and i think it's that sort of disconnect that has flavored this period in which we have tried to find solutions, and it has been a lot easier for president obama -- probably have a lot to say about him as well if this were a obama conference -- but this has voled and changed over time as two presidents have tried to figure out what to take from it. i would argue that the first anti-war sentiments that inhabited the white house after the invasion of iraq and the invasion of afghanistan came before president obama took office as president bush took a different tack by his second term. the anecdote that stands out is twrevpb when the israelis come to the -- 20067 when the

israelis come to the white house and say we think you should bomb a nuclear site. and in 2002, he asked them their pb. they all more or less said yes, you should go or you're ready to go. even general powell in the end said i'm suiting up at that point despite his misgiving that he had expressed up until that point. and then president kicks them all out of the room and it's just him and cheney at this point. it's the two of them that make the fateful decision. fast forward to twrevpb and the same people are in front of him and the vice president is asked to give his opinion and the vice

president said he should go ahead and bomb. you have laid down a red ryan on the issue of proliferation and you should follow through on that. the president asked if anybody agreed with the vice president and nobody's hand goes up. the path from that point until 2003 to 2007 shows how much iraq and afghanistan has gun to weigh on president bush. he did not take military action against syria despite the urgings of some. he did not take military action in darfur to try to intervene in the jen sites because some -- because he at that point was struggling to figure out what had happened, what had worked, what had not worked. i think he would defend it in strong terms, on some of the same terms that tom mentioned earlier.

but it's clear that by the time he left off he himself was trying to figure out what was the appetite for military action versus diplomacy and he had instituted that the multi-lateral talks with iron that we are seeing basically -- iran that we were seeing boifing play out this week in fact in switzerland. he engaged in une natural -- tried to repair the relations that had been damaged with the europeans and began to move some of the people out of gtmo and began a shift with president obama. this is what happens in this country. i think when we have national security crisis, we go to war and we often find situations where we take actions and we -- that end up involving over

time. the suspension of habeas corpus jan adams and the se disact. and i find that to be a part of the overall story of how we've gotten from there to here, where president obama is still struggling with these issues and sees choices that he doesn't like that are in front of him, whether it come from iran or afghanistan. i only have more to say on that. i'd rather hear more -- actually, i i hope there's questions for everything up here -- everybody up here. i'll turn it back over to our moderator. thank you very much. [applause] >> you summarized everything nicely and i think you are the moderator at this point, so makes my job easier tonight. but i do think it's a good idea

because so many critical issues have been exposed to open up to some questions back and forth on the panel would be most productivityi, in fact. then we'll save some time for audience questions, too, but there is a lot to discuss here. we have core differences on the need for the war the legal itself the ethical concerns for the war. there's a lot on the table and i think there's a lot that could be productively debated. with that, i guess i'll open it if people want to have specific responses to each. >> can we flare the audience? >> absolutely. but panel discussion was what i was thinking first in this sense. so actually, yeah, peter do you want to ask your questions? >> i have a couple of questions.

i guess i'm curious that tom -- tom and phyllis, maybe that way you guys can bring this into sharper relief for us. tom, you were in iraq and you make the argument that jerry busher made of logical decisions that have been criticized fer afterwards with regard to the army and so forth, and your comment was that we went in underresourced and we didn't properly commit to what was going to be necessary. i'm curious if you have other thoughts about what our understanding before the war of sunni versus shiia, whether we had really -- you know, if we understood the pot boirl that was there to be awakened, whether you think that more resources by itself would have made a difference or how was this inevitable. on phyllis i guess i would ask

you talk about they didn't have the -- ask the security council right away whether to authorize a strike again afghanistan. i'm curious. are you saying, let's just say they had the council would have clearly gone along. do you think it would or would not have been wise to proceed with the war or it would have been unwise, period? >> ok. well, that's a lot to handle. thank you, peter. i enjoyed your book. peter thanks. >> ok. so let's address these one at a time. intel going in, let's not forget that secretary powell did go to langley for three days and really sat there and go through the intelligence as the colonel mentioned. but this is not jue just our

intelligence. we had a number of different intelligence sources including the russians, the french, if did israelis. we didn't get a -- from the israelis. there was a strong likelihood that zeams had had chemical and buy lodge calling agents. and as somebody who's been in sadam's 300-room subterrain ran bunker which even our most powerful weapons could not penetrate. and i walked down in the dark with a flashlight and saw the chem bio suits and everything around there. you can -- you often -- i often speculate what was there, was there ever anything there what was he telling his leadership? and these regime elites have a very sort of cloistered sort of

circle of people that they deal with, ok? there's a lot of show. there are a lot of mirages that these authoritarian regimes have to con instruct nrd to asert -- in order to assert their power. i think that's -- clearly we might be able to say that that was an intelligence failure, but there were others. i remember very clearly walking in and talking to people and said, look we had no idea it was this bad in terms of the degradation of the physical infrastructure. so many of the resources had gone into building up the military so much of the resources has been consolidated by the regime over a number of years that nothing worked --

nothing much worked before the war and definitely didn't work after the war in -- you know, after the looting. so, you know when we talk about resources and we talk about intel, you have to maintain an overwhelming physical force in order to secure the -- secure and maintain the infrastructure which is really the first thing that we did not do effectively. nature an hors a vacuum. and when you're -- at-bat hors a vacuum -- abhors a vacuum. if there's a vacuum of force, then what you're going to see is people filling that void, people filling that vacuum, and that's where you saw some of the sectarian mishes. it's important to remember in iraq, that this was a nonsectarian country. it was a separation of mosque and state for many, many years.

zam viewed himself -- sadam viewed himself in this islamic leader in the middle east, really after the first gulf war when he was trying to reassert some of his authority in the region and you have intermarriage in iraq between sunnis and shiia. you have sunnis shiias and turkmen living in the same neighborhoods. i say when you talk to the rank and file iraqi these people wanted to mover on with their lives. they're not saying, this guy next door to me, he's a shiia, let's go kill him. that was not part of the psychee of the country. and i believe that as the insurgency and the foreign fighters came in, you saw still the vast majority of iraqis just want to get on with their life, but then you saw the sectarian

mishes start to increase in power, because they felt that they could. they felt that they had that opportunity, because we didn't have enough people to adequately secure the infrastructure in the streets. with respect to the army -- and this is probably the most-talked-about issue in -- when you discuss the immediate aftermath, i had the benefit of actually sitting and speaking with wallet slow come who was the assistant secretary of defense under president clinton who was over in iraq and one of the architects of the mission, and going out and viewing some of these facilities. some people may say it's a lie and there's no truth to it, but when you have a conscript army that is poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly paid and you

have an officer corpse that disintegrates above it, you have no place to billet them, you have no place to feed them, you have no actual way to pay them because of the infrastructure breakdown. so you have to understand that unlike in the first gulf war when we took literally thousands of p.o.w.'s who were members of iraq's fitting -- fight force in iraq this time around, we took, i believe the number was less than a thousand. these guys were so poorly equipped. they actually went to the plant where they were making uniforms and helmets. the helmets were like the thing you would give to a 5-year-old kid, you know, like hard plastic. a lot of this stuff was for show. they had big numbers but they were all conscripts. they had an officer corps of not

very well trained generals, officers and n.c.o.'s. we had very little intelligence on the order of battle. so when it came to finding these people, it would have been very difficult for us to do. and the first thing that bremer did was say hook, there isn't really an army to restru constitute and what we need is a professional fighting force. in order to secure this country and put ourselves out of the game of being the only force to secure the country we need a professional fighting force. within 60 days of his arrival 60 days, knots six months, not a year not two years. within 60 days of his arrival, we had started training the first classes of the new iraqi army. now, remember, anybody up to the rank of colonel from the old army was able to apply, and ultimately 80% of the new army were folks from the old army.

but you needed to have the components, including n.c.o.'s and officers, and place toss billet these folks and feed them in order to start training them. i would like to add that we did try once -- and nobody ever talked about this. we tried once to actually reconstitute an old division of the iraqi army and that was in 2014 in the battle of fallujah. they found a general from if old army who was actually halfway decent, all right, on paper. he actually had some training. he wasn't just a buddy of somebody and that's he got his rank, which was a lot of what went on in iraq. and this guy was able to locate a core grew up in his infantry and the marines wanted them to go into the battle of fallujah, and they did that and it was a complete disaster. it was a complete disaster to

the point where half of those guys ended up fighting on the other side. so i know that this is an easy thing for folks to say, oh, this was a crazy idea. but it's -- if somebody saw the facilities met with these folks and saw the operations and how they tried to reconstitute these folks firsthand, it was -- you know, there were certain very real reasons why that was done and why it was tried to be -- we tried to remedy it as quickly as 30b8 -- podge, because we knew -- possible, because we knew we had to. >> very briefly, i just heard one thing that i agree with. reeg releafs have people cloistered around them. that was absolutely true of the white house. there were people who knew far more than iraq than anyone in

the white house. >> i'm glad i got to give you ammo. >> i think that on the question of what was there, the weapons one thing we knew was true the seed stock for biological weapons had been sent to iraq in the 1980's. we knew that because they came from the united states, not clab destinely, officially. the a.t.c.c. and we all had the documents of this. had been revealed many years earlier. the use of chemical weapons was done with the help of the united states military who provided targeting information to sadam hussein's military, because in that war hoping that both sides would kill off a lot of young soldiers and would destroy a lot of resources on both sides we weighed in more on the iraq side because them the weaker side. so that was a given. the point about the destruction

of how bad things were, again there was tons of information out there about what 12 years of crippling sanctions had done. after the iron--- iran -- iraq war, the sanctions had destroyed not only the physical infrastructure but much of the social fabric of the country. and this was -- some of you will mention madeline albright who said, when asked about the 500,000 children who died as a result of sanctions and her answer was -- "we think the price was worth it." i wanted to say, if it was your children would you still think the price was worth it? that was her answer. she didn't deny the figures. she didn't say, oh, it wasn't 500,000 children. she knew it was. she said we think ice worth it. this is not part of a partisan

issue. this goes to parties across the board. the issue you raised, peter, about if the security council had endorsed it i think there's always been a depirchrches between legal itself and legitimacy. i wouldn't have considered it scombriment it would have been pleel if the security council had endorsed it. the bush 1 administration used a vast array of bribes and threats and punments to force -- punishments to force people to vote at the other end of the war. there were only two countries that voted no in the security council. one was cuba that the voted on principal. the other was yemen, the it was the only arab country on the security council. yemen voted no. no sooner had the yemeni ambassador put down his hand in the security council meeting,

the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. was at his side and said "that will be the most expensive no vote you've ever cast ." and the remark was picked up on the mike that he said he didn't know was open. that the time nobody compared about memen, if poorest country in the arab world. still is. me and others wrote at the time that we didn't think it was an zerningts that we didn't think that the ambassador made a big miss stake, that he knew full well that the mike was open. the message was primarily aimed at the rest of the world, if you cross us, you will pay a price. still at the u.n., they call it the yemen precedent. there were bribes that had to do with arms that were sold to countries like colombia that had not -- the u.s. had not been

willing to sell arms. there were oil deals that had been consult there were threats, punishments. the fact is they got a majority of the votes, so the war was legal. it was not legitimate, but it was legal, and that does matter in the eyes of the rest of the world, that's an important criteria. >> there are so many other issues that we could get into and discuss amongst ourselves, missed opportunities etc., so many things have been risen. let's get to audience questions. students, two things. please try to ask short questions and students have preference. so students, please get in as quickly as you can. student: hi. this was a great panel. thank you, everybody.

there was a lot of, in my opinion, crazy things said sots it's hard to pick out exsm what i want to question and who i want to question. i guess the main one i'd like to ask is mr. gopaul. that was a really interesting story and i think it's fascinating that you lived in afghanistan for a while, but the basic gist of what i got are from what you were saying was that when we got there and realized al qaeda had fled and the taliban had pretty much quit, should we have just packed up and gone home and let them go back to afghanistan and plan another attack? what would -- in my opinion it sounded like you were saying we should have just let the country go back to exactly what it was, which was one of the worst countries in the world run by one of the people in the world, the taliban, where women have no rights. we could go on and on about how bad they were. they were going to return if we

left. what do you think we should have done instead? >> well, in 2002 and 2003, what i'd thriket draw attention to is two different concepts. one is state building. one is crounter terrorism. i think each of those are counterimpotesed to one another. the experience in afghanistan shows that. because for every dollar that was spent on the central government, on building institutions, so it was an equivalent amount billed on -- spent building bernlts and warlords. the afghan national police, there was an attempt to build a national police force in afghanistan. there's a number of ways in which one can build a police force, one of which is to train people, hire people from around the country. instead, what ended up happening was that there was -- the police force that was built was a con

glom race of local mishes and the -- conglomeration of local mishes. they were -- militias. not those who were most effective in providing law and order. and the effect of that was that now today, we have marishas all around the country. someone is considered the most rapasheous of the afghanistan security forces. if we were serious about state building that would have meant not privileging it every step of the way, privileging the building of institutions, helping the afghan state connect taxes instead of propping it up. all of that would be a very tall order and would be a break from the paradigm that's dominated in the last 13 or 14 years, which is counterterrorism. i think that would be an

alternative. i'm not -- i don't believe that actually would have happened. i don't believe that given the state of affairs in 2002, that all of a sudden, the united states would have been serious about state building. it was never serious in afghanistan about state building. another example. i was just very -- last week i was in cond hare province and i was traveling around looking at schools, so i was interested in education because the united states has helped bring education to afghanistannies post 2001. month of the schools that were built were actually contracted to local war lords and strong men, it turns out, and the building of the schools actually deeply dadget local communities that probably would have been better off if they'd never done so in the first place. so the broader answer to the question is that if the u.s. was serious about state building,

then it had to be serious about actually building institutions. instead, it was only into -- our only focus on criticism and then we have no state and terrorists. >> do you think it is better now than it would have been [inaudible] better now? depends on where you look. >> [inaudible]. >> it defends on where you look. there are parts of the country where life is significantly better today than it was under the taliban. there are parts of the country where it's worse than it was. i'll focus on the latter. under the taliban, women were locked in their homes, kept away from education health care. today in southern afghanistan, women are still locked in their homes, kept away from education and health care, and on top of that they live in a war zone where their brothers or husbands

can be run over a roadside bomb or they can be taken away. so it's very complicated question but i think the starting point is to ask for whom is it better. for in afghans, it is not better. i think that's a searing indictment of everything that's happened in the last 13 years. >> hi. this is a question. first, like the other gentleman here thank you for giving us some of your time to come and talk to us. greatly appreciate it. mr. baker, you mentioned that you worked with thomas rick. it happens that a couple of months i read a book called "fiasco," a book you probably know very well. with that having been said, what do you think can be taken from the book? what do you think can be taken? >> these a great question.

i don't want to answer for tom because tom would be the better person to give you lessons from his book, but the book was a fabulous encapsulation of a lot that had gone in iraq. he said my title's going to be "fiasco." he said you think it might be a little strong? he said, no, my worry is i think somebody else will do it first. and he was right. he had a lot of experience with these officers and he was seeing it through their lens. i think tom later wrote "the gamble" about petraeus and the search. and i think -- the search. i think that -- surge. i think that may have flowed

from "fiasco" and i wouldn't want to give -- tom has left the washington post now. he wrote a very evocative piece recently for foreign policy. my wife used to edit about how he's -- he's got a blog there -- about how in the last number of years he's been sort of -- i'm not sure he used the word radicalized, but he now has a much more, i guess liberal would be the right word, from having been an objective reporter, he's come away very sour obviously, very depress isn't the right word -- actually it may be the right word. he talked about going through post traumatic stress and it's made him rethink -- i think this

period has made a lot of people who did feel strongly about the war. it is important, by the way, that this was a bipartisan vote taken in congress in 2002. there are quite a lot of people across the idealology cal lines who supported things and have changed their view, have become quite distressed in some ways or another. the colonel can speak for himself. but there's many people who come from the administration with a stronger and more vigorous feeling that the colonel has had about what happened, how it happened, hoyt happened, why it shouldn't have happened. so i don't have any good lessons for you. that would be smarter people than me. >> let me touch on another midnight you and every young person in this room and across the country should be concerned about, that this is really highlighted, ands in 14 years of

war. the gates commission that set up for president nixon and created the all volunteer force and tom has talked about this, too, made a mistake. it made a number of mistakes. it didn't contemplate anything like this, for one thing, and it didn't contemplate what would happen once 1% of the nation. so the all volunteer force right now -- and i recommend a book to you called "skin and the game." the army and marine corps alone will be almost the entire defense budget for those services in just shortly. the all volunteer force is not working.

think about this. phyllis would probably say that is wonderful. i'm not quite that far again. >> give it a month. >> why we've gone lower it has to do with we can't find the men. we have lowered the standards of the army and marine corps so far that we are taking criminals people with drug records taking people who are mentally unstable. it is incredible what we've done. it's an operational reserve rather than a strategic reserve. think about that, young people. >> can i ask a point about the military? i work a lot with iraq veterans against the war which is an extra ordinary organization of

mainly young -- though they're not so young anymore -- veterans of iraq and afghanistan wars. what the standards showed, particularly from iraq and afghanistan as well, about who it was from the u.s. that was dying in those wars. and after age -- they were all young -- the single most common thread of the thousands that were killed in the war was that they were from either rural areas or towns of less than 25,000. we were not from big cities. they were people from places where there were no jock jobs. they didn't have options. they didn't have other choices. because they were from the small towns scattered around the country, they were not from the big cities where overwhelmingly people from the media come from. so people who work in the media today -- and i have many friends in the media and the thing i --

>> some of your best friends are media. >> some of my best friends are in the media. and we know a lot of people in the military. i know a lot of people who don't know anyone in the military. and that's a reflexion of who it is that's being drafted by lack of opportunity and lack of choice, lack of job, poverty a range of things. it's not quite as volunteer as the name sounds, in my view. but it means that those who are writing the history of today on bog blogs, on the radio on tv don't have a clue who these people are that are fighting. that affects the coverage of what does and doesn't covered. that's one of the speakts we have to look at. >> the author of "matterhorn" probably one of the best books

i've read, former marine in vietnam, calls at this time all-recruited force, and that's what it is. you would be sfund i gave you the figures on what the army alone spent to recruit that force, especially during the height of the iraq conflict. we're talking about six or seven or eight or $9 billion being spent just to pay for this all-recruited force. and it isn't getting much better. >> so threats take advantage of having nothing behind us. and take one more question. >> this is for phyllis. you mentioned earlier thrar a lot of alternatives to instead of going to war in afghanistan after 9/11, can you mention some of those alternatives the u.s. could have taken instead of going to war?

>> sure. what i got to do after writing this book was write the speech that george bush should have given when he was circling around the ship. an act of war implies another country is guilty. going to war against afghanistan when the hijackers were not afghannings. they were soudies and egyptians. they -- saudis and egyptian. they trained in germany. they went to flight school in minnesota and here we were saying we're going to bomb afghanistan was certain to create more terrorism later. so the first thing would be what's going to recognize what would create more terrorism and don't do that. that meant recognize it as a crime, recognize the need for international justice. there was a lot of talk about justice. it should have been a moment to say this is why we need a

viable, functional system of justice, why we were wrong to oppose the international criminal court >> it means treating it with international engame not telling the rest of the world, you're either with us, you either support our war or we will treat you as if you were terrorist. it means cooperation police cooperation. it means engaging, not militarily but through law enforcement, to do some of the things the n. wa caught on to do in terms of identifying funding

sources, for instance. . it means improving diplomacy and taking seriously the need for diplomacy si. these are lessons we need to be applying now. the choice is -- choice is never go to war or do nothing, go to war or let them get away with it. '9" means putting enormous amounts of resources, money, people, the best minds available to figure out what kind of negotiations would work, not necessarily negotiations

directly are isis or with al qaeda, but negotiating with those who are enabling al qaeda, who's funding them. those who say they wouldn't to prevent this from happening again we wand to understand the reasons why it happened the first place. those were called -- we were called apol gists for terror. if we didn't support war we were somehow supporting terror we were sucking up to saddam hussein. that's what we needed to do, figure out root causes. maybe you can't prevent an extremist who's a sociopath from a kind of attack, but you can damn well figure out why people in places an the world thinks

maybe it wasn't such a bad idea and look at what those reasons were and try and figure that out, which makes it much harder to do ever again. your goal is to prevent it from happening again, you have to start with figuring out why it happened the first time. you need to put your best minds the best influx of resources of money, of time and attention and people to figure out what those alternatives are rather than going to war as the only alternative. >> in response to that. she said it wasn't an act of war. i'll finish where i started and

that the paradigm of what we consider to be war shifted, and this is our new time, these are the new challenges. this speaks to something the colonel said earlier that we waisted an opportunity because we went into iraq and there can be no doubt in the colonel's defense, there can be no doubt certainly that george w. bush burned a lot of capital going into iraq, but don't ever think that just because you hear about iraq or afghanistan in the news that that was the extent of what this president did to keep us safe. george w. bush george bush, for -- george w. bush this government, after 9/11 initiated

operations in conjunction with the f.b.i., the c.i.a., the u.s. military, and the intelligence agencies and governments working together with governments of 62 countries to interdict terrorism. and we had the cooperation of 262 countries for intelligence gathering, diplomacy, economic pressure, military pressure. this wasn't about identifying al qaeda as the only threat and saying ok, well, if we're done there, we're done, we're finished, we're moving on. the president has a more global view of this. and he had the relationships with productive relationships with countries all around the world to help not only protect

our interests, but also to probability theirs. so while, yes, political capital was burnt i'd think that bold decision making makes that a necessity, but please don't think that iraq is the only estimation is to initiate the -- an effort that had global participation, global cooperation and reach to inter dict terrorism.

visit leadership had given another alternative, there would have been massive support from the united states to stand with the french saying we are all americans now, to stand with the people of the world who were sending these messages of solidarity and human connection. in many cases for the first time. it was the first time in a generation or more than american sense of vulnerable to anyone else in the world. that has never happened before. most, huge numbers, the best majority of people in this country would have wanted to follow that kind of leadership. we were never given that option. >> have would explain that 51% continued today identify

themselves of thinking torture is necessary? >> it has gone up and down. 88% of people support the war in afghanistan at the time it was presented. three years ago, 82, i think were saying it was never worth it. >> it is one of my gravest concerns about the american people. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, if people reduction -- >> the people are going to believe that it works and is legal because some lawyer in this justice

department said it is, it is the ultimate otology. if someone asked me, do you think it is legal, it is legal and therefore it is legal. that is not how the law works in this country. if it is a country of laws and not of people, that means the laws have to have some credibility, not just some lawyer that has to have graduated law school to say whether it was john or somebody else to say it is legal and their or the president can do it , and anything the president does is ipso facto legal. that does not make it legal. it just as someone says it is legal and nobody is believe the opposite. >> we have already taken over our time. i want to thank them for the illuminating discussion, lots of great debate, so many issues that we could continue to cover.

hopefully we continue the discussion to run the con's. thank each and everyone of you for coming and making this a very interesting and informative panel. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2015] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] >> it all starts with evolution, the big lie of science and the catholic church and most mainstream protestant double nations reach an accommodation of science saying, wasn't got clever? easy out.

what happens, unfortunately is about the same time this accommodation is happening there is the rise of organized labor in the united states which is a form of collectivism in which it is determined by a handful of protestant ministers to be a satanic distraction from the individual, the rugged individualism that allows you to have a direct relationship with god. and so they become concerned with what are the fundamentals of christianity and they actually write a series of books and pamphlets called the fundamentals and they are known as fundamentalists. that is where the term comes from. one of the fundamentals is that science is a lie because if you believe the science of evolution, you are rejecting god. >> more on science to nihilism,

climate change, space exploration, and vaccinations, at the space denial conference -- at the colorado world affairs can't is. >> david mccullough on the right brothers, their rest for flight and wilbur's accident that change the course of history. >> it was the mystery of who it was that hit wilbur in the teeth with a hockey stick, knocked out on this teeth when he was 18, and sent him into a spell of depression and self-imposed seclusion in his house for three years. was not able to go to college as he planned to do. instead, he stated home, seldom went out at all reading providing himself with a liberal arts education of the kind most would dream of having, all on

his own. with the help of his father and local public library. he swears me the path of his life in a way that nobody anticipated. >> sunday night on "q&a." >> georgia tech he launched his campaign today releasing a video with his announcement and holding a kickoff event in exeter, new hampshire. >> america has a big decision to make about who we are going to be and what we are going to stand for. the system is broken. the question is no longer about what the government should do but with we should do about our government about our divided

youth, are uncertain future. we are founded on a miracle, and euro bills on courage, a god-given believe that the nobility of the human spirit and the fact that liberty is the only way the spirit can thrive. washington has grown too big too powerful, too expensive, and to intrusive. this is exactly what the founding fathers feared. they knew all the governments had a tendency to grow endlessly and ultimately to take power from the people and give it to themselves, politicians. it is time to stand up and protect our freedom and take back this government. i was a republican governor in a very deep blue state, the state of new york. i was governor for three terms. it was because at the end people realize my vision was not a partisan division but a vision about people, about what we could accomplish together. when i was elected mayor, the

last thing i thought of that was being governor of new york state. an unknown person from geeks kill. if you care about people, you don't have to be governor or president, you don't have to be a u.s. senator to try to impact their lives. we can pass all the rules and regulations but unless we have many women like you prepared to risk your life to defend this country, they don't mean anything. god bless you all. lunch is on me. we have always understood that we have a common background and a common destiny. when we stand together, we can accomplish anything. i saw that on the streets of new york in the days and weeks after september 11. we understood we were all americans who had been attacked and were going to rise together, and we did. we need to recapture that spirit, that sense that we are one people. when we do, we will stop empowering politicians and

empower ourselves with the opportunities to have an unlimited, bright future. we, the people, not washington, are equipped to lead the nation. we, the people, are what makes this nation great. when we stand together americans can accomplish anything. [applause] we are all in this together and let us all understand that what unites us is so much more important than what may seem superficial and divide us. if we are to flirt as a people, we have to fall in love with america again.

that is exactly what we hoped that we would not just rebuild but towler, new heights, show people that we were not going to live afraid. it really does what we wanted it to do, which is to reclaim the skyline, stand out as a symbol of coming back, not just as strong but stronger. [applause]

♪ >> thank you so much and let me thank you for introducing me but most important, thank you for 41 years standing by my side and helping us have one of the greatest families and a family i'm just so proud of. thank you all for being here. god bless you. you are the reason i'm here this morning, to help your futures be better futures. [applause] as i look around this room, i see so many from new york state from texas and illinois, and of

course, from across new hampshire. thank you all from -- for being here. many of you helped me get elected as governor of new york three times, and you are here again. thank you for your loyalty. [applause] [speaking spanish] [applause] [speaking spanish] we are here index or, new hampshire, birth lives of the republican party, abraham lincoln's party, who brought the promise of freedom to all americans. teddy roosevelt's party who fought for the square deal so

that the rich and powerful could not limit the freedom of working americans, and ronald reagan's party, who restored americans believe in ourselves and in the transcendent value of freedom. the freedom that has given us the greatest country in the world. the freedom that a man named amos arctic are the foundation of that party right here in exeter, new hampshire, the same freedom that i fear is at risk today from an ever more power all, more intrusive government in washington. it is to preserve and protect that you can for us that i stand here today. [applause] it is to preserve and protect that freedom for future generations that i speak. it is to preserve and protect that freedom that this morning i announce i am a candidate or the republican nomination for president of the united states. [applause]

thank you. thank you. thank you. thank you. when people think of new york they generally think of new york city, and i understand that. but my upbringing was quite different. i grew up in a small farm in a small town on hudson valley called peekskill new york. my four grandparents were all immigrants who went through ellis island. peekskill's wealth was not in its money but in its people. black and white, christian and jew, rural and urban at the same time.

we weren't wealthy. we weren't well-connected. we weren't well-known. yet everyone of us growing up in that small town believed the american dream believed and hard work, and believed in ourselves. we believed and new if we dreamed something, we could do it. if we worked hard and studied hard, have faith, family, and friends encouraging us, nothing could be beyond our reach. we believed in the american dream. my father was a mailman. when he went to first grade, he couldn't speak one word of english. no one ignored him. instead, they helped him learn the skills he needed to succeed. my mother had to turn down a scholarship to cornell because it was the depths of the depression, and she was the only one in the family working. by the way, my mother is 99 and

at home, doing great. she is watching this live at home on c-span. mom, thank you. [applause] they never saw themselves as victims. though they might not have had every real opportunity for themselves, they knew that their children could accomplish anything. my brother and i worked on our farm as kids. when i was in college during christmas and summer vacations, i worked at the fleishman's factory with my cousin. in the evenings and weekends, we would come home and work on the farm. for my dad, working two jobs was the norm. he would leave the house at 5:00 in the morning, deliver mail during the day, come home and work on the farm until it was dark. if the alarm rang in the middle

of the night, he would answer the call as captain of the volunteer firefighters. today, my brother is an astrophysicist, and i am a candidate for the highest office in our country. [applause] this is the promise of the unlimited opportunity america offered for my family and the. if that believe in america that i want to restore for every family and every child and every community in america today. [applause] today, too many americans feel the best days of america are behind us, that our children aren't going to have the same opportunities that we did. government has grown too big too expensive, too intrusive. why should politicians and

bureaucrats believe they know better than us and tell us how to live our lives, from what health care each of us must have two trying to dictate to every child in every school what they must learn? a young mother seeking to start a small business is inundated with oppressive paperwork and regulations. a small manufacturer is seeking to build the best plant and create the next of american jobs. forced with excessive taxation, he is forced to build that plant overseas. we must make sure the path to opportunity is not closed. the problems we face are real, but i have never been one to dwell on problems. i'm a solutions guy. when you grow up on a farm and you have a problem, you don't ask the government to solve it. you fight and figure out what needs to be done and go do it. that's the american way. if i have the honor to lead this country, let me tell you some of

the things i would do right away to get oppressive government off the backs of americans. today, there is one former member of congress lobbying for every current member, and the first thing i would do is say, if you ever serve one day in congress, you will never be a lobbyist, there will be a lifetime ban on members of congress from ever being lobbyists. [applause] i've repeal oppressive laws like obamacare and end common core. [applause] i would eliminate excessive taxes that crush small business. [applause] i would throw out an incomprehensible tax code written by lawyers at the direction of lobbyists in the

interests of the powerful and replace it with a simpler, lower rates that are fairer for all of us. [applause] i would lower taxes on manufacturers to the lowest in the developed world so factories and jobs could spring up across america, and i would shrink the size of the federal workforce starting with the bureaucrats overseeing obamacare, and i would fire every current irs employee abusing government power to discriminate on the basis of politics or religion. that is not america. [applause] let's let every washington politician no -- know, from now

on, you are going to live the same laws we do. no exemptions for politicians with the laws that impose on us. no special rules for the powerful. [applause] our justice department will treat all fairly and uphold the constitution. no one will be above the law not even if you are a former secretary of state whose name happens to be clinton. [applause] let's deliver a clear message to the politicians in washington. you are our servants, not our masters. [applause] we do this, and small business loan rise.

we make things and buildings in america again. we will create and innovate. jobs will flourish and people's faith in america's future will soar. some are going to say, you can't do this, that the course of history leads inexorably towards bigger, more expensive, more powerful government. don't believe that for a second. they told me that when i ran for governor of new york. they said i couldn't win. too many people were dependent on government. the bureaucrats and powerful interests were too strong. the people couldn't regain their confidence in new york's future. in a sense. they were right. in 12 years, new york from the state with the highest tax

burden, the lowest credit rating, and billions of dollars in deficits to a state with $143 billion in lowered taxes billions in surpluses, and the highest credit rating and generations. all it took was for me to get government out of the people's way. it seems like liberals have so much compassion for the poor that they keep creating more of them. [laughter] when i took office, we had every party program government could think of, and yet 1-11 of every single new york state resident was on welfare not medicaid or disability, but 1-11 of every man and woman and child in the state of new york, from the tip of long island to the shores of lake neary, were on welfare. the american dream did not seem

real to them. after 12 years of my conservative policies, we replaced dependency with opportunity, resignation with hope, existence with dreams, a welfare check with a paycheck. when i left office, over one million fewer people were on welfare than when i began. that is what our policies can do. [applause] conservative policies replace dependency with opportunity. i know we can do the same thing for the united states. [applause] i was governor of new york on september 11. it was a horrible time for us and i'm sure, for all of you, as well. the personal loss was devastating and still is.

i saw up close the horrible consequences of too many believing because radical islam was thousands of miles away across the notion, that we were safe in america. sadly, it wasn't true then. it's not true now. the most important thing government does is to provide for the security and safety of its citizens. [applause] sadly, washington is not doing that. i will not forget the lessons of september 11. to protect us, first, we must secure the border. i am the proud product of immigrants. we must know everyone coming to america is coming here legally and that everyone is coming not to harm us but to be a part of a better america. in the face of an increasingly

dangerous world, this is not the time to weaken america's military. it is time to strengthen our military. [applause] mr. pataki: not so that we can use it but so that we do not have to use it. a strong america is a safe america. [applause] mr. pataki: ronald reagan proved that peace through strength is more than a slogan. peace through strength is a policy that works. weakness, equivocation, leads to brutality and war. the world is a better place when america is strong, and a champion of liberty and freedom. [applause] mr. pataki: allies and friends of america must know that our

word is our bond. we will stand with our ally israel. [applause] mr. pataki: we will stand with our allies in nato and the free baltic states against a resurgent russia. we will make sure the number one sponsor of state terror in the world, iran, never has a nuclear weapon. [applause] mr. pataki: we will provide whatever aid is necessary to those already fighting isis on the ground, to stop their barbarism and inhumanity. and yes, if necessary, american forces will be used to defeat and destroy isis so they can pose no threat to us here. [applause]

mr. pataki: we will not spend a trillion dollars on a decade of nation building overseas but i will never forget the lesson of september 11. we will destroy a radical islam's ability to attack us over there before they have a chance to attack us over here. [applause] mr. pataki: our allies must trust us, our enemies must fear us, and they will. [applause] mr. pataki: we will defend our freedom. we will not be the world's policeman. libby and i have those two sons, both of whom served overseas. we are proud of them, we are proud of every single person here who has put on the uniform to protect our freedom. to all of our veterans, raise your hands, we salute you, god bless you. [applause]

mr. pataki: libby and i know what it is like to lie awake dreading a call in the middle of the night when your child is in harm's way overseas. i do not want one parent, one husband, wife, or loved one to experience that fear unless it is absolutely necessary. but we will do whatever is required to protect the american people. [applause] mr. pataki: the challenges

facing america today are real. i know that we will rise above them. think of what this great country has overcome. washington at valley forge lincoln trying to hold together a nation divided, roosevelt facing both the great depression and nazi germany. the challenges of a large and oppressive government in america are real but this is still america. compared to those challenges we have overcome in the past, these seem like trivial things. i have no doubt we will rise above these as well. today, those in the other party, instead of offering ideas, seek to divide. when you have no solutions instead you offer fear. they say we are anti-immigrant. we, the proud children and grandchildren and descendents of

immigrants, we know that immigration has and will continue to enhance the greatness of this country. [applause] mr. pataki: let's send that party a clear message. unlike them, we do not believe that they come to this country so they can get a government handout. we know immigrants come to work, strive to get a better life for their families, and we welcome all who come here legally. [applause] mr. pataki: they say we are against middle-class. this too is nonsense. everyone here understands it is the men and women who go to work, pay the bills, and follow the rules that are the backbone

of this country. we are the party of the middle class, and unless you mean someone who left the white house dead broke and 10 years later had $100 million. [laughter] [applause] mr. pataki: unless by middle-class they mean someone who charges a poor country $500,000 for a half-hour speech. that is their party's candidate. [applause] mr. pataki: she speaks for the middle class? they are the party of privilege. we are the party of the middle class. [applause] mr. pataki: they are the party of the past. we must be the party of the future. i know that with the policies we

believe in, we can change the world. let the next decade be the decade when the american worker and innovators, the best workforce in the world accomplish things we can only dream of. let the next decade be the decade when americans finally cure cancer and and for all time the scourge of alzheimer's. let the next decade be the decade when america powers the world with our own clean resources. let the next decade be the decade when americans -- we have yet to imagine that the next decade be the decade where americans can have boundless economic growth while enhancing and preserving the natural environment. let the next decade be the decade when america proves to the world, you ain't seen nothing yet. [applause]

mr. pataki: i saw the horrors of september 11 firsthand. the days, weeks, and months that followed, i also saw the strength of america on display. for those months, we were not democrats, republicans, black, white, young, or old. we were americans. we were going to stand together to show the world we were unafraid and would come back stronger than ever. i reject the idea that we can only unite in adversity. we are so much better than that. i know we have true greatness in us because i have seen that greatness countless times. i have seen what americans can do when we understand we share a common dream, a common future, a common destiny.

i know that working together with the support of the government dedicated to restoring freedom we will once again astonish the world with what we can accomplish. [applause] mr. pataki: let us come together as americans and unite to face the challenges ahead. let us transcend those challenges and sees the unlimited opportunities the future holds. let us move forward so just as the dreams of that child growing up in peekskill, new york, came true, so too can the dreams of a young child whether born in downtown baltimore or in new hampshire. stand with us. let's go forward. i guarantee the 21st century be

america's greatest century. god bless you and god bless the united states of america. thank you. [applause] mr. pataki: thank you. [applause] ♪ don't stop believing ♪ >> i am larry gilbert, former u.s. marshal of the district of maine. i reached the cap on social security. i understand you are opposed?

>> i am not going to answer it. good to see you, thank you. mr. pataki: thank you. >> great job. mr. pataki: thank you. thank you so much. >> i need a picture. ready? one more. thank you. great job. mr. pataki: thank you. >> thank you.

mr. pataki: thank you so much. >> great job, we are so proud of you. are you kidding me? we are so proud. >> my name is john and i came all the way to main -- from maine. mr. pataki: thank you. >> we love to your speech. mr. pataki: thank you, it is about you guys. it is all about the future. i love new hampshire and i love meeting people and talking to

them. thank you very much. >> governor, why won't you answer my question? mr. pataki: thank you so much for being here, really appreciate it. thank you. thank you very much. it is about you guys, the next generation. giving you the hope and opportunity. i know my entire life has prepared me for this moment. i have had great experiences with leading and changing, and i

have had tremendous experience dealing with people in the private sector on a little farm growing up in peekskill. i know i have the ability to lead and change the country's direction, and appeal beyond just the republican party. some of the agenda you have heard, to change washington. vision, experience, and the believe in this country to bring people together for a better future. we will keep fighting. >> hello, governor. good luck. mr. pataki: we are kicking off in new hampshire but i have been to iowa three times, south carolina three times. i love new york, i am not going to ignore new york. i can guarantee you.

obviously new hampshire is very important, it is the first primary. i love that you sit down across the kitchen table and they ask you a question. i love that. >> do you feel you can distinguish yourself as more of a moderate? mr. pataki: i think i have led for many years a very deep blue state, but changed dramatically. some of the changes i've talked about today shows i can win the election, i can replace dependency with opportunity. i know that in my heart. we are going to fight the fight. i think having been in the private sector is a bonus. i have spent plenty of time in the government.

i also know what the private sector is about. >> why here in new hampshire? and why this time around? mr. pataki: i love new hampshire politics because so much of it is here, where you sit across kitchen tables, people look you in the eye, and that is politics. it is a critical time when i know we need things for this country. i know my entire life has prepared me for this moment. i know i can change this government away people want. -- this government the way people want. it is a critical time for the country. i know i am ready. i have the ideas and ability. >> are you going to win the primary? mr. pataki: i am going to do everything i can.

>> tonight at 9:00, a look at

science denialism, people's doubts and questions on climate change, space exploration and vaccination. here is a preview. >> i was one of the regular hosts for "the universe on the history channel, but they would present a show i was doing about asteroids on a scientific perspective, and then they would have "ancient aliens" on right after it. they would be presenting these things as equivalent. this was enough to make me stop working with the history channel. the strange thing was -- i think this gets at what is going on with this the nihilism -- somebody called me at nasa and said, is it through the world is going to end next week? i've been dealing with a lot of this. i said to them, think about this. do you think i would be here in my office answering the phone if i thought the world was ending?

i said, start getting worried when all the scientists by up expensive wine and max out their credit cards and go to some tropical island. >> this idea that i am not a person, that i don't have emotions or a family or reason to be aalive, that i would react if the world was ending. what an odd disconnect. if somebody wants to separate the fact from being a science to being a human being. >> the catholic church in most mainstream nominations which accommodation of science by saying wasn't got clever? and easy out. what happens is that about this same time that this accommodation happens, there is the rise of organized labor in

the united states, which is a form of collectivism, and it is determined by a handful of protestant ministers to be a satanic distraction from the individualism that allows you to have a direct relationship with god. and so they become concerned with what are the fundamentals of christianity? they write a series of books called " fundamentals" and they are known as fundamentalist that is where the term comes from. one of the fundamentals is that science is a lie, because if you believe the science you are rejecting god. announcer: a conversation about science deny listen at the university of colorado. announcer: here are some of our featured programs this weekend.

on c-span, politicians, white house officials, and business leaders offer encouragement to the class of 2015, speakers include george w. bush, melody thompson. and former staff members reflect on the presidency of george h.w. bush. sunday, more commencement speeches from across the country, with condoleezza rice and madeleine albright, and michael nutter. on c-span2, book tv is in new york city at book expo america. sunday evening professor kenji yoshino.

on american history tv on c-span3, saturday evening, a conversation with white house historian william seal, on first ladies. on sunday afternoon, the life and death of our 20th president james garfield, who served almost two decades as a congressman from ohio and was assassinated 200 days into his term as president. get our complete schedule at c-span.org. announcer: president obama visited the national hurricane center in miami, touring the facility and speaking with employees. he also talked about the coming hurricane season the funding in texas, and climate change. president obama: very nice to meet you. how are you, sir? >> a pleasure to meet you. president obama: good to see you.

>> this operation never sleeps. >> our function is to provide rate forecasts. over the tropical north atlantic, the northeast this ethic in the southeast this ethic, our total area encompasses about 14 million square miles, which is one of the largest marine or cast areas in the world. we provide significant forecasts , you can see by the coloring in a third field on the bottom, we have a development of a tropical cyclone in the pacific with significant weight height. >> it is not just about safety at sea, it is also an important aspect of our economy.

>> daytrip or two oceanic vessels. -- day tripper to oceanic vessels. >> this is tropical storm andrew. it is a storm with 40 mile an hour winds. because it has been upgraded all the colors will be carrying warnings. i also provide the radii around the storm to the specialists. >> [indiscernible]

>> i started here in 1991. president obama: [indiscernible] >> we have the old black telephones from the 19 30's and the weather building. -- 1940's in the weather building. [laughter] president obama: our thoughts and prayers are with the families and communities in texas and oklahoma, lives have been lost in our condolences go out to the families that have been affected, but there is going to be a lot of work that has to be done for rebuilding. craig just informed me on the coordination we are doing between federal state, and local respondents. the coordination is good.

they appear to have the assets they need at this stage to respond but there is going to be a lot of rebuilding. we as a nation are going to have to help the same that we do any time that folks are affected by these natural disasters. so we will stay in close coordination with them to make sure that our responses is quick, we are cutting through bureaucracy, and we're helping them recover. there are so going to be events over the next several days that will potentially make things a little tougher for folks, but i am confident that these communities will ultimately get back on their feet. it does remind us that it is never too early for disaster preparation. fema released our national preparedness report, summarizing new progress at a national level , along with submissions from across the country.

we are in constant coordination with our state and local partners to make sure that their action plans are up to date. we are joined today by our state partners, who are critical in all of this work because they are the first responders to people on the ground who are actually making a difference in taking a lot of the information that we get here and funneling up at the local communities, so we have partners from florida north carolina virginia, they have done great work to prepare for hurricane season. the truth is, we are better prepared than ever for the storms of today. the technology has improved, the forecasting has improved, the tools we have to model what may happen with something like storm surge has all gotten a lot better, and so not only do we have better information that we have new mechanisms to disseminated. we are focusing on making ourselves more resilient. that are having significant

effects on both the pace and intensity of some of the storms. the best climate scientists in the world tell us that extreme weather events like hurricanes are likely to become more powerful when you combine stronger storms with rising seas, that is a recipe for more devastating floods climate change didn't cause hurricane sandy but it might have made a stronger -- the fact that the sea level in new york harbor is one foot higher than one century ago certainly made a storm surge worse. that is why we are seeking to work with congress to make sure that we are focused on resilience and the steps we can take to fortify our infrastructure in these communities. we are fortunate to have a couple of setting members of congress here, on a bipartisan basis, both representing florida, and have a shared interest in making sure

that we are building the kind of resilience that we may need to miami, for example, already has to spend hundreds of millions of dollars just to adapt its water system to the more frequent flooding that it is already experiencing. that is why put forward america's first climate action plan two years ago. i called for a climate resilience toolkit to help families and business owners and communities plan for the impacts of the changing climate, and that toolkit is now online at toolkit.climate.gov. responded to her hurricane as a team effort, from federal to local levels, we'll have a role to play, i encourage every american a matter where you live to check out ready.gov, where you will find information on making plans for your family building the supply kit, knowing what to do when disaster strikes. this is something that -- has

been like a broken record about every year, but he is absolutely right, the best preparedness is a preparedness that is being taken by individual families homeowners. if they have ideas about how label respond to warnings and they are paying attention, then the collective effort obviously goes a lot more smoothly. finally, i want to thank the hard work of the public servants who help america prepare for and respond to and recover from emergencies. sometimes, we take for granted what our public servants do. sometimes, we spend a lot of time griping about government, we spend a lot of time complaining about folks that we are not seeing bureaucrats. basic information like what the weather is like, when storms

come, how they are going to respond, that involves our public servants at the federal state, and local levels. they may be in the background until a disaster strikes and suddenly we realize how much we depend on them. and so, i think now is a good time for us to remind ourselves and make sure we are properly resourcing folks who in dire straits we really depend upon, to make sure we are safe, our families are safe, and that we can recover from really devastating attacks by mother nature. i also want to thank our military, our national guard for the work they do, but our first responders and our folks at local level, they have been doing some outstanding work. i really want to lift up in particular some of the men and women who deploy on search and

rescue not just here domestically but internationally. we just had a couple of teams made up of expert finally-trained, local first responders who essentially volunteer, they just came back from nepal where they save a couple of lives. in the past, they have saved lives in places like haiti after the devastating earthquake there. they have been working around the clock in texas. they are always ready to do the selfless work that we should all be very, very proud of. so, thank you so much for the outstanding work that you do. right everybody, thank you. announcer: news from illinois, federal prosecutors have charged former house speaker dennis hastert with making illegal bank withdrawals and lying to the fbi about them through the chicago

sun-times reporting that the illinois republican is accused of splitting up nearly $1 million in two separate withdrawals to avoid bank reporting requirements dealing with anything over $10,000 per when asked about it by the fbi in december 2 thousand 14, he allegedly lied and said he was keeping that cash trading 2010, he agreed today an individual unnamed in the indictment $3.5 million to compensate for and conceal his prior misconduct against the person. according to the indictment. you can read more at the chicago sun-times. next, a conversation about republican alternatives to the affordable care act or this is from today's "washington journal." host: we are talking about obamacare. let's remind our viewers the supreme court is debating a third challenge to this law and a decision could come soon.

what are they deciding? >> they heard argument about two months ago. it challenges how the white house interprets the affordable care act. it was designed and supposed to make insurance affordable and give them tax credits. the way the law is written, the challengers say that the subsidies can only go to people that go to states that set up their own exchanges. a lot of the republicans excited they didn't want to do the affordable care act. the challengers say in those states the subsidies cannot go to residents. so the supreme court has to decide how is law written. if you look at the one phrase that the challengers are spelled out it's pretty clear.

and the white house says, yes, look at the law more broadly. if you look at the entire law subsidies were designed to go to everybody. some people say this is just a drafting error and a mistake that is landing before the supreme court right now and challengers say that this was a very intentional thing that it was supposed to be an inducement to the state to set it up. host: if the court rules the which exchanges that have been established by the state get subsidies what happens? >> essentially they would go away in about 36 states that are relying on the federal government that's about $7.5 million who would end up losing subsidies. not only would they use their subsidies right away, the supreme court could say, well, wait until the end of the year before the subsidies have to go away.

that's one kind of theory under consideration by the court right now. but it would also wreak havoc on it. if if you don't gate subsidy insurance will be affordable for you. so the individual mandate won't apply to you anymore and then we get into the death spiral that people worry b that only people really sick will end up big it because they're the ones who will have a reason and think is affordable to buy young and healthy will see their insurance bills spike and probably no longer buy insurance. host: they won't be fined because they'll qualify for this technical part of the law that says it's not affordable anymore for me. >> exactly. we'll end up with a situation in which there is a real patchwork. because in states like california they'll continue as

they are today. but in other states we'll see the insurance markets really go out of whack. host: when might the courts make this decision? >> we're expecting by the end of june the court holds its most controversial changes. host: what are republicans who control both the house and senate doing right now if the court sides with them and says you can't have subsidies if you are in a federal exchange? >> so republicans not only want -- they want to send a message to the court you guys can rule for the challengers here and not worry with causing chaos. it's a difficult message to send, but they want to have legislation ready to go so when this ruling comes in june, august isn't total chaos.

we could see a scenario in which it's repeat of the 2009 august in which healthcare reform was number one topic and they got a lot of heat back home. so we kind of see a scenario in which senate republicans want to restore the subsidies in some way. one bill that has a lot of interest from senator ron johnson would restore the subsidies for 18 months and would have to repeal the individual mandate and insurance requirement that's were passed under the a.c.a. it's hard to see democrats going along with that. if we don't have individual mandate the law looses a lot of its teeth. the republican argument there is that if there is a scenario in which 7.5 million are losing sub sides, maybe obama would be willing to hook at that.

not only does that opposition to democrats but in the house conservatives don't like that idea. they don't want to do anything that is seen as adding on to the affordable care act or fixing problems that the supreme court would induce here. what they want to do is reopen the whole and pass a different kind of health care reform. host: we are talking with jennifer haberkorn about the health care law and gop alternatives, if the supreme court were to set -- the side that subsidies could no longer begin out for those exchanges set up by the federal government. in today's opinion section of "usa today," my plan would protect patients. but the "usa today" ford says -- gop lays lame response.

it says ron johnson's proposal would at least ease the problems in the short run, but johnson loaded the measure with poison pills. so they call these poison pills. is the republican proposal out there that could give democrats to vote for it? guest: it seems pretty unlikely right now. but i will say, right now, both parties are kind of sticking their position point. because the court hasn't ruled yet, there are suited negotiations, i guess. i would look at the johnson bill as that.

on the democratic side, we know they are preparing a very short bill that says the subsidies could go to anybody. i think of the court does rule for the challenges here, we can maybe see some negotiations. i could see democrats go along with repealing some parts of the law. there is a medicare part that is really unpopular. the medical device tax has gotten a lot of attention. it is really unpopular with both parties. whether republicans consider that a big enough reason to -- the subsidies, it is too early to say. but at this point, there is no republican bill that i see getting any democratic support. there are several groups of republicans working on legislation -- a bill that would restore the subsidies, but it is kind of like cobra. if you lose your job, you lose your coverage at work. and it would drop the subsidies down over time.

senator hatch, the finance chairman, is working and a plan. several committee chairman are working on a plan as well. those are mostly set up, designed to get people tax credits instead of tax subsidies. host: and those three that you just mentioned, the three under screen, wrote in "wall street journal's" opinion piece recently -- there will be in opening for a sane health care alternative. let's get to the calls. john in illinois. a democrat. caller: hello. this is a little complicated and i do have a question at the end of it. one of the major proposals that comes up over and over again under -- on the republican side is to allow people -- they say they want to change things to allow people to buy insurance across state lines.

and i want to explain to people, and understand there is a question, as to what this really means. we have seen what happens if they say then people will have instead of just a few choices, you have 50 states with of plans that you would be able to choose from. we have seen this change before in other areas, like credit card companies. and what that means is that they can all go -- and it only takes a very short time to move to another state, a few days, to transfer your company to another state -- they all moved to two states. delaware and a couple others where there are the fewest consumer loss. and they only have to abide by the laws of those states. they don't have to abide by the laws of illinois or texas or new mexico because they are based in delaware. i am almost done. we also saw this in other areas of banking. illinois is to have branch thinking lost. they got rid of that.

now people have basically chased bank of america -- there are three big banks -- and the smaller banks are struggling. so my question is to you, can you explain to people anytime when this has increased choice to people? why would it insurance company stay in illinois if they could just move? host: all right, john. guest: yeah, this is an idea that republicans bring up a lot. and they brought it up in some of these proposals. republicans would argue that this increases competition, and that you do have an opportunity to buy insurance from anywhere in the country. particularly states that -- it is harder to get insurance, you know, south dakota, for instance, has one or two insurance companies. they could go across the lines.

but to answer the question, i personally cannot think of a time -- i'm sure there is in other circumstances -- but i don't see that republican idea getting traction. host: virginia, bob is a republican. caller: hi, there. if indeed, as established by the states means what it says, established by the state, that should be the end of obamacare. you know, it did pass without a single republican vote. and we were promised, while it was being argued, that we would be able to keep our insurance policy, if we liked them, and our doctors. that was revealed later on and barack obama even admitted that was true. so i think it does -- obamacare really doesn't have, or

socialized medicine, which is whether this -- there really isn't anywhere you can find authority for that in the constitution. so it should be -- it should be killed. we really don't need to have any form of socialism and the -- in a free society. host: we will hear from terry next in florida. an independent. caller: actually, i am a democrat. i am one of those dates that did not expand medicaid -- states that did not expand medicaid and i don't know if that has an effect on what i'm seeing in florida and experiencing myself or not. but my question is -- when well my fellow democrats admit that the aca needs reform? and i will just share my experience with the aca. i have it. i pay almost $200 a month.

i am on a bronze plan because that is all i can afford. i am a federally sequestered defense employee. i have been unemployed for two years. i am highly educated and i have not been able to find work. essentially, what has happened to me and other people like me is that we -- we are still being penalized as if we have pre-existing conditions because something in that system knows when we go online and complete all those dialog boxes that i am a 48-year-old woman and i probably have a pre-existing condition. and the other thing that has happened is i end up with high deductibles. i know other people who are in the situation along with me. so, the point of aca and why i supported it and why vote for obama was simply to -- the next time any major medical care, i was assuming that i would not have to go bankrupt in order to

pay for my medical care. which isn't true. i am paying out these extreme deductibles. and that i wouldn't be penalized for pre-existing conditions. so i would really like to know when democrats are going to stand up and say, yeah, we are aware that this aca needs reform? host: are there any democrats who say there are some parts we need to fix? guest: there are some democrats who will say i am willing to work on fixing the of portable care act. we have seen democrats become more open to that. but the politics of the of what will care act have changed and democrats are not willing to do anything that would cause damage to the law. so there is not a ton of room for negotiation room -- here. we're still kind of entrenched in the 2010 politics where democrat supported and republicans don't.

the caller says high deductibles, and that is a big concern i have heard across the country. because the of a double correct for quite insurance companies to not deny people for pre-existing conditions, people's premiums they go up. and it is only natural that if you getting more out of your insurance, you are going to pay a little bit more. one issue with deductibles that i have seen is when people sign up, they don't realize what they do doctor but might be. that has been a frustration for people who supported the law and have been interested in getting it, when actually go to use it they have to pay a little more than the expected. host: those with high deductibles to have negative views of the legislation, of the law. this "international business times” headline -- the majority are