host: 10 are dead after an attack on a pakistan army headquarters. the congressional but the office says imposing limits on medical malpractice suits could save $54 billion over 10 years. and there's much international and domestic reaction from president obama receiving the nobel prize, much the focus on how it packs decisions about military cooperation in afghanistan. we want to ask your thoughts on how the awarding a prize to the president affect future policy

on afghanistan. here are your clients -- lines to call. 202-737-0002 for democrats, 202- 737-0001 for republicans, 202- 628-0205 for independents. for this hour, your thoughts on how the nobel prize decision will affect foreign policy decisions. we will take those calls and a few moments. as you can imagine, domestic and international newspapers are weighing in this morning. we talk with the open " new york times." mr. obama is still far from managing an orderly withdrawal. he must have a strategy that will do what mr. bush failed to do, defeat al qaeda and the taliban without miring troops in

an endless conflict. turning again to the pages of the "washington post," their editors are writing this morning on this subject, saying that his peace prize came the same week that washington was consumed with divisive debate on how to win zero war in afghanistan. the bush and administration was forcing the lake, and the nobel committee's claimed that the president has created a new climate for politics is about as realistic as "saturday night live set boat in the story taking a look at this issue and at the "washington times protractors specific reaction from afghanistan to the awarding of the price. although karzai gave a congratulatory note, others were

dismayed in afghanistan. what is this for? please show me. the americans are killing 75 passions of a day in afghanistan, and for this to give a price to obama? they should call her a criminal. obama will probably need congressional support if he needs additional troops, much of which his own party opposes. michael steele, chairman of the rnc, said "it is unfortunate that the president's star power has over ruled tireless advocate who have made real achievement." we want to get your thoughts as well on what this price means to policy. again, our lines, 202- 737-0002 for democrats, 202-737-

0001 for republicans, 202-628- 0205 for independents. first we hear from baltimore, maryland. good morning. go ahead, please. what is your thought on the prize? caller: i just want to make two comments. i do not think it will make any difference, because the president has a team of people that he speaks to on an everyday basis before they actually make decisions. so i do not think this will play any part whatsoever in what he was going to do. secondly, i would like to say that my opinion is that at this time, i know you have somebody coming in from a foundation

today. i think it is important for people to know if they are conservative or leaning too progressive. host: we are going to stop there, because i do not want to stray too far from the conversation we are going to try to have. next caller. caller: after picking jimmy carter and al gore, who is left that hates america more than obama. he thinks we're supposed to be a third world country and not have free people must understand and bin laden agree with us. -- unless saddam hussein and bin laden agree with us. on afghanistan, i think that if can stand is going to be a lost war if obama does not listen to somebody like mcchrystal.

obama and the rest of the losers on the iraq war are calling every day lying about afghanistan. no one forgot about afghanistan. insurgents started coming back, and that is when things started picking back up. host: next caller. caller: i am concerned. i never expected the nation to turn the way it has. we have gotten so mean-spirited. i think the nobel peace prize awarded to our president is a wonderful example as to where the world and the country want to go. host: what does it do for afghanistan policy questions?

caller: we are going to leave afghanistan, just as we had to leave iraq. we just have some nice people coming on the heels of the bush years. host: atlanta, to order, jerry, democrats line. caller: i have never heard such take in everybody. you would think that democrats would be happy we have somebody who really cares about people and not about money. think about this. this is the first african- american black president. he have to admit that even the way he brought about things is to bring about peace. so many years before him, there have been circumstances of

hate, war, and takeover. you cannot tell people now that he is bad, when all that he did the last eight years was hurt your people, even though we have hurt other people. i called in when we invaded iraq and i said that we had open up a pandora's box. wants to open one up, you can not close it. -- once you open one up, you cannot close it. host: next caller. caller: i do not understand why we have an opera. he did not apply for a nobel prize. but we have to understand why for the last five years, america was the most hated country the world.

we can stick our head in the sand and not accept it, but it is true. i do not think this priced complicates things at all. he needs to take his time and make a wise decision. do not take one personal opinion. remember, the world was saying, listen, their are not weapons of mass destruction. host: the "guardian." "obama's nobel prize will not weigh heavily in the deliberations over afghanistan.

the choice is simple. throw in more troops and spent more american blood, or to wind things down and focus on terrorists, not the taliban. most probably, he will split the difference, sending more troops. it brings us back to kissinger, nothing if not a strategy. he and nixon realized american power was not infinite. that is the path that obama should take now. if he did, he would really earned this premature nobel peace prize." brooklyn is next. bernie, on our republican line. caller: in general, i consider him a smart man. it should not be a factor in the

decision. as far as awarding him the prize -- host: why should it not be a factor? caller: it has nothing to do with the political or strategic value as a component of decision making. what does it have to do with the cost of lives, if we win the war, whatever that means? how it affects american defense from america's point of view. why should the award have anything to do with this decision? decision should be made on how it will affect our security. host: this peace prize winner is

trying to finish wars in iraq and afghanistan while contending with eight nuclear north korea. the president yesterday made comments at the rose garden. here's what he had to say. >> i'm both surprised and deeply humbled by the decision of the nobel committee. let me be clear -- i do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, but rather as an affirmation of american leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people. i do not feel deserving of the company of many of the men and women who have received this price and inspired me and the entire world through their

courageous pursuit of peace. but i also know that this price -- prize reflects the efforts of men and women, and throughout history has not been used only to note achievement but also give momentum to a set of causes, and that is why i will accept this award is a call to action, a call for all nations to confront the common challenges of the 21st century. host: a piece in today's "wall street journal" takes a look at the award in light of afghanistan decisions. he says, "president obama's decision is difficult. less than 60% of americans support the view, and no doubt even fewer will be in support of

what mcchrystal wants to do to change our strategy. the way that we have provided assistance to development has not improved things. even friends of the karzai administration have reported cronyism and corruption. afghanistan is not iraq. people asked us to leave. they seem to want to insure it defeat by leaving at the moment when our leader on the ground has laid out a compelling strategy for victory. this is a real test of leadership, and i hope that president obama classes with flying colors." your thoughts for the next half- hour on what this may or may not

do, in your opinion, on decisions that have to be made on afghanistan. street petersburg, fla. your honor. go ahead. caller: it has nothing to do with afghanistan. he got the prize. do you think that that means we must slow down and leave afghanistan? the question is stupid. every time we turn on c-span, you have somebody from the heritage foundation. we hear from a lot of different organizations. most of them are right wing organizations, and you know it.

host: canton, ohio. go ahead. caller: the president is committed to defend our liberty and freedom at all costs. we need to understand that the roadside bombings are the greatest weapon of the taliban. we cannot get troops to their destination. i feel that we need to use helicopters and aircraft and drop tanks and troops in their regions or in the area, the places they need to be in order to -- we cannot use the roads,

is what i'm saying. we need to find another method. host: on twitter -- longview, texas. republican line. brian, good morning. caller: yes, sir. i do not agree with his nobel peace prize, because i do not agree with anything he has done for america in what had to be done. host: your thoughts on afghanistan? caller: i have a couple of friends in afghanistan and iraq that have died. what has he done for us? host: chicago, illinois. doris, democrats line. go ahead. caller: i have a nephew on his second tour of afghanistan, so i

do not want to hear about that. i am getting ready to get to the price, but i need to say that the media and republicans have the same negative reaction to obama and the peace prize. but afghanistan, that will not affect what he does there. he has been having meetings for a long this time with all of his advisers. why should he take the peace prize? that is the media and the republicans. they have the same reaction to the peace prize as hamas and taliban.

host: atlanta, georgia. independent line. caller: i believe, first of all, as an american, but we're going after a very trying time. we have to remember that first of all, with the iraq war, president bush had removed its troops from afghanistan to beat the drum on a bogus war, and even the cia was saying that he was removed from afghanistan. with the peace prize does do is that it takes america's credibility in the world.

the world is watching us as a "leader," such a 8 digit country here and abroad. so the prize reinstates credibility. nato is called them for assistance now. we are no longer looked at as a nation of hypocrites and liars, but now as a country to be shining alike in the world. host: al jazeera has the story looking at various world positions on the problem. this is from a spokesman for the taliban. he says, "in afghanistan, the taliban -- obama should have won

the nobel prize for escalating violence, said a taliban spokesman meeting with reuters news agency is out of florida, republican line. -- rutgers new ags agency." florida, republican line. caller: i think this is going to go to obama's head and get troops killed in the end, because we will not have the support in afghanistan that the general is calling for, and i do not think that this is going to turn out good for us. it will make us more but joked the world -- more of a joke to the world. host: the editors of the "economist" magazine way in online today. they say that more troubling is

afghanistan, although the nobel committee has awarded obama with the title of peacemaker. he remains a war president, and he must try to decide whether to deploy an additional 40 dozen soldiers in a conflict that has lasted eight years -- an additional 40,000 soldiers in a conflict that has lasted eight years. tampa, florida. a few more minutes on this topic. go ahead. caller: good morning. how are you guys doing? i believe our country -- our president got the best award he can get. i am sorry to say it, but white

people in this country have to understand that we got black president. it is helping the whole world accomplished the things that america wants to do, because the recognition, people like america again. eight years of the bush a demonstration damaged our country real bad, -- eight years of the bush administration damaged our country real bad. all we got those years was hate. white people have to come to the conclusion, we should help our country. host: marks, independent line.

your thoughts on our topic? caller: it is a cry from the european community that we elected a black president. host: silver spring, maryland, republican line. caller: why are you looking only at what is being done in afghanistan? i am as surprised as anyone else, but he has expressed surprise. however, look what was done when there were problems in iran. iran made unwarranted remarks -- the u.s. kept themselves

extricated. it is the first president in a long time to really addressed the problem in the middle east, in israel. the palestinians are suffering. it is the first administration that is saying what is right, that israelis should stop aggrandizement, building those settlements. this is what they are saying. they are encouraged because of these efforts, not only for the silly warmongering and killing of innocent young americans giving their lives wantonly while one -- all of the people are sitting at home in america. i say send these people out, let them go and be like henry the third, leave the people. -- lead the people.

host: columbus, ohio. go ahead. caller: [inaudible] host: troy, new york. go ahead. caller: did they make this decision back in february? host: according to the papers, the deadline for filing was february 1. caller: that means they are going with the events of last year, in which our country was

torn apart at the seams. but we came together. there are a million things that we believed in that is why we voted for him. but as far as the nobel prize affecting afghanistan, he already said that this is a war we needed to fight. i am certain they were aware of that fact when awarding him this prize. host: "he loses by winning a." it is difficult to see why he deserves the peace prize is so soon after taking office. the nobel committee diminish the credibility of the price itself. obama was cited for his extraordinary efforts to increase cooperation between

people. yes, he has reached out to adversaries with mixed results. yes, he has called for a world without nuclear weapons. all of these aspirations are, to use a polite word, aspirational. jim, are you there? caller: hello? yes, i disagree with the award obama received. he said himself he was surprised he was selected, and a lot of people around the world were surprised all the same. he knows he has done nothing to really deserve this award. he is running a country, and to

get a piece price, you have to wonder what the agenda is that people do not see. one lady earlier said something about being republic and is anti-american. i resent that. i've been to work for this country myself. i'm not anti-american, but i am a republican. that is my freedom. she has a freedom to be a democrat or whatever, but i do not appreciate being called anti-american just because of my affiliation with certain political groups. host: carlsbad to new mexico. -- carlsbad, new mexico. caller: he should have received the nobel peace prize. i cannot think of one leader who has reached out the way he has

to the world, totally contrary to george bush. i keep hearing people say that this is mr. obama's war. he did not start that war. we are still there because secretary defense gates is not standing up and doing anything i can see. there is mcchrystal, he has gone way out of bounds in the chain of command, and he was in charge of the cover-up of a death. this man should be digging latrines, not in charge of forces. president obama is one of the best presidents we have had in many, many years. host: there is a profile of

mcchrystal this morning in the financial times. it says, "general mcchrystal pasquale for counterinsurgency approach against the taliban has put him at loggerheads with others, like george martin -- joe biden, suggested counter- terrorism." "general mcchrystal spent most of his 33-year career in the special forces. he shifted the military away from heavy armor and conventional war to more complex situations were victory may be impossible by firepower alon. "

host: saint petersburg, fla. caller: obama winning the peace prize right now is too early. we have been talking about how it is going to be progress, a way to inspire people and things like that. but i think something bigger should have been made out of it. as far as international leaders getting together and celebrating the prize is a really was for a communion of efforts. and just another thing, we're a country that puts a value on workers.

host: new york. matt, on our republican line. caller: good morning. i just wanted to make to go points. afghanistan, obama is finding out now that he is the president, not the candidate, making difficult decisions. he picked a good man with mcchrystal, but i did nothing to communicate with him enough and he gets his general the time to do his job. he has got to listen to him and take his advice. this is somebody qualified. talking to him once every 70 days is not enough. as far as the peace prize goes, i think it further diminishes the value of life. up until inauguration day january 20, he was a candidate.

there is no way that anyone can do enough to earn the nobel peace prize in less than two weeks as president. it just goes to show you how it is a complete and total political decision by the people who are the committee that an open nominations -- that conducts nominations. there is no way they could have done that. host: joining us to talk about the process of nominating people for the nobel peace prize is paul williams, a former nominee. how did you become a nominee? caller: organization prize pro bono assistance to countries involved in peace propositions. countries get together and

dominated us. calling this a political decision is not too far off the mark, but not in it that way. the nobel peace prize committee is composed of five former politicians who are thinking about how have a positive impact on the world pretty insurance of the prize, and it made a calculated political determination that they could best promote peace in the world by awarding president obama the prize. host: could you give us some insight into who he is, the president of the committee, and the process? >> he is a younger norwegian politician, a little after the normal mode, and did his desire to get the views -- is his desire to set the world right, in a sense. he was reaching his hand across the atlantic. a number of europeans have seen

how obama has reached out to the international community, and been disconcerted with european response. this was his way a leading other european politicians to reach back to america. host: many this morning are talking about looking ahead rather than looking back at what obama has done. does the peace prize to reflect whether someone receives an award for accomplish as they might do or things that have done? caller: guest: people are conflatt with the prize in medicine and other sciences. the peace prize itself, but 20% of the time, is awarded for momentum purposes, for recognition of world views and attitudes, and for hope and promises about what might be accomplished in the future. often, it is for previous

achievements. woodrow wilson and teddy roosevelt were also recipients based on the prospects for what they could be doing. host: some of the other winners, nelson mandela, mikheil gorbachev -- you get a sense that their contributions when they receive the award, why didn't the committees like them? guest: people involved in the irish peace process receive the award because the work they had done in the process, but it took another seven years for it to solidify. the nobel committee was looking at northern ireland, saying let's interject some enthusiasm and momentum into the irish peace process by giving both sides of the negotiation and award. it will bring attention and we do tonight -- rejuvenate the

process. it is early, but essentially they are recognizing that president obama has reached out the international community. that community first embraced him and is now deciding how much they want to embrace him, and the peace prize committee is saying international community, embraced the americans. we need them for world leadership. this has been read in the american papers as a criticism of the bush administration, but not in the international community. president bush embarked a unilateral approach that may have been appropriate to time. now it is time to have a multilateral approach. the peace prize is referring this multilateral approach. i do not think they went out their way to rebuke the bush administration. host: paul williams is our guest until 8:00. you can use one of our three lines to ask him a question.

202-737-0001 for republicans, 202-737-0002 for democrats, and 202-628-0205 four independents. you can twitter us or e-mail us. as far as what happens now, what is the process? what are the ceremonies? guest: on december 10, the anniversary of the death of alfred nobel, the president will travel to oslo's ornate city hall and receive the award, a certificate, and he will receive a medal and make a speech. you have now set up eight situation. is a three-part play. the first is what obama has been doing. it is now recognized. the presentation the tent will be an opportunity for him to genuinely talk about not only america's commitment to multilateralism, but what he

now expect our european partners and allies and other allies across the globe. there has been demanding of ways between international community's and americans, and on december 10, he will lay down the expectations about a relationship. i predict an edgy presentation on his part. host: you say that this move has mended our standing in the world. guest: my students often ask me, what is the international community? i think we find here is that the nobel committee sees itself as a part of the international community and wants to lead and nudge and create momentum to solidify relationships, which are mending. host: we talked about afghanistan and other decisions the president has to make.

does that complicate matters? >> it helps, because the policies of the obama administration have not changed that drastically from the bush administration. it is simply his approach. i think many europeans were excited about obama because they thought the approach of policies would change. these policies were based on a european strategic interest. we may need a policy in 2009 that is new, but the europeans have not yet gotten used to the fact that they will have to still be engaged in afghanistan and iraq despite having a new president. that has not changed the facts on the ground. the prize was created by the will of alfred nobel, who invented dynamite and smokeless gunpowder. he was a wealthy swedish industrialist. in part to recognize his own accomplishments, he founded

four prizes, chemistry, physics, medicine, and literature, and the fifth, an anomaly, was the piece price. -- peace prize. host: miami, florida. you're on with paul williams. go ahead. caller: thank you. what i like about mr. williams is optimism and hope. if you cannot say anything good about a person, i was taught -- and i think we should say something good or not say anything at all. and he opened with setting the tone that this is what the country needs, because when i compare the past of jesus christ, i know to whom much is given to much is required.

it is incumbent on this president to have our interests at heart. we have children, and we're sitting bad example for our children. there is all this negativity, but we never stop to think, we're so greedy we do not think about children. guest: it is about tone. the piece price committee is trying to recalibrate the relationship and tone of the international dialogue. they are reaffirming america's leadership in the global community, not only calling on obama for that leadership, but also calling on europeans and others to work closely with him.

host: kansas city, independent line. caller: with all of the republican howling going on, i stopped watching the news for the first part of the day yesterday. i went on the internet and started listening to people from other countries, european countries. that just i got -- the idea was, hooray that we do not have president bush and john bolton. that is pretty much what a lot of the people on the internet across the ocean were saying, and the question that i have is, there have been nobel peace prize is given away where it has

not worked well. yasser arafat during his time, each sector been. they were given the prizes, and you saw how that turned out. the prize is given on effort, which is why the decision was made shortly after he ordered closing guantanamo. so the problem happens when he does not close guantanamo. guest: tyler makes a good point. in the united states early on we saw this as a personalized award for mr. obama, but in fact, it was an award for president obama, president of the united states. the europeans are seeing this as an award for the american people, the american democratic system, and american leadership

and body dinar president, who happens to be president -- embodied in our president, who happens to be president obama. we seem to be too quick to look at what this individual has accomplished as opposed to what this country might be poised to accomplish. the deadline for application is for everyone, but the decision was just made this last monday. this would have been about 200 nominees and about 20 are sent to the nobel institute, which spends until monday evening making its decision. so it will look at what had been accomplished prior to the election, by the election, the rejuvenation of america's interest in the global community, and then these past 10 months. it is a narrow and select group of individuals allowed to nominate.

the government officials, members of the international court of justice, members of the court of arbitration, former laureates, and that might have been one of the areas where he received substantial support. and letters of support can also be sent from this very small group of sort of representatives of the international community. 50 years from now, they've released records showing who else was nominated. in today's world, when someone is nominated, there are oftentimes they are told by the denominator after the process that they had been nominated. host: florida, john, republican line. go ahead. caller: we have to look at the total history of america. that is why i believe that obama won the nobel peace prize. because if you look back, only 40 years ago here in america, there was still segregation. 40 years ago, 50 years ago.

america has one of the most brutal history's given out to another culture in the world. we harm to people, -- we harm to people and hurt their education by not giving them books and allowing them to read. so for president obama to be elected, for america, white, black, chinese, everything else, that everyone was looking at the whole world to elect a black president was a nobel peace prize in itself. thank you. guest: what john has indicated melds nicely with the notion that the recipient of the peace prize is in a sense, the american people. and it is not only what obama had accomplished on behalf of

the american people, but in looking back at the records of the nobel peace prize, the united states has the largest share of peace prizes and also the largest share of other nobel prizes, chemistry, physics, and the others. over 300 of those and almost a quarter of the peace prizes. so it is part of a long tradition of america being engaged in promoting peace around the world and in those efforts being recognized by the nobel committee. host: obama joins three other presidents who have won the prize. jimmy carter, woodrow wilson, theodore roosevelt. what were their accomplishments? guest: theodore roosevelt received the prize in part for being a russian-japanese conflict at the time, and also for establishing the permanent court of arbitration. therefore it is parallel to the obama nomination and award, because they were all rewarding

teddy roosevelt, recognized him for putting on track a permanent court of arbitration. at the time it would solve the world's problems, because countries could go to arbitration. woodrow wilson was awarded the prize for setting up the league of nations. again, it was an accomplishment, just setting up, nobody knew that it would work or not. it failed, but it formed the foundation for a mulligan for the united nations. jimmy carter was awarded after, 2002, years after his previous efforts to the middle east peace process and particularly for negotiating a peace process between egypt and israel that held. he is a case where his accomplishments have stood the test of time.

host: next caller. caller: the recipient of the nobel peace prize, because peace to happen in the world. -- you cause peace to happen in the world. the only people whether problem with obama receiving the award are people who did not vote for him. republicans, racist people. those are the only people with the problem. thank you. host: what do you make of the reaction in the united states? guest: is a relative lack of understanding of the purpose of the nobel peace prize. the americans have the lion's share, over 300 of the other prizes. so people genuinely think it is a price for having done something.

as much as the nobel peace prize committee tries to make it clear that this is about momentum, about a future, but embracing america, about congratulating american people, they were typically norwegian, shy and reserved. they did not come out and say, "we are doing this for clear, a dynamic reasons. i think that they assumed that would be read into the wrong word, but they may not have fully comprehended the fully partisan nature of american politics, including the health care debate, obviously. so this most recent effort by the international community to engage the united states has been seen through the health care prizm and is being used for political positioning through both parties. one of your early callers said he stopped watching the news yesterday. you have seen a moderation just in these 24 hours.

people are starting to think it is their prius -- prize, as well. something they can be proud of. i think moving past those initial talking points but political lobbyists and moving into a deeper analysis of what expectations we now have in terms of responding in particular in december 10 and elsewhere. the whole nomination process itself is quite secret and quite closed, and in particular, i think the nobel committee wanted this to be a surprise. if they had given him advanced notice, he would have said, no, no, i do not want it. the alternative, with those that are in charge of the pomp and circumstance at the white house may have taken over, and there's something about nominating

someone for a price, waking them up and telling the man that and having them be excited. adding a were looking toward genuine response from obama and the people, and that is what they got. what is happening today is everyone else nominated, there nominators are being done up and saying, well, we nominated to to, and i'm sorry you did not win. that is what happened for us. people bring us up, they said, you know what, we nominated to -- you. everything is quiet until after the nomination, and then people find out they were nominated. host: next caller. caller: i think that we all should be proud that president obama received this award. for me and for the world, it is a testimony to new american leadership in the world.

now, this country is looked at as a country that wants peace. we could be fighting wars. no one would blame us to fight unnecessary war -- a necessary war. it is proper for us to fight that war. fighting in afghanistan. on the contrary, when we went to iraq. so i think that the world now -- we have a new world order. we have americans. we of the most powerful nation and the world -- we are the most powerful nation in the world. this is good for america.

people trying to discourage it or bring negative stuff and the process playing politics. guest: that is a good point that has been overlooked. i'm grateful he raised it. many commentators have essentially said that president obama received this award because he has adopted the european view of multilateralism. but when you read the decision of the nobel committee, they know that obama is the leader of the free world and that he is employing a world view multilateralism and that he is willing to lead and promote democracy and protect human rights. so just as obama took one of the first steps, yes, i believe in multilateralism and the united nations, this is the nobel community on behalf of the international community saying, yes, this is true, and we need you, america, to lead us down

the path of peace. and so i think there is a recommendation there that when you're looking for peace around the globe in any conflict, you will not have it without american leadership and cooperation with the international community. host: why is there a cash price attached to this? guest: currently, the reason is that oftentimes human-rights advocates who are seeking to make a difference in the world can use that cash to redouble and agreed their efforts. when is given to those who are former presidents, they often dedicate it to charities. the real reason is back in the 1900's, cash crops. when the swedish want people to pay attention, they did that by giving away money. if the swedish or norwegian government had said we will make awards, everybody would have said that is nice. but they are giving away a million dollars. that is really nice. that is how they were able to

attract attention. caller: i am an african-american conservative republican and retired professional. i must say that in terms of the award, every black americans will understand when i say president obama has received this award for growing up black, african-american, black-white in this country. that is his achievements so far. as far as afghanistan, it is irrelevant to what he will do. in afghanistan, iraq, with health policy, all of that is irrelevant to his achievements so far, growing up black in america to be a successful, successful, well-meaning a family man.

i'm so proud of president obama and i just want to say one thing about president bush. the only rebuked for president bush comes from this country. guest: she reflects the sentiment of a number of individuals i have spoken with across the globe, both very proud of obama's accomplishments, but also very proud of the functioning of democracy in the united states, that it is possible for america to elect a president obama and to do so in a fairly overwhelming way and to embrace his efforts. politics are politics, everybody has strategic interests. but it has been carried out in the united states in a way that many other countries wish their democratic process is could function.

host: do you think this is the first year in a long time people have paid attention to the award? guest: i think the peace prize wants to make a difference and be relevant. it clearly is relevant on the sciences. the peace process has received a lot of attention, benefiting their interest, as well, causing discussions like the ones we're having this morning all across the globe. it is sitting there interest to get people to think about this new era of multilateralism with american leadership back at the helm. .

he talked about the debate over health-care legislation and he listens to reporters' questions about how democrats might win votes for win votesoption. guest: how do you convince folks to come along? -- win votes for the public option. it is one thing to vote on a comprehensive bill.

when the bill comes out on the floor there are many things that democrats support in this bill. the prevention and wellness program, the coverage aspects and insurance reforms. no pre-existing conditions will be allowed any longer. no lifetime caps, your children can stay on their family plan until age 26. all of the mammograms and colonoscopy as will all be free. that is a lot. if there is within that bill some form of a public option, i think 60 democrats will step forward and say the bill should go forward. the bill should go forward. when we get on the floor and there are amendments to change the public option, then they will have to vote if they see

fit. host: you want it to be in their first and then take it out? guest: it will be in there. it may not be exactly what i have in our bill but close to it. host: your expectation, this is something you may be insistent upon is that there has to be something in the bill when it goes to the floor, as opposed to someone raising an amendment to addit -- to add it. host: senator tom parker on our "newsmakers"program. -- senator tom harkin. on our set right now we have william beach from the heritage foundation. a lot of talk this week about

the strength of the dollar. guest: the dollar's weakness is a concern for many reasons. it may indicate the onset of inflation. it may indicate foreign bondholders have doubts about us so it is one of those canaries in the coal mine. when it gets week we begin to get concerned. sometimes when we talk about dollars people forget economics. if you are doing business with the u.s. and you normally transacting business in euros. when your demand for u.s. treasurys goes up, you want to hold them. you want to invest in america. your demand for dollars also rises, so the dollar will rise when people demand more of it.

when we see it going down, that indicates there may not be a strong demand for our treasury bonds, 30-year notes. they may not have a strong demand for corporate notes. the canary signals there is not a demand for investing. host: because this involves the debt we sell to other countries? guest: exactly. we wonder if our debt is getting so high -- is our financial risk getting so great that people are saying i don't know whether i ought to invest in the u.s. the other thing is when people and other countries looking at us as an investment worry about the policy risks involved. we have a big health care debate

going on right now. is the health-care system that would come out of this going to be good for the economy? maybe taxes will go up in 2011, is that good or bad? policy risk can also affect the demand for u.s. treasurys. host: looking at this from policy, how does the white house take a stance on this? guest: if the white house were to quietly asked the fed, i know they are independent bodies, would you raise your interest rates? because the economy is recovering, maybe we should be concerned about inflation. if interest rates go up, and i am a foreign person interested in investing in treasuries,

that means mind [unintelligible] will go up as well. why is it that the treasury 10- year notes are trading around 3.5%. they should be one full percentage point higher at this point. the 30-year note which is trading at 4.3%, should be up at 5.3%. a lot of controversy about why is that the fed is keeping those interest rates really low, which means if i am in france looking to buy treasury bonds and they are only paying 4.3%, i can go to england and buy their bonds at a higher yield. so the demand for dollars is going down. the dollar is trading at a very low rate right now. it is almost at an historical low.

they are based on indexes. of -- that is a weak dollar. that indicates maybe there is some reason to doubt the integrity of our economy. a lot of questions. you have economists who say i know why the dollar is going down. they would not be telling you the truth. we are all curious. one thing we know is those interest rates should be higher if the economy is recovering. host: chairman bernanke has not responded? guest: he has. he has not stayed totally quiet. he is not alan greenspan. he said the economy continues to be weak.

but it is not time to raise interest rates because doing so might choke the recovery. he will watch the pace of economic activity. the white house remains publicly endorsing of a strong dollar. they are not doing anything for that. both the white house and the fed are waiting and seeing what will happen in the fourth quarter. a lot of us feel the fourth quarter may be the key quarter. the third quarter of this year is a very good economic quarter, but a lot of the staff that is just because companies are rebuilding inventories of a year of devastation. what will happen in the fourth quarter when those inventories are rebuilt?

does the economy grow? in which case i bet those industries will go up. host: our guest is william beach of the heritage foundation. if you would like to ask him questions the numbers are on the screen. share your thoughts on twitter, e-mail at journal@cspan.org. it says it would actually be helpful if the dollar were to weaken further. the effect of a cheaper dollar will be helping american exporters, while making imports dearer. guest: when you are recovering from a recession, it makes the goods you sell abroad less

expensive, because if you are doing business with the u.s., you have to buy u.s. products in dollars. if the dollar is falling you can buy more u.s. goods. back in the 1980's i was in missouri. we had a terrible recession then. it was a heavy manufacturing state. it hoped every day for dollar weakness. if it got weaker, our products would sell more abroad. it makes imported goods more expensive. on the other hand, dollar weakness also means you are not selling as much of your debt to foreign bondholders. then it is more difficult for you to find your deficit. right now we have enormous deficits. on one hand, the private sector

says our exports will be benefiting. on the other hand, the government selling bonds are saying but foreigners are not buying because the yield is not good. you cannot have dollar weakness as your continuous policy to push exports. china has done that and direct foreign investment has only now beginning to stick around. we need to get back to a stronger dollar. the united states is the world's currency based. the u.s. dollar. everybody uses us. if you go to any country in the world you will find that dollars usually trade, and the imf because of the post-world war ii agreements, basically do their agreements in dollars.

if the dollar is in a collapse, if the weakness turns into collapse, that could threaten financial stability. we have to be concerned about the whole structure of finance. this is not just a matter of promoting exports. host: we go back to the clinton a administration and says the dollar went from $1.24 and now it is worth 0.75 cents. guest: surpluses are good for the strength of the dollar. if you are a foreign bank thinking about investing in the debt of a government, which government will you invest in? one with mounting deficits or mounting surpluses? you will go to the surplus side. that strengthens the dollar.

one of the problems of the 1990's was too strong of a dollar. we could buy everything in the world that other people were producing, but we had problems with exports. host: our first call now. caller: i am sitting here watching c-span and i don't easily -- i don't usually call end. i hear economists talking about a weak dollar. countries don't buy much from the u.s. one of the problems is we import instead of manufacturing, so all of our dollars are going overseas. i don't understand why no one takes up the cause that we should be manufacturing what we

use and selling our surplus overseas. guest: dead is a good point. that me reemphasize a point that was important. -- let me reemphasize. when the dollar is weak, our exports will be strengthened. we will see u.s. manufactured goods selling more vigorously abroad, but there is a logger reason why manufacturing -- wyatt walker manufacturing -- a longer reason why manufacturing -- as the u.s. has gotten richer and have had higher labor compensation, you have seen

businesses leave. i was in missouri wendy brown shoe co. -- when the shoe business went to brazil. 5000 jobs were lost there. we got those jobs back but it was a blow. and the zenith television company was the last one to manufacture televisions in the u.s. that plant went down to mexico to lower the costs to consumers. host: someone who identifies themselves -- with china pegging its currency, can we continue to export and grow? guest: the relationship between the u.s. and china goes beyond the dollar. they buy a lot of our debt.

during the time of stronger dollars, they were the principal supplier of a lot of our manufactured goods. we have this enormous financial legacy relationship. we will do business with them for a long time. the weakness in the dollar is causing the chinese to wonder whether they should continue connecting with the dollar. the official currency of the chinese may go independent. they made recompose the portfolio that supports that. they have fewer dollars in that ratio and more other things. a lot of people say what the chinese do in the next year financially may have a big

effect for a long time to come. india, china, emerging super powers. host: of says china keeps the pilon artificially low. -- keeps the yuan artificially low. guest: that is true. they do manage this, so they keep it low because they believe correctly that exports will lead to growth. low value for their currency will lead to export growth. one of the big controversies in the g-20 meeting was just that. we need to rebalance the u.s. -- the u.s. needs to buy less abroad and save more. the chinese need to export less and import more. , that has to do with the values

of the currency's we use -- a lot of that has to do with the values of the currencies we use. host: what does that mean for the trade ambassador? does it fall into his territory? guest: the main thing he does is make sure we have a fair and open trading with other countries. they will deal with specific labor complaints. rarely do they deal at the value of the dollar. trade is an intimate and key element with this business of rebalancing. the key thing will be the leadership of timothy geithner air and ben bernanke on what they do on interest rates. and how that will stabilize world financial systems and allow for a safe rebalancing,

or whether they will continue to say the u.s. is my first focus, we need to have a solid recovery, put pressure on the chinese to react to that. the fourth quarter of 2009 may be an historic quarter. we will have to see how this international into play place our. how this -- how this international interplay plays out. caller: the dollar is trading somewhere around 76. how do the chinese handle these special drawing rights that come up for evaluation in 2010? how do you measure the weakness

of the dollar? do you measure it by one and two? by the massive amounts of liquidity? how do we take that liquidity out of our system? host: excellent questions. -- guest: excellent questions. you are focusing on the big inflation question. the first major concern we have about the future is are we going to have significant inflation? during the recession the federal government massively increased the amount of liquidity in credit markets. that means that they encouraged and subsidized banks to build up their reserve deposits, the

amount they hold that they could lend out. the reason they did that is if the banks have more money to lend, then maybe we could have more loans to small businesses. the amount of reserve deposits in banks increased by 19 times. that is now sitting in the bank's all over america are ready to be lent out. a lot of economists are saying if that money goes out there with loans, that will create demand the posit, a lot of economic activity which could lead to inflation. how did they bring that money back? they have a new mechanism that allows them to pay interest on those reserves. banks may say we are making more

money letting the fed pay interest, so we will not have that inflationary pressure. we will have to wait and see. how do we measure dollar weakness? in terms of how it transacts with other currencies. our other currencies strengthening? more dollars per pound? more dollars per euro. those are monetary measurement aggregates, which many are familiar with. i rarely use that to measure the weakness of the dollar, but if the amount of money in circulation gets going up fast, then we have to worry about inflation. the chinese and special drawing rights, they are key to drawitrg relationships.

other countries rely on [unintelligible] they may be pushing the world bank to rebalance away from the dollar. we will have to sea. this goes to the business of the fourth quarter as being critical to the financial short term. host: what happens if the main holders of debt decide to sell their holdings at no notice? guest: that could be a problem. let me say this about -- the history of debt. when countries built up enormous debt, and the rate of growth in debt it celebrates, you can go back to a hundred years and seek countries that have done that,

the main risk is what will be bondholders do? bondholders have simply decided to sell their holdings. governments then have to raise their interest rates to keep people from continuing to sell their holdings. sometimes governments collapse because bondholders liquidate. sometimes they are able to stop the bleeding, but they have to do dramatic things, raising interest rates, putting their house in order. we have a large amount of debt. by 2019, we are looking at the total debt at being the 80% of our economy.

at that point we have the risk of bondholders selling in a run away from the risk of holding treasuries. host: richard on the democrats' line. caller: i have three things i would like to say. [inaudible] the of the thing is that what do the massive amount of counterfeiting of the dollar have an impact on weakening the dollar? the other thing is in reference to work being shipped overseas for cheaper labor, these

materials have to be brought back into the country with exorbitant amounts of shipping fees. these dollars are often going right back to the same people. ship it overseas and you have your own company bring it back, so you are paying yourself. the other one is what the effect does the banking commission in 2002 by the banking industry had an affect on the weakening of the dollar? host: you put a lot out there. guest: counterfeiting is a problem. i don't know the extent to which the amount of counterfeit dollars circulating and whether that is related to the weakness? it might be related to

inflation, but we cannot tolerate counterfeiting. with respect to manufacturing abroad and bringing those products back in, we do some of that. if you are in business, and a corporation you are primarily focused on selling something to your customer at the lowest possible price. if manufacturing abroad and bringing back the good into the united states still means that you are competitive in the u.s. marketplace at the lowest price, but it makes sense to do that. if businesses began to sense that manufacturing in thailand and shipping back to california is going to hurt my market, i

better start manufacturing its summer else. i think they will do that. we need to watch prices and see if they are rising. do the banking lwas -- laws passed in 2000 to have to do with dollar weakness? they have a lot to do with the financial crisis. -- laws passed in 2002. yes, those are relevant questions. host: one more call from detroit. caller: you were talking about how america is becoming richer. the top 2% of america is getting

richer. he referred to the financial crisis as being bruyette. here in -- decreases as -- the crisis as being through it. in the meantime, 1000 people are kicked out of their apartments every day because they are -- their unemployment insurance refused to be extended. don't tell me how the priorities of this government is let their own people start and will give millions of dollars to interior programs while we are starving to death. don't give me your pandit solution about how great this economy is. -- don't give me your pundit solution.

guest: i think the fourth quarter of 2009 may be the key thing for you to watch. is the overall economy recovering? we have had an uptick in economic activity at the national level. it is important for other parts of the economy to recover well, so you need to watch those numbers. i am not one that believes this economy is out of the woods. let's take a look. the financial crisis is not over. are the rich getting richer? yes, that has happened, but everybody took a hit. i just looked at some 2008 data and the average median income

fell to $50,000. that is a dramatic decrease. we never see it by that much. in certain parts of the country those median incomes have fallen more. it will take a long time for them to recover. dollar weakness does not help in a lot of respects. if the economy is -- if investors signal that the economy is still in the woods and we don't feel comfortable investing, then that will not help our recovery. we may have a longer time to recover. host: thanks for your time this morning. we will take open phone calls for about 15 minutes. the numbers are on the screen.

and you can also twitter us. after that we will have a discussion about afghanistan with david wood. first, we wanted to give you a sense of the big events of the week. this is through the eyes of the editorial cartoonists. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ >> "washington journal" continues. host: this is from the front page of the "new york times." he writes that oil engineers and

geologists have arise -- have arrived to learn how to extract oil from rocks called shale. oil executives are starting maps in search of other fields. the drilling russia is still in its early stages but analysts predict that shale could reduce europe's dependence on natural gas. they believe gas reserves could increase, comparable with a 40% increase in the u.s. in recent years. you can read the rest on line. we will open phones until 8:45 a.m. please start with chris. caller: i would have preferred to talk to your previous guest because i had a couple of points about the dollar. he touched on a trade deficit

that while manufacturing base has shrunk in this country, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. countries specialize in those services they do well. domestic firms should consider either the subsidizing of foreign competitive industries by their governments as a cost of doing business, and should get out of that industry or change their strategy. the second point was the impending inflation, and there will be in the next few years. what i wanted to ask your guests was, with all the debt going around, people will be encouraged to incur more debt. if you get a big mortgage, take

out a $1 million mortgage and you lock that in for 30 years, you want a lot of inflation. i am wondering if there were many people that foresaw this, locked into these mortgages in the hopes of getting paid back with cheaper dollars. how that would affect the price level. host: frank on the democrats level. caller: the global aristocracy has planned all of this -- for alan greenspan to claim he did not understand there will be a pricing correction when holmes tripled in value, of course he knew. he is not a stupid idiot. this was all planned. what do you do when you want to get more power for the

aristocracy and grow your monopolies bigger? it is a power grab. we need to break up the monopolies. in force the laws that protect us from the monopolies. enforce the laws. we are under amounts of muck. we need simple laws that we can all understand prim -- that we can all understand. host: the president pushes for agency for consumers. the president responds as wall street resist stronger federal wall. until now, the president is

pressing for financial reform, but used the pulpit to push for a single piece, i created a new consumer financial protection agency. this comes at a critical moment as leaders tried to overcome doubt of moderates about the agency. they plan to vote on this legislation next week. baltimore, maryland on the independent line. caller: what happened to the old savings bonds? we would buy them to help finance wars and projects in the country, and the debt would stay at home. the bonds using maturity of five years or more -- if we give people on their retirement firms a decent return, the money is still in america. as a retired person, i could use

a higher return on my money. at the same time, you don't have the threat of a foreign country holding debt over our head. there would be many americans who would love to buy bad which shores and five years -- that would love to buy them in five years. once someone has not discussed -- the top 1% is the richest, but there are 8 million people in the world who will be worth over 55 -- worth over $55 trillion. why can they not form an international foundation, put 10% in a foundation to help the world. that would take some of the responsibility of of the average person.

host: if you watched our supreme court documentary use on interviews with the justices. you can watch this again tonight starting at 9:00 p.m. you will hear from justice so to my horror. -- you'll hear from justice sonia sotomayor. you will hear from clarence thomas about the building. stephen brier will talk about the private chambers -- stephen breyer will talk about his private chambers. samuel alito will talk about the role of the courts and how he talks about the role of being a junior justice. that is tonight at 9:00 p.m.. you can see these on line on our web site at c-span.org. there is a lot of other content there for your education.

san diego is up next on the republican line. caller: i was going to say buy gold and silver coins while you still can. obama is in over his head, so by some silver right now. host: dallas, texas on our democrat line. caller: i was trying to get in earlier when you had it about afghanistan. what i think should happen is instead of sending more troops, they have been over there time after time. what they need to do, remember when they had the debates for health care, all the people who had guns? let's round them up and send them over to afghanistan. but if they come back, and a --

then they can just run the country like they're trying to do now. it is ridiculous. all of them should come out of afghanistan and iraq. we have no business trying to tell somebody else what to do. look how we treat our president. we call him hitler, socialism, the country going to hell. this country is always going to help. all this people calling in with craziness -- host: the president should not send any more troops? guest: 9. they say he got a prize to not send any troops. -- none. you have all these people at the health-care debate.

now they are saying we need some health care. you debated and you said the public option was not good. go to the emergency room and you will have health care. host: in the next couple of minutes we will talk about afghanistan with david wood. he is recently back from there. he will give us his insight. palm beach, florida on the independent line. caller: of wanted to make the point that many politicians in washington [unintelligible] tax is just an expense like any other. if expenses get out of hand, you move. many politicians believe they can increase taxes on corporations and nothing

happens. that is not the case. a business will look for ways to reduce costs in order to remain competitive. if the cost gets too high, then the business moves to another location or stops making the product and buys the product from someone who can deliver it at a lower cost. the notion that increasing taxes on corporations can be done with impunity is erroneous. they have to see what happened in other countries. host: tonight the president will address the human rights campaign dinner. this will be around 7:55 p.m. our coverage will start at around 7:50 p.m. you can see that live tonight on c-span as president obama

addresses the human rights campaign. one more call from texas on the republican line. caller: my comment was on the nobel peace prize and afghanistan. if i recall correctly, during the debate with john mccain the president said he would support the efforts in afghanistan. if they're calling for more troops, then obama will say how many and when? not flip-flop about it. this nobel peace prize should not be used as a psychological operations tool by europeans and al qaeda sympathizers to thwart that effort. host: we will leave it there.

in a few minutes our guest will be david wood. he will talk about policy in afghanistan. we want to let you know about our "q7a"-- "q &a" program. in this interview he talks about the differences between the tribes in rwanda. >> we have read a lot about rwanda and the thousands of people that were slaughtered, but you never hear about the hundreds of thousands of people who lost their lives there. >> i don't know why that is. i don't know why one country got catastrophe and the other got publicity. it is unfortunate because

rwanda gets more international aid and another country needs it just as much. this ethnic war was genocide planned by the government. it was really a civil war, but these categories are difficult to understand. the history is murky. host: you can see more with traci kidder at 8:00 p.m. david wood recently back from afghanistan. what were you looking for? guest: i went to eastern afghanistan were u.s. forces have had the longest presents to find out what we have done. what i found out is we wasted most of those six years. the interesting thing i found

was that the strategy being proposed by general but crystal is already under way. -- general mcchrystal is already under way. a counter insurgency strategy. i saw this is such a complicated conflict that we have never fought a war like this. the second thing is that what is referred to in washington as nation-building is very targeted war fighting. host: does that strategy need more manpower? guest: definitely. even if he will have people training afghan police, it takes a lot of people. it is almost a one on one deal. american soldiers doing this are

really good at it. they are an immediate pay off. it is very exciting to watch american and afghan 20-year-old working together. it takes a lot of people. host: are there differences in training afghan forces and the iraqi forces? guest: what happened in afghanistan is, when the soviets invaded and there was a lot of continuous fighting, almost the entire educated population fled. many of them have not come back. would you have left is people who are policemen and soldiers and government officials crackling with these enormous problems without a lot of training and education and it

requires -- training and education. it requires that direct manchurian we do so well. host: 1 you were there you said airstrikes or boots on the ground, counterinsurgency strategy or counterterrorism strategy, it struck me how disconnected the debate over afghanistan seems from the reality that the afghans live through day-by-day. is this from a politician's point of view? guest: it goes back to what i said in the beginning. this is a complicated conflict. one of the things when i was in afghanistan i heard on the news, and i had limited acces to washington. why don't we just do a counter-

terrorism strategy. it is really hard to find and hit the bad guys from the air. one of the things the pilots have found, where in iraq which is very flat, you can over here and track insurgents. in afghanistan, you had deep valleys that wind through and we cannont get their easily to monitor where the bad guys are. here i am climate up and down these mountains and i hear someone say we would just to counter terrorism. i was thinking, you ought to come out here and walk around this place. you would see that you cannot do that.

host: there are numbers floating around about additional troops. what do those numbers mean over there and their ability to do counter strategy? guest: let me give you an example. one of the things the u.s. troops are doing in afghanistan is teaching afghan police and prosecutors have to bring criminal cases. this is an essential building block of a stable society. it involves how do you interview crime scene eyewitnesses? how do you record those interviews? how do you collect physical evidence and tag it? all this stuff involved in building a criminal case. that takes a lot of time and people come not so when you talk

about doing that -- there are 400 districts in afghanistan. if you are talking about doing it in 400 counties, but also in the towns, that is a lot of people. one of the interesting things i learned is there is not some unfocused feel good nation- building fang, this is targeted were fighting. -- feel-good nation-building thing. in eastern afghanistan, everything the u.s. military does in conjunction with the state department and agriculture and all the civilians they have working in the military command, everything is done with an eye toward, does this help build stability in this place? they figure that out because the

soldiers interviewed people and figure out what makes this place hospitable to the taliban. what is it? people don't like the taliban, so why are they letting them operate in this area? it may be the government is corrupt. it may be there are no jobs. it may be that they don't have schools so they have to send their kids 20 miles to school. what the command does is say, do we have a way to solve this problem in this village? if they're correct -- if they are corrupt, can we get them removed? if there are bad guys coming in through the village, that we call in the special forces and we killed them.

it is all aimed directly at stabilizing that particular place. he put resources against that problem and six weeks later you measure it. it used to be that the u.s. would come into a district and say, what can we do for you. would you like a school? we would build a school that costs millions of dollars and the school would crumble and nothing would change. this is very different. most of the people doing this are american civilians. host: david wood is talking not policy in afghanistan. the numbers are on the screen to call. how long have you been working for politics daily? guest: less than one year.

it is an internet startup site. i am a career newspaper reporter and just made the jump to internet. it is a wonderful opportunity that is growing like gangbusters. host: the first call is from springfield, illinois. caller: afghanistan traditionally, the war lords support [unintelligible] i heard recently that one strategy they approach is it is almost like a mafia family way of getting rid of people. let them know that if they support you bebel's -- they will get richer and if they support al qaeda they will be dead. the problem with afghanistan is to try to build conventional

democracy. you don't have a history, you don't have a basis. it is getting down to the nitty gritty and realizing the soldiers that shot our guys in the back last week, we think they are our allies and then they kill us. we are not realizing that we cannot just train people and assume we are now all friends. guest: you bring up a really good point. one is the thing about war lords. afghanistan is a tribal-based society. your first identification is to your tribe. many of those tribes are led by warlords. traditionally an afghan history, they had switched sides at the drop of a hat depending

on where they see their interests. one of the things that puzzled me about american policy is why we don't use these guys in a way that benefits us. a lot of these guys are not jeffersonian democrats, so when i say use them i think that means sidelining them. in some cases, that means bringing them into the process. the appoint you raised about the afghan police. one of the things i saw starting to have been increasingly is the taliban infiltrating the police forces, taking their uniforms and it is easy to pull the trigger. that immediately causes suspicion between allied forces and the afghan police. mostly what i saw was -- i spent

a lot of time with the 82nd airborne. they are helping train afghan police. they work well together. they know each other and trust each other, but that is a dicey thing. . .

hosguest: i ask that question a lot of senior and mid-level american military commanders in afghanistan. their answer was always," how fast do you wan to go? " we have about 69,000 troops there now. their view is that we're winning but not fast enough. they are watching support back home. it is eroding. they want to go faster that's why they want more troops. they got what they have -- what they think is a winning strategyhrq. they need more troops to go faster. i did not talk to anybody there who thought that with any size force the u.s. and its allies and the afghan government could prevail in two years. it will take longer than that.

i think if mcchrystal got a mid range of what he is asking for, about 40,000 more troops, it would go faster. i know that is an unsatisfactory answer but that is the best i can do. host: with many of those troops go to the training of the police force? guest: when you are there, it is hard to get an integrated picture of what is happening across the entire country. my impression was that the stuff you see on tv, the bang bang, shoot a mob, that -- shoot them up, is the smallest piece of what the u.s. is engaged in. the rest of it is this kind of engagement in helping the afghans stabilize their own society. training police, training army

guys, working with local government officials to help them figure out how to budget. how do you let a contract to build a sub -- a sidewalk? that is new degree stuff they have never had any experience with. we're trying to teach them how to do that so they can take over their own affairs. according to what i saw, that is the largest part of what the u.s. is doing. host: new york city, you are on our independent line. caller: do you need a drink of water? guest: i think i will survive. caller: you seem like a pretty tough guy for a blotter. -- blogger. your but the troops over there.

-- you were with the troops over there. those are tough guys over there. obama will look for what he wants to do. give me a sense of what the troops are feeling? guest: i have covered a lot of wars in a lot of different parts of the world in a lot of places where american troops are deployed. they almost always are having a good time. granted, they grouse about being there and being away from home and they grouse about the food and complain about everything but the need that, once you get past that, you find that american troops like being deployed. they almost always think they are doing good stuff. i think they are. their view does not go out to " why are we here?" or "what is

going on in washington?" they have a job to do and they know what their job is and they are good at it. you do not find a lot of discussion when you go on a joint patrol with the 82nd airborne squad. there is not a lot of discussion about obama's war strategy or anything like that. their mind is not there. it is only the immediate job in front of them. they are really good at this stuff. host: what is the role of the multinationals part of that? guest: i forget how many countries but certainly british, germany, france, canada, and then a lot of nato countries but a lot of non-nato countries have forces there. they are integrated into this whole thing. there has been a problem that

some of these countries have put restrictions on how their troops can be used. that has made it exceedingly difficult for the overall commanders to feel a unified force. some national contingents cannot take part in combat or can only take part in combat if they are attacked first. there's a lot of that kind of difficulty. for example, you have egyptians are running a hospital. that is terrific. it takes the load off the u.s. are many countries that even though they don't directly take part in combat, they are part of this whole thing. one of the huge difficulties that the u.s. has had in afghanistan is trying to find a way to manage this ungainly collection of allies into a real unified war fighting force. i do not think they have that

figured out yet but they are getting there. host: is the problem in afghanistan al qaeda or the television? guest: undoubtably the caliban. -- taliban. the italian the taliban and al e unified. most of the people i see there are either hard-core taliban or there is a number of other insurgent groups which shift coloration depending on the season, it seems like. the risk, as i see it coming in afghanistan is that becomes a sanctuary for al qaeda to then continued to destabilize. pakistan has nuclear weapons and that is something i worry about a lot.

host: isn't a general consensus that al qaeda is in pakistan? guest: definitely, yes. the question is how you stabilize that part of the world and if you let afghanistan go, that is a perfect place for them to move into and continue to grow and destabilize that part of the world. host: troy, democrats line, go ahead caller: caller: we funded al qaeda against russia. bush had is eight years in theire and five or six years in iraq where we should not have been. these guys are not going to quit. this is similar to vietnam. when general mills westmoreland

centimos troops to vietnam, our body count when way up. thousands of coffins came home. everybody should remember that the vietnamese were dug-in under tunnel's. same thing here but different topographer paper the geography is different but these guys will not quit. why are we building sidewalks in afghanistan when we should be home doing that and taking care of the homeless and taking care of the people who do not have health care and our school systems. we are waiting to leads of dollars over there. you'll never catch these guys with a strategy. let them go back into afghanistan let them have their party and we will come in and blast them. guest: that is certainly one school of thought. more than one person have said exactly that. 10 years ago, when they taliban and al qaeda were in

afghanistan, we knew where they were and we knew what they were saying and we knew what they were doing. for various operational and political reasons, we never went in to get them. we knew where they were. i have heard people express the idea to let them come back again but keep an eye on them. host: one thing you wrote is that insurgents know how to defeat us because they know about our technology. they adapt. guest: i heard a great story from an f-15 fighter pilot who was on patrol at night. our aircraft have terrific night vision sensors. he is looking at a screen and he can see very clearly what is happening on the ground and he is watching people he thought

could be insurgents racing across an open ground to a bunch of trees. as he flew around, he could see there was an insurgent on the other side of a tree walking around this way. he could see his figures on the tree. the guy knew where he was and was walking around. the fighter pilot could not see. the fighter pilot was going 450 miles per hour. the illiterate insurgent and on train and not very sophisticated, they knew exactly what this fighter pilot could say and how to avoid. that really blew me away. the point of the fighter pilot was that they understand how to defeat our technology. these are smart, coming fighters. they are not pushovers.

bill lesson that you need to have people on the ground to grapple with these people. you cannot do it from the air. host: fla., go ahead. caller: good morning. you seem to come across as putting a positive spin on all of this. that is my perception. i do not accuse you of being anything are having ulterior motives. it seems like you have too much of a positive spin. i want to ask about the holy jihad. to understand wh that is? >> guest: yes, i do. caller: can you explain that to

the listeners and explain to me how we are avoiding that perception in that area because, as far as i'm concerned, that is what we are facing. we are facing a religious fervor that we ran out -- unless we iron out the perception and avoided. guest: that's a good question. i am glad you raised the question about the jihad movement. according to what i saw in afghanistan, many of the people were fighting -- that we are fighting against are not jihadis. they are people web local grievances against us.

very often, you have fighters who had people in their family killed and they blame the u.s. or they just don't like foreigners in their country, that kind agreements -- the kind of grievance or they are people who need to earn a dollar and a taliban asks them to build a wall and put an ied in there and they will get $100 or they will kill their wives. so they do that. in my experience in talking to intelligence people in afghanistan, perhaps the majority of taliban are not ideologically motivated the problem is you have the other half who are these really fierce and dedicated fight to the last drop of blood religious fanatics. those are the guys who do will

never, as dennis said, draw into a jeffersonian democracy. they will not run for office and have no interest in cooperating with everybody. they have their own agenda and they are very dedicated and smart and capable fighters. host: new york, on our independent line. caller: have one question. as a true blooded american, what would you do and how long would you do it for if a foreign tank was driving down? if a foreign tank and driving down your main street, town and started telling you what to do. what would you do? guest: i would be angry, of course. the answer is obvious but i see where you are going just by being in afghanistan, we, the

united states engender some opposition. that is an unavoidable consequence of our being there. there is a big argument back- and-forth of whether the u.s. should have a big military footprints and big bill basis or whether we should use a small, less visible contingent of special forces to do it that way. there are those two schools of thought. i think the argument i found most compelling was that most people that i came across in afghanistan, most afghans, wanted to have was there to help them. i should upset at the outset, i may be a blogger but i may trained neutral journalist.

i do not have a stake in this policy debate one way or another. my interest is in explaining what i saw over there at some risk. i made four trips to afghanistan. i have seen the whole thing in all. i have talked to lots and lots of soldiers and counterinsurgency experts and afghans. i am trying to relate to that. -- i am trying to relate that. there is no question that being there just does engender some opposition. host: what role does iran have sent is on the border? guest: that has confused the u.s. intelligence people. there is some evidence of iranian weapons coming in.

some of the newer forms of ied detonators, the more sophisticated stuff they think comes from iran. i think iran is by its time. i did not come across a huge -- i did not see a big impact from iran but i think they are biding their time. host: democrats line. caller: i feel like we are treading our next enemy. we supported them over there to fight russia and fight iran in the '80s. our interests change and other peoples' interests change and i feel in the future, we will fighting them as -- we will be fighting and as we're putting them out. let's rebuild our country. some people say government is a failure and government is no

good. they should be happy they are in afghanistan. guest: ok. host: lester, north carolina, on our republican line. caller: i know about you, but this morning has been stimulated. -- stimulating. all the calls across the country are stimulating. i wanted to say that you made a comment about why afghanistan people might be letting taliban in their territory. if you have a weapon and the people in the villages don't, you can for your opinion and your ways on them.

before the afghan people and then the body in the world can trust what the u.s. -- u.s. people might do for their country to help free them from evil, they have to see us doing the right thing here. in our own country. we have to get rid of the terrorists that are here in our own country. i am talking about the democrats and republicans. guest: i did not know where he was going to go with that one. you cannot imagine help isolated things are in afghanistan i went from village to village. those places -- the people are lovely. there are warm and welcoming.

they are curious. they are good to be around. they are good people. boy, are they isolated. they have very little idea of what is happening in the outside world. host: you talked about trust. is that those workers years being there? where does this trust come from? guest: it is almost individual to individual. they do not trust us entirely. they think the united states will leave as it did before. they are very wary of the united states. on an individual basis, where you have an american soldier working with a local police officer or chief, there is a really good rapport there, in many cases. i am generalizing. there are cases where americans and afghans do not get along at all. most of the cases that i saw,

there is a really good report. they are nice and likable people and they want to do a good job. they don't like the taliban. they want the americans there to help. they are free we will leave. it is a very mixed situation. host: what do they think about the results of their recent election and what the future holds about stability in the country? guest: they are like us in that sense. i talked to an afghan guy who was driving a pickup truck loaded with a huge amount of vegetables. he was on his way to market. he said that hamid karzai 1. he is your guide. -- he is yourguy. it was a cynical view. i did not meet many afghans who

thought that if we both for this guy, everything will be all right and things will be better. they are very cynical. first of all, they do not trust or like the government in kabul. they do not think it is very powerful, which is not. they don't not think it can do anything for them, which it can. 't. they are very much like us. host: louisiana on our independent line. caller: i hope you give me the time to express my point. you call yourself a journalist and you report the facts. it is like reported the trees without seeing the forest. you bring up insurgents. what is an insurgent? that is an afghan insurgents who is an afghan. we are saving the iraqis from the afghans and the afghans --

who died and left us to be the policeman of the world's and tell everybody what to do at the point of a gun? we're telling people what to do? we build the schools that we blow it back up. big deal. gold, oil, and drugs. 13-fold increase in drug in afghanistan since we have been in there. there are pictures on youtube of american troops guarding poppy fields. the excuse that the american government gives that if we don't guard them, they will go to the insurgents hands. that is absolutely insane. that makes no sense at all. the cia is the biggest drug dealer in the world. this whole phony war on terror -- if you were a real journalist, you study the real reason that we went in there at the beginning which was the bs

has been told to was about 9/11. when you look into it and you scratch the surface, you know we were lied to. guest: not much i can say to that. host: louisville, ky. caller: please don't cut me off. i have a question about cspan. host: we have about five minutes left. please go ahead caller: mr. woods, thank you for your insight. people are looking at this issue in the united states. we have wasted eight years and i appreciate your insight and your words. it is much more complicated than ever body -- and everybody wants a political answer. i would encourage people to read more instead of listening to

these talking heads. thank you for your hard work. i would encourage every viewer to read the current article of "the new yorker"magazine . if there was a wonderful in that article that i have not finished yet about how surgically this president is looking at this war. this involves pakistan, india, there are some money more issues. -- there are so many more issues. i want to thank you for trying to give the american people a little more insight. we have wasted eight years. money is down the drain and we have to correct the problem. i'm very upset with c-span. my local cable order has cut me off. i have to buy it for $50 per month in order to get cspan to.

-2. host: you probably have to take that issue up with your cable operator. if you want to go to our website, maybe we have more information at c-span.org. we have time for one more question. brian, on the republican line. caller: i respect you for spending time in afghanistan. i do not see how we can hold sway in afghanistan on a large scale. you say we do not have air power but we do not even have any cable power there. we have had problems with hard- line arabs going back into the '60s. the unit was the start of it all. we were together for the olympics and we did nothing about it.

we avoided the middle east and afghanistan and all of that for decades. most recently, we have avoided it and that has caused us problems. we must be engaged. i did -- i do not favor the troop escalation there. i think we need to have shorter cited goals with long-range plans. we need to control a little section of afghanistan, not all of it. guest: that was a good comment. thank you for calling. by second call from cynthia to read as much as possible there are many reporters like me to go out there and spend time out there and report back you can read my starstopped at poiliti cstsrat.com.

there is a lot of on the ground reporting going on. host: thank you for your time. we will look at nasa's recent mission to discover or test for ice on a madrion the moon. we will be right back. >> president barack obama speaks at the human rights campaign 13th annual dinner. live coverage of the president keynote address tonight at 7:50 p.m., eastern on c-span. today on america and the courts, the attorneys who argued before

the supreme court this week in a case looking at the constitutionality of religious monuments on government property. the case to across on the mojave national preserve in california. also four former supreme court justices are honored. chief justice john roberts speaks at the ceremony. america and the court today at 7:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> tonight, just as sonia sotomayor as first television interview since joining the supreme court. >> they remind us that the role we are playing is not a personal role and not a role that should have a personal agenda but one that has an institutional importance and that that institutional importance is bigger than us. >> justice clarence thomas on his approach to oral argument and how it differs from his colleagues. tore the private chambers with justice stephen breyer as he walks us through the workings of

the supreme court. in a rare television interview, justice samuel alito talks about his job, the role of the court, and the constitution for engaging conversations with four supreme court justices, tonight at 9:00 eastern on c- span. >> the pulitzer prize winner author on the story of a refugee and came to the u.s. with nothing but hopes to complete his education and his return to burundi to start a health clinic. that is sunday night on c-span. >> james garvin from nasa. have you learned anything on your mission yesterday in the 24 hours it has taken place? >> science does not work at the speed of light. guest: we recognize we made an

impact. it was an engineering success. we have seen signatures but we're not sure of what they are. many scientists around the world -- is too early to tell. it is like going to your doctor to get instant gratification on tests. i think we will see exciting results. the moon is an exit -- is a mysterious lady. host: were you surprised at to the reaction of the video? guest: bemoan has many parameters. we went to a dark and cold place where we had never been before. i was expecting some mr. rate rather than instant success we learned some things about what we saw. we expected a much bigger curtain of dust to come up. it was suppressed.

probably the target on the moon was smaller than expected. water is the magic molecules. we live and require it for life. the history of the earth is based on water. if we can find it on a smaller object like bemoan, we could see how it relates to our planet and sending explorers there. water is key to our own survival and some of the exploration we want to do. host: from yesterday's test, how long before you start getting some significant data and what exactly are you looking for? guest: we have plenty of data. bill lunar orbiter has sat down megabytes of data already. we have plenty of data and plenty of smart men and women to look at it.

we're looking for chemical signatures and a smoke-like plume. we are using spectrospcopy. we learned a lot in the last 24 hours and you will see the results coming through. that will come through in the next weeks and months host: host: the lines are available to you. sometimes we get the added benefit of an actual model on the set so here is a model. what are we looking at? guest: this is a 1/20 model of a large rocket, 41 feet long, filled with really exotic rocket fuel. this is the stuff that makes it

go. this tiny vehicle, about 6 feet tall, was sent to the moon if with with nine instruments. this detach and follow this rocket in as it collided with the moon to generate this plume of debris that we wanted to look at. was there water? what is it made up? what does that tell us about the shallow interior of the moon and could give us the signature of water? host: all the devices were on top? guest: yes and a detached. her lunar reconnaissance or better watched the event. observatories and the hubble telescope watched all this. we had a ballet dancer of observers all over the planet looking at this exciting event. host: if it crashed into the

service, how you make sure the data was able to come back to your site tests. guest: were watching from independent vehicles. we had a separate satellite which comes off that came in behind it. this is equipped with nine centers, cameras, infrared, spectrometers, a luminescence detector to watch the flash of the impact. this little vehicle did a brilliant job collecting data. it sent back data at almost a video speed for the final four minutes. host: as debris comes up, that is what you are looking at. your studying that. guest: exactly, we are also looking at the before and after.

we have already seen the first glimmers of the temperatures signature of the big impact on yesterday. ucla has already reported that the instrument has seen that. host: did you have critics on that? guest: people ask if we could miss the moon but it was like a fastball, right down the center. host: there's information on the website to look at. james garvin is the chief scientist at the nasa space flight center. how many years of planning and how much to this mission cost? guest: this was about a three- year mission. the central rocket would not have been used. it would have spiraled into the sun is left over debris. the overall mission cost after

selecting a cost $79 million. let me put that in public terms. that is about 1/4 of a blockbuster movie. in relative terms, i am hoping our kids will get to understand the results of this as they read their textbooks over the next five years in terms of that investment by the american taxpayer. host: first call is from redding, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i'm a fan of cspan. the impact that was made on moon, am i correct in thinking that was 6 miles wide, the crater? guest: not at all. this was a very small impact. this happens every week on the moon naturally. we expected to make a crater about 60 feet wide.

we almost got a percussion krater. -- we almost call it a percussion krater. it was a relatively small event but the biggest we were able to do and watch in history. that is what made it so important. host: do you have a follow-up question? caller: i was wondering if there would be a long-term negative effect of this impact? 60 feet wide is pretty inconsequential. thank you very much we are very much into the space program. host: mount carmel, pa., republican line. caller: good morning. i am almost 60 years old. i am old enough to have monitored the actions of nasa since their beginnings.

my observation is that nasa is composed of mostly liberal, on gaudily evolutionist's that have finally given up on evolution starting on earth and are now spending huge amounts of taxpayer money looking for water on moon and various other planetary bodies to support a new philosophy that life started from other planets and drifted to earth. what do you say about that? guest: the nasa interest is to understand the record of life in the universe. that includes our own wonders life on earth. we know that the earth has evolved from an early state that we don't have a good record of. some of that record may be captured on the moon where things stayed the same for a longer rather than our planet.

our job is to ask questions and use engineering to solve those problems. the philosophical question is not nasa's turf. we have learned that the solar system and the universe is a magical place. we have looked back into the time the history of the birth of the universe. we see the possibilities of life. not really live like us but other kinds of light. the potential is in many places, on mars, maybe even on venus, if you want to go that far, in other worlds and other stars. we are asking the big questions. are we alone? how does the universe work? what is our role living on earth? we do that with engineering solutions and hard working men and women. i'm not sure that enters your question. it is a good question you asked. our job is different than what you may have bought.

host: of those questions get answered from this test yesterday? guest: we s tell what would work on this airless body the moon? if water were there, that might be some interesting water if it were reasonably available in the scientific record of this inner solar system. it might be a resource if we want to send people there to live off the planet. some of us believe that would be a good thing to do to protect our spaceship, earth where we live and understand the space environment we live in. this mission was one small step for women and men to understand that in a very dynamic way. we think it was an important first up in the quest. host: the hunters for hydrogen, oxygen, and the building blocks of life?

guest: sometimes water can be broken down to the oh radical. we found hydrogen on the moon. wer have the building blocks. it is a puzzle. to put them together completely might answer the question. we are working on it. host: ron, from seattle washington, on our independent line. go ahead. caller: i am trying to figure out -- i see the significance of nasa and the role it plays in our society in terms of science and progress. i am from michigan originally. detroit has 28% unemployment. there are many social problems in our country at this time. they are pressing social problems. i am trying to understand, can you put nasa in the context of

priorities in terms of funding and federal budgets and why are we spending money on finding water on a planet when we have people who cannot find water in their own homes? guest: that is a valid question. the president set their priorities. nasa is a tiny fraction of the discretionary budget. it employs 18,000 people across 10 centers, hard-working men and women that inspire and educate and develop engineering solutions, some of which we use. it is inappropriate for me to fully answer your question. our administrator and leaders to a better job. let me give you one perspective. all the great nations that have led in this wonderful world lead by example. there are examples in

engineering, science, learning, and nasa over 50 + years has done so, capturing the imagination of landing on the moment studying mars and looking at the sun. this is one little piece of a very small discretionary investment the united states makes. nasa's whole budget is the equivalent to you and your family going to one movie a year with your wife and two children and buying popcorn and seeing the film. maybe that is a big investment. i cannot comment. it is an investment of inspiration and learning and progress. all the big things in life that make our lives well, a small fraction of that, is that worth understanding how we live in space? i cannot comment. that is your call and the taxpayers col. i think we have done a good job

over the last 50 years in bringing that. i'm proud to say that when my kids open their textbooks in science and grade school, they see the legacy of that, learning about our place in space. as a young woman once said, "if we don't go, we won't know." host: returning to a vote for larger studies, where is that? guest: president barack obama has asked if this is the right course. we believe the moon is an important relative destination. it is a question of if we can get brave international men and women and colleagues there. we have a space station to help learn. that is a kind of question we are asking. if there was ancient water on bemothe moon, wouldn't that hels

learn about the oceans here? nasa is ready to debate that issue. host: is that the only test we will see? guest: there are other tasks but there were about. -- they are remote. our bloomer -- or lunar orbiter is in orbit. host: georgetown, texas, our independent line. caller: although i respect and appreciate science and the desire of size to discover what is on other planets, i take issue with the concerns of the moment with nature. we're looking for water elsewhere. what we figure out how to preserve and respect our earth first?

guest: excellent question. in fact, we are doing that. nasa and other federal agencies has a program of earth observation to understand the planet and capture the pulse of the planet to understand where it is going climate was, short- term weather, severe dynamic events like storms and other events. we have an array of some 14 satellites that we operate. parley department of commerce -- part of the department of commerce operate on this. we are watching the earth 24-7 and producing big bets per day. there's more information in the last 10 years than the history of humanity. we detected ozone holes. we have watched our ice sheets at the end. there is a northwest passage in the arctic. these are things detected by nasa and its partners satellite. we have a robust program. it is far bigger than this will

experiment we did on the moon. and we do look at water in ways that are amazing. i'm extremely excited about the earth science and our exploration program that we already have. it is a real gem stone in what nasa does and it will get better as we respond to new challenges in making measurements to improve life on earth. host: grove city, ohio, on our independent line. caller: i have a technical question. you said the white stage was killed by liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen? if there was liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, doesn't that make water and will you to attack the water from the booster?

guest: the booster was empty. when we use it, we depleted and we emptied it. we also take it in a maneuver in space to make sure any condensed water or anything on it from the high energy rocket motor would be fully depleted. we were very careful to not contaminate the moon with whatever we were looking for. we're confident we did that. we know the sensitivity of the satellite. in real life is 6 foot high. this produced images of the flash from the impact. we believe we did the best job possible technically to clean this vehicle so it was an empty shell of aluminum and other parts as it crashed into the moon. host: elden, alabama, on our

democrats line. caller:the moon is only 240,000 miles away. we say we want to go to the moon to weaken good weather areas in space. why go to the mon and work in a hostile environment and go light years away? guest: that is irrelevant question. our beachhead in space is the international space station. that is 230 miles above. we are working international. we have six men and women working on it now. we intend to use it in a national laboratory in space accessible to small rockets. that is where we begin by learning of living and working in space. that has been the plan since president reagan for suggested it in 1984, ideally. pomona's another destination, a different kind of destination.

-- the moon is a different kind of destination. we need to rehearse and practice and learn how to live off planet if we're going to the really hard places like mars. mars is 1500 * further from the earth than the moon. mars may be a more human- friendly place. there is plenty of water there. we found ice. can we leave their crossed a vast abyss of space? we have never done that. the greatest voyages of 500 years ago did not increase by three orders of magnitude in one step. we did not build the transcontinental railroad in one step. likewise, we need to learn to work in space off planet in the

technically challenging environment of the moon. are there places on the moon to do that learning? that is why the moon really beckons. it is close by. it may have resources. if it had water, that would change the equation. if we go there, we would have a trip home to the earth in the course of a couple of days. if we go to mars, it is a six month trip under any circumstances we can imagine a unless we reinvent the rock equation. we are technically think of things of how we move in space, those are technological park -- problems of grand challenges. if we go the way we go now with these kind of rocket engines, the moon is a couple of days

away and mars is a six-nine months away. that is a long trip in a lifeboat. light years away, there is good stuff. we have not yet tackled like travel parent -- light travel. host: will the shuttle program finished next year? guest: the intent is to finish building the international space station with a shovel. s-- with the shuttle. the president has asked about this. it is still the safest vehicle we have ever launched. i don't have all the answers. host: georgia, on our independent line. caller: i have a couple of questions.

i used to be very much into nasa as a child pe ♪. i had hoped to become an employee of nice -- of nasa. i am an unemployed person who still pays taxes on it. how long have you guys been traveling to the motion to ask the questions you are trying to ask. -- the moon to ask the questions you're trying to ask. pluto was one of our planet's and the solar system and now they are telling us that that information was wrong. i love signs' but i like actual facts, also. guest: the astronomers to

classify things the way we classified bugs and birds and bees on earth in the of biology, have designated pluto a dwarf planet. we have a spacecraft called new horizons. it is on the way to pluto. it is our first mission to that part of the solar system. it is very far away, 39 times farther from the sun than the earth. it will get there in 2014 and make the first by resolution measurements and images to study that world. we think may be an interesting object. pluto has at least two moons. we're going to pluto. we will understand it, classified, ellicott to be the way it is, and it is a marvelous place to go and we are real excited nasa went to bemoan a brilliant for a of human

exploration in the '60s. after learning a lot about the moon, they moved on to a different style of exploring earth from shuttles and moving on to robots to other world. the hubble telescope is an icon of size. missions to mars, saturn, jupiter, business, we have looked at our neighborhood very well and learned a lot. we just are going back to the moon. these experiments are the first set back to a place that is becoming more relevant. we are a diverse agency and study the earth, the sun, the deeper universe, a burly time, and the plants including the moon. someone has to start somewhere. many of us feel the moon is an excellent place to gain perspective on the solar system.

host: our democrats line is next. caller: one question i have is -- over the years, we have used the same type propulsion to get us from one place to another in space. what other types of propulsion have you looked at and have you thought about using electromagnetism and may be trying to think of other ways of launching things from the space shuttle or getting things -- sending them off into space. i think that is what the major costs -- causes the problems that we still use the old rocket mold of doing things. guest: excellent question. of course, we are interested in

advanced propulsion the rocket equation is fundamental physics grid we have used it effectively since the great times of robert daughters and warner von braun. it is an effective way of working. it is reliable. we have lost people into space for 50 years. there are new approaches. nasa has investments in what we call ion drive us, solar electric propulsion. we're looking at the best chemical engines that use new kinds of fuels. we have research programs to look at those. the marshall space flight center in alabama has looked at using tethers to let things up from sub orbit to orbit. we have done studies on blasting stuff into space. we have also looked at harnessing the energy of the atom, quantum energy, to move things&h from one area in spaco

other places. we had a plan to look at that in earnest eight years back with the department of naval reactors to harness that energy to move big things to other worlds much more efficiently. this is an important area of research that is developing in nasa that we're paying attention to. we have a new engine called the vasimir with very high efficiency. this could be another type of propulsion. there are many options. .

>> he will talk about the applications from that engagement. and lewis sorley will join us to talk about jobs in the economy. you see then. -- we will see you then. >> coming up, representative john carter on the investigation of rep charlie

rangel. also, the debate from the u.s. house of the hate crimes provision and the defense spending bill. > later today, or zero arguments from the supreme court case looking at the constitution -- constitutionality of religious monuments. this is at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. >> president obama speaks at the human rights campaign national dinner. live coverage of the keynote address tonight at 7:50 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> representative john carter introduce a resolution that would force charlie rangel to step down as ways and means committee chairman. rep carter's remarks are about 20 minutes. for what purpose does the gentleman from texas rise? >> mr. speaker, pursuant to clause 2-a-1 of rule 9, i hereby notify the house of my intention to offer a resolution as the question of privilege of the house. the form of my resolution is as follows. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will suspend. members please take your conversations off the floor. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: whereas the gentleman from new york, charles

d. rangel the fourth most senior member of the house of representatives serves as chairman of the house ways and means committee, a position of considerable power and influence within the house of representatives, whereas clause 1 of rule 13 of the rules of the house of representatives provides a member, delegate, resident commissioner, officer, or employee of the house shall conduct himself at all times in a manner that shall reflect credibility on the house. whereas "the new york times" reported on september 5, 2008, that representative charles b. rangel as earned more than $75,000 in rental income from a villa he has owned in the dominican republic since 1988 but never reported it on his federal or state tax returns according to a lawyer for the congressman and documents from the resort.

whereas an article in the september 5, 2008 addition of the "new york times", his attorney confirms that representative rangel's annual congressional financial disclosure statement failed to disclose the rental income from his resort villa. whereas "the new york times" reported on september 6, 2008, that representative charles b. rangel paid no interest for more than a decade on a mortgage extended to him to buy a villa at a beachfront resort in the dominican republic according to mr. rangel's lawyer and records from the resort, the loan which was extended to mr. rangel in 1988 was originally to be paid back over seven years at a rate of 10.5%, but within two years interest on the loan was waived. mr. speaker, i don't believe the house is nord. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct.

the gentleman from texas deserves to be heard. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: thank you, mr. speaker. whereas clause 5-a-2-a of house rule 25 defines a gift as, a gratuity, favor, discount, entertainment, hospitality, loan forebarons, or item having monetary value and prohibits the acceptance of such gifts except in limited circumstances. whereas representatives rangel's acceptance of thousands of dollars in interest forgiveness is a violation of the house gift ban. whereas representative rangel's failure to disclose the aforementioned gifts and income on his personal financial disclosure statement violates house rules and federal law. whereas representative rangel's failure to report the aforementioned gifts and income on federal, state, and local tax

returns is a violation of the tax laws of those jurisdictions. whereas the committee on ways and means which representpive rangel chairs has jurisdiction over the united states tax code. whereas the house committee on standards of official conduct first announced on july 31, 2008 that it was reviewing allegations of misconduct by representative rangel. whereas roll call newspaper reported on september 15, 2008, that the inconsistent reports are among myriad errors, discrepancies, and unexplained entries on rangel's personal disclosure form over the past eight years that makes it impossible to get a clear picture of the ways and means chairman's financial dealings. the house is not in order, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct.

members please take their conversations off the floor. clear the aisle. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: thank you. whereas the house committee on standards of official conduct announced on september 24, 2008 that it had established an investigative committee in the matter of representative rangel. whereas the ethics committee probe was underway after the ethics committee probe was underway "the new york times" reported in november 24, 2008, that congressional records and interviews showed that mr. rangel was instrumental in preserving a lucrative tax loophole that benefited neighbors industries, an oil drilling company, last year while at the same time its chief executive was pledging $1 million to the charles b. rangel school of public service at ccny. whereas house committee on standards of official conduct

announced on december 9, 2008, that it had expanded the jurisdiction of the aforementioned investigative subcommittee to examine the allegations related to representative rangel's involvement with neighbors industries. . whereas there were other allegations of im-- whereas other allegations of improper conduct against representative rangel have surfaced, whereas representative rangel acknowledged a failure to publicly disclose at least half a million dollars in cash assets, tens of thousands of dollars in investment income and his ownership of two pieces of property in new jersey. whereas corrected financial disclosure statements filed by representative rangel on august

12, 2009, now reveal his net worth to be nearly twice as much as has been previously revealed. whereas "the new york times" newspaper reported on august 26, 2009, that the united states representative charles b. rangel, whose personal finances and fundraising are subject to two house ethics investigations, failed to report at least $500,000 in assets on his 2007 congressional disclosure form, among the newly disclosed assets revealed are a checking account in the federal credit union with a balance of $250,000 and $500,000, three vacant lots in new jersey valued at a toal of $1,000 to $15,000, and stock in pepsico,

worth between $15,000 and $50,000. whereas "roll call" newspaper reported on august 25, 2009 that representative rangel's corrected filings also revealed at least $250,000 in a fund called m.l. elison global investors consults diversified port three, whereas the aforementioned "roll call" story reported that rangel also originally misreported his investments in 2007 that they netted him between $511 and $17,950 in dividends, capital gains and rental income. in his revised file, the rake jumped to between $29,220 and $81,200.

whereas the most recent revelations by representative rangel have resulted in heightened national news media coverage of alleged impropriety and misconduct by one of the most senior members of the house, whereas an editorial in the "washington times" newspaper noted charlie rangel is a lucky guy. the democratic congressman from harlem, new york, discovered his net worth is twice what he thought. that's a pretty good day at the office far public servant. mr. rangel also realize head made tens of thousands of dollars more than he reported in many different years over the past decade. this is the most recent string in a series of financial bonanzas for mr. rangel who last year admit head had forgotten about $75,000 in rental income on his caribbean resort.

whereas the same editorial also noted the congressman has failed to pay property taxes on two lots in new jersey, according to the new york post, that's not all. in order to avoid taxes and get lower mortgage rates, mr. rangel simultaneously claimed three primary residences. whereas an editorial in the september 17, 2009, edition of "the new haven register" stated, the ethics and tax complaints keep piling up against u.s. representative charles b. rangel, whose as chairman of the house ways and means committee controls writing the nation's tax laws. the new york democrat may write those law, but he apparently feels no obligation to obey them. the investigation appears to have a long way to go. the man who was in charge of writing the nation's tax laws doesn't pay his federal income or local property taxes. mr. speaker, the house is not

in order. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is correct. the gentleman from texas. mr. carter: he has such a poor grasp of his finances he refuses to list assets on a disclosure form intended to keep members of congress honest. we can already hear the defense of the next deadbeat brought into court, if charlie rangel doesn't have to pay his taxes, why do i? whereas an article in "the "post" stated, rangel is thed of the ways and means committee and a man of immense power in washington, nevertheless, he's been busy of late revising and amended the record, backing and filling using buckets of white

out heas discovers or remembers property he owns in new york, the yabe an and god knows where else. he also discovered accounts no one, including him, knew he had. he somehow neglected to mention these accounts on his congressional disclosure form, which means if you can believe it, that he signed the forms and didn't notice that maybe $1 million was missing. somebody ought to check the lighting in his office. the house is not in order. whereas the same article in "the washington post" stated, there's something wrong with charlie rangel. either he did not notice he was worth about twice as much as he said he was which is down right

worrisome in a congressional leader, or he thinks he's above he law which is down right worrisome in a congressional leader. whereas, it's been one year since the edtorial in "the new york times" on september 15, 2008, stated, mounting embarrassment for congress makes it imperative that representative charles rangel steps aside as chairman of the ways and means committee while his dealings are investigated. whereas representative rangel and speaker pelosi have made public statements that investigation into representative rangel would soon be concluded. wrads too date the committee has not announced any timeline in conducting or concluding an investigation of representative

rangel. whereas the major daily newspapers, including the "new york times," the "washington post," and "the new york post" called for representative rangel's removal from his powerful position, at least until the house ethics committee compleet its probe of the allegations against him, whereas representative rain gell's powerful position as chairman permits him to participate in high-level discussions about critical issues such as reform of the nation's health care system, whereas an october 21 story stated, mr. rangel is one of the small group of house leaders now meeting almost day by behind closed doors, with house speaker nancy pelosi to distill the one package that will go to the house floor. whereas the associated press story on september 20, 2009, stated, the ethics committee's investigation of rangel is almost a year old.

it's as much a problem for the house democratic leaders as for rangel himself. late they are year, when rangel's committee consider cans the estate tax legislation that could expand into other matters -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman will state his inquiry. >> can any member of this body claim the privilege of the house for an hour based on something they read in the newspaper at any time they want. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is giving notice of his intent. the gentleman may continue. mr. carter: when rangel's committee considers the state tax -- estate tax legislation that could move to other matters, the headline will be, tax scoff law investigates changes. whereas a review of the property records in new york shows at least six tax liens

against rangel's property in the past six years. whereas on may 2 -- i'm sorry, may 24, 2006, the minority leader, the then-minority leader, nancy pelosi, cited high ethical standards in a letter to former representative william jefferson in a letter asking him to resign his seat because of an investigation into ethical improprieties r5rding representative jefferson, while speaker pelosi took this action prior to any indictment. whereas in april of 2007, republican leader john boehner successfully urged semple

republican members to relinquish committee assignments after learning that each had become the subject of investigations into possible criminal activities, whereas leader boehner took the aforementioned actions when the former members were under investigation, subject to widespread public investigation but not under indictment. whereas speaker pelosi's continue red fusal to remove representative rangel after promising she would preside over the most ethical congress in history have held the house up to public ridicule, now therefore be it resolved that upon the adoption of this resolution and pending the completion of investigation into his affairs by the co

>> , coming up a house debate on hate legislation. -- on hate crime legislation. >> later today on american and the courts, oral arguments from the supreme court case looking at the constitutionality of religious monuments. chief justice roberts speaks today. that is at 7:00 eastern here on c-span. >> president obama speaks at the human rights campaign national dinner. live coverage of the president's keynote address tonight at 7:50 p.m. eastern on c-span.

>> sunday, senator tom harkin talks about the debate over health care legislation and prospects for a public option. >> five committees have reported a bill on health care. four of them have a public option, one does not. you would think the weight would be on the side of having a public option in the bill. that is we're it is. the majority at the american people support it. the vast majority of democrats. probably pretty close to 52 or 53 democrats support a public option. why would be consecrate not having a public option? i think the burden is on those who are opposed to public option spirit an.

that is why i sent the bill be sent to the president will have a public option in it. make no mistake about it. >> you can see the entire interview on newsmaker sunday at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 eastern on c-span. >> next, a house debate on adding a crime legislation to the defense bill. first, remarks from i skelton. this is one hour 10 minutes. house resolution 808, the conference report is considered as read. the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton, and the gentleman from california, mr. mckeon, each will control 30 minutes. the chair now recognizes the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i yield myself such time as i may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized. mr. skelton: i also ask unanimous consent that that all members may have five legislative days to revise and extend their remarks on the conference report currently under consideration. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. the gentleman is recognized. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i'm pleesed to bring before the house the conference report -- pleased to bring before the house the conference report on 2647, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010. i especially want to thank my ranking member, my good friend, buck mckeon, the gentleman from california, our partners in the senate, senator carl levin and senator john mccain, and all the conferees from the armed services and 13 other committees who have made this conference report a reality. mr. mckeon, brand new as member -- as ranking member of our committee hit the ground running

and has done yeoman's work, and i particularly wish to single him out and express my appreciation for the work he has done to help bring this to the floor. mr. speaker, this bill has a base of $550 billion for the united states military. this has $130 billion for the wars in afghanistan and in iraq which total $680 billion. mr. speaker, we are at war. this is a deadly serious moment in this body. this bill is critical for national security and i'm pleased to say this bill gets it right.

the conference report provides several major victories for our troops, their families, and the bill strikes the right balance between our focus on the immediate fights in afghanistan, iraq, and long-term needs of our military. the vast majority of this bill has bipartisan support. the bill provides almost $20 billion combined for army and marine corps reset and equipment shortfalls in the guard and reserve. $550 million for army barracks and guard and reserve infrastructure. to boost readiness and reduce the strain on our force, the bill increases the size of the military all across four services and authorize an additional 30,000 army troops in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. this bill reflects our effort to recognize 2009 as the year that the military family have a 3.4%

pay raise for all service members of the the bill also extends the authority of the defense department to offer bonuses and incentive pay and spans tricare health coverage, it prohibits fee increases on tricare in-patient care for year. it provides for $2.2 billion for family housing programs. it improves the benefits available to wounded warriors. to ensure our strategy in afghanistan and neighboring pakistan is an effective, this bill requires the president to assess u.s. efforts and report on the progress. the bill authorizes funds to train and equip the afghan national security forces and authorize the pakistan counter insurgency fund. the bill improves the accountability and oversight of u.s. assistance. the bill also requires the secretary of defense to submit a report on the responsible

redeployment of u.s. forces out of iraq. on acquisition reform the conference report supports the plan to increase the size and acquisition work force and reduce reliance on contractors for acquisition functions. it eliminates waste, fraud, and abuse through better contract oversight. the bill also repeals the national security personnel system, returning employees to the general schedule over two years while providing additional flexibilities for hiring and personnel management. the conference agreement prohibits the release of guantanamo bay detainees into the united states, its territories, and possessions, and restricts detainee transfers until after the president has submitted a plan to congress. the conference report revises the military commission act to make them fair and effective and ensure that convictions stick.

let me briefly address two difficult aspects of the conference report. first, i'm disappointed, so very disappointed we were not able to retain the houses' provision implementing the president's proposal on concurrent receipt for disabled military retirees. the armed services committee fought hard with the assistance of our leadership and many other committees to pay for that proposal. the senate's budget rules, however, would not support a solution and i urge the president to work with us in a way to pay for this which will meet the budgetary rules of both the house and the senate. finally, regarding the hate crimes prevention act, i have said several times and i would have preferred it to have been enacted as a stand alone bill -- stand-alone bill, not on this defense bill. but it's important to note that the conferees included important sentencing guidelines for crimes

against military service members and added protections for the first amendment rights of preachers and ministers to that bill. i might add, mr. speaker, that the senate passed its version of the bill with the hate crimes prevention by a vote of 87-7 which is a strong bipartisan vote in the united states senate. what ever one's position on hate crimes, i believe the enormous good done in this legislation merits its support by every member of the house. mr. speaker, we are at war. we should support the troops. we should support their families. we should make sure that they have the finest equipment and training possible. that's what this bill does. this bill will support our troops in the field and their families and meet our immediate

military requirements and preserve the ability to deter and respond to future threats. i urge the house to vote for this conference report, move it to the president's desk as soon as possible. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. as legislators we meet once again to address a wide range of important national security activities undertaken by the departments of defense and energy. we all take our legislative responsibilities very seriously. this is especially true during a time of war and it's always true of my good friend and colleague, armed services chairman, ike seton, the gentleman from missouri. i commend chairman skelton for shepherding this bill through the conference process. ike, you have done a remarkable job.

most of you in the chamber know, this conference report contains hate crimes legislation. this is an anathema to me. i'm opposed to hate crimes legislation and i'm especially opposed to the procedure of mutt putting it on a defense bill, especially in time of war, using our troops to get this legislation passed. it's not germane to the work of the committee and needlessly introduces a partisan matter in an otherwise bipartisan bill. i have consistently opposed the passage of hate crimes legislation personally. and i continue to oppose it today. unfortunately congressional democrats made the political decision to attach the hate crimes legislation to this bill. i oppose, as i said, using the men and women of the military as a leverage to pass this partisan legislation. what should have been included in the bill is concurrent

receipts. the house bill included a one-year expansion of concurrent receipt of military disability retired pay and veterans disability compensation for medically retired veterans. the house provision should have prevailed over the senate procedure hurdles. we owe this to our veterans. though flawed, this bill has my support. this conference report authorizes over $5 50 billion in budget authority for the department of defense and the national security programs of the department of energy. additionally, the legislation authorizes over $129 billion in supplemental funding to support operations in iraq, afghanistan, and elsewhere in the global war on terror. this bill rightfully acknowledges that the united states has a vital national security interest in ensuring that afghanistan does not once again become a safe haven for

terrorists and supports a comprehensive counterinsurgency strategy that is adequately resourced and funded by congress. the conference report supports our strategy in afghanistan in a number of ways. the bill authorizes $1.3 billion for the commanders to -- of the emergency response program which is uniquely authorized critical to implementing general mcchrystal's counterinsurgency oppositions -- operations. additionally it authorizes $7.4 million for the afghan national security sources fund. these funds are the key to increasing the size and professionalism of the afghan national security forces. finally this bill re-authorizes expired d.o.d. contingency construction authority to rapidly authorize and build facilities needed to support the war in afghanistan. with respect to iraq, the report

ensures that the congress will support the president's plan to redeploy combat forces while providing our commanders on the ground the flexibility to hold hard fought security gains and to ensure the safety of our forces. mr. speaker, as members of congress, we owe our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines the very best available equipment, training, and support in order for -- to provide them with the best possible tools to undertake their missions. the provisions in this bill go a considerable way in demonstrating this support and particular to the house position prevailed in a couple of critical areas. . this bill provides $430 million in rdtne for the development of the f-136 engine and provides

$130 million for engine procurement. it provides a multiyear procurement for f-18's. as a nation we owe more than our gratitude to the brave men and women in uniform and their families, past and present, for the sacrifices they make to protect our freedom. i'm pleased this legislation includes a 3.4% pay raise, a half percentage point above the president's request. we also increase active duty spending over 2009 levels. this is essential for easing the burden on our forces. i'm pleased this measure prohibits any increase to tricare prime and tricare health care fees. finally the bill increases in $500 to $1,100 the amount of supplemental subsistence

allowance to low-income members with dependents so members need not rely on food stamps. in closing, i want to say to my fellow republicans, inunderstand your opposition to the inclusion of hate crimes in the defense authorization bill. i committed to each of you that this vote should be a vote of conscience, and i understand you're on the horns of dilemma. i understand your opposition to hate crimes and i understand this terrible position you've been put in. but i know if you vote against this bill because of the hate crimes legislation, it does not diminish in any way your support of the troops and the men and women in our armed forces. when i became ranking member of the armed services committee, i made a commitment to each of you and our men and women in uniform and their families, that i would do everything my power to provide our soldiers,

sailor, airmen, and marines with the support they desperately need and deserve as member of the ranking armed services committee. as long as america's sons and daughters are fighting for our country, i have the obligation to support them first above everything else. mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i commend the gentleman, mr. mckeon, for his straightforward commitment to the young men and women in american uniform. at this time, i yield three minutes to my colleague, my friend, the chairman of the subcommittee on readiness, the gentleman from texas, mr. ortiz. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. ortiz: thank you, mr. chairman. i rise in support of the

conference report for h.r. 2647, the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010. this is, my friends a very, very good bill. we cannot ignore the fact that we are fighting two wars. we are fighting a war in afghanistan and a war in iraq. the conference report before us today reflects our efforts to strengthen the readiness posture of our armed forces. it authorizes a toal of $244.5 billion for operation and maintenance, including $4.7 billion for army trainingering $13 billion for army and marine corps equipment reset and $2555.3 million for other. has $170 million for maintenance. it provides money to replace run down army barracks, $200 million for national guard and

reserve construction projects. it adds $100 million to address the environmental issues of bases closed prior to 2005. the conference report expands the homeowners assistance program and provides $300 million to help ensure that service members forced to move during the real estate downturn are not severely affected financially. the conference report supports energy security by authorizing $12.3 million for energy conservation projects on military installations and programs that enable the defense department to reduce energy use. at the same time, it provides

the department's flex to believe the help in hiring effective personnel and management. the conference report allows, first, employees to receive credit for unused sick leave. it provides locality pay for workers in hawaii, alaska, and the united states territories. my friends, this is a good conference report that reflects a bipartisan desire to improve readiness and balance the many priorities of our military around the world and -- and domestically. i urge you to support this bill, it is a good bill and keeps our -- gives our troops what they deserve and need. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i'm happy to yield to the gentleman from maryland, ranking member on the air-land subcommittee, mr. bartlett, such time as he may consume. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bartlett: i want to thank

chairman abercrombie and ike skeleton and buck mckeon for their efforts to draft this vital bill. i also thank the staff members who serve us so well. overall, this is an excellent conference report. that's why i'm appalled that my colleagues would violate house rules and pervert this annual national military strategy bill by including the totally unrelated partisan senate amendment. with deep regret, i resolutely urge my colleagues to vote no on this conference report. i have dedicated almost 40 years to protecting the lives of the men and women who serve in our military. for 20 year, i invented and worked on defense projects to provide them life-saving equipment, including 19 military patents. i've been honored to serve for 17 years on the armed service committees work colleagues who have worked tirelessly to achieve the goals of providing equipment so soldier, sailor,

marines and those who support them will complete their mission and return home safe. this bill provides for an increase for continued f-136 engine development and for f-136 engine procurement, an additional $600 million to rere-deuce equipment shortfalls in the national guard and reserve. inclusion of my proposed requirements for d.o.d. to have specific line items for body armor. this will improve accountability, increase transparency, as well as facilitate the advancement of lighter weight technologies. $6.7 billion for mine-resistant vehicles. $1237b9 billion above the president's request. $2.54 billion for future combat

systems communications equipment and spin out communications sets. i would like to thank the chairman for his leadership and relentless efforts to secure funding. my unavoidable and regrettable no vote is simply due to the incluge of this extraneous amendment. it sets a dangerous precedent by including a nongermane and extraneous measure in a funding bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield three and a half minutes to the gentlelady from california, mrs. davis. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman is recognized for three and a half minutes. mrs. davis: thank you. mr. speaker, i rise in support of h.r. 2647, the national defense authorization act of fiscal year 2010.

as the chairwoman of the military personnel subcommittee, i'm proud to speak for this bill which continues our commitment to our men and women in uniform and their dedicated families. i want to recognize the ranking member on the subcommittee, representative joe wilson, for his support and assistance. mr. speaker, i would also like to recognize the chairman of to recognize the chairman of the house armed services i urge my colleagues to vote for this conference report, as it provides vital support for the armed services during this time of conflict. especially for their families. their families whose face the daily stress and strains of eight years of war. let me highlight a few of the

import programs and policies in the conference report, . the bill provides for a $3347b9% pay raise. it makes mandatory face-to-face mental screening for all returning service members. it helps schools with large enrollments of military children, it provides $30 million for imact aid -- impact aid. it also establishes an office of community forth for military families with special needs. the report expands tricare eligibility when it comes to dental programs and provides tricare for reservists called to duty 180 days before they reactivate.

it also allows reserve retirees and their families to buy into tricare standard coverage and it prohibits an increase in tricare fees for inpatient care for one year. to reduce the strain on our forces, the conference report authorizes an additional end strength increase for the army in 2010 and makes further increases possible. it also sets up program to account for missing persons from conflicts, beginning with world war ii. mr. speaker, we have a moral and constitutional responsibility to ensure that those who volunteer to defend our nation have the training and equipment they need to successfully execute their mission. the bill before us recognizes the sacrifices that those in

uniform, survivors, retirees, and their families are making on behalf of our nation. mr. speaker, before i yield back, i would also like to express my support for the inclusion of language to strengthen our federal hate crime laws in this conference report. hate crimes perpetuate and reinforce historic discrimination and persecution against particular groups. they are committed not simply to harm one particular victim, but to send a message of threat and intimidation to others. left unchecked, crimes of this kind threaten to unravel the very fabric of american society our service -- service members fight to protect. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i'm happy pi to yield to the gentleman from missouri, mr. akin, raking member on the sea power subcommittee for two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. akin: thank you, mr. chairman. the bill before us today is the product of hundreds and hundreds of hours of hearings, all kinds of work by members and staff, and by and large it's a good product tavepls political product. it has tradeoffs here and there, try to balance one requirement against the other. it is once again a reflection of a committee that i have been honored to be able to serve on for nine year a committee that's been largely bipartisan a committee that has focused on solving problems, defending our nation, and supporting our troops. in all of those regards, this bill is fine, except for, there is an elephant in the room. the elephant in the room was an invention of the senate they decided to put on to a bill that is focused on supporting our troops their own liberal social agenda of hate crimes legislation. they claim they have the votes to pass that, so why don't they

pass it somewhere else? instead they put it on the backs of our servicemen and women and expect to use a black mail approach to have -- a blackmail approach to have us, to dare us, to vote against adding something totally extraneous to defense of this nation on the backs of our service people. and a number of us are saying, as much as we support our troops, as much as we support the hard work of this committee, we believe that this is a poison pill. poison -- poisonous enough, in fact, that we refuse to be blackmailed into voting for a piece of social agenda that has no place in this bill. this is the kind of shenanigans that makes the american public irate. this is the kind of thing, like passing 300 pages of amendments at 3:00 in the morning, that makes the public nauseous. i for one, as much as i support our troops, indeed, i even have a son going to afghanistan in three weeks, as much as i

support him and the rest of our troops, i will not allow us to be blackmailed into voting for something totally extraneous on this bill. that's the reason why i will not support the bill. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from missouri. . mr. skelton: i wish to remind my fellow missourian that the united states senate voted for the defense bill with the inclusion of the section that he objects to by 87 votes to 7. a strong bipartisan vote.

i yield three minutes to my friend the chairman of the subcommittee on strategic forces, mr. langevin. mr. langevin: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman is recognized. mr. langevin: i thank the gentleman for yielding. mr. speaker, i rise in strong support of the conference agreement on h.r. 2647, the 2010 national defense authorization act. i'd like to personally thank chairman skelton for his outstanding leadership in bringing this bill to the floor and always looking out for roops as he always has in the course of his career. i also want to recognize the leadership of the ranking member mckeon. i'm proud of the provisions this legislation includes to sustain and modernize our strategic weapons systems. in the area of nuclear weapons, the conference agreement increases funding to stockpile stewardship program by 47.7

million and establishes important new guidelines for nuclear weapons stewardship, including a new stockpile management program. the program clarifies the changes to the u.s. nuclear weapons stockpile must be limited to sustaining current capabilities and requires that any changes use weapons components that can be certified without nuclear testing. regarding ballistic missile defense, this congress has made this program a priority. the conference agreement fully funds the administration's request of $9.3 billion for missile defense programs. it authorizes $1.8 billion for each ballistic missile defense adding $23 million for additional sm-3 missiles and authorizes $1.1 billion for high altitude area defense systems or thad. these amounts reflect an increase in the funding proven systems by $900 million over the f.y. 2009 levels. the bill also authorizes up to $309 million for the recently

announcedure peaian missile defense plan if the secretary of defense certifies that the system is operational effect, and cost-effective in providing protection for europe own anne the ubs united states. further -- and the united states. and it improves ground base vehicle defense system and includes a provision requiring the department to establish a plan to maintain its operational effectiveness of the system over the course of its service life. within the strategic intelligence programs, the conference agreement requires the department of energy to develop a plan to ensure that our national security laboratory tests sufficient funding and technical abilities to monitor, analyze, and evaluate firing nuclear weapons activities and requires the department of defense to assess gaps in u.s. intelligence for foreign ballistic missile programs and prepare a plan to ensure our intelligence centers have -- have sufficient -- have sufficiently addressed these shortfalls. lastly, in addition to our national security priorities, i

am pleased that the federal hate crimes legislation is included in this bill to allow law enforcement to more aggressively pursue individuals who commit violent crimes that are vote vated by a person's religion, disability, or sexual orientation. finally, i urge my colleagues to support this important legislation. i again thank chairman skelton for his outstanding leaderpship on bringing this bill to the floor and shepherding it through the process, it clearly shows that this congress is clearly behind our nation's military and our war fighters. thank you very much. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm happy to yield at this time to our gentleman from indiana, our conference chairman, mike pence, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. pence: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. pence: thank you. i thank the ranking member for yielding. and i thank the ranking member and the distinguished chairman

of this committee for their work on the defense elements of this legislation. but i rise with a heavy heart to express my opposition to the national defense authorization act. because today's vote isn't just all about providing for the national defense. because of actions taken in the united states senate, unrelated, divisive, liberal social policies have been added to this legislation in the form of hate crimes. and for that reason i must oppose it. the majority in this congress and in the senate has included hate crimes provisions in this legislation that have nothing to do with our national defense. and will threaten the very freedoms of speech and freedom of religion that draws the american soldier into the uniform in the first place. thomas jefferson said it best, quote, legislative powers of government should reach actions

only and not opinions. the reality is that by expanding the federal definition of hate crimes as this legislation does, we will generate a chilling effect on religious leaders in this country. pastors, preachers, rabbis, and imam's will now hesitate to speak about the sexual traditions and teachings of their faith for fear of being found culpable under the aiding, abetting, or inducing provisions of current law. and that must not be. it is just simply wrong to use a bill that's designed to support our troops to erode the very freedoms for which they fight. i urge my colleagues to oppose this bill as a result. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to my friend, the member of the committee on the armed service, the gentlelady from guam, ms. bordallo. the speaker pro tempore: one minute. the gentlewoman is recognized for one minute.

ms. bordallo: thank you, mr. speaker. i rise today to express my views on the final conference report on the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2010. i want to thank chairman skelton and ranking member mckeon for working so closely with me on a compromise to h.r. 44, the guam world war ii loyalty recognition act. i also want to thank aaron, paul , dave, aaron, vicki, julie, and andrew. unfortunately i was disappointed that h.r. 44 was not included in the final defense authorization bill, but i'm confident that the commitments made by the house and the senate conferees to hold hearings and readdress war claims in next year's defense bill will be honored and that further debate on this important legislation will bring us closer to finally passing this bill. i again want to thank my colleagues in the house who have been supported, including h.r. 44, speaker pelosi, majority

leader hoyer, congressman larson of our caucus, members across the aisle, and many others. finally, mr. speaker, the conference committee report -- the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady's time has expired. ms. bordallo: for the military buildup. i thank the committee for this. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the chair will note that the gentleman from california has 17 1/2 minutes remaining. and the gentleman from missouri has 12 1/2 minutes remaining. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: thank you, mr. speaker. i'm happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from virginia, to the gentleman from virginia, the republican whip, mr. to gut the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. >> i ask unanimous consent regi-- i salute the gentleman from missouri. today could have been and should have been marked by a bipartisan support for our troops.

instead ed has become something very different. the sole purpose of the department of defense authorization legislation is to authorize funds to ensure a strong national defense, but today it is being used as a vehicle to force a crime legislation through the house. it is with deep regret that i am left with no choice but to oppose it. had this legislation and vote is a political ploy and symbolic of everything that is wrong with washington. those who support the federal criminal station -- federal criminalization of hate crime should consider it solely on its own merit. i believe all americans should be protected from violent crime, and you equally under the law. -- viewed equally under the law. . .

crimes has nothing to do with our national defense. one must really question the priorities of this majority. we must not, should not treat our service men and women as political pawns in their effort to force a social agenda upon the court system and american people. with that, mr. speaker, i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield three minutes to my friend, my colleague, the chairman of the subcommittee on sea power and expeditionary force, the gentleman from mississippi, mr. gentleman from mississippi, mr. taylor. the speaker pro tempore: how much time? mr. skelton: three minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for three minutes. mr. taylor: let me begin by thanking chairman, ranking member for the phenomenal job they have done. let me begin by telling the gentleman from virginia i agree with much of what he said. i also remind the gentleman from virginia that like him i voted to send those young men and

women to iraq and afghanistan. with that vote came my commitment to quip them -- equip them, pay them, take their of their families, to provide them with the very best equipment. the one thing that every american can agree on is we have the world's best army. we have the world's best navy. we have the world's best marine corps. we have the wormed's best air force. this bill keeps it that way. i regret that the other body by a vote with 87-7 puts in language in there that should never be in this bill, but the bottom line is come november sometime between thanksgiving and christmas, i'm going to be visiting at least 7,000 mississippians to the best of my ability trying to see every one of them that i voted to send there. and when i look them in the eye, i want them to know that i voted in support of them over the

reservations of one small part of this bill. the bill does a lot of good things for our navy. pays for seven new ships. the ddd class destroyer, best one in the world. two combat ships. two cargo ships. and virginia class submarine. includes language to see to it that our next generation of carrier with the all important electromagnetic alarm system would have the proper oversight. it includes language to see to it that the combat ship system that up-to-date has been poorly handled will be done better in the future with a 10 ship buy followed by ship buy. the f-18 program. the worrell's best fighter except the f-22 quite frankly a lot more affordable fighter than the f-22. lastly, it includes $6 billion and most important represent wep

in our inventory at the moment, and that is the next generation of mine resistant vehicles. look at the casualty list from afghanistan. almost every casualty is a result of an improvised explosive device on a vehicle that is not mine resistant. the magnificent vehicles that we have built that work so well in iraq, they have saved so many lives in iraq were unfortunately too big and too bulky for the terrain in afghanistan. that's why we have to come up with a second generation vehicle. this bill funds 5,000 of those vehicles that when they were delivered from day one would start saving lives and bring our friends and our family members back home with their limbs. so, mr. speaker, again, like many of you i have very, very, very deep concerns in fact anger over some language that was included in this bill. but that is not enough to keep me from voting for funding. the troops that serve our nation so well give them the equipment they deserve. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from california. mr. mckeon: i'm happy to yield at this time to the gentleman from florida, ranking member on the subcommittee, mr. miller, 1 1/2 minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 1 magnificent 1/2 minutes -- for 1 1/2 minutes. mr. davis: it is with great disappointment and sadness today that i rise to inform my colleagues-that i, too, will be voting against the defense authorization conference report. . the underlying bill does in fact carry a tremendous amount of good things that will help our troops and our armed forces, providing what they need as a war fighter to better face today's security

challenges. we have extended to the secretary of defense the authority to offer rewards to those individuals who provide information and nonlethal support, we incree -- increase the authorization for commands, authority 1208. but this is a big thing to many of us. the hate crimes bill is not at all germane to this piece of legislation. the house passed it as a stand-alone piece of legislation, our authorization bill, i believe, should not be used as a vehicle to forward this controversial and unconventional and what i think unconstitutional piece of legislation that attacks our first amendment rights. the fiscal year 2010 national defense bill started off as a bipartisan bill. unfortunately, it's ended up in an extremely partisan fashion. the outstanding work of this

committee, i think, is being belittled. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield one minute to my friend, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. andrews. member of the armed services committee. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for one minute. mr. andrews: i ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. andrews: there's not a word in this bill that silences a religious voice or a voice of conscience because of the hate crime legislation. but there is in this bill a very important choice that my friend mr. taylor talked about a minute ago. a few years ago we discovered to our horror that when vehicles drove over roadside bombs, the floors of the vehicles were not capable of sthoping explosion from killing the troops inside that problem has manifested itself again in

afghanistan on rugged the rain this bill funds 5,000 vehicles that will protect the lives of the young americans who travel that rough terrain. the choice is not about house procedure or civil rights arguments. the choice is yes or no. for those 5,000 vehicles, for those troops who travel that rough terrain, yes or no. the right vote is yes. the way to honor our commitment is yes. i urge both republicans and democrats to vote yes. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. wilson: i yield myself two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. wilson: this prohibits increases in tricare cost shares, approves the ability of

service members to vote and have their votes counted. as a veteran myself and the father of four sons serving in the military, i know this is an important bill. however it falls short of what should be done on behalf of our military and military families. i am disappointed the report failed to adopt a house provision to a-- provision to allow for receipt of retire pay regardless of disability rating percentage or rating. there are numerous reasons we didn't adopt this pay-for provision, including that the president did not approve it or the senate didn't allow for the offset. these reasons do not justify inaction on this issue. it sends the wrong message that this was kept out of the conference report. it is past time we stop talking about concurrent relief and

indemocratnyity compensation, offset. the tragic widow's tax. it is time for action to do the right thing now, to remove these unfair burdens on widows and disabled military veterans. sadly, billions for cash for clunkers but lack of consideration for widows and disabled veterans. thank you, mr. speaker, i ask to revise my remarks and yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, the gentleman yields back. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield two minutes to my friend, my colleague, a member of the armed services committee, the gentleman from georgia, mr. marshall. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. marshall: thank you, mr. chairman, thank you, mr. speaker. i want to second what the gentleman from new jersey said a minute ago. i'm not going to get into the details of the armed services authorization part of this

bill, except to simply say that we do an awful lot of very important good things for our soldiers and their families and for the defense of this country in this bill. it would take an awful lot, an awful lot for me to vote against the bill because something that's nongermane has been included in the bill. now i did vote to keep hate crimes out of the bill. that didn't work. i can't tell you how often in this chamber i've had to vote on bills that included things i didn't want in the bill. it is rare that we have a bill, a large bill that doesn't include all kinds of things i would prefer to not be in the bill. but there is something that i think is very important to point out about the hate crimes legislation that is in the bill. it's language that was added by senator sam brownback on the senate side and it is language

which addresses the principal concerns i hear from my constituents about hate crimes legislation. my constituents don't mind putting people in jail for being violent with other folks. they don't have a problem with that at all. they don't have a problem with increasing sentences. not one whit. the longer the better. you're a criminal uric do the time. as far as my folks are concerned, you can do more time. the worry was that somehow the right of individuals, of pastors and others to criticize behavior, talk about sin, that somehow that right would be infringed, that free speech would be chilled. i have to thank senator brownback because in the bill we have language which takes care of that issue. on page -- pages 1366 and 1367 of the bill, and i'm going to read some of that language so

folks who are watching and listening to this -- i may not have time to do it. mr. skelton: i yield the gentleman an additional minute. mr. marshall: nothing in this bill shall be construed to limit the rights under the first amendment of the constitution of the united states. nor should they be construed in a manner that substantially burdens a person's religion, regardless of whether compelled by a system of religious belief, speech or association, unless the government indicates that it is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling interest as

long as the speech was not meant to incite physical violence my folks don't bant people planning and preparing for physical violence or inciting physical violence against other folks. they want people to be free to criticize, argue, speak, don kem -- condemn sin. i think senator brownback hit it exactly right. thank you, plb. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. wilson: i yield to the gentleman from ohio, mr. turner, the former mayor of dayton, ohio. two minutes. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. turner: i would like to thank chairman skelton and ranking member mckeon for their leadership and steadfast concern for the men and women in uniform. in uniform. the conference report retains a the employees to deport includes a provision which makes it clear that the treaty should not

include limitations on missile defense or danced conventional -- advanced conventional items. we must further enable stockpile reductions. the presence cut of $1.2 billion to of a missile defense system -- these cuts come despite the exhibition iran in the nuclear weapons programs in another area. open the door to an alternative only if the secretary of defense says it is cost-effective and operationally available with the czech and polish based systems. a still expect the it ministration to address this. i am pleased to report an increase in 20 million to

sustain certain items. r the industrial base. another area, i'm concerned this report does not include the house-passed language protecting child custody arrangements for service members. i want to thank k45eur78 skelton for his bipartisan support on this issue thism language i offered has been consistently oppose tpwhidsneath -- senate and department of defense, though it's been passed by the house four times. it includes a study to be undertaken in march of 2010, studying this issue is and waiting is not a strategy to solve this problem. our men and women in uniform serve in a federal military and deserve federal action on this issue. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has been -- has expired. the gentleman from most. mr. skelton: may i inquire as

to the time remaining? the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri has 5 1/2 minutes remaining, the gentleman in from north carolina has 11 minutes remaining. mr. skelton: thank you. i yield one minute to my friend, the gentleman from new york mr. nadler:. mr. nadler: this legislation will finally enact the local law enforcement hate crimes prevention act, a historic, albeit long overdue, accomplishment. i am concerned about the section dealing with military commissions. president obama's goal which i share is a system which is fair, legitimate, and effective. we have that in the military code of justice and article three courts. we should use these and stop

insisting on a military commission system. given the act of 2006 which allows for the admission of statements obtained through the use of cruel, degrading and inhumane torture techniques, we should limb this bill. taking greater account into the need for defense council resource, these changes do not go far enough and additional changes suggested by the judiciary committee and the prohibition on the trial -- of trial soldiers by military commission should have been adopted. nevertheless, i support the imprumpletes made by this conference report with the hope we can make further improvements in the future. i urge my colleagues to support this and i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina. mr. wilson: i yield two minutes to congressman whitman who represents the historic first district of virginia. the speaker pro tempore: the

gentleman is recognized for two minutes. mr. wittman: thank you, i rise today to speak on a conference report h.r. 2647, the national defense authorization act. the members of the house armed services committee are dedicated to supporting our service members and their families and this includes a raise in military pair and improvements in military care. it strengthens our presence on the high seas and we must continue to promote the industrial base and establish a floor, not a ceiling, of 316 ships in the navy. i remain troubled by the absence of a 30-year shipbuilding plan and a 30-year aviation plan. without these, critical perspective is lost. it provides for the number of carriers to dip below 11. maintain 1g1 aircraft carriers is esen torble maintaining long-term naval superiority.

the strategic risk we accept is also of particular importance as we consider strategic threats urgently facing our country today, it is troubling the bill reduces missile defense fund big $1.2 billion. this bill also includes $46 million for channel dredging and naval station in florida. it is fiscally irresponsible on dredging and me pre-pairing for a nuclear aircraft carrier, prior to the conclusion of the quadrenall defense review. the senate also provided hate crimes. proponents are using this national security bill to get the legislation to the president's desk through the back door. a tactic we have seen repeated in the last nine months this bill is about national security, not social legislation. 20 use the circumstances of our sons and daughters in harm's way to legislate on social issues is unconscionable. we should not use a bill in support of our service members

to support other legislation. i urge my colleagues to work toward a better alternative. i'd like to thank my colleagues, ranking member mckeon and chairman skelton, for those in favor say aye work in bringing this bill to the floor but we can do better and we must. i yield back my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i yield a minute and a half to the chairman of the oversight and fwoft reform, the gentleman from -- government reform, the gentleman from new york, mr. towns. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized for 90 seconds. mr. towns: thank you very much, chairman skelton. i rise in support of the conference agreement on the national defense authorization act of f.y. 2010. title 19 of the bill makes important updates to the retirement system for federal employees. these changes will improve the retirement systems effectiveness as a recruiting

and management tool. as -- at a time when we need to attract the best and brightest of the federal work force. the reform eliminates inconsistencyies in the way part-time -- inconsistencies in the way that part-time hour is used in calculating retirement benefits. it helps civilian workers, at the department of defense, the largest employer in the federal government. i also support the repeal of the national security personnel system. this system implemented by d.o.d. has been a near total failure, and i support making a fresh start. i also support the report's continued funding for programs at historically black colleges and universities and minority serving institutions to ensure that students are trained to meet our nation's defense

research and technological needs. i thank chairman skelton and the other conferees for their support, and i urge all members to support this conference report. and, again, i want to thank all the staff members who made this possible. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman's time has expired. the gentleman from south carolina. willie nelson mr. speaker, i yield one minute -- mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to the gentleman from texas, mr. gohmert. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. gohmert: we are at war. this is deadly serious. our troops need support, and having been at the arming at fort bening when we were cut in the late 1970's, i am very sensitive of that. we should stand up and fight for their freedom as well. bringing a hate crimes bill that is based on two false premises and putting it on the backs of our soldiers is wrong.

it should not be done. we've heard from a majority member that if we vote this down, the hate crimes will be pulled off and then we can vote for the pay raise that these people justly deserve. there is no escalation in hate crime numbers. the f.b.i. statistics show they will be continually going down. this would not change the outcome of the matthew shepard case. they got life. the maximum years life. in the james bird case, the two cullprits got life. all -- culprits got life. this is based on false assumptions. it should not be added to our soldiers' backs. let's get a clean bill. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, i reserve my time at this point. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves. the gentleman from south carolina. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i yield one minute to mr. burton of indiana. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from indiana is recognized for one minute.

mr. burton: mr. speaker, we all support our troops. i don't think anybody doubts that. so why are we adding a hate crimes amendment to this bill? why are we doing social engineers on the backs of our troops on a defense bill? i think it's being done for political purposes. i think that there are people on the other side that want to put republicans in a political trick bag in the next election, and i think that's very unfortunate. what we should be doing right now is worrying about the defense of this nation and the men and women that are fighting in afghanistan today and iraq. we should not be doing social engineerings on this bill. it's just wrong. and i think it's being done for political purposes, and i just say to my colleagues on the other side who are doing it, shame on you. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: i continue to reserve my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina.

mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i respectfully reserve my time on behalf of the republican leader who shall be here shortly. the speaker pro tempore: is the gentleman from missouri ready to close? mr. skelton: i am not. the majority leader will be with us momentarily. mr. speaker, i yield one minute to my friend, my colleague, the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from maryland, mr. hoyer. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. hoyer: i thank the chairman for yielding. i thank the ranking member for his leadership. and i want to say particularly as i start that the

distinguished chairman of this committee does america a great service. this is a critical bill for our nation, for our men and women in uniform. and there is no greater advocate of america's readiness or the quality of life of our serviceperson ell than the gentleman from missouri, -- service personnel than the gentleman from missouri, mr. skelton, and i want to thank him for his leadership. mr. speaker, i rise to support the conference report on this vital bill for fiscal year 2010 which takes important steps to enhance our military readiness, our national security and the well-being of our military families. and i might add, our federal employees, our civilian personnel as well. i particularly want to thank chairman skelton of the armed services committee and their

staff for their months of hard work to bring this legislation close to enactment. i know to the staff this has been tough. the conference was tough. and the conference report authorizes $550.2 billion for the department of defense and the national security programs at the department of energy. as well as $130 billion for overseas contingency operations. it is a serious response to the real, immediate and rapidly changing threats our nation and our troops face. among its most important provisions are those that help to rebuild our armed forces which are worn down after years of war. it provides $11 billion and $2 billion to reequip the army and marine corps respectively. as well as to meet equipment

shortfalls in the national guard and reserve. in line with president obama's request, it also adds an additional 30,000 troops to the army, 14,650 to the air force, 8,100 to the marines, and 2,477 to the navy. i believe these are critical provisions. we are asking our men and women to serve long tours at great risk. risk. the tr if we do not increase our forces, who not be able to give the proper rest that our troops need. i congratulate the committee for attending to that issue. it authorizes 30,000 more troops in 2011 and 2012. we have made the proper decision to confront those that would

cost us risk -- caused us risk. -- cause us risk. it cost millions to construct new army barracks in attitudes to the national reserves. this orients of our country in the direction of a new national security strategy put forward by the administration which includes redeployment to iraq and to help with the stability of afghanistan and pakistan. i have other matters that i could speak to, i think everyone on this floor knows the importance of this bill.

i know i have one of the supporters with me on the floor who is the ranking republican on the appropriations subcommittee. i want to thank him for his lea. i want to thank him for his leadership. he and mr. skelton have been here and mr. young has been here, ike, longer than either one. it's appropriate that he's on the floor as we consider this appropriate bill. in closing, mr. speaker, i would urge every member in this house to support our troops, to support this bill which supports our troops, supports this bill which authorizes the funds necessary to respond to the needs and the policies of the united states of america.

in protecting our citizens and our homeland from those who would undermine our security and safety, who would attack our property and persons, that's what this bill is about. this bill has many items in it. some more controversial than others. but at heart this bill is about our troops, about america's security. and i would hope and urge every one of my colleagues when the roll is called to vote aye on this critically important bill for the security of the united states of america. mr. skelton, i congratulate you for your leadership. you are one of america's great patriots and leaders. i am proud to be your colleague. i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from south carolina.

mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i reserve the balance of my time for mr. boehner of ohio, the republican leader, when he arrives. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: does the gentleman from south carolina have any additional speakers? mr. wilson: mr. chairman, we are reserving our full time for the republican leader, mr. boehner, as soon as he arrives. mr. skelton: i'm prepared to close, mr. speaker, after the gentleman from ohio speaks. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman reserves the balance of his time. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, as we

close on the -- indeed, this is such an important bill for the military of our country. and as has been indicated by so many of my colleagues, with the highest regard that we have for the chairman of the house armed services committee, there is great distress over the additional language that should not have been added to this bill. and i at this time will yield the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back his time. the gentleman from missouri. mr. skelton: mr. speaker, in a mind's eye, picture a young army corporal preparing to

drive down a road in his security vehicle to help in an ongoing firefight in the mountains of afghanistan. picture in your mind this young corporal dressed in the army fatigue uniform, and m-1682 standard issue rifle in his hand, with bullets made in america for that m-16a2.

he is in the latest security vehicle provided by the united states army. that m-16a2 rifle was furnished by the congress of the united states. the ammunition for that rifle was furnished by the congress of the united states. the body armor on that soldier was funnished by the congress of the united states. and the vehicle in which he rides that security vehicle, was furnished by the congress of the united states. as this young soldier, this

young corporal goes down the road, look at that soldier and answer the question, did you vote to support me as a >> up next, weekly briefings from nancy pelosi and john paintboehner. in remarks after receiving the human rights award. president obama speech at the dinner. live coverage tonight at 7:50 p.m. eastern on c-span.

sunday on "newsmakers" the debate about health care legislation and prospects for a public option. >> five committees have reported on health care. for heavy public corruption. one does not. you would think the weight would become of having a public corruption in the bill. that is where it is. -- public option in the bill. that is where it is. close to 53 democrats in the some -- in the senate support a public auction. i think the burden is on those who are opposed to it to say why they should not have one when the majority of people and democrats are in favor of it.

the bill we sent to the president will have a public auction. make no mistake about it. it -- will have a public auctoption. make no mistake about it. >> that is sunday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. house democrats have sent legislation to the congressional budget office including three different versions of o the versions of -- of the so- called public option. she will speak for about 20 minutes. >> good morning. look what we have here.

monday is the 11th anniversary of the murder of matthew shepherd. we want in the same week of that tragic event which caught the public's attention to people acting upon their hatred in a violent way. it is pretty exciting. hate crimes legislation was one of the items on my agenda several years ago. little did i know it would be a generation later that he would work with so many people on this front. the fico will be the defense authorization bill. -- the bill will be the defense authorization bill.

we come from around the curves. we are not in the stretch yet. we are coming around the curve. we have had hundreds of hours of meetings and caucus and other groups we are sending to the cbo our legislation for accessible health care for all americans. it is very exciting. what we will do is -- i think it is very clear from cover conversation with the members that the votes are there for a public option. what i sent to the cbo will have a number of versions. one will be the robust public option. then there will be two versions that have negotiated rates that

some have gotten support for. then we will see back from the cbo would the scoring is on all of that. we have promised not a dime to the deficit. that is our promise. the president will not sign a bill that at a dime to the budget deficit. we took to pass legislation in a short time. the discrimination for pre- existing conditions