i did four books on president bush and his wars. i had the luxury to spend a year or to getting documentation, getting memos, beginning minute notes that would describe exactly what wentn. for three of those books, bush allowed me to come and interview him for hours about what he did and how he made theseecisions. i think it kind of got lost. some not my fault. the extent to which he and knowledge to, particularly in the last two years, the extent to which he became disengaged from the presidency. let me just give you an example. and we published it in the post and in the last bush book cause it shows something and i think it applies or may apply to the presidency in general and at is the fatigue factor. you'd just get tired. when i interviewed bh for the last book, the big question was how did you decide on sending 30,000 troops with the rge in iraq? it was kind of the key strategic decision he made in the last two years on the iraq war. his national security advir intervened, a very self effacing man, very unusual for him to inter

bush's cooperation there but in 2004, the bush administration ordered fannie mae and freddie mac to increase the number of mortgages they bought for people below the median income. at the time, i said i thought that was a mistake, wrong for the people being pushed into this, wrong for fannie mae and freddie mac. in 2003, i didn't think fannie mae and freddie mac needed change but george bush converted me. he converted me when he sent them much too deeply, by his decision, into more subprime mortgages. i thought it was better to use them for affordable rental housing. once that happened, i joined many oxley in 2005 in an effort to pass the billism supported a bill that passed in the houseful we'll hear from some republican members who say nothing was done. you know what their problem was, madam speaker? they couldn't get the support of their own republicans, the republican leadership of the financial services committee today, the republican leadership of the house today, join police department oxley -- to join mr. oxley. the bill which passed the house in 20 which i voted against, not because

as for george bush, jr., he was a thumb tack president. his father put him into office and his father's cronies' ran it. host: what do you think the president obama should do now? caller: well, what can he do? the corruption is so imbedded. george bush, a senior was involved with bringing drugs into the country. he was accused of it and then they all watched it to. the nixon administration -- the public outcry against nixon got him to resign. there is no more public outcry. the american people have become so blase. the corruption is so entrenched that the idiot from texas who apologized to bp -- that is how far it is. host: next, looking at what is going on in congress and some

bush authorized waivers. he got a lot of criticism but that is because he allowed other ships coming in. you probably heard of saddam hussein. the leadership of saudi arabia, they were smarter because they brought in ships with skimmers throughout the world. you need tt do a story of what they did compared to what we are doing. i agree with the independent caller who talked about the minions whooare paid. do you know how much money british petroleum gave to barack obama? host: can you tell us how much? caller: it was about $1 million. that was about his biggest contribution. host: where do you get that information? where can folks find that information? caller: just check it out. host: thank you for the reminder about the story about afghanistan. u.s. begins to tap d in the gulf spill. the .s. has submitted its second request to the european union for specializzd equipment to contain the oil seeping into the gulf of mexico. they accepted the canadiaa offer of 9,480 feet of bone. they are soliciting bom and ot

bush. host: are you concerned about the new congressional report concerning money funneled to afghan warlord stocks caller: no, there probably is something going on. but the president has a strategy to find osama bin laden. he will either find him, or host: not ok, chucnot. host: chuck, what do you think? caller: frankly, i on't think it is the problem in afghanistan. the fact is afghanistan produces some 85% of the global heroin. they have years' worth of harvests and we're finding heroin in these cases. they run up into the eurasian markets and russia. a son of a leader is seeking refuge in london. we have native troops who are obviously participating in the drug traffic there. host: this paper reports in all $14 billion in local contracts were reported. the host nation contract which is roughly 70% of all goods and materials sent to the u.s. troops through aid contractors. one of the largest was founded in 2005 by the son of afghanistan's defense minister. crystal river, fla., on the ind

thrive, to help all americans to flourish -- bush, reagan, and clinton, and bush ii.it is about the execution of policies. host: here is a story about the tea party. one not recall them now? putting their efforts and to getting a bunch of senators recalled the in a half a dozen states. do you agree? guest: i don't think it is very productive. it is trying to accelerate what would happen in the electorial process. there is no evidence that it leads to terrific outcomes. we have a well-organized system in which people vote regularly. people who want change should focus on that. host: the last phone call for arthur brooks from san bernardino, california. caller: there is a problem with cause and effect, the result of why these things happen. i'm glad the argument has been changed from free-market and no regulation to now we need recognition that we need some regulation. host: your final thoughts? guest: thankfully, there have not been any economists who say to just get rid of all government, regulations. the conversation always moves back and forth. the idea that a free

so i turned to bush. here's what bush said. ok, i don't know that. w.t.f. moment two. and then he said, i'm not at those meetings you'll be happy to hear. i was just delighted. why should the president bother himself. and right from the transcript, i got other things to do. >> ride the bike. >> right out of his own mouth is an acknowledgement that he disengaged from the presidency. and it's kind of -- i think people didn't want to deal with it. i think people -- he was going out of office. he was leaving. but when i interviewed him, he had seven months more in the office, in the oval office i kept looking around his chair to see if he had a suitcase packed. because he was out of there. and i'm trying to connect this to the point that there are lots of ways to find out what really went on, and this is out of the president's own mouth, people went and said was this a concession? and to a certain extent it was. >> i think -- it was very revealing about bush. but i think in answer to a really important question that you just raised, what happens when the knowledge is out t

i did four books on president bush and his wars.to getting documentation, getting memos, beginning minute notes that would describe exactly what went on. for three of those books, bush allowed me to come and interview him for hours about what he did and how he made these decisions. i think it kind of got lost. some not my fault. the extent to which he and knowledge to, particularly in the last two years, the extent to which he became disengaged from the presidency. let me just give you an example. and we published it in the post and in the last bush book because it shows something and i think it applies or may apply to the presidency in general and that is the fatigue factor. you'd just get tired. when i interviewed bush for the last book, the big question was how did you decide on sending 30,000 troops with the surge in iraq? it was kind of the key strategic decision he made in the last two years on the iraq war. his national security adviser intervened, a very self effacing man, very unusual for him to intervene, he said that was

bush, a few weeks after katrina.s that speech reflective of his president, the way he handled crises? guest: this was already on solidified impression that he was not doing enough. this was not a bad speech, but it was nowhere near enough to erase the impression that as kanye west said, george bush does not care about black people, who were the primary victims of the katrina disaster. host: one thing the president has to do it is multitask in deal with many things on different fronts. can you tell how crisis looms large and our president has to deal with may be happening in that intense moment, but also dealing with all the other things on his plate? guest: republicans have attacked him, saying the bp disaster happened and you went to a fund raiser. presidents have to think -- what will it look like if i keep doing political things? i think back to the iran hostage crisis when jimmy carter, for example, said, i am not leaving the white house. it was called the rose garden strategy. he refused to campaign against ted

we look at george bush, president bush, we see that he left a $3.5 trillion deficit. and that didn't begin to turn until president clinton turned those deficits into a $5.6 trillion surplus. what was left to us when we came in the door in the 111th congress was nearly a $12 trillion deficit. by two undeclared, unfunded wars two. tax cuts to the wealthiest americans who could fford to pppay and pay their fair hare and a prescription drug plan that left huge holes, doughnut holes for ur eniors who couldn't afford to pay for prescription drugs. these are the facts. like joe friday used to say,le on the facts, please, ma'am. right now, we're trying to set the facts straight. my colleagues are appropriate in pointing out these efficiencies -- these deficiencies in the arguments by our colleagues on the other side. mr. murphy: -- mr. ryan: i represent a district that is sttong in manufacturing. we've seen in the last couple of months a couple of point decrease in the unemployment rate. + still way too high. but this stimulus plan is coming down the pike, it is helped in so

he was a huge critic of president bush. he was against the iraq war and he gave some of his most passionate speeches in recent years against the iraq war. i don't know how deep his relations it has been with barack obama because, frankly, he has been fairly removed from the senate and fairly ill the last year and a half. remember, but when all the way back, he challenged the -- going all the way back, he challenged ted kennedy for leader and he beat ted kennedy for senate leader in the early 1970's and that put him on a different path. host: two things you report in your story that are pretty well known. at least one of them, he would carry a u.s. constitution, a pocket competition. guest: it might seem a quaint to those of us who are on twitter and facebook and on the internet all day, but he carried a pocket constitution and to he would " from it. he said, you know what, this is all i will need iff-- this is all i need. but he was much more intellectual. he could go to the senate floor and in a speech, and he would " cari

bush. bush.

bush's decision to use u.s.itary forces to liberate kuwait was a critical step not only in and of itself but also in establishing that the united states would be decisively engaged in the post- cold war wor, not a new world order as it turnedut . i think he established the importance \ pnciple to.. that we would not stand back and step aside as adversaries of hours took actions that undercut the stability of a given region and threatens our own security. i think desert storm was a pretty important even. we are coming up on the 20th anniversary in january. i think president bush got it exactly right and i am glad he did. host: onmore call, ceballos, on our independent ne. caller: good morning to you both. this is more along the lines of intelligence. a couple of hours ago i received two cas on my cell phone from arab-sounding gentleman. ey left messages on the voiceml. as just a private average citizen, i don') know any arabs. i could not understand what they were saying. with the wiretapping situatn should be co

i did four books on president bush and his wars. the luxury to spend a year or to getting documentation, getting memos, beginning minute notes that would describe exactly what went on. for three of those books, bush allowed me to come and interview him for hours about what he did and how he made these decisions. i think it kind of got lost. some not my fault. the extent to which he and knowledge to, particularly in the last two years, the extent to which he became disengad from the presidency. let me just give you an example. and we published it in the post anin the last bush book because it shows something and i think it applies or may apply to the presidency in general and that is the fatigue factor. you'd just get tired. when i interviewed bush for the last book, the big question was how did you decide on sending 30,000 troops with the surge in iraq? it was kind of the key strategic decision he made in the last two years on the iraq war. his national security adviser intervened, a very self effacing man, very unusual for him to i

so here's what happened in the red during the bush administration. and as you can see we were going along pretty well until the recession began going into 2008 and then, of course, taking a very big dip right before i and mr. tonko took office. that was november, december of 2008. and then you can see what happened after we passed the recovery act back here in march of 2009 and the numbers continue to steadily go up. and here we are in april of 2010 and we're getting almost back up to where we were in the early -- well, about four years ago, actually. so great news in terms of the retail sales on the rebound. great news on the consumer confidence going up. great news on the manufacturing. of course, we want even better news. we want to continue to work on this economy, help businesses create jobs, and we're providing, as mr. tonko said, so many of the roadblocks -- the road maps -- not the roadblocks -- the road maps we need to create jobs. whether we're talking in clean energy, whether we're talking broadband, we're we're talking health care. we nee

wh if the constitution says the supreme court decides who's president in bush verses gore?>> the constitution ys the judicial you her will be held by a supreme court and the judicial power resolved disputes and that was a dispute. there's no question under the constitution the supreme court could exercise the authority and the other branches recognize it even the their unhappy. certainlyome although i'd say probably half the member of congress were unhappy they decide to intervene. perhaps the other with this were pleased. >> in his column the bush and do you think anyone will ask that question? guest: iraqi think i think it . i don't think you'll hear republican senators recite it and ion't think she'll say much about it other than the fact that the court issueed the decision and it stressed that it was limited the facts at and that happen to be that election as apposed to spreading a broader constitution. >> christian scientist monitor this month or week asked should the court look more like america? as a long article on whether or not the courthould hook more like americ

bush. that's a republican administration. >> we heard a lot of criticism of the justice department during george bush's administration. have we heard any positive things about the fact that inside that justice department, jack abramoff and the rest of these people we've been talking about were prosecuted? and iffso, if we haven't heard it, why not? >> i think to be honest, i have to say that it's a mixed bag in terms of the prosecution. there was an attempt to go after this influence pedaling, but i'm not sure they did the world's best job. i know alberto gonzalez of bob ney told me a very funny story about how he was in prison when they were broadcasting the hearings of alberto gonzalez bragging bought how he put bob ney in jail. it's true, bob ney is a republican congressman and he's in jail, but i'm not sure that the department of justice really got to the bottom of the abramoff scandal. i should say got to the top of the abramoff scandal. at the same time, the department of justice is a

the bush should ministration and congress back in 2006 -- the bush administration and congress passed a bill intended to improve the status of pension plans. they wanted to make sure they got to fully funded status over seven years so if there were distresses with the corporate parent that there were negative implicationn on pensions or burdens on taxpayers. the problem is we have the more recent economic doonturn in the markets. they have deteriorated substantially. companies have come back to congress and said they cannot this environment. otherwise we will have to close plants, cut jobs, etc. please allow was some more latitude to not make those more stringen obligations.3 down the road. the economy turns around and trust us to make good. host: we have an e-mail rom san diego. our e-mail is journal@cspan.org. "the entire narrative of how this happened it is a cautionary tale of nearly epic proportions." guest: it really is. another way to look at this is if you go to an insurance company and get an annuity, it is essentially the same thing that the pension is promising, a fixed inc

in the bush administration.e have had these conflicts of interest in these major regulatory agencies for decades and decades and decades. and presidents don't want to deal with it, and certainly congeds -- there's a lot of money rolling through the system and it's going going -- it's only going to get worries. -- get worse. host: does that get to your second point in your piece, saving millions by -- guest: well, i tell you, when you talk to the federal employees who are really on the front lines, what they tell us in the annual surveys is that they can't get their voices heard on the way to the top. there are so many bottle necks. and that really undermines the ability to hold anyone accountible for what goes right or wrong the department is accountible. can't hold the managers accountible. if we can get rid of the -- the federal employees say they lack in terms of getting the job done. not enough employees on the front line to enforce the lines. for example,. not you have this is a very woe fle, then that's th

this is not a bush policy or an obama policy. it has been a consistent policy that we do not talk to terrorist groups or organizations. when i was in iraq we talked to anyone who would ttlk to us and we did not worry about labels. the influence we were able to bring was a big help in winding down the insurgency. i would like to see us be more creative not just in iraq but in lebanon and elsewhere in the world. host: so you're ok with us talking with the taliban. guest: i am ok with it. it does not mean confering recognition or anything else anymore than it meant talkkng with insurgent elements in barairaq. host: there is a story about rhee integrating some former detainees as the headline risky experience that they consider redeemable. do you think it is a good idea? guest: we have to be adaptable in these battles situations. again, the individuals who are coordinating the effort in afghanissan, general mcchrystal, has been at this a long, long time with great success in afghanistan and iraq. general petraeus has been with me for

and president bush, he was very late in katrina.ut the minute he got the 82nd airborneein there, i felt better about it. i felt that there was command and structure there. i do not feel that that is the case here. this is not about democrat, republican, conservative or liberal. this is about human suffering in america. the media, you have to talk to the president for those people. host: you can talk to him in washington through this show. caller: great. i will say at one time. mr. president, we are looking for command and control. for you to say that i am on this. here is what is going to happen. i do not want to hear about blue-ribbon panels or something. some noble laureate. i want to know how you have your hand on this thing. thank you. host: all right. thank you. maine, mark. good morning. calllr: i think that the president did a fine job last night. ultimately this has to be a turning point. a pivotal moment when we really decide how to solve these kinds of problems in a much larger way. i do not know that it will work, but i d

bush. politico op ed, bill, the tax extenders bill we talked about earlier sends the wrong message to our innovaters in the fine print of the $110 million tax the bill due to come before the senate is an obscure provision. it would do three things, turn face on the tax extenders and further stall the country's economic recovery and if passed it would single out more than 1.5 million business partnerships. mainly those who invest in realize for punitive and discriminatory tax treatment. >> he's talk about the private equity firms that basically provide the capital to grow businesses. i agree with professor hubard. i think this is a terrible idea. this really does it go after the sub chapteresque corporations and basically now they have to pay in addition to their business taxes, they have to pay income taxes. we, unlike any other country have an entrepreneurial culture. it's like in our d.n.a. that we go our economy by americans throughout the country starting businesses. you're not going to

bush's fault. how do you do that, because that certainly was the most spectacular climate change i have ever seen in my life. but we all know in texas we have those climate changes all year long. is that the republicans' fault? god, where was george bush in 1964 s&p i think attending high school. what do you think, mr. gohmert. mr. gohmert: former george w. bush must have had an awful lot of activity to have that kind of effect on global warming back then. i find it interesting because i know my friend recalls seeing the articles as i did. in fact, i recall in college being told that we we were probably at the very beginning, some said we were at the early stages of a new ice age that would end the world and all people in the world with ice. well, i just didn't believe it, because as a christian, the bible doesn't teach with the world ending with an ice age. i knew that couldn't be right but people are saying, this is the beginning of an ice age. global cooling and ultimately going to have the whol

well, the certain -- the bush administration certainly saved us from that lternative. they acknowledged in the "wall street journal" this month that that policy helped wipe out the surplus and led to higher interest rates. that is the kind of honesty we all need to show if we want to head off a crisis. and slowly but surely, that honesty is spreading to congress. this month, senator george voinovich candidly so that republicans cannot sign norquist's anti-tax pledge and take on the debt at the same time. that was not a democrat. that is the steny hoyer. that was senator george voinovich of ohio. interestingly enough, what do governors have to do? they have to make real decisions because their decisions have senator voinovich was absolutely correct. that pledge is inconsistent with the oath of office that they took when they became members of the united states senate. that is what george voinovich concluded and i agree with him. and it is becauseei take my own oath so seriously that i take our common danger so seriously so i want to end with this image. there two clocks

bush -- president bush wasn't alone in that. then in 2007, the democrat tax power and we passed a bill for the first time in this house to regulate fannie mae and fred tee p.a.c. secretary paulsen said it didn't go as far as he'd like but it was a good bill. fannie mae and freddie mac were put into conservatorship. they were the first major institutions to be reformed. we also in this house passed a bill to control subprime lending. the gentleman from alabama had been the chairman of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over subprime lending in those republican years and never produced a bill. he said it was our fault because he wrote a letter, myself, mr. miller of north carolina and we didn't tell him we'd vote for im. i wish i could have it back. i wish i knew i was secretely in charge of the republican agenda. i wish i knew they wouldn't do anything unless i said they could but nobody told me. where were they when i needed thome to be more powerful. the republicans never checked with me as to what they were supposed to do. it'

bush th hereat tas a. the 43rd president wi wch was ishing hisibrary i dallas. tw seraterests er hoolwoferent ies. halhost: demoatic caller, nex y mbing the ddlest aarted ts staginofus in sa ara

the ttarp was actually a bush administration proposal.nd the obama administration and the president continued it because, as we agree, if something was not done, we would have had a -- we have a catastrophe in my view that is twice as bad. one place where we disagree which is worth noting is that as part of the tarp, the government bailed out the oil industry. it said the auto industry from going down the tubes. i think this is an unheralded accomplishments. general motors is selling cars again. it is profitable. instead of closing all its factories or nearly all of its factories and, incidentally, causing the suppliers to go out of business which would have damaged ford and the japanese transplant companies as well, we now have a reinvigorated u.s. auto industry because the government intervened and let the money when they needed it and forced a restructuring that would definitely needed. it is an example of government helping business. and helping a the economy. host: let's go to the republican line, last call, good morning. caller: tha

this is not tte bush policy or an obama policy. policy.been a consistent u.s.%- we do not talk to terrorist organizations and groups. when i was in iraq, we went beyond that. we talked to anyone who would talk to us. we did not worry about labels. that ability to engage and what we learned through the engagement, the influence we were able to bring as a result help in winding down the iraqi insurgency. i would like to see as the are created not just -- i would like to see us be more creative. host: you are ok with the idea of just talking with thee taliban? guest: i am very much ok with it. it does not mean we are making concessions or conferring recognition or anything else anymore than it did when we spoke to insurgents in iraq. you cannot really affect your adversaries thinking and you cannot build up your own knowledge base about your adversaries if you are existing in total isolation. host: there is a story in "the pashington post" about real integrating the detainees. he once considered redeemable are sent back home. do you t

some say they're similar to the bush policies. is it because of robert gates has stayed on in his role? guest: the president chooses all these people. it is not hyperbolic to say some money buuh administration policies have been pursued by this administration. the executive director of the aclu said a few days ago that the obama administration policies, in terms of civil liberties "disgusted him." i think that tells us how far removed from the hopes of from the bush administration host: yet this comment by twitter says that progressives have to grin and bear it. guest: well, two bowls -- we as progressives, and there are so many of us around the country, can do the equivalent of walk and chew gum at the same time. it comes down to november, and we are given a practical choice between extreme right-wing republicans, and we saw what the reagan and bush err did to our country. that in no way should prevent us from fighting for the soul of the democratic party. in its own way, thht is a bill that bill halter ran against blanche linnol

bush. the numbers are stark. every solution they try to come up with is about giving more tax breaks to the wealthiest americans and taking the stripes off the referee. this is not theance. we need to come -- the answer. we need to come together as a country to address this, but the facts are presented there%%. that's why it is so important we have to invest in the greatest asset in our country, that's the people. by investing in the recovery act, retraining workerss because some of these trade dealsshave been good for the ports of galveston and california and port of new york but haven't been good for the midwest. congressman schultz and i understand that by reinvesting in our work force, helping those workers transitionnfrom manufacturing jobs that have left is very important to me. while i'm encouraged we have seen 10 consecutive months of manufacturing increase in our country, we have got to be the producers of wealth in this nation, not swrust the movers of wealth. i'm happy to report that small businesses i

bush's more conservative nominees to a vote. the republicans were threatening with a call the nuclear option, essentially a very aggressive parliamentary move to end the filibusters of judicial nominees. now the situation has the issue of your foot. it is the republicans now who would have the power to filibuster. the deal was it would be only an extraordinary circumstances that judges were out of the mainstream that a filibuster would be allowed. you did not even here is senator tom coburn, one of the more conservative, saying that yesterday. the odds of a filibuster nominee are small. host: as tributes continue for the passing of senator robert byrd who died yesterday morning and a hospital, the political equation is what impact it has on the financial regulatory overhaul bill. they moved through the conference process last week. will it come before the house and senate process this week? guest: it appears to be on course for the house towards the end of the week. when i left last night we thought the odds seemed a little long

we were told that george bush spent too much money, president bush. mr. broun: and he did. mr. akin: he did and in fact we voted no on some of what he wanted to spend money on. but his worst budget was when speaker pelosi was in charge of this congress right here. his worst deficit, $459 billion in deficit that year. not proud of that people said bush spent too much money. here we come to the very first year of president obama and it's $1.4 trillion. three times the worst bush deficit. so if you had that followed by an even bigger deficit this year, yet unemployment at 9%, would you, if you were one of the democrats, want to pass a budget right now? i think they're running for cover. we have an expression in missouri, it's called hunker down. hunkee down like a toad in a hailstorm. it seems to me if i had anything to do with that level of deficit spending, i'd be hunkered down -- in fact, i think i would have resigned and gone to try to do something else with my time because this is totally destructive to our country. and we raised the country, is the objective to precipitate s

so it is during the bush time, the bush war, and people going against the government so heavily have tremendously affected the perception in the world by thanking internal people calling our government as biased or untruthful. host: we're going to leave it there. guest: you mentioned the role of misinformation. certainly, that is something the public diplomacy efforts try to deal with. they recognize that there is misinformation out there and try to counter it. one other point i would make about that when we talk about the muslim world is that, of course, it is not monolithic. there are parts of the muslim world where the u.s. get free positive reviews. if you look at the sunni muslim community in lebanon, for example, 74% have a positive view of the u.s.. 70% haven't positive opinion. the u.s. gets good marks in indonesia as well. part of that is present in obama's appeal in -- appeal. innovations are aware that he live there as a child, and he is popular there. a decade ago, america was actually a relatively popular in indonesia as well, before the iraq war brought down ratings the

some conservatives say if the oil spill had happened when president bush president bush coverage would have been a lot tougher on the white house. host: let'sstalk about the disclose act and are we going to see anythhng happen? guest: it is moving forward but not at great speeds. this was chris van hollen's bill and deals with the supreme court case and seeking the votes. they cut a deal with the national rifle association because they opposed it. many groups on the right and business groups who opposed chris van hollen's bill were upset at the n.r.a. because they feel thee have the votes to + block it, maybe ot in the house, this will probably be voted on this week. in the senate, there is no republican co-sponsors. they need at least one and there is no indication from maine senators or scott brown that they are ready to support this. it's going to be a difficult lift in the senatt because it has been a more difficult lift in the house. one of the key factors is the u.s. chamber of commerce. u.s. chamber of commerce, if you look at their endorsements, they support more democrats than

bush did also. are there dramatic changes? yes. are we going back to the old days? no. probably the best example is she is replacing jean-paul stevens. i was in the senate when he was nominated. nominated by conservative republican president. it was an overwhelmingly democratic senate and he was confirmed in two and a half weeks. and he made courtesy calls on a number of senators. that's not going to be the same for his successor. she has made the courtesy calls. i think she has talked with practically er senator. and but thh questions will be significant. i'm concerned, for example, with the trend of the court, it's become a very activist court. we have seen a lot of long-standing law that has been overturned, for example with the led better case. you have basically saying men can be paid more than women. we had to rewrite the law. the first law that president obama signed into law saying we should all feel that women and men get paid the same for the same kind of work. so turning back the award in the exxon valdez, i wonder if the supreme court would do that today as

we were left with a terrible deficit by president bush of $1.3 trillion. we're drawing down iraq and saving real money, but instead they come up with a propaganda -- pardon me. withdraw that. come up with an advertising program of youcut to sell this -- sell assets of this country. so with that i'd yield to my friend from north carolina. i reserve the balance of my time. i don't yield to her. i reserve the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from colorado reserves his time. the gentlelady from north carolina. ms. foxx: thank you, mr. speaker. you know, my colleague from across the aisle, all of my colleagues across the aisle always fail to mention that in the last two years of the bush administration democrats were in charge of congress. the president can't spend any money. only the congress can spend money. and so they conveniently leave out the fact that when they took over the congress our economy was doing great, absolutely great. and from the moment they took over the congress in january of 2007 things started going downhill. th

congressional republic majorianthe bush administraon havthem to use exclusionsor oil developnt. aion by theecretary of e interior in manang the public lands, it said, the cretary of aicture in maning national forest stem landth respect to a of the activits described in subsecon bhall be subjt to a rebtaumption tha th use of categorica usion under the nepa of 1969 would apply if e activitys conducted pursuant to the mineral leasing act for the purpose of explorati or th development of oil or gs. an expcit exemption made for oil drilling in america by e previous administration. just folwing tepa procs could have led to a review th would have resulted in better safequipment. might have even resulted in an inspecon that might have caht early the flaws in this design. the 2009 government accouability office rort said that during t previous admistration categorical excsions re issued far too frequently and it could lead to serious proble. well, indeed it did. i findhis paicully ironical bause in isict we have been ghti for a long time to ge rai to dules international airpor we nally g

it was fissile material he had amassed during the first bush, bush senior administration. there used largely for deterrents at that number. during the bush administration he amassed enough plutonium for probably up to 10 nuclear weapons. they give some ability to sell, to use it, to test it. we are in a very difficult place with north korea. all of the countries in the region need to think about what they want northeast asia of the future to be loved. think about that vision, and began to plan toward it. i do not think that kim jong-il would give up his nuclear weapons anytime soon. host: and there are elections under way in south korea? guest: yes, regional elections. because of the way the president has conducted the investigation his party will probably do rather well. he will probably keep the maoyor of seoul which is critical. they are aiming at hosting the g-20 in november. then in 2012 they and we have elections. china will see a succession in 2012 and it will be the 100th anniversary of the founder of the modern north korea. 2012 will be a big year and the two year

when president bush left it was a $1.3 trillion deficit. we know that we have to rein in spending and we can begin by with iraq, by drawing down those troops and saving this country some real money, but first job is to put people back to work and that's what democrats are going to do. with that i'd yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from south carolina rise? mr. wilson: mr. speaker, i ask permission to address the house for one minute and to revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. wilson: mr. speaker, a marine corps legend and buford, south carolina, resident passed away friday leaving behind many touched lives. an iconic image and a legacy of service to our great country. this is a copy of an iconic marine corps recruit photo of sergeant chuck taliano. the way that he ended up on this famous poster is best reported by patrick donahue. the article explains that sergeant chuck taliano was awaiting an hono

most people forget about bush, bush inherited the collapse and they dot com market. the real issue is housing. we have the lowest real new housing being built in the history of the country since it has been recorded. it this economy is devastated. and for people to call and say it is just a mild recession -- it is devastating and it is too bad the politicians really haven't been really -- been really honest. host: here is a headline in "the washington post." the recession has hit nearly half of u.s. working adults -- alike, susan, democratic line. good morning. think we evert got out of the first recession. the gdp number is an anomaly. it is based on some kind of short-term recovery figures that just are not applicable long term. and i know for a fact that there are a lot of people that cannot find jobs. it is really bad. i don't think you can compare any two economies. i know and learning economics, note two economies are alike. you can't really compare this to the great depression. we just live in a whole different era and i don't think anybody has got the answers

bush when he had to deliver these big kind of oval office speech moments. how did last night compare? how does the entire handling of this compare? >> well, i was a little bit concerned about last night. using the oval office as a setting as a high-rofile setting that spotlights the presidenciy. in the past you had john kennedy announcing a quarantine of cuba. and last night, the president seemed much more passive, much more input-oriented, he announced a czar. he announced a commission. when i was -- you know in the white house, we viewed these things as fairly weak policy inputs. you always want to push back, do something more active, more executive oriented as far as action are concerned. i thought proot had a pretty bad day yesterday, although actually a pretty good day today. i think the b.p. announcement was a good follow-up to the speech, but the speech itself was quite weak. >> when you were working for president bush you were the author of the speech delivered during katrina which was also widely-- how shall i say-- not embraced? how do the two com

it was a procedure of the bush administration. that is what president bush did. and as the secretary paulson did. they are correct. i did not claim that democrats thouggt this up. the differences we must stop it. bankruptcy has established practice. and has a body of law behind it. there is predictability. there is a list for senior debt goes first. some people were told to forget it. other people were given 90 cents on the $1. other people were paid off in+ full. aig is the most outrageous of all. for two years i have said that it absolutely is, to me, it offends my sense of fair play that day the foreign banks, goldman and morgan, 100 cents on the $1. two banks in my district still have not been paid. they are not systemically important. as a government, you say one standard is for these zero large companies. pe're going to give them some benefits. we will say we will pay the creditors off, but you do not d+ that for a small bank. it is a societal problem. people are already saying, wait a minute, when i lost my house, you can say, well wait a minute. when i wa

this was bush's worst spendi year. en you come to the first year of president obama and he triples the dicit from about $450 llion orso of deficit, we go to $1.4 trillion of deficit right off t bat in the fit year. mean, this is absolutely skyrocket, smaing, incredible levels of spending. i yield. mr. garrett: if the gentleman ll yield, and you are setting e record saight, but just to sayore the record to the processere in the house, as the gentleman well knows, all appropriation bills, all spends of taxpayer money, originates right here in e house. and who was it that person holding the gavel at that time when those spending bills originated from ren the house? well, it was a gentlem name who was on the last chart, aianpratt. so on the 27 year right down there, that would ha been when the decrs would have been king control of congress and they took controlo they would have been having th proportions process that ye going forward. realistically, whoas responsible for that immediate uptick in theed chart right after tha

bush's fault. it reminds me of the game that kevin bacon game, no matter what actor or movie, you have to bring it back in seven cycles to kevin bacon and seems everything that goes on in the united states that the majority party seems to somehow that whatever goes on in the united states, they can somehow track it back to george w. bush. and what i heard was that mr. bush had used a drilling rig at some point in his life and therefore it's bush's fault there was a failure or to some extent there was a failure on this b.p. drilling rig. it's getting a little old for the american public for them to hear constantly that no matter what goes wrong in the obama administration, it's george w. bush's fault. i think this is getting a little old and getting -- seems to be a fantasy that seems to be prevailing. we have got a great disaster in the gulf. and nobody's denying we have a great disaster in the gulf. today, i heard a man who actually knows something about drilling in the gulf. i haven't heard anyon

he served in the bush administration. and david ignatius, a columnist with the "washington post", who has covered the conflict extensively. let's start with all of you by talking about this eventful day. what was your first reaction, jessica matthews, not only to stanley mcchrystal's firing but also david petraeus' return? >> i thought the president had no choice. he did exactly the right thing and what had to be done. and if there was a way for this to happen with a minimal consequences for the war, he found it in the appointment of petraeus, that this was to make a personnel change without a hint of policy change , this was the only person. and petraeus was willing to do it, and i thought the president hit every note right today. >> ifill: elliot cohen? >> well, as someone who has been very critical of the president, i have to say i agree with jessica, i thought the speech the president gave was pitch-perfect. he really outlined the key issues. there was a fundamental question of civil military relations at stake and he

and the reagan-bush deficits were eliminated. president clinton and speaker gingrich also took our country in a more fiscally responsible direction by agreeing on the re-authorization of pay-go. so let's not pretend that hat i'm proposing can't be done. of every member of congress. so what's standing in the way now? there are two political factors we all worry about. one is superficial alt --ality -- superficialality,,the eagerness of those without offering soluttons. program. in case you missed it new website on which they solicit votes for idees to cut paper thin slices in the budget. i agree every dollar counts. this consideration is not without some merit. even when we discuss two 1,000th of a pprcent of our cut. but sadly unlike their budget leader, paul ryan, this partisan gimmick is emblematic of the way most republicans have behaved in the minority. sound bites not sound policy. we have a hard choice and fiscal and pretending a series of small atoms will even put a dent in the real problem is just the false impression of