CQ Transcriptwire

SPEAKERS: HARRY SMITH, HOST

WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY ROBERT GIBBS

LARA LOGAN, CBS NEWS

CHUCK HAGEL, FORMER U.S. SENATOR

LEE HAMILTON, FORMER U.S. REPRESENTATIVE DOUGLAS BRINKLEY, PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN

[*] HARRY SMITH, CBS ANCHOR: Today on “Face the Nation,” the battle over health care reform, plus the war in Afghanistan. Members of Congress went home last week and came face to face with huge crowds, angry about plans to overhaul health care. Does the White House still have the muscle and the public support to pass reforms? We will ask White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.

Then we will turn to Afghanistan, where U.S. troops are going head to head with the Taliban as that country prepares for this week’s elections. We will get perspective from former Senator Chuck Hagel and Iraq Study Group co-chair Lee Hamilton. And finally, presidential historian Douglas Brinkley joins us to talk about presidents and our national parks.

But first, the rage over health care reform on “Face the Nation.”

Welcome again to the broadcast. Bob Schieffer is off this morning.

Joining us now from Phoenix, Arizona, where he is traveling with the president, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs. Mr. Gibbs, good morning.

GIBBS: Good morning, Harry, how are you?

SMITH: Very well.

80 percent of Americans have health insurance. They may not be thrilled with the system as it works right now, but their fear is that reform is going to make things worse instead of better. Can you guarantee them that things will improve?

GIBBS: Absolutely. If you like what you have now, you will get a chance to keep it. But at each of the town hall meetings that the president has done over the last week, Harry, we have highlighted a specific instance where health insurance reform would help those that already have health insurance.

Yesterday, it was a family that had hit the lifetime cap on their policy and were soon going to have to start paying those expenses completely out of pocket, or a woman in New Hampshire who was discriminated against by her health insurance company because they said she had a preexisting condition, which meant they didn’t want to cover any of her medical expenses.

Those type of insurance reforms will be exactly what those that are lucky enough to have health insurance in our country, those are the reforms and the benefits that they will see as part of this debate.

SMITH: OK. So those are for folks who have insurance already. There are almost 50 million people in the United States who do not have health insurance. What makes the White House think it can create a new bureaucracy that will live up to the promise of actually being able to provide health insurance to people who don’t have it?

GIBBS: Well, look, we will create a health care exchange that will allow people to find the policy that works best for them, much like the federal employees health benefit. They will get a chance to look at what serves their family or their interests or their small business in a good way. They will get help in trying to purchase that health insurance, because right now, Harry, we all pay for those that get sick and go to the emergency room, but don’t have health insurance. Through uncompensated care, it affects our insurance rates just like it affects millions of others.

SMITH: Does the president have to have a government-sponsored or government-run insurance plan in order for him to sign off on this, or is this a deal breaker?

GIBBS: Well, Harry, what the president has always talked about is that we inject some choice and competition into the private insurance market. There are places in this country, unfortunately, where if you don’t get insurance through your job and you are seeking it on the private insurance market, you don’t have any choice but one health insurance company. What the president has said, in order to inject choice and competition, which will drive down costs and improve quality, that people ought to be able to have some competitor in that market. There ought to be a choice that they have. The president has thus far sided with the notion that that can best be done through a public option.

SMITH: OK. Thus far sided with, is that...

GIBBS: I think first of all...

SMITH: ... a hedge?

GIBBS: No, no, no. What I am saying is the bottom line for this for the president is, what we have to have is choice and competition in the insurance market. Again, if you are in a place in this country where you only get one choice, how in the world are you going to be able to convince anybody that you are driving down costs when you don’t have to compete against anything?

SMITH: There is a lot of skepticism, though, about whether this is going to work or not. And yesterday the president said well, OK, so if there is a federal insurance program, well, just look at the post office. Well -- and it has competitors in the private sector. Maybe that’s not the best example to look at. It loses billions every year, and it is about to stop delivering mail on Saturdays.

GIBBS: Well, look, I don’t think he was saying that what we were going to do is create the postal service for health care. What he was doing was addressing those that are concerned that if a government entity is involved in any way, that it kills anything in the private market.

The president has talked about health insurance reform will build on the way that millions and millions Americans receive their health insurance. That is through their employer-sponsored system. We want to build on and improve that. We want to cut costs for families and for small businesses.

You know, but, Harry, what I think is most important in this debate is what happens if we do nothing? That’s the riskiest option of all, because we know that 14,000 people each day will lose their health insurance if we continue to do the same thing. We know that premiums will skyrocket. For a family listening out there, your premium will double in less than nine years if we do nothing. For a small business that is listening out there, who wants to continue to provide health insurance but understands that premiums are skyrocketing, there will be no relief for any of those individuals or families or small businesses, and that is why we can’t afford to let this great opportunity pass us by, and do nothing.

SMITH: At the president’s health care forums thus far, he has not had to encounter very much rancor, but especially in certain congressional and Senate districts, some of these folks have seen a lot of noise, a lot of passion. When you see these people’s faces and you hear what they have to say, what do you think?

GIBBS: Well, when I see the people on TV, you mean?

SMITH: When you see these health care forums, not the ones that presidents do, but some of these ones from these various congressional and senatorial districts, and you see the anger, what do you think?

GIBBS: Look, I understand, as the president does, that people have questions and concerns about health insurance reform. I think one of the reasons the president is out there, has been out there three times in the past week is to try to address the misinformation that is out there about health insurance reform.

He also understands this isn’t going to be easy. But I will tell you, Harry, we went to a place last night, Grand Junction, Colorado, where the president received about 35 percent of the vote in 2008. We had a very courteous discussion. There were a couple of tough questions, but a very courteous discussion about the issues that are involved.

I have got to tell you, Harry, I think most of what you are seeing on TV, no offense, is good TV and that’s about it. I think the vast majority of people are having discussions, whether it is around their kitchen table or with their congressmen in their district or their senator, and they are doing this the way every American discusses issues, and that’s trying to get some information and some facts to make a good decision.

SMITH: At some of these health care forums, you hear people like Chuck Grassley say, you know, if there is a national health insurance policy involved in this, I am not going to participate. You even have some Democrats, who are very much on the fence about this -- I am going to just try and plow this one more time -- does -- is this a deal breaker for the president? Does he have to have national health insurance in order to have a health care reform plan done?

GIBBS: Well, again, the president believes that this option, the option of a government plan, is the best way to provide choice and competition. But you mentioned Senator Grassley, who is working with Democratic and Republican colleagues to fashion a bill in the Senate Finance Committee, and we certainly look forward to their ideas.

Harry, the bottom line, again, is, do individuals looking for health insurance in the private market have choice and competition? If we have that, the president will be satisfied.

SMITH: All right. Last but not least, you are seeing increasing evidence, at least from economists anyway, that the recession is over or may have, in fact, bottomed out. Does the White House look at it that way?

GIBBS: Well, look, we’ve certainly seen some data recently that show that our economy is -- has stabilized a bit. I definitely think we have pulled back from the edge of going into a depression, which many people predicted when the president took over in January.

We still see hundreds of thousands of people losing their jobs every month, millions of people looking for work. And Harry, this president won’t be satisfied that our economy is back on track again until the people that want to work in this economy can find a good- paying job that lets them provide for their family. That is what he is focused on each and every day.

SMITH: Robert Gibbs, we thank you very much for your time this morning.

GIBBS: Harry, thanks for having me.

SMITH: All right. We will be back to talk about the war in Afghanistan in one minute.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMITH: The growing violence in Afghanistan is a reminder that the fighting that started there in 2001 is far from over. We go now to CBS News chief foreign affairs correspondent, Lara Logan, who is with U.S. troops in Helmand Province. Lara, you have made many trips to Afghanistan. What is it like there now on the eve of the elections?

LOGAN: Well, there is an atmosphere of fear hanging over this election now. Afghans are ready to vote in the next few days.

LOGAN: This is their second presidential election, but just yesterday, there was a massive car bomb outside of NATO headquarters in the capital of Kabul.

And this, for Afghans, is a demonstration, the Taliban trying to show that they can strike any time they want to, anywhere they want to. And they have threatened to disrupt the election at all costs.

They won’t be able to stop everybody from going to the polls, but there is concern that particularly here where I am, in the south of the country, they will through fear and intimidation be able to prevent people from voting.

And if they can do that in significant numbers, then that is a problem for the credibility of the election. And what people were telling us here is they were telling the Marines when we were out on patrol yesterday is that we can’t go and vote because your finger is stained with indelible ink and if the Taliban see that, they say they are going to chop off our heads, they’re going to kill us.

And they know there are only a few polling stations that are open in the south. In some areas they couldn’t even open polling stations it is so dangerous. So this is one of the major problems that Afghans face.

And there now is some concern about what exactly the Taliban have in store over the next few days and on voting day itself. The U.S. will be securing the roads, the Afghans will be securing the polling stations, and there will not be a visible U.S. presence.

They want this to look like an Afghan election. They want people to believe that it is an Afghan election. Although many Afghans believe that is the U.S. that will decide the outcome and that their vote doesn’t really count -- Harry.

SMITH: And joining us now to talk about U.S. strategy there, former Senator Chuck Hagel and former Congressman Lee Hamilton joining us.

Thank you very much for taking the time to be with us today. July was the deadliest month so far for U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan. The Taliban effectively control almost half of the country, as the United States continues to aggressively engage the Taliban.

What are your greatest concerns? Mr. Hamilton, let me start with you.

HAMILTON: Afghanistan is fiendishly complex, a very, very difficult policy challenge for us. I think we are at a pivotal point. We are going to have to decide how hard, how big to go in, or to come back a little bit.

My major concern at the moment is that we put aside our assumptions and examine kind of from the beginning, are we doing the right thing there? What are our objectives? How much are we willing to pay to reach those objectives? Are there alternatives other than a massive increase in troops and money into the region? Can we protect the American national interests? Can we protect Americans with something less than they may be on the horizon here? Those are the questions on my mind.

SMITH: To Senator Hagel, General McChrystal is due to report soon back on -- as to the transition that is taking place under his leadership. We are hearing rumors he has been told not to ask for more troops but made -- the wish list is said to include as many as 10,000. Anthony Cordesman, this week, said there ought to be 45,000 more.

This is a very expensive proposition in terms of both blood and treasure. Do we know we are making the right investment?

HAGEL: Well, I go back to what Lee laid out in answering your question, which I think he has captured it exactly right. In addition to what Lee has said, I would add this.

What are the achievable objectives? And that ties to your question, how do we know we are making the right decisions? First, we have an election Thursday. I would expect that General McChrystal’s analysis will come in shortly thereafter. My understanding is there will be a part two to that.

Then he will have recommendations following that, which will obviously address additional troops, if he is going to ask for more.

But I think also we have to keep in mind that this fall we will have been in Afghanistan nine years. And we have got to identify very clearly what is this objective? Is it nation-building?

Now if it is nation-building, and General -- Ambassador Eikenberry, as we know, has sent a recent memo to Secretary Clinton saying, I need 2.5 billion more in nonmilitary, plus military.

Then we are getting very deep into something here that we don’t do very well, we don’t understand. This area of the world is at the crossroads of the most dangerous, complicated, combustible region on Earth.

You have got three nuclear powers all bordering each other and an aspiring nuclear power in Iran. Pakistan is connected to the future of Afghanistan. Regional strategic concepts have to be laid out in this, and it isn’t just the military. I fear that we could find ourselves bogged down, drifting dangerously deeper and deeper into a situation where it becomes very difficult to get out, and we become isolated. You know, the Dutch are coming out next year. The Canadians are looking at coming out in 2011, the British is...

SMITH: They are up against the wall, there is...

HAGEL: With this is an election. So...

SMITH: Right.

HAGEL: ... I am willing to wait to see what McChrystal says, but I think Gates’s points -- Secretary Gates, there have been very important points that he has made, because one of the points he continues to make is, the more we load in American forces, are we being perceived more and more, wider and wider as an occupation force?

If the people turn and we can’t get the people back, it won’t make any difference whether we put 200,000 troops in.

SMITH: Right.

HAGEL: I mean, that was a difficult lesson in Vietnam.

SMITH: Point well-taken. And the question then becomes, if, in fact, too much time has transpired for the United States to let its interests seep in there, if too much time -- if the time has been forfeited, if -- let me go back to what Senator Hagel said, can we afford not to be there, though?

With -- if it’s -- if the stakes are as high as they are, can we afford not to be there?

HAMILTON: If you keep your focus on what I think is the core national interest, protecting Americans, dismantling al Qaeda, we have to achieve that objective. We do not want to threaten the security and lives of the American people.

Can we achieve that without what Chuck is talking about, nation- building? I do not personally think we can modernize Afghanistan. There are historical, political, cultural, economic forces that are massive in that country, and we can’t turn them around.

One of the great questions of American foreign policy is always sustainability. We get excited about a place, we are willing to put billions of dollars into it in the short term, but you cannot solve Afghanistan’s problems in the short term.

All of the experts are telling us decades. So the question, Chuck, is, are your former colleagues and mine willing to put billions and billions and billions of dollars over not a year or two or three, but decades into Afghanistan?

SMITH: Do you feel...

HAMILTON: Let’s protect the core interests.

SMITH: Do you feel like the White House has clear objectives here? Richard Holbrooke was in a forum this week, somebody asked him what success is, and when he said, well, we will know it when we see it.

HAGEL: I don’t think that is a particularly reassuring answer, but I think that is indicative, though, to this foggy, vaporous idea that still is floating around out there as to what is -- to Lee’s point and he is exactly right, what is exactly the achievable core objective, but what protects our national interests?

You know, I mentioned Pakistan, that area has never been governable, now that doesn’t mean it can’t get better. But I am not so sure it is wise to get our army bogged down in a situation where, by the end of this year, right now, on the board, including NATO and other countries like Australia, who have troops in there, we are going to have at least 100,000 troops in there.

We’re probably tripling the USAID and economic development going in there. You drift and drift and you go deeper and wider and all of a sudden a year or two years goes by and you are in a lot of trouble.

Now how do you unwind this? Because there are ramifications to that for our standing in the world.

SMITH: Congressman Hamilton, final question, election happens this week, does it matter if Karzai ends up back in office or is it -- it will likely be a runoff, but it seems if it were to happen, he will end up back in office, does it matter?

HAMILTON: I don’t know much about the alternatives to Karzai. I have been disappointed in Karzai’s leadership. But if our goal is to create a legitimate, reasonable, accountable, capable Afghan government, we are going to be there a long, long time, I believe.

Does it matter? I suppose it does in who wins an election. My view is that the election has kind of delayed us to try to achieve our objectives, maybe it is a necessary delay. But we are going to have to work with that Afghan government.

Even with limited objectives that Chuck and I have talked about, we are going to have to work with them. And so in a sense, we will work with whoever wins.

HAGEL: As always, Harry, just like Iraq, it will be the people themselves of that region that will determine the fate and outcome of their country.

SMITH: Very sobering stuff, Senator Hagel, Congressman, thank you for being here.

We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMITH: President Obama and his family took in a tour of Yellowstone National Park yesterday. Historian Doug Brinkley joins us now to talk about presidents and America’s national parks. He is the author of the new book, “Teddy Roosevelt: Wilderness Warrior.” Doug Brinkley, good morning.

BRINKLEY: Good morning to you, Harry.

SMITH: Why was Roosevelt so determined to preserve some of America’s great, last great places?

BRINKLEY: Well, as a kid, he had asthma and he grew up in New York City, and he found the nature as a cure. He would go to the Catskills and Adirondacks. Later, his mother and wife died on the same day, Valentine’s Day in New York. He grew very dark and despondent. Took the train out to the badlands of North Dakota, and ended up writing a trilogy of books about the ecosystem there, and started believing that the wilderness, wild places, scenic wonders is what distinguished the United States from Europe. True, Britain had Westminster Abbey, but we had Yellowstone. France might have the Louvre, we had the Grand Canyon.

SMITH: You spoke with President Obama before he embarked on this trip out West. What did you talk about?

BRINKLEY: Oh, there was just a group of historians he had at the White House, and I got to talk a little bit about my book on TR, the “Wilderness Warrior,” and then I went to the Interior Department and got to speak with Secretary Salazar, who is accompanying the president onto these national parks. And they are just very keen and want, I think, the American people to know that some of their tax dollars are going to keep these great parks up and running.

SMITH: If Roosevelt were alive today, what would he think of the state of the parks?

BRINKLEY: I think he would be sadly dismayed. In fact, not just our national parks -- incidentally, Harry, we need to -- it is a great American triumphal success story, the national park system, our forested (ph) monuments, but we have places that still need to be designated parks, like Big Sur, ANWR in Alaska, the North Woods of Maine.

I’m sitting here in California, and the state parks of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger is about to try to close 50 to 100 of them because he said he doesn’t have money. He is going to padlock the state parks of California.

So I think hopefully the president’s trip and Ken Burns’ upcoming documentary are going to remind people that these are our great wonders, that these parks, both national and state, are what makes America really special and great. And that children in particular can find all this -- these sort of wonders by just going to the sea or the mountains or our great rivers.

SMITH: Interestingly enough, attendance at national parks have been going down for several years. It actually spiked back up again because of the recession this year.

Do you have any sense whatsoever that there is a national will to pour in the billions of dollars that is so desperately needed to restore the infrastructure of the national parks? And I have only got about 30 seconds left, Doug.

BRINKLEY: I think we need to have that debate, Harry. Clearly health care is going to dominate things now, but the answer is yes. For example, we have over 500 wildlife refuges. Saving these great species and their habitat, yet industrialization is encroaching on them all the time.

I think we have just got to preserve what we have. We have got to realize that it is America’s best idea, the parks, monuments, wildlife refuges, and think about what Roosevelt called the generation’s unborn. These land areas are our great heirlooms to future generations.

SMITH: Doug Brinkley, thanks so much for your thoughts this morning. We do appreciate it.

BRINKLEY: Thanks, Harry.

SMITH: We will be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMITH: That is our broadcast. Bob Schieffer will be back next Sunday. Thanks for watching “Face the Nation.”