wade and it does not place any new restrictions on access to

wade?a factual statement, the answer clearly was no, it has not overrule roe vs. wade. but it was very clear that the women's rights movement of the was a risk that the courts, when it address the issue, would overturn roe vs. work. they also had in mind the fact that in 1992 it was a presidential election year, and they were determined to turn this lawsuit and the supreme court case into a political campaign issue, to try primarily to help bill clinton win the white house. in fact there is some evidence from the political world that this case and the of, this case did help. but there is another aspect of catherine coleman's argument which i think really enticed me to writing about it. the hardest thing is that a lawyer appearing before the supreme court has to do is to keep control of the argument that they want to make, because there are nine justices, eight usually because justice thomas does not often participate in oral argument. but there are at least nine very smart people who have a

wade.administration had tried several times to persuade the court. i chose this case because of the audacity of the council who argued in favor of maintaining roe. the women's rights movement, fearing it was in jeopardy had to shape this case to be a genuine test case. we often talk about test cases as if they do not always passed. this was put together as a fundamental test over whether it was still viable. when the justice put together the committee with her colleagues that ask one simple question. is entirely unlike any other argument you'll see in front of the supreme court. it has the supreme court overruled roe vs. wade. the supreme court overruled roe vs. wade? if you put that as a factual statement, the answer clearly was no, it if you put that as a factual statement, the answer clearly was no, it has not overrule roe vs. wade. but it was very clear that the women's rights movement of the was a risk that the courts, when it address the issue, would overturn roe vs. work. they also h

>>> wade collins has to get on the glass, one rebound in the first half a lob pass inside., they're tipping it, not grabbing it. going inside. a big time foul on cyrus mcgowan. it will be his second personal foul. jenn hildreth, have you had a chance to talk to frank haith in the firin -- about the first 20 minutes. >> jenn: one word, rebound. he is so disappointed. i heard him talking to his guy, come on, this is our game, what we do. you can see the hurricanes coming out and you could tell he was very upset about the first half on the boards. >> ron: we were talking about when you play in the first acc game in december, if you're the visiting team, you can possibly steal one? . >> mike: it's been a late arriving crowd here and real opportunity for miami to come in to an environment that is maybe less than hostile. >> ron: right. >> mike: get out to a quick start. you shoot that poor lin the first half, if you can limit them to one shot, you can separate and give yourself a cushion. >> ron: southern will clear the board. it stayed right in the front of the rim and raji has

wade. but it was very clear that the women's rights movement thought there was a risk that the court when it addressed that issue would overturn roe v. wade. but they also had very much in mind that the fact that 1992 was a presidential election year, and they were determined to turn this lawsuit and this supreme court case into a political campaign issue. to try primarily to help bill clinton win the white house. and, in fact, there is some evidence from the political world that this case and the outcome of this case did help. but there was another aspect of katherine colbert's argument which, i think, is really enticed me into writing about it. the hardest thing that a lawyer appearing before the supreme court has to do is to keep control of the argument that they want to make because there are nine justices, eight usually because justice thomas doesn't often participate in oral argument, but there are at least nine very smart people who have already done some thinking about the case and

. >> of wade? >> he was, and that is why it polk never really liked him. -- a whig? >> he was, and that is why polk never really liked him. >> where would save whig -- a whig stand today, and what party? >> it would focus on concentration of power -- they were more in favor of concentration of power in washington that would be along the liberal side. but what was emerging was an increasing consciousness and concern about the slavery issue th. the whig party was more of the vanguard of pushing on the slavery issue. many were raising serious questions about slavery, but the attempt missouri, and those abolitionist were largely whigs. >> how many slaves did james polk owned? >> we do not know the answer to that. i got a laudatory rebuke from "newsweek", but he notes that i did not get into the polk the slave owner or his personal life, to the extent that he would have liked. i think that is a fair criticism. >> and what is he doing writing a review on the book? i've never seen it before. >> i have never seen it before. >> do you have any idea why? >> i talked to and sub

they will note dred scott, they will note the new deal crisis, brown versus board and roe versus wade but it is really an afterthought and similarly, when you read supreme court histories, american history does not intrude very often very either. it is more a narrative of what the court is doing and i wanted to try and bring the two narrative together as best i could, so what i attempted to do was essentially see american history through the eyes of the supreme court. i wanted a book that could be read, and it would have been easy to write an 800 page book on this, maybe even easier to write a 900 page book but i wanted something that would convince people that this was worth doing, so my goal was as close to 300 pages as humanly possible. i was pleased about a year ago at this time when i got page proofs at 350 pages. i have least said manage that. i think that is a manageable book. another goal, one of my pet peeves over the decades is the way we treat supreme court by referring to the chief justice. bussey will always hear the roberts court, and what is the function of john roberts

them as parallel passions, and passion for catholicism and passion for the repudiation of low versus wade that made abortion legal nationwide. and what he says is i read text. i am of original list. my catholic views and none of my personal views influence how why you roe v wade which he finds completely illegitimate. he doesn't believe it has any constitutional grounding and i let him have a say on that and i talked about how important catholicism is to him but i let him say it is not something that influence is my rulings, and i like critics such as university chicago justice stone counter that and then the readers can take away from that. but it is a historic time for catholics on the court, and i think that he more than anybody else sort of embodies the idea that catholicism can influence a person of the law. >> host: but he says the fact i'm catholic doesn't lead to my jurisprudence on abortion and i can't recall whether you got into this or not but he cites -- he supports the decisions involving capital punishment, which may be against catholic -- >> guest: catholic bishops are agai

views and their personal views don't influence how i view will versus wade which he finds completelyillegitimate and the assembly and has constitutional grounding. i let him have his say on that night talk about how important the fall season is but i let him say it is not something that influences my rulings. i let critics like the university of chicago counter that and then readers can take away from that, but it is an historic time for catholics on the porch and i think he more than anybody else embodies the idea that catholicism could influence a person's law. >> host: but he says the fact of mccafferty didn't lead to my jurisprudence on abortion and he cites i can't recall whether you got into this but he cites -- he supports the decisions in capital punishment which may be against catholics. >> guest: they are against the death penalty. it is approached to i think anybody who understands his approach to original as someone say, of course, you cannot find in the framers original idea of the constitution a right to abortion. he has a good argument on that, that some people certain

wade and we have gore v. bush. roe v. wade, alan derek wit, the famous professor from harvard who's to the left, says that was a legal decision. and then you have gore v. bush where the republican justices who had the majority basically cooked the decision, said it could never be used as precedent because, frankly, it was an illegal decision. never before had the equal protection clause been used to invalidate an election. so you have this kind of hypocrisy, and i'll give you one more example. antonin and ally ya, not one of my favorites. i'm basically a populist. scalia says that the death penalty is in the constitution. it's not in the constitution. there's no death penalty there. he gets that mr. the fact that at -- from the fact that at the time the constitution was written, the death penalty was being administered by the states. he reads into the constitution. so what am i saying? the constitution is not a monolithic thing. there's ambiguity in that constitution, and both conservatives and liberals have to understand

wade. three justices put their heads together and fashioned a way by which the court could resolve that. that was unusual, to put together a little trio that was managing the case and controlling the outcome of the case. they were able to get a majority to sign off on what they had chosen to do. in most of the cases, once they have cast an internal flow and the opinion is decided, then the draft starts circulating and what happens is the other justices will send join memos. you can count my vote for my opinion as this. maybe a note that says i will write separately, so i will not join your opinion. or i will support your opinion, but i will still write separately. or i will descent. -- dissent. that is usually done as a paper process. what he think about a coat at all comes in as a paper flow and the person who has the task of writing the opinion as the decision of whether to incorporate all the changes. if you think you are on to lose one of your five, then you will be more agreeable to wh

roe versus wade is clear on funding for abortion, and now we are seeing that what that was laid downthrown up in the air, and it is obvious that things have been -- votes have been bought. what ever it takes to get a vote, that is what the leader did. taxpayers are sending money to nebraska. the list goes on and on. is that the way that the election nears envisioned the change that ought to come to america that they expressed in the last election? this is not business as usual. it is far worse than usual. it has been negotiated for 26 years by individuals. i know little bit about the subjects, and if this is what negotiation is all about, it is a poor way of doing business and a poor way of negotiating. >> i would make one final statement. the crisis of confidence in this country is at an apex and has not seen in 150 years. and that lack confidence undermines the ability of legitimate government. we need to be paying attention to that, because a lot of people out there today through this process, not just the bill, but the process, will give up on government, and rightly so. question

wade is still the law of the land. i know a lot of my colleagues don't support it. they would like to see it overturned. they would like to make abortion illegal at the earliest stages. they would like to criminalize it. they would like to put doctors in jail. they would like to put women in jail. the fact is roe v. wade is the law of the land, and at the early stages of a pregnancy, a woman has a right to choose, that's the law. later on, she can't do it. there are restrictions for her, hurdles for her. that's what roe does. so there are many people, particularly on the other side of the aisle, more than on our side, for sure, who want to make roe -- they want to overturn roe. well, they know they can't do it because the vast majority of the people in this country support a woman's right to choose at the early stages of a pregnancy. so what can they do? they can make it impossible for her to access, access the doctor for this procedure, and in this bill, they go after her insurance. it's -- it's very surprising to me that such an amendment could pass the house, but

wade, we have had 40 -- over 40 million abortions. 40 million abortions. and yet, i have friends of mine that are wanting children, that are going to china, they're going to russia, they're going to other places to find those children. and here in the united states, over 40 million abortions. unfortunately, the language that was inserted in the manager's amendment does not protect taxpayer dollars from being used to fund abortion. in fact, the u.s. conference of catholic bishops and the national the right to life has said the language and, thus, the bill is unacceptable and should not move forward. turning back to the fiscal arguments against this bill, one of my colleagues yesterday said that those of us on this side of the aisle who argue we cannot afford this bill are being disingenuous and we're engaging in scare tactics, even asking when the -- quote -- "lying time " "the lying time from this side of the aisle of the aisle will stop." well, mr. president, we will see. we will see. i'm not going to br of the united states senate in 2012, but if god giv

wade created a backlash. when it upheld, two-thirds of the public was on its side. when it struck down a similar scientist 18 years later, two-thirds of the public office its side then. the popular opinion is moving fast. >> and this goes back to the point that jeff made earlier about president obama and his philosophy about the court. if you see change as being made most effectively and lastingly by the legislature or the executive or some combination or by the voters in a state ballot, referendum, you want to hold the court off in these situations. the count is moving quickly and we will not hold on to those in the same we as have with abortion and you can argue courts are about protecting individual rights. that is exact leija they are supposed to do and take these bold steps. but they don't do it very often. brown vs. board of education was a really big deal. i am not sure we would be well served as a country by that bold step right now. >> robert jackson said that the challenge of that decision was to explain in legal terms what was a political conclusion. they

wade.ver 30 years now, we have said that no public funds can be used for an abortion, but to save the life of the mother or in cases of rape or incest. and we've said that no doctor or hospital will be compelled to perform an abortion procedure if it violates their conscience. those are the three basic pillars of our abortion policy in this country. now comes this debate about health care reform. and a question about whether or not, if we offer health insurance policies through an exchange that offer abortion services and the people are paying for the premiums for those policies with a tax credit, whether we are indirectly somehow or another financing and supporting abortion. i argue we are not. we find on a daily basis many instances where federal funds go to a private entity, even a religious entity with clear guidelines that none of the federal funds can be spent for religious or private purposes. and organizations far and wide across america live within those bound. they keep their book

wade, the 1973 abortion decision. three justices put their heads together, kennedy, souter, and o'connor put their heads together and fashioned a way by which the court could resolve that case to get it decided. that was really quite unusual to put together a little trio that was managing the case and controlling the outcome, really. they were able to get a majority to sign onto what they had chosen to do. in most of the cases, once the justices have cast an internal vote in the conference and the opinion is decided, it is assigned. then the drafts start circulating. what happens is that the other justices will send what are called joined memos. you can account by a vote for your opinion as it is, or there may be a note that says i am going to write separately, or i will support your opinion but i am still going to write separately, or i am going to dissent. another approach is that i will join your opinion if you make this and this change in it. that is usually done as a paper process. it is not something where the j

years ago in row v wade thrown up in the air.y obvious that votes have been bought. i mean, whatever it took to get a vote, that's what the majority leader did. if it was sending money to states, other states are going to pay for it. the taxpayers of america are sending money to nebraska to, louisiana to vermont, to nevada. and the list goes on and on, in order to get votes. is that the way that the electioners envisioned the change that ought to come to america that they expressed in the last election? this is not business as usual. ths business far worse than usual and having negotiated contracts for 26 years as a lawyer and negotiated with individuals for 26 years, i know a little bit about the subject. and if this is what negotiation is all about, then it's a poor way of doing business and a poor way of negotiating. >> we'll be happy to take any questions. i would make one final statement. the crisis of confidence in this country is now at an apex that it has not seen in over 150 years. and the lack of confidence undermines t

wade made it legal in the early stages of a pregnancy. women have that right. what this amendment does is says, there's one group of women here we're going to treat differently. we're going to take 1 procedure that only applies to them and say they can't buy health insurance for that toadure. only if it's a -- procedure. only if it's a separate rider, which everyone knows is unaffordable, impractical and will not work. i don't see any amendment here saying to men that if they want to have a procedure that relates to their reproductive health, they can't use their own private money to buy coverage for it. no, it's not in there. we don't tell men that if they want to make sure their can buy insurance coverage through their pharmaceutical plan for viagra that they can't do it. no, we don't do that and i wouldn't support that. it would be wrong. well, it's wrong to single out women and to say to women of this country, they can't use their own private funds to purchase insurance that covers the whole range of reproductive health care. now you have to look behind at

enzi: the reason i wasn't on the floor a large part of yesterday is i was wading through the amendment and also the scores. then i had to have the experts interpret it. the american people are having to relying on the stuff heard here on the floor. i get calls from all over the country saying stop this bill any way you can. make them get it right. and i got to tell you, some of those are from other states, and they're saying my senator is not listening to me. i'm really counting on you. so i rise to speak on the issue of the health care reform. i rise with a great sense of disappointment as i reflect on the debate that might have been. from the very start of this debate i've said we need to reform our health care system. everyone agrees we need the real changes that will allow every american to purchase high-quality affordable health insurance. not a single one of my senate colleagues on either sao*eul supports the casino -- side of the aisle status quo the statuse understand the current system fails too many americans. we want to support reform that provides real insurance options to

wade was passed. they're committed to life at all stages and all places, that life is sacred, it's unique, it's beautiful and should be protected and the most vulnerable to everybody, it should be protected. what do they say about the manager's amendment? light-years removed from the stupak-sp*euts amendment that -- spitz amendment that passed in the house. bipartisan support in the house for hyde principles. the new abortion language solves none of the fundamental abortion problems with the senate bill and it actually creates some new abortion-related problems. now let's go through the specifics because i think what we should do is go through the specifics of this bill and look at what are the specific concerned areas. many of the abortion changes that senator reid put in, smuggled into his manager's bill behind closed doors makes the bill worse than ever before, to hit a few of those, it violates the hyde amendment and the hyde principles set in precedent through all other federal administered healt

and i think he would have waded right into that environment and been right at home.he was a man for his time. there's very little you can say that he left. his administration was sandwiched between the only two whig administrations in our history. and both of those administrations, the harrison administration and the taylor administration, were of course interrupted by the deaths of those two presidents. and so those two whig administrations did very little, and his administration was sandwiched between those. and he did a great deal. >> what do you think, do you agree? >> oh, i certainly agree with john on that. one interesting sidelight, that book that he wrote was part of the american president series that arthur schlesinger, jr. put together. and john seigenthaler told me, when we talked about this that the only thing that schlesinger wanted him to change when he saw john's manuscript was that he thought that he had slighted the what is known as the all of mexico movement, the idea during the mexican war when we were sort of in logger heads, we'd gone all the way

wade on the list. there's my nice little red circle around it. held in the 1990's, the previous decade? similar phenomenon. pretty far down the list below the medium. 1980's, very similar story. 1970's, very similar story. 1960's and again, the coverage differs because the oecd's doesn't have the same data in every decade but nevertheless, we have a very solid story. the u.s. is pretty far down the list in this particular measure how big a deal is holiday spending relative to the rest of this year. okay. this, there is good news. there's good news for americans particularly americans who have self image problems about alexis. we are not alone. we're not even excessive. we are not leaders on this thing. now, there's bad news, and the bad news probably outweighs the good news. the bad news is if you think -- if you are convinced, as volume, the u.s. 13 billion was a problem, then the world wide number is much bigger. so if you tally of the holiday spending around the major economies of the world instead of 65 billion you get about 145 billion per y

wade created a backlash. when it upheld, two-thirds of the public was on its side. when it struck down a similar scientist 18 years later, two-thirds of the public office its side then. the popular opinion is moving fast. >> and this goes back to the point that jeff made earlier about president obama and his philosophy about the court. if you see change as being made most effectively and lastingly by the legislature or the executive or some combination or by the voters in a state ballot, referendum, you want to hold the court off in these situations. the count is moving quickly and we will not hold on to those in the same we as have with abortion and you can argue courts are about protecting individual rights. that is exact leija they are supposed to do and take these bold steps. but they don't do it very often. brown vs. board of education was a really big deal. i am not sure we would be well served as a country by that bold step right now. >> robert jackson said that the challenge of that decision was to explain in legal terms what was a political conclusion. they

wade said, i know what the supreme court said about abortion, but we as a nation have a right to decide what we are going to pay for and what we are not going to pay for. the reid bill said we will pay for abortions, simply and straightforward. the nelson-patch and mend and says no, we won't. i think it is really reflected of the vast majority of how americans feel about this. the fact majority of americans do not want to pay for abortions. you asked where was i during the tax cuts. actually i was not here, i was the governor of the state of nebraska and happen to be governor on 9/11. what i personally witnessed was that the economy tank. 9/11 frightened the people. it caused them to lock up their pocketbooks, if you will. they did not want to spend. half -- as that ratcheted down, jobs were lost and it was just a very tough time. i think i had six special senses -- sessions to cut the budget. then all of the sudden congress got together on and -- well, let us leave more money back in the states. let us allow people to keep more of their money which is really what the tax reductions did

interrogation, i would normally avoid stumbling over rose applied to all the people sitting cross legged wading for processing for. when i was sitting in my interrogation cell, which was another outrageous luxury because most people were getting interrogated in the corridors, i would hear sounds of intense interrogation is coming from neighboring cells or from outside in the corridors. again, because we were talking about culture, because i try to understand culture, and i tried to speak languages, and i try to get across what the place is politics and political pronouncements are about, a cultural thing is very crucial. i have, for example, comments from them, "would you expect? we are going to tear off your fingernails? look at this jail. it is very nice." or jokes about how some people were saying there was raping going on, and did i really fear i was going to be raped in an islamic appropriate jail? the 10180 degrees around when i came out of jail and started hearing about these allegations that were being made and started seeing the evidence. i started doing a lot of journalism in the coun

so i cannot tell you that i look forward to wading into these certain areas. i look forward to watching my nebraska cornhuskers, but i am not going to say i look for it -- this is about our country and our constitution, and i get my game face on. this is our job. the cases i am most excited about are the ones that have the least impact on people's lives. the relieve you of the burden. the way i try to do it is not to get some exhilaration from it, but to be faithful to the constitution, to be faithful to the oath that i took to uphold and interpret -- and the exhilaration i get is at the end of the term to say that i gave it my best shot. >> when you talk about the recognition that your work affects people's lives? what you just said -- the cases that you prefer, that do not directly have an impact on the way people live their lives. why is that? help me understand that. >> when you look at our country, some of the decisions that we make in interpreting the constitution, people went, people lose, and it may have tremendous impact. you have changes in the const

you walk down further, -- farther and you see morrison wade. you look at melvin fuller. you understand his role in making sure the court functioned collegially. you see charles evan hughes. and you recall his role and you think about the importance of thiness of the judiciary, things like that. so it's always an interesting way, perhaps to -- don't do it every day. but from time to time i find it a useful reminder of the role of the court and the role of the chief justice. >> and looking at what your predecessors did and small things like the handshake, for example, sets the tone. have you instituted changes in the roberts' court that help change the way the place functions? >> i don't think. so at least none that i'm aware of. it's kind of hard to say if things have changed when you not real sure how they were before. so i guess the short sans is none that i'm aware of. >> when you put your hand on the bible and took the oath, what was your sense of -- i mean, there have only been 16 people before you to hold this job. what was your sense of the responsibilitys that you

consequently, there are ton for any expert to draw attention to a piece of literature and to ensure a wadef the responsibility we bear and the expectations that we must deal with in providing fair, comprehensive and objectively-produced assessments of climate change. i owe a tribute and debt of gratitude to my predecessors, and the tens of thousands of sign tiffses who have established traditions that establish impeccable consult in the pursuit of our collective goals. in this tribute, i find no basis for any competitions. lastly, i also are express my deep gratitude to this bode for the recentivity and appreciation that they have always displayed in accepting the results of our work. distinguished ladies and gentlemen, we give you our assurance of continuing with unflinching devotion to our duty and upholding the sacred trust you have bestowed on us. thank you very much. [applause] >> distinguished delegates, ladies and gentlemen, please join me in welcoming to the podium, the executive secretary of the climate change secretariat to address our meeting. you have the floor. [applause] >> m

roe versus wade is clear on funding for abortion, and now we are seeing that what that was laid downis what the leader did. taxpayers are sending money to nebraska. the list goes on and on. is that the way that the election nears envisioned the change that ought to come to america that they expressed in the last election? this is not business as usual. it is far worse than usual. it has been negotiated for 26 years by individuals. i know little bit about the subjects, and if this is what negotiation is all about, it is a poor way of doing business and a poor way of negotiating. >> i would make one final statement. the crisis of confidence in this country is at an apex and has not seen in 150 years. and that lack confidence undermines the ability of legitimate government. we need to be paying attention to that, because a lot of people out there today through this process, not just the bill, but the process, will give up on government, and rightly so. questions? >> help me out a little bit on your position, on how this is worse. çóÑi>> i understand this is not explicitly say no abortio

so i cannot tell you that i look forward to wading into these certain areas. i look forward to watching my nebraska cornhuskers, but i am not going to say i look for it -- this is about our country and our constitution, and i get my game face on. this is our job. the cases i am most excited in about are the ones that have the least impact on people's lives. the relieve you of the burden. the way i try to do it is not to get some exhilaration from it, but to be faithful to the constitution, to be faithful to the oath that i took to uphold and interpret -- and the exhilaration i get is at the end of the term to say that i gave it my best shot. >> when you talk about the recognition that your work affects people's lives? what you just said -- the cases that you prefer, that do not directly have an impact on the way people live their lives. why is that? help me understand that. and>> when you look at our country, some of the decisions that we make in interpreting the constitution, people went, people lose, and it may have tremendous impact. you have changes in the

the wade that we interact with our allies, the turkish military, one of our closest allies in nato andhe afghans on the ground in afghanistan, and wherever we are in the world read the marine corps does a lot of training exercises with the senegalese, which 98% are muslim. obviously dealing with muslim communities everywhere is a different dynamic, based on the people you are interacting with. the idea of dealing with the muslim world as a whole, it is not something that the dod for the most part things up. not as a monolithic entity. >> is it on? speaking from a state department perspective, we actually do not speak in terms of the muslim world or a muslim world. one person appointed as these special ever representative the muslim communities -- that is the way we think about this engagement, the new beginning that the president spoke about and cairo, reaching out to communities of muslims who exists in a diversity of environments, as minority communities and many states around the globe. i think that we are all well past the point where we're talking about a monolithic conceptions' e

interrogation, i would normally avoid stumbling over rose applied to all the people sitting cross legged wadingor processing for. when i was sitting in my interrogation cell, which was another outrageous luxury because most people were getting interrogated in the corridors, i would hear sounds of intense interrogation is coming from neighboring cells or from outside in the corridors. again, because we were talking about culture, because i try to understand culture, and i tried to speak languages, and i try to get across what the place is politics and political pronouncements are about, a cultural thing is very crucial. i have, for example, comments from them, "would you expect? we are going to tear off your fingernails? look at this jail. it is very nice." or jokes about how some people were saying there was raping going on, and did i really fear i was going to be raped in an islamic appropriate jail? the 10180 degrees around when i came out of jail and started hearing about these allegations that were being made and started seeing the evidence. i started doing a lot of journalism in the countr

and dwayne wade, he's involved now with his foundation.e two good brothers doing two good things in miami and florida. and it's an honor for me to be a part of it. that's for the associates. we cannot get it out there or something closer. and i want to try to do the same thing look out for the kids to do as much as they can. >> it's been a great weekend and it's been busy. no sleep. but it is all worth it and to be better and better. >> and how does alonzo want to be better? talking naturally as a father, as a person who started this greatly in the community. and how would you like to be remembered? >> i'm more than able to help others the way that they have helped me, creating a legacy for my kids. and you know, i know that i'm encouraging others to do the same for them. and that's how i want to be remembered. i would like to be remembered for a person that cared about the well being of others, perblsly the young people if the had community provided opportunities for young people to succeed. and no one will ever forget that. >> to the suc

wade, preventing women from using private dollars to purchase coverage for a legal medical service. a recent george washington school of public health study warns that the stupak language will reduce access to women who already have it by encouraging insurers to, quote, drop coverage in all markets, unquote. that is not the status quo. the stupak-pitts language is unfair, unnecessary, and unrise. the senate rightly rejected it last night. it cannot be part of health care reform. women will not be forced back to back alleys. i yield back. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlewoman yields back the balance of her time. for what purpose does the gentleman from louisiana rise? >> i ask unanimous consent to address the house for one minute. revise and extend my remarks. the speaker pro tempore: without objection, so ordered. mr. boustany: mr. speaker, this week debate continues in the senate over a massive health care overhaul. what's at stake for seniors? many seniors will probably see their benefits cut or higher premiums. the senate bill cuts more than $135 billion from hospitals serving

no hi wade debt, no debt to build buildings, no debt, and we are very, very proud of that. our governor has made a very tough decisions as previous governors have. for us here in the nation's capital to irresponsibly lay upon him and future governors and the unfunded mandate, and all the harm that will do to this the people being put on medicaid just isn't right. thank you. >> thank you all for coming today. just very briefly, today what we would like to do is tell you, don't listen to us, listen to the democratic governors out there and the ones that are former democratic governors. listen to what they have to say about this. this is a plan that is a typical washington dc solution to the problem, and what it does is here in washington d.c. the way the people spend money is, they don't have that but they spend it anyway. they either printed or daybar wit from the chinese. states can't do that. i think senator alexander has said that every senator who votes for this should be sentenced to go back and be in governor. there's about a dozen of this year, not about, there are ex

a look at the senate bill, the bill that is on the floor of the united states senate and a villie wadeyet diggins those four pillars that have been put forward by the team of economists. first, not only does the bill to achieve deficit neutrality according to the congressional budget office, it is better than that. the congressional budget office suggested it will reduce the federal deficit by $130 billion a quarter% of gdp or more than $500 billion over the second decade of its existence so with regard to the first pillar, check that. second, and excise tax. as you well know the bill on the senate floor includes an excise tax on high-cost private insurance plans. check that box. medicare commission is also there, check that box. finally on delivery system reforms the senate bill includes new provisions and bundling with, in avoidable readmissions to hospitals, that is roughly 20% of medicare beneficiaries are readmitted to the hospital within one month of having been discharged from hospital. no one would ever want to have to go back to the hospital with that is avoidable because it i

i guess i'm wondering what you would suggest in the wade of campaign finance reform to deal with someoblems that you've mentioned. i'm especially concerned with seeing senators like leiberman, who apparently are heavily backed by pharmaceuticals and the insurance industry corporations and how they, you know, kind of get poisoned by the money and what you would suggest as a remedy to that. guest: i think you have an interesting challenge in the citizens united case, which is a very important campaign finance case that's awaiting a does by the supreme court. this case was brought daverbs heard by the court last february, and then there was a rehearing back in early september. and this case provides an opportunity to the five of the justices, those on the conservative side, to address the issue of disclosure and the restrictions on political spending that date back to 1907, a piece of legislation known as the tillman act that prohibited companies from giving contributions to federal candidates. you know, i think there's grave concern that the court could, you know, severely restrict disc

what matters to me is that you wade in. and when you weigh in on something, it is like it gets the moody's rating. not that that matter as much anymore. i think the same thing is happening right now in financial regulation. and as i said, way back long before this, six to eight months ago, it may be at the last meeting, i think to the extent the fed continues to thrust itself in the middle of things, of being the systemic regulator, which again, we will have another systemic risk, another failure. i don't care who the fed chairman is. . . happen. and it just seems to me that the more you thrust yourself in the middle of those things that are outside of monetary policy, and outside of last resort, the more you do things that damage the institution. and i say that because i respect the institution, and just like judd gregg said, and just like i think i said in my comments, i don't want us involved in monetary policy. i think that would be a disaster not only for our country, but for every country that does business with us, w

but it is truly, truly clear that most americans understand that our health care system is wade toole offer health care to every american. host: next four professor carolyn engelhard is robert, of women to the screen, a retired lawyer from booker raton, florida. please go ahead, robert. are you with us? nope, he is gone. story -- sorry about that. arizona, frank, republican. please, go ahead. caller: this health care debate and all that and consensus. why don't you set a cap on the attorney fees? not on the compensation for the patient? host: carolyn engelhard? guest: i think a lot of the attorneys work on a contingency basis, so it is a percentage of the award. i suppose you could put a cap on the attorneys' fees. i would question whether or not there is precedent for that. do we put a cap on other professionals fees? do we put a cap on how much physicians can charge? we do indirectly through a reimbursement system but we don't put a cap on how much physicians make. so it just doesn't seem -- i understand the frustration, frank, but it doesn't seem very american and my guess most ame

wade you agree to that? >> there is a lot of blame to go around. >> gas. my colleague said it was just downright lies that were given and possibly it was done so that government could support bankamerica during the merger. i am thoroughly disappointed that the people that were in place at the sec it look the other way. i yield back my time. >> i yield five minutes to the gentleman from missouri. ressman clay. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. and thank you, mr. khuzami, for being here. let me -- just a couple of questions. at what point should action have been taken to curb some of the activities of the big banks' involvement in the securities market. there had to be some indication to the s.e.c. that some investment houses were stretched too thin without the proper reserves that come at a risk in this market. did red flags or alarms ever go off? what did you know and when did you know it? >> well, congressman, i didn't arrive at the s.e.c. until march of this year. so that's probably not the right person to ask that question of. >> how about the peopl

interrogation, i would normally avoid stumbling over rose applied to all the people sitting cross legged wading for processing for. when i was sitting in my interrogation cell, which was another outrageous luxury because most people were getting interrogated in the corridors, i would hear sounds of intense interrogation is coming from neighboring cells or from outside in the corridors. again, because we were talking about culture, because i try to understand culture, and i tried to speak languages, and i try to get across what the place is politics and political pronouncements are about, a cultural thing is very crucial. i have, for example, comments from them, "would you expect? we are going to tear off your fingernails? look at this jail. it is very nice." or jokes about how some people were saying there was raping going on, and did i really fear i was going to be raped in an islamic appropriate jail? the 10180 degrees around when i came out of jail and started hearing about these allegations that were being made and started seeing the evidence. i started doing a lot of journalism in the coun

wade is still standing as law.age every american to go to google right now and i've been trans afghanistan pipeline, which will not be finished until 2010. every dollar that is used as a dollar that is lost to for health care. we are sending our sons and daughters of to be killed to finish a pipeline. we do not need to be invading other countries to obtain their resources. thank you very much for taking my call. bortion as i said before with senator nelson, this is not an issue that invites come rhymize. it invites strong, hard feelings. i think senator nelson has taken a risk on invoking the issue and then traded away on it. senator leeberman is going to take heat. he campaigned with john mccain for president. his attitude is -- what are you going to do to me. on the question of abortion with senator nelson. this strikes me as something out of the norm to raise abortion as an issue and then drop it. that's something i think he'll probably pay a price for. >> i've been impressed with the creativity people have show

i guess i'm wondering what you would suggest in the wade of campaign finance reform to deal with some these problems that you've mentioned. i'm especially concerned with seeing senators like leiberman, who apparently are heavily backed by pharmaceuticals and the insurance industry corporations and how they, you know, kind of get poisoned by the money and what you would suggest as a remedy to that. guest: i think you have an interesting challenge in the citizens united case, which is a very important campaign finance case that's awaiting a does by the supreme court. this case was brought daverbs heard by the court last february, and then there was a rehearing back in early september. and this case provides an opportunity to the five of the justices, those on the conservative side, to address the issue of disclosure and the restrictions on political spending that date back to 1907, a piece of legislation known as the tillman act that prohibited companies from giving contributions to federal candidates. you know, i think there's grave concern that the court could, you know, severely rest

wade. second, congress said through the hyde amendment, we will spend no federal funds for abortion except in cases involving the life of the moth mother, rape, and incest. third, congress said any provider, hospital, doctor, medical professional, who in good conscience cannot participate in an abortion procedure will never be compelled to do so. this bill does not change that at all. in your state of south carolina, in my state of illinois, the leadership of that state, governor and legislature, decide what they will spend their state funds on. and that is done in states across the united states. and 17 states have decided that they will have state funds paid for abortions beyond the hyde amendment. their state decision. not our decision. in the district of columbia, we in this bill give them the same authority that your state of south carolina has and our state of illinois. no federal funds from the government, from congress, can be spent on this exercise or use of funds for abortions bey

wade that made abortion legal, and he said, i read text. i'm an originalist. my catholic beliefs doesn't affect my thoughts roe v. wade, and i let him say, it is not something that influences my rulings, and i let critics such as the university of chicago's jeff stone counter that, and then readers can take away from that. but at it an historic time for catholics on the court, and he embodies the idea that catholicism can influence a person of the law. >> he says the fact that i'm a catholic didn't lead to my jurisprudence on abortion, and the he cites -- he supports decisions in involving capital punishment. so he has a point there. >> guest: and he -- look, his approach to -- i think that anybody who understands his approach to originallallism would say, of course, you can not not find in the framers' original idea of the constitution a right to abortion. he has a good argument on that. but some people have certainly objected to it. he says that certainly is not influenced by my catholicism. and you're right. on the death penalty, he says that is informed by