opportunity to buy health care, but we would like it to be a 300 million payer system, not a government-run system where a bureaucrat tells you who you can see and where to go. if you go to health transformation.net, we have a lot of good ideas to help people like you live longer and better. i co-chaired a project on quality long term health care for people who are elderly who might end up in long term health care facilities, and i co-chaired with bob, and along with justice sandra day o'connor, developping bold proposals. if you look at what we are doing, you you will feel good that we are trying to help people like you. host: nancy reagan opposing stem cell research. where do you foul on that? guest: its fascinating. we went to the university of minnesota, which has a world class stem cell center. . . solutioa solution to violent development. their exit taking cells from -- they're actually taking cells and they are finding that they can get cells from newborn babies and no one is hurt. you take a small number of cells and it has become a very useful system. in addition, they took some in addition, they took some cells from the skin year-old woman. the reason is, they would like to be able to take a cell from you and grow into a stem cell. if they transplant-- this lady had trouble with her kidneys. if they could grow a kidney from yourself from your skin, that would lower the likelihood of your body rejecting it. it is an amazing breakthrough in research. i give governor pawlenty and a lot of credit for having supported the development of very reece -- barry and research facilities in minnesota. host: greg is on the phone from amherst, new york. caller: good morning, how are you? i have three things for you. one at a time? caller: i have never bought one of your books, but give me quickly the reason you bought this particular book at that particular time? and i have one or two other quick ones. host: we will come back to you. guest: i wanted to outline the kind of changes we need to get us back on the right track and get as growing economically to solve our major problems. the new edition that just came out in paperback has an entire section describing the obama administration and bringing it right of today. host: and a list of books and some of the web addresses that he has been talking available -- talking about are available through newt.org. and your follow-up? caller: my name is greg laughlin, and from the beginning when he was senator obama rahman in the primaries -- running in the primaries, i wanted to call c-span. senator obama, if he became president, i wanted to know what his attitude would be towards reparations, either pay -- payments or other programs or whatever. i was called a racist on television whenever i brought that up. and now, this issue with the president answer in cambridge, i want a fuller discussion of the president's attitude were, what he could do for the black community with the history of this country. we had very little discussion about that, and now, this president i'm afraid might have some problems with 1000 cuts. guest: this morning, there is a story about the president posey, i think, best initiative to help african-americans and that is a very aggressive school reform program that he is working on and i have agreed to help it secretary arne duncan and working with revenue of sharpton because education ought to be the number-one civil rights in the 21st century. -- with the rev. al sharpton because education ought to be the number one civil right in the 21st century. we need to demand to know the quality of the teacher, the amount of students and the quality of this tthe school. r e duncan, i will tell you, he is a very aggressive secretary of education. nothing would do more to help african-americans that are currently trapped in poverty than to have the right kind of education system so they can go out productively, get good jobs, create their own businesses and have a better future. reparations is never going to happen and it is an impossible idea. it would make no sense at all. frankly, having a president who's ties to africa -- from a first generation kenyan, who has zero relationship with slavery, there is no historical basis for hard you try to go about doing it. what i was speaker, i wrote a book about lessons learned the hard way, some of the things i wish i had not done looking backwards. the president the other night should have not said anything. he admitted he did not know the facts and then he went on to make a general comment. i learned painfully when i was speaker, that when you are a national leader, unilever has interesting ideas. everything you say becomes policy -- you know lager have interesting ideas. everything you say becomes policy. i think the president would do all of us a benefit if he would just relax and say, you know, i probably should not have said anything. and we have learned a painful lesson and the move on. he is a young president, a new president, and it would be nice for him to be humble enough to admit that this is just one that he blew. let's get on with business. but it would be nice to know that he is comfortable enough that he could admit that this is something he should not have talked about. host: rich larry has pieces in the "york post" saying, how dumb for sticking his nose in this. guest: this is a guy who has come from being a state senator to be in hillary clinton for the nomination to being president in four years. and he is going to make some mistakes. in this case, it is just a boubou. in football, we like throwing an interception. in baseball, making an error. if he would just relax and say, you know, i should not have gotten involved, that is all he has got to say, and move on. everyone makes mistakes. let's get on to the new topic. host: you tweet, don't you? guest: regulate. host: they're coming in regularly. guest: no, i think the democrats in the house have a liberal problem. it is not speaker nancy pelosi exactly. she has some weaknesses and is easy to caricature as a very strong personality, but strong speakers -- tip o'neill was that i, i was that way. if you are strong, you have people like you and people who want to be you. the real challenge is that the leadership is overwhelmingly on the left in a country that is a center-right country. the gallup -- gallup reported that the country is 40% moderate. in the democratic party it is 30% moderate and 22% conservative. even among democrats by about 60 to 40, they are moderate and conservative, not liberal. but in the leadership of the democratic party of the house, it is about 100% liberal and that causes a problem when they are trying to write legislation that is compatible with the country at large. host: bonnie is on the phone from mississippi. caller: i have three comments. one, the fellow just before you that was talking about tort reform, the national commerce came out about two years ago and said, anyone wanting to start a plant or a job -- whatever -- in mississippi, do not do it because their lawsuit happy. which i thought was out of character. number two, i found that in the stimulus bill, there is -- can remember the man's name, but his brother is the one that brought our alzheimer's -- brought out alzheimer's patients. i'm 72. he was basically telling us, well, at your age, this is too expensive, that's too expensive. host: we should point out charles krofft amarah, -- charles krauthammer is saying that what obama is saying in part is sinking. guest: dr. john gill of texas is a great part of some legislation. in texas, they have passed some malpractice reform very decisively and they have had thousands of doctors move into the state. they have lower malpractice insurance costs and have much less defensive medicine. in the rio grande valley, they have doctors that were underserved for 20 or more years. you see a dramatic change. oklahoma has just adopted that kind of reform based on pressure from texas. missouri has adopted not practice reform. if the president would put significant safe harbor malpractice reform in the bill, i think they could save probably $10 billion to $20 billion per year, has tremendous support from medical doctors and in a way that would improve health practices and get us to better practices. host: with about one minute left, and tweak on help -- on education -- guest: i personally favor vouchers. the president does not. but to his credit, the president and secretary duncan absolutely favor on limited charter schools where parents could pick where their child needs to go. if you have unlimited charter schools, and senator alexander of ohio who used to be secretary of education, if you had universal tour schools and anyone who wanted to could get to a charter school had open information about what the students are learning, i think you would find it very dramatic performance. i still want to be fair. i think the president and secretary duncan are taking a huge gamble into the democratic party critic for them to >> we will talk to richard more about his state's health care system, seen by some as a model for a national program. "time magazine" correspondent discusses his article about president bush and vice president jaime's last day in the white house. we will discuss the prison system with ranking. and did the fed illegal immigration with the head of emigration works, usa. "washington journal" is lead at 7:00 a.m. eastern on c-span. >> now a hearing examining for changes by the obama administration of military commissions and the treatment of detainees. members of the house armed services committee hear from officials from the defense and justice department. this is two hours and 40 minutes. >> i look forward to hearing the perspectives of today's distinguished witnesses on what amendments are needed to make sure we finally end up with a system that can withstand judicial scrutiny and ensure that convention. convictions stick. we will eyewitnesses thoughts. -- we certainly await the witnesses thoughts. today's hearing address has other detainee policy issues such as the claire the closure of guantanamo bay -- such as the closure of guantanamo bay. we had hope that a major report addressing these critical issues would have been released earlier this week as required by the executive orders and the beginning of the year. and stick, the agency task force that was established to reduce reports received a six month extension and issued a preliminary report. the report reiterates the proposed changes to the military commission system and begins to describe the process and criteria that the attorney general will use to determine whether to prosecute a detainee in federal criminal court or in the military tribunals. it does not make recommendations on the details of guantanamo's closure. [unintelligible] they are evaluating all the files of the guantanamo detainees and finalize their work. they will wait -- they will recommend policies to conform to american values. i want to offer a few words of advice. the closure of the detention center of guantanamo will help restore our country's reputation of moral standing around the globe, i am concerned that time is running out and meeting the president's deadline. with little more than five months ago, the details on how guantanamo should be closed, where detainees where the transfer, where prosecution will be taken, the costs, it is frankly disturbance. a detailed plan should be proposed as soon as possible. to maintain congressional support, this plan should safeguard america and be able to be implemented in the little time that is left. with regard to detainees to cannot be prosecuted but cannot be allowed to return to battlefield, the administration should clarified the presence of 42 detainees individuals regardless of where they are held. propose a process to replace the administrative review boards in guantanamo with something that is more independent and viewed as legitimate. lastly, indicate what factors will be considered to determine it has been achieved. continued detention is not -- is no longer justify. preeti justified. -- continue detention is no longer justified. >> the general counsel for the department of defense and admiral david chris, assistant attorney general of the united states department of justice. i turned to my colleague, the distinguished ranking member from california. >> thank you. i thank you for holding this hearing on this important topic. let me begin by welcoming our witnesses, the honorable j. johnson. the hon. david chris. gentlemen, good morning. thank you for being here. and that over 272, 2009, the president said that he would uphold his political promise to close guantanamo bay with in a year and suspend all military commissions pending a review by the administration. i do not want to make this a political issue. i think this is your mccain had been elected, he probably would have done that -- the same thing. let me say that at the outset. the president announced the creation of a detainee task force that would review terrorist detention policies and recommend a path forward within six months. many in congress were skeptical of this approach. it seems unwise to have a policy to close to get mail without a plan. -- to close guantanamo without a plan. there is no alternative location to detainee. to detainees tears. we wanted a policy implemented by judges or not accountable to the american people. our concern was that the military personnel could be vulnerable because of a lack of specific guidance from the commander and chief. i had the opportunity monday with three my colleagues to go to guantanamo and it was quite an education. i have a solid view of what i think should be done there now and probably different from what i probably would have thought a week ago. as we were flying back, we received notice that it will not meet the deadline for meeting the president's new detention policy this delay is disturbing on many levels. it puts the trials and things we are working on down there in suspension that i think caused some real problems. we are between a rock and hard place on this. earlier this year, i joined with many to support legislation that would have required the president to notify legislature it 60 days prior to the transfer or release of a ghetto -- of a gitmo detainee. certify that the transfer or release of a gitmo detainee would not adversely affect the united states or residents of the united states. similar language was adopted by this committee in the house. congress has made a bipartisan statement that it cannot find any policy until it received a plan. given the six month extension for the detainee policy task force, i am concerned congress will be handed a predetermined outcome. this would be an unacceptable outcome. given the vacuum of the information surrounding the demonstrations detainee policy, the testimony takes on even greater importance. let me lay out my views on the issue i expect our witnesses should cover today. a comprehensive detention policy must include a strengthened authority to detain remark, a plan for detaining high-value terrorists have been out of iraq and afghanistan where they will not have habeas corpus review. a plan that insures federal courts to not release detainees from gitmo into the united states. a clear framework that does not favor prosecuting detainees and federal criminal courts but prosecutes violations of the laws of war and military commissions. a commission system that protect sensitive sources and methods and is tailored for the federal bill. finally, a plan that ensures detainees be transferred or released from u.s. custody and to the return to the battlefield and threaten our forces or citizens. it is the issue transfer and release that is me pause. when i visited gitmo on monday, we were shown a picture of a former detainee that was released because he was compliant and seem to no longer pose a threat. the picture showed him holding a child. it turned the we were wrong. he later blew himself up and killed 20 people in baghdad. we have been wrong 14% of the time. i fear we are getting it wrong in iraq and afghanistan to. just this week, it was reported that detainees released american presence in iraq could have been the ones that carry out and attacked -- an attack, wounding scores of people. the consequences are fatal. we need to be honest about the risk of releasing detainees into iraq and afghanistan and the united states. i look forward to your testimony. i hope the discussion we have today will give this congress and the american people a better understanding of the president's detainee policy. thank you. i yield back. > >> you might have to get your clothes to the microphone. it is not as sensitive as you might think. >> can you hear me now? thank you. you have my prepared in advance statement. i apologies -- i apologize for the lateness. but let me interrupt without of jackson. the statements will be injured in total and the record. >> in the interest of time, i will read an abbreviated version. an january 22, 2009, president obama signed executive orders, which established to interagency task force, one to review the disposition of detainees currently held and another to review detention policy generally. these task forces consist of officials from the department of justice, defense, state, and homeland security, and from our u.s. military and intelligence community. over the past six months, these task forces have worked diligently to assemble the necessary information for a comprehensive review of our detention policy and the status of detainees held at guantanamo bay. i am pleased to appear today ito report on the progress the government has made in a few key areas, including military commissions reform. let me begin was some general observations about prosperous. about 780 individuals haven't entertained -- have been detained at autonomous. some have returned to their countries. at the time this new administration took office, we helped to under 40 detainees at guantanamo bay. the task force has reviewed and submitted recommendations on more than half of those. so far, the detainees task for have approved more than half of them to other countries. a number of others have been referred to a prosecution team for potential prosecution either in an article free federal court or by military commission. additional reviews are ongoing and the process we believe is on track. we remain committed to closing guantanamo suspicion -- detention facility within the one-year time from order by the president. a bipartisan cross-section of our leaders have called for the closure of the detention facility at guantanamo bay to enhance our national security. at this administration is determined to do that. we talked a lot about closing the guantanamo bay detention facility. some of you on this committee know who visited their. the military personnel are truly professional. our discussions about closing the facility should in no way reflect on what i believe is the first-rate dedication and professionalism of that the guard force. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for inviting me. this is my first appearance for this committee. and normally before -- appear before the judiciary committee. i would like to explain the work i do and how it relates to that of the committee with respect to military commissions. i -- >> please get closer. >> i leave the justice department's national security division which is the organizational unit that combines all the major national security functions and personnel. our essential mission is to protect national security, using all lawful method consistent with civil liberties and the rule of law, including but not limited to prosecution in military commissions. in the previous administration, national security divisions assembled a team of experienced federal prosecutors and drawn from across the country to assist the office of military commissions and litigate cases at gitmo. that assistance will continue. the man who led that team is a 15-year-old prosecutor and is now my deputy. he is a former member of the -- east of the chief of prosecutor. as the president has explain, when prosecution is feasible we will try terrorists in federal court. i've prosecuted a group in the 1990's. like their more modern counterparts, they engage in what would now be called law- fare in the trouser challenging. the prosecution succeeded not only because it incarcerated the defendants but also because it deprives them of any shred of legitimacy in their anti- government believes. military commissions in hell do the same. to violate the laws of war. it also brings them as illegitimate war criminals. to do this effectively, the commission themselves must first be reformed. the legislation now pending in congress is a tremendous step in that direction. we know from my written testimony that the administration appreciates the pending legislation supports much of it. although i cannot refer here to precise numbers, a significant number of cases have been referred for possible prosecution by joint teams of officials from doj and dealing -- and doa. it would be worth explaining the three essential principles that are embodied. the first is, the president stated in his speech that we need to use all elements of our national power to defeat our adversaries. that is including prosecution and article 3 courts a military commissions. second, article 3 courts, which have legitimacy are also effective in protecting national security and military commission. they are also fair and legitimate. i suspect there are many people in this room or elsewhere who might agree only with the first part of that sentence i just said. there will be others to agree only with the second part. we think both parts are right. that leads to the third and final principle. the choice between the two available options and need to be made by professionals based on a close and careful review of the facts of each case using criteria established by policymakers. we cannot afford to adopt have shut to rules that artificially constrained and limit our options. thou make us less affected than we otherwise would be. thank you. >> thank you. it seems to me there two parts to this issue before us. the first is that any conviction, whether it be by a tribunal or a federal court, mead judicial scrutiny and that those convictions stick and that they be upheld. the second is a necessity of keeping american citizen safe. whenever comes to pass, -- whatever comes to pass, and these must be kept in mind. i will not a great deal of time, but i do wish to ask about the one category that seems to be the most troubling. mr. johnson, i will call upon you to give you -- give us your best legal opinion. there are some in custody in guantanamo today that could then be tried in a federal court, and even with relaxed hearsay evidence, cannot be tried in nature be no -- tribunal. we know full well, including their own statements, and that they are highly dangerous and would attempt to take american lives as well as lives of our allies. what do you propose to do with that group of inherently dangerous inmates at guantanamo? if you cannot try them in a tribunal might you know full well what they will do? >> thank you for that question. the ability and the authority of our united states military to capture and detained the enemy is as old as the army itself. it is a basic concepts inherent in what the u.s. military does. captured and detained. as recently as 2004, the supreme court' reviewer -- reiterated -- we -- reiterated the ability to detain those who are captured. this president's revised the definition of our authority in to more closely aligned it with the authorization that congress passed in 2001. as informed by the laws of war, we believe that definition which we are now using in the courts with respect to guantanamo is the appropriate and sufficient legal authority to detain people who you referred to. those who are threats the american people, threats to our national security, but for whom we do not choose to prosecute. >> in other words, and they could be held as long as the work continues? >> what the president said in his national archives speech is that for that category of people, if we have such people at the end of this review process, it should be clear, defined and legal standards. there should be periodic review so that if we prevail in a habeas case and did not prosecute them -- and do not prosecute them, there is a review that is in place to do a threat assessment periodically. >> how long do you keep them until they get old and gray? how long can you legally keep them under your test? >> under traditional concepts, you keep them until the end of the war. >> there is no one in an insurgency in for a guerrilla warfare to run of the white flight and sit down and sign a peace treaty. what then? >> that is correct. we will not say peace treaty signed on the battleship. that is why we believe that some form of periodic review -- i do not know whether that is every couple of months, every year -- is inappropriate to do a threat assessment of that particular detainee. that is part of the work of this task force, to develop the form of periodic review. >> as the gentleman from california pointed out, there has been one from afghanistan who was real engaged in conflict. there is unclassified document it and others that have been read-patriated and 3-engaged -- repatriated -- re-patrioted and greengage. how come me assure the american people will not happen? >> when i and my colleagues go through this review process and look at threats assessments, classified and unclassified evidence that we have about each detainee, the thing that ways must on my mind is this a person who is going to return to the fight? to me that is the most important factor. evaluating that consistent with the rule of law is the thing that motivates us one way or another. we are all very consonant with a consonant -- we are all very cognizant of that. >> have any of those that have been released and have begun involved in real engagement? >> and nothing that could give that information. sorry. >> have some been released since january 20 of this year? >> certainly some have been transferred to other countries. mr. mohammed, for example, was sent back to the u.k. >> and you understand my concern? >> i certainly do. it is my concern as well. >> the administration has expressed a preference for trying detainees in article 3 court. do you share the same preference? >> is that for me? >> in both of you. >> we have worked out a protocol for determining when a case should be prosecuted in article 3 vs a military commission. i believe the document is public. what the protocol says basically is that there is a presumption that where feasible, referred cases will be prosecuted in the article 3 court in keeping with tradition as a federal prosecution. where other cases make it more obstacles, it may be prosecuted there. it goes through three sets of factors that are traditional factors we look at to determine whether a case that is prosecutable should be prosecuted in one form or another. i suspect that will be a case by case review. >> one of the concerns i have in looking at that is it seems like you go through a preliminary judgment. do you think that would prejudice a case? >> the document itself -- i was concerned about that very issue -- i would not want some line prosecutor or the media to think that we prejudged the case because we reverted to one form or another. therefore you must and i bet his. at the end of the document, it refers to the independence of authority. however the protocol work, it is still of to the u.s. attorney's for the chief prosecutor to exercise their own in judgment in making the determination that a case should be prosecuted. you cannot eliminate grand juries. >> is there concern that by bringing them -- i guess if you try them under article 3 -- you bring into united states? >> i would assume so. >> is there any concern because that would happen and they pick up the additional constitutional rights that some may feel they should not have? >> he can speak to it better. he is in charge of the process. we obviously do have the right that we enjoy in federal criminal prosecution and the rules of criminal procedure. i think doj has had a pretty good track record in cases where we have prosecuted alleged terrorists. >> i would add two points, i guess. with respect to the way to the way the protocol work, the referrals are made by a joint teams. the duty -- the doj and d.o.g. prosecutors. >> when we went to what, no monday, we an opportunity to meet with a lead prosecutor. -- we met with a lead prosecutor in he said all trust will be met with the commissioner. >> that is not the administration's idea that we make the case, but rather they be worked up and evaluated in a case by case way, looking carefully at all the elements of the case and then making a decision about which is the appropriate form and that we do that working together. the second point to make is that these kind of selection choices are not alien to government officials. they are similar to choices that have to be made all the time, whether between federal and state court, but with a federal court and day upmj proceeding. but this is kind of unique with the terrace situation in the problems we have had. are you concerned at all that dividing up into two systems and it might buttress the view that military commissions are second- class tight corsets? but that is a good point. i do not mean to minimize the challenges. it is a unique situation. we are working hard to do this right. it is difficult and challenging. we think we can do it. we are set up to do it. it is vitally important to understand we are working very hard with the congress now. we are actively discussing an amendment to the commissions act. >> you are working with the congress. who in the congress? >> senator 11 had a bill. >> they passed a bill last night. i have it here. they say it is the sense of congress [unintelligible] is trial by military commission under this chapter? >> i am aware of that. i appreciate the essence of the committee. what i meant -- we are investing in the congress to reform military commissions act in a variety of ways. we think with those reforms the military commission system would not be a second-class justice system. but i do not think it is. my question was, what we think the perception -- do we think the perception would be that because of prejudging a moving some 21 trial and some to another? >> we do not want that. we do not want to prejudge. we want to work these cases one at a time. >> there will have to be some judgment made if you decide one goes here and one goes there. >we cannot control the perceptin of that process once the media get a hold of it. we cannot control how the perception will be. >> it is true that i to the make any claim to be able to control the media. >> and nobody in this room does. what we are here to italian -- >> we are here to tell people it is not the case that it will be second class. >> packages at to something. -- if i could just add to something. the captain is a chief prosecutor. he spent 17 years as an assistant u.s. attorney. like many of the officers i encounter, i would expect him to be bullish and optimistic and proud of his mission. it does not surprise me that he would tell you that he thinks we should handle all these cases and that he thinks he can do so. he is not alone. >> we have a hearing last week for we had the jags hear from each of these services. -- jags here for me to the services. >> i am sure we will have a second round. trying to sit in your shoes to make a determination as to which forum in which to try a detainee, my judgment would be your decision would be based upon what type of evidence, in particular what type of here say happens that could or could not be offered in each of the two tribunals. in a federal court before a jury, there are certain hearsay rules that are quite strict. in a tribunal, my understanding is that certain affidavits, certain statements that would violate a court hears a rule would be. here is a role would be -- violate a court here sarsay rule would be dismissive. you did determine that a detainee by the name of gall iani should be tried in a federal court and he was transferred to new york for prosecution in the federal system. what factors lead into determining that? >> let me tell you what i can say, the man who was then transferred is a bit of a unique case, because he was already under indictment for east africa embassy bombing in the southern district of new york or others who had been indicted with him had already been tried. it is a corporate to look at that case as a bit of a unique -- >> it is a bit different. >> it is bit of a unique case given the fact that he was already indicted. >> thank you. >> thank you. i have a question for whoever can answer this question. what percentage any -- if any of the current detainee population in guantanamo are not accused of being associated with al qaeda or the television -- or the taliban? do we have a number better still there by have not been accused with aligning themselves the television or any terrorist groups? i do not think i can give you exact numbers. what i can say but the current population is that the overwhelming majority of them were captured, we would consider the conventional battlegrounds circumstances in afghanistan. i hope that answers your question. i cannot give you the exact numbers. cuesta they were picked up with their association not because of their involvement. >> the overwhelming majority were captured in conventional bus filled circumstances where our military was in afghanistan pursuant to the authorization of this congress in 2001 to engage the caliban and al qaeda forces. >> have any of these people been tried by any of the courts? >> we have had three convictions thus far in military commissions. many of us believe that we ought to be able to move more efficiently in those cases. so far there have been three convictions. >> you do not know the number? it could be five. it could be 60. it could be 100. >> you are not part of al qaeda or the talent and? -- or the taliban? >> i suspect the overwhelming majority are aligned with those combatant forces. >> if i could just add one thing. almost all of the 240 detainees who are at gitmo as of january 20 have filed habeas corpus petitions with the court and it is through that process that they get the ability to be subject to judicial review. that termination is distinct from a secondary question which the word accused brings to mind, which is how many have also been possibly projected to predict subjected to prosecution for not just being an u comeback in, but actually being accused of war crimes. that is a smaller subset. the larger population are having their detention tested their habeas corpus. >> i just have one more question. you stated before the senate armed services committee that it was the decision of the administration that the detainee was acquitted of alleged crimes. they may still have the authority to detain that individual under laws of the war. and they were tried and found that they were not guilty, this is something i could understand. maybe you could elaborate a little bit on that. >> it is my view as a lawyer for the defense department that it is a matter of legal authority, not the circumstance or policy, if there is proper detention authority for a particular individual, that is true, and irrespective of what happens in any eventual prosecution. in your question, if the individual is acquitted, that will be irrelevant to law of war attention to authority. whether not we act they did that is a matter of policy or a judgment. it is a different question, dependent upon the circumstances. i would point out that in one of the three cases and convictions, one received a life sentence. the other two received sentences and have been transferred. bu>> i was referring to the individual that was let loose that killed 25 people. i wonder but all these people who believe they have done nothing wrong and they become so angry that when they are loose they turn against us. this is one of the reasons i'm asking you this question. i know my time is up. >> it appears we have five votes for 5 minutes. we will do our best to squeeze to questions in before we go. >> thank you very much. i am the oldest member of this committee. i remember when frankland's eleanor roosevelt -- franklin and eleanoroosevelt preceded tr. you do not know how reply and that is really poor depression era kit -- happy i am that this really pour a depression era a child can see this. i understand the context in which to make the statement. aren't there not or could there not be established world courts in which these prisoners could be tried it? >> i am sorry. could you repeat that? >> could not be established world courts in which these prisoners could be tried? >> i would not rule of the possibility. others have called for a national security form of court. i can imagine circumstances under which it is possible and appropriate to prosecutes suspected terrorists in an international type for a. -- forum. >> i understand. >> we have a bill that came out of the senate that we think it is a pretty good bill. there are areas where we would invite this body to consider amendments, but in theory, i could imagine circumstances where that might be appropriate. >> thank you. in many things we do, there is a tension between national- security and our international image. when i mentioned military tribunals to my constituents, they have the inherent initial response that i had when i first heard the word. that is a banana republic, a trial at midnight and execution at dawn. . we want a system where there is more opportunity for people to make choices. the idea of where you like what you have and want to keep it, that's fine. we wan to keep it that way. there are easier ways like the daschle-dole observations about getting more choice, more competition into the system. they even mention the fact that our advancable refundable tax credit and our concept of broadening that marketplace are not too far out of line with what the daschle-dole concept on the marketplace was. we may not agree on every issue but on marketplace expansion, we do agree. how do you within the healthcare system itself get cost savings? something in the president's plan, something he seems woefully unaware of in the past two days, everything that would be done to save money. we would look at medical liability reform, more health i.t., more health information technology and more transparency. what do people charge and what kind of results do they get? none of those things are in the plan that the democrats are offering, if there is a plan. there is about three different bills out there in the house right now, but every time you see the bill, it is 100 pages bigger than the last time you saw it. if anybody here believes there is a bill that any single democrat knows what's in it, we'll have a debate on that, because i'm sure that's not true. again, if you watched the president the last two days as he was asked questions about his plan, he clearly didn't have answers about his plan. our plan, more competition, more choice, let market forces work in a way that drive prices down. don't defend the current system to make it work better for consumers and then also make the current system work better at the point of healthcare itself. those two big prince p pells over and over again are reiterated in the 17 boxes of amendments sitting in the commerce committee waiting to be offered if they will ever have a hearing. you can't offer your ideas if there is not a legislative forum to offer your ideas. you also can't combat your ideas if they change by 100 pages every time you walk into the room. we're eager to have this discussion. we have been right up to the edge of pounding on the door for six months. now, our pounding on the door has been calling the white house chief of staff, talking to the president, sending letters saying we want to work with you on this. we want to make the current system better and no one is responding to that an obviously they're not responding because they don't have an idea that meets any standard or goals that we ought to be working on toward healthcare. our committee, the member that over the last decade has been engaged in this day in and day out has been an important part of the integral solutions part as well. >> thank you. i'm nathan neil from georgia. let me put our circumstances in perspective. most of us believe that the decision as to major reform of how americans get their healthcare in this country deserves at least as much time and deliberation as it would take to select a puppy to reside in the white house. it took the president six months to decide how long and which puppy he was going to have and to expect congress to do something on major healthcare reform in six days is totally irresponsible. let me talk about a couple of areas we are concerned about. as you heard roy blunt say, we believe the current system needs some reform. we believe that the current free enterprise system of delivering healthcare through private insurance companies has some things that need to be fixed. for example, we believe that exclusions for pre-existing conditions must be addressed, that affordability of insurance must be involved in any plan that is adopted because people shouldn't have to worry about losing their health insurance because they might lose their job. we believe that people should not have to worry about having their health insurance denied at a point in time when they file a claim simply because somebody in the insurance company goes back through their original application and decides they didn't put everything down exactly right. we believe that those are the kinds of substantive reforms coupled with the transparency issue mr. barton referred to earlier. let me mention the area of illegal immigrants being a part of a publicly-financed health system. we have been through this debate before. we have a number of amendments that would assure the taxpayers of this country that they are not going to be using their hard-earned tax dollars to pay for people illegally in this country. those things resonate with my constituents and certainly with most people across this country. i'm afraid we won't have the opportunity to offer those kinds of, i think, progressive reforms not only to the current system but also to the proposal that the democrats have on the table. let me echo what mr. blunt and mr. deal have indicated. the president has obviously not read the bill himself. nothing in this shall limit individuals from keeping their current hell benefit plan. that sounds simple, doesn't? it? the president has said "if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. if you like your healthcare plan, you will be able to keep that healthcare plan, period. so that's the president's statement. you saw my amendment. what does the bill say? i have a copy for anyone who is interested. on page 17, it says after five years, the commissioner, and the commission, with the exchange, mandates that all healthcare mans in america must meet a qualified health benefit plan under section 101, including the essential benefit package requirement under section 121. what that means is that all the plans that pates have will have to conform and be mandated to change or they're eliminated, terminated, so the president says he wants everybody to have their own choice of doctor and healthcare plan. they won't have the right to choose. simply put. on page 17 of this bill, it outlines specifically after five years all plans will be mandated to come my to the government healthcare position or be eliminated or terminated. possibly the president needs to talk to mr. waxman or revise page 17 because what he says does not comply. unfortunately, i don't think he has read this section. >> we do want people to know what is in this bill, and that is the reason for bringing our amendments to you today, so that you will see what we're offering for the committee to consider. we certainly want to make certain that healthcare works for americans, and this morning, we had a great press conference with some female business owners that came to capitol hill to express their concerns. i will attempt just a couple of those for you. are they concern about cost? absolutely. costs need to be addressed. are they inconcerned about insurance companies? yes, they are. they agree with us as you heard ranking member deal mention this port that some of the issues with portability with insurance, some of those issues need to be addressed, pre-existing conditions. we have amendments that would do that and are looking forward to the opportunity to present them to the committee and to congress and to the american people, and we certainly want to make certain that people have transparency, and the options that are there, that people own their health insurance, that they own their health records. these are some of the highlights from the conference we had this morning with the female business owners. he they are going to work hard with us as we continue to push through the next few weeks to look at what happens here before we go out on recess, to look at the opportunities that exist in august as we talk to constituents and as we talk to business owners big and small and as we talk to healthcare consumers to make certain they understand our commitment to stand with them to preserve their access to affordable healthcare in their own communities. >> thank you, member barton. i'm from the third district of arizona, and healthcare reform has been a passion of mine since i got here. i worked on patients bill of rights concerns back in 1995, '96 and '97 and written a comprehensive healthcare reform bill every year i have been here, written legislation to enable people to buy health insurance across state lines at an affordable rate. there are things we agree upon. republicans believe in and support legislation to fix the problem with people -- for people with pre-existing conditions an chronic conditions. we believe that those people ought to be able to buy healthcare through a reinsurance program at the same cost as every single one of us. this isn't just talk. we passed legislation to encourage states to do that through state high-risk mech mixes four years ago. i know because i wrote the bill there is agreement on that issue. we republicans would like to go further and make that a national high risk pool so it covers everybody. second, cover all americans. many republicans that have been working on healthcare reform including myself, dr. ryan, richard burr and others have offered legislation that covers every single american. we would get every single american a refundable advancable tax credit to cover every one of them. let's talk about where we don't agree. we believe that the tax code has to be fixed. it is an outrage to say to american businesses you can buy health insurance with pre-tax dollars but we want everyone health who doesn't have an employer-sponsored plan to be responsible and buy it but we're going to smack you down by making it cost you a third more. that's the law in america today. if any one of you people sitting here now don't have employer-based health insurance and you got to buy it on your own, you have to buy it with after tax dollars. that's unfair and an outrage. every one of these republicans wants to fix that problem an empower people. there is a fundamental difference in this issue. that difference is that the democrats want a top down punishment driven, command people around, mandate coverage by businesses mandate coverage by individuals an punish them if they don't comply. republicans want to empower you. i'm not talking vagaries. i'm talking you, ma'am, right there, empower you to buy your own health insurance plan. the democrats talk about abuse. they talk about plans that cancel people. you know how plans get away with cancelling people. your employer buys the plan. he has a motive not to look out for you as carefully as you look out for you and you can't fire that plan. if you picked out the man, you wouldn't accept the terms that your employer picks. that's what we want for you. we want you to buy a plan that can't cancel you and if they threaten to cancel you, you fire that plan and go buy a plan that can't cancel you. we want to empower the people. >> i would like to speak up on the point john just made a year ago you wouldn't have asked the government to pick out what kind of car you could buy but maybe now you would. that brings up the other point. the government has taken over your financial sector, automobile manufacturing and now wants into your doctor's office. we had a good amendment drawing down the experience in texas that liability reform has done a lot towards lowering malpractice rates an bringing doctors back to practice p in that state. i offered that last friday and struck down on technicality. we will address the technical problems that the chairman bout up. we have been in recess since monday night and haven't been able to do that. if you are denied by one of these boards, if the democrats' bill passes and they have boards that decide, shouldn't the patient have the opportunity to come back in and have a hearing and protest that denial of care? we asked our insurance companies to do that several years ago, and shouldn't we ask the public plan to do the same thing. there will be a vast expansion of medicaid if it passes and if that happens, should we not at least ensure that those patients have access to a doctor? one of the ways we can do that is assure that every state will reimburse physicians at a rate that is no less than 75% of their plan rates. those are simple common sense things. we haven't been able to offer those amendments because the committee has been in recess all week. let's get down to business for any legislation that actually works for the american people. >> my colleague from georgia, rep representative nathan deal spoke a second ago about what kind of dog the white house would have ended up with if they had are rushed that through. they would have ended up with a junkyard dog if they had rushed it through, just like on this healthcare situation. we want affordable accessible and universal healthcare, an accessible and universal to everybody. instead, we rush it through and end up with universal nightmare. we can do this right and you heard representative shadegg talk about republican legislation. so much for all this bull about republicans have no bill. we definitely do. we have plans and of course all these amendments that representative blunt just held up that big box of amendments. let me just mention one that i have submitted along with representative blunt and joe barton and others, that say if that public plan option is so darn good, let's sign up immediately the president, vice president and every member of congress should be on that public option. let's put your money where your mouth is. if you're going to talk the talk, let's walk the walk. i think that would be a great message to the american people that yes, this plan is good. we members of congress, if we're going to end up getting denied coverage and rationing of care, so let's put up or shut up, and i think we have some great plans. i'm proud to be here with my fellow members of energy and commerce and i will yield the podium. >> i'm steve buyer from indian nax this is my 17th year in congress. i have vast experience with the v.a. system and also the private health system. i look back over the years as the republicans working with conservative democrats, we would work on the prevention side on healthcare, address the portability issues and we tried to maintain that which is right within the private system and work on that which is wrong. the advocates today of the government option of healthcare calling it reform are the individuals that voted against things that we tried to do in auk sessive congresses. thats was associated health plans, being able to allow businesses to pool together to then spread the risk, and lower those premiums. we love john shadegg's initiatives. look at what you're able to do with automobile insurance. you can buy it across state lines. we ought to be able to do that with healthcare. take another step forward. if you're good driver, you get a good driver discount. what if you're responsible in how you take care of your body? you exercise. you watch your cholesterol level. you don't smoke. you don't drink, gosh, should you get a premium discount? we think you should, and it's called wellness programs and trying to encourage people to take a greater incentive in their personal wellness, and i tried to work with some democrats and have an amendment coming to do that. the white house advised one of the democrats on the other side not to work with republicans on that amendment. that is bizarre to me because it is the president himself that talked about some ofs these companies doing these wellness programs but now are saying they don't want to do that. it is very cheer that the government option is their plan. they're calling it health reform but it's all about government control. it is very disturbing, and so with that i'm going to yield to mr. mr. solomon. >> john solomon, oklahoma. -- john sullivan, oklahoma. last week, i was asked to look at inefficient spending in government health programs and my amendment gave the blue dogs the ability to show their teeth and show that they are willing to work in a bipartisan way to limit an additional level of government inefficiency and red tape in our healthcare plans. unfortunately, shortly after my amendment was adopted, chairman waxman shut down the committee process for a bipartisan cooperation led to more common sense reforms. house republicans agree that healthcare is too expensive and too many families are struggling. we stand ready to reform the system, make healthcare costs more affordable regardless of pre-existing conditions of our nation's healthcare system is in need of reform but should not come at the expense of small businesses an straining the doctor-patient relationship. two things that we should point out is that since then barack obama has been on t.v. a lot. he wants to root out waste, fraud and duplication and in the next beaght talks about expanding the program even more. if this were so good for america^ , why would the biggest majority that our chairman told us yesterday, the democrats have the largest majority in 50 years, why can't they pass this bill? because the american people can't stand it. there is not one man, woman, child, democrat or republican that thinks this is a good idea in my district. people tell me do not support that. do not support that government-run plan. we're happy with our healthcare system. thank you. >> thank you, ranking member barton. all of us up here agree that our healthcare system needs to be reformed but you don't blow up the best metd medical care system in the world to fix the problem. we strongly oppose the takeover of healthcare with the rising costs an massive increases in taxes that go along with it. you can see from the large number of alternatives that we are offering to chairman waxman, many of which he won't even let see the light of day. we have common sense ideas that share bipartisan support. we're hoping these ideas get brought forward. if you judge by the last two weeks, we have the congressional budget office in committee about two weeks ago. now, unfortunately, you probably didn't know about it because chairman waxman threw the public out of that meeting. while they talk about transparency, they literally shut down the meetings of the public, threw the media out. what we heard, though, was things that they probably don't want the public to hear. mr. elmendorf talked about some of thizing costs and talked about the fact that the saving ings don't exist in the bills that they file. one of the p president's pledges was that nobody who makes less than $250,000 a year would see their taxes go up. the president breaks his own pledge in the bill they file. there is a clause in that bill. they talk about doing healthcare reform to address the uninsured people. when you break down the numbers, you have about 7 million uninsured people yet they're blowing up the entires system. they admit that millions of people will still be uninsured. do you know they have a 2 1/2% tax on americans that don't have health insurance after this passes. if you are an uninsured person today, by their own admission, millions will still be uninsured if their bill were to pass. they would tax those americans to the tune of $29 billion. the c.b.o. confirmed that. $29 billion in new taxes on americans who are uninsured after their bill passes, and clearly there are over $800 billion in new taxes in this bill in addition to a government takeover that allows a healthcare czar to ration care and literally interfere with the relationship between you and your doctor. their approach is the wong approach. we've got lots of alternatives and we're willing to stay to bring these alternatives up. we need a healthy discussion with all of the american people seeing the details of the bill, instead of their approach of just ramming this proposal through before anybody gets a chance to see it. i think america has the opportunity to have these amendments debated and voted on. we have progressed from chairman waxman telling the democrats to defeat our amendments to not even being able to offer them now. as it comes, the rumor is that it will come straight to the floor whether it is next week or in september, eliminating the opportunity, and if any of us think we will have an open rule that allows these to be introduced, they're crazy, and we don't expect that. america is not going to see these amendments, and that's their agenda. what are some of the amendments in this box that america will never see? well, the one that we drafted that says all white house and members of congress have to participate in the public option plan. i think that's fair. i have had lots of constituents suggest that to me but that's never going to be debated. we have hospitals that are run by religious organizations that are very concerned about the conscience clause. that's one of the amendments drafted that i wrote with the support of several p members, and we will not debate the conscience clause and ban taxpayer money of abortions through these policies and the exchange. it is not going to be debated. it is not going to be voted on now. so the opportunity for the taxpayers to be p protected that their tax dollars now depending on what the commissioner would rule, would have to be used for abortions, there is many people in america that oppose that. we're not going to have that debate or vote. that's what's being left behind. that's the atrocity of these ideas those are just three ideas that i co-authored. >> before we take questions, the only two that don't need a haircut are mr. scalise or mr. terry, myself included, have to get a haircut. we'll take your questions now. yes, sir. >> could you elaborate a bit on why that is what you are hearing? >> i don't believe speaker pelosi would do that. if she were to do that, it would be a direct slam on all 36 of the democrats including chairman waxman, mr. markey, mr. dingell, so that they would be predisposeed to know the rule and i also think the blue dogs would vote no because they wouldn't be allowed to continue their negotiations, and i think a number of progressive democrats that have concerns about the timing of the bill would also be predisposeed to vote no. it is easier to defeat a rule, which is a procedural vote than have to vote no on the bill. this bill is currently very flawed. i don't see the votes being there to get a rule to get the bill on the floor. as has been pointed out by mr. terry, we've got 86 more amendments to offer. they're not going to adopt a rule that allows 86 republican amendments on the floor. yes, sir. >> (question inaudible). >> >> it would depend on what the use of the research itself, i think, republicans would support, for what use, we have some questions. we don't want it to be used for a rationing of healthcare. dr. gingrey has some things on that. >> we did a little bit of markup the one day we marked up and had several amendments. it addressed just that issue, the comparative effectiveness research council and what decision making that they can have an and how much power they could have. one amendment was rejected. i think we may have gotten one democratic vote to say that they couldn't make that final decision between a doctor and a patient, that they could -- and we're for this. we're for comparative effectiveness research on a scientific basis that shows best practices for different diseases and what works best and to suggest and make sure all physicians are well informed about that, but there's something called the art of p medicine, and the hippocratic oath, an physicians many times know they have that sixth sense that one particular patient needs something a little different. that was our great fear. i'm very surprised that the dems voted that down. the second amendment was to say that that same effectiveness council could not make decisions that ration the care, particularly in regard to our precious seen senior citizens that maybe reach a certain age and pick a number, 85, 90, my mother's age, and she could not have gotten that knee res placement that she desperately needed. it changed her life under the provisions of this bill. >> (question inaudible). >> we have a lot of amendments. we also have a republican substitute in committee that would be a comprehensive substitute for the democratic bill. it would encompass -- everything is in the substitute. it would substantially encompass that. >> many of us have offered republican bills. i introduced not long ago with a number of the commerce committee members improving healthcare for all americans act. i believe it covers all 12 of those points. mr. kemp has been working with the working group that mr. blunt has and at the right point in time, we would offer that piece of legislation. it has all the things you heard us talk about. >> anybody else? thank you. thank you for being here. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] ncement act of 2009. i yield back. mr. cantor: i thank you, mr. speaker. i did not hear the gentleman speak of the prospects of the house considering the health care bill, an i would ask the gentleman the status of that discussion and whether this house will be delivering on the speaker's commitment that this house was going to vote on her health care bill, and i yield. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding. the status of the health bill as i think the gentleman knows is it's still in the energy and commerce committee. the energy and commerce committee has not reported out that bill. i don't know the speaker's commitment, but certainly the speaker and i both had the hope that we would be able to pass the health care bill by the time we left here on the 31st of july. my view is that this point in time that may not be possible. however, that does not mean necessarily that we won't be here perhaps longer. i hope that's not the case, but if it proves to be necessary, we may be here a either longer, either on a saturday or the third or the fourth. i don't want anybody to be planning on that at this point in time, but currently the status of the bill is it's still in the energy and commerce committee. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. mr. speaker, i'd ask the gentleman again for some clarification. did i just hear the gentleman say that we will not be considering the health care bill this week? and i yield. mr. hoyer: i didn't say it in so many words, but i have indicated and the speaker's indicated that we will do 48 hours' notice, as required, or at least we would hope to do. this is a very important bill. it is a bill that has great consequence to all americans. and we -- we're going to meet that -- those targets of notice. so in that context in light of the fact the bill is still in the committee, it may be impossible to meet that commitment and get the bill on the floor on the 31st. as a result, my view is the probability of doing that bill by the 31st is very small. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. so to reiterate, i will say that i heard the gentleman say the probability of doing taking up the health care bill by t 31st is very small, and i suspect that is due to what we have read in the news reports for successive days now about the difficulty that your side is having in gaining a majority in support of the bill. and we have said all along, mr. speaker, there is a reason that there's a bipartisan majority against the health care bill being proposed by the speaker. . people are unsure about the direction a government health care program would take them. we stand ready and willing to work together to try and effect reform for the american people. we on the republican side of the aisle do not accept the status quo. we want to see a health care reform bill that works for the american people, mapets choice and quality, reduces costs so more folks can have access to coverage. and that's not the bill before us, at least that which is being reported. and so i would ask the gentleman if there is a very little probability that this bill would come up prior to the 31 and given that he and i have had discussion about the schedule, how long will we be in session beyond the 31? and i yield to the gentleman. mr. hoyer: i thank the gentleman for yielding and we think the bill that is pending, we're not sure that your premise correct. we think your premise not correct. we think the majority people on this floor want to vote for a health care reform bill and they will vote on the bill as it becomes more perfected. i don't accept your premise that there aren't majority of votes for the bill that is being considered in this house. having said that, however, my point was that we want to give appropriate notice. if we can't give appropriate notice by the 31 of july, it is possible -- i'm not saying we will be doing this -- but it is possible that we would move onto it they are saturday the 1 or monday and tuesday the 3 and 4 if need be. and if that was appropriate. it may or may not be. i don't want to say at this point in time, but i do want to give members some notice that that is a possibility. mr. cantor: i thank the gentleman. and obviously, if the process had worked differently, if i would suggest to the gentleman if we were allowed to try and put forward the kind of proposals that we are attempting to do and there was reception on your side to allow for some of the quote free market principles and cost control suggestions that have been made, according to a member on your side, mr. minnick, a few days ago, maybe we would be on a better course. in the same way, i think -- a colleague from the gentleman's state, mr. kratovil said, the bill isn't out of the committees and we are already talking about voting on this. we feel the same way, that there has been very will willingness to work together to try and get a health care plan right. and mr. speaker, the way that i believe we get it right is to tell the people of this country exactly what would be in store for them by the insistence that there be a government plan involved in their health care. so i would tell the gentleman, we obviously stand ready to work with him and the speaker to perfect a plan that could get much larger than just probably the small majority that he'll be able to produce, given the news reports that we're hearing. and with that, mr. speaker, i would like to ask the gentleman about his anticipation of next week's appropriations bill, the d.o.d. bill. and he and i, as the gentleman knows, have had a long-standing discussion on the rules. we on this side of the aisle have been extremely upset, as he knows, about the change in precedence of this house, that somehow it was ok for this house to leave the precedence of rules and to insist that we not be able to hold open discussions on issues surrounding the constitutional obligation of this body to spend taxpayer funds. so i would ask even after the good faith attempt that we have made to open up rules and have been rebuffed at each turn, is it his hope, his intention that perhaps on the d.o.d. bill, whether we could see that happen. and i yield. mr. hoyer: certainly going to have good faith on our side as you have had all along. on the defense appropriation bill, it's my understanding there are well over 100 amendments that have been filed. clearly if we did that under an open rule and allowed all 100 amendments, which ks by the way are by one member, we would never finish the bill if we stayed through august. having said that, i have talked to the chair woman and it's my belief that mr. flake has filed over 100 amendments, will be given a.m.le opportunity to choose which amendments he wants to offer. i don't know the other amendments. notice has been filed. i don't know the other amendments and don't know what the rules committee is going to do. i will tell the gentleman that the bill will come under a rule, we believe that this side of the aisle has had most of the amendments that have been offered clearly and mr. flake and others, mr. hensarling were given the opportunity to offer a number of their amendments on earmarks, which i know are of great concern to both sides of the aisle. so i say to the gentleman, we expect to take the defense bill up under a rule similar to those under which we've operated, which are facilitated by the way, as the gentleman knows, all 11 of the 12 appropriation bills having passed and while i was not sure of what was going to happen on the health care bill, we will achieve our objective of passing all 12 appropriation bills in a timely fashion. i yield back. mr. cantor: the gentleman does speak to the point i'm making, we are trying to get things right here. and spending billions of dollars is not the goal here and i know he agrees with me on that. that we are trying to effect the most prudent expenditure of taxpayer dollars in this difficult economic time. as the gentleman knows, we voted on a pay-go bill this week and frankly, the spirit behind that pay-go bill was to attempt to restrain the type of spending that we've seen this congress conduct. in fact, this week in one of the reports, one of the authors of an opinion column said, frankly, we're spending -- the spending pay-go bill that was passed this week was full of loopholes. and again, we know that the pay-go bill that was passed was that, it wasn't a hole is particular pay-go bill and wasn't something that will do much to address the runaway spending. and so we still sit here, mr. speaker, and want to have an open process so we can contribute to holding back the runaway spending in this town. and so i would say to the gentleman just as he has said to me, we ought to be looking to try and open up this process again. and we were not allowed to do so on the pay-go debate and address the number one concern of this government right now, which is the runaway spending. we have not been allowed to do so on any of the appropriation bills. and if we're going to be here through the weekend, as the gentleman has suggested, why isn't we couldn't take that time to debate the d.o.d. bill in an open and full transparent manner? i yield. hoyer hoyer as i said, i think we will have a -- mr. hoyer: as i said i think we will have a rule as we did in the previous 11. as i said, i believe we will be considering the defense bill under rules similar to those which have led to the passage of the 11 other bills. i yield back. mr. cantor: i say to the gentleman, obviously with much disappointment and i think really reflecting the disappointment on the part of the american people that we should be having a much morrow bus debate on these issues. certainly if we are going to be addressing the issue of health care and the gentleman says his side is insisting on rushing that to the floor and insisting on some political deadline and i don't understand why it is we couldn't have an open debate on >> now an event with john conyers where he talks about the arrest of henry louis gates, jr., and this is 45 minutes. welcome to the national press club. we're committed to a future of journalism by providing informative programming and journalism education and fostering a free press worldwide. for more information about the national press club, visit our website at www.press.org. on behalf of our 3,500 members worldwide, i'd like to welcome our speaker an guests in the audience today and like to welcome those of you who are watching on c-span. we're looking forward to today's speech. afterwards, i will ask as many questions from the audience as time permits. hold your applause during the speech so we have time for as many questions as possible. for our broadcast audience, i'd like to explain that if you hear applause, it may be from the guests and members of the general public who attend our luncheons and not necessarily from the working press. i would like to now introduce our head table guests and ask them to stand beefly when their names are called. from your right, john peterson, senior vice president of atco worldwide and former washington correspondent for the detroit news an former member of the national press club's board of governors. larry givens of gannett news service, also a former member of the board of governors. dr. patricia berg, a member of the national press club an professor at george washington university medical school. tip ryan a retired reporter for the detroit news an past president of the national press club. gail dixon, member, station board, wpfw, pacifica, and a guest of congressman conyers. perry applebalm, chief counsel of the house judiciary committee. skipping over are myself for a second, angela keen, bloomberg news an chair of the n.p.c.'s speaker's committee. skipping over our guests, bob wiemer, committee member who organized today's luncheon and national columnist. thank you, bob. marcie dyson, georgetown university center for social justice an guest of congressman conyers. rev ran barbara reynolds, radio host and columnist. deb price of the detroit news, and finally, herb chapman of bloomberg radio. [applause] "washington post" journalist jack anderson once called our guest today a jumping yard dog investigator watch -- a junkyard dog investigator. certainly there has been no shortage of that in the 40-plus years that john conyers, jr. has served in the house of representatives as a democrat from michigan. congressman conyers is the second longest serving house member. before winning his seat he served as an aide to the longest serving congressman, john dingell, also of michigan. that means, by the way, he has been reelected 22 times. [applause] along the wear, there have been great achievements an great controversies. among this claims to fame, he is a founding member of the congressional black caucus, an original enemy on president nixon's enemies list. [applause] and he introduced a bill in congress to make tar martin luther king, jr. day a national holiday. [applause] congressman conyers now chairs the powerful house judiciary committee where he has been an outspoken critic of president bush's policies regarding interrogation of terrorism suspects an warrantless wiretapping. he hasn't hesitated to use his committee's power to pursue investigations into those policies. he is also front and center in the national health insurance debate as a long-time advocate of the single payer system in which the government would provide healthcare to every american. we look forward to hearing his take on what now appears to be the stalled healthcare bill. please welcome congressman john conyers. >> thank you for a well prepared introduction. i do that myself and you delivered it remarkably well. to everyone here at the head table and all of you, many of my friends, i'm happy to see you here today. wiemer, an pat, and dick ryan from way, way back, larry biffen s. john peterson, dave mcconnell, deb price, and the few friends that i have invited, my staff, all of you here, this is a great time to have a discussion for a few minutes as to where i think we are, and so i always ask my staff to overprepare he me, and they didn't let me down today. let's see. we got a 29 pages, plus some books and things that i asked about, and then i always go off on my own anyway, but this is a great help, though. nothing like it. there were five things that i wanted to squeeze into 15 or 20 minutes, and we can talk about them. eric holder must appoint a special council to review the bush administration abuses of power and misconduct, a criminal probe. he has got to do that, and that's why i love being at the press club. you will hear about this. of course, he knows how i feel anyway, so eric and i go back a long ways. number two, i've got a bill that calls for a blue ribbon panel about the same thing, and so why , chairmen, do you need both? well, because a special council is not going to work in the public. they have to work confidentially, of course, and he so we need a 9/11-type panel, no congressmen on it. i wouldn't even put ex-members on it, so that we can publicly go into what we have talked about an been doing. by the way, i have to say i was surprised as i was looking over my notes. they said we have had 55 hearings on this subject matter, this administration, it's abuse of power, its misconduct. i said 55? may i see them? may i see the titles. so they whence back to 2007, and started off with all of these, an i've got them available for anybody that would like to get a copy of them. see my staff back there and they would be happy to make it available to you. we need, also, to enforce the subpoenas that i have issued to my friends and other administration for declining to join us in the rayburn hearing room for a few dozen friendly questions under oath at risk of perjury and we have to keep the process working. i mean, congress' role has been diminished as the president's executive role has increased, but when you get around to saying everybody says well, i can't come because it's executive privilege, i can't tell you, i work in the white house. i can't tell you what -- i can't answer these questions. we try to counter with, wait a minute, you don't know what questions we're going to ask. and besides, if we ask one that you think deserves to be challenged, we'll set it aside and see if we can work something out, but the blanket, anybody near the white house doesn't have to come to a hearing. that wouldn't wash, you know, in my son's freshman chas at morehouse college in atlanta, much less with me, and so we're in thes process of enforcing the subpoenas against harriet miers josh bolten, and miers was the lawyer an bolton was the chief of staff. he's got lots of documents an all the bread crumbs, as we call them, go right to the white house. it's not hard to figure out the firings of the u.s. attorneys, mid sizing -- politicizing the one branch of the administration that should be as free of politics as possible, the department of justice, and then we are trying to get hate kimes crimes through. oh, boy, somebody wanted to add the death penalty to the hate crimes act. thanks, guys. nothing like cooperation with the other body, and then a subject that has commanded so much of my time is the universal healthcare bill. i started with this so long ago, not as the leader of it, but when hillary clinton called us universal single payers into the white house, we had 100 then, 101, i think, and we have 85 cosponsors now, which is the most powerful bill in the congress, and yet there is this effort to lock it behind the door and let's talk about it as little as possible. the one that most americans have been polled to want, and this reaches everybody. a universal healthcare bill from the moment you're born until the time you go to heaven is what we need in this country. most industrialized countries already have some form of it already, and so i spend an enormous amount of time with other organizations over 500 labor organizations alone, democrats for progressive democrats of america, churches, community groups. i'll be speaking on sunday night with the national medical association of african-american docs and their organization was supporting this when i first started out, and he so that's the general drift of where i'm coming from. now, we want to lay down some guide posts. because one of the problems in this democratic process of ours is that if you don't, it's assumed that it's ok. you did it under the past administration, an there with the usual liberal critics, but forget them.
Related Keywords
New York , United States , Missouri , Texas , Afghanistan , Tamarah , Maysan , Iraq , Minnesota , California , Georgia , Michigan , Washington , District Of Columbia , Mississippi , Arizona , Oklahoma , Kenya , Baghdad , Cambridge , Cambridgeshire , United Kingdom , Ohio , Italy , Italian , Americans , America , Kenyan , American , Henry Louis , John Conyers Jr , Al Sharpton , Nancy Pelosi , John Peterson , Arne Duncan , Reece Barry , John Conyers , Richard Burr , S John Peterson , Gail Dixon , Charles Krauthammer , Al Qaeda , Joe Barton , Greg Laughlin , Dick Ryan , Nancy Reagan , Gallup , John Dingell , John Sullivan , Nathan Neil , Barbara Reynolds , Jack Anderson , Martin Luther King Jr , Obama Rahman , David Chris , Barack Obama , John Gill , Patricia Berg , Eleanor Roosevelt Franklin , Dave Mcconnell Deb , Hillary Clinton , Harriet Miers Josh Bolten ,
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.