toward the end of the eisenhower administration win raul castro kidnapped and held hostage for a little more than a month 24 u.s. servicemen included 11 marines who were returning to the base from liberty in guantanamo city. now he justify this kidnapping on the basis of the united states about guantanamo to be used for refueling purposes by batista, his military -- refueling his military aircraft and also transferring arms to battista's forces after the eisenhower administration placed an embargo on all weapons sales to the cuban belligerence. as the relations between washington and cuba deteriorated following the installation of the revolutionary government which of course took havana on january 1st, 1959. guantanamo was viewed by both washington and havana with concern. castro believed that a u.s. invasion might begin at guantanamo. and at various times, particularly during the to the missile crisis, washington feared that the cubans with soviet encouragement and possible assistance might attack the base. there was also concerned that if the united states ever decided to leave guanta

. >> during the eisenhower administration, the decision was made to create the interstate highway system. eisenhower didn't really care whether you drove a cadillac or a ford or whether you drove for a commercial reason or for a personal reason. the idea was to connect the nation. today, it's digital. is there that kind of a will in this administration to connect the nation? is there the kind of will that says, "what we want is a grid that connects america without regard to who uses it or what they use it for"? >> aneesh chopra, can you answer that question? you're the president's chief technology officer. >> well, in this example, the president has been absolutely clear. we need access to broadband across all of america. the private sector has been the engine of the investment here. we're talking anywhere between $50 billion and $60 billion a year in private capital to build the connection points for us to connect on the internet. the federal government in the economic stimulus package is making a modest contribution to this effort, roughly $7 billion in capital. >> what specifically ar

it was supported by the truman administration and even the eisenhower administration, although eisenhowerenes. it was not a complete story. it was not until 10 years leader until the sun -- civil- rights movement, that meaningful desegregation actually occurred. >> that is fair, but only fair to a point. relative to something like sex discrimination, but court was the head of the curb -- the court was the head of the curve. in sex discrimination, it was behind the curve considerably. so what kind of issues is to court willing to throw out a little bit? is gay-rights one of those issues? i do not know. >> let's turn to a different one. the war in terrorism. where is that? the court let way out in front. four or five times, the court has told congress and the executive that we are not going to allow you to treat terrorism suspects as you please come and get one supposes if there is any prevailing sentiment out there in the general public, it is one of fear, of anxiety, of these people who somebody wants to bring into our midst, talking about the government reconsidering have a trial of 9/11

it was supported by the truman administration and even the eisenhower administration, although eisenhowerhind the scenes. it was not a complete story. it was not until 10 years leader until the sun -- civil- rights movement, that meaningful desegregation actually occurred. >> that is fair, but only fair to a point. relative to something like sex discrimination, but court was the head of the curb -- the court was the head of the curve. in sex discrimination, it was behind the curve considerably. so what kind of issues is to court willing to throw out a little bit? is gay-rights one of those issues? i do not know. >> let's turn to a different one. the war in terrorism. where is that? the court let way out in front. four or five times, the court has told congress and the executive that we are not going to allow you to treat terrorism suspects as you please come and get one supposes if there is any prevailing sentiment out there in the general public, it is one of fear, of anxiety, of these people who somebody wants to bring into our midst, talking about the government reconsidering have a tr

it was supported by the truman administration and even the eisenhower administration, although eisenhowerhts movement, that meaningful desegregation actually occurred. >> that is fair, but only fair to a point. relative to something like sex discrimination, but court was the head of the curb -- the court was the head of the curve. in sex discrimination, it was behind the curve considerably. so what kind of issues is to court willing to throw out a little bit? is gay-rights one of those issues? i do not know. >> let's turn to a different one. the war in terrorism. where is that? the court let way out in front. four or five times, the court has told congress and the executive that we are not going to allow you to treat terrorism suspects as you please come and get one supposes if there is any prevailing sentiment out there in the general public, it is one of fear, of anxiety, of these people who somebody wants to bring into our midst, talking about the government reconsidering have a trial of 9/11 terrorists in new york city and the reaction to the political response. obviously, with the as

in charge of congress except for two years in the 1950's during thizen hour administration and the years -- during the eisenhowerommrgs and the years -- administration and the years in 1966. the language in this bill is substantially different from the bill the judiciary committee passed. that bill dealt with both health insurance and medical liability insurance, but medical liability insurance has since been stricken from the language. in addition, my colleague, mr. lungren from california, offered an amendment that was accepted with bipartisan support by the house judiciary committee during markup. that amendment was stricken from the language of the current bill that we see in h.r. 4262. during the rules committee debate yesterday, mr. lungren offered that same amendment, however it was not made in order. instead we have yet another closed rule where members are shut out from offering any amendments to a bill that did not see the property vetting process. it is high time that we open this process up and that we hold the majority to their promise to make this an open congress. and we allow amendments to be off

eisenhower days? they do it all and they do it cheaper. tho cut spending. instead, the reagan administrationn -- they were the party that just let all hell broke loose. they cut taxes and increase spending at the same time. they expected the magical free- market waysok, the fairies of te free market would come out and fix everything, with pixie dust. i'm sorry, my kids like those fairies. but it did not fix everything, of course. they are suppose to be the party of fiscal responsibility. and there is an interesting explanation for this, and you remember david stockman? i bet you have had him on your program. host: we have. guest: he was the budget director for ronald reagan, and he wrote one of the best political memoirs out there. i forgot the title. but it was his recollections of the early days of the reagan administration he gave up on the theory of supply side early on. he decided it was not going to work. it was not going to solve itself. what they were going to do was create these enormous deficits. they came up with an alternate justification for it. this is a good thing, because it