and so much violence related to drugs, crimes, etc.

american citizens are among those who are the victims. and we pay greater attention and have an obligation to american citizens, but those cases are not highlights and first and foremost in the report. >> senator lee has been strong for a state to pay more attention to mexico and the military and the drug war. and i see that the report contains lots of pages about mexico military. can we interpret this report of the concerns in congress? >> again, i think you have to review the report as our exercise in trying to get a clear, accurate picture of what is going on. it's not a report that

prescribed policy. but i can tell you in the case of mexico, ambassador is very attentive to these things and eag. -- eager. and we are working with him to advance the human rights agenda. and a lot has to do with the level of violence and the courts and the judicial system is not as string -- strong as it needs to be. he's sensitive to that and approached us and that's a great sign. we will advance those conversations. >> the secretary in her comments n[zspoke of practical strategies for advancing human rights. and some human rights organizations has been criticism that the human rights policies have been too realist

or and not challenging. i wonder what did she mean by practical strategies? >> this is a narrative or discussion that has gone over the last year. i want to be clear in reaffirming what she said. when we talk about practical or pragmatic in engagements, it's a principle engagement based on human rights. what we want is results, it's not sufficient to be publicly critical and condemnatory. but words alone don't change the agent. when we talk about internet freedom to give one example, it's great that we have a clearly, articulated speech. and i think her speech hit the mark in terms of identifying the range of problems.

and it's critical as we figure out how to address the restrictions on the internet that many governments are imposing with greater energy and resources. and we have an internet task force here, we brought in businesses last week. about 25 of them. to talk about them about what their responsibility is. we are spending money to work on both the technical side of that. to circumvent technology and to figure out how do you have local activists and figure out how to use that technology. how do you protect them. practical diplomacy is the name for that and that's a piece but doesn't get you there alone. >> it seems every year when the

report is released, those who perhaps are the most significantly criticized for the treatment of their citizens will respond. united states is not perfect, and it's eluded to the ideal of the universal standard that the u.s. is held. how do you address from count'julike china and iran and cuba that the u.s. does not have clean hands. particularly when it comes to the criminal justice system here. >> our approach is that this is an open society. we say piece. we are open to the notion that others will be critical of what we say. i don't that other governments won't say anything that people of this society say everyday. we are committed this year to

doing the first-ever universal political review to the human rights council. we are not doing that in a formula way but in public sessions and inviting advocacy groups around the country. we had one in new orleans, new york and washington. we will sprend to the border areas and talk to people in this society who are in the front-line of criticizing. whether it's the criminal justice system or immigration policy or national security. no holds barred. we will incorporate their thoughts and suggestions and show up at the end of the year and present that report and get comments from other countries. so our review is let's have an open discussion and we are leading in this report, but by all means others should say what may want.

>> the words about human rights attrition in germany where fg

>> it's a very restrictive environment in a range of ways. those are things that we will watch closely, but it's a country that's been in crisis for a long time. and we continue to pay a great deal of attention. immigration is there now i think. but there is a great deal of attention to that election and make sure to the extent

possible that people are able to speak freely and organize to make it meaningful. >> how would you correct the situation there, have you detected any change in the spanish government using different ways of dealing with the separate people in the country? >> i would refer you to the report, i have nothing to add on that. >> anything on the situation in general? >> nothing to add than what is in the report really. >> the [inaudible] government enacted a law for all members of parliament for human rights before [inaudible] do you see this a setback to the human rights in afghanistan?

>> there are a number of developments in afghanistan of concern. some of which are reflected in the report that occurred in 2009 and other things ongoing. we are certainly watching and studying that law you described, but also the fact that the new electoral law raises questions and the fact that the complaints commission has been skewed in favor of people close to president karzai. there is concern, afghanistan in the middle of a violent conflict. it creates all sorts of tension, and this report and ongoing on advocacy in afghanistan is focused on making sure that the country begins to move in the direction

of more rights and respecting ;w policies and actions. >> you mentioned egypt and criticized egypt in human rights. i want to ask what obama's administration has done to address these issue with egypt as bush administration have a lot of pressure on the regime and to address democracy and human rights. and as a result of this pressure, egypt has done so many things like election, presidential election, human rights constitution and there is nothing done between obama's administration and egypt till now. and one other issue is eliminating the budget to the

human rights organization in egypt. why is that? thank you. >> i, a couple of things, on the situation in egypt as the report outlines in quite a bit of detail. we are concerned about a range of problems. treatment of prisoners, restrictions on non-governmental organizations. organizations aren't allowed to register. as you described the government has put constraints on foreign funding from our own aid program. i was in egypt in january, and i talked to opposition political leaders and they have a range of constraints. and we are concerned about hahade killing christians in

front of a church. the government has arrested three people but they are tried using the emergency law, and we have concerns of that law. a government representative said to me, we are thinking of repealing it. if they are using it in new cases, i worry they will not repeal it and it will continue. when i was there i met with a number of government officials and i held a press conference. we are pushing. i think it's fair to say that it is a country where there is a great concern about a range of human rights issues. and we will continue to raise those issues publicly and privately. i think there is more going on than you are seeing. >> [inaudible]. the report talks about they are doing an investigation and the arrest of military and

journists in turkey recently. i think 250 people were arrested. let me ask you this, is there a concern with regard to humans right in turkey kroogz -- according to you. and what do you say about the affect of the independent system in turkey, the report talks about that as well. >> we are obviously concerned that the judicial systems repain -- remain independent and strong. and that's the starting point. there are institutions in turkey how to deal with what are perceived to be threats to the government. but our main concern and our main diplomatic effort is to make sure there is a proper

process in dealing with those cases. >> [inaudible] could you elaborate the u.s. governments concern or human rights in north korea and those refugees in that country. and last year there was reform but failed. i want to ask all these political situations brought back in the human rights situation too. >> yeah, you know, one of the important things in this report is that we focus on the human rights' situation. there is a range of concerns that the u.s. government has respecting north korea and the nuclear capability and all that. but we are in this report focused on north korea as a country that has a very poor

human rights record, has for a long time. it's a closed society with intolerant of consent. lots of prisoners in poor conditions. and very little room for people to get information, probably one of the more closed societies in the world. conditions continue to get worse and we are concerned of the plight of the people living in that circumstance. if i can just add, i mentioned china but i want to make a point of mentioning two cases that are important, they are in the report, but i want to highlight them. one is the case of luga that

were found guilty in december of diverting state power for 11 years. his crime is that he helped write a petition called charter 08, that is a petition calling for an expansion of human rights and democracy. this is a case of particular concern to us. the second is a case of human rights lawyer called zao-sin that was picked up by the police, and thought to be there and it's one in china that we are paying close interest to. environmental lawyers are taking cases and those are springing up. there seems to be a real crack-down. and there are greater

restrictions on m.g.o.'s and there is a new press situation in place that will give chinese journalists training in marxist news series. so there is training for those activists. >> thank you. >> thank y'all. w c >> our mission is make it more open and connected. and we do that by providing people a free tool whereby they can share information with anyone, any time. >> with 400 million users, it's

facebook, tim sparapani. >> today on "america and the court's" today at 7 p.m. eastern on c-span. earlier this week the house debated a resolution by ohio congressman that would withdraw troops from afghanistan at the beginning of the year. this report lasts about an hour. i yield myself such time as i may consume. mr. speaker, in 2001 i joined the house in votin

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, 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, dismantle, and destroy their ability to harm the united 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 already spoken to your office, and he further said, don't let him, meaning admiral mullen, spin this wrap crap. aim quoting him. this is what he said to admiral mullen, this is a father whose son died for this country. i repeat that. don't let him spin this crap. there is no indication that afghanistan has changed anywhere. our mission should be very, very simple. chase and kill the enemy. well, i just gave you two examples of where we are not really fighting the war in afghanistan because why in the world would those marines have been killed who were asking for cover and yet the army said no.

we can't give you cover because of our policy. our policy is, we don't want to kill civilians. sergeant bernard said, he's right, i've never been to war. let me be honest about it. but he has been to war. he knows that war is ugly and mean. therefore we are saying to our troops, we are going to handcuff you. and we are going to do what we can to protect those in afghanistan, but you might have to give your life and you couldn't even fire a gun. that is not what we should be doing in afghanistan. last point. the brook that's called the $3 trillion war. it is a book written by the economist, joe stiglick, he says in the book to take care of the wounded from afghanistan and iraq for the next 25 years, a minimum cost of $2 trillion. i want to lead in with this story. three years ago, three years ago congress and gene taylor, walter jones, and myself went

to walter reed to visit the wounded as many members 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 %gk'r"@ rrk)$$rrr

>> 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're doing is worth it and they're 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're all volunteers, america's finest. general mcchrystal's new strategy is effective and already leading to key victory. and it makes no sense to all of a sudden pick up and leave when we're 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. and of course al-qaida and the taliban would say, "i told you so. the americans, they just don't have the stomach for war." 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 attacks against people they don't like throughout the world, including america. 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 when victory was so close? and why did we fight so hard, make so many sacrifices, only to have those that believe 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 about the politics of fear with some hypothetical enemy but assessing reality and protecting our home from terrorists that 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 obtained 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've 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-qaida 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 to give into the enemy. -- 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. >> they were so wounded and not

taken care of by our people that sent them there. we bring them home and say ok you're on your own. then what do we have? suicide, homicide. this war is tearing apart those who have taken part in it. it will have the same influence that vietnam war had on our civilian society. half of theless on the streets tonight are vietnam vets. the rate of homelessness amongst iraqi and afghanistan troops -- give me 30 seconds. >> to the gentleman, 30 seconds. >> thank you. the rate of homelessness is higher by our troops today, more people have died, more vietnam vets have died from suicide than died in the original war. that's what these wars are doing to our society. these are our children. it's time to take care of them. it's time to bring them home. let's support the redslusion on the floor. >> the gentleman from california?

>> -- yield four minutes to my very good friend, the chairman of the house armed services committee, the gentleman from missouri, mr. skeleton. >> the gentleman from missouri, mr. skeleton. >> mr. speaker, have we forgotten? have we forgot than happened to on 9/11? have we forgotten who did it? have we forgotten those who protected and gave them a safe haven? let me speak a word in favor of those young men and young women who wear an uniform today that are doing i'm so proud of them. every american should be proud of them and their professionalism, their devotion to duty, their patriotism.

thus i rise in strong opposition to this ill-timed resolution that threatens to undermine the recent gains by u.s. forces in our afghan and coalition partners. six months ago i wrote a letter to the president while he was conducting a full review of or strategy in afghanistan, urging him to adopt and fully resource an effective counterinsurgency strategy in afghanistan. i still maintain that pursuing such a policy offers the best chance for success in our mission there. afghanistan is the epi center of terrorism. we cannot forget that it was the jen it is of multiple attacks that killed thousands of americans, children, parents, spouses, neighbors. we must do everything we can to ensure that it will not happen again and be used as a safe haven for those who seek to do

us harm. last december after eight long years with no strategy in afghanistan, president obama recommitted our nation to defeating al-qaida and reminded us that the success of this mission requires us to work with our international allies and afghan partners and we are. the president also announced that our military commander in afghanistan, general stanley mcchrystal, the best we have in this type of conflict, would receive an additional 30,000 troops to implement this counterinsurgency strategy, these additional combat troops combined with those already in theater would allow our troops and civilian experts to partner with their afghan counter parts, reverse the momentum of the taliban, and create conditions needed for governance and economic development. even with just a fraction of these reinforcements in place we

already see signs of success. last month afghan and allies and u.s. forces launched an operation to push the taliban out of marja, a town of about 50,000 people in central helmut province that became a new hubris of activity for the taliban insurgents after the marines drove them out of nearby gamsur. we successfully pushed them out of marja and -- second phase of the operation, new afghan administrator has been put in place in the process of building that government has begun. additionally in recent days pakistani forces made the most significant cal ban captures since the war began, detaining the taliban's second in command, the former taliban finance minister and two shadow governors of the afghan

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

leader ins general mcchrystal and ambassador ike enberry who's 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 7-11, 2001 -- september 11th, 2001. i hope my colleagues will join me in opposition to this florida this. thank you, mr. speaker. i proudly yield five minutes to the gentleman from california, mr. mckeehan. >> thank you, mr. speaker. i rise with my chairman, from mel ston, gentleman from mississippi, -- mr. skelton, 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 helmud province even as they face snipers, mines, improvised explosive devices and a skeptical afghan population. the kucinich resolution does nothing to advance the efforts of our military commands and troops as they work side by side with their afghan and coalition partners. representative cue sin itch's resolution if enacted into law would man dain 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 commanders so soon after the announcement of a new strategy? four months ago the president reminded us why we are in afghanistan. it was the epicenter of where al-qaida planned and launched the 9/11 attacks against innocent americans. the president recommitted the united states to defeating al-qaida and the taliban and authorized the deployment of 30,000 additional u.s. forces. a portion of those forces have arrived, and others are readying 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-qaida and the

taliban. this means taking all necessary steps to ensure al-qaida does not have a sanctuary in afghanistan or pakistan. at the end of last year i had hoped that war debate in this country had ended and we would give a chance for that strategy to work. soldiers, marines, airmen, say legislators who have been sent there to carry -- sailors to carry out their mission. 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 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 center. the taliban flag has been removed. this lone flag sends a clear message to afghans that 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 piece. 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-qaida also are listening. and finally, the afghan people are listening. this resolution sends the message, pay no attention to the flag over marja. america cannot be trust today 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 have attended several in the past. but at this point, for me to go to that funeral and tell the gellings that their son lost his life over an effort we're going to cut and run from is something that 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 gentleman from ohio. >> i just want to say that when you can talk about how the democratic leadership is bringing this up at the time that there is obviously a surge

about to begin. but why question the timeliness of the debate when in fact my friends 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 the whole point. i want to thank mr. paul of texas. i yield the gentleman five minutes. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> i thank the gentleman for yielding and i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. >> no objection. >> 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 about time we talked about it. it was said earlier on it is hard to quit a war and we shouldn't quitting. 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 is close to 10 years. i'm afraid that this is a little bit too little, hopefully not too late for to us 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 more the taliban we get. but i want to quote the first line of the resolution passed back in 2001, 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 said, "the authority 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 bin laden and 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 do, it would enhance his recruitment efforts for al-qaida 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 will 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's a lot of people in this country now that the country is totally bankrupt and we're spending trillions of dollars on these useless wars, the people will become

demoralized because history shows that all empires and because they expand too far and bankrupt the country just as the solve jet 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 build embassy ins baghdad, embassies in kabul, billion dollar embassies, for the tresses, and it's all -- fortresses. and it's all necessary. if people were concerned about the disastrous effect 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 unconstitutional war. and the least you could say is it's illegitimate. there's no real purpose in it this. the taliban did not attack us on 9/11. you know, after we went into afghanistan, immediately the concerns were shifted to remaking the middle east. we went in to iraq. use this as a justification. it was nothing more than an excuse. most americans, the majority of americans still believe that saddam hussein had something to do with 9/11. and i imagine most americans believe the taliban had something to do with 9/11. and it is not true. we need to change our foreign policy and come back to our senses and defend this country and not pretend to be the policemen of the expired. who seeks time? >> could i ask the madam speaker

how much time is remaining on each side? >> certainly just a moment. the gentleman from ohio has 68.5 minutes. the gentleman from california, mr. berman, has 36 minutes. and the gentlemenwoman from florida has 27.5 minutes. >> all right. i will yield mr. kennedy three minutes. >> the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. kennedy, is recognized for -- i'm sorry. mr. rhode island is recognized for three minutes. >> thanks to the yeah, mr. kucinich. let me just say at the outset while i'm speaking on behalf of the same resolution the gentleman before me spoke on behalf of, i couldn't disagree more that our interests do lie

in protecting our 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. this 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 whom get along with each other, and it's a mountainous terrain and rock and gravel. and the notion that our soldiers are over there laying down their lives to secure ground. we ought to be after the taliban

and the terrorists, anybody who is organizing to strike at 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, i can't believe i even heard this, someone said, i can't go to a funeral and tell the parents of someone that just died that they lost their child in vain. somewhere i heard that during the vietnam war. so what is it we've got to do? we've got to double down 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 do 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 got to put it somewhere else. 30 seconds. >> half a minute.

>> the gentleman is recognized for 30 seconds. >> finally, if anybody wants to know where cynicism is, cynicism is that there's one, two press people in this gallery. we're talking about erik massah, 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 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 press corps right now. >> the gentleman's time has expired. >> that war powers resolution was defeated by a vote of 356-65. the house also passed a resolution marking the 45th anniversary of the day known as "bloody sunday" and the role it played in the passage of the

1965 voting rights act. here's some remarks from the floor of the house. this is about 20 minutes. ohen for his leadership on this issue. we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. so spoke our founding fathers. our founding fathers spoke, however, without a clear understanding of the impact of their words. and even as great as our founding fathers were, they did not live out the promise of those words in this land. some were slave owners. and clearly the contradiction between our words and the actions of our date-to-date

lives -- day-to-day lives were a contradiction from our stated values to our practices. -- martin luther king jr. called america's attention to that paradox, to that contradiction, to that schizophrenic life that we had led. >> martin luther king jr. had a lieutenant who was a giant of a leader in his own right. and we are honored to serve of with him. in my view the most historic figure that serves among the 535 of us who have been given the privilege to represent our people and defend the constitution and protect and preserve our democracy. john lewis is a giant among us.

a quiet, self-e facing, humble giant. but a giant nonetheless. 45 years ago civil rights activists attempted to march from selma to montgomery, to demand that their governor honor their right to vote and their god-given equality. remember jefferson's words that our rights are not given by the majority. they're not given by congress. they're not even given by the constitution. they are given to us by a power higher than us. that is the glory of america, that every individual is an important being endowed by their creator with certain unalienable

rights. the world knows what happens to those marchers, how they were stopped by state troopers at the edmund pettis bridge in selma, how they were savagely beaten with night sticks, and how this 23-year-old giant whose name was then not known, this young man from troy, alabama, john lewis, who was helping to lead the march from the front with josea williams. beaten to the ground and took life-threatening injuries. today as a member of congress john lewis still base those scars -- bears those scars. but he does not bear resentment. what a lesson for all of us who suffer the verbal slings and arrows almost daily in this public profession which we

pursue. but john lewis took more than retore cal slings and arrows. he was beaten, subjected to hate, spit upon, subjected to prejudice, and division and segregation and rejection. but still christ-like, john lewis, following begandy's example -- ghandi's example, turned the other cheek and said, "i seek justice." and i will continue to seek justice for myself and for others no matter the opposition. and i will not do so violently. i will not do so by assaulting those who assault me. but i will appeal to the conscience of the nation. i will appeal to the promise in our declaration, in our

constitution, and in the principles for which this nation stand." and it was a powerful appeal. this weekend i and others, mr. cowell was with us, were privileged to walk with that giant of a man, john lewis, across that bridge. and it ace bridge across a river but it is also a bridge to brotherhood, a bridge to a realization of america's promise, a bridge to a better america, a bridge to a better country, a bridge as my friend and brother john lewis would say, to the beloved community. a bridge then over troubled waters who had to some degree been stilled but not silenced. there is still prejudice in this

land. there is still division in this land. there is still not the reconciliation that america still strives for. and that is why i return almost every year with my friend john lewis to walk over that bridge, to remind myself. and i've taken my granddaughter to remind her as well. that although the mission of martin luther king jr. was extraordinarily successful and the mission of john lewis which continues to this day has been successful it is not over. the mission and the commitment must continue. that is what we must remember on this anniversary of march 7,

1965, when a group of our fellow citizens peacefully walked to register to vote. is there any more sacred right in a democracy than that? the ability to express your opinion, unbowed by government or unbowed or diswaded by -- dissuaded by threats. that was john lewis' mission then. he was so successful. but the mission is not over. and as we vote on this resolution we ought to all commit ourselves to walking with the wind of justice of which john lewis spoke, of which he has written. but much more importantly, the life that he has led teaches us the power of conscience, the

power of peaceful standing up for the rights of which jefferson spoke, the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. god has blessed america through the life of john lewis and so many others whose courage and convictions have made us better. support this resolution. but more than that, live out its promise for all of our citizens. i yield back the balance of my time. >> the jillene back the balance of the time. the gentleman from tennessee reserves? >> reserves. >> the gentleman from texas. >> mr. speaker, i yield three minutes to the gentleman from louisiana, mr. cowell. >> gentleman from louisiana is recognized for three minutes. mr. cowell. >> thank you very much, mr. speaker. and mr. speaker, today i rise in

support of resolution 249 to commemorate the 45th anniversary of "bloody sunday" and the role that it played in ensuring the passage of the voting rights act of 1965. today we remember a momentous occasion in our his, 1965, 600 marchers led by my es termed colleague from georgia, congressman john lewis, were savagely attacked by state and local police as they attempted to cross the edmond pettis bridge into selma, alabama. these brave marchers used the power of nonviolence to demand that most basic of democratic rights of a citizen, the right to vote. in return, the marchers were met with billy clubs and tear gas. but the marchers confronted terror with courage. their dignity in the face of brutality moved this house to

pass the voting rights act, which reaffirmed this nation's commitment that every citizen has the right to participate fully in the political life of the nation. this past weekend my family and i traveled to selma to honor the 45th anniversary of "bloody sunday." kate, my wife, our two daughters, betsy and sofia and i, we marched from brown chapel to the top of edmund pettis bridge. and along the way, not only did we learn of the significance of the march but also the love and adoration that the people still have for the historical marchers, among those was john lewis. i commended them and firmly believe today that i owe so much of my personal and political success to the struggles of the

african-american community. because of their perseverance and sacrifice, doors have been opened permanently to every minority community in america. mr. speaker, it was a honor to have been a part of this momentous commemoration to work with dedicated public servants like my good friend from georgia. and i ask my colleagues to support this important resolution. thank you and i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. gentleman from texas reserves? >> the gentleman from tennessee. >> mr. speaker, i yield five minutes or really as much time as he may consume to the gentleman who responded to martin luther king when he first met him as a young man in alabama, john robert lewis. i yield time. >> the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. >> mr. speaker, i want to thank

my friend colleague, the gentleman from memphis, tennessee, mr. corn, for yielding. mr. speaker, 45 years ago on march 7, 1965, josea williams and i led 600 peaceful, nonviolent protestors attempting to march from sell marks alabama to the state capitol in montgomery to dramatize to the world that people of color wanted to register to vote. we left brown chapel a.m.e. churr that much afternoon on a sacred mission, prepared to defy the dictates of man to demonstrate the truth of a higher law. ordinary citizen with extraordinary vision walked shoulder to shoulder, two by two, in a silent, peaceful protest against injustice in american south. we were met on the edmund pettis

bridge crossing the alabama river by a sea of blue, alabama state troopers. some were mounted on horseback, but all of them were armed with guns, tear gas, billy clubs, and beyond them were deputized citizens who were waving any weapons they could find on that day. some even had bull whips. then we heard major john clark, "this is an unlawful march. you cannot continue. you have three minutes to go home or return to your church. "we were preparing to kneel and pray when the major said," troopers advance ." and these troopers came toward us, beating us, sprague tear

gas, chasing us -- spraying tear gas, chasing us. i was hit by a state trooper with a night stick and i fell unconscious on the bridge. on that day, mr. speaker, i thought i was going to die. i thought i saw death. the most brutal confrontation of the modern day civil rights movement became known as "bloody sunday." it produced a sense of righteous indig nation in this country and around the world that led this congress to pass the the voting rights act of 1965. eight days after "bloody sunday," president lyndon johnson address add joint session of the congress and made what i believe is the greatest and most meaningful statement of speech any president had ever made on the importance of voting

rights in america. he began by saying, "i speak tonight for the dignity of man and for the destiny of democracy." president johnson went on to say, "at times history and fate meet in a single time in a single place to shape a turning point in man's unending search for freedom. so it was at lexington and concord, so it was a centurying a at appomattox, for it was last week in selma, alabama. in the speech president johnson condemned the violence in selma and called on the congress to enact the voting rights act.

heard the president say, we shall overcome. and dr. king said, john, we will make it from selma to montgomery, and the voting rights act will be passed. congress did pass the voting rights act, and on august 6, 1965, it was signed into law by the president. now, mr. speaker, this past weekend we heard from the majority leader and my majority leader and my colleagues, mr. coh , that we went back to selma along with mike pence and senator

brownback and several others, the faith and politics institute, on a journey. during this journey we brought our fellow members of congress on this unbelievable trip of the historic civil rights act, not just in selma but montgomery and birmingham. we ended our time together in selma by crossing one more time on the edmund pettus bridge, crossing that bridge. i know at times here in this body we talk, we debate, maybe sometimes in not such a nonviolent way, but on this bridge we didn't see ourselves as democrats or as republicans or adversaries. we saw ourselves as americans on a journey to discover not just our history but to help

create a more perfect union, to help move us closer to a truly beloved community, truly closer to a multiracial democracy. we all come away from this journey with a deeper appreciation of our democracy and the power of people to make a difference in our society. mr. speaker, with this resolution we honor the sacrifice and courage of those brave and courageous souls who used the power of peace, the power of love, the power of nonviolence to redeem the soul of our democracy. remind ourselves that freedom is really not free, that we must continue to struggle every day. on this 45th anniversary of bloody sunday, we must use this occasion to renew our pledge to

protect the right to vote for every american citizen. we have come a distance, we made a lot of progress, but there's still a distanc [applause]

>> thank you. as the presiding officer i have been asked to do two things. one is to give a brief reflection on economic club, second is to introduce our speaker. what i think of the history of the club, i think of my father, a member of the detroit economic group. my father was in an orphanage when he was 5. he ran away when he was a formal schooling. he got into the peacetime navy, got out, and the only work that he could find in the depression was in alaska, keeping a two mile section of the pipeline free and clear of snow.

during those long winter is my father took out every book in anchorage and fairbanks libraries. he took out every record. he taught himself english, literature, mathematics, civics, and to enjoy opera. when he got out of the navy he to the vantage of the gi bill and tested out of all high- school, most of college, became a civil engineer, and was the assistant superintendent of the department of public works. he built the infrastructure of sewer and water for the metro detroit area that they have today. one of the proudest times of my life was when i had my fourth half's care executive job.

my father brought me to the detroit economic club, to a meeting. to listen to the important issues of the day. so, when i reflect on the 75 year history of the detroit economic club, i think of my father, burton new bank, a man who struggled against absolutely impossible odds to become a success. he is a son of detroit. he is and was a member of the detroit economic club. he is what this region is all about. a beacon of hope and what we can all do together. thank you. [applause] now, it is my great pleasure to introduce michael mcallister,

president and ceo of he manumana inc. . he has led them to a leadership position in health benefit industry. during his history as ceo in over 30 years in the company -- you started when you were 3? [laughter] he has helped them gain a reputation, leveraging innovative projects and technology to deliver lower costs and a superior health plan experience for their 10.3 million health plan members nationwide. they're helping people to achieve lifelong well-being, offering guidance and actual information, as well as designed

to empower employees and consumers to choose, finance, and use their health benefits for a confidence and success. mike is ranked among some of the most 100 powerful people in health care. named as one of the top five s&p 500 ceos whose top five stocks have returned best in the last five years. at the world economic forum summit in switzerland he was chosen as the founding chairman of the new world wellness alliance. he is leading this multinational move would corporations dedicated to improving workplace wellness and productivity. mike holds a degree from pepperdine university in malibu, california, and a bachelor's from louisiana tech by and louisiana.

-- in louisiana. i am sure that he has a crystal ball about health care reform he will tell us all about it. [laughter] [applause] >> someone lied to you. [laughter] i will start by saying that no one has a crystal ball, but i really enjoyed the vignette. i wrote down -- timeliness of the speakers. we had a good one today, somewhere in this country today the president is speaking on this same subject and i guarantee that he is attacking me. [laughter] but that is okay, we are big boys. thank you for having me today, it is a pleasure. i will not try to walk through bills and proposals today. it is true that no one knows where it will end up over the next few weeks. some of the things being

proposed are obvious and straightforward, others have yet to be determined. rather than doing that i will talk about the things driving where we are in health care perspective and driving the suggestions in structure that might make a difference. basically trying to find a different approach to health care reform. 16 months ago we started talking about it, now we are talking about market insurance reform. things have drastically changed. what we do know, in march of 2000 is the first time i got up in front of a group like this. march of 2000 i stood up before a group like this and by industry did not like it much, that health care was a broken finger and that health insurance was a broken thing in that fundamentally be would have to change the system, or lack thereof, if we were to solve the problem that is the problem. straightforward, health care costs too much, is rising too

fast, and it is impossible to keep doing what we have been doing for. there are other things going on here. so that we have tried to live with is that ultimately, we as consumers are driving these costs in terms of how we interact with the system, tree ourselves, and treat the system when we touch it. this concept of behavior change, which is very difficult and powerful, is at the heart of what i think we have to do as a nation to fundamentally fix the situation. consumers control 70% of the rest of the economy. we are very powerful consumers. that products and services that crashed. health care never happens. we are watching this right now in an industry that is close to your heart. think about the implications for the auto makers and the accelerator, whatever is going on. what consumers have done in rapid fashion to deal with that

product offering. right, wrong, or fair is irrelevant. to the knowledge that there is an issue, consumers have responded. the fire was to say to you that your chance of dying from bypass surgery would change based on a possible that you choose, would you choose differently? we know, from all their evidence, we would absolutely choose differently. but we do not have that information so, we cannot make that decision. we're not very healthy. chronic illnesses are a huge percentage of what we spend in health care. every single one of them is preventable. our own behavior sets a scenario where costs will be impossible to slow down. two-thirds of americans are overweight, one-third are obese by definition. when you add the demographics of baby boomers entering the end stage of their life, costs will increase for a lot of reasons.

we have a very significant problem ahead of us. much more significant than anything we are talking about today we watch 142 hours of television per month. we are sitting on the sofa, not moving very much. the cdc reports that seven chronic illnesses account for 1.1 trillion dollars annually in this country. our weight is really killing us. people have been before you before tand said that we've lost weight things just get better, it is oversimplifying it but it is true. $139 for someone with a body mass index under 135. if you are over 40, it is even more. it keeps going. so, for someone with a high body mass index, it will be much more. so, it does matter. my question -- what do you do about it?

the fact is that it just keeps growing faster and faster. combine that with a lack of health literacy in this country. you will hear folks talking about it being wonderful, the incredible volume of people going to the internet to seek information. yes, people seek out health information, but getting through what is good, what is right, what can be trusted, is impossible for the average person. much of it out there is written at a level where we do not understand it. at this point we are basically talking about 90 million people that have difficulty understanding something simple about what it means to be a pill bottle. what are doctor's orders? from our perspective, we look at people being readmitted into hospitals, people over 65.

inevitably there is a misunderstanding associated with that he submission. when you really look at how that occurs, what you find out is that they do not understand what the doctor asked them to do, do not take medications properly, do not understand of the orders, or the social setting they are in is not able to support them. it is all linked to this idea of understanding and being able to respond to known methods for taking care of your health. a very serious problem in the over 65 population. only 12% of people are believed to have a proficient understanding. so, here we are. overweight, gaining weight. we know that it drives health care costs. we do not understand health literacy or how to deal with this, so how will we manage our health of those of the drivers? what do we get from all of that?

higher costs and worse results. study after study will tell you that that is the case, so something must be done. what is normally the obvious answer is the wrong one in this case. for 40 years everyone in this room has no have to be healthy. what have your physicians told you? stop eating so much, get some exercise, stop smoking, quit drinking so much. we know what we are supposed to do and yet we are not doing it. preaching about it is not right, getting up to talk about a dozen health, our behavior does not change. we must find a way -- this will be long term cuff cuff -- to get people to happily choose a different approach. what is the commonality? whatever it may be. money, incentives, rewards, education. we do not know what it is, but we have to find a way to get

people to pursue this concept. our company has put our flag in the ground that well-being is a big thing. there is a lot of research out there that would say that there are five buckets of well-being that you have to attack, every single one. financial, health, community, that sort of thing. if we can get there it will be a long haul, but if we cannot change to this concept, nothing that we do in washington is ever going to make any difference. we need transparency in our industry are around price and quality. if you had that, you have a chance. if you had the knowledge what things cost, you would have a shot. not one of you can get up from this table right now, if you were going to have knee surgery somewhere in the city, would you be able to find out the price and quality of the service, the experience of the physician, the infection rate of hospital, that

is not readily available and you cannot do it. that is not unique to hear, that is everywhere. so, price, quality, transparency are critical. how do you get that? that is when we have to start thinking about connecting the system, making things easier to get at, making information actionable theory had it all comes together. what that represents at the end of the day is the idea of consumer engagement. we are not as engaged in health care as other places in our lives, we are intimidated. what i would say to you is that there is a combination of things, it is about us changing how we are doing things, the economy, changing what goes on elsewhere. we have a unique opportunity that we have failed to deliver on historically. we sit in the middle of the data, the only participant that

has a broad based view of what happens as you are around. if you go to doctors and hospitals, taking drugs, whatever you might do, it passes through the financial system. we have a tremendous view into everything going on. we are in a good spot to help but it has not been helpful in making bad data available. there's a very great future in front of us in terms of that transparency becoming helpful because we're trent -- pursuing it aggressively. we are the only ones that can -- at some point down the road if we wind up with a nationalize, digitize connective system, that will be great. in the meantime, we are in that position and we have a responsibility to do better and we will. there is the opportunity for the use of data in the system. the rest of the economy lives off of the idea of protective modeling. everything that you get in your

mailbox is not an accident. people who know why they are sending it to you. they know you, they know where you live, they know what you make and they're being very smart. you will not find much of that in health care and some of it can be misguided. having said that, that kind of work is ahead of us and being done today will give us great insight. applied health analytics and predictive modeling is important. we will go from an environment where we aggregate risk and make claims to a place where we personalize inside. how do we give you as a consumer to understand better what your choices are? we have been working on this incentive for a long time. we have results are promising and hopefully can work. we have introduced weight management programs in the company, we are in a position where we can test things ourselves. before we go to the marketplace

we can put a pilot together to see if it works. weight management, for example. our own people, 30,000. in a short time we have people dropped absenteeism. we're trying to connect the dots. 10%. a very quick time. more than half of these people have lost weight since the program began. talking about this in developing the environment can make a difference. 64% of people in the stress reduction programs reported a decrease in symptoms in the very first month. 71% of people in nutrition programs said they have changed the way they eat. one of the problems is that our children are overweight as well. we thought about trying to meet the kids where they are. what do kids do? they've lots of games. they sit on their cell phone. they are connected to the internet. amazing what they're doing.

the question was connecting the idea of health and wellness to the things that they do already. so, we introduced an idea as a pilot as the american horse power challenge, where we have kids around the country involved in a pedometer driven program connected to the internet, the work as teams and individuals to score currency by activity with an internet supported game that kept them together in a competitive environment. the results are remarkable. these kids got into it. their activity shot up. the ones that benefited the most were the ones who had been doing nothing. there are opportunities to do more of that. two pilot that around the country, working with schools to see if we can continue to get better results. by the end of six months, these kids had walked around 30,000 miles, twice around the equator, during that period of time.

so, it can be done. the post-survey program showed that not only did they enjoy it, they kept it up. we are not ready to declare victory yet, but it looks like their opportunities through these techniques to persist sustainable behavior change. the next thing that we tried was bicycles, taking 1000 to the democratic national convention in the republican national convention. we are bipartisan. [laughter] that was remarkable as well, basically, if you recall, that was when gasoline was $4 per gallon. all of these issues were linked together. exercise, wellness, outdoor activity. at the end of the day we had folks doing 7500 rides, 41,000 miles, 1.3 million calories burned. fort metric tons of carbon footprint were reduced -- four

metric tons of carbon footprint was reduced. what is new? data capturing. so, the fact you can measure what someone has done, tied to an individual, it gives hope that through that you can begin to get some behavior change on the same things that drive us every single day. i will not ask for chopin's, but i bet every one of you has airline frequent-flier cards. i will bet you have all gone out of your way to make sure that you use that airline because of that card. that is a behavior changed -- based on data collection and a reward system related to flying. you decided it was in your best interest to participate. the question is how might that concept of life in health care. bicycles, the numbers, whatever it might be, bringing those activities the health care gives us a chance to actually get sustainable behavior change over time.

last i will talk about what the industry needs to do around cooperation. if you look at banking, you know that we can walk into a bank in another country and get cash, alabama, detroit, we can get money. why is that possible? because the banks cooperated on the standardization of the technology and the application of that opportunity in a way that made it very convenient and easy for us to do business with them. but health care, we need to do the same kind of thing. years ago we went down and met with our biggest competitor in the state of florida and came to a quick agreement to jointly eliminate the nonsense in health care between the players in terms of transactions. we developed a simple, standardized approach, offered it free to the providers. the business model was basically build on the idea that we save as much money on our side.

moving across the country, 100% of the doctors and hospitals that want to use this, 700 million transactions across the platform this year. now going into texas and illinois and a number of other states across the country. that is absolutely critical, longer term. people like us, stepping up to that, working together. it has been a combination of things. working together, thinking differently, trying to use data, seeking criminal behavior change. i believe that all of those things have the opportunity to turn this around for the long- term health of our system and country. in the meantime we will fight the flights are round what the political system should be doing and how we provide financial protection, all of those things. i will finish talking about the concept of wellness.

i know, without asking you employers, you have an ambivalent attitude -- attitude toward wellness. is it worth it? does it payback? i think that basically this well misalliance is going to spend a lot of time basically targeting that question. there are a number of believers amongst us, i am one of them, i think that investing in our people works if done intelligently. these returns will be enough to save it from a pure business perspective. i will help my people. i think that there's a big upside and we have great companies we are working with. i am looking forward to driving that agenda. i know i have questions about health care reform that will be specific, which is fine, but i want to make sure that we understand, whatever happens in washington in the next six months is not the change of course of this country. we must seek out other things

that are critical that have long-term implications. thank you for having me here today. i appreciate it. [applause] >> this is a knife's, softball question. does the health-care sector have the same viewpoints, generally? or do the company's differed greatly? >> we spend one year before the last election asking ourselves what the position would be. it was clear that there would be changes needed. the health insurance industry has reachedredibl consensus around a number of specific things that need to be done to fix the system. we were actively involved last year, the answer is yes, we are reasonably well united around the basic ideas of what needs to be done. there are other components that

might disagree, but our group is at least unified. >> is it now or never for healthcare overhaul? >> if history is any guide, if we do nothing now to be awhile before we return. i hear the people that say if nothing happens we can visit it incrementally, which might be the great debt -- right idea, very difficult to get things of this scale through the political process in this country. if this does not happen, another comprehensive thing will be impossible for a while. that does us say that we cannot come back and do other things. if the big thing does not happen, we will have to come back to do other things. >> some actuaries say that medicare is going to be bankrupt by 2015 or 2017. what are your thoughts on that? >> i do not have to speculate, the math is straightforward.

medicare is trillions of dollars underfunded. we are having this debate about how it should be paid for, and  would say this all the time, medicare must have the best management methods from the private sector applied to that population. whether we ultimately have to change our commitment is another question, policy makers will have to be without one, but we cannot have an out of him -- out of control medicare program continuing on the track is on. we're bringing significant value to having to rationalize all of that. the future is bleak for that question. >> what happens in 10 years, 15 years, even 20 years if no health care reform is enacted? >> i have said overall -- all along that the path forward is

unsustainable. how much of your business is consumed by this cost? my number one thing, every quarter, when we are asked where are busy -- -- biggest challenges in business, it is health care. we have stella track that we are i'on. -- we cannot stay on the track we are on. there will be real shift in a way that this culture thinks and acts. they must happen for this culture change. it has to be a question of how we finance, what our intent is, it is a combination. how do we rationalized the delivery system? the amount of waste in the program is mindboggling.

50% of health care is no value added. we have structural issues, demographic issues, and behavioral issues. we have been able to drive efficiency and productivity. terms that you do not here in health care very much. but that is exactly what we're talking about. we need productivity, value for money in health care. >> we will get more granular and into more detail. if he were a hospital, what would you do to prepare for health care reform? >> i used to be a hospital administrator for 20 years. of course, things have changed, and we have a lot of friends on that side of the table. i would suggest the idea of productivity coming front and center. i would ask myself how i would drive higher productivity from a business perspective and how do

i win by doing that? the idea of these same old, same old activities will not work. we must find higher productivity. to the extent that there is waste or abuse inside of a hospital system, how do you get that out? what is the economic model to do that? there are conversations around that, bills that are directed at that. you might have heard about the concept of an accountable care organization. a baby step in paying people differently, attempting to drive productivity. >> something on the national transportation investment rules and regulations, as well as restrictions, why can we not force commonality into the system of all of the stakeholders? >> i guess we could. if there was ever enough

political interest or courage. i think that some of us, most of us in the private sector understand the need to do that. when i give you the example of this technology play, that is exactly what that is. we need a standardized approach to the non-value added things in the industry, making them as efficient and low-cost as we possibly can. if there's a role for the federal government, we think that there is, for years we have been saying that there's a role for the federal government. and there is a significant amount of money in the stimulus program. that will be used to drive these standards. on health it i am reasonably certain that we will get there. >> let's shift back to the other end of the spectrum, going back

to the wellness area you are interested in. well this is great, but there is no money in it. if you were a czar, how would you make sure it could be paid for? >> that is sort of where i was going. if i can never minded business model that says that we dropped a person's body mass index by one point, it is worth a certain amount, connected into the spending. we have yet to find a solid business model for us. >> body mass index? >> a chart that tells you where you are based on height and weight. based on our own population, we have two sets of data. i have the body mass index of everyone that works for us. you can look at medical spending in sight of our own company based on that measure.

predictably it is exactly as i described. people with a body mass index over 30 spend all the money. as a business, if i could figure out -- i am spending a couple of million dollars per year on health care. if i knew that i could take $25 million of health care spending, i would be all over it. i do not know how to do that yet, i will come back in the future well-liked figure it out. >> there is evidence that the obesity problem stems from a lack of understanding on nutritional education. where does that fit in? in a big believer that people learn how to do this very young.

the catholic school district where our home office is, they wanted to know if we would work with them on this. we started working on a top to bottom curriculum, what would it mean to have a healthy school? one of the things that is a part of that, a very comprehensive approach to everything, even curriculum. when you teach math, talk about the calories in a piece of pie. that kind of thing, we have also tried to drag this idea -- these kids will go to mcdonald's, do they know what to read when they go in? meet people where they are, and as a kid especially start down there, figure out how they live their lives. where do they eat and what do they eat? have the parents, in, teach them how to cook.

whatever you do at school will be irrelevant if they go home and experience something completely different. it is doable, but this is heavy lifting. i will be back to report on that as well. >> we will have you back. back to health care reform, what percentage of health care costs is administrative. how can it be reduced by insurance companies rather than being passed on to the consumer as the provider? >> that can vary by product line. in general conversation, i think we can assume 85% goes to direct health care. there is a real debate right now about 15% being a legitimate number. if you read the newspapers, it seems like it is all profit. we spend a fair amount of money on distributing products and

administering claims, doing those things that would not surprise anyone. we are trying to get at the $85, which is where the debate is. if i have a coordinated care system and a management program base around trying to rationalize health care, is that administration or medical spending? should be spent on administration? i would push back generally against all the criticism. some of this stuff is not created equal. these are being put into data aggregation and things with the potential to help. in overtime, there is productivity possibility. some of it is right here. this one in the state of florida -- i know you watch monday night football. is your team any good here in florida? [laughter] never mind.

[laughter] >> that was low. we have a great hockey team. >> where was i? i actually forgot where i was. [laughter] i used to have a building with my name on top of it. you can see it on monday night football. there's not a single person in the building anymore, it says suntrust on top of it. there is much more opportunity out there. we have work to do to drive it down, we do not want to make quick conclusions about the concept of how the money is spent. some of it is being directed at the big problems. >> we would not do our job up here if we did not talk about

universal coverage. why does every developed nation have universal health care except the united states? >> we know the answer, they have simply taken a different approach. we have looked at these systems for a long time. most places outside of the u.s., everyone has a basic level of coverage. there is some sort of government thing that provides a safety net of some sort. most places have a private sector on top of that that people pay out of their own pocket. that is the standard model generally outside of this country. we have not gone down that path. that is not the way people have chosen to do it. we have many people outside of the system. some of them voluntarily, others not. it is a very complex question.

9 million people or 10 million people are eligible and they simply do not sign up. we have a gap of based on the structure. the way it has existed since the 1940's, a concept of universal coverage is critical to fixing some of the things that bother the public. people hate the concept of pre- existing conditions? the reason they exist, we are in a voluntary health insurance market where they are not covered. all throughout the year we have seen a connection between universal coverage and a some sort of mandate where everyone needs coverage. those things have to be linked to eliminate the insurance practices that are a result of the voluntary market. i'm not sure exactly how we got there or if we even decided that it was a good place to be. probably not. the effort to getting everyone in the system is critical and important. people receive care, there does not insured.

meaning that you get lower productivity because the access to the system where we know it is not the most efficient place is where we have it done. >> describe the difference between universal coverage and the public option. >> i do not know the exact number of the top of my head, but something like 1350 entrants participants in the united states. the fundamental question without a lot of competition is geographic specific. the debate over competition gets weird depending on what you're talking about. those that are pushing the idea of the public option believe that this is one way to force competition in markets where competition does not exist. the debate gets ugly quickly

when you ask what the business model will be of a public option. we do have a couple of public options today called medicare and medicaid. this year alone, 2009, it is estimated that the cost shift of those programs into the private sector is about $90 billion. the hospital folks in the room, they know this, they do not get paid adequately. so, they must drive that revenue sorel's. as the public option debate move forward, those that were most aggressive work relief was in the idea that they would use medicare payment rates for the public option. i would argue that that completely destroyed whatever is left of the private sector, taking down your hospitals in the process. if everyone coming through the door was paid medicare rates, how long would you be in business?

probably six months at best. that is why it gets a little ugly fast. >> bringing it home, this is the last question. what is the involvement of humana in michigan and what is your commitment to our state? >> of michigan. [laughter] despite being a carton -- we love michigan. [laughter] despite being a cardinals fan this is a growing market but a tough market. you have serious players that i confront every day. we believe that we have to look at the market place in total, so we are the biggest player in the state at this point. we will continue to grow dramatically there. specialty products, it is all out there. the general approach is that we

do not declare success on one product. we are optimistic. we appreciate those of you that our customers and look forward to a great future there. >> all right, everyone. please give like mcallister and more economic club thank you. -- please give michael mcallister a warm economic club thank you. [applause] >> thank you so much, that was informative and well delivered. what a pleasure, having you here today. i know that we have been doing a lot of health care related programming, and the timing today could not be better. ladies and gentlemen, we also know that you are all very busy people. thank you so much for joining us today. we appreciate it. do not forget that 75th anniversary festivities. see how you can get involved.

thank you so much. this meeting is adjourned. have a great day. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> health and human services secretary, kathleen sebelius, talked at a health insurance industry conference in washington this week. her remarks are just under half of an hour. >> i appreciate everyone coming back quickly. we want to accommodate the schedule the secretary, which is very busy today. we are delighted to have invited you and we are delighted that you accepted our invitation. you joined a long line of your predecessors. when i began this, one of the first secretaries came to our podium many times to participate in this conference.

we are delighted to welcome you as well. on behalf of the working men and women in our community, a wonderful representation here this morning to hear your remarks. i think that our colleagues would want me to make a couple of points as you take the podium. one, we are entering 2009 with a major commitment to do something unexpected. the unexpected by various communities in the arena, committing two massive change in the way that we do business. we are on the page and fully committed to insurance reforms. so we are on the page and f administrative simplification, we are committed to mandatory requirements as part of a reform or executive order. we are committed to that, we have spoke to the administration about that. we talked to doss -- doctors and hospitals about that.

finally, we are committed to cost containment. we are not committed to incremental proposals. we have not proposed incremental proposals, we have proposed dramatic, comprehensive solutions that would get to the issue of affordable -- affordability and and gender predictability into the system. get to the issue of we understand that that begins with us. we are committed to cost containment, not finger- pointing. we are prepared to take our place. in the last few days the discussion has been focused 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 to go out of business or cancel our coverage altogether. either way is a lousy set of options. we have heard those stories across the country. from new mexico to texas, pennsylvania and georgia. many of the people writing to me have a pre-existing condition that they were worried about. themselves or their children, trying to find any other plan. some of them had given up any

option of having insurance coverage and were taking a huge risk with their financial future and their personal financial situation. some of them were waiting for it to kick in at within a year. many of them were very unhappy. they felt powerless to confront their insurance company. they were afraid of being dropped or worse. i have met with a number of you in the room over the course of the last year. we have had conversations. what you have shared with me as you are seeing more young, healthy americans dropping out of the market. in this economy, that situation has accelerated. forcing the plans to have an even worse risk pool. therefore translated into higher rates in the marketplace. i have got to tell you that we

have to figure out a new strategy. we have got to figure -- put ourselves in the shoes of the remaining customers for a few minutes. the american medical association recently came out with a study talking about the metropolitan insurance market concentration. . 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 companies went up 56% between '08 and '09, and then the letter comes to them that their premiums are going to rise by double digits or worse. they think the system's broken, and the system that's supposed to protect them and their family from exorbitant health costs is doing just the opposite, because they're paying higher and higher out of pocket costs for skinny and skinnier benefit packages, and still seeing dramatic rate 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 >> good morning, good morning. i'm doing mike check here. for all of those who are here from different time zones, which is sim floor where i am, i want to say this is your wake-up call. for others, i'll say good

morning. and welcome to the second and final day of what i hope you found to be a very wonderful conference. i'm calvin anderson, vice president with blue cross blue shield of tennessee. amy has made a name for herself as one of the best young political journalists covering washington today. as the editor-in-chief of the hotline, washington's premiere daily briefing on american politics collects provides a fresh voice? an industry dominated by long tenured journalists and editorials. it is featured in her national journal.com column and has earned her numerous accolades including "the washington post" crystal ball award.

amy is a sincere voice of reason is one of the op 50 journalists in magazine and numbered one -- she puerto ricoly appears on cnn and as served as panelists and on face the nasty and also on "meet the press," "washington journal" on cnn, "real time with bill maher," the early show on cbs and she provided election night analysis for the news hour and 2008 commentary for cnn and 2002 and 2004 and was a member of emmy awards.

given her extensive experience, amy walter speaks with aplomb about the elect trorl cross and the washington political scene. her astuteness and wit which you will be privy today stands out amongst the crowd. she's a calm laud -- cum laude graduate and serves as an adjunct professor at the american university. please welcome amy walters. amy, talk to us about washington politics. >> all right. thank you. [applause] >> so riveted. at 7:38 a.m. that's usually -- thank you for that task. also though, i notice you guys probably been riveted already

this week. i don't know if i can upshell so much on that. this point that i didn't have any horses greeting me when i came in this morning. it's kind of quiet outside today. >> we can talk, we can be currant i just wanted to give sort of a overview of where things are in the political environment, what it could mean for the 2010 election and beyond and then of course open it up to the floor, to again, since we're so intimate here to be able to engage on this. of course, you know, as was mentioned very nicely, thank you, in my introduction, i'm just going to lay it out for everybody here and you know, my

job is just to call it as i see it. and, you know, look, we have an electorate right now. you might have noticed this, that is very angry. right? that's what we're told every time we turn on the television, every time we check into the political environment, we're told that about the tea party movement, about this frustration with the status quo, the people hate the establishment. cnn ran a poll a couple of weeks ago that said 86% of americans believe government is broken. just totally done. "the washington post" had a poll recently whereby a 20-point margin voters believed that smaller government with fewer services was something they would rather see than bigger government with more services. 58% wanted smaller government. even at a time when voters are

saying that they feel as if they're stuck economically and obviously we're not in the heydays that we were just a few years ago. but for all the talk and all of the focus on the anger and the anti-government focus, i really think it's a stretch to say that what voters are telling us is that they hate government. what they're telling us is they hate ineffective government and they hate incompetence is really more of the issue. and, you know, i see this both in focus groups. i see this in the way the candidates are engaging, good candidate, how they're engaging with voters and some of the polling we've done. and the one that really stood out to me, the national journal group does a fantastic poll

about five or six times a year, called the heartland poll, sponsored by all-state. and they ask voters this question, which was how active a role do you want government to play in your -- in the financial sector essentially, but what role do you want the government to play in the economy? and given everything that we've seen again, about the tea party and the anger out there, you would have thought that the answer would be i want government out completely. the best government is no government or, you know, government is best when it does the least. so the answer to it is this. 35% of folks did agree with that sentiment, that -- and here's how the question was worded specifically. "government is not the solution our economic problems. government is the problem." not surprisingly, most of these voters, 39% of them, were

republican. ok. and this compares with 25% of the overall population that considers themselves republicans. so this is a very, very heavily republican group of people. probably people that wouldn't be supportive of a democratic president, democratic congress even in better times. >> the government must play an active role in regulating the marketplace and ensuring the economy benefits people like me. more active government. 28% believed that. half of the people were democrats. but another third said i want to see government play an active role in the economy to ensure it benefits people like me, but i'm not sure i can trust government to do this effectively. that's 33%. so when i look at this, i added up and i said 2/3 of the people in this country believe government has role to play in

the economy. it's just that half of them think government's not doing a very good job of it. that's a very different than saying that government is the problem, that we -- that we should throw government out completely and start from scratch. and i think this is really the challenge then for candidates as they're coming into a midterm election, especially if you're an incumbent to convince voters that actually government can solve the most pressing problems in this country. there's a great new yorker cartoon that i think every person running for congress should carry with them as they're campaigning. it is a guy standing up in front of a clearly hostile crowd. he's a candidate wall these people holding signs like government, no! government out. and he says "i know you're angry at me. i'm angry at me!" and that really, it's a joke but

it's really not. and i'm already starting to see this. when you look at the can dwhites have been successful thus far in this selection, especially the ones who are incumbents, they're positioning themselves as outsiders to the system that they're part of. right? which is fascinating to me and it's working. the real issue is people say we want to start from scratch, go bottom up, get everybody who's ever been associated with politics out of the process and bring in a whole new group of people. then you wouldn't see the kinds of people rising to the success for all the talk about scott brown and his success in massachusetts. this guy wasn't exactly an outsider. . he did a brilliant job of creating that image with the barn coat and the pickup truck and the whole thing but the guy been in politics for 15 years. he's been sitting up in beacon

hill now. thankfully for him, he is a republican and since there are about four of them in massachusetts, you're not linked with all of the scandal that is normally associated with beacon hill. seems like every other week, somebody's indicted in boston politics, massachusetts politics. so that certainly helped. but he positioned himself that way. rick perry, governor of texas. this guy is the longest serving governor in the history of texas. he won his primary by running as an outsider. and he won itsyly, 52% because he was running against somebody who is from washington. for those of you watching the florida senate race or from florida, marco rubio running against the governor charlie crist. he's been getting tons of national press, rubio as the tea party candidate. you've seen him, you know, being mentioned by national pundits and prognosticators.

-- as the outsiders going to take on the establishment republican governor. -- who and charlie crist at one time came in and supported president obama and the stimulus. ok. so mark arubio who i don't think he's 40 yet but for most of his adult life, he's been -- ok, wait for it -- in politics. he was the speaker of the house. it's not exactly an outsider. but he's a candidate and you're seeing this in case after case after case. it is the positioning of it that is much more interesting than it is the actual caliber to the candidate. that's why i go back to this. that voters say if you're involved in politics, you're bad. it's you need to meet voter where is they are which is they're angry and they're frustrate that government isn't doing enough. and really, when you say all right, well how did we get to here? because if you go back to the

summer of 2008, 50% of voters -- this is a "washington post" poll said they wanted to see smaller government but 45% said they wanted goff to -- government to have a larger role. it's now a 20-point margin in support of smaller government. so how did we so quickly get to this point? and obviously, you know, it's pretty obvious. i'm sure to most of you in the room how we got there was ok, so what happens in june of 2008? so yeah, the tarp bank bailout thing. you have auto bailout. the a.i.g. bonus scandal. you had the stimulus. you had anything else that was scandalous that government was involved in in terms of, you know, pushing money out into -- into propping up, failing institutions. and voters haven't really seen any benefit to them about it. you know, you could see the seeds of this had been planted

sometime ago and i was sitting in a focus group back last summer. you know, back when we thought that the stimulus, you know, it was semi-popular, not wildly popular but wasn't as unpopular as it is today. the president obviously was much more popular. a guy in the audience said well, here's what i don't get. we spend a whole lot of money on these banks and i still don't have a job. that doesn't seem very fair to me. and that's exactly what voters are saying. again, it's not that the money went out the door. it's just that there's not been a return on that investment. >> this is a fragse with all things institutional. again, i thought this was a fascinating number in the all-state poll where they asked voters who they would trust to

give them financial advice. they didn't want to get it from congress. you know, do you trust congress to help you with this? help you manage your finances. ok? help you manage the financial risks you face. so how many of you would like to see major corporations help you manage those risks? not surprisingly, 56% said not, not, no, zero, none. no. didn't want them to do that. which is a little bit higher, they felt a slighter better about elected officials in washington. among them, 47% said never would i want them to. he labor unions, 53%. nope. national banks. nope. not so much. 45% said don't want any. how about a financial advisor? maybe, but 33% of those folks too said no, i would not trust them at all. so who would you trust?

64% picked a spouse or close family member. now, my brother-in-law's pretty smart. he is the one that told me, that you know, get into frozen yogurt back in the 1980's. that was big. >> [laughter] so that he's pretty good. i know he's invested pretty well. and then 74% picked themselves. me. that's who i trust. me. and again, it makes a whole lot of sense in a world where people are looking at major institutions that seem to let them down at every turn and this has been happening for some time. it's not just wall street banks, toyota has become sort of a punch line. but they too. this was not -- i ahead to you -- said to you two years ago, what auto company do you think would be involved in runaway crazy cars? toyota would not have been top of your list. and the scandals go into major

league sports. it's just institution after institution after institution. for folks who say well the answer then is to get government out of the way and let the private sector or private industry help. voters aren't going to be exactly embracing of that either. there is very much of a we need to figure this out on our own and we can handle this ourselves and again, for this is i think very important to understand the mood of the electorate both for candidates as well as for folks who are engaging with real people out there. the other thing i think that happened and why we've got on this place today is we have an election in 2008. that was predicated on change, right? and everybody reads change differently. your version of change could be my version of change. we always knew those change can clash. i may have wanted a change to something. you may have voted a change from something. so we're going to be disappointed when those things don't match up in the real

world. washington, d.c., legislating. but for independent voter, those folks who really do tip these election, what they really expected from this president was some and this congress was something that looked marketedly different from where we are today. and you know, this is one focus group that really stood out to me in 2008 after the election, suburban virginia, ex-suburb virginia, tease are the real swing voters out there. half the people in this room had voted for a republican, for the senate in 2006. a good chunk of them had voted for bush in 2004. all of them voted for obama in 2008. and he went around the room and had different reasons for why they did or didn't. he asked sarah palin had a big role in why they voted for barack obama. for many of them, this was a big step. you know, this was something

they not really done before. i mean, emotionally, they are making big ring. such a risk that they didn't realize for example that one guy didn't realize that c-span was in the room and when he did, he's like o god, i didn't tell my wife yet that i voted for hit. when is this airing? i got to go home and admit to her. even to the people closest to them that hadn't admitted to them. and we went around and we said what would you be disappointed in a year from now? they basically said we're not expecting miracles from this guy. we're not talking about a year this economy is going to turn around maybe it's two years. i don't know. but the one thing that they did agree on is they said you know, that he would live up to his promise to change washington and

i remember very specifically a couple of them said if he looked like what they just all turned into this typical politician, i'm out of here. and that's exactly what happened. we've seen for the last year, basically we've just watched the sausage making in washington and the infighting and a year spent on process. the fact that all of us in this room and a great majority of americans now can tell you what reconciliation is. you're not supposed to know what that means. what does that have to do with it that we now have watched this cross and what we've seen is the infighting and the deal making and the da, da, da, everything that voters have said they were voting against. to me, the most fascinating part was somebody like ben nelson who if you think about in the olden days, a guy goes in, he knows his vote's important. so he cuts a deal. right? that's how washington works. it's been working that way for a

whole long time. you get your deal and then you go back to your district and you say hey, you guys, isn't it great? i'm a swing vote because i've -- i delivered for my constituents. then the cornhusker deal became this big bad thing, just an example of how the deal making has trumped the policy. and he goes home a week or so later and he's having pizza with his wife, i think in omaha and he gets booed by his very constituents, right? and he had to think, wait a minute, i did this for you. i can understand if i'm getting booed in milwaukee or somewhere else, but i cut a deal to help people in nebraska and you guys are mad at me for mat? and again, it goes book the one in talking to people out there, well, yeah. we're kind of embarrassed now that we have become this symbol of all that's wrong in politics.

nebraska wants something special that nobody else get. but we sent you there to be independent, we really meant it. and now you look like you've turned into exactly what we disliked about politics. in the first place. the -- you know, the other thing that i think it is -- is interesting is an baltimore, i think is partly responsible for how difficult this slog has been for -- obama i think is partly responsible for -- if you equate with success. even though if the bills fantastic or the legislation makes a whole lot of sense, if it doesn't have bipartisan support, there must be something wrong with it. and getting bipartisan support in this kind of environment was always going to be. like let's take the last year off the table for a second and just, we all knew going into

2010 that this congress was going to look very different even in the congress of 1994 the last time -- 1993, the last time democrats had control of the whole thing. back then, you had moderate republicans. you had people like john chaffee in rhode island, right? who would be willing to cross the aisle. just a few years ago, you had moderate sitting in places like oregon and minnesota and again, rhode island. now, the success of democrats, their ability to ping these seats across the board in the house and the senate has come at the expense of republicans. and so when you kill off all the moderates to win 60 seats in the senate and to have the 41-seat majority in the house, there's nobody to reach out to in the first place. so you shouldn't -- knowing that, it was always going to be

difficult to get barnes. it was always going to be an intraparty fight and if you set up the scenario that says well, we need bipartisan support, then you're going to be banging your head against the wall throughout this process. not because the -- it is this one issue, but because fundamentally, the very people that could help you succeed aren't there anymore. where does that lead for 2010? they look and they say hmm, this feels very familiar, especially for people who were around in 1993, 199 4. the last time you had a white house and congress controlled by democrats. they say hmm, this feels kind of familiar. back then, there was a guy named ron who was at the white house

and was kind of controversial. ok. check. we have one of those. again. and two, we have, you know, a president whose approval rating now is under 50%. we have an angry electorate. we have a lot of seats at risk because we've picked up so many seats over the last couple of cycles. this is setting up to be a very very, very bad year. now, we know a couple of things about midterm elections. the first is they're always bad for the party in the white house. it's just a question about are they bad? are they bad bad? >> they like superso awful bad that we don't even want to think about it bad? right? like epic pro-portion bad. if you go back in the 1960's,

you'll find out how well -- or how bad bad is. right? so if a president historically is under 50% -- i'm sorry, is over 50%, on average, his party's lost 12 seats in the house. if he's under 50%, the average is 41 seats. and by the way, that's the exact number of seats that democrats have for the majority. so he's right now, you have a president right now sitting basically right on that line. he's at 48, 49, 50%. now, just remember, that's his national number. if you were sitting in one of these districts, which 50-plus democrats are that mccain carried or that bush carried, if he's at 49% nationally, presidents probably closer to 39% in your district or 49% in your district. so that's the other issue to think about. there's so much exposure for

democrats that there's no question that they lose a big number of seats. it's just is that 40 number, the one that they get to. you know, the percentage of people that say that, um, they'd rather see republican congress than a democratic congress is as good as it's been for republicans going all the way back to 2004. the percentage of people that say they want to see their own member re-electeded is as low as it's been since 1994. you could just kind of go tick through the numbers and it's setting up for a 1994 or 2006 like environment where the majority flips. in the senate, it's a different story simply because the number of seats that democrats have at stake, you know, they have such a big majority that losing it completely it's not impossible, but it's -- it's about as close to that as you can get. but still, going from 60-seat

majority -- well, right now, 59 seats to 52 seats, that's not -- that's not hard to see. right? so you can see five, eight-seat loss there in the senate. the question then is ok, so we're talking about this now in march. can this turn around for democrats by november? one of the thing as most of these members know, a lot of this is out of their control. look, the economy's either going to get better or it's not by november. there's very little they can do about it. what they're hoping is that at the very least, the trends continue in the direction that they're going. that while nobody expects to see that unemployment somehow is going to be down at 8% by november, at the very least, people are going to be feeling better that maybe we've turned the corner, we've hit the bottom, there's not going to be a double dip, all of this anger and frustration, there's time for it to dissipate and to focus

the light at the end of tunnel. we have no idea what other intervening events can happen between now and november that can take what we assume the tract triis and the focus and is put it on to something else. the other thing is you know, i'm a believer that candidates and campaigns actually matter. that. could also be the difference between republicans pick up 30 seats and republicans picking up 40 seats. so that we still have a lot way to go as we're watch these primaries develop and we're seeing how much money these candidates are raising. but when the playing field is

tilted against you, you -- it's still hard in that environment to beat even a semi-flawed candidate. they need to be a dramatically flawed can day. i'll end it with this. which is, you know, look, republicans can be very successful in this election doing what democrats did in 2006 and 2008, which is to say it's not my fault. it's yours. right? and for all the talk that democrats say the republicans, they're the party of no. they're not offering solutions. they're not being helpful. i think what we've seen in the past is that is a successful campaign tactic. democrats very effectively used the fration about bush, the war, the economy against republicans in 2006 and 2008. and republicans can use that effectively against democrats in

2010. they may even be able to use it to wane majority in the house. but a majority is only as enduring as the results it can deliver. and that's where we go back to the -- this is really about competency more than anything else? which is voters are pretty clear that in a time of great anxiety and strife, what they're looking for is pretty simple. they just want to see some results. and the more they see finger pointing and the more that they see the back and forth, they're going to keep ousting those folks until they get what they want. so until that party, whoever it is can figure out how to deliver those results, now talk about that effectively, we may see this what seems like this roller coaster continue for a few more years.

as one smart republican consultant said to me. me said americans are looking for good government, not good campaigning. so that is the lesson i think that republicans should take even if they're -- even if they succeed in 2010. so with that, i want to open it up? >> yes. >> questions and comments? >> amy, thank you. in our intimate setting here, we're going to open up for questions quest and don't be shy about asking amy for her great insight. we have the mikes that are floating around. try to limit yourself to one question. >> yes. there are always a number of voting blocks or groups. the hispanic vote was influential for president bush. you have the people who voted for president obama, anticipating he would stop the warm. you have the independent group. and then more recently, you have the tea party groups. could you talk a little bit

about groups that you see being influential in the midterm elections? >> that's a great question. and you know, the problem with the midterm election is it is -- it is much more difficult to game out. because the number of people who turn out in midterm elections are usually -- it's a much smaller population. and motivating people becomes the bigger issue, right? so that's really been the talk around washington, which has been can you take the obama coalition, those 2008, all those yes, we can, and the enthusiasm and turn it back toward, you know, this sort of work a day, candidates who aren't quite as engaging or who don't have the star power of president obama. and it's obviously a very difficult to thing to do. the pugh research foundation

came up with a poll that showed that support among this so-called 184629-year-olds has dropped significantly. a majority of them still support democrats but it's now back to the levels where it was preobama. so back in the 2004 election,, the difference in 2008 wasn't more of them turned out, it was more of them voted for obama. so we went 54% for kerry to 66% for obama. now it's back to that 54%. when you talk to those people, fascinating watching them, being interviewed both on cnn or being in the actual polling when you look at the numbers. same thing. they're not any different than any other group where they're saying we voted for change. we're not seeing it. we want to see results. they're not saying that they don't like him. they think he's a bad person. they're saying is we wanted x. we haven't silent.

until we do, we're holding -- we're going to be in this holding pattern. the other thing is look, i like to think of myself as i'm not really like a romantic, but something of a glass half-full person that like love can conquer all and we can all hold hands and figure things out. and love can be a bigger motivator. but when it comes to election, anger and hate actually win. >> [laughter] and that's the reality. so right now, republicans are motivated and democrats aren't. and two years ago, it was the exact opposite. right? and so people who are angry and people who are frustrated are the people who are going to get out and turn out every single time. and right now, that's a group of people. if you're a democrat, you're very worried about the fact that you can't get your folks as in

inspired as republicans. democrats really have to find a way to get back, independents. and every time the story is the process. every time, we hear more about reconciliation. every time this thing drags out and we hear about these deal, they continue to push those independents away. obama carried independents 52%. right now, his approval rating among independents is around 45%. that number has to get back up. the problem that democrats have too is if you're running for re-election, you say all right. well, let's see. how do i do this? everybody hates washington. so i'm not going to talk about washington. i'm going to talk about local issue. i'm making it a locomotive. except at least at this point what voters are telling pollsters is they see this as a

national election. more than anything else, they say that's what's driving my vote, what's happening nationally more than what's happening locately. so you can spend a whole lot of time talking about locate issues. nobody like hairy reid -- harry reid in nevada, when i looked at the results in from 2008, those new voter, hispanic voter, young voters which voted so overwhelmingly for president obama they outperformed even that number in nevada. so if you say where did -- where was that coalition the most basically pumped up? it was in nevada. and keeping that group engaged is going to be very, very, very difficult. >> amy, thanks for being with us today. it's a great start. given it's 8:00 in the morning.

>> thank you. a lot of across >> from a journalist's perspective, do you have any advice that you would give this organization that the insurance companies seem to be very much criticized in the media. and yet, they offer so many positive things. hundreds of thousands of well-paying jobs are provide around the country. there are extremely efficient, well-organized entities that a large number are not for profit. their operating margins are reasonable depired other industries and yet, it still has such a negative perception. individuals like their insurance but don't like the insurance companies. is there any way out of this box or this cycle that you can recommend? >> well, it is the question. and in fact, you could stand up and say hi, my name is sam, i'm a number of congress, we do a lot of good things. i do a lot of good things. i haven't been involved in any

scandal. i haven't gotten in any tickling fight with anybody on the staff. i do good things every day but everybody says they hate cogte they like the fact that i got their kid into the military academy or whatever. so we've always had that disconnect between like you as a person, hate the institution. i think in this era of just deep polarization where and just media saturation, and it's not just like mainstream media, it's the internet and cable channels. it's everything pushing all these different messages out. i think people naturally just, they fall into whatever makes them the most comfortable. and, you know, when i went back and i have been looking through the -- especially the kaiser foundation polling because i think they've done a good job in looking at the way that people

feel about how they get their health care and the people who deliver their health care, et cetera. i always thought this was part of the problem in doing a health care overhaul from the beginning which is if the people who have their health care right now feel pretty good about it. and they're worried that change is going to make it bad for them. that is a tough thing to overcome. right? that if you're ok with what you have, you believe that yes, if you ask the voters, do you think more people in this country should be insured? absolutely. how you go about doing that has always been the issue and how you go about doing it without threatening the care that i like right now. but when you go back whether we're in 1994 or whether we're in 2004 or 2008, i didn't see the percentage of people change.

i never saw a drop or a rise in the percentage of people who said that they were unhappy with their health care. in other words, most people who are getting health care through insurance program, not a government-run insurance program, but private insurance said i like what i have, you know? it's somewhere in that high 80's or 90's. i am -- i like what i have. i feel like i'm getting good care. high 80's or 90's. that they individually -- the vast majority of people did feel like they were happy with what they had. and this goes on, as i said, back to the 1990's. so it's not like all of a sudden we've seen this big, well they felt good five years ago and now they feel terrible. it's been pretty consistent all the way along. so i think the frustration is

where -- why is this happening? and in a system as defuse and as complex as this, it's hard to point a finger at one thing or another. so it's easy to point to a big institution and whether it's pharmaceuticals are the problem, the doctors are the problem, the health assurance plans are the problem is a lot easier than sitting down and going through the numbers and figuring out how this all works. along, i think where people are frustrated is that it seems like there's a whole lot of finger pointing and not a whole lot of action. for you, in terms of how do you sort of defend against this, you know, my advice always is you just keep delivering good services and you have people that become your -- that is how

you continue to succeed. right? you can't convince people of something if they don't believe it. but right now, if 890% of the people who are -- 90% of the people believe they're getting good health care, then that's a pretty good number. and it's impossible not to be criticized. i mean, you know, in a world that we live in. but if that is what you keep doing, i think you'll be ok. >> stephanie has a question here. >> amy, thank you so much. i wanted to ask about the time after the next election. even if the house stays democratic but the margins are smaller, the senate obviously sounds like it's going to stay where it is, but smaller margins, what are the implications for the next two years beyond that election going