mr. nye of virginia. ms. kaptur of ohio. mr. defazio of oregon. and mr. schiff of california. for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, and under a previous order of the house, the following members are recognized for five minutes each. . mr. poe of texas. mr. poe: i ask unanimous consent to address the house for five minutes. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. poe: libya is about to get $2.5 million in aid from american taxpayers and much is earmarked for foundations runned by qaddafi's two kids he gave the order for the bombing of the lockerbie, scotland, in

1998. men, women, and children boarded that airport. a libyan brought a suitcase with a bomb in it. it exploded, killing 214 passengers and 16 crewmens, mostly americans. 11 people on the ground in scotland were killed when large chunks of the plane fell out of the sky and hit their town. what are we doing giving this man and his family u.s. taxpayer dollars? as america lost its way? the united states -- the united nations is starting to look like the bar scene in the "star wars" movie, murders, terrorists and thugs roam the halls and ask to speak before the assembly. there was a time when the united nations was a threat to tie lants, you it seems it's their home. he said that -- qaddafi said that lee harvey oswald was an israeli spy he condemned the war on terror in afghanistan

and staid the swine flu is a biological weapon created in laboratories. can't tell who he blames for that. he also said in his 100-minute rambling rant we should call the u.n. security council the terrorist council. his twin terrorist tie rand, ahmadinejad, also had choice things to say at the united nations this week he said israel is committing genocide he said capitalism has caused all the misery in the world. the tiny tie rand praised himself for his glorious election this year. that's the election where he and his government beat and killed unarmed peaceful protesters that owosed -- opposed him he said the holocaust is a myth he wants the destruction of israel and the united states and he's building nuclear weapons. who do you think those weapons are for? and what is the united states reaction?

we canceled our missile defense system in poland a defense system that was to protect the united states from intercontinental ballistic missiles from iran and our polish allies think we've betaied our -- betrayed our commitment to them and eastern europe. let's not forget hugo chavez, the tyrant and venezuela. he's good buddies with the desert rat of iran, and a new york district attorney recently said there's evidence venezuela is setting up the venezuelan missile defense for the united states. why do we send u.s. taxpayer money to u.n. at tall awl? 20% of u.n. funds come from the united states. the american public is asking why. why do we finance the u.n. that embraces thug, dictator, and everyone who hates america and israel. since nobody else over at the u.n. has said it, i will. i will say this without apology.

the united states is the greatest country in the history of the world. we have more freedom and liberty than any people in the history of the planet. we have done more than any nation to help some of the most ungrateful people around the planet in the history. we should not abandon our missile defense system in poland. we should re-evaluate our financial commitment to the united nations. and we should never give american money to tyrants of nations in the hope of a blissful illusion of buying peace. mr. speaker, has america lost its way? we shall see. and that's just the way it is. the speaker pro tempore: ms. woolsey. mr. jones. mr. nye. mr. burton. the gentleman from indiana is recognized for five minutes.

>> i request permission to address the house for five minutes and revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. burton: on tuesday, the congressional budget office told senator baucus that his plan to cut $123 billion from the mid care advantage program that gives almost 1/4 of seniors private health insurance options will result in lower benefits and some 2.7 million people losing their coverage. last week, mr. bachus ordered the medicare regulators to investigate and likely punish humana incorporated for trying to educate enrollees in its advantage plans about precisely this fact. jonathan bloom, the acting director of a regulatory office in the centers for medicare and medicaid service who used to work for max bachus said that a

mailer humana sent to its customers was misleading and confusing to beneficiaries, who may believe it represents official communication about the medicare advantage program, end quote. he also banned all advantage contractors from telling customers what mr. elmendorf told congress. mr. bloom happens to be a former senior aide to mr. bachus and an advisor on the president obama transition team. for the record, c.b.o.'s director elmendorf said cuts to medicare advantage could lead to many plans to limit the benefits they offer, raise premium or withdraw from the program. they want to put a gag on the deliverers of this congress because they're writing to patient the people they're cover, and telling them they'll lose coverage if this bill passes that medicare advantage is going to be gutted, senator

baucus is now saying we want to put a gag in the mouths of the people who are providing this coverage so that they can't tell the senior citizens of this country they're going to lose medicare advantage coverage. that is a violation of the first amendment and secondly, i don't know of any rule that would allow senator baucus to do this. this is absolutely a terrible thing and mr. bloom doesn't have the authority to do this, mr. bachus, senator baucus does not have the authority to do this, and yet they're gagging the health care providers, the people who are insuring these people and providing coverage by saying, you can't tell them they're going to lose medicare advantage. the plan mr. bachus and other plans here in the house and senate are going to cut $500 billion out of medicare and most of it's coming out of medicare advantage. they're trying to keep the seniors in this country from

knowing it until they get the job done. that is criminal. first they violate the first amendment rights of these country -- of these company, then they gag them and threaten them with criminal prosecution or some kind of penalties if they don't adhere to what mr. bachus says or mr. bloom says. then they don't let the american people, the seniors who vote more than anybody else to know they're going to lose medicare advantage and they're going to take $500 billion out of medicare coverage. seniors need to know this and yet they're gagging the people who are trying to get the facts out. this is just dead wrong, it should not happen. this is government control in its worst form and it's something we should not tolerate. in addition to what i just said, i want to read into the record a letter i got from a doctor ned mossbalm, who is a forensic psychiatry expert in

indianapolis and the he wrote this to the american medical association he said, dear congressman burton, he wrote this to me about the medical association, dear congressman burton thank you for your well thought out letter. when i heard about the new a.m.a. position supporting socialized medicine, and folks, that's what it is. i felt a sickening feeling in the pit of my stomach. i've been a member of the a.m.a. for over 40 years. unfortunately, it's lately become a leftist political cheerleader with the usual pro-abortion and anti-second amendment drivel. however this illiterate position betais its own member that was american citizenry. it's so blind sided it eliminates the need for the american medical association. if we all become serfs for the government we no longer need a formerly scientific professional organization. with the a.m.a. headquarters in chicago, the a.m.a. president and his ilk must have been

polluted with chicago-style politics and their brains turned to mush. this morning, i had a lengthy teleconference with the executive vice president of the indiana medical association. apparently the indiana state medical association has not yet taken any position. i have also written a letter to the president of the a.m.a., a copy of which is enclosed, advising my position and the intent to resign as a member. please keep up the good fight. this is the kind of information that needs to get out to americans. seniors need to know they're going to lose coverage and $500 billion is going to be cut out of medicare. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado. is recognized for one minute. >> request unanimous consent to address the the house and revise and extend. the speaker pro tempore:

without objection, the gentleman may proceed. >> in 2007, the command for the chief, president george w. bush, relied on his military commander on the ground to give him an assessment as to what it would take to turn around the situation -- what was then a very bad situation in iraq. general petraeus made his case before the house and senate armed services committee and he was given the resources that he requested. the surge in iraq provided the necessary level of security that ultimately allowed the political process there to move forward. similarly, general stanley mcchrisle to has been charged by the commander in chief, president barack obama, to give an assessment of what it will take to win in afghanistan.

and achieve the objectives that the president has committed to earlier this year. i believe general mcchrisle to's report -- mcchrystal's report was politically sanitized and that the general needs to appear before the house and senate armed services committee to give an honest assessment of what's going on in afghanistan. the speaker pro tempore: ms. kaptur. mr. moran. mr. defazio. mr. forbes. mr. schiff. mr. franks. the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. franks: mr. speaker, i

stood on this floor about three years ago and called upon the united states to clearly define its position toward what is now the world's largest state sponsor of terrorism, the islamic republic of iran. i then called upon the iaea to refer iran to the security council because i believed then that western intelligence has long suspected about iran and what it seems that president obama is just now beginning to realize that iran is systematically pursuing the development of nuclear weapons. the finding that they have a second nuclear center should remove all surprise in from this announcement. they reveal iran has been covertly operating and developing a new underground

uranium enrichment facility. it is disgraceful that today's announcement comes only a week after announcing our abandonment of the missile defense site that could have protected the homeland of the united states from long-range missiles and only one day after president obama chaired a united nations security council specifically addressing the need to halt the spread of nuclear weapons throughout the world. unbelievably, the resolution passed by the security council omitted any mention whatsoever of either north korea or iran. but regardless of the security council's failure to explicitly address the real and present danger that the peace-loving world faces because of iran's nuclear ambition the fact is, iran has already disregarded three previous rounds of security council anxiouses -- sanctions and continued to aggressively pursue a nuclear weapons capability, including

building this underground facility and testing missiles that could be used to deliver a nuclear payload. we've reached a crossroads with iran that will result in one of two outcome, either they become a nuclear power that proliferates nuclear and missile technology to terrorists throughout the world and threatens the very existence of countries like israel, or by the world's inaction, we place the tiny country of israel in the unvoidable position of having to act unilaterally with military force to protect themselves and humanity from the threat iran would represent to the entire civilized world. we must not place israel in that position, mr. speaker. president obama's announcement today also offered no assurance toward the fact that a weaker statement, and in fact it was a weaker statement than the statement given by the prime minister brown and president sarkozy who said we live in the real world, not the virtual

world and that the real world requires leaders to make decisions to act. with its languishing economy and centuries worth of natural gas reserve, iran's claim that it seeks nuclear capability solely for peaceful purposes is ridiculous beyond my ability to express. it is now open knowledge that for years north korea gave false overtures while holding every deliberate intention to continue its covert development of a nuclear program. we're lying to ourselves and to the people that similar overtures if made from iran will be any less disingenuous. and the implications for our children and our future generations are profoundly significant, mr. speaker. the world must act. as one former israeli ambassador put it, the game is over. iran is no longer progressing but has now reaching the end game of diplomatic relations. mr. speaker, i am in favor of every sanction and diplomatic

effort possible to prevent iran from gaining nuclear capabilities. however, i'm convinced that only two things will stop iran from becoming a nuclear armed nation and proliferating nuclear terrorism in the future. it will either be a direct military intervention from america or other nations or the absolute conviction in the minds of the iranian regime that will occur if they march toward gaining nuclear weapons continues. the world must act, mr. speaker, for the sake of freedom and for all that free people love. iran must not be allowed to progress one step further in its pursuit of nuclear weapons. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: mr. inglis. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the

minority leader. mr. turner: thank you, mr. speaker. president obama's decision to scrap a long range european base missile defense shield was not only met with concern among our european allies but more importantly has sounded alarms here at home where the president's action will leave the nation vulnerable to iranian long-range missile attack. three years ago in response to growing threats from iran, u.s. developed -- the u.s. developed plans to install a missile defense system in eastern europe to protect europe and the united states from potential long-range missile attack. under the program 10 interceptor missiles will be located in poland and a radar station will be built in the czech republic with the goal of being fully operational by 2013. the european-based missile defense system will add an additional layer of defense to the continental united states which already has a small network of interceptors on the

west coast. the european-based missile defense shield was endorsed by our nato allies who called it a substantial contribution to their collective security. now, the obama administration has taken the unusual and highly questionable position of canceling the planned european-based missile defense system in favor of a scaled back program that will not be ready until 2020. the threat represented by iran is real and growing. last february, iran launched a satellite demonstrating substantial progress toward achieving a reliable long-range missile program. a month later, the head of the u.s. european command testified before the house armed services committee that iran would be able to deploy an intercontinental ballistic missile, and icbm, capable of reaching all of europe and parts of the united states by the year 2015. the president stated his decision was based upon reduced

threats from iran and greater cost efficiency of his alternative defense system. and anyone watching the news knows that there is no diminished threat from iran. however, a july, 2008, classified report produced by the institute for defense analysis concluded that the european-based missile defense system that the administration now wants to cancel would in fact be the most cost-effective. i've called on the administration to declassify this report so that all of the facts could be known and we could have a robust debate. moscow has made no secret of its opposition to european-based missile defense system and has repeatedly called for its elimination. furthermore, european leaders have heard from russian leaders, the russians have continually shown that they have no intention of pressing iran to drop its nuclear and missile programs. for its part, iran also shows no willingness to be deterred by russia. yet, the administration and

moscow assistance in halting the ambitions has chosen to surrender american's bargaining system with the shelf of the missile defense system. while the reverse on missile defense is being met with smiles in moscow, americans have real reason to be concerned. by thed a mfings' own admission, its alternative missile defense system will not be fully to be fully capable until 2020 with intelligence indicating iran will have icbm capability until 2015. this means the united states could be vulnerable to iranian missile attack five years before the administration gets its new missile defense system ready. not only is iran near its goal of launching icbm's, reportedly, it already has the ability to construct a nuclear bomb. last thursday a gruche experts at the international atomic energy agency stated in a report obtained by the associated press that iran is already capable of building a nuclear bomb and is on its way of building a missile defense

system capable of carrying an atomic warhead. remarkably, in the face of the blatant actions to develop a nuclear weapons program, the administration continues to pursue a course of unilateral disarmament. earlier this year the president cut funding for missile interceptors to be based in alaska as part of the ongoing construction of a homeland missile defense system reducing the number of interceptors by 1/3. i oppose that move and offered an amendment in the house to restore the funding. unfortunately, the president's cut was sustained by the democratic majority of the house. the administration's record on missile defense at a time when both north korea and iran are seeking nuclear weapons capable of reaching the united states is troubling. this year the administration has cut missile defense by $1.2 billion, reducing by a third our intended west coast shield which would protect us from north korea's advancements and has stopped a european-base system intended to protect the threat from iranian missile

threats. in the face of known threats, this administration needs to rededicate itself to the defense of the united states mainland. and now i'd like to recognize become mckeeon, was elected in 1993 -- mckeon, was elected in 1993, has been a leader in ensuring the united states has adequate defense, both that our troops have adequate equipment in their conflicts but also in ensuring that the united states has adequate defense systems. and with that i'd like to represent representative mckeon. mr. mckeon: thank you, mike. thank you for holding this special order. you know, i think you've done an outstanding job of getting out to the american people the problem with cutting our missile defense system at a time of war. you know, i've been here a little bit longer than you. i came in 1992. in 1992 we had 18 army divisions. we're down to 12 now. actually in 1998 we were down

to 10. we built it back up in the last 10 years. we had 24 fighter wings. we now have 12. we had 546 navy ships. we now have 283. to you detect a trend? europe we historically have cut our defenses after a war. we did that after world war i so that when world war ii came along we were training with wooden dummy rifles and took us a while to get -- build up in that fight. by the end of the war we were building hundreds of planes a day but it took a long time to get there. the world has changed. we're not in a situation now where we can build up defenses after the fact. we have to be prepared out ahead of time. we had a golden opportunity to do that. the president earlier this year and the democratic congress

passed a $800 billion supplement that was supposed to help us get out of the financial system that we're in. the president called for shovel ready projects, things that could be done immediately to help the economy. well, just a couple of other things. i serve on the education committee. we had about $13 billion in that supplemental for education , education programs, the pell grants, which is very important. but to put them $12 billion and $14 billion into idea and the same amount into pell grants, those are long-range things that will help in the long run. it showed where his priorities are, which are good. i mean, it's good to find out where his priorities are. but at the same time out of $800 billion, $300 million went into defense.

$300 million out of $800 billion. now, that $300 million went to milcon, which are orient projects that we need to build on military bases. nothing went into weapon systems. when i came to congress we were building the b-2 bomber. it was supposed to be $132 planes. that was -- it was supposed to be 132 planes. that was needed for defense of our nation. that was planned out. everybody bought into it. everybody agreed on it. they ended up building 21. at the same time we were planning a new fighter because we -- we needed it to compete worldwide with things that russia and china were doing. and we were going to build 750 f-22's. in this last budget that was just passed in the house, hasn't finally become law yet. we're still in conference. but they have made a decision that now we don't need 750.

we can get by with 187. i don't know what's changed in the world to make it all of a sudden much safer to give us 187 that that will now satisfy the need. you know, it's a trend that's very disturbing. cutting $1.2 billion out of our ballistic missile defense. historically, as i said, we cut the defense after a war. i don't know that we've ever in our history cut our defense during not one but two wars which we have going right now in iraq and afghanistan. and as you mention the problems we see with iran. today's announcement that iran has a covert uranium enrichment facility should really come as no surprise. why develop a covert enrichment facility if tehran claims its program is solely for civilian purposes? why don't they tell the world?

why don't they brag about it if that's what they're doing? i think people understand there's a reason why they're doing it covertly. this deception shows a clear intent by tehran to hide a growing nuclear weapons capability. in the end, classified judgments from december, 2007, national intelligence estimate on iran's nuclear intentions and capabilities, it was assessed that, i quote, iran probably would use covert facilities rather than its declared nuclear sites for the production of highly enriched uranium for a weapon, end quote. however, the n.i.e. went on to further say that we judge that these efforts were probably halted in response to the fall, 2003, halt and that these efforts had not been restarted through at least mid 2008. well, what i heard this morning in the president's speech is that they've been building this plant secretly, covertly to enrich uranium for years.

these efforts have been restarted. today's announcement means that previous estimates on when iran could achieve a nuclear weapons breakout are now inaccurate. this disclosure also highlights just how uncertain our intelligence can be. just a week ago the administration explained that its primary reason, as you said, for scrapping the nuclear -- the european missile defense system to be located in poland and the czech republic was because the threat was now downgraded. in december, 2007, our intelligence community judged that iran didn't have a covert uranium enrichment facility. now, less than two years later it does. how then can the administration be so confident in its assessment that iran can't develop a long-range ballistic missile by 2015? or maybe buy one from somebody? we need to be skeptical of policy decisions based solely

on intelligence. intelligence can be wrong as much as it can be right. we have to take it into account but it cannot be even with the best efforts of our intelligence committee the sole basis for a decision. i mean, you can also look at human nature, you can look at past history, you can look at how they reacted in the past, and then based on that how we can expect them to react in the future. we've witnessed iran successfully use a long-range rocket to launch a satellite into space, work closely with the north koreans who themselves appear to be pursuing icbm's and continue to expand its nuclear capabilities. what other covert facilities and programs does iran have under its slate? they came up with this apparently information because they found out that we had already known about it and so now they're telling the world, but what else do they have

going on that we don't know about or they're not tell us or we're not finding out about? it's time for the obama administration to do something concrete about beyond pinning their hopes on upcoming talks, relying on russia to protect our security interests. this starts with stronger sanctions against iran right now. robustly funding missile defense, and iran's containment strategies working with our allies which will pervade allies and friends from proliferating. i want to commend you mike for the job you're doing as ranking member on the subcommittee, it's a very important job. i appreciate you holding this special order and getting this information out to the people. the american people have to understand this important issue. our defense is our main responsibility. we do a lot of other things around here but defense of this nation is our number one

responsibility. we do a lot of things that we're not obliged to do by the constitution. but this is our responsibility. i commend you for the job you're doing and thank you for holding this special order. mr. turner: thank you, mr. mckeon and thank you for your leadership and for ensuring we have quality defense. the issues you've raised concerning iran are very important. it should not be lost on anybody that the very day that the administration released its decision to drop the european site to walk away fre this czech republic, the international atomic energy agency released a statement that iran was nuclear capable, capable of making nuclear weapon the same day. the day, as you said, the president said there's a downgraded threat, when there's no evidence that the threat has been downgraded. i keep asking the administration to provide us

any evidence that the threat is diminishes from long-range threats from iran and we have no information to indicate otherwise. >> will the gentleman yield? mr. turner: i -- representative akin. mr. akin: this is hard to figure out. i really am thankful for the ranking republican, congressman mckeon does a great job, he's so gentlemanly and scholarly, he lays the facts out, but i want to put these things together and ask anybody if these things make sense at all. we're going to drop missile defense in europe. this is something that quite a number of europeans had to stick their necks out politically and that's the czechs and polish are agreeing to put this missile defense in. if you draw a line between iran and new york city, guess what's in line with that? poland is. so now we have, we're going to

drop this missile defense program to protect our country in western europe from rogue states, particularly iran, that we now know is putting together three things. they're putting together long-range missiles, nuclear war heads, and radical islam. now that's not a great combination. so now we're saying, the threat assessment has been dropped. how do you figure that? the threat assessment has been dropped when you're putting long range missiles, nuclear war heads and radical islam. i don't feel like the threat assessment should have been dropped. i don't know anybody with common sense who would assert that. then on top of that -- mr. turner: you raised a good point, i'd like you to speak on this issue. the european miz isle defense shield intended for interceptors in poland and in the czech republic was not just intended to protect the united states, though it would have provided protection for the

united states by 2013678 it wasn't just to protect us, it was to protect our jaurpeen -- our european allies but the czechs and poles had gone out on a limb. mr. akin: we cut the limb off. mr. turner: there had been terrible pressure on them not to work with the united states. tell what that does for them as allies? mr. akin: who else is going to want to partner with us in a decent effort to defend the western world from nuclear either destruction or at least blackmail and these guys have gone out on a limb and we just cut the limb off from underneath of them. what's even worse is, the fig leaf of an excuse from a technical point of view for those of us on the committee know this is just a bunch of baloney. the idea we're going to use a standard missile on a ship to

stop intercontinental missiles. this is not as rocket science as people think. it's pretty simple. you've got small ones, medium ones and big ones. the big ones are intercontinental ballistic missiles. you can't shoot an intercontinental ballistic missiles with a two-stage missile off a ship. you can't. it doesn't work well. the navy is complaining they have a lot of demands of places where they're going to put their ships. now to cover this with ship, you have to three stations -- three ships on station all the time. this is a whole lot of -- we're talking about first of all a technical solution which is not going to give us the protection we need, it doesn't make any sense, on the say the threat assessments have dropped, this is more of the president just not making sense in the kinds of things he's talking about.

mr. turner: to piggyback on what you're saying, you're making the point that the system that was intended to be in europe was the system that would provide the greatest capability at the lowest cost. off great reputation in your leadership in the house with you being the ranking member of the expeditionary forces for the armed services committee, elected in 2001, you've got a great record of service. one thing i think is important, we don't have to just take your word for it. the unclassified analysis of the report, this was presented to our subcommittee at the beginning of this year, it was asked for by the democrat leadership to do an assessment of exactly what you just said, compare the system that's being proposed by the administration and the system that was intended to go into europe and

this report says an independent assessment that the most cost effective way to protect the united states was the system the president described. mr. akin: the thing doesn't make sense. i'm the ranking member on sea power. i've been on board our ships that have the standard block three type missiles. i've talked to people who run the systems. thape tell me if north korea launches an icbm, their chance of stopping it is about 1%. the reason is because the missile on the ship is a two-stage missile, it doesn't have the velocity and ability to get on track with a much faster, higher moving missile. you've got little ones, medium ones, and bigger ones. big ones is ground-based interceptor a three-stage, that's why we have them in alaska and california and that's why there should be some in poland this decision, i believe, was made all based on politics, not based on logic.

i'll tell you what makes me secure, it's secure when we have american troops defending american homelands instead of vague promises from a russian or iranian leader that everything will be ok. mr. turner: reclaiming my time, i'd like to yield to representative bishop, from utah's first district, elected in 2003, former speaker of the house of utah, a great champion for national defense on the armed services committee. i know you have thoughts about this. i'd like to yield to representative bishop. mr. bishop: i appreciate the gentleman from ohio giving me this opportunity. i'm pleased to be with the gentleman from ohio and the gentleman from arizona with who will be speaking, i believe in a moment, who have turned out to be experts on our missile defense system as well as the gentleman from missouri who understands the technical nature of what we can do on the sea and the land. i'm deeply concerned about what we've been talking about in this area. it's very clear that this decision based on what will

happen in europe has significant long-term implications to our relationship with those european allies. the gentleman from ohio and i have been on several occasions meeting with german officials as part of the study group on germany. is there really an opportunity once this country has reversed course this way to expect them to trust us in long-term decisions and long-term commitments? i hate to say this but, the idea of us developing a stronger bond with europe based on this decision, the idea that the current iranian regime will become nice in its relationships with the rest of the world, i'm sorry my beloved cubs, mr. speaker, mr. parliamentarian, mies -- my cubs have a better chance of winning the world series than the iranians becoming nice unilaterally or our european ties will be stronger because of this decision. if i can expand this sthrithely

this does deal with the impact to our european defense, the impact of the defense of the eastern coast, but it also deals with the impact of the defense of this entire country. we right now have 30, 30 ground-based missiles to defend the entire country and they're all situated in alaska, in one spot. we talked earlier, in other administrations, about extending that to other areas which makes sense, growing that number, which makes sense. taking not just a ground-based system but a kinetic energy system to spread out our defense which to me makes sense. this administration, much of these decisions being made under a unique gag order by the secretary of defense, simply took the process of halting our growth so that once our 30 missiles are gone, there's no replacement, halting the intercept, the kinetic intercept system, even though we were ready for the first test fire and everything had run smoothly up to that time,

simply putting a stop work order and halting it, halting the increase in production of our icbm defense system, all at the same time. i want to put one other element that has an impact because i see these people every day. i grew up, mr. chairman, i grew up watching "bewitched," and if there's one thing i know from the tv show, samantha wasn't real. nobody can wiggle your nose and create a new solution. once we decide to unilaterally stop production of these missiles, if at some point in the future we decide maybe we made a mistake you don'talize and quickly fix that mistake because once the industrial base is gone on these elements, you don't bring them back. you cannot simply turn the spigot on and off and all of a sudden have the engineers who know the problems and have worked through them come back to work for the government. as one of the generals who was

talking to me off the record simply said, look, first of all, when the work base is gone, it is gone. we don't bring it back. more significantly, the first people who leave are the ones we really want. it's not the worst employees that leave first. it's the best employees that leave our industrial base first, those are the ones we want. if at some time we decide to fix this problem, if maybe there's a greater threat than we were anticipating, it will cost this government significantly more to start that work space. it's not just throwing people out of the job, it's not just boom and bust economies in those areas, it's the matter of the fact that we have to spend more to recreate what we already have if the threat is more significant than some people in the military currently think. mr. akin: does the gentleman yield?

mr. bishop: i always yield. mr. akin: it seems you've understated how bad things are. not only is the industrial base closed up, the building shuttered, the engineers working on some other project, some other place, but it takes time to get it back on track. if somebody is shooting missiles at you and they're going to arrive in half an hour, that's not much time to start up a business and build -- rebuild your missile defense. this requires planning. the gentleman's numbers and statistics are right. the only thing they do have ground-based not just in alaska but i think in california, but it's not spread out, and you're absolutely -- am i wrong in that? i thought there was a cup until california. the point is, right, they're not spread out. the other point is, we're using something to kill something that isn't designed to work from the beginning. it doesn't make any sense. the gentleman has expanded the topic a little bit, let's talk

about the different things -- mr. turner: reclaiming the time, i'd like to go to mr. franks, we were elected at the same time, he was talking about the covert issue of iran and what they announced with their secondary sites. you've been a leader in highlighting this issue, so people know what the risk and what we have the capability of. but on the threat side, you know, this administration is -- has stepped forward and said that we have a threat that is not the same as we thought, they say it's lessened. everybody else i've talked to believes it's either increasing, no one will say it's diminishing. representative franks, i'd love for you to talk about the threat issue to our family. mr. franks: thank you for the time. i have to say, mr. speaker, i

think all of the previous speakers have covered critically important points. and before i give a statement related to the european site, primarily, i just want to say i was struck by the chairman -- the chairman to be, we hope, of the strategic forces committee that your comments saying that the statement that was made by the iaea related to iran's nuclear capability came on the same day that the president decided to abandon the european site i thought was profound because in reality this alternative that the president suggest that we can put in place -- in place of the ground base system, we were going to build anyway. that's nothing new. all we want to do is take out the equation of the ground base system where as mr. akin says would actually have the capability of interdicting icbm's. that's all we've done. the system we were building in europe could have protected the american homeland. any ability to do that in this

so-called alternative that we were going to build anyway will be out around 2020. i just appreciate the gentleman being able to point out that critically important point. because i believe, mr. speaker, that the obama administration's decision last week to abandon the european site will go down in history as the crossroads in european and american relations. and i'm afraid that this and future generations will be greaktly affected. when the administration abandoned plans for a ground base in europe i believe the president fundamentally disgraced and weakened this nation by breaking his word to our loyal and courageous allies in the czech republic and poland. and, mr. speaker, america has become the greatest nation in history because our word has always meant something. the announcement to abandon the protected defense shield has altered their paradigm. and after the news was announced, newspapers in the

czech republic and poland stated this in the starkest terms. one poland headline said, betrayed. the u.s.a. has sold us to the russians and stabbed us in the back, unquote. that's an incredible statement. in the czech republic, one paper commented, one of the major newspapers, obama gave into the kremlin, closed quote. this has weakened america's place in the world. mr. speaker, president obama's decision to abandon our allies and placate the other's belligerence came on the exact day of the soviet union's invasion of poland after stalin and hitler insidiously agreed to divide the nation of poland between themselves. our allies deserve better than that, mr. speaker, as they paid the tremendous price of politically and otherwise to stand by us, they had a right

to expect america to keep her word and to stand by them. but ironically, mr. speaker, mr. obama's terribly flawed reasoning for abandoning of the missile defense site has everything to do with russia because russia has always hated the missile defense plan because they don't want american presence in their former, quote, empire. knowing that this would diminish russia's influence in the region even though the russian military will not be threatened in any way by the european site. it would not be any real defense of any kind against the russian federation strike. russia leaders know that in the american missile interceptors are placed in poland those two sovereign countries will join with the americans and the west for the cause of democratic independence and human freedom. mr. akin: does the gentleman

yield? i think you covered something amazing. we don't put emphasis maybe on history. you're saying to the very day 70 years from the time russia invaded poland is when we just drove the knife in the back of poland and cut the ground out from them as they were trying to defend their own country and the european countries, is that what i just heard, 70 years exactly to the day we just sold them down the river? mr. franks: yes, sir. as mr. turner said, on the exact day that the iaea said iran was gaining nuclear capability. mr. akin: the same day that the iaea is saying that iran is gaining nuclear capabilities and 70 years before when poland was invaded we make the brilliant decision to abandon poland, to abandon the one tool we have to stop intercontinental ballistic

missiles and hold this fig leaf of an excuse that we can use a medium-range missile to try to stop things. this is a horrible decision. mr. turner: and important point. for the iaea's statement is that they're saying it's no longer theoretical. we are not standing on the house floor, the four of us, we're ringing a bell to the threat of the united states. it's independent iaea said that iran has the capability now, today. it's not as if someone is saying in the projection in the future. this independent agency which is charged for overseeing this, being the agency that is supposed to know what capability that countries have. saying they are today capable of making a bomb and so when you couple that with what iran has accomplished with their missiles having already put a satellite into orbit.

again, we're not talking theoretical again. it's not that we're projecting someday that iran will have a missile. iran used a missile to place the satellite in orbit, the same technology that you would be utilizing in order to reach the continental united states, those two technologies, the nuclear capability and the missile technology capability are coming together to be a real threat to the united states. now, here's the thing that i think confuses me most about the administration's statement. we know that the plans they just scrapped would have placed interceptors and radar in europe that would have been available to protect the united states from intercontinental ballistic missiles projected by 2013. could be 2014. 2013 was when it was projected to be completed. the president came forward with his plan saying iran is going slower, no indication that we have that iran is going slower, but all intelligence says that iran could have this capability to reach the united states with their nuclear weapon by 2015. so the president comes forward with a plan a -- with a plan

that says we'll protect them by 2020. it's a gap of five years even if you use the president's numbers. if you use their numbers you see 2020. you see iran's capabilities from all intelligence agencies says 2015. they could be sooner. as our ranking member mckeene said, they could buy it, -- mckey ob said, they could buy it, they could have -- mckeyon said, they could buy it, they could got it from somewhere else. 2020 is 11 years away. he says i don't need the capability to protect ourselves from a country that the international atomic energy agency says currently has the capability to introduce a nuclear weapon and they say they will have capability of a missile. representative franks, i know you have thoughts on it. mr. franks: i think you're exactly right. here's what i think is most profound to me, any alternative

system will come far too late to have any influence on iran's calculus to go forward with this missile program or its nuclear program. the idea if we had the ability to knock down anything they threw up, anything that they should launch, if they knew that america could interdict those missiles, all of a sudden they might say, you know, we're taking a tremendous chance on maybe a military intervention here. you never know. and if the americans could knock this down anyway, maybe we should reconsider. mr. turner: you're right. the deterrence effect. i would speak for a minute on russia. this is the point that also amazes me. this president has had russia say to him abandon the -- your missile defense as a country. he's done so without a concession from russia the same time he's on the eve to start negotiations where, you know, russia's going to be asking for additional concessions from the united states. but there are those in the

press -- because i was on a couple talk shows and they said, well, this really isn't about russia because this missile defense system was no threat to russia. why is it if it's no threat to russia that russia should be asking or we should be conceding, do you really think the administration is going to be able to advance our security by putting our missile defense system down for russia? mr. franks: well, i absolutely do not. i mean, we've had a lot of russian belligerence lately, as you know, and they've spoken against this for a long time. but reports surfaced in march of this year that the president was going to offer russia a promise that the united states would not build the missile defense site if moscow would -- that was the so-called equation. but you have to recall that russia was actually the one who's already delivered nuclear fuel to iran and they were the one that paid $800 million to help build the power plant in iran that could have

implications for building fissile material in the future. and this week, i think is important to put in, hugo chavez purchased $200 billion in arms from russia, including rocket technology and has now declared that venezuela will get started on a nuclear program with iran's help. so this is kind of an unholy alions here and to suggest that russia is going to be a help here i think is naive beyond a degree. mr. turner: representative bishop, you were talking about the issue of our industrial base. it has a huge impact when we defund programs because then we lose capabilities that we currently have. if we -- if we're not making these interceptors more, if we're lessening the number of interceptors, then we're diminishing our capability to help ourself. but we pay a grave cost in

defunding it. not only do you lose the intellectual capital that's there, but what we do next suffers. i know you've been a big advocate for ensuring we invest in our industrial base and ingenuity in the future. what's your thoughts on what action the administration is taking and its impact now? mr. bishop: well, we were talking about on cutting back these missile defense programs, not just in europe but with our ground base kinetic energy to save $1.8 billion. if we look at what we have been throwing around for stimulus money, for other types of programs, even cash for clunkers, it's kind of very small in relationship to the impact that it is having on research and development. what does it actually cost to try to defend this country? i appreciate the historical context some of you have been putting into it. the fact that the decision in europe was announced 70 years to the day. let's face it, if you want to go to some other irony that the time that the secretary gates

was saying that he was going to stop the production of more than 30 ground base missiles in the k.e.i. was the exact same day that the north koreans were shooting a missile that was threatening japan going over it. and he was holding a press conference reassuring the state of hawaii that we had enough missile defense systems to protect everybody on the day they sent their second shot. i think one of the things we need to do in america is quit holding press conferences about our missile defense because something bad always happens on those particular days. but it is undisputable the fact that every program that is started has glitches in them that has to be worked out. and that's why you want an experienced work base to try and be there who have gone through that program, who have worked through it, who knows what works and knows what doesn't work so you don't have to keep reinventing the wheel. and as you said, even if we were going to save $1.8 billion

by not doing this, if at some point down the line that 30 missiles is not enough to defend this entire country, it's going to cost significantly more than that to rebuild it. we, for example, on the icbm rocket motor program wanted to keep a warm line in the industrial base so we could churn out a minimum number of missiles motors so we could refurbish those icbm's that we were going to keep. well, we didn't put enough money in the budget to do that. so what it meant was that there were people who were laid off because the private sector could not keep that warm line functioning. even though the military knew they insisted they were going to have a warm line, what it meant in the long term was instead of putting $10 billion or $20 billion in the line they're going to have to put four times that much money to start the warm line project again. what i'm trying to say here and we're throwing around a lot of numbers, let me try and make this easier, it's cheaper for

us in the long run to keep an industrial base of experts so that we can maintain what we have and try to find the research and development to improve what we have. if we start and stop it is expensive to restart, to reboot up that program. it does not save us money in the long run. it does not give us better defense in the long run. it does not help with research in the long run, and it doesn't help people who lose their jobs, gain their jobs and lose their jobs when we don't benefit from it in the long run. and i appreciate you for bringing that particular issue up. mr. turner: and one of the things i find fascinating about this administration's funding request is that they've cut ground base missiles in alaska. they've cut the ground base missiles that were planned to go into europe. they've done so by trying to sell that they're committed to

it and in their plan that they put out upon canceling the system in europe they said we're going to invest more heavily in the systems. . if they say they are going to do it we would think here in this body the legislation would reflect the administration's commitment to that. although the administration has talked about increasing it, and added $9 million in the budget. we are not seeing the increases reflected in the budget. for example in f.y. 2010 the budget acquires less aegis sm-3 intercepters than the initially projected f.y. 2009. what does that mean? it means in f.y. 2009 when the budget came through this house, there was a certain level of purchases that had been indicated for this sm-3 intercepters. what did the administration do? they came in asking for less. the 2009 budget said 20

additional sm-3's would be requested. yet the budget requests only 18. budget documents indicate the inventory will grow from 133 intercepters to 329 within five years. say that again. the budget documents indicate that the sm-3 inventory is supposed to grow from 133 intercepters, what we currently have, to 329 within five years. where will the additional sm-3 come from in the out years? if so, what other programs are going to be squeezed? how are they going to grow when they are buying less than what was proposed? where's the big request for the additional ones? the f.y. 2010 budget indicates three additionaled that batteries will be acquired. the budget requests no funds for additionaled that -- additional thad radars. so for the administration to say we are not against missile defense, we are not eliminating missile defense, we are just

shifting focus, they are not shifting focus. they are not even buying what was planned. representative franks, i know you're a big advocate for all these systems? mr. franks: i agree. i guess i just repeat we were trying to build out these systems anyway. this was something already on the drawing board. we want to have a robust system that is able to interdict short range, medium range, and long range, and tha and aegis, none on the republican side wouldn't argue those aren't important. the challenge is we are taking away our ground based system, these other things, are still on the drawing board in many cases. i thought that mr. bishop made something that -- a point that was so critical. it might be ply last point here, mr. chairman, if you would let me make it. it's really a quote of mark halprin of the "wall street journal" after the president's decision last week to abandon the plans for theure peaian missile defense site. he stated it this way, historic

50,000-foot view thing we are talking about, he said, quote, stallin tested truman with the berlin blockade. and truman held fast. khrushchev tested kennedy in the cuban missile crisis, kennedy refused to blink. and in 1983, andro poff took the measure of ronald reagan and defying millions in the streets reagan did not blink. and last week, the iranian president and the russian prime minister put mr. obama to the test. and he blinked not once but twice. the price of such infirmity has always proven immensely high, mr. speaker. and even if as is the custom these days, the bill has yet to come. close quote. mr. turner, i would just say this in closing here. if the obama administration continues down this road of appeasement and denial, the nation of of iran will gain nuclear weapons capability and pass that technology on to the

terrorists as well as perhaps even the weapons. and this generation and so many to come will face the horrifying reality of a nuclear jihad. those of us who have been blessed to walk in the sunlight of freedom in this generation will relegate our children to walk in the mine field of nuclear terrorism in the next generation. and i just hope that somehow reason can somehow be injected back into this system and we can understand from a historical point of view where when we stood up to despotism in the past it was always a good thing. when we counted on appeasement, it always hurt us. i just pray we can catch it soon enough here. i thank you for the opportunity to talk. mr. turner: i appreciate your comments on that. it's very important we look at this through the lens of the administration's policies with respect to russia. there is no historical perspective where conceding to russia early has ever gained anything at the bargaining table. when you concede to russia prior to entering into negotiations,

they say, what else am i going to get when i get to the nornting table? they never say, well, that was very great of you. and appreciate what you have done. i'm now going to do something, too. in this instance the president had already signaled in a letter that allegedly went out at the beginning of the year that he was willing to look at conceding on missile defense for russia's help on iran without any indication whatsoever that russia is willing to help. in fact, as you pointed out, representative franks, they have done the opposite. they have been active in selling technology and providing technical assistance to iran. but also iran has shown no indication of their interest in being dissuaded and in fact the international atomic energy agency says time for persuasion and time for dissuading is over. that iran is now declared by the international atomic energy agency to have the capability to create a nuclear weapon and that was announced the very same day the president decides to abandon the nuclear -- nuclear shield we would have had with our missile

defense shield. with the president moving from what would have been a 2013 deployment for a missile defense shield in europe to a 2020 protection. i appreciate your points with respect to russia. as we enter our negotiations, obviously we have a significant amount of concern what this administration is going to be doing with respect to our strategic assets having already compromised our missile defense. representative franks, thank you for being with us and participating in this. just to recap where we are timewise, the president has put forth an alternative plan for missile defense that he says is going to be available for protection for the united states for intercontinental ballistic missiles by 2020. he scrapped a plan that was intended to provide protection for the united states from icbm's by 2013. the intelligence that we have to date shows that iran could have icbm capability by 2015.

the international atomic energy agency sighs that iran already has nuclear capability. let's put that into a calendar. we would have had a system that would have protected by 2013. the president has taken that off the table. the intelligence agencies say iran could have nuclear capability coupled with missile technology could reach the united states by 2015. the president says that's all right, we'll wait for another five years and have capability to protect the united states by 2020. that's an unreasonable time period to put the united states at threat -- with this threat and it's one we should all be concerned about. i have asked the president and the secretary of defense to declassify this report from the institute for defense analysis. it's an unclassified excerpt summary which i'm holding here of an independent assessment of the proposed deployment of missiles in europe that says the system he scrapped would have been the most cost-effective. it would have been a system that

would have provided 24-hour coverage at the least amount of cost and would have been available as early as seven years earlier than the president's plan for protecting the united states. while the administration has dismantled our capabilitiesurep rop, at the same time they have cut diffled overall by 1.2 billion, lessening our capabilities in some very important systems. including diminishing by a third our capabilities in alaska. the administration has indicated they can use our alaska ground based missile systems to protect the united states if iran should get capability earlier, then their system is available on 2020. but to show their commitment to that system, they have cut it by a third. so we are actually going to have less capability there. in addition to the lessening capability in alaska, we are losing the opportunity for what would have been an integrated system. with thad and aegis and theure peaian system and alaska we would have had opportunity for multiple shots if the united states should have a threat that's posed to us and as

representative franks indicated this system once in place would have acted as a deterrent to stop the advancement of missile technology and hopefully say to countries that the united states is advancing the type of technology that would provide us the important protection that we need. the impact of the president's decision on ourure peaian allies is one which many people have grave concern both poland and the czech republic are very concerned this administration unilaterally made the decision to abandon the missile defense shield and to leave them having taken the step of agreeing with the united states in the face of russian opposition without a united states partner there, without a system moving forward. both of those countries having made statements indicating their concern of a continuing strong relationship with the united states. i know that we all remain concerned about showing that our -- to our nato allies we remain committed to a strong missile defense for this country. strong deterrence in the area of

nuclear proliferation, this administration by taking this step backward weakens overall our capabilities and certainly those relationships. representative bishop, i know one of the areas that you spoke on at the house armed services committee as we were moving forward with the enveloped -- with the national defense authorization act, was this cut of $1.2 billion. when we look at what it's doing to alaska, lessening our capability, the missile shield that was there was intended to have 40 kepters. they have significantly diminished the airborne laser. they have reduced the other programs that they have indicated they are going to rely on with aegis and thad. lessening the amount of investment that was projected in the f.y. 2009. i know you're concerned about what that cut represents and so am i. perhaps you could speak for a moment on that $1.2 billion cut that this house and senate and this administration is advancing

at a time when we know that north korea and iran are getting increased technology. mr. bishop: it is -- sometimes you put a spin on it to try to allow talking not necessarily about the numbers we are throwing out there but the human face of what this means. about the individuals who actually are working in these programs to try and make this country more secure. they are the ones who are losing their jobs. which is ok if there's a long-term purpose. but i think you actually put it very well. brilliantly well, in saying so simply that the decision in europe instead of being prepared two years before the threat is viable, we are now going to change that to be prepared five years after the threat is viable. that makes no sense. in that term saving $1 billion is not necessarily in the best interest of this country. not only do you hurt individuals who are working in that area, but you hurt the entire nation

who is depending upon their results to provide us with some modicum of protection. not only does it not make much sense to say, ok, we already have the holes dug, we are ready to put the missiles in there, and now we stop? even though all the parts are there. not only does it not make sense to say, ok, even though the missile is already at van denberg air base in california, we won't finish the test to see if it would have worked or not or how effective it would be? those are not productive approaches. and it illustrates that we as a country are now in the position where we seem to be vascillating with not a clear and precise idea of where we want to be in the future and what we will use to defend ourselves from the future. and as the gentleman from ohio correctly said, even if your assumption is we'll take money and shift it to some other place, to announce shortly after that that you're going to flatline military spending and still want to find $60 billion in some kind of savings within

the system, doesn't mean we are actually going to move forward in any particular area. it puts us into a world that is very, very dangerous. look, the 1930's, we decided to cut our fighter plane program because we wanted to save some money. and when world war ii broke out we found our bombing runs were having over a 20% casualty rate which was unconscionable. we stopped our bombing runs until we could build up the fighter program to accompany them. we no longer have that luxury of time. we live in a world where we no longer have the luxury of time which abraham lincoln understood was part of the strategy you have in warfare. we don't have that anymore. we must be prepared now not to find out we made structural and strategic mistakes some time down the future when we don't have the ability to repair that situation. mr. turner: thank you, representative bishop, i appreciate your tenacity on this

and advocacy for national defense. a recap of the time frame, this administration scrapped a plan that would have provided missile defense capability to the united states mainland from europe that would have been available as early as 2013. all of our intelligence agencies are indicating that by 2015 iran could have missile defense missile technology to reach the united states. that's why we needed that missile defense technology in 2013. they were going to have icbm capability by 2015. the international atomic agency says just last week iran already has the capability of producing a nuclear weapon. when we are talking about 2015 and they are having icbm capabilities to reach the united states, we are talking about a missile perhaps with a nuclear warhead this. administration scraps that plan and instead propose as plan that will not be available until 2020. by all the information we have right now, this administration's action has a five-year gap that has developed in the time period

where the administration is accepting capability by iran without having the missile defense technology to protect the united states. what else are we hearing from iran? today there was an announcement that iran has a covert uranium enrichment facility. this should come as no surprise. this is a country had a has continued to seek missile technology and nuclear technology and nuclear capability. we understand that iran is not just trying to do this for civilian purposes. actually represents a threat to the united states. and that's why people have been such an advocate to ensure that this country has the appropriate missile defense technology to protect the country. so the administration responds and says it's not just 2020. we have capability in alaska. that will be our backup plan. we can use our missiles in alaska to protect the united states from iran. the problem with that is that this administration through this house just this year caught alaska's missile defense capability -- cut alaska's

missile defense capabilities by a third. we would have had ourure peaian capability and alaskan capability perhaps for multiple shots that could have occurred in order to protect this country from iran's quest for an icbm with it now said by the i.e.a. to have nuclear capability. instead this administration says we are taking europe off the table, rely on what we have, and take our last ability and cut it by a third. . it puts our country at risk. the administration should proceed with supporting our allies in nato, supporting the czech republic and poland who have been there for us and put this system in place protecting the united states. now, the president said that the system that he is doing is more cost-effective. there is a report -- i have an unclassified version of it, independent assessment of the proposed deployment of ballistic missile defense

system in europe. this report said that the most cost-effective plan was the one he just scrapped. i am going to end with reading a letter that i sent to secretary gates. secretary gates, requesting -- that he make this study available for fiscal year 2007. we hope that he releases it so we can have a robust debate on that. and with that i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. under the speaker's announced policy of january 6, 2009, the chair recognizes the gentleman from iowa, mr. king, for 60 minutes. mr. king: thank you, mr. speaker. i -- as we wrap up this congressional week, mr. speaker, and i listen to the gentleman from ohio and the gentleman from utah and the gentleman from arizona talk about missile defense and our snal security, what i have heard over this last hour is a technical, tactical, strategic explanation of why america has taken the positions that we

have, the decisions that have been made in the previous administrations, and i think a clear and stark anational is i of the apparently huge diplomatic mistake made by the president of the united states. i'd make a point that those who defend them seems to always revert back to daye fault position of the president must have gotten something for it. they speculate that there must be a quid proquo to pull the rug out -- quid pro quo to pull the rug out from the eastern europeans, frankly the polls and the czechs, as mr. franks said one of the headlines in their papers is betrayed. betrayed the polls and the czechs, the united states of america, the confidence in our security have been diminished in a way that probably can never be rebuilt. but those who defend that

decision will say, well, the president is a smart negotiator. he's a brilliant man and so, therefore, we have to trust his knowledge and his judgment because he must know something that we don't. and yet i haven't heard one of these imaginative characters that can depend anything and advocate -- defend anything and advocate anything that would be worth doing what the president did. what could possibly be worth giving up the integrity and credibility of the united states? what could possibly be something that could come out of any negotiations with iran or russia that could emerge as a plus on this side that would offset the loss of international credibility and the word of the united states and our commitment to our allies let alone giving up the strategic position of being able to take out iranian missiles shortly after they leave the launch pad?

and so if your president is so much smarter than you are that he must have gotten something accomplished behind the scenes that's so available that even you can't conceive of what it might have been, i don't know if you call that a rational thought or religion. but, mr. speaker, we're in a situation here where the united states and the world is in a very, very dangerous place. and this globe is a giant chess board. and it's a giant monopoly game and it's a giant risk game that's going on and a giant poker game that's going on. and there are some poker players, chess players, risk and monopoly players out there that are really good and really smart and they spend their time trying to figure out how to outmaneuver the united states. it's taken place ever since the dawn of the soviet union. and the monopoly game here in the united states broke the soviet union and they imploded

and now we have putin over there at the chess board, at the poker table and he's making moves on this global chess board that seek to reconstruct what he can of the former soviet union. it would be in his interest to cause iran to be on their side. for us to ask putin to be open and do us a favor and maybe he could talk real nice to the iranians and they would stop their nuclear endeavor after all of these years and these billions of dollars spent and the great diplomatic risk that they take, these people are not going to take over -- tip over their king and walk away from this chess board. for the president to think that dialogue is diplomacy and that you can accomplish things just because you talk about it is an inherently left-wing myopic european view. and it's something i heard from their mouths in the discussions that we have over in that part of the world.

we have with us mr. bishop from utah who has significant insight into that part of the world, the politics of western europe as well as geography of that part of the world, iran, the middle east, eastern europe and also western europe. i've asked the gentleman if he'd stick around along enough to impart some of that broader view to the look of what's being -- the forces that are at play in this dynamic, the forces of russia, forces of iran, the islamic efforts that's there, the israeli position that's there, the threat that comes, iran threatening to annihilate israel off the face of the earth. this will come closer and closer that israel will have no choice but at least attempt to take out the nuclear capability of iran.

if their survival might very well be at stake. and so this move that might look like it's a move designed to pacify the russians might well end up being something that compels the israelis to make a military strike and it may well be once the missiles are removed in the middle east and there is a decision that moves us toward the inevidentibility that a military action will take place as well as a pass fist action on the part of the president. this is what comes when you go to the capitulation. he came back from munich saying he achieved peace in our time. well, peace in our time didn't last too long. i was thinking about the situation of how it was that hitler actually negotiated with the russians for a while and ended up poland being divided and a global war as a result.

so i'd be so happy to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from utah and interested in your perspective on this global chess, poker, monopoly, risk game that's taking place, mr. bishop of utah. mr. bishop: well, i appreciate the gentleman from iowa spending some time talking. we had an opportunity earlier this year of traveling to germany together to meet with chancellor, the foreign minister, the economics minister, the interior minister, several of those and talk about it. i recognize that i'm not putting myself here as an expert in this particular area because sometimes it is a matter of perspective. i know at one time when i was over in germany meeting with our fellow parliamentarians that i was amazed when we were talking about the helsinki accord on the ultimate destruction of the soviet union. and the falling of the communist empire. and they seem to have a greater

emphasis on the significance of the helsinki accord than i had ever heard any political scientist in the united states putting on it. so sometimes there's that perspective that's different. but in dealing with how we should go forward, especially with russia that's rejufe niced, there are a couple things to keep in mind and i am not sure how to play them all but there is some things to keep in mind. first thing is the russians have not played nice with their neighbors who used to be part of the empire. so the ukrainians, they clearly cut the oil and gas and threatened their economic security and independence of the ukrainians at a time when it was not the most convenient and it created a more political instability in the ukraine as it was part of the goal. shortly after that there was an invasion of georgia. another former republic of the ussr that's now an independent

nation. and certainly the consequences of that have yet to be actually played out on the international table. it's not considered to be a nice neighborly approach to any type of situation. i'd also put into that view of understanding. some concepts what's going on internally in the soviet union -- i'm sorry, russia. the russians have traditionally liked having scapegoating for internal problems. one of the problems that the russians are facing right now is one of demographics. they are losing population. they have a massive amount of land to control without a population that is growing or an economy that's growing to handle that. and one of the elements historically what's happened within the russian mindset is to try and find some scapegoat for that particular approach. i think we got to keep that in the back of our minds as we're dealing with how we actually

move forward in relations to the russians and everywhere else. it is indeed correct, as the gentleman from iowa said, that if the russians had been helping us to pressure the iranians in a nonviolent embargo approach that we would be further along in that effort to try and pressure the iranians to use only a peaceful nuclear program rather than what we -- i think justifiably suspect for all kinds of concepts that would be going there. we would not have mr. morguen thaw from new york city who can never be considered a right-wing republican talking in newspaper and magazine articles talking about the connection between iran and venezuela in how some of the money that was supposed to be stopped in the embargo has been able to be laundered through venezuela and the connection between it. eight times chavez has visited iran. iran is now putting money into chavez's efforts. i see a future of the problem and we look at the iranians on

the east, venezuela on the south of our country, the north koreans on our west coast and realize that we are living in some very, very perilous times. i happen to be in germany when ronald reagan was talking about putting in the missiles in west germany. it was heavily contested at the time. the soviet union was opposed to it, and there are a lot of pass fists said putting those missiles in there is the worse thing that we could possibly do. it will escalate the conflicts and violence. as we found out in history is it did the opposite. it worked. it worked in actually bringing about a longer term peace as well as ultimately the end of a reign of terror of communism and allowed people who were never free to finally become free. that's why i'm worried about our decision after our polish and czech allies went out on a limb politically to have some

kind of missile defense system that will protect europe and the eastern coast of the united states before the russians could develop anything defensively. and to stop that prior to that saying that we will now come up with a program that won't work until five years after the iranians would probably be affected, i worry about what the result is and i worry that we as a country have not learned the lessons from history of the past because we seem to be making what i consider to be mistakes as we deal with these rogue nations. and mistakes as we deal with our allies in europe, insulting them, putting them in difficult positions and then yanking the rug out from them. as well as putting ourselves at some kind of military disadvantage as to the defense of this country against other countries that significantly are ma nevada lent in -- it's a

cumbersome and difficult situation as we look at how the chess game is being played. i think the demographics of what's going on in russia should not be overlooked. they don't have a lot of very good choices before them right now. they will be looking for choices which kind of deflect their interior policy. i yield back to the gentleman from iowa. mr. king: the question forms in my mind and i'd like to take advantage, mr. speaker, of the expertise which i will assign to the gentleman from utah in his understanding of history. . this evening coming up for the 20th anniversary this november 9, the fall of the berlin wall, when i watched that happen on television, i saw literally the iron curtain crashing down. every time a hammer blow landed, every time they hit it with a chisel, every time they knocked another chink or pulled some section of the wall down, that

was the iron curtain being deconstructed. demolition of the iron curtain took place, began on november 9. of 1989. now, at that moment the pundits in the news media didn't understand what was taking place. they didn't see it as the iron curtain. they saw it as the family reunification plan. therein lies the flaw on the part of the liberals. they didn't understand the dynamic that had taken place. but ronald reagan understood it at that moment. i'm not convinced that his immediate successor understood it to the depth that ronald reagan did. but this question has always lingered in me. i thought it proved to the world that free markets and free enterprise and freedom would always prevail over communism, socialism, despotism, totalitarianism of any kind because of the dynamics that come from the creativity and productivity of the freedom that comes from the human spirit and

the checks and balances that exist in the marketplace. i didn't hear them capitulating in their argument. they just suspended their arguments for a little while. and then front and center, full-blown, proud global communist disappeared. but where did they go is the question? did they go back and lick their wounds and change their ideology and come back as free enterprise capitalists? i don't remember them doing that. i wonder if the gentleman from utah has any thoughts on what happened to those front and center communists from 1989? where are they? some have passed away. some are still with us. what are they doing today and what do they believe in? and how does this fit into this equation? i yield to the gentleman from utah. mr. bishop: the gentleman from iowa, i appreciate offering me this opportunity to tell you flat out i don't know. what they have done or where they are going. i do know that what we found is that for the united states to be effective we had to be strong

and secure and make sure that our self-interest could be protected. i just finish add book about the civil war and lincoln as the commander in chief and his approach to it. he was much more intellectual about his view of the war than we are. he understood that time and resources are weapons just as much as individuals are or soldiers are in using war. to be honest the problem he had with union generals most of the war was they didn't catch the concept of time and resources as an integral part in making decisions. he got it. and he was very much vilified at the time because he insisted on approach which ultimately said the only way we can win is if we are forceful and strong and insist on this. if lincoln had simply backed off and said what we are going to do is we are going to negotiate a peace with the south. there would be a lot of people

that would say, yeah, i am tired of war. let's negotiate a peace with the south. there are a lot of people in the north would have said, yeah, let them go, we don't want to be a part of them anyway. what lincoln clearly understood from the geography of the situation and the future is that the civil war would have been the first war between the states. not the only war. it would have been the first of many war in the states as the north and south then battled over economic issues of transportation in the ohio valley and use of the port of new orleans, a frontiered land in the west. he clearly got what the future would be. i think president reagan when he decided to stand tough and he was highly criticized, got what the future would be. he did not want to see a world where there was nuclear proliferation, but he understood america had to be tough to get to that point. i worry that we have somehow lost those lessons of history. and we don't realize that for the united states to move forward, we have to ensure that

we are perfectly capable of defending ourselves. that's why i'm worried. the decision we did to take the missiles not implement the missiles in poland, and the radar system in the czech republic, does not make us secure. the idea of of trying to cut our ground base missile defense does not make us more secure. where is this overall vision we are trying to do? where is this concept we have to have security first before we can negotiate other items around the world? i'm concerned with our enemies, especially in venezuela. who are clearly malevolent in their approach to us. spreading that document throughout the rest of latin, south america. at the same time the iranians are very belly coast to say the -- belly coast -- bellicose to say the least. and i appreciate the opportunity of speaking with the gentleman from iowa. i know when we had the chance of going to germany he was very

force nul a presenting an american approach. and he was willing to ask the tough and difficult questions when the rest of us were trying to be reticent here. not in an obnoxious way by any means, but in way of saying somebody's got to play the devil's advocate and say what does this really mean and where do we go into the long term? i appreciate his efforts to that. i know if you'll excuse me at this time that he will also go through that in this period of time that he has on the floor and that, mr. speaker, it will be -- he will do what he always does. he asks the right questions in the way you can't avoid trying to find a good answer to those questions. mr. king: reclaiming my time. i very much appreciate the diplomatic gentleman from utah for his contribution to the knowledge base and decisionmaking process we do here in this congress. i would suggest he's a little overly humble when he says he doesn't know the answer what happens to those communists.

when i think about the discussion that we heard about ukraine, georgia, iran, venezuela, and north korea, south america, mr. speaker, all of these areas are discussed in a book written by colonel robert chandler called "the shadow world." it's 500-some pages long. and mr. chandler takes the situation of the world at the end of the cold war, and that would be at the implosion of the soviet union, and he begins to identify the leading personalities in the world, those leaders and those ideologies within the countries, that are, let me say, communist interests. hard core communist interests. and he takes a person around the globe to every populated continent and talks about the core politics of each of those countries, including these countries that have been mentioned by mr. bishop of utah, and especially venezuela, north

korea, and some of the other countries in south america. also putin in russia and how things unfolded, and gorbachev's position as well. it is a very, very educational compilation of what happened after almost 20 years ago when the berlin wall went down, the iron curtain came crashing down, and the people who were holding up that part of the world, the level side of the world, those on the east side of the berlin wall who had a managed economy, who had the central planning that set up five-year plans for the collective farms, those that told everyone else when to go to work, what raw materials to deliver. if you remember ronald reagan, some of the others made the joke that, well, the soviet union, the people in the soviet union pretended to work and the soviet union pretended to pay them. but eventually that house of

economic cards collapsed because the question was before us, as a nation, and that question was, while the soviet union was developing a missile capability to eclipse our own capability here, such a devastating force of icbm's that there was nothing the united states could do to survive such an attack, that mutually assured destruction was going down the path of a destruction that would be so bad in this country that civilization itself may not survive, the question that was before us was articulated best by the former ambassador to the united nations, jeane kirkpatrick, who upon as she stepped down from that position in the early 1980 's said, this contest that's going on, this cold war is the equivalent of of playing chess and monopoly on the same board and the only question is, will the united states of america bankrupt the soviet union economically before

the soviet union checkmates the united states militarily? that was the most succinct example of what was taking place in that cold war in the 1980's. and we know how it played out now. we look back on that and almost 20 years ago the soviet union could no longer hold their economics together. they couldn't keep their military out even in places like east germany. and so they opened up the border with hungary, people flowed around to austria and hungary. at a certain point there wasn't any america keeping -- guarding the wall anymore because people were streaming around the end. and so they went over the top and began to sit up on top of the wall with hammers and chisels and sauce and anything they could get their hands on and yes, some broke bottle of champagne and it was family reunification but it was the iron curtain crashing down nearly 20 years ago that should have been a lesson for the whole

world that free enterprise always defeats a managed economy. because no matter how many smart people you put in positions of power, they can't micromanage an economy that is a gibation -- combination of everybody's individual productive and economic activity every day. the invisible hand as damn smith famously described and actually didn't about how free enterprise works with providing the incentives and managing the supply. so it works like this. if the grocery store runs out of bread, the store owner understands he has to have more bread or otherwise people will go someplace else to shop. and if there's a cheaper, better bread at the neighboring store, that store own certificate not going to sell his bread. that's how bakeries get started, how grocery stores grow and shrink, how chain stores begin, how manufacturing begins. our control, our manufactured -- managed economy is this.

free enterprise is our economy. and the buy, sell, trade, make, gain culture we have that's part of what made america great, one of the central pillars of american exceptionalism is free enterprise. when we have that working for us in this country, americans are more productive than anybody else in the world. and our job here in this congress, mr. speaker, is to get government out of the way and to provide the kind of tax and regulatory structure as minimally as we can so that the result is the individuals in this country will see our verage annual productivity go up -- average annual productivity go up. and they will produce more. if you tax them and punish them and regulate them, they will produce less. so in places like the soviet union, the former soviet union, they just simply suppress the productivity by taking away the rewards. i can give you a simple example that stands out in a very stark way. and that is, communist china.

country more than a billion people. about the same geographic area of the united states. having trouble in a lot of ways competing in the technological and educational side of this, but some years ago they decided they were going to let their farmers, who are less controlled now than they were, be able to get engaged in the honey business without having government interference. so in other words, government doesn't appoint themselves a few thousand beekeepers and have them deliver that honey. they let them compete on the open market. what has happened? china has almost immediately began exporting honey. and competing against the honey here in the united states because they had some people that could be beekeepers. that's like a little microcosm of free enterprise that sprung up out of china because they took the regulations away, took their managed economy away and let people produce all they could produce and sell all they could sell and keep a significant share of the profits. here in this country, we have had that as a tradition across

the breadth of this economy and it's diminished significantly, mr. speaker. so the vitality of free enterprise brings about the best in us. the highest productivity and it's the most innovativeness and gives us a incentive to extend each of our educations. it gives the inventors an incentive to invent. it gives the people that are producing and doing the experiments on pharmaceuticals an incentive to produce better medicines. and those who invent better surgery techniques get to cash a bigger check. even though they are humantarians driven by a desire to do good in their work, when you really need to reach back for that extra bit of adrenaline, when it gets late at night, when the rest of the world is tired, or maybe you don't feel very good because you have -- you are exhaust interested a long work, whatever it might be, that extra incentive of that profit makes a difference. .

i'm watching around the globe there's a line of scrimmage that exists between freedom and the suppression of freedom. and so when the gentleman from utah humbly said he didn't know that answer i think perhaps he didn't know the answer that i wanted him to give. that will happen. and -- but he understands very thoroughly how the rearrangement that took place after the fall of the berlin wall at the end of the cold war some countries and philosophies lined up on the side of freedom. those countries are among those countries where we were already had the holes dug to place the missile defense shield, poland, czechoslovakia. mr. speaker, have you failed to notice that the people who've achieved their freedom most recently love it and adhere to it the most? the pols love their freedom, the romanians love their

freedom, the czechs love their freedom. they remember how it was under the boot heel of the soviet union. they understand that and they remember clearly within their own families the fear of the occupation that took place before in many case world war ii and certainly during and after it. i recall in a trip over to that part of the world with mr. bishop a conversation with a man about my age whose father's first military operation that he was engaged in was auschwitz. not at auschwitz to liberate auschwitz but at auschwitz fighting for the russians. those things don't pop easily in our history books, but this broad global concept of who's on what side of this line of scrimmage, who's on the side of freedom and who's on the side of suppressing freedom, we need to understand it. these forces know instinctively what the play out here on the globe, and so we wonder, what

is the chess board that putin is playing on, the monopoly board that putin is playing on? he's about freedom in the soviet union -- i have to say russia, the former soviet union, their satellites have diminished since putin came into control. we met with personalities in russia. i am going to avoid saying their names. mr. speaker, you'd recognize many of them if not all of them. and they told us that there really no longer exists a free press in russia. not a newspaper that they can count on that has any influence that's free to print what it wants to print. there's not a free legislature in russia any longer either that they are -- the people who are controlled by putin and that they don't have free markets. we know that the mob has taken over a lot of that economy and there's a payoff that goes on

inside of all of that. and so a russia that had an opportunity to take a step up after the implotion of the soviet union now is slipping into the darkness of the left again moving towards a communist state, taking away the freedom of its people and their ability to be effectively have freedom of speech and the -- freedom of assembly, freedom of the press and a freedom of their economy significantly diminished under putin. and they understand that and they see that. the -- those leaders of freedom in russia today would have believed that the russian people would have stepped up by now and gone to the streets and taken their country back. it's not happened. i would encourage that they do so, take their country back. we thought it was happening during the days of yeltsin when he climbed up on the tank. we should not forget that we are the van guards of freedom

here in the united states of -- vanguards of freedom here in the united states of america. when russia and under the belief that our community organizer in chief somehow is a master of foreign policy, well, he is the manager of foreign policy and he's the commander in chief of our military. certainly i stand with our military and i want to help coach him on the foreign policy a little bit. i don't know why the press, mr. speaker, has not been more critical of the president's foreign policy. this huge blunder of just announcing that he's got to pull the missiles out of poland and czechoslovakia, take the shield away that could protect us almost at the same time. you notice the information was leaked out about the nuclear capabilities of iran, which we just heard in the previous hour. iran developing the capability that -- that they have the capability to develop a bomb

now and they're in the process, we know, of developing the capability to deliver it. and it doesn't take very much of a missile to drop one into israel and it doesn't take one weapon dropped into israel to annihilate the entire country. and they have said that's what they intend to do. and we look at the president of the united states who -- whose foreign policy experience seems to have been before he became the commander in chief and the chief architecture of our foreign policy, his experience has been this, having raised in part in indonesia that would give him some sense of the culture but probably no sense of the global political -- global, political, military dynamic. but raised at least in part in indonesia. a president who has once traveled to kenya, which i don't know how broad that base is. when you once traveled to pakistan.

i don't know how that happened. pakistan, excuse me, mr. speaker. and the foreign experience of our commander in chief seems to be a trip to germany to give a speech during the campaign. not anything has ever happened before that i know of in a presidential campaign. it looked like he wanted to be president of europe, the united states and the world. very, very limited on foreign policy experience. and the lessons of history, the lessons so well drilled into us by chamberlain school of appeasement, when chamberlain came back from munich and waved the letter that hitler signed and said, i guaranteed peace in our time. that was the image of chamberlain getting off the plane from munich. and what happened? within weeks the nazis invaded poland, they carved it up with the russians, and we were off and running into a global war

that cost tens of millions of lives. and they remember that in that part of the world. they're afraid of going back into another war. the pols remember being run over by the nazis and then the russians and then occupied by the russians for all of these years up until 1990 or so. this is a very sensitive situation that's going on, and when the gentleman from utah mentioned the ukraine and georgia, the importance of the sovereign state of georgia cannot be -- should not be diminished. we should understand that this chess game that i talked about, the central square on the chess board for putin is georgia. that's the nexus through which the energy flows, the energy that's produced in gas and oil wells east of georgia, east of the caspian sea, roughly 2.1 million barrels of oil through georgia in a pipeline, 1.2

million, a train that has constant tankers of crude oil being hauled through the nation of georgia on the destination to the tanker ships in the black sea. and the natural gas that flows through pipelines through georgia to other places in europe. this georgia is the nexus. think, mr. speaker, of an hourglass and on one side of that hourglass is all of the -- a lot of the production of oil and natural gas that is east of the caspian sea flowing through this nexus of georgia with pipelines, raillines -- pipelines for gas and oil and rail lines that are hauling gas and oil and coming out at the other side is the black sea and going to land bases around western europe. think of the russians shutting off the natural gas to germany a year ago january. what it meant when they did that and to have the germans take the position that, well,

it really didn't affect our foreign policy towards russia because they only got 30% of their natural gas from russia, can you imagine if hugo chavez had 30% of the natural gas coming into the united states and he turned the valve down and shut off our gas in january and we had to our -- our furnaces would have gone dark on us and our houses would have gone cold? i mean, if that happened what would we do? if we didn't have the power to accept that, would we capitulate to the demands of hugo chavez? my answer is i think yes. if we didn't have the power to do something about it or another alternative, we would have to negotiate. i'm going to suggest that the germans are negotiating with the russians because they can't do a confrontation and putin knows it. that's why he shut the energy off that was flowing through georgia for four days. he sent a message to europe that he can do that anytime he pleases. when he shut the gas off that was flowing through into

germany that said clearly that putin could do that anytime he pleases. so if someone controls your energy and they can shut the vafble down anytime they -- valve down anytime they please, you end up being nicer to those folks. the alternative is being building a new pipeline around to the north sea that, where does it come from? russia. put them in more control. my answer would be, i don't want any of that. let's develop our own energy sources and not be dependent upon those energy sources that are coming from russia. but that is what has been putin's strength is when energy prices went up he found himself sitting on a lot of cash. that's unusual for a country whose economy falters because russia has a lot of energy, they've had a significant advantage. but we should remember, mr. speaker, that when the berlin wall went down in 1989 and the soviet union imploded within the next couple of years that the people that were communists, socialists,

marxists, mouists, they didn't go away. they didn't look at the model of this dynamic vigor of the united states, the economy that's driven by our people and decide they wanted to be more like us. some did. not many. most of them went underground for a little while and then tried to find another way to get back in power. the former communists are there seated in the legislatures across that part of europe today. in small numbers and they don't get in some cases call themselves communists because they've been so stained by the history of it. they still believe the same thing. they still want to manage, they still believe that their elitist mindset can tell us what to do. and take away the freedom of individuals to make their own choices economically and militarily and politically and culturally. in fact, persecute the churches while they're at it. we need to understand communists haven't changed. they're still out there.

they might have taken on some different names. they might have declared themselves socialist democrats. they might have declared themselves to be progressive. they might just be the democratic socialists of america that are supporting progressives in this congress, but they are the same people with the same ideology. and us freedom-loving people need to understand -- i should say we freedom-loving people need to understand that there are basic principles of americanism and free enterprise is one of them, and those who undermine free enterprise are undergoing anti-american activities because they're undermining our vitality and our freedom and are taking away our ability to take this nation up to another level of our destiny. and that's part of this equation that's taking place here as the president of the united states, whom i happen to

have this portrait of. i think it's a flattering one, actually, and well done, as far as the artwork is concerned. the president of the united states brings an ideology to the task of community organizer in chief. and with a limited foreign policy experience of having traveled, lived shortly in indonesia and traveled to pakistan and then i understand to kenya and beyond that his trip to germany to give his speech there with the autobahn bismarck, i think that is the victory monument or the triumph monument that's there in berlin with that in the background -- not the -- that's not a lot of foreign policy experience to be playing on this global chess board with the world's number one economy, the world's number one military and with the

destiny in the world hanging in the balance if you make a mistake. no one has a crystal ball, but this is a very high-risk endeavor taken on by our commander in chief and those who are experts on the military side of this. it's not quite universal but it's been a broad criticism the decisions that have been made and i have no idea -- i can't -- my imagination cannot tell me what he can possibly have gotten for capitulating on the missiles in poland and czechoslovakia. and so, mr. speaker, that brings me to the subject matter that has, i will say, rifted the american people over the -- rivetted the american people over the past couple of weeks and that's the issue of acorn. acorn being the place where the president got his start in politics, where barack obama first engaged in community organizing and his community

organizing being part of -- and the most high profile he did was project vote, get out the vote effort and project vote that he worked for is a very close indistinguishable from affiliate of acorn. so acorn in chicago has always had a broad and deep connection. it's always been very active there from the early days when acorn went out of -- originated in arkansas and emerged across the rest of the country, acorn has had a very solid presence in chicago. the president of the united states in his most candid moments might confess he wouldn't likely be the president of the united states if it hadn't been for aconcern. acorn's ability to register voters and get out the vote and bring about the kind of leverage within the inner city that allows acorn to influence votes at the inner city level.

acorn is a corporation and its structure is something that seems to be a little mysterious. it's been reported their a 51 c 3 corporation, -- a 501 c 3 corporation, a not for profit, means they can't engage in political activity. we have seen a report from he the government committee that acorn has 361 affiliate they list 361 affiliates in their report. some of those may not be active affiliates and there may be some that didn't get picked up in the report done by the government committee. but acorn has turned into a conglomeration, a spider web of a conglomeration of affiliate, so when i speak of acorn, i'm speaking of acorn and their affiliates, 361 corporations,

1/3 of them 501c3 not for profits and other structures. organizations that share in many cases interlocking board of directors and an interlocking mission, to reach out and have become a vacuum that sucks up taxpayer dollars in many of the states and from the federal government, they have received over $53 million federal tax dollars since 1994, and i think that's a small piece of it until we examine all the affiliates. many of the states have contributed to acorn in one way or another by entering into contractual agree emmitts with them. acorn and acorn housing, for example, essentially in the business of brokering low-income housing. these are some things acorn has done, they've contributed to the toxic mortgage situation that brought about the economic meltdown just a year ago and

they've done so by shaking down lenders, by demanding contributions from lenders, what large, major investment bank has not written at least one fact check -- one fat check to acorn. mr. speaker, i'm going to suggest they have shaken down many of the banks that have been bailed out and we should take a look and see which banks received tarp funds and look there and see which also contributed money to acorn. we need to bring all the finances together of the private corporations that are part of this funding for acorn as well as government. it's not enough just to audit what government sent to acorn, it's important to go to the private corporations as well and see what's happened. we know that acorn has gone in and intimidated lenders, lenders have written checks in order to, let me call it, influence acorn to stop demonstrating in their banks so they can do business. we know acorn personnel,

including maude tall imagine, her first name actually escapes me, but talmadge is her last name, has bragged about going in to intimidate lenders in their offices and talked in other instances about shoving the lender's desk against the wall, surrounding the loan officer until he got tired of that behavior and commit to loaning certain amounts of money into these areas in the neighborhood. that's a shakedown asme corn was involved in that. we know while they're shaking down lenders, they were here in washington, d.c. convincing this congress that we should pass legislation to lower the standards of fannie mae and freddie mac on their secondary market. when that happened, it lowered the standards that undermined the foundation of requiring credit for loans.

when that happened, it laid the foundation, in fact it eroded the foundation for credibility and credit and began the downward spiral of the mortgage lending crisis and at the core of that as you look through it, you see acorn there over and over again shaking down lenders, coming to congress, undermining their underwriting requirements that fannie and freddie required in order for them to purchase these bundles of mortgage-backed securities that would be created by individual bad loans in bad neighborhoods that were promoted by acorn, who was getting checks from the lending institutions and getting agreements from lending institutions to provide blocks of money that would be loaned into neighborhoods that ended up being bad loans. acorn's at the core of the financial meltdown and by the way, the president of the united states was at the core of acorn, as a lot of these -- a lot of genesis of this was being generated, headed up

project vote, later on, hired acorn to work for him to get out the vote in the presidential campaign. so the president of the united states started out with acorn he trained their trainers he represented them in court to undermine, by the way, the integrity of the ballot box in my view, that's a motor voter which we would disagree with philosophically, headed up project vote that the actions of acorn in chicago have been tied together integrally with the president of the united states all the way through. here we are now with acorn helping to, on film, apparently facilitate child pornography and being willing to work and advocate for what to do with illegal immigrant children brought into prostitution rings in five cities in the united states at a minimum. that being baltimore, washington, d.c., brooklyn, new york, san bernardino,

california, and san diego. mr. speaker, that was appalling to this congress. it finally got us to the point of revulsion where we could finally vote to shut off funding going to acorn and their affiliates. that vote was a vote of 345-7 5 here on the -- -- 345-75 here on the floor of the house of representatives. just the day before, i didn't think it was possible but the american people saw the character and culture of acorn in that film, those five films that took place inside those five cities. ewe understand there are more that have not been released yet. what happens? finally some of us that have been calling for investigations are starting to get a little bit of movement. what needs to happen, mr. speaker, is a full-court press on acorn and all their affiliates. we need to have the department of justice unleash their

investigators to traipse down through all the activities of acorn and all their affiliates and work in cooperation with i.r.s. investigations with acorn and their affiliates, track every dollar that come swoose the affiliates and every dollar that goes out, the commingling of funds, the transfer of funds we need them to go back down into the embezzlement that took nearly $5,000 into acorn, covered up by the brother of the founder of acorn, brothers does do that, one of them commits a crime, and the other covered up the crime, which was a crime itself. then they misappropriated funds that were pension funds in order to back fill the hole that was created in their account big the embezzlement. all of this covered up by his brother wade. they covered it up and held it away from the functioning board of directors of acorn at the time. we have acorn producing over 400,000 fraudulent voter

registration, complicit in the beginning and part and parcel of to the mortgage lending cry is embezzlement by its top officers, embezzlement/coverup by its top officers. now we have acorn helping to facilitate child prostitution rings and setting up houses of ill repute and helping to facile kit loans to do that and advocating that the -- let me just say the pimp and prostitute not claim all of the 13 or 14 presumably illegal children they were going to bring in from el salvador in baltimore, but just claim three of them so it wouldn't raise levels of suspicion, then they qualify for the earned income tax credit and child tax credit, child tax credit up to three children, up to $1,000 a year per child and the earned income tax credit which would add another $3,000 to that most likely to gain the tax -- game

the taxpayer for a check of about $6,000 just as a matter of fact and a matter of course. acorn would help with the income tax filings, they would help with gaming the taxpayer they would help with a loan for the house of ill repute, and they would turn a blind eye at a minimum to illegal immigration. this was baltimore. but in san diego they advocated to help with that. we have friends in mexico, you have to trust us, we'll get this done for you. unbelievable, no conscience. we saw the culture of it. all the parts we've been talking about you want to the part of the prostitution, people would deny it. we had defenders over here on this side of the aisle. now they can't deny it because once you transpose the image of facilitating child prostitution as a matter of culture within the corrupt criminal enterprise of acorn and their affiliate, once you expose that, none of

the rest of this is unbelievable. it's entirely plausible. and it is in fact entirely real. acorn has created now a closed, contained economy within itself where its tentacles reach out and suck in and draw down federal money, state money, contribution money, shakedown money from banks and other lending institutions and corporations to keep acorn off their back and once that money gets drawn in, then it becomes something that gets co-mingled and as it's co-mingled, it goes out to further their enterprise, corrupting the election process in the united states. if there's anything i'm aggressive on defending, it's the integrity of the ballot box and they have assaulted the integrity of the ballot box and the president of the united states grew up in acorn. he hired acorn, he worked for

acorn, he hired acorn, he's a player and a coach. he wore their jersey, now he's the egive lebt of the owner he -- equivalent of the owner, he sent them -- set them up to do the census, twice now the census bureau said acorn won't count the census. 400,000 fraund lent registration forms? can't we believe that acorn would pay a commission for everyone the census workers could count? they'd simply fill out forms and count people two, three, four, five, six times. even if they set up expectations and not a quota, the result ends up being the same, even though it's not as stark a violation of the law, can't have americans counted by people who can't handle voter registration form with an expectation that it has an even chance of being a legitimate

chance of being a voter registration form. when they take your vote, when they undermine the integrity of the ballot box, that's more important itself than the constitution because even though the constitution guarantees the rights that we have, if americans -- the only thing that guarantees a legitimate election, the only thing that guarantees the constitution itself is a legitimate election process. if the american people lose their faith in a legitimate election process, the whole thing comes crashing down. if we don't believe our votes count, we can't accept the decisions of government. think what would happen if we elected a president of the united states or members of congress, united states senator, governors of the state and the american people believed that they were not the elected president, governor or congressman but they were simply those that happened to be on the side that was gaming the system. we wouldn't accept their

decisions either. if we don't accept the decisions made by government, then the progress of the civilization comes to a halt and digresses and we fall into the depths of a totalitarian state eventually as well. legitimate elections are the underpinnings of our constitution and the guarantees in the constitution can't be sustained if we lose our faith in the election process and the worst thing that could happen in this country from a policy configuration standpoint would be to see the integrity of our ballot box further eroded by organizations like acorn, and so this is very important. it's very important that the president of the united states stand up and take a position on acorn. you notice he was really quiet about some things. he was quiet about van jones. van jones is a former green jobs czar. quit on a friday night. i guess it was saturday morning, 12:05 a.m.

curiously the president had nothing to say and the press had no questions for the president on van jones and he is a self-alleged communist. and yet van jones drifting from the scene because he became too toxic and there was a little incident up in massachusetts of a professor from harvard who had a police officer called to his location and was trying to break into his own house. the president saw fit to have a beer between officer gates and professor crowley. we had the house of representatives to vote on acorn. we have the treasury department to start an investigation, at least it's implicite in their report. -- impolicity in their report. we have a number of ranking members of full committees on this hill that are doing what they can with the resources

that they have. we don't have a single full committee chair that's announced investigations and hearings into acorn at this point. we've got congress doing a slow walk right now on acorn. we have the president of the united states who could get himself injected into a lot of different discussions but has not yet really made much of a peep out of acorn. now, if the senate says unfund acorn, if the house says unfund acorn, why can't the president say unfund acorn? that's what i'd like to know. if the president of the united states would step forward and say to this congress, investigate at my request and i'll turn over all the resources of the executive branch of the government and chase every dollar and every director and every employee that's committed an illegal activity and prosecute to the fullest extents of the law and bring about person walks and prison time for people who are breaking the law, it would happen. it would happen overnight.

but he's not. he sat in his ivory tower and may have alluded a little bit to the inappropriate actions that might have taken place and how we should get to the bottom of it but they are not yet serious, mr. speaker. they are not going to be serious until the american people make it the highest priority that they have. and it's hard to make it the highest priority when you're watching your health care on the chopping block in the united states senate, when he watched our national security be diminished significantly by pulling the missile defense shield plan from poland and czechoslovakia and not keeping faith with the people who have most recently achieved their freedom and empowering ahmadinejad and empowering putin and setting up a tone of going wobbly at a time that we need to be the strongest. mr. speaker, i appreciate --

madam speaker, i appreciate your indulgence and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman have a motion? mr. king: madam speaker, i move that the how now do adjourn. the speaker pro tempore: the question is on the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is agreed to. accordingly, the house stands adjourned until 12:30 p.m. on tuesday next for morning hour debate. >> top prize will be $5,000.

create in 8 minute video on one of our country's greatest strengths where a challenge the country is facing. must incorporate c-span programming. deadline, january 20. winning entries will be shown on c-span. good to our web site for rules and information. >> the senate finance committee continued work on max baucus' laughed care bill. any discussion of the public plan would be held off until next week. a reminder that we have all the markup sessions at the health care hub. find recent speeches by the president in the town hall meetings. and video ens and your comments via twitter. visit us at c-span.org /healthcare. the senate finance committee wrapped up their work for the

week on health care legislation. max baucus announced there will be no discussion on the public plan. here is a look at that session from earlier today. >> the meeting will come to order. a few short announcement. we left yesterday evening and i announced we will votes on the grassley amendment or side-by- side of that same subject. there has been discussion between senators on both sides, including senator grassley and myself.

we have worked out an agreement where we are writing that that language now and hope to get that modified. i think it will be agreed to on both sides. it addresses the allocation of dollars under medicare and doctors under the geographic disparities in terms of cost of living in different parts of the country. it is important that certain parts of the country feel that the formula works to their disadvantage. other parts of the country don't want any significant reductions to dollars that already go to those areas. we will work that out and hope to bring that up soon. next, there was some discussion that this morning we would take up the public option amended

somewhat related to the co-op provision. we decided we will try to work out accommodations on how we vote on them and how we deal with them. we will bring up the public's options amendments when we get back. that will be next week. because monday is a holiday, when we adjourned today will not come back in session until tuesday morning. sometime tuesday i expect and hopefully earlier rather than later, we will bring up the public plan amendment. i want to take that up soon. it is extremely important but i also want to do the best i can to work out a series and the

order of which the amendments are offered and the most expeditious way. we don't have time to do all that, but we will get back tuesday. this will not be a long session. we will recess about noon today and not come back until tuesday morning. i expect the session to start about 9:30 tuesday morning. the first amendment -- >> a question. >> absolutely. >> there are five cer and then against. we would like very much to have them considered at the same time so we could have some continuity. if you are looking for something on tuesday morning. >> i am just curious if there

are find amend its between the two of the of -- there are five amendments between the two of you. >> their work tend. -- there were 10 of them i am just giving you a hard time. happy friday, mr. chairman. there are five and we can talk about that on tuesday. i thought it would be a good time tuesday morning if there was some time where there could be some continuity rather than bouncing around. >> i don't know if you are serious, but if there is any way to combine those five -- >> i am always serious with intent. i feel pretty good. >> the first amendment is

offered by senator ensley. >> my amendment is important whether you are a republican or eight democrats simply on the idea that the congress, harkening back to the constitution, we have a very serious role to play, when a comes, especially in the senate, in the oversight of the administration. that process over the years -- this is amendment number c10. it has to do with transparencies. we are now facing a situation where there is almost a shadow cabinet being developed. it is thwarting the authority of the u.s. congress.

these czars in their various positions, we have health and human services secretary, but we have a health czar not subject before testifying. you cannot compel her to testify. because part of the confirmation process, they are also -- because the administration claims about this executive privilege their communications. we have someone with a lot of power and yet is not subject to the confirmation process. i think this is something that congress, whether republican or democrats president, we have to get a handle on. it is completely out of control.

this committee should asserts its authority -- should assert its authority mr. chairman, earlier this year president obama said my administration will take appropriate action to disclose information rapidly in forms the public can find and use. part of that is having people from the administration come here and testify. this is about sunshine cannot this is about letting light in in the open government. -- this is about sunshine, this is about letting light and . trying to get around the balance of powers between the administration and legislative

branch, at this is out of line. president obama created 18 new czars. these are political appointees with broad powers to coordinate policy. they are not accountable. >> could we be in order, please? there are too many side conversations. >> i appreciate that. according to article two of the converse mission -- article two of the constitution, the president can nominate public ministers, judges, supreme court and all other officers. they shall be established by law. we clearly have the authority to do this. i think it is important -- this

is not a question of going after a democrat president. we probably should have gotten together and done this before. it has gotten -- 18 new ones on the top of the ones already there, it is getting out of hand. i think we need to say to the president, if we are not allowing this anymore. we will take back the power that is in the legislative branch, because the balance of powers is getting out of balance. the constitution outlined to keep that balance of power. we need to do the right thing. that is what this amendment states. >> i have a question to ask. i am unclear what you have in mind. the amendment would require the czars is subject to senate confirmation. does this mean all of -- >> any

czar -- does this mean -- >> any czar handling of care. >> the problem i have with this -- handling health care. >> the problem have with this is the title does not exist. i have the floor, i am sorry. these are not offices established by law. any administration can in formally designate any name for any person not established by law. for example, the administration could say this is the chief. this is the superintendent. this is the captain. we can think of all kinds of examples there does designated

by the administration. i daresay, about 40 different officers established by law appeared before this committee and they are not all health. i am talking about tax and so forth, but the hhs secretary does have a senate confirmation, as does the assistant secretaries. i think they have a good handle on the confirmation process for those officers established by law i have a hard time coming to the conclusion that this senate should require confirmation

process of people within the administration that had jumped nettles not established by law. -- that have job titles not established by law. >> we have a conceptual mark. we know what we're talking about as far as czars are concerned. we know who they are. as a conceptual, we can come up with legal language when the drafting of the amendment, but we know what that is. we cannot call nancy up here. we cannot compel her to testify. she has a broad powers. most of these czars are not confirmed today. if they have broad powers, this is a question of balance of powers.

this is a question of any administration that the congress should take back its power under the constitution. if we don't step up you can get more power concentrated in the administration. that is something we should not do. we should stand up and say this is a rifle under the constitution for us to have the consent clause and be able to compel folks to testify. then they cannot refuse to testify at here. >> i totally agree with transparency. this process is probably the most transparent process this congress has seen as we tried to pass health care legislation. no process has been more transparent than the one we have undertaken here. i want every person relevant to

this jurisdiction to testify. we could go down -- the executive director in and look for somebody liked nancy, and say she is the czar, so we will make her subject to senate confirmation. the next that is all administrations do this. they will say fine, we will get somebody else who is the president's private adviser that is not subject to senate confirmation. they will accomplish the purpose that they all pursue. it gets close to the executive privilege, separation of powers between the congress and executive branch.

we would be wasting our time to try to track down every czar and say that person is subject to senate confirmation. we would rather spend our time working with great people we have. and also talk informally to nancy. she has given us lots of good information, but i don't know having her testify would advance the cause of health care reform. >> i don't believe in it is a waste of time for congress to assert its authority in this idea of, there is a constant struggle between the branches of government, between judiciary, congress and the president. if you don't fight for each branch of power, you can get more power concentrated in to

that branch. that is the reason our founders set up this idea of separation of powers. they did not want all the power concentrated in the executive branch or the judicial branch. this is a way for the administration to skirt this balance of power. if they are doing it and we are not asserting our authority, we are allowing them to get away with it. >> i would say to my friend from nevada two things. nancy is not and was not appointed as a czar. that was created by people trying to push the idea that everything belongs to the

government and there is no private sector. if you want to take somebody who is available to all of us who is a director -- i appointed people like that when i was governor. if you want to create taht czar that is in your mind, then go to the senate confirmation process and you will elevate that person to a level of power that that person does not have. that person is a facilitator available to you and all of us. she does not have been czar powers you presume her to have. i don't think that is what you

want to do. >> senator kerrey sought recognition. >> one of the reasons the chief executive is forced to coordinate this because the senate confirmation process is such that we don't confirm a lot of people on time. there are a lot of empty positions. senators ought to investigate the whole process. i am trying to break some people out right now. if you are the chief executive and say how will i get this coroneted, i cannot get this person coordinated. -- how will i get this coordinated. the concept of a czar is a term of fiction and was created where it legitimate coordination efforts are under effect for a chief executive to have an internal coordination process.

it is perfectly within the rights of the chief executive to figure out how to do that. if we create this confirmed position that goes through the normal court confirmation process for, you will just have someone else designated to be the person who can get things done a bunch of things will not have gotten done if somebody was not required to be confirmed. part of that is our fault, because we don't get the conformations done fast enough. i happen to believe there are too many coordinators' indeed too many special envoys, and it strips the people who have been given the authority the ability to get things done.

we have these layers of ad on government, which is a lot of people's fault. the better way to proceed other than have this one shot amendment is for all of us to agree to overall -- reviewed the overall connection process and the us to have accountability. if we did that in a comprehensive way, we would be a lot better off. i think there are too many folks running around. in the state department nor i have is special-interest -- where i have a special interests, there are deputies who are totally stripped of any legitimacy because there is a special envoy that does the whole thing. we have to look at this very carefully.

i would like to see us do this in a more comprehensive way where we come at it more effectively. >> [unintelligible] i will add that it is interesting that there is a hold on all held confirmations. i bet there will be holds on the senate confirmation, to. all these holds that exist on current health nominees is the problem. many secretaries have complained to me about how much they need their secretaries. they just have to get their work done. because the confirmation process is some -- it is so slow. many times the administration has complained they don't have

their people so they cannot get their work done. i might say that 49 presidential nominees come before this committee. lots of opportunities for holds. we have an opportunity to grill these people as much as we want. >> senator carport, do you want to speak? >> briefly. -- senator carper. >> among the priorities was to raise student achievement. i had an education adviser who worked with me and i worked closely with the legislature to develop our standards. another priority of mine was to strengthen families. we focused on teenage pregnancy and recruiting thousands of mentors. i had a person not confirm who

worked with in the governor's office to help him with all of this. another priority is landy is reform to make sure we did that use all of our open space. i wonder -- i think i heard the chairman saiy, i think we have too many confirmable positions. we would be going crazy trying to get our people confirmed. there are a lot of vacancies on positions that need to be filled. i would urge us not to create another confirmable position. i think we need fewer. >> if i would conclude here, senator kerry was right when you said the cabinet level people

are having their power usurped. there is no question about that people -- we have no question about that. who is in charge? is it kathleen sebelius or nancy? you have a meeting briefed this last week with a democratic staff and they were with nancy. the bottom line is that it is about accountability. it is about establishing, according to the constitution, nominate and with the consent of the senate come up public ministers, that judges and all other officers of the u.s. whose appointments are not otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law. this is a question of establishing the balance of

powers and making sure we are fighting for our balance of powers which is rightfully ours. >> with my colleague yield for a question? >> we find ourselves between a rock and hard place. every health-care nominee has been put on hold. the ones to have the authority to do things, would my colleague be willing to talk to his leadership about lifting the hold so we could stop debating these nominees? >> i would say that i do think the nomination process has been broken. that is something that maybe this debate will let us fix. this happen when you guys were putting holds on the lost the administration -- on the last in ministration as well.

the process takes too long, but to get around that and give huge powers on people who cannot be called to testify to have that open accountability is the wrong solution. the right solution is to fix it, but we should not allow the administration to get around the laws in place anf give people powers to are not accountable. -- and give people hours or not the council. >> we will call the roll. >> mr. kerry. >> no. >> mrs. lincoln? >> no. >> ms. cantwell. >> no.

>> mr. carper. >> no. >> mr. grassley. >> aye. >> mr. buuning. aye by proxy. \ >> mr. ensign. >> aye. >> mr. chairman? >> no. >> chairman votes no. >> clerk will tally the vote. >> the final tally is 10 ayes and 30 nays. -- and 13 nays. >> amendment is not passed.

next amendment is senator from massachusetts. >> i will just talk about this briefly. i want to raise this issue. i think bill flynn we can work on this between now and on the floor. i am confident because the position i am advocating is c15, 240. this amendment will be part of the melding of the two bills that is important for us to confront. that is the question of what is the appropriate age rating. my amendment is designed to put a 2-1 rating, which is what is in the health bill. we will have to confront the issue. allowing insurers to charge older americans a vastly higher premiums might be 6 to 1.

if you allow them to charge older americans because they are older, i don't think that is a step in the true direction of health-related outcomes in help. it automatically treats everybody similarly andy can wind up in discrimination. -- and can wind up with discrimination. insurers ought to be forced to compete on the basis of price, the you and customer satisfaction, and not by avoiding the sick and elderly. i appreciate the modification. you moved it from 5.1 to 4.1. i strongly believe that is not enough. i am concerned occurred mark will allow insurers to charge older americans four times more

for premiums than under people. it does not make sense. we have people 80-years old who are healthier than some younger people and who exercise more. i don't think is fair just because of their age to say you will pay five times more. it will make insurance unaffordable for more than 7 million americans who are aged 50 to 65 who lack health insurance, allowing a 4 to 1 age gap is excessive. i prefer 2 to 1. we operate that way in our state. if age grading is not constrained, then in church's will likely charge older people higher rates. -- then insurers will charge older people higher rates. with strong risk adjustments and

provisions contained in the mark, we are creating a safe environment to eliminate discriminatory rating practices. in many states, age differentials are 600% or more. this puts insurance completely out of the reach of many americans over age 50. it is a problem for older women who are -- where uninsured rates are high because coverage is not affordable. i am glad we did the gender peace. in massachusetts, we already have a guaranteed issue to prevent insurers from denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. for small businesses, insurers may vary rates on a limited number of factors. seniors cannot be charged more

than double the premiums they are charged to younger people. i think true health reform or to end discrimination once and for all. this is an important first step. >> with my colleague yield on this? >> i would like to ask to educate us about rating bands, and tell us what the practice generally states is in terms of bands. it is a lot, basically. as we're moving towards health insurance reform, it is not only asking insurance companies, especially the small group market, to not be able to deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions but also the second

level of reform in this bill is the rating bands. can you tell us what states do and a word about the trade-off between the young and the old, and the need to get the young in this system. >> sure, the current marketplace in the individual markets is the majority of states have no new restrictions whatsoever. >> what does that mean? what is the effect of that fax >> the effect is that the insurance plan -- what is the effect of that? >> the insurance plan can charge people a separate premium based on what they deem reasonable. what has resulted is the majority of insurance rates based on health status. they rate based on age to an

unlimited extend. a rate based on gender. women often get charged more. they will rate based on your group's size he will pay a higher premium if you work in a more risky industry. it is unlimited. >> what have we done about the mark? >> we have limited rating in both individual and small group market to the fact that you can only rates based on a family composition, so if there are more people in your family you can pay more. age, but only to 4 to 1. and tobacco use, so it you smoke you can pay 1.5% more than a non-smoker. >> what is the trade-off between the young and old next >> the trade-off is -- what is the trade-off between the young and

old? >> the more you compress this, the difference between 5 to 1 and 2 to 1 is that it forces young individuals to pay more to subsidize older individuals. the trade-off is, as much as we wanted to be affordable for older individuals, it is critical to have the young in decibels purchase coverage and come into the marketplace -- to have the young invincibles purchase coverage and come into the marketplace. if we don't have one that is balanced between older sicker and younger healthier, then they will charge a premium which they anticipate getting older sick people. we have tried to strike a balance between making it

affordable for older people in the making it more attractive for younger people to make sure they get into the marketplace. >> right now the markets 4 to 1. >> i think senator kerrey makes an important point. if you -- i think senator kerry makes an important point. the people getting hammered the most are the people between 55 and 64. they are one decade away from medicare, and they are also feeling some of the most direct pain of getting laid off because they cannot get additional economic opportunities. one area i would like us to look at as we go forward in trying to reduce the discrimination against older people. senator kerry and i work together on this. we try to get as many people

between 55 and 64 into large groups, because if they are in large groups, that is where you will see the least age discrimination. you and your staff have been helpful in working on this. i agree that it will take a lot more work, because to have these older people getting hit as hard in a bad economy, we need to find additional relief. >> senator grassley. what i would try to do is emphasize some of the things that were brought up earlier, but with some specifics. this would be in regard to being against the kerry amendment. i am asking a question of you, at one time in our discussion of group sicks, i remember we were talking about some states having a division of 28 to 1, so

there are some extreme differences. what we are trying to do is modify, but to aid in a way where it is not too harmful to young people and not too bad for older people as well. i thought i would quote oliver weinman. he concluded then moving to 5 to 1 would result in a 48% price increase for the august healthiest in the year 2013. -- increase for the youngest healthiest. we already exacerbated that situation when we moved to 4 to 1. now we are debating this further increase. and oliver concluded that tightening the rating bands to 2 to 1 would result in another increase of almost 50%.

i think they made it very clear that as these price increases, more young people will choose not to buy coverage. getting them into the system is the goal that the chairman's mark was to accomplish. i hope we will not move in the direction senator kerry wants us to move. .

that will create a disincentive for them to buy insurance. that will keep healthier people out of the pool. that will raise the risk of premiums for everyone who is left in the pool and raise rates for everyone. i just hope that we think about the balance, and i would ask, i remembered it during the deliberations that we had a series of charts that showed an analysis of what happens to the premiums of younger people if you go from -- we were then at 5-1 to 2-1. you have this tables available to you? -- do you have those tables

available to you? >> yes. >> what do they tell us about looking at a younker court? -- a younger cohort? what would happen to the premiums if we shifted to 2-1. >> the move from 5 to 124 one to four to 1, would increase and increase -- would result in an increase of $250. that would exacerbate that three times or so. that is per year.

>> you would increase that by how much if you went to 2-1? >> a doubling. i would say this was all done before we add it the young of mortal plan that is now in the german's mark, which -- before we added it to the young immortals plan that is now in the chairman's mark. >> the idea that young people do not buy insurance because they do not get sick or some awful thing will happen to them, but unfortunately, awful things do happen, and they know if they are in a car accident they will

go to the emergency room and get treated at a hospital. maybe you could share with us the tables that you are referencing, because it would be useful for all members to see this because there is a price to be paid, is there not, for those who are in the younger cohorts? >> yes, absolutely. we can get you those tables. >> centre nelson? >> thank you, -- thank you. the larger that the pool is of which the insurance is spread over, does that or does that not affect the charges that you have

just been talking about with regard to the differential in age? >> absolutely. there will be more risks spread across. >> aha. so to protect elderly people, that senator kerrey wants to do, you can do that by making your pulls much larger -- your pools much larger, so if you are doing 9 million federal retirees, you have a much better chance of having that differential a lot less. why don't we consider making these pools, instead of organized around a state -- if it is a state like mine it has lots of millions of people, but if it is a state like senator

conrad's, he does not have a lot of people who will be in that exchange. why don't we address that problem by make those exchanges much larger? >> senator, the market allows that. it provides for that. >> ok. it would be necessary to do that, but you could even force that if you brought the differential between old and young down as senator kerry is suggesting. that would force a small state to make that a much larger pool of people, millions of people, instead of the few hundred thousand. >> there would be many factors, but we have changed the the mark

to do the two things. one is reduce 5-1 to 4-1. we also added the younger in vincible is because it takes off the pressure for the buyers of the invincibles. >> i think you have done steps and the right direction. what she has taught us here is you can correct all of this problem by making the pools a lot bigger. there other things in here that are discriminating against the elderly. one of them is that we're putting that excise tax on a cadillac plans. guess who the biggest portion of the population is that has the cadillac plans. it is those that are the elderly. what we want to do is to reverse

that differential of 5-1 has to go forward over the years -- as you go forward over the years, and changing the size of the polls is a way. >> i want to be able to -- i want to put this in the context of what we're trying to do here. the whole theory of this effort is to deliver better quality care to americans and deliver better quality care to americans @ flore cost. this is a balance. -- better quality care to americans at lower cost. part of that is getting people

to be covered who are not covered today. we are trying to make a short -- insurance more affordable so you can get more people. we subsidize young people to buy. a number of the older people will be less subsidized because they earn more, but they did not earn enough to be able to pay 600% on the premium. if the whole theory here is to be more inclusive and create a bigger pool of people covered and better health in america, we want to try to even out what it costs. the help committee, senator enzi is on that, came to a 3-1. we have a mandate that everybody is covered. on people that have to bite in in massachusetts, and we subsidize them. we have a subsidy to help them

by hand. we have also provided a 2-1 restraint on what could be charged to the elderly, which is discrimination, folks. we allow them to church twice as much as you charge the in person, which is a reflection of rest. in our mark, mr. chairman, you have $20 billion -- $20 billion of reinsurance. we also have rest adjustment. that takes into account the very thing we are talking about, the differential between older people being -- some people been more prone to being sick, etc. to some degree it takes into account number people who engage in more adventuresome

activities, shall we say, of sports, whatever that winds up in more catastrophic kinds of accidents. kite surfing, for instance. >> that was a low blow there. >> actually, it is not. my point, mr. chairman, if we were to work at -- i would take 3-1, and i will not ask for a vote on this right now. we will get into this when we get into the house committee, but we needed think about this because there is a dynamic here we got to look at. also, i appreciate that you put the piece i was trying to get on the early retirement, $5 million in her to help early retirees. that is helpful.

and the gender discrimination. i had an amendment to try to reduce the gender discrimination, and i appreciate that was in there, and that helps reduce the pressure. the age piece remains a problem. we're trying to create a legitimate insurance concept, which i talked about yesterday. in the insurance of homes and cars and other kinds of property and everything, you do not sit there and make discrimination on age. you look at the events and you look at what interest has to pay out and people pay the same premiums based on a difference -- a different calculation. we're trying to create a similar kind of risk assessment calculation, and i believe not pushing to get rid of the gender discrimination leaves us open to having these gross distortions

in how insurance is available to people and who gets charged what for it. >> mr. chairman, i wanted -- >> does my colleague seek recognition? i apologize. we are on a parallel. >> senator grassley is a big man. i would make three quick points here. the last point, with all due respect, i do not think it is correct. in comparing this to car insurance, which do not use age, but defense. that is not true. aids is one of the biggest determinant that i know -- age is one of the biggest determinants that i know. secondly, we basically -- age is

the only proxy for health and status since we are taking out of the things like pre-existing conditions and so on. except for tobacco, there's not any other proxy here to evaluate a person's condition. no question with the young people in the pool -- without young people in the pool, premiums will go up for all. that is a point we have been trying to make all the time. insurance premiums are going up. with respect to young people, there's no question that they will go up. to the notion that somehow people will see a reduction in their premiums, that is not going to happen. let me give you examples, and i have gotten for hear from people on the committee who happened to be here right now. this is from the council for affordable health insurance, from a person who made a study

of this, and this is a chart. these are actual plans. this is the one in phoenix. this is a cigna plan, a $2,000 deductible ppo. the 2-1 age band application would go to 998. in florida, a united policy with a fifth in hundred dollars deductible -- with a $1,500 deductible would be doubled. in iowa, it would go from three and a $16 to $719. in to the account is as -- in topeka, kansas, it goes from -- it goes to the over of $1,000. those are substantial increases.

let's don't deceive ourselves that adjusting these percentages will make a huge difference. i appreciate the fact that 2-1 is in massachusetts. that is not where we want to go. i am just as talented -- just astounded at how our constituents look at us. we are right think these kinds of details into insurance policies. we're regulating every aspect of insurance here. on page two, in our great wisdom we have decided for the back - 4 tobacco use is to be a certain amount. on family command -- composition it would be another amount.

what leads us to believe that we have the wisdom and judgment to make all these decisions and write them into law, and we are control the prices of insurance policies. when the people appreciate the extent to which we are meddling in everything that has to do with health care, they are going to conclude that the composite of this bill provides for the government takeover of insurance and, therefore, because of the way that ensures is delivered, the way that health care is delivered as well. that is what we mean when we say there's too much government intrusion. the private sector is much more agile at adapting to conditions and leaving these kinds of decisions to the state, which has a better handle on the

situation makes more sense. this is one of the reasons we are skeptical of the degree of detailed middling -- meddling in the market place this represents. >> to respond, i have a different view about how the private marketplace has worked for families between people in america. we compared interest company's profit increases of 425% in the last eight years with a 200% increase in premiums and wages on average during that period, going up 25%. the public is asking us to do something about a product that is not optional. if you do not want to have car insurance, you cannot buy an

automobile. if you do not want house injured, you do not have to buy a house. you probably will get sick or somebody will get sick in your family. health insurance is different. i believe the public is asking us to create a system that is more fair and that gets rid of the abuses. we have made a decision in this framework to do it within the context of maintaining private insurance, but you cannot say to folks you're going to have to participate in a private insurance marketplace can not make sure the rules are fair for them. and they are not right now for too many people. i just have a very different view, and i believe this legislation comes at this from a very different view about whether or not this works right now. mr. chairman, on the amendment,

i would like to lend my voice to senator kerry, and i believe the mark moves in the right direction. when it is coupled with what is happening on the ratings for other people, party early early retirees, you couple it with what senator nelson spoke about in terms of the excise tax on which have been called cadillac plaza. there are a lot of chevys in there. i hope people will buy one of this to the goals -- one of those two vehicles. people who are forced to retire are paying more because they are in a marketplace where they are rated differently because they are older. when we compare it to active

workers, the benefits are actually less, and they are paying a lot more. at a later point i will have it remembered that i have offered an amendment, but will exempt retirees, those early retirees, from the excise tax. yet to look carefully at that. the mark moves in the right direction. we a lot of people because of what is happening in this economy that have had to make the choice to retire early, and i am concerned about them. >> on the senator's point, because the senator knows that i am sympathetic with this argument about creating a market in american health care. my sense is that you start this discussion by looking at the evidence that indicates that you get people into big pools and the marketplace will deal with

much of this. that is one of the reasons that the federal benefit plan is so good for people, particularly in this age group that we are concerned about in the private- sector. these people come to us in our meetings, saying i just prayed that i can hang on until i'm 65 because i do not have coverage by going into this marketplace. i get discriminated against. in response to senator kyl's point, a lot of us what to make this market place, if we can get people into big pools, i will offer an amendment to get people into as many of these big pools as possible in a fashion that will help employers and employees. then we get what the senator wants, which is a larger role for the general marketplace. >> the i respond directly.

-- may i respond directly. i absolutely agree -- i agree with senator wyden. the republicans have a different approach. we have mentioned two of them here. when is the association health plan for allowing groups of individuals, organizations, small businesses, to combine together and have the same marketing power as big business does because the have a larger pool, and secondly, not restricting sales to a particular state, particularly in the low-population states. the argument has been made if you can combine the populations of states through compacts, you have a much bigger pool. those are free-market solutions to the problem of increasing the risk pool. i will go back to what i said earlier, no one has refuted

this, where not helping people when we increase their interest to 95%. that was exactly the result of the study which took one to account -- which took into account the presence of the mark, the guaranteed issue, modified ratings, and he's leading bands, and they concluded these reforms will increase the cost of insurance to 95%. small business workers, early retirees we talked about. millions of americans who buy their own coverage. when it looked at the capitol city of all of the different states, with a representative plan ended all these calculations, this is what the came up with. almost every one of them are almost a doubling of the price of the premium, and i asked my colleagues again, how are we helping our constituents when we are mandating conditions which

result in a doubling of the price of the premium of the doubling assumes the senator's 2-1 ratio here, but that is what we would get under the kerry amendment. >> senator kerry. >> i wanted to have this discussion, and i am going to ask to withdraw the amendment, but i will say two things. if you did not have this 2-1 restraint, you will end up with something else in various parts of the country. this is a limitation. number 2, i will show you we do not have the highest interest rates in the country. number three, you are correct, there is an automatic presumption made about young people with respect auto

insurance. there is a discrimination between boys and girls. they also get points for good behavior, good driving. you can reduce the rates in the number of different ways, which we did not entertain here, and secondly, it is a about a 2-1. that is exactly what we are permitting or what i sought a permit. the help committee permits a 3- 1, and we are at 4-1. i'm trying to drive it down where you have a fairer distribution of the risk and cost. i'm convinced because we subsidize those younger folks as a purchase and we get -- and get less, we are spreading the risk as true insurance should do of the cost of being sick. it will be greater among older people. we understand that.

but then those under people will one day be this older people and they will appreciate that under people are being put in to equalize the cost of everybody can afford to buy in over a longer period of time. this debate, i know we can work the ratio and the melting, -- and the melding, and i ask my amendment be withdrawn. >> i would not be averse to working this out and the committee. >> if we could, i would be delighted. >> there may be a budget consideration for because the more we compress the band, the more we operate pressure on the younger. >> cbo said there was no rating.

i will try to find the same person that we talked to. >> that would be helpful. >> the amendment is withdrawn. >> mr. chairman, i am back with the admonition about the earlier amendment, a c-23, as modified. this amendment you will recall previously we asked that the scoring on any amendments rejected due to a point of order or accepted, where the escort turned out to be erroneous, there be an opportunity to correct this later on. the chairman pointed out how difficult it would be to post those on the internet for a period of time, 24 hours. what i have done is omit that

requirement, but retain the ability to come back and six power inadvertent mistakes. this requires all amendments ruled out of order the reese court by the congressional budget office -- rolled out of order be rescored by the congressional budget office. i hope that comes close to address the chairman's concern about unnecessary delays, but gives a mechanism to correct inadvertent errors. >> discussion? senator, i appreciate your concern about transparency. it is a concern we all have. i take great pride in the great transparency in which we have

conducted our deliberations here. let me begin by saying i committed to getting a cbo score after all the amendments have been adopted. i am committed to get the score. we need to get that score. second, i committed the bill will be paid for as budget neutral over 10 years. that is a strong commitment of mind. i will not agree to a bill that is a deficit neutral over 10 years. i am committed the bill reduce federal deficits in the second 10 years, to bend the cost curve. that will not be easy to do. the number of amendments being talked to, the modification will put additional strain on those principles, but some of these amendments will put additional strain on those proposals, and it will be difficult for us to get a bill through this

committee that meets this objective, and i daresay those objectives are shared by a large number of those in the committee. the markup has been conducted with unprecedented transparency. the mark was available almost a full week before the markup. it was publicly available on web site. there are basic ideas, in the november white paper, which is not a lot of change that we put out last november. all the days we have had, round tables, mark-through is, an unprecedented -- and unprecedented numbers of hours. my concern is that your amendment he, given these commitments, it creates an

unworkable said the delays. the majority of markups are concluded in one day. the vast majority. recently the economic recovery bill, one day. this amendment requires additional scoring by cbo of amendments that this committee has disclosed before the committee can come to closure on any measure. as i have shown, cbo requires multiple days to score any single proposition in requiring them to score multiple amendments tree it multiplies those delays. i wish you could be on telephone conversations i have had with cbo. it would be quite an experience. maybe even an education. to get cbo to move the scoring

more quickly. i urge my colleagues -- is bennett our process work. we know we are not going to have that that is not deficit neutral. but the process work. when we dispose of amendments, let us put those amendments to bed, and i urge my colleagues to not build up a system of repetitious delays. >> may i respond? i appreciate the steps you have outlined that have let the public know what we're doing. this is about fundamental fairness in the committee process, and making sure we get it done right. the delays that you are concerned about, i would note again that the spending in this bill does not start until 2013, so there does not need to be any

rush, at least one that would cause us to make unnecessary mistakes. >> i want to make sure we have the right amendment here. >> c-23, as modified. as you will recall last night, there was a $600 million mistake made. cbo initially said there was no score to senator stabenow's amendment. there was no offset offered, so we know the cost of this bill went up $600 million as a result of that mistake. i am not blaming anyone. i am saying it was inadvertent. earlier you will recall i offered an amendment that had not been scored by cbo because not all the amendments had been able to be scored by cbo because of the number, and the chair

ruled it out of order because he said he believed there would be at cost even though there was no cbo score. of course, the appeal from the chair's ruling was unsuccessful. i do not understand how they $600 million mistake is glossed over where my amendment, which was not scored by cbo, was rolled out of order. this is a matter of fundamental fairness. i do not know how you ultimately determine what the score of these amendments are, and we can intelligently to our business with any sense that it is accurate unless we have a capacity to go back and to correct our errors. this -- i have tried to delimit -- to eliminate the delays in order to address this, but i think this is away for us to get it done right and to be fair in

terms of the amendments offered by various members, and i would urge you to accept it. >> again, i have a couple thoughts. one is marked clinicians -- one is more pernicious than i thought. one is that all amendments be accepted during consideration, be rico scored. i do not get that. -- be rescored. i do not quite understand the need for that. >> i do not know that that would entail any more work if it has already been scored once. if there is some dynamic and interplay there between various amendments, which would cause the need to score the overall bill, when we are talking about

trillions of dollars, this is not an unnecessary thing to ask. >> we are accomplishing the purpose we are seeking. let's say an amendment that is scored passes committee. as i read this amendment, it has to be rescored. let's say another one comes out and we adopt the amendment. under this amendment, passed the -- a test of the -- it has to be rescored again. frankly we have pushed cbo away. when we ask them for an estimate, they will look at a narrow aspect of one part of it, and not see how it scores with relation to other parts.

we finally got cbo to score the interrelationships of different visions. they started to do the. by the end of the process, we get to the final passage, and we then get the final score, we will have done what you want, namely, cbo will have gone to of all the amendments again by definition and look at the interaction among all amendments by definition, because it is looking at a final number. what we really want is the final number here. is it correct or incorrect? unfortunately, this is not precise. look at the discussion we had yesterday, satenator enzi on the medicare runs. we do the best we can. these are economists. this is not precise stop.

we do the very best we can with what we have got, and i think they work hard, very hard, they're honest, objective, they are economists, academics, they are so committed to this public process and work so hard. they do not get their names in lights. they get a lot of criticism. they get very little credit for what they do, and i should commend them for more than i do. we will accomplish your purpose when we get that final score. one final point, over the night we found another mistake, and the other mistake is not cbo's. it is the committee on taxes. it is a $1.16 billion mathematical error in our favor. i thought we would use some of that money to pay the $600 billion mistakes with the

stabenow dominion -- the stabenow of men. and then there was a gypsy question that senator grassley is so ardently working on. the other day -- we will push cbo to get the precise numbers. >> i share your admiration and respect for the professionals at cbo and the work they're doing. they're being put under tremendous pressure to try to score amendments in this legislation. i think they're doing the best they can. but they are only human, and i do not understand the rush when the spending is not going to cooccur for four years. if they did it correctly in the first instance, it would not take much to confirm the accuracy. in fact there was a $600 billion

mistake. i appreciate you will try to comment -- to try to accommodate senators' dameron -- senator stabenow. in the meantime, my amendment was ruled out of order because it is not have a cbo score and frankly, due to the chairman's ruling, i do not see it i get an opportunity to get a score. i think it is a double standard when it comes to deciding on the amendment. >> that is fine. reoffer the amendment. >> mr. chairman, i would like to pose a question to you in terms of -- the microphone is on.

>> what is the ability of the committee in making adjustments that are changes in those numbers, in the bottom line or with respect to various provisions? he said in medicaid we have had several revaluations and the bottom line keeps changing on that with respect to what the states' contributions will be within that budget window. anytime there is a miscalculation or a variation on this numbers, i think the committee ought to have that opportunity to respond, make adjustments, contribute to any changes in policy regarding those numbers, whether it is a plus or minus. >> the senator makes a very good point. the traditional process might not be sufficient. the traditional process is we pass a bill, but we report legislation out to the floor,

and there's a budget score, and if it turns out that it is not what we thought it was, traditionally been we would delegate to the staff to make changes and adjustments so that it does score. we need to get a better process of senators, and we have -- because it is and this -- because it is an extraordinary situation with this bill. >> and mr. chairman? could i just say to the senator from texas, who i admire, and he has got a concern here which has legitimacy. senator stabenow's the amendment was adopted. subsequently, cbo change to their score. but the chairman has indicated that he is going to attempt to address that.

on the gentleman possible amendment that the chairman ruled out of order, i did not speak on it, but having dealt with cbo for 20 years, there's no question, there really was no question that your amendment would have scored, would have cost money. there is no question that that is the case. the chairman has said that if you get a score that shows that it does not cost money, that you have a chance to reoffer that amendment. that is eminently fair. let's be square. there's no question. your amendment cost money. the solution that you are offering here would just create chaos on this committee and it would create chaos at cbo.

requiring that all amendments accepted or rolled out of order be rescored -- we will have cbo chasing their tail and asleep. at some point you have to make a decision here. and i think the chairman has been absolutely fair and is -- in his conducting this markup. he has indicated there is an inadvertent mistake and you are say you are not blaming anybody and there's not anybody to blame. you're right about that. he is going to do his best not to fix it, and with respect to your amendment, if you could demonstrate that it did not cost money, that you had a chance to reoffer it. that is the spirit that infuses this committee and always has. you are a relatively new, member

of this committee. i have been here for a long time. whether democrats or republicans running this committee, it has not been anything other hand professional, collegial, ha as by-- ha as bipartisan as one can make it, and i would say that to the leadership of every chairman that has been on this committee. so, i feel compelled to say that. mr. chairman, if i could close. i accept your offer to get my amendment scored, and the one thing i would say to senator conrad, is there is a cost, it gives me the opportunity to point out an offset so it is

revenue neutral. that is the opportunity i am asking for. >> you got it. then is germane. >> i think the safety net provision of this amendment is important and i would ask for roll-call vote. >> i urge my colleagues to vote not in favor of this amendment. >> no. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> pass. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> no by proxy. >> no. >> no. >> no by proxy. -- aye by proxy.

>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye by proxy. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> mr. chairman? >> senator lincoln? >> aye. >> mr. chairman? >> no. the clerk will call it a vote. the final tally is 11 ayes, 12 nays. >> i want to see the next

amendment will be the cantwell amendment. >> senator kyl, because of the time we took on the last discussion, i want to make one point that is important. we were talking about the 2-1 impact in massachusetts, and the senator asserted we had the highest premiums. it is important that people think that is not the consequence of what happens here. we have a very high cost of living. we have higher real estate costs, energy costs, because we are at the end of the pipeline. when you adjust for this differentials, we are in the bottom half of premiums in the nation. i want that impact to be understood with respect to the 2-1. >> senator cantwell? >> i would like to call up the cantwell amendment, c-2 has

modified. this deals with pharmacy benefit managers and transparency. we're trying to cut down on the cost of health care to americans, and one of the biggest aspects of health care bills that americans have today is the prescription drugs that they are receiving. one of the reasons that we have had a lot of discussion about pharmacy benefit managers in the past is because managers have become the middleman in delivering prescription drug benefits. my colleagues may remember a few years ago there was a question of when managers were actually part of the same drug companies that they were working with to deliver prescription benefit discounts, and so we changed that law so that you could no longer be negotiating with your own parent company and keeping

part of the discount instead of passing it on to the consumer. as the government has become an even bigger purchaser we have the same questions about transparency and drug pricing. we want to know as a purchaser we're also going to be getting the best price, that if people are negotiating to deliver a drug benefit, that we know that that benefit and discount is not just been pocketed by the pbm and a larger number than should be going to consumers. if this is about transparency to the secretary of hhs and to make sure because a new phenomenon as a reason. managers and mail order pharmacies have gotten together, and now you have a benefit manager owning the mail order system and being able to deliver better discounts, bigger discounts, to them and to the individual pharmacists that are

out in the market. what we're after here is transparency of drug pricing to know what is the most competitive officer the put on the table, to make sure the consumer in the end, when making a large purchase, and a discount is being negotiated on behalf of the consumer, that the consumer actually knows the benefit and we, as a purchase thing entity, the we are getting that benefit as well. we hope this will drive down drug prices and a significant fashion. we have made a modification to make sure the penalties for disclosure of this inflammation that would be at the secretary of hhs would apply to unlawful disclosure to date. i urge my colleagues to support

it. the more transparency we can have as new systems are developed in the delivery of partnerships will help the consumers benefit from a large purchasing they are doing and to reap the benefits themselves instead of having them middlemen pocket the money. >> i would like to ask a question. place yourself -- please, your son or your counsel excellent, how this amendment is budget neutral. how different is this a minute from the one you offered in the floor debate? while the amendment was a very expensive at the time, there were concerns regarding proprietary information not being protected. i want to know if there is difference between this and that amendment because it was considered to be very expensive.

>> the original amendment offered several years ago was broadly drafted, and it would have information reported on a larger bases, so there was concern that that would have an impact in the market, so cbo scored that impact, that it would have. we have dropped him to thwart their release of the intermission is only to the secretary of hhs, so that information, we should have access to it, so that is why it is a neutral score. >> thank you. >> for the discussion? i think it is a very good amendment. i strongly approve of it. this information is needed. it is more transparency, more information, proprietary interests are protected. there are penalties here for failing to disclose the price of

root information, and i think it is a good idea. >> i have a question, going back to senator hatch. does cbo official scorer this as budget neutral? >> yes, i did. >> mr. chairman, i do not quite understand the concept here, that the information is proprietary, how are we going to use it so we can squeeze more from the drug companies? secondly, this has been one of the best examples -- these benefit managers have reduced the drug prices dramatically from what the predictions were when this legislation was passed. it is one of the really good examples of how competition with the major pbm's have squeezed a lot of savings out.

i am not sure what the necessity of this is, and what the present defect is, and how it can have an effect if the information is going to be kept for friday and we will not be using it against the companies. >> if i could, there's nothing wrong with the pharmacy -- benefit managers try to negotiate a discount because they represent a large pool. yes, they have been able to get discounts for the population they're trying to buy up plan for. we're concerned about a conflict of interest, and you may remember some of this debate, when it went to the fact that pbm's were owned by drug companies tree if your pocket think that discount, are you not pocketing -- is that not a conflict of interest?

you are having the majority of drugs and could have a consolidation through some of these entities now the largest supplier of drugs in america having a true conflict in helping our passing on the savings to the consumer. if you basically are the subsidiary, you are negotiating with your parent company, you are negotiating a savings, and then pocketing part of that savings back to the same entity. where is the consumer, a large purchaser, getting the benefit of this information is for us, the government, in this case, the department of health services, to say as a purchaser for medicare, we are going to find out what kind of discount you are actually passing on. the pharmacy benefit manager negotiates on behalf of the

federal government or in this case may be a county government and basically it's a 50% discount, but pockets 45% of that discount and passes only 5% on to the consumer, that is a problem. this gives the government the ability to get access is an affirmation. it is very important that we did not have the kind of conflicts in the interest here that the judiciary had stepped up -- had stepped out between benefit managers and drug companies. >> which the issue not be then the disclosure but we all relationships, -- if there are any legal releases since, whether subsidiary or have contracts with and rebate money to somebody else -- that all could be resolved by simply

requiring a disclosure of all relationships rather than seeking the information as to the way they deal financially with the reductions that the chief and translate that into premium reductions. the idea to avoid conflict is solved if you indicate who the relationships are and if there are closer relations, then the government would be able to look behind that to see whether or not a conflict -- the relationship has resulted in a true conflict of interest. >> again, if i could, i am more than happy if the judiciary committee -- it was attorneys across america who for started bringing these cases against p bm's into the public eye. i will be more than happy if the

judiciary committee listened to the fact that cvs is becoming one of the largest drug delivers an america and there is an anti- trust issue. that is an issue worth looking at. that aside, does not mean that the federal government should not be able to get access to accurate information from drug companies that they're doing business with. . .

>> is there any further debate? frankly, i might add that i think the -- i think this is very important. there have been several lawsuits filed by the federal government cannot state governments and by pbm clients alleging they had been operating against clients' interests that is breaching their duties by secretly pertaining rebates and discounts that the pbm's were obligated to pass on to clients. i think disclosure of the relationships is fine, but that will not solve the problem. we all know in corporate america there are so many interlocking relationships that makes even health care reform bill looks simple. trying to figure out all those relationships. i think the disclosure relationships will not solve the problem. we need the data and the

interests of being protected. i urge us to support the senator's amendment. all those in favor, please signify by saying aye. the ayes have it. do you have an amendment? >> mr. chairman, the amendment is number c10, insuring consumer choice of health benefits. this relates to the mandateed benefit and definition of benefit requirement. -- the mandated benefit. the truth is this will drive up costs. there is plenty of studies to demonstrate that is true. i referred earlier to a report by the council for affordable health insurance, chhi, which found that mandating universal coverage, and posing the regulations outlined in the chairman's mark. for example, modified community

rating, will increase the cost of health insurance between 75% and 95%. additionally, it is established that mandated benefits increased the costs of insurance. each mandate may have a small cost but the keenan said a fact drives up the cost of coverage. -- has a small cost but the cumulative effect drives up the cost. it is estimated that current mandated benefits increase the costs of health coverage from less than 20% to as much as 50%. we're talking about the state mandates. they have identified 2133 benefit and provider mandates, which include mandatory coverage for things like the following --

wine stain elimination, that is a birthmark removal, protein screening, residential crisis service, athletic trainers, massage therapists. we are all familiar with some of the others. this gives the secretary the responsibility to define these benefits on an annual basis. let me read the language. amending title 1, to require the secretary for individually purchased plans to update no less than annually categories of coverage treatments within benefit classes. this is what republicans have been warning about when we discussed an individual mandate. it is a building block for the government to define americans health coverage. when you say you have to have it, you have to define it. we already understand the effect

of state mandates on premium expenses and now we have studies that verify this will increase the costs. it is a perfect example and clearly states -- is a perfect example of how this regulation will increase costs. it will mean fewer options, which ultimately lead to the choice of a government-loaded benefit plan or no plan at all. this is not what our constituents ask for us back in august when they talked about this. they don't want a health czar defining their health coverage or mandates that will increase their coverage. basically, washington making more health-care decisions for them. i would also like to mention one other study which analyzed the finance proposal. the imposition of the minimum

benefit plan and the bronze actuarial value 65%. they concluded that it will includes premiums. they could increase by as much as 35% with those in a high deductible health plan. those in a typical plan would have to increase rates by as much as 18%. mr. chairman, regardless of which study you look at, it is clear that the result of the mandated coverage will increase premiums for our constituents, something that we have a promise we will not do but will be inevitable with this legislation. if it was necessary before the modification, it is more necessary now. it would prohibit the government from limiting choice by defining the health care benefits by the private insurers.

>> this will be the last amendment of the day. frankly, i would like to limit senators to five minutes. i will be very brief with mine, and saying that i oppose the amendment. if we're going to require insurance, insurance companies have to know what they have to cover. breeze simple. in the mark, wehave four benefit categories. we indicate what plans must include. this package at inclusions is what is generally accepted in the commercial market. we were not very prescriptive come up we just gave categories. we felt we should not be too prescriptive. -- we were not very

prescriptive, we just gave categories. this is a good basis for moving forward, namely we have to have some definition of benefits. i will just name a few at the beginning. plants must provide preventive primary care, emergency services, hospitalization. it is page 17 in the marked, so i oppose the amendment. we have to know what the coverage will be and what the benefits will be. we are giving categories here, we are not being too prescriptive. >> mr. chairman, i don't know the source of your assertion that there will be these big increases in premiums as a result of this mark, but we asked cbo for their analysis.

their analysis was that this would reduce premiums by 7% and in the individual market by 3%. they have now sent a letter i have not seen but my staff and forms meet refining that, saying this would reduce premiums by 4% to 5%. that is certainly not everything we would like to accomplish in terms of reduction in premium, and there are other amendments that will be considered on the floor to reduce premiums even further, the cbo's professional analysis was that the chairman's mark will reduce premiums, not increase them. >> mr. rockefeller. >> this is an observation. this is one of dozens of amendments that come from across

the aisle. it occurs to me that they all seem to be saying that the government is trying to decide everything. that is not the case. government does have responsibility -- congress was not created for no purpose whatsoever. it was created to help do policy, and we do that policy. we could be in a position where we pass a good policy here. that is not defined yet, but what strikes me as ironic is that the result of these amendments that come from the other side, they have decided they want to make sure that insurance companies get more money. a point that senator cantwell was making. if you keep government out, that has some resonance with the american people, but what the

people will learn from this series of markup sessions is that they are being done over by the insurance companies. everybody has to make their pick as to how they will go, philosophically. i think the picks that are made are fairly clear. >> thank you. we have to wrap up pretty quickly. i see my good friend from arizona is a fellow westerner. we love the west. this is really a wild west amendment. it basically says insurance companies can fight for whatever benefits they want. i don't know if that is the result we want. people need to know there has to be some consistency in what we are doing.

senator? >> just an example of why this does not work for real people. back -- if we indicate people need to participate in the individual marketplace for health insurance, right now 60% of insurance companies do not offer maternity care. at least for four of us on this panel, who that is a pretty big deal for all of us, actually. the idea we would move forward and not have basic parameters -- this is about consumers, about describing a basic insurance plan within a system we are setting up. i don't think you can go forward and allow 60% of insurance companies not to provide maternity care in a new system

work setting up that will hopefully be better than the old one. thank you. >> mr. chairman. first of all, i don't need maternity care, so requiring that to be in my insurance policy is something i don't need. >> if i could just interrupt. i think your mom probably did. >> over 60 years ago my mom did. you notice i was not too specific. yes, you have to have a general definition. if you are going to mandate something you have to define it, but not in all the specificity contemplated by the mark. what makes it worse is the modification which puts the secretary into the position every year. think about the pressures that will exist on the secretary to add more.

staff informs me that cbo commented that over time to add more, at the expense will increase and the premiums will increase. you have to ask, with regard to the effect on premiums, it is for home? premiums will go up for some. -- is for whom? somebody asked what my sources are. here is a letter dated september 22 of this year to the chairman from the cbo. i am quoting. premiums would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current individual market. with other factors held equal, because new policies would have to cover pre-existing medical conditions and could not deny

coverage. cbo has not analyzed the magnitude of that effect. some people with high expected costs do not purchase insurance and they would be charged. those amounts mid -- those amounts do not enter the market because they are not purchased. people with low costs would generally pay higher premiums. i am not sure of the source for the statement that premiums would go down. is it not correct that the cbo only scored the mark that the modified mark has not been scored. is that correct? >> which provision? >> the modified chairman's mark with respect to the benefits. the secretarial, annual revision of coverage. >> cbo did score that as budget

neutral. it requires the secretary to stay within the bounds of what is covered in a typical employer plan. they have scored that. >> but budget neutral is not the question. with respect to the premiums charged to the beneficiaries. is there a conclusion different than in the september 23? >> the premiums are dependent upon the actuarial value of the plan, not the benefits covered. the premium will remain within the range that it was paid >> presumably, the conclusion of the cbo with being the same as the september 22, which says premiums of a new insurance would tend to be higher. >> the letter specifies the mark would lower the administrative

costs 7%. >> there is a difference between administrative costs and premiums. i have been talking about premiums, so we can agree with respect to premiums, this mandate would result and would tend to be higher than the average premiums in the current individual markets. >> i believe it says premiums would be higher for some and lower for others, but more of the dollars will be spent on medical costs and fewer on administrative costs. >> as a courtesy to members, many members brush -- many members are rushing to leave. can we vote on this? >> yes, but let me make this point. >> if we could, i would like to have the clerk call the roll. >> you asked me to bring up my amendment, i did.

we are in an important discussion about whether premiums will increase under this bill, and the cbo said they will. i thought premiums would not go up. we are talking about administrative expenses. our constituents deserve to know that premiums will go up as compared to current law individual market. my amendment seeks to ameliorate that bad effect on our constituents. >> are we ready to vote? the clerk will call the roll. >> mr. rockefeller >> no. >> mr. conrad. >> no. >> mr kerry. >> no. >> mr. schumer. . no.

>> mr. nelson. >> no. >> mr. mendez -- mr. menendez. >> no. >> mr. grassley. >> aye. >> mr. hatch. >> no. >> mr. roberts. >> aye. >> mr. enzi. >> aye. >> mr. chairman. >> no, by proxy. >> do you want to vote in person? >> mr. schumer, no. >> clerk will tally.

>> the tally is 9 ayes and 14 nays. >> said the amendment fails. before i put the committee in recess -- so the amendment fails. i want to thank the staff behind us and before us for the overwhelming amount of nonstop work which they have done. we get to go home at night, they don't. this point needs to be made to the american public and needs to be made to all of us by then, because is sincere. the committee stands in recess until 9:30 a.m. tuesday morning. >> the senate finance committee continued work on chairman

baucus' health care bill. any discussion of the public option, including the introduction of senator schumer's bill will be held next week. we have all the markup sessions at the health care hub. recent congressional hearings, speeches by the president and town hall meetings. and video ads and your health care comments. this c-span health-care hub at c-span.org/healthcare. >> join "book tv" for the national book festival here in washington. we will kick off our coverage with the founder of the festival, laura bush, and all day authors and your phone calls. also this weekend, "after words."

find the whole schedule on line on their website. >> president obama is scheduled to hold a press conference for the g-20 meeting in pittsburgh. we will have that live for you at 4:40 p and earlier this week he addressed the un general assembly. we talked about his speech this morning on "washington journal." we will show you this until president obama starts his press conference. your is part of that event. >> although we averted in nuclear nightmare through the cold war, we now face a situation of scope and strategy with new places and weapons. the of new york or moscow, tokyo or beijing, london or paris, we have weapons that kill hundreds of thousands of people and badly destabilized our security, our economies, and our very way of

life. once more, the u.n. has a pivotal role to play in preventing this crisis. the historic resolution we just adoption -- we just adopted in shrines are given to a world -- and enshrines and a commitment to the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. it reflects the agenda i outlined in prague and builds on a consensus that all nations have the right to peaceful nuclear energy. the nations with nuclear weapons have a responsibility to move toward disarmament and those without them have the responsibility to forsake them. today, the security council endorsed a global effort to locked out all the invulnerable nuclear materials within four years. -- to walk down all vulnerable nuclear materials within four years. this will strengthen the institutions and initiatives to combat the struggling, financing

and theft of proliferation related materials. it calls on all states to freeze any financial assets that are being used for proliferation and because for stronger safeguards to reduce the likelihood a a that peaceful nuclear weapons programs can be diverted to weapons program -- that peaceful nuclear programs can be diverted to weapons program. the resolution we passed it will also strengthen the nuclear non- proliferation treaty. we have made it clear that the security council has the authority and responsibility to respond to violations to this treaty. we have made it clear that the security council has the authority and responsibility to determine and respond as necessary when violations of this treaty threaten international peace and security. that includes full compliance with security council resolutions on iran and north korea. let me be clear, this is not about single lens -- singling out individual nations. it is about standing up for the

rights of all nations to do live up to their responsibilities. the world must stand together and we must demonstrate that international law is not an empty promise and that the treaties will be in force. host: henry sokolski is the executive director of an organization known as the non- proliferation policy education center. good morning and thanks for being with us. as you heard yesterday, there was a vote by 15-0. what does this mean? guest: no one is going to object, not even critics, to being in favor of trying to reduce the number of nuclear weapons and to keep them from being acquired by more nations and this resolution stents forthright for that. so, 15-0, no controversy. host: what is the next step? guest: that is the problem. nothing particularly binding here.

what the president would like to do is push for ratification and try to bring into force a a two very -- and actually, three very long standing agreements that have beenç hung up in the negotiations for many years. when we are familiar with, to reduce nuclear weapons with the russians and strategic arms reduction costs -- arms reduction talks. number two, to ratify a nuclear ban of weapons. and number three, to reach agreement on again to make nuclear materials for nuclear weapons. he is trying to push to bring those things into force. i think that is a tall, tall aurorder that is going to be vey risky and so far as really currently do not test -- the

five major nuclear weapon states do not test, and they do nostatd they do not. it wouldn't make nuclear weapons any longer. and we are -- we do not make nuclear-weapons any longer. the key here is to make sure that if we push for these three agreements we do not bargain so hard we lose the advantages we have already secured without them. host: our phone lines are open or you can send us an e-mail or a twitter a. as reported in the "new york times" by david sanger, the president is going to make public that there is a second nuclear facility in iran. and according to david sanger, mr. obama decided to make public the american findings after iran discovered in recent weeks that western intelligence agencies

have preached the secrecy surrounding this guest: iranian: this highlights a problem -- this iranian project. guest: this highlight a lot of dangers in general. the international nuclear inspectors have a very hard time finding these things soon enough for you to intervene and use them -- and prevent them from being used to make bombs. and right now, this discovery is good news to put pressure on iran, but it comes awfully late. they already have bombs with lightly enriched uranium set aside that they could turn into a bomb in about two months roughly. we found all of this out and revealed it late in the game and to suggest the real problem we face in the future, but there'll be other countries that will be able to get this far along and we will only find out and review these things very late in the game. host: the other part of the story is the president's

decision not to continue with the policy set forth by president bush the robot is missile defense shield in the czech republic and in poland -- . the initial reaction by some commentators in poland and the czech republic was no less odd. they seemed to enjoy the role of spoiler. he said that many of obama's critics insisted that he and the president caved in to russian pressure. host: nothing is a strong were coming from a russian. people are notified to work very senior, including deep forward minister of poland in the middle of the night. -- including the foreign minister of poland. it may be a is a hard case to

make that we appeased russia, but we did not handle this in a way that was friendly to those people who backed us in czechoslovakia and are running in an election. we announced this right before the election, putting them on edge, so it was not a great look. i think we make too much about how different this effort is for bush in several respects. mr. bush intended to deploy many of the same systems that mr. obama is talking about, but he intended to do it with this 10 interceptor system. that is the one element mr. obama has chosen not to deploy, but the idea that this is a vastly different system than what bush would have deployed is a little exaggerated for political purposes. host: on our republic and mine is coddled from virginia.

-- on a republican line is kyle. caller: i noticed your guest is talking about non-proliferation. the problem i have with that is bad i have been trying -- we have been trying to get iran to stop its nuclear program. they have no chance of a slowing down, so how will that play a huge role in what we are trying to do? guest: actually, i think the caller hit on an important point. when you find out about a program to make nuclear nubbins -- nuclear weapons late in the game, it is very hard to turn that around. we don't know when or how a change in the government will occur. almost all of the reversals -- i was forced enough to see some reversals when i worked in the pentagon in places like brazil, argentina -- they all came when

there was a change in government. we can only hope that the way the protests are going in iran, maybe that will occur, but until then, it will be very tough. it means that when we keep stamping our feet, saying we have to stop this program or the world will fall apart, we set ourselves up for more disappointment. we need to say i ran they had a bomb option, but we should do everything to ensure that others cannot. we should do everything we can to penalize iran, but be realistic that we may not be able to stop them. host: our conversation our conversation henry sokolski, executive director of the non- proliferation education center. he was quoted saying the present

at the un security council -- the president at the un security council. they are overselling this. >> this goes to -- guest: this goes to some of the comments i made earlier. this leads with 2.5 pages of discussions about the agreements they want to make come into force, rather than much about non-proliferation. those three agreements have to do with testing nuclear weapons. other than north korea, nobody is testing nuclear weapons. major states announced publicly that they will not test nuclear weapons. they signed the comprehensive test ban, so they are bound not to test. similarly, our weapons and the russian weapons will be going down with or without an

agreement. they have been for a decade. finally, the cut off -- these things already apply to the five major states. to get them formally agreed to, you have to get iran, north korea, india and egypt to come on board. i don't think that will happen. what you have to do to bring them into force involves bargaining, where if you are not careful you may undermine the objectives associated with bringing these into force. france is now thinking about selling a civilian nuclear fuel plant to china to get it to sign an agreement that it would not use the material for military purposes. it will make 1000 bombs worth of plutonium a year. we would be better off not doing anything and pushing a treaty

that way. we need to be careful. finally, we are focusing on bringing these things in force. i don't see how that will be easy to do. it is distracting us from a long list of other things, which the commission i serve on has been largely ignored. we need to slow down and look at a broader spectrum of things. host: our guest is a veteran at the pentagon and graduate of the university of chicago. one of the photographs this morning is iran's missile testing in 2006. "the new york times" port in the president will make it official that the u.s. will accuse iran of having a secret nuclear facility. this is the backdrop of the g-20 meeting in pittsburgh. james is joining us from georgia. caller: thank you. what i would like to say is

this -- host: go ahead. caller: you all continue to speak about iran, north korea and these other countries, but i would like to have -- says israel has nuclear weapons? have they made the u.s. aware that they had nuclear weapons? how were these nuclear weapons development -- how were they develop? who provided the materials for these weapons for israel? isn't this the cause of what every other country wants nuclear weapons? aren't they the reason for this arms race? guest: that is a good point. we do know that israel has nuclear weapons and, and end, we

need to figure out -- in the end, we need to figure out how to back off piling up these weapons. they are in a terrible situation where they feel threatened, and with cause. it is a problem and it is an argument that people used to say maybe we need to have an option as well, so it has to be addressed, but the bad news is i think iran as reasons to get a nuclear weapons option even if israel did not exist. it has always wanted to dominate the region as it did many hundreds of years ago. it has a different culture than its neighbors, and it thinks it is better. it would like to be respected, so they would probably pursue this one way or the other.

some of the interests of other states in getting a clear weapons options is to make sure they had a defense against iran. i don't want to discount the point that israel. i think that has to be dialed in and we need to talk about that more, but i don't think it is the entire picture. host: our next call is from ohio on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. host: are you still with us? caller: yes, i would like for these specialists to just be blunt. all of these countries that have nuclear weapons, and they are not reducing them and no one will get rid of all of them, why don't we be honest? i am a former veteran and i am

proud that america has nuclear weapons. i would love for us to reduce them, but i don't think we should get rid of all of ours or other countries that have them get rid of them. host: let me take your point because when the president announced this he had said it would be unlikely that in his lifetime nuclear-weapons would be completely eliminated. yes caller:, -- caller: yes, and i agree with that but i think it would be a better solution for the nuclear problem for the un to take over a certain number of nuclear weapons for countries that have not developed them. guest: i think the caller is

right on spot on most of the points he makes. it is unfair to say we have not reduced. we have gone from about 10,000 down to 2000 deployed weapons. the russians have also come down and the french has come down. that said, there is a lot of stuff in warehouses, so we still have an issue. the caller i correct. -- the caller is correct in that we need to produce more and everyone reduces, rather than try to hold ourselves against a standard that may be very unlikely to be achieved. it is ok to say you are against poverty and crime, but the idea that you will not rest until you eliminate every criminal may be a little too overwrought. in addition, it would be useful to be blunt that we do not want

to come down so quickly that others come up, like china, and we risk losing allies that are nonnuclear like turkey and japan. we need to be careful here. we need to do this in a deliberate fashion and we need to be candid. the world is going to be full of nuclear-weapons for quite awhile logger host: 1 viewer zany -- for awhile longer. host: bruce is joining us from ohio. good morning. please go ahead. caller: one of the things i am wondering about with henry is do you respect the fact that the president's, and i appreciate if you would respect him with calling him the president. as intelligent of a man you are,

i wonder are you in appreciation that he is trying to address this issue? that is my main concern with you. as bright as you are, i think you would respect him and appreciate what the president is trying to do. guest: my job is to respect all presence. i criticized the previous president. -- to respect all presidents. i don't think the point of departure to understand these issues is to try to establish how much one respect different people. that is a given. any president deserves the respect of the office, but that doesn't go to the substance of what they propose. that is what we all have a free shot at. that is the point of this show. i respect the office, i certainly respect anyone who can

win the office, but the policies are something we must all feel comfortable being able to address. host: let me put back on the table what are two separate but possibly related issues. this is the decision to pull out of the czech republic and poland. my question comes from "the washington post." can you connect the dots between the two? guest: i think some people would like to argue there is a pattern of appeasement. for them, they argue that bugging out of the commitment to deploy these tend interceptor assistance in poland and the czech republic is part of an effort to appease the russians with regard to getting an agreement on the strategic arms reduction talks, which we have artificially said must be concluded by december 5.

i say artificially because the only thing that would lapse is the inspection protocol. we don't have to negotiate every detail of, but we said we will. i think that is a hard argument to prove. the problem is if you are a critic and you don't respect the president, it is also an easy argument to insinuate. i suspect that's as many people in the administration are not quick to point out, making this decision, pulling out the 10 interceptor system in poland has at least ease our relations with russia. i would much prefer to listen to the storyboard we did it for reasons unrelated, and we will have to sea. host: let me read to you one article in the "washington post"

that says president reagan would like this decision. if he was watching the news, he had to be smiling not because of the decision to abandon the deployment of a missile defense system, reagan would not like the political symbolism of that gesture, but on a more fundamental level, reagan would recognize the announcement represents a watershed moment in american politics. >> i don't buy that. i have read the history with regard to reagan that are being used to argue that he was for zero nuclear weapons. it is more garbled when you read these recently declassified documents. he seems to have been for it zero ballistic missiles. but he goes back and forth as to whether the world will have to hold onto their weapons, and what he calls nuclear-weapons

seems to be identical with ballistic missiles. because of that, i think the president would say it would be great if we could put pressure on all countries, not just russia, to reduce. we have a problem with india, pakistan and china. they are coming up. everybody else claims they are coming down. at some point, 10 years out, if you continue the program laid out, he will have a pact nuclear crowd where everyone thinks they are nearly equal. we remember when people thought there were equal in military capability before war for grumman won. that did not work out so well. -- before world war roman one -- before ww i.

there were suggestions that are commission made that i think need attention immediately that are much less controversial that nobody has attended to. one of them is no country should go out of their way to use government incentives to promote nuclear power, which is a bomb starter kit. we're talking about loan guarantees for all sorts of nuclear power plants. we have a suggestion that we need to identify what international inspectors can and cannot find. we only talk about if we give them more money everything will be solved. that is not true. we also pointed out it would be useful to talk not only about eliminating enriched uranium, but focusing on countries that separate plutonium. it is a resource for making bombs.

finally, we need to promote the idea that we will cooperate with countries to develop energy in a non nuclear way. this is required by law but has never been implemented. there is one idea to promote that. these are the things that are not getting the attention they deserve because we are focused on the symbolism of trying to bring three agreements which date back to the cold war. host: we are discussing the un resolution 15-40 passed by a vote of 15-0. a resolution requiring countries to secure their nuclear materials and supplies, and the past law restrictings their export. henry sokolski is joining us in our studio. michael in missouri is next. caller: i want to know what

israel's nuclear program is off the table. it is very hypocritical you can tell iran they cannot tell -- they cannot have nuclear- weapons but you cannot get rid of the israeli nuclear weapons. host: his israel off the table? guest: we're trying to put a spotlight on this and it has caused headaches. it is not off the table but it is not in the spotlight. the problem is the way in which people focus on it is not helpful either. the trick is to try to the israelis to stop making more nuclear material, but tying it to getting iran, egypt and algeria to back down from their nuclear activities, and to put a damper on all of this interest in getting large reactors throughout the region, i would

agree with the caller that we need to pay more attention to israel, but we also need to pay attention to other things as much as well. if we did come at you with half a complete package. -- if we did, you would have a complete package. caller: several weeks ago it was announced that iran is planning a nuclear enrichment in venezuela. i have not been able to confirm this by any other source. does the guest know anything about this? guest: yes, i don't know exactly what iran is planning for it venezuela or what venezuela is planning, but they want to cooperate in the nuclear energy field. that is a worry. if you look to the south, brazil is making nuclear fuel.

it just had a contract with the french to develop a nuclear submarine. one of its bright students in the military institutes can out with a paper demonstrating that brazil knows how to make or design a thermonuclear device. latin america needs to state peaceful for many reasons. we need to focus more attention on these developments. host: are less call is from kentucky. -- our last call is from kentucky. caller: wanted to ask your guest the bigger question is the sanctions he un, china and russia would not agree upon -- th the upone un not agree upon -- the sanctions. do you think this could be a step towards the un taking

actions they should be taking? guest: i think what is helpful is this revelation about iran having a covert facility. it has some value in finding this out, and that is it will leverage or embarrass russia, who wants to have good relations with germany and france, who are keen on having sanctions, to go along. in the end, unless the u.s., france and japan are willing to do sanctions of their own without russia and china, you will have difficulty pulling them with you. that is the bad news. the good news is in the long run, we did not have the cooperation of russia or china for a good portion of the cold war.

we did not say we shouldn't compete with them and try to isolate them for their bad behavior. we did, and that competition has produced a less hostile world. we will have to think in the long run out to work with russia and china and also without them. we ought -- without. host: at the end of the day, if we did not reach this 1520 conclusion, what is the alternative? -- if we did not reach this 15 to 0 conclusion. guest: we don't need it you and in this field -- it is not a requirement. -- we do not need the u.n.. the u.n. resolution says good work, keep up. it does not bind us to do it. we need to go to the sound

details on the resolution -- there are some that are pared some of the things my own center suggested years ago -- and focus on them. where we need to be careful again is not to get distracted on those things we ought to know are very, very unlikely. so we need to focus on what is practical. for that, we don't need you and resolutions. resolutions. >> thank you for joining us. >> we take you live to the g-20 summitt in pittsburgh where president obama will be arriving to speak with reporters. leaders from the 20 largest economies raft of the meetings earlier today, addressing issues such as executive pay, economic growth and capital requirements

for banks. in the opening moments, president obama announced the discovery of a covert nuclear facilities in iran. he said iran must make their developments transparent or face sanctions. ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> we're getting word president obama will arrive to speak to reporters in about -- at about 5:15. here is some of our segments from this washington to -- from

this morning's ""washington journal." e latest headline in the paper today, 50 percent oppose u.s. surgeon afghanistan. this comes with new developments as reported by the associated press and confirmed by the pentagon and afghanistan. five u.s. soldiers killed overnight. the debt to place in the southern part of afghanistan where the american nato forces have ramped up their operations against the taliban. dree troops died in a roadside bombing, was shot to death by insurgents and another died in an attack while on patrol. those roadside attacks now account for casualties in what has been the deadliest year for the war in afghanistan. we want to get your reaction to these latest a moment. also, time to give third the

issue of health care and iraq -- the war in iraq. frustration on the war and confusion on the health plan from going inside the "new york times" -- just one exit from their reporting. there has been and mishandling of the board -- of the war in afghanistan. that is a reference to stanley mcchrystal, the general in charge of afghanistan. we'll show you an excerpt available online from the 60 minutes website with his interview. the first, seattle, we go to donald. you say the war is one of necessity? caller: yes, i do, and the

reason is because we actually went into this war ended resource like we just took this war of necessity from porsche. -- from bush. i think that obama has some ideas about it and it comes from a lot of the people in the administration and a lot of this has to do with what he inherited. i tend to is a war of necessity. i would love to think of it is a war that it is not something we could fill -- we could fill. we cannot fulfill this war. it is not something we could see through out. host: thank you. next is a caller from kansas city, missouri. why do you say this is