the cia director leon panetta and the headline here, panetta says former vice-president dick cheney's criticism of the administration and their approach to terrorism, almost wishing this country would be attacked again in order to make his point. cheney "smells blood in the water on the issue of national security." caller: i only have one problem with the taxing the health care benefits. it seems i have heard that the uaw will be exempt from that tax. host: is that it? thank you. go ahead. caller: people have bounced around it. i am retired. i paid into my medicare and social security since the 1970's. now they have reduced my medicare benefits. host: is that your provider, medicare? caller: no, i am retired from the post office. i have a better plan now. i had prostate cancer before i turn 65. now, whenever i go to have a psa test i get a form from medicare saying it may not pay for that procedure, it's like i'm going -- blue cross pays for it anyway. government health care -- look at the va. if that doesn't scare you, i don't know what will. what they need to do, is the government s

they were willing to talk about engagement in partnership with the panetta states. they were exercising with us on a much more robust basis. we just concluded a trilateral exercise which was unthinkable in the 1980's. it was high end technical exercise where we were using division tactics and exercising weapons, techniques, and proced. that are pretty high in. two years ago, india participated in a five-way it says including u.s., japan, singapore, and australia. unthinkable in the mid-1980's, and it is now a matter of course within yet. we think this is a great example of partnership and of the benefits will derive from increased dialogue, increased cooperation, and increased understanding of what we are all about are in the aor. readiness -- does not do is any good to have all matter -- manner forces that cannot get out there and exercise, cannot respond to military operational directives come to provide assistance to countries to do not quite have all these capabilities, and to get out there and exercise it. as an example, some may have participated in an exercis

[applause] before we talk with bob and our students our associate producer, daniel panetta at students about their perception of the news business. >> hi frank, this is daniel. i am at the digital news exhibit where we are asking highschool students, is the state of the news business getting better or worse? here is what they had to say. >> i think some news channels are becoming more biased in certain directions at different times and when i am watching the news, on line or auntie via i'd like to switch channels and a lot so i will have a good mix of liberal, conservative whatever. >> even with the rise in the popularity with the internet being used for news i still believe the tv is strong and becoming stronger because people will still want that personal touch and the thought of having that person in their home telling them what is going on in the world will always remain a big thing. >> there you have it frank. back to you in the studio. >> thank you dannette. the state of broadcast journalism in the 21st century. bob, one of the students had a nerve there. so many outlets now. aid

but leon panetta. we all have senior moments. i look old irthan the speaker. she is a very attractive speaker, but she could have had a senior moment in regard to this. and mr. speaker, my colleagues, don't you know that after this happened and she said that, don't you know that there was a meeting of the powers that be with the speaker and with the c.i.a., with the director of the c.i.a. and information was presented, which would have shown that she either misspoke or didn't misspeak. and if she misspoke, how simple, mr. speaker, how simple it would have been to just say, ladies and gentlemen, not of the congress, not of the house of representatives, more importantly, ladies and gentlemen of the country, i was wrong about that. i didn't deliberately lie. i was wrong. i didn't remember. i didn't remember that briefing. or the opposite, the c.i.a. was wrong and didn't inform. and that puts the issue to ress. mr. speaker, that's all our minority leader, the gentleman from ohio, john boehner, the respected leader of the republican house conference, that's all he

speaker, as director panetta tries to restore the agency's reputation, it is necessary that he not only acknowledge the wrongs of the past but that he not promote those who committed them. thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from tennessee rise? >> mr. speaker, i request permission to address the house for one minute. the speaker pro tempore: without objection. >> mr. speaker, in a few minutes we will begin voting on 26 amendments to the commerce state justice appropriations bill but the overriding problem is that this bill is a 12% increase to $65 billion. at a time when families and small businesses all over this country have been tightening their spending. at a time when foreclosures and bankruptcies are still at record levels. the federal government keeps going on its merry way. spending like we have just lots of cash. all this come after the $787 billion stimulus bill which "the washington post" said was a, quote, massive financial windfall for federal agencies. a 12% increase in times of 3% inflation, when our national debt is now o

to the exten tent that it is an issue, then i would interact with director panetta and raise the question just to our general feeling that we want to have as much of this declassified. it will be the director that ultimately will make the decision, who i don't think is actually tainted. i would make the decision with him in determining what should be and should not be declassified. >> and on their comments, how do you assure that isn't tainted by people who are in the program? isn't that an important point? >> yes. >> is it or is it not important that the c.i.a. in exercising its substantive comment role it sought should be doing so in a manner that keeps the agency's hands clean of implication in the underlying subject of the report? yeah, i'm less worried about the substantive accounts. ultimately it would be the justice department lawyers who will make the determination as to what goes in the report, the con includings that the report reaches. so i certainly want to give them the opportunity to express whatever their views are. >> would they be likely to evaluate the recommendations of

to the extent it is an issue, then i will interact with director panetta and raise the questions that you raise. in addition just or general feeling we want to have as much of this declassified. it will be the director who will ultimately make the decision. i would be dealing with him in trying to make the determination as to what should be and should not be declassified. >> on the question of their somebody standive comment on the contents of the report, how do you assure that that isn't tainted by people who are implicated in the program? >> i'm actually -- >> i mean maybe we are talking across each other. is it or is it not important that the c.i.a. in exercising its substantive comment role that it sought and performing the declassification review should be doing so in a manner that keeps the agency's hands clean of implication in the underlying subject of the report. >> let's worry about the substantive comments. we would invite the comments from any involved agency, ultimately we have justice department lawyers who will make the determination as to what goes in the report, the c

itself directed by leon panetta who has laid out that they have the documents and they have the documents and they have the proof in their notes that shows that the speaker was briefed and in line what had been taking place with the enhanced interrogation technique of three individuals and that it had already taken place prior to the briefing that she received on september 4 of 2002. this is an untenable position that must be rectified and can't go on and this congress has been shut down so we don't have a debate in this issue. i'm talking about the open amendment process to appropriation bills -- another reason is, there's a partisan interest in protecting acorn, it can't be anything else. most everybody in america at this point has heard of acorn. the association for community reform action now or however that works. but acorn was in the news constantly throughout the election cycle last fall. and i have been watching acorn for four to five years. acorn has been involved from the beginning. and here's the series of things. and i'll lay them out and talk about them to the depth that i ca

if i were leon panetta and sending someone up to brief the speaker, i don't think you would get volunteers. i think that has to be a direct order, brief the speaker. you will have a job when you get done. i yield back. . mr. carter: let's put it this way, if you're listening to what we're talking about here today and you'd like for us to have this addressed by the members of this house, it takes the ability under the rules to raise the issue and if we have what they call a closed rule or a modified closed rule where only certain agreed-to amendments to a bill can come forward, we hate to talk about process, but that's how we're prevented from asking the question that i hope many people that might be watching this would say, somebody ought to ask the whole house about that. do we need that missile defense mr. gingrey mentioned? i kind of think we do. i would like my member of congress to do something about that maybe they'd even go to the trouble to write their member of congress and say i'd like to see you vote on this, vote in favor of it. but how are they going to see it if we're closed

not be an issue at all and to the extent that it is an issue, then i will interact with director panetta and raise the questions that you raise in addition to just our general feeling that we want to have as much declassified as we possibly can. it will be the director who ultimately be make the decision. i don't think it's actually tainted -- i would be dealing with him in trying to make determinations as to what should be and not should be declassified. >> and on the question of their substantive comment on the contents of the report, how do you assure that isn't tainted by people who are implicated in the program? >> i'm actually -- >> is that an important point. just talking across each other, is it important or not important that the cia in exercising it's substantive comment role that it sought and in performing the declassification review should be doing so in a manner that keeps the agency's hands clean of implication of the underlying subject of the report. >> yeah, i'm less worried about the substantive comments. we'd certainly invite the comments from any involved agency but u

director panetta. now therefore be it resolved that, one, a select subcommittee on the pernt committee on intelligence shall be established to review and verify the accuracy of the speaker's statement. two, the select subcommittee shall be comprised of four members of the full committee, two appointed by the chairman of the committee and two by its ranking minority member. three, the subcommittee shall have the same powers to obtain testimony and documents pursuant to subpoena authorized under clause 2-m of rule 11 of the rules of the house. and, four, the select subcommittee reported findings and recommendations to the house not later than 60 calendar days after adoption of this resolution. the speaker pro tempore: does the gentleman from utah wish to present argument on why the resolution is privileged for immediate consideration? mr. bishop: yes, i do, thank you, mr. speaker. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman is recognized. mr. bishop: this is very similar, not exactly the same, but similar to