>>ell, it is -- it is very difficult. but it's something i fel very songly about. i think that we in america need to face the real ssibilities here. i felt that way throughout two conflicts, that we need to b very realtic and very transpart about it. it is a tou fight right ow. t's going to be tough over the next year. and we are goi to lose people. i've also found that engaging soldie and rines, that they derstand that. they have friendshat are losing now. and so they clearly do know whathe possibilitiesre. and ye all of us work hard to make sure there isn't one, if that's possible. >>ehrer: one of the fort campbelloliers asked you, straightforwa what is the most the bigge vulnebility that the troops, u.s. roops are going to have when the get on the grnd. >> yeah, i think i answered there were two. >> lehrer: yeah. >> one is the ieds, these improvised elosive devices. >lehrer: those are scary. they are. and they are -hey're local. they're essenal all the maerials that are -- that are being used by the taliba are in afghanistan and they are big. a we've had me real

>>ell, the left quite honestly itrying to hide its gl in many cases. i mean, the left, i me senators like jay rockefeller, dk gephardt pushed thifor years to expansion of medicare tohe age of 55. in fact, ahony wiener, democratic congressman fm new york citmade the miste saying this isn't the -- nose under e -- --. >> this is what i don' understand, in oer to get thmoderates they propose something which is furth to the left an what is theralready. so who a we fooling here? i mean it is -- it movesou tord a single payor, it is a government pn. and the concern that a lot people have, it will -- willou have a lot of cost shifting going on that the mecare is paid for by shting costs under the private plans. you get more medicare, that mas it harder for the doctors and providers toay for the stuff becae there is less undethe private plan so the idea th we've solved our problem wh the modetes, i don't think so. >> getting to 60, that is ally what it is. lehrer: that is all about. >> it isn't ing over 60, it is geto 60. an that's sabut we don't have majority

>>ell, cost, unlike certain otr areas, you can lit the difference and they may end up tryingo mix aren't match but clear the momentum now is with the senate plan, i thinkof taxing the higend insurance plan that is somethinthe white house said it prefers. there certain sentiment that paying for this shoul come from withinhe alth-care system. it just applying a broad-based tax the wealthy doesn't ma as much sense trying to get those llars from the health-care system itself. my sense is at is where it hato go. justn general because the senate passed itwith no om to spare, i think that the chances are that the house ll is going to have to become mo like the senateill. the senate bill can make a fechanges but ultimately if they make tooany changes to it they will lo a senator. they can't afford to le enone. i think that is the dynamic we will see inhe next few week >> woodruff: amo others, the labor unionsre going to be screaming,re creaming, th don't want th change. they don't wanthose plans taxe they don't want a tax. ey feel their members have worked for years, bargained other ghts to get

>>ell, it's an interesting... that's an inresting question, jim, becau what you find is if you ask people how you feel about the bill gng through congress, you get a gative reaction. if you tl them what's in the bill, then you get a hlthy jority for the bill. and i think, you know, the legislativprocess isn't always an attractivthing and it tends to focus on eas of contention. the thingshat i've mentioned, i think,re broadly supported the american people. they want it, they knowe need itand when they hear that that's ithe bill, they support the bill. i have no doubt that oe this ll is passed and implemented the american peoplwill appreciate it anit's going to improve the lives people across this untry who are ruggling in this health care system today. >> lehrer: you're not concerned about... andrew kohut, for instance, a distinguisd llster says his reading of t polls is that threal drop in suort is among liberal democrats, amongeople you would expect to be sporting thmost health care reform. >> wl, look, there's b

during the course of this debate --s that you because this is how shington works-- it ends up being, ell, the president ns on that one. dihe lose on that one? what is joe liebermadoing today? what is mitch mcconneldoing tomorrow?" right now, there are filys when don't havhealth insurance and as aonsequence of somebody getting sickn their family have been bankrupt. right now, the are small businesses who have be doing the rit thing by their employees and just got aotice from their insurce companies th their premiums went up 25 p30 0%, and that business owner is having to maka decision, do i start dpping coverage for my employs, or do i have to lay ofone employee to keep coverage for evebody else? those kinds of decisionsre happing right now. i intend to rk as hard as i ha to work, especially after coming this far ov the course of the year, tmake sure we finally close the al. >> lrer: you're not going to sit down athe table with conferees, list-- spoken or unspok-- of your own killer provisions, you have to t them out thereof or aavorite provision that youant in there yo own preference? >>

and to, as i said, break them up, break up the big one withes and to resurrect glass steeg elle >> larry: larry, do you think government has no say in this at all? >> of course they have a say in it. you have to regulate against fraud and abuse. and banking industry is one of the more heavily regulated industries that we have. so, every regulation has a reaction. the banks will try to figure out some way around it. what you can do is police them to make sure they don't cheat people. beyond that there's not a whole lot you could do or should do. these banks made decisions. many of them were reckless decisions and they ought to deal with the consequences of those decisions. that's how you let the next guy down the road know how to improve his behavior. if you don't do that, you'll be back at same position down the road. >> larry: penn jillette, do you oppose regulation as a libertarian? >> did he say taxpayers will get the money back? does anybody thinks there would actually be a check written back to us if they paid it back? that seems insane to me. also, if you give me -- larry, i'll mak

>>ell, if you pull out your copy of the cotitution or go online and look itp, it says in theirst amendment of the constitution that you havehe ability to petitn your government f redress of griences. well, what doethat mean? that means that u have the right to lobby. by that, of course, most people would aue that at ast at its face value that theris nothing wrong with lobbying. but wh the founding fathers probably didn't anticite when they were writing the constituti is 3.3 billion dollars spent on lbying as was thcase in 2008. you have a situation where a lot of peoe feel ke lobbyists and the peopleho hire lobbyts, really they have taken or the process. if you're sitting at he in nebras or california or new yorkr florida and you don't ve health insurance, if you don't have two dim to rub togeth, then you're going to be in a much more comprosed position. you're going to be complety unable when itomes down to it to lobby the level that a, pfizer is lbying at, the chambeof commerce is lobbying at. any of these large compaes that are speing millions of llars to lobby. >> ifill: some voices t

>>ell, it's way short of what i would like to see. i meanf i could do it. if i thought it could be passed through congress, would call for mucmore. i meane are looking, bruce mentioned consensus focast. basically almost eveone is excting unkbloim to remain at levels that wwould have considered total disastrous, unacceptable not just rough next year but for several years to com we're looking at really depressed economy. the kind of mber that if it really is $170 billionyou know, they're doing stf that ght give a fairly big bang for the buck in job creation but it will still lee unemployment almost surely above 8% at the end ofext yearalmost surely above 7% at the end of 2011. those e not things we should be accepting. we should be n saying, "well, that all we can do. we'vgot arbitrary limits set by congressionalotions of what's responsle." 're just not doing enough. i'm much more artened at $170 billion tn some of the numbers i've hrd earlier th afternoon which may or may not ve been right. it's not nearly bienough. >> woouff: if you had to put a price tag o

>>ell, my thinking is that with respect to president ama, he's the guyho knows how to tack his way. so hs headed, i believe, towards a re just and democric society, security around the world. how he gs there will probably not please either sideost of the time. i think he'll go thiway, that way. but think his eyes are on the prize of aess bellicose, less warring world, a more peacul approachhen that's possible but keeping the powd dry if necessar and i thk that's... it will look incohert. i think ere's a method to the madness ev if it appears that way. >> lehrer: finally mhael, iefly, as a matter of his i have this eech going to be remembered and does it desve to be? >> i think it will be a moment that shows what barac obama s thinking about war and peace in 2009 whh may be very fferent from the way he thin about it four years from nowr eight years from now. but, you kno one thing that's arreing about obama is to a degree tt is more than most other politicafigures, when he talks it really reflts what's in his brain andn this case i think if it seems ambigus it's beme he is. re's a gu

>>ell, i don't think that they are inconstent. we are all sing let's lend reonsibleably. what we are sayings that we believe that there e mpanies out there who could repay ose loans. no one is advoting taking unnecessary risk so i think that there is middle ground her and that's what we wer pushing toda and it's interesting, to ta about what progress was madent right after the meeting bank oamerica announced a $5 billi increase ttheir small business lending. so right away wee already seng results. >> woodruff: and what are you -- so bottom line,hat do y think is ing to change as result of this. i mean you mentioned the bank oamerica. what else do wlook for. >> well, i think the chalnge is for each of the banks th was in the room as wl as many others that are out there as well. the presidt is inviting them, smaller banks next week to have a conrsation withhem about what are the challenges that they are cing in terms of small business lendi. and so i think what we wt to sees that everybody is going toust try a little bit harder. we tried very hard. we beinghe taxpayers a ye

that includes elle lack of delivery of services on both parts of the border -- that includes a lack of delivery and services on both parts of the border. there's not an ethnic nature to it. how can a man because of some ethnic problem, instead of trying to improve his life and participate in building his community will where a suicide belt and go into a mosque full of other pashtuns on a friday and go and kill himself? how can we explain that, that young men will go into a mosque or market in an hour full of women, mostly christian women, and explode himself backs which have to find out why they had been recruited. ethnicity does not play a role there. it is a lack of services and other historic grievances. >> thank you. i am from gannett. the president talked about an 18-month limit. you said three to five years. is he being realistic? first, he said it will begin in three months. it was a responsible drawdown. if you put it all in context, we will see the drawdown will not be actually at the day. conditions should be re- evaluated. the main objective is really to defeat the enemy. if

insenator, the statutory doeuages to this effect th would only brought into the country for the purposes of ell, a prosecution civic this goes ge s tmy questions i have four saysade alder. foul he says he made a ould bon that these individuals can be safely tried in manhattan, judges or nyecide on a change of venue whether or not they will be tried there or ought e else. once they're brought into the country, and they have ofht to t certain additional rights of american soil. rdu will not necessarily be the worst -- the last word hatthey invoke the jurisdiction of the courts sion. pens ieely make that decision. i asked general older what atioens if for some reason since the administration iminalhe decision now undawses will be treated like criminals rather than in me combat in this under d askaws of war and a court and bs when called the rcivst for a lawyer and he was denied it because of inrse, if enhanced interrogation techniques his testimony cannot be used guado weed in court. what guarantees do we have e o som be detained indefinitely here or somewhere os? attorin. eral the attorney genera

i say for myself, i think you know this, i think i speak for senator voinovich but obviously ell for himself, though we sponsored -- and we may want to tinker with this, but this is the vehicle for finally doing something about this. so i appreciate it. normally we don't ask our colleagues questions. if you got time, senator gregg, senator conrad, and i don't want to keep chairman greenspan and mr. walker waiting too much, maybe we take one question to ask of you. >> i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> good. and my question -- i am going to try to ask two questions in one. sorry. i really want to ask you where we are now in the process. and part of it really is the question which is, some people say this can be a -- a commission can be established to do what we want to do by executive order. now, of course, the great challenge to that is the executive cannot bind congress to a no amendment process. executive can set up a commission very much like the commission we're talking about here. so how do you evaluate those two ways to achieve our goal? >> let me say that an execut

i say for myself, i think you know this, i think i speak for senator voinovich but obviously ell for himself, though we sponsored -- and we may want to tinker with this, but this is the vehicle for finally doing something about this. so i appreciate it. normally we don't ask our colleagues questions. if you got time, senator gregg, senator conrad, and i don't want to keep chairman greenspan and mr. walker waiting too much, maybe we take one question to ask of you. >> i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> good. and my question -- i am going to try to ask two questions in one. sorry. i really want to ask you where we are now in the process. and part of it really is the question which is, some people say this can be a -- a commission can be established to do what we want to do by executive order. now, of course, the great challenge to that is the executive cannot bind congress to a no amendment process. executive can set up a commission very much like the commission we're talking about here. so how do you evaluate those two ways to achieve our goal? >> let me say that an execut

that includes elle lack of delivery of services on both parts of the border -- that includes a lack of delivery and services on both parts of the border. there's not an ethnic nature to it. how can a man because of some ethnic problem, instead of trying to improve his life and participate in building his community will where a suicide belt and go into a mosque full of other pashtuns on a friday and go and kill himself? how can we explain that, that young men will go into a mosque or market in an hour full of women, mostly christian women, and explode himself backs which have to find out why they had been recruited. ethnicity does not play a role there. it is a lack of services and other historic grievances. >> thank you. i am from gannett. the president talked about an 18-month limit. you said three to five years. is he being realistic? first, he said it will begin in three months. it was a responsible drawdown. if you put it all in context, we will see the drawdown will not be actually at the day. conditions should be re- evaluated. the main objective is really to defeat the enemy. if

i say for myself, i think you know this, i think i speak for senator voinovich but obviously ell for himself, though we sponsored -- and we may want to tinker with this, but this is the vehicle for finally doing something about this. so i appreciate it. normally we don't ask our colleagues questions. if you got time, senator gregg, senator conrad, and i don't want to keep chairman greenspan and mr. walker waiting too much, maybe we take one question to ask of you. >> i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> good. and my question -- i am going to try to ask two questions in one. sorry. i really want to ask you where we are now in the process. and part of it really is the question which is, some people say this can be a -- a a vote up or down in the congress of the united states. senator gregg said it well. i think if any structure that is put in place that does not assure an up or down vote on the recommendations is highly unlikely to succeed. with respect to amendments, we chose, again, only -- the only way you can do it is in a statutory commission to have no amendments is in

that includes elle lack of delivery of services on both parts of the border -- that includes a lack of delivery and services on both parts of the border. there's not an ethnic nature to it. how can a man because of some ethnic problem, instead of trying to improve his life and participate in building his community will where a suicide belt and go into a mosque full of other pashtuns on a friday and go and kill himself? how can we explain that, that young men will go into a mosque or market in an hour full of women, mostly christian women, and explode himself backs which have to find out why they had been recruited. ethnicity does not play a role there. it is a lack of services and other historic grievances. >> thank you. i am from gannett. the president talked about an 18-month limit. you said three to five years. is he being realistic? first, he said it will begin in three months. it was a responsible drawdown. if you put it all in context, we will see the drawdown will not be actually at the day. conditions should be re- evaluated. the main objective is really to defeat the enemy. if