Return to Transcripts main page
CNN Newsroom
Debate Over 9/11 Bill Gets Intense; Is President Obama's Afghan Strategy Working?; Diffusing Deadly Landmines; State of the Automakers
Aired July 30, 2010 - 14:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
ALI VELSHI, CNN ANCHOR: All right. I'm Ali Velshi. Here's what we've got "On the Rundown" this hour.
Health care for the heroes of 9/11. Who'd have a problem with that? Well, this is a political fight you are going to want to hear about.
A milestone in the Afghan War. July now the deadliest month in the war for U.S. troops. More people are asking, is the fight worth the cost?
And it's 5:00 somewhere. How about a beer? How about a 9,000- year-old beer? Yes, there is such a thing. We've got it right here and I'll show it to you.
But first, I've got to tell you about what happened last night on the floor of the House of Representatives. This picture of Anthony Weiner, representative from New York, and here's his quote about what happened last night.
This is what he said about it. He said, "Maybe the Brooklyn in me came out."
What is he talking about? Well, he got really scrappy on the floor of the House of Representatives last night. It was about a 9/11 Health and Compensation Act that he was the co-sponsor of. That act failed last night for reasons that I'll tell you about in a little while.
But first, listen to Anthony Weiner, congressman, on the floor of the House of Representatives last night.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The gentleman from New York is recognized.
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The gentleman is recognized.
REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D), NEW YORK: Great courage to wait until all members have already spoken and then stand up and wrap your arms around procedure. We see it in the United States Senate every day, where members say, "We want amendments," "We want debate," "We want amendments, but we're still a no."
And then we stand up and say, oh, if only we had a different process we'd vote yes. You vote yes if you believe yes. You vote in favor of something if you believe it's the right thing. If you believe it's the wrong thing, you vote no.
We are following our procedure --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will the gentleman yield?
WEINER: I will not yield to the gentleman, and the gentleman will observe regular order!
(CROSSTALK)
WEINER: The gentleman will observe regular order!
He thinks if he gets up and yells he's going to intimidate people into believing he is right. He is wrong! The gentleman is wrong!
The gentleman is providing cover for his colleagues rather than doing the right thing! It's Republicans wrapping their arms around Republicans rather than doing the right thing on behalf of the heroes!
It is a shame! A shame!
If you believe this is a bad idea to provide health care, then vote no, but don't give me the cowardly view that, oh, if it was a different procedure -- the gentleman will observe regular order and sit down! I will not!
The gentleman will sit! The gentleman is correct in sitting!
I will not --
(CROSSTALK)
WEINER: I will not stand here and listen to my colleagues say, oh, if only I had a different procedure that allows us to stall, stall, stall and then vote no. Instead of standing up and defending your colleagues and voting no on this humane bill, you should urge them to vote yes, something the gentleman has not done!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: I want to tell you the rest of this story. Boy, the Brooklyn in him did come out.
I'm going to tell you the rest of the story, and then I want you to go to my Facebook page, or I want you to tweet me with your thoughts on this.
Do you think Anthony Weiner was finally standing up for something and he's sick and tired of it, or do you think that these are the antics that make you not have confidence in Congress?
Let me tell you what he was talking about.
He was responding. The gentleman who he keeps responding to is Representative Peter King, also of New York, also a co-sponsor of the same bill. The bill, H.R. 847, the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act, which would have provided free health care to those affected during 9/11, rescue and recovery, including those who were not resident in New York.
A lot of people came in from other places to help out in 9/11. This was to allow them to get health care.
These were two co-sponsors of a bill, a Democrat and a Republican. We've asked Peter King to come on this show. He has declined for the moment. Hopefully, he'll come in and talk about it.
The vote failed in the House. They reserve a special vote for things that are not supposed to be controversial. It didn't get the votes necessary. Only 12 Republicans voted in favor of it. And as a result, that bill is dead for now.
I had Representative Weiner on the show in the last hour. I asked him what got him so mad.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
WEINER: Well, this isn't about me or Peter King. You know, for nine years now, people who got sick because they did the right thing, they came to Ground Zero to try to help their neighbor, sometimes they were just living in the wrong neighborhood, those people are quite literally dying every single day.
I have a guy that works with me, Ed Colton (ph), that, every day, I listen to him cough and wheeze. He was a police officer who is now retired.
This is what this is about. And sometimes you think even in this moment in our political lives that there are some things that should transcend politics, you have nights last like night, where 95 percent of Democrats voted to give 9/11 responders health care, and simply because it was a Democrat majority, just about every Republican voted no.
And frankly, that was outrageous. And the fact that the excuses that were being made -- "Well, we don't like this being done so quickly," "We don't like it being done on this calendar," "We don't like it on this day," at the end of the day, I think the American people want us to stand up and vote for what we think is right. And that's what got my goat last night.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: Such a simple argument. Vote for what you think is right.
Gloria joins me again. Gloria, we talked about this an hour ago. The way he puts it, you'd think, that's really simple. You like the bill, you think it's right, vote for it. But again, what we've all learned is that's just not how it sort of seems to work in Congress.
GLORIA BORGER, CNN SR. POLITICAL ANALYST: No. You know, and I think we are at a toxic point in our politics. And the closer we get to the election, the worse it's going to get.
I mean, I think the name of the game right now is that each side is trying to make the other side look completely ineffective. And there's a lot at stake here, including control of the House of Representatives.
And I've learned from covering Congress a long time, covering Washington a long time, is that if you don't want to vote for something, you can always find a reason not to. So, if you don't want to help the Democrats and you don't want to pass this bill, then you can always find a reason not to. And usually you look to process and you say, as the congressman said, we didn't like the way you brought up this bill.
Because the way they brought up this bill would not allow for amendments. That's why it's usually non-controversial bills that come up this way.
This had a little more controversy associated with it because it has a very large price tag on it, $7 billion. And there were some amendments that Republicans wanted that they couldn't introduce. So they said, you know what? We're not going to vote for it.
And consequently, they're going to be back at the table hopefully in the fall to try and work it out. But it takes a long time to get anything done, if they can get anything done at all.
VELSHI: I'm going to bring up a name, Lee Hamilton. You'll remember him.
BORGER: Oh, sure.
VELSHI: My first experience with political Washington was that I was a fellow in his office. And this was a guy, he was a Democrat from the Ninth District in Indiana.
BORGER: Right.
VELSHI: And he was about compromise. He was the quiet guy who got it done. He was the nice guy who people listened to on both sides of the aisle. And there have been many people like that over the decades.
Do you not win by being like that anymore? Do you not win by being a conciliator? Do you not win by being a deal-maker anymore?
BORGER: No. It's very hard. And that's why you find that the moderates in each party are kind of a shrinking group. You know, I want to know, when did it occur that every piece of legislation has to be perfect in your view? Compromise was about saying, you know what? I don't like this part of the bill, but I think the country needs it so I'll give on this and you'll give on that. Right?
And what we find, given the fact that the stakes are so high right now, given that the environment is so difficult, you don't find that that wins anymore, because people who stand up and say, "I'm a moderate," it doesn't work in our politics.
VELSHI: Right. You get put to the side.
An hour ago you said to me that if you went in and you asked Congress to agree on a resolution that the sky is blue, you wouldn't achieve that.
BORGER: Right.
VELSHI: Anthony Weiner said it differently. He said that the Republicans won't agree to anything the Democrats do. And I haven't talked to Peter King, so I don't know what he says about it, but I suspect he might have a different view on the matter.
BORGER: Yes.
VELSHI: Where does the responsibility to change this lie between now and the midterm elections so that Americans who have 11 percent confidence in Congress might get more confident?
BORGER: Well, I don't think it's going to change between now and the midterm elections. I think when it tends to change is when you get into a presidential cycle, Ali, because when you get into a presidential cycle, the people who have more influence are not the base of each party. Those are the folks who come out and vote in these midterm elections.
In a presidential election, it's those Independent voters, many of whom went for Barack Obama last time. Lots of them are disaffected with him right now. It's those Independent voters who have more say when you get to a presidential, and that's why you'll see people moderating, because, also, people will start holding Republicans accountable. For example, if they gain control of the House of Representatives, then they have a responsibility to govern and to lead as well.
So that could change after the midterm elections. We'll have to see, because people will start demanding accountability from their Congress.
VELSHI: Yes.
Gloria, great to have you help us through some of these things. Appreciate it.
BORGER: We can only hope. VELSHI: Good to see you.
Gloria Borger in Washington.
All right. The other problem we've got to be dealing with is the Afghan War. Nine years since the start, and no apparent end in sight.
Is President Obama's strategy working? Have the Afghan and American people both given up on this war?
Questions we'll ask a former CIA agent who fought there in the war's early stages. That's coming up right after this.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: All right. It is the longest war in American history so far. Today, another deadly milestone in Afghanistan.
Over the past two days, six American service members were killed in southern Afghanistan. Their deaths bring the total for July to 66, making it the deadliest month since the war started nine years ago. The total number of American troops that have died in the war now stands at 1,113.
Many Americans are asking, why are we still fighting this war? Even members of President Obama's own party have expressed serious reservations about the course of the war.
I want to show you a timeline that shows some key developments getting us to where we are today. And let's go back shortly after the 9/11 attacks in 2001.
President Bush ordered the invasion of Afghanistan. All right? The mission then, overthrow the Taliban, push al Qaeda out of the country, don't let them use it as a base to attack the West. There was a measure of success, but then the focus shifted over to the war in Iraq.
In 2004, Hamid Karzai elected the president of Afghanistan, a move that the U.S. hoped would start to unify that country. But five years later, he was re-elected amid allegations of widespread vote- rigging. Many Afghans today view Karzai and his government as corrupt, and they say that the Taliban do a better job of serving their needs.
In February of last year, President Obama ordered an additional 17,000 troops to Afghanistan. In December of last year, he announced an additional 30,000 troops would be deployed this year to take part in counterinsurgency operations, pushing back the insurgents.
As we mentioned, July is now the deadliest month for U.S. troops for the entirety of this war. President Obama says he'll start withdrawing American forces in July of next year. A lot of people wonder if that's even going to be possible.
Today, this war poses many problems. It poses lots and lots of questions.
Is President Obama's strategy working? Can this work actually be won? Should that even be the objective?
Joining us now by phone is somebody who might know a little bit about this, Gary Berntsen. He's a former CIA agent who fought in the early stages of the war. He's the author of the book "Jawbreaker." He's also a Republican running for the New York Senate.
Gary, good to hear from you. Thank you for being with us right now.
Answer any one of those questions that you care to. Is the cost of this war worth it? Should we still be there? And what is the goal of this war supposed to be, Gary?
GARY BERNTSEN, FMR. CIA AGENT: Well, the first thing is I'm running for the U.S. Senate in New York against Chuck Schumer. That's the first thing. Not the New York Senate.
VELSHI: Right.
BERNTSEN: U.S. Senate.
We need to establish security in Afghanistan because it impacts on the entire region and on the world. Unfortunately, you've got 24 militant organizations operating along the Afghan/Pak border, and you have Pakistan, who's a nation with 90 nuclear weapons.
We now are correctly looking at this as the Af-Pak problem. It is both countries that we're looking at.
How we move forward is a combination of things. And it's establishment of security, which we're trying to do, and we've got 100,000 troops on the ground. But the second part of this is building a viable economy and finding the fastest way to establish something that will allow an economy to move forward.
And where we're going to be going probably is trying to build, or at least create Afghanistan as a regional transport hub. That's what's probably going to happen next. We're going to try to use Afghanistan and create road links, rail links and other things so that South Asia can be connected to the Middle East, or South Asia can be connected to the Middle East and Europe.
(CROSSTALK)
VELSHI: Let me ask you this, Gary -- there are two issues there. And I get where you're going with this, but there are two issues.
One is the average American might be wondering why, with 100,000 troops -- not trying to control the country, just trying to establish security, as you said -- this mission can't be accomplished with 100,000 troops? Is it because there are forces working so actively against security in that country that we can't do this? BERNTSEN: Part of the problem is you have Pakistan, south of Afghanistan, with 175 million people, the sixth most populous country in the world, two million young men and madrassas, 24 militant organizations that have put through 900,000 people through terrorist training camps in the last 20 years. Pakistan is an incubator for terrorism. And if we're going to sort of get a grip on this -- and the Obama administration, using Richard Holbrooke out there, has made some good moves on the political side to look at this as a single entity. I disagree with some of the things being done there, but Petraeus understands that he's been dealt a difficult hand.
It's not like Iraq, where you had a large population that were educated. You had teachers, scientists, the rest of this.
In Afghanistan, the culture had been destroyed. You have almost -- very limited human capital there. Only 15 percent of the people can even read or write in their own language.
So we're doing two things simultaneously -- working on trying to build the culture up, and a military force at the same time. This is a very, very heavy lift.
I believe the road forward in the end will be creating some sort of hybrid force out there which is maybe led by westerners, but every single person that fights for it is an Afghan. And we need to start pulling our combat brigades off that battlefield, something like an equivalent of a French Foreign Legion.
I like to call it a Freedom Corps, where you would have maybe American, British, Canadian, Australian officer, and every man that fights is an Afghan. You have the combination of Western leadership and Afghan muscle.
VELSHI: Gary, we've got over the next five years $7.5 billion going to Afghanistan. They are a major recipient of U.S. money.
You brought it up, the Af-Pak problem. We've talked about this endlessly, that it may be that Pakistan is double-dealing. They are helping the U.S. on one front and they are helping the Taliban on another front.
Do you believe that to be true? And if so, how do we stop that?
BERNTSEN: It is a problem. And the way you politically do that is you attempt to integrate Afghanistan more into Central Asia and more away from Pakistan. And then, of course, we've done some development there in Pakistan.
This is a very, very heavy lift, as I stated. And it's going to require significant political, military, developmental issues. But we need to get the world involved in this, not just the U.S.
And if we move to that hybrid force that I'm talking about, you get everybody else to share in this. The U.S. cannot carry this load alone. It's bad policy. VELSHI: Isn't that what we have there? We talk about ISAF. Isn't that what we have in Afghanistan? We've got a force of troops from many countries. What needs to be done to make that more effective, in your view?
BERNTSEN: It's 90 percent U.S. almost now. And many of our allies are starting to leave us.
We need to be very, very smart about this. And we have to be thinking for the long term. And that is, how do we get American brigades off that battlefield?
And again, my response is, build a third force, not ISAF on one end or the Afghan army on the other, which has limited human capital on leadership. Build a force there that is led by westerners and -- it's a colonial model, actual. It's a colonial model.
And every Afghan gets paid a lot more than they get paid for the Afghan army. The average Afghan soldier gets $135 a month. They can't survive on that. Maybe this force gets paid $500 a month to $750.
And it's a lot cheaper than $1 million per year for each American soldier on the ground out there. That's what the support costs are in total.
VELSHI: Gary, good to talk to you. Thank you very much. Sorry we didn't represent you properly.
BERNTSEN: That's all right.
VELSHI: Gary is a Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate, running in New York. A former CIA agent, fought in Afghanistan in the early parts of the war.
We'll talk to you again.
Coming up, find out why one man is compelled to spend his life defusing deadly landmines. He even did it with his bare hands.
Our CNN Hero of the Week when we return.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Each year an estimated 200 to 300 Cambodians are injured or killed by thousands of landmines that are still buried away and still active since being planted 30 years ago by the communist Khmer Rouge army. In fact, Cambodia has one of the highest numbers of active landmines in the world.
Now, this week's CNN Hero planted many of those landmines when he was 11 years old. He was a child soldier.
But today, he revisits former battlefields on an entirely different crusade.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)
AKI RA, CNN HERO (trough translator): My name is Aki Ra. I was born north of (INAUDIBLE) in Cambodia.
When I was 10 years old, the Khmer Rouge chose me to be a soldier. Then I was trained in how to lay landmines. Sometimes in a week we were ordered to plant 4,000 to 5,000 mines.
We did not think about anything, but I got a sense it was wrong, because I saw a lot of people dying. I put people in danger and damaged a country.
After the war was over, I decided to clear mines by myself. My equipment was tools that I made myself.
Dig it out carefully. It was active.
That method of demining was simple but it wasn't legal. Now we are working legally and people have joined me and now it's safe. The villagers are requesting us to demine because the people are afraid of mines. They step on it and die.
What makes me happy is that I have done a lot of good things different from during the war. I have cleared thousands of mines. I want Cambodia to be safe.
(END VIDEOTAPE)
VELSHI: Since 1993, Aki Ra has cleared about 50,000 landmines and war weapons. You can see him in action clearing mines on our Web site at CNNHeroes.com.
While you're there, don't forget to nominate someone you think is changing the world. The nominations close this Sunday, August 1st.
Don't put it off. Make a decision. There's somebody who's changing the world. We need to know about it. So, please, nominate them to be a CNN Hero.
We'll check it out. We'll find out how they compare, how they stack up to everybody else. But please put that nomination in.
(NEWSBREAK)
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: OK. We have been talking to you all day about Representative Anthony Weiner. An outburst on the floor of the House of Representatives last night after a bill that he co-sponsored with Republican Pete King, both of them of New York, failed for reasons that you may not understand. This was a bill designed to give free health care to rescue workers from 9/11. It was called H.R. 847.
First of all, I want to bring you what Anthony Weiner, Representative Anthony Weiner, said on the floor of the House of Representatives last night. Listen to him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The gentleman from New York is recognized.
REP. JERROLD NADLER (D), NEW YORK: Mr. Speaker, I yield one minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York, Mr. Weiner.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The gentleman is recognized.
REP. ANTHONY WEINER (D), NEW YORK: Great courage to wait until all members have already spoken and then stand up and wrap your arms around procedure. We see it in the United States Senate every day, where members say, "We want amendments," "We want debate," "We want amendments, but we're still a no."
And then we stand up and say, oh, if only we had a different process we'd vote yes. You vote yes if you believe yes. You vote in favor of something if you believe it's the right thing. If you believe it's the wrong thing, you vote no.
We are following our procedure --
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will the gentleman yield?
WEINER: I will not yield to the gentleman, and the gentleman will observe regular order!
(CROSSTALK)
WEINER: The gentleman will observe regular order!
He thinks if he gets up and yells he's going to intimidate people into believing he is right. He is wrong! The gentleman is wrong!
The gentleman is providing cover for his colleagues rather than doing the right thing! It's Republicans wrapping their arms around Republicans rather than doing the right thing on behalf of the heroes!
It is a shame! A shame!
If you believe this is a bad idea to provide health care, then vote no, but don't give me the cowardly view that, oh, if it was a different procedure -- the gentleman will observe regular order and sit down! I will not!
The gentleman will sit! The gentleman is correct in sitting!
I will not --
(CROSSTALK)
WEINER: I will not stand here and listen to my colleagues say, oh, if only I had a different procedure that allows us to stall, stall, stall and then vote no. Instead of standing up and defending your colleagues and voting no on this humane bill, you should urge them to vote yes, something the gentleman has not done!
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: OK. The gentleman he is so animatedly talking about is another representative, Representative Pete King, who is also from New York and was a co-sponsor of this very bill which did not pass because it did not have sufficient Republican support. Now, the issue here is that there were reasons that you wouldn't think are obvious that this bill didn't pass.
Here's Representative Peter King who spoke in the House right before Anthony Weiner. This is the person to whom Anthony Weiner is responding. Here's Pete King and what he said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PETER KING (R), ARIZONA: They say they want Republican support yet they never consulted even one Republican before they made the corporate tax increase that's to pay for it. They say they want Republican support before they pass this bill, but they never applied that standard when they ran through the stimulus health care, cap and trade or financial regulatory reform.
No. You only apply it to cops and firefighters and construction workers. What a sad and pathetic double standard. These heroes deserve better than they are receiving here tonight. And no matter what happens on this vote, I will continue to do all I can to pass this bill as soon as possible in the future.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: OK. That's what we wanted to know, what are they going to do to pass the bill in the future?
Pete King -- Representative Pete King -- on the phone with me right now.
Representative King, good to see or hear you again. Anthony Weiner says, "A little bit of Brooklyn -- a little bit of Brooklyn in me came out." I know you're from Manhattan. You grew up in Queens. What's your response to this? How do you turn the heat down and get this bill passed? What happened?
KING (via telephone): Yes. Well, first of all, Anthony Weiner, the reason he was reacting the way he was is because I hit a raw nerve and exposed the sabotage they were doing to this bill. I've worked on this over five years, very closely with Democrats, Carolyn Maloney and Jerry Nadler. I've been to meeting after meeting after meeting, my staff and I.
This bill was all set to come to the House floor 10 days ago. And if people want to criticize Republicans, that's fine. I've stood up to my party. I have said and I said in the House floor last night, the Republican Party is wrong. They should be supporting this bill, but it's not a partisan issue. This bill had 255 votes last night. All it needs is 218 to pass, but the Democrats set an arbitrary standard of 290. They said it had to get a two-thirds majority vote.
And the only rationale for this is -- and this is something we decided on in the last week, after all the years of preparation, when we had everything lined up and the bill ready to go, they changed it from 218 to 290 because when you change it to 290, then there's no way that any controversial amendment can be offered. And the Democrats in an election year are afraid they may get a controversial amendment whether it was on health care or illegal immigration or whatever.
But as Mike Bloomberg said yesterday, they get paid to cash the tough votes. And let me make it clear, I voted for this bill last night. I continue to support it.
And what I'm saying to the Democrats is: we can pass it over the next month. All we need is 218 votes. We got 255 last night.
Don't set this standard -- yes, you may have to take a tough vote. But if there's one tough vote you have to take, whether it's immigration or health care or whatever to get to the final package -- to me, the men and women who put their lives on the line, they didn't look for (INAUDIBLE), they weren't afraid to run in. And I have the guts to stand up to my party, stand up to the leadership of my party, and stand on the Republican side of the aisle last night and I turned around and said the Republican Party is wrong.
I wish that Anthony Weiner had stood up to the leadership of his party which just in the last week, in the last 10 days or so, they decided on this --
VELSHI: All right. OK. I hear what you're saying. But this is where we -- this is where you lose a lot of people, because the bottom line is -- all but four Democrats voted for this thing and a whole lot of Republicans didn't.
Now, the bottom line is he makes the point. This is money to provide health care for heroes who went in to rescue people and to help out after 9/11. This was a vote to give them money and he got up there and in his rant last night -- I don't know if it was a good thing or bad thing -- but in his rant, he said, if it's the right thing to do, vote yes. If you think it's the wrong thing, vote no.
Here are two guys, both of you, passionate New York politicians -- we all know of your work, who both wanted it to work. This is what people think is wrong with Congress.
KING: Ali, but let me just say, here's where I disagree with you. This is not any kind of an equivalency here. I'm not defending the Republican Party. The fact is, the Democrats control the Congress. I am standing with the Democrats on this. I am standing up to my party.
I'm saying, why are they insisting on 290 votes? They have the votes. They control the House. They can do it and we showed last night we can do it.
VELSHI: But why -- then tell me why you think that is? Is it -- you know, Gloria Borger, our senior political analyst, was saying to me, where do we get to the point where every bill has to be perfect and everybody has to agree to everything in a bill? Isn't compromise about saying, I'll support your imperfect bill and maybe later on you'll support my imperfect bill? Where are we with this process where you can?
KING: I use that a lot. But the fact is that, unfortunately, a large number of Republicans are opposed to this bill. We've known that all along. I'm not defending the Republican Party.
What I'm saying is, as an institution, the House of Representatives is controlled by the Democratic Party. I am willing to stand with them and stand against my party to get this bill. And all I'm saying to them is: sometime between now and the end of September, when Congress is going to recess, why don't they just bring it up where all you need is 218 votes?
And the reason they don't want to do it, apparently, is they're afraid of a tough vote. The reason I say "apparently" is, this all developed in the last 10 days when some members of the New York delegation went to the Democratic leadership and said, "We're afraid to cast the vote on this." Now, this is not Carolyn Maloney, this is not Jerry Nadler. They have been 100 percent honest and direct and straight on this. There's others who have been barely engaged in this from the start. And that's what bothered me.
So, I'm not here defending Republicans. I've said in the House floor, I've said time and again, that on this bill, the Republican Party is wrong. But is that an excuse for the Democrats not to pass it?
The Republicans also voted against them on health care, on the stimulus bill, and the Democrats still passed those bills. Why is stimulus more important than the lives of cops and firefighters? That's all I'm saying. And I have worked --
VELSHI: Will you work with Anthony Weiner to get this thing back on and get it passed so that these people get their money?
KING: I'll work with anyone. I'll work with anyone to get it back on. I've said that. And I also told the Democrats from the start, if this came to the House floor and there was a full debate and Republicans are standing up and attacking the bill and it was going to go to a full vote, I would sit with the Democrats all day and defend the bill against the Republicans. I am willing to take that courageous stand.
I don't know why Anthony Weiner -- I know why he did it last night because they were trying to give the impression they were voting for a 9/11 bill. But they knew all along, it wasn't going to pass. It was cruel, cruel sabotage. It was a hoax and a charade.
And that's why I said, what I did -- and when Anthony was giving his rant on the floor, I tried to engage him -- you could barely hear me in the background because the mic gets shut off -- but I was saying, "Will the gentleman yield to me," so I could ask my question. He refused. He was so caught up because I believe I hit the raw nerve, the open nerve that they were putting a hoax over on the American people, which is wrong.
And this, by the way, has not been the history of this bill. This bill, I felt so good, 10 days ago, two weeks ago, was ready to go. Mayor Bloomberg agrees with me. And the unions, who are usually Democratic allies, agree with me, the way it was handled. And I'm getting calls from the last two days from cops and firefighters, construction workers.
VELSHI: Pete King, good to talk to you. Thanks, as always, for accommodating us and coming to talk to us, always a pleasure talking with you -- Representative Pete King of New York.
KING: Ali, you're very welcome.
VELSHI: We'll talk to you again.
All right. Another big story, was it worth the taxpayers still on the hook for the billions of dollars that helped save GM and Chrysler? After the break, we'll take a look at the current state of the American auto-making industry.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: The auto industry -- boy, a year ago, it's almost all we were talking about. There was so much going wrong. It was indicative -- it was an example of what was going wrong with the U.S. economy. But things have really turned around.
Let's go to New York where my colleague, Poppy Harlow, who follows it very closely, was following today -- the president was in Detroit and he was really touting it as a success, a comeback story -- touting all sorts of reasons why we are so far away from where we were a year ago.
Poppy, give us a reality check on whether he was right.
POPPY HARLOW, CNN.COM: This was like a pep rally, Ali. If you could have seen the president, you know, in front of 1,500 Chrysler workers, he also visited a GM plant, saying, you know, I will bet any day of the week on the American worker, it's a huge applause. And he talked about the fact that if the administration hadn't stepped in and bailed out GM and Chrysler to tune of about that 85 billion taxpayer dollars, he says, about 1 million U.S. jobs would have been lost.
So, we're fact-checking all that. The president led off by saying, look, before he came into office, 40 percent decline is what we saw on U.S. auto sales.
Let's show you what we see now for sales for GM and Chrysler. Over the last year, GM sales: up 11 percent. A much better story even for Chrysler, their sales up 35 percent. So, he's touting this as one of the biggest success stories, Ali, of his administration.
VELSHI: Poppy, you know, it's always hard to tell. Back when the automakers, other than Ford, were sort of in danger of collapsing, going into bankruptcy, there were all sorts of numbers out there as to how many jobs would be lost, some of them would be factory jobs, some of them would be suppliers, some of them would be people in the community. Hard to measure how many would have been lost. Probably equally hard to measure how many were saved.
HARLOW: Yes.
VELSHI: Always tough when the president comes out and makes comments about how many in jobs were saved -- it becomes a tough situation to try say, is he right or wrong?
HARLOW: What we do know is that the White House is correct in saying in the last year, 55,000 U.S. auto industry jobs have been created. The Bureau of Labor Statistics backed that up.
But listen to the president really pushing hard here, saying, look, we saved a ton of American jobs. Listen to him.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
BARACK OBAMA, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: The worst thing about it is that if we had done nothing, not only were your jobs gone, but supplier jobs were gone, and dealership jobs were gone, and the communities that depend on them would have been wiped out. Independent estimates suggest that more than 1 million jobs could have been lost if Chrysler and GM had liquidated.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
HARLOW: All right. But here's your fact check. I want to pull this graphic up to show people what we're talking about.
Let's look at the last year. GM actually shed, Ali -- they actually cut 10,000 jobs rather, going from 88,000 to 78,000 in the last year or so.
Let's look at Chrysler, Chrysler added -- that's good news -- added about 3,500 jobs. Ali, all in all, yes, this is a success story for the administration.
I'll tell you, though, this morning, I talked on the phone to one of the former top executives at one of those two auto companies, and he said, look, this is risky. This is -- the administration maybe moving too fast to declare victory on this one. We're a year out from the bankruptcy. GM is still a private company.
Long ways to go in this one, Ali.
VELSHI: All right, Poppy. We'll continue to cover this. But, boy, we're in a different place than we were a year ago. Thanks so much for checking in on that for us.
HARLOW: Yes, we are.
VELSHI: Poppy Harlow in New York.
When we come back, if he were a character in "Jersey Shore" our senior White House correspondent would be Eddy "The Stakeout" Henry. We'll be talking to him in just a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Time now for Ed Henry, running a little late on Ed.
But Ed -- he's our guy. He's our guy at the White House. He's our senior White House correspondent. He's on "The Stakeout." He's always there.
Ed, good to see you.
ED HENRY, CNN SR. WHITE HOUSE CORRESPONDENT: Yes, it's good to see you.
And I just ran into Rahm Emanuel out on the streets. He was coming back from lunch with someone else, by the way -- not me. And he was saying, "Hey, you've got a nice location out there where you do your live shots now there with Ali." So, I guess he watches "The Stakeout."
VELSHI: Well, there you go. This is why we have you on here, because you're going to tell us sort of important stuff. You just heard Poppy talking about the president in Detroit, he's going to Chicago later on, he's talking about the resurgence, this robust American-making auto industry.
What's your take on it?
HENRY: They're kind of talking tough here. I mean, the bottom line is that, as you heard say, this administration wants to make the case that there are a lot of naysayers, one year ago this summer, basically saying that this money was going to be flushed away, that it was a big boondoggle and a big government takeover, that wasn't going to really save any jobs.
And they're trying to make the case -- the president came right out today and said that he believes this saved 1 million jobs in the auto industry. And they're going to take that case to the American people.
And it's funny. They're talking tough with -- well, there's this op-ed in "The New York Times" today saying, "GM's Electric Lemon," claiming that the Volt is priced too high. It's written by a guy named Edward Niedermeyer.
And when Robert Gibbs was flying with reporters on Air Force One on the way to Detroit, he said, "You remember that part in 'Animal House,' Niedermeyer is a dead man?" I don't think he really meant to speak harshly on Mr. Niedermeyer here, the real Edward Niedermeyer.
I actually didn't remember that reference, a pretty good pop culture reference for Robert Gibbs --
VELSHI: That was good, yes.
HENRY: -- to pull out of nowhere. "Animal House" is like 1978, but bottom line: he pulled out that "Niedermeyer is a dead man." He just said, look, this argument is dead, this idea that the government getting involved has backfired. They think they have a good story to tell, and that the auto industry is sort it's got a long way to go, but that it's been nursed back to health.
And they also believe there's probably going to be an IPO pretty soon for GM They're going to bring in some money and they believe the government is going to be paid back the $60 billion that the Obama administration lent them.
VELSHI: Once the biggest company in the world and the biggest automaker in the world for many, many years.
The president on the offense about having made the right decision when the auto industry -- some sense that there's a message that they need to be in the offense now all the way through midterms. And that message came by special delivery today.
HENRY: That's right. It's actually -- yesterday for lunch, I'm told that David Axelrod, the president's senior adviser, went up to meet with a group of Senate Democrats. And he was talking about getting out and giving this message.
But he heard back from some of the Senate Democrats -- we're told -- that, look, we try to go talk about whether it's the auto bailout, health care reform, some of the president's -- what they see as victories and there's so much negativity right now about the direction of the country that a lot of people don't want to hear it. David Axelrod acknowledged that to Senate Democrats it's a tough environment, but said, look, the only way you're going to deal with this is by going on offense, not just sitting back on defense.
So, they're sending a message from the White House to the Democrats on the Hill: go on offense.
And, by the way, the president himself kind of got in the driver's seat today, for the only second time since 2007 he drove a car. He got in and drove a Chevy Volt. A few months ago, he drove at a Secret Service training facility as well. But now --
VELSHI: I would not want to be near that guy -- I would not want to be hear a guy who hasn't driven a car since 2007 -- even if he's the president of the United States.
Hey, listen, he was on "The View" yesterday. I watched it last night, I didn't get to watch it when it was on -- again, selling that message. HENRY: Yes, and take a listen. He was asked -- we talk about pop culture, Robert Gibbs knows all about "Animal House," the president doesn't know about this -- take a listen -- "Jersey Shore."
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JOY BEHAR, "THE VIEW": Should Snooki run as mayor of Wasilla?
(LAUGHTER)
OBAMA: I got to admit. I don't know who Snooki is. I'm sorry.
(LAUGHTER)
(END VIDEO CLIP)
VELSHI: Doesn't know who Snooki is?
HENRY: He says, I can't -- well, I can't blame him. He doesn't -- I don't watch that show.
VELSHI: You don't?
HENRY: But I got a funny thing for you because last night, I got an email, you watch this --
(CROSSTALK)
VELSHI: I stayed up late last night to watch it.
HENRY: A top Democrat -- a top Democrat emailed me this really happened and told me that on the show, if you saw it last night, that Snooki at one point said that she dislikes President Obama because of this tanning tax --
VELSHI: Yes. That's exactly what happened.
(CROSSTALK)
VELSHI: She says President Obama is putting a tax on tanning and it's because he doesn't apparently need to tan and that is -- that's detrimental to her and her "Jersey Shore" friends.
HENRY: Well, you know I like to ask Robert Gibbs tough questions. This Democrat outside e-mailed me last night and said, someone's got to ask Robert Gibbs if he's going to fire back at Snooki.
VELSHI: Yes.
HENRY: I might -- I might have to do it on Monday.
(CROSSTALK)
VELSHI: You're meant to do that. I'll arm you with the question because I know all about it. HENRY: We could start a fight here between Snooki and the president.
VELSHI: Yes. Snooki said John McCain would not have taxed tanning products if he were president. Here we go. We'll take this to another level.
Ed Henry, I will see you soon. Great to see you, my friend. Ed Henry, I don't like say Ed Henry of "The Stakeout" or with "The Stakeout," but because you are -- we're talking about situation, we're talking about not "The Situation," we're talking about "Jersey Shore," we're going to call you "The Stakeout," Ed Henry, "The Stakeout"
All right. They responded the strategy, now they're being used as political pawns. It is our "Wordplay" when we come back.
Stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: Time for "Wordplay" now.
We've been talking a lot about 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010. It caused quite a stir on the House floor yesterday when lawmakers failed to pass it. The bill is supposed to offer increased and continuing help to responders. Responders include police, firefighters, volunteers who were -- who on 9/11 were at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, Shanksville, Pennsylvania, the Staten Island landfill and the New York City Chief Medical Examiner's office. Not just in the immediate aftermath, but in some case, up to nearly a year later.
More than half the original claimed by injured victims were for respiratory problem. The bill requires a reopening of the September 11th Victims Compensation Fund to new claims. But the Justice Department and the fund's special master determined that it only covers physical injury, not psychological symptoms.
By the way, the special master who helped make that determination was Kenneth Feinberg. He is now the administration's man handling claims for the Gulf.
Stay with me. I'll be back in a minute.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
VELSHI: It's been a busy show and a busy week for me. I'll be back tomorrow at 1:00 p.m. Eastern with "YOUR $$$$$."
But stay with us because in one minute, Don Lemon, in for Rick Sanchez in "RICK'S LIST." Stay with us.
