this is an untenable position. we cannot have a situation where the most powerful member of the house of representatives and the person third in line to the presidency can declare our intelligence community to be willful liars and in violation of federal statute and decide that because the speaker doesn't want to talk about it anymore, we aren't going to talk about it either. i'm bringing this up because this is the only forum that exists right now. we could not force a vote on it. we couldn't shut off funds. we could not direct the speaker. we could not bring any language because it was shut down in the rules committee, but i will submit that the security clearance for the speaker of the house of representatives must be suspended until this matter is cleared up. and it's her responsibility to clear it up, not mine, not the partisan outside working group or fact-finding force, but the person who made the allegations. i ask you to reflect about when jesus stood in front of the high house and caiphus said, did you re

i would say that this is an untenable position because the constitution itself makes at least eight references to the death penalty. this is implicit in the constitution, that the government cannot take life without due process. that contemplates that there is a death penalty and you could take a life with due process, and it has references to capital crimes. every single state at the every single state at the founding of the government had a

clearly the situation as it stands now is unstable and untenable and we cannot continue it but you guys of that to be able succumb to the table with some innovative thinking on how we provide coverage to that segment of the population that is full mobile. we don't need to turn the whole system on its head is to cover that ten of 15% that is right now left out but that is what we are going to do if you don't help us with this and a fallback position i promise you it's a government-run plan and that is what you are going to get if we don't work together on this issue so i appreciate you being here today and mr. chairman i appreciate the extra time and i yield back. >> so you didn't have a question on today's hearing? in all fairness to wellpoint, i said in my opening statement and a key care to comment please do. i said in my opening statement in the committee investigation wellpoint appelee wedded employee performance based in part on the amount of money and its employees say the company through what corrective rescissions of health insurance policies. according to documents obtained by

it is an untenable position. so yes, it is almost a revolutionary climate. however, i don't use the word revolution, because i think revolution has a negative connotation in everybody's collective memory. i am talking about nonviolent civilian disobedience. i have seldom seen nonviolent movements of change succeed without international support. that is a very key element, and that is what i would like to stress here tonight. >> my question to you is actually as a follow-up to ellis' question whether obama said -- had set the right tone or not. i wonder whether you believe the regional countries have set the right tone. iran's immediate neighbors like turkey and iraq had called mahmud ahmadinejad to congratulate his victory. do you think that is a stand against the people on the street or an alliance to the current regime. how do you interpret it? thank you. >> well, i think it is hard to interpret it as anything other than standing in complete opposite of where the iranian people stand today. yes this did this? ask them. i don't think it is my place to discu

this bill will create new businesses, new industries and millions of new jobs, all without imposing untenablenew burdens on american people. in the months to come, the senate will take up its version of the energy bill. i am confident that they also will choose to move this country forward. we have gotten a lot done on the energy -- on energy in the last six months. even as we are changing the ways of using energy, we are also changing the ways that we use energy. one of the fastest, easiest, and cheapest ways of making our economy stronger and clearer is to make our economy more energy efficient. that is something that secretary chu is working on every single day. we know the benefits. in the late 1970's, the state of california enacted tougher energy efficiency policies. over the next three decades, those policies helped to create almost 1.5 million jobs. today, californians consume 40% less energy per person than the national average. over time, this has prevented the need to build at least 24 new power plants. think about that. california, their economy keeping pace with the rest of the c

that is untenable. it is unacceptable. i will not allow it as president of the united states. [applause] health care reform is not something i just cooked up when i took office. sometimes i hear people say he is taking on too much. i am not doing this because i do not have enough to do. we need health care reform because it is central to our economic future. it is central to our long-term prosperity as a nation. in past years and decades, there may have been some disagreement on this point, but not anymore. today, we have already built an unprecedented coalition of people ready to reform our health-care system. physicians and health insurers, businesses and workers, democrats and republicans. a few weeks ago, some of these groups committed to doing something that would have been unthinkable a few years ago. they promised to work together to cut national health-care spending by two trillion dollars over the next decade. that will bring down costs. it will bring down premiums. that is exactly the kind of cooperation we need, but the question now is how we finish the job five we

is somehow has persevered negative 1971 that it lost half of it but it was geographically 10 untenable to begin with but it works as far as it moves ahead. it is still grappling with for you travel around pakistan and it does divide the civilizations but u.s. the pakistani and various parts how did they identify themselves? rarely if ever as pakistani first. it is their ethnic identity or tribal identity then muslim than pakistani. so they are tears of identity so in that sense b.a.t of pakistan has never really taken root among the population. >> host: and get bangladesh and spun off in 71 but if you look at india which just finished one month of on thence location eight -- elections except that some emergency rule it has never been interrupted or had a military to. it has worked but pakistan has had four military coups, disrupted elections, what is the difference? vigneault government and pakistan has edible ever fell its term. no institution has taken root of the politics of u.s. relations with pakistan has been based on personality proposed 9/11 the entire model was put on presiden

largest country in the world was in the middle of pakistan and bangladesh, so geographically it was an untenable notion that these would be one country. pakistani establish emt, based in the west wing, pakistan as we know it, was trying to sort of connected them and hold this countries together, so many people will tell you that they fought once already to free themselves and so to draw it to -- to impose a secular democracy to fight against islamization and they aren't about to let it happen again, so you see a similar reaction about the emergence of the islamist parties. >> host: one thing we need to talk about -- this hour has gone by quickly, you're a great story telar in person as wells on the page -- this huge, desolate, sometimes threatening pakistani province in the southwest corner, the big brute inside west pakistan, and you made it out there through the wilds to a port that pakistan dreams of developing with chinese help as a middle class outlet for central asian oil and gas. >> guest: you're right. it's gwadar, and it is -- the pakistani -- >> host: a dream. >> guest: it is. it's wha

untenanted go-ahead. wanted to wait wait for the microphone. >> if someone were to transport i guess by steam once barges from new york or philadelphia to albany, and then to traverse the canal with mules does the canal company provided meals or what do i not understand about that? >> you mean the workings, how the canal actually worked? >> yes. if one were to deliver once barges to the canal by steam, and the owner of the barges and have mules. >> they did. i mean, the barges that operated on the canal essentially the system was a barge and a mule. it was the mule that pulled apart along the canal. maybe i'm not understanding your question. [inaudible] >> supposed the party started in new york or philadelphia and they were told by steam up to albany. >> right. >> and they were left there. i assume, they would just be left there. and how did they traverse the canal to buffalo, for example? >> most goods would not come up the hudson river in barges. they would go up the hudson river, initially for a brief

but i would say that is an absolutely untenable position. because the constitution itself makes at least eight references to the death penalty. it's implicit in the constitution itself. it says the government can't take life without due process. that doesn't contemplates the death penalty. and it refers to capital crimes and it makes other references to the death penalty. every single colony, every single state at the founding of our government had a death penalty. it's an abuse of power for two judges to assert that the eighth amendment which prohibited drawing and quartering and other inhumane type activities actually should be construed to limit the death penalty. that's judicial activism. they didn't like the death penalty. they read through the constitution, found these words and tried to make it say it when it does not. but the question is not whether these policies are good or bad, whether you like the death penalty or not, that's a definition of opinion. how strongly you feel and how one believes that global warming should be confron

is, the impact on our balance sheet, the leverage, and the various clans on the company were just untenable. we are solving the problem. we're getting the issues and operations behind us, getting those on the balance sheet behind us so that the leadership team can spend the time where it needs to which is on products and customers. a share of time in a date is extremely important for leadership group. this allows us to permanently address problems we have not been able to until today. we can say that when we exit this process and of the new gm comes forward we will have taken some of these historic problems and address them permanently so we can spend our time where we should -- products, customers, reinventing the technology. then we have to prove the investment and sacrifices are worth it. i think there is a very different approach and one that addresses some of these traditional, chronic problems permanently. frankly, it will free us up to do what we need to do in order to win. >> hello, i am from the "new york times." your the first chief executive having had to file for chapter 11 prot

but the offset the gentleman proposes is just untenable. i have to say that and i want to spend some time in explaining it, because i do respect the motivation that he brings to this effort. . we have correspondence from state and local managers that also think this offset's unacceptable. they oppose this amendment because it cuts critical fema programs. and in particular i have a letter dated today from the international association of emergency managers along these lines. the congress has spent the last four years since hurricane katrina rebuilding fema's management and operations capabilities. at the time of katrina the agency was understaffed and unable to manage a catastrophic disaster. it's my belief that the increases over the last two fiscal years were a major disaster in fema's return to full strength or something like full strength as demonstrated during the response to hurricane ike and the midwest floods. i'm afraid the gentleman's amendment could send us backwards. the gentleman would cut the account that supports the national

untenanted chicago. wage that. what is it? wage that is when employers illegally don't pay workers for all their work. so two to 3 million workers are not paid the minimum wage, even though the law is very clear. millions of workers are not paid overtime. in fact, a conservative business estimate is that $19 billion a year is stolen in unpaid overtime. then there's at workers and nick unfitness classified as independent contractors when they are really employees. and this steals not only from the worker because the worker doesn't get the employer side of payroll taxes, doesn't get overtime pay, but it also steals from all of us and from the public coffers because it means folks don't get worker's compensation if they are hurt, they don't pay into unemployment insurance. so it's stealing from the public as well as from workers. then there's last paycheck which is a growing problem in this economy. so workers get fired, they don't get their last paycheck. you resign, you don't get your last paycheck. your entire plant closed dow

clearly, the situation as it stands is unstable and untenable and cannot continue it. but, you guys have got to be able to come to the table with some innovative thinking how we provide coverage to that segment of the population that is vulnerable and needs the coverage and don't need to turn the system on its head to cover the 10 tor 15% that is now left out, that is what we're going to do, if you don't help us with that. and, the fallback position, i promise you is a government run plan, and that is what you will get, if we don't work together, on this issue. so, i appreciate you all being here today, mr. chairman around appreciate the extra time and i will yield back. >> didn't have a question on this subject of today's hearing, okay. in all fairness, to will point there, i said, in my opening statement and if you care to comment, please do. i said in my opening statement, in the committee investigation, well point evaluated employee performance based in part on the amount of money the employees saved the company through retroactive rescissions of health insurance p

let me start with judge echols untenanted mr. eckels. let me first say that i hope there will be funding for projects other than those that are maybe further along than the texas t-bone. and if you could apply right now for federal funding in part of the stimulus, what would you ask for it to do? >> today our biggest need is the market rout and environmental studies. before we go on the ground with the system we want to make sure it's a system that will be viable, we will have the market that will support the system. i like the east coast we don't have regular service between houston and dallas today so to develop one we need to make sure we are building a system which can be priced so we can compete with automobiles and aircraft and also to keep them operational system. i do think bringing the discipline of the marketplace to the system can help set up their schedule and construction, you know, the technology that will make sense and would be viable for the long term of the state. >> let me ask mr. szabo. i'm looking at a map basically

all of the other equipment and things that you have to have to run a business, and i think it is untenable for us to just close that person down and then three months later all of a sudden have a new person come in without all of those expenses and have the opportunity to open a new dealership. so i thought that was a very important part of the -- the letter and commitment that is being made. but, of course, the commitment has to be followed through with responsible advanced notice and a fair hearing for the dealer who has gone out of business to be able to come back in. so i do commend chrysler for heeding the calls of members of congress and the dealer community and responding in a way that does give additional support to the dealers. general motors, meanwhile, did sit down with the national auto dealers association after our commerce committee hearing to work out concerns with the supplemental agreements continuing dealers were asked to sign. i commend g.m. for making concessions during those discussions, and i hope they will continue that positive dialogue and interaction as the g.m. d

and that becomes an untenable decision. all of our decisions, therefore, become suspect. there is only one solution to this and it is the same solution that we have said before. if we don't want this issue to simply be subject to political ma manouvering -- maneuvering, establish a bipartisan committee. two republicans, two democrats. make that committee a subset of the committee on oversight, on intelligence, so they understand the verbiage, they understand the questions, they don't have to have a lot of time to be brought up to speed. if you have that kind of committee their report will by its very nature of the makeup of that committee not be subject to political spin. and we may be able to move on. that's the important part. it is the integrity of the house that is in question here and needs to be answered so decisions of this house will be considered without any other kind of question or implication. now as we are starting the appropriations process, becomes an ideal time in which any kind of solution we may wish to impose on this particular situation should be befor