>> what do you think a tree can be? can be stronger thanteel? and a tree biodegradable plastic? can it be fuel for our cars, or clothing, or medinehat fights cancer? with our te cell technology, we thinkt can. werhaeuser, growing ide. >> i believe this decisi is dangerous, i believe it is misguided, i bieved it is necessary. >>his week on "inside shington," angry reaion to the cision tory the/11 suspectsn new york. >> i am notcared of what khalid sheik mohammed has to say on trial, and no one else eds to be afraid,ither. >> t president in china. was there too much kowtowing and not enough standintall? >> this cgress and presidency are going to sign into law a nationalealth-care program. >> senate democrats unveed theealth care program. >> it is not going to taste any better athanksgiving dinner on thursday. >> confusion over government guidelines on mammogms. >> do what you have always done, talk to your dtor. captioneby the nation captioning institute --www.ncicap.org-- >> the attney gener of the united states kicked ua firestorm en he announc his decision t tryhe accused architect of the 9/11 attacks and four of the m in new york federal court, n far from grnd zero -- civiln crt, not milita trinal could kp contel forhe decision on capitol hill this week. -- he caught hell for th decision on capitohill this we. >> how can he be more kely to t a conviction in deral court when khalid sheik mohamme has already reed to plead guilty in military comssion and bexecuted? [appuse] i will not debate whe these caseare to be bught on what terrorist, murder, wants to do. he wl not select the prosecution venue, i wl and i have >> senator lindsey gham says th this is a perversion of the justice system. what do you think, nina >> i thi it ia very hard decisionhathe attorney neral made, and iould point ou that we haa military commissions for venears and they have not successlly brought ybody to trial, becausof problems with the commission. in all likelihood, tre is lots of evidenchat we do not know about and that he wilbe convicted, but you do not pk a rum this way becau you think -- you don't say out loud, "we will convic him in this one and might not that o." i think weill conct him in any one. that does not mean the are not prlems. >> charles sen >> graham- >> senor graham ask polder if there was any case wre someone was captured and brought a bught to civilian tck in the uted states. lder said he did not know and would find out. graham sd, "i will say the time, never happened in u.s. histor" eric holder looked er his head an incohent in those arings. >> colby? >> i don't think he was or his head at all. en you look at theerrorists whwere convict in civiln cous, it is a pret long list of terrorists who have gone through that. you have a shoe bomber, jo padillaa zacarias moussaoui, who wa charged on the same conspiracy charge tt we are like to see khalisheik mohammedried on. it is n as if we have n been down this road before. >> evan, are the criti right? is this a perversion of the justice system? >> you a never going to reconcile the nee of the secuties ty and th -- secuty state and the democracy that once rule of law. it is irreconcable. is is living proof of it. i am for i because you have to do these things, but i am not attendinthere is no risk. >> evan is absolutely right. the are downsides to this. i think t biggest dowide is the dgero manhattan it is lik pnting a r target on it. th think they can do it. fine. it is their decision. i am not se it is the right decision. but it is stillainting something of a tget, even if it is a military trial. >> ife had opposed to milita tribunals in prciple, it wld have been a coherent argumen he could t explain why on e same d it would send ksm into civilian court in new york a send al-shiri, the y behind the bombing of uss cole, to a military court think of a logic ofhis. al-shiri hit a military target. have hit ships offer our history. it is not a w crime to attack a warship. it is a war crime to deliberate attacked civilians. it hapned on 9/11. and yet the guy who does 9/11 gets all the ptections, the extra constitutional protections, in a civilianrial as anashiriwill have none of those in the military tria makes no sen. >> uss cole versus the pentagon d will trade center, colby. >>he bush administration wa guilty of thsame thing that arles accuses the obama administration of doing. the bush administration decided to d everything they could to cheapen up, they wan sometimes it would be -- litary commission a achve the ocome they want sometimes itould be the to e commission, sometimes civilian trial. >> why civilian court for ksm? eric holder never exained why. >> ts guy was not just admitting an open court at he did ts, butpparently went all over guantanam saying that heid this. if youave a trial thashows the wor thealculated diegard for lifehat he was responsie for, you may acally, in a system of justice th is a model, have something to show t world. >> how do you keep the waterboarding ouof ts trial as pjudicial? >> ion't think they wl, becaus theress will bring in even if the court does not. charles is trying to apply logic toomething that defies logic. it is about the symbolis in this screwed up, a complicatewar onerrorism, we e still holdi onto a shred of the rule of law. >> look, l me say a word about that -- if the idea is to show the world the superiorityf our stem and the rule of law, how can you have ic holr hearing what happens if ksm is acquted or tre is a hunter and hi answer is the edit is not an opon? ifou have a presumption of innocence i our system, failure is an option. >> it shows the process -- it shows th confidence of the prosecion and it shows how ngress has not dealt with the entire question ofhat you d of people you need to dein but cannotonvict. >> evebody understands it ll not walk. even if he's acquitted he is arrested on the spot. it is a showrial, a farce. >> the president ichina. >> it is aelationship that needs to be focused not just on economicnd trade issues, but a whe host of globaissues in whic u.s.-china cooperation is critical. >> at a state dier for the president,. r b orchestra serenade him and oth american ofcials with "i just cled to say i love you." ovethe pas10 years, as thousands of american phe factories closed, thousands of chineseactories open. china is our largescreditor. >> i remember 20 ago, --0 years ago, more than that, 1980, when i was on the board of the world bank, china had per- capita income of that time was about $250. now it is one of the largest in the world. china is our large creditor, it has opened u to a lot of u.s. investment, a a lot of u.s. companies are making money becausof china. >>t is cheaper to manufacture goods there thanere. >> but there is codepdency the. one time we had to pay money to the saudis. is n moved to china. is not a matter of kowtowi to anybody. it is a matter of makin econom relationshipshere you findhem. >> chi has that to keep th buying our debt. we are going to keep interest rates down annot have another massive recessionthen we have kee the chinese hap. we have to pay tribute and be nice to them s tha they continue to buy e debt week racked up. >> wt did they decide to get tougwith us? >> then ey get poor, too >> look, ty want our economy gro they want our economy working. >> there is nothingo worry abou charles? >> there is a l to worry about. what struck me is that "the new yorkimes," "washington post," " and l.a times" talked openly about how big a flure the trip was. this is the ges of liberal these papers saying tha he went to china and got notng on -- liberal se papers saying that he went to china and g nothing on iran, human-rights, clime change and the biggest issue, revaluation ofhinese currency. yo have to ask yourself, why did he go,nd wt did he achieve? why do you go on a trip in which nothing is achiev? the presidentught to he at least something wired in advance, and apparently, in japan, and nothing was acquired in advanceand nothing was happening in south kea. >> when it com t trading currency, ere seems to be one set of rules for the chine and another r the united states. >> it is a question of clout theyre in the position where they have toe spoken toith great ca. they are a huge market, they have the credit. 20 yeago, china was a boower, and now china has made aommitment to africa worth billions of dollar is is the newhina. this is the economic reality we face. they are a stroncompetitor. heris the interesting headline -- blackstone, one of these private equity firms on wall seet, just did a giant deal in chinese currency,ot using u.s. dollars. the smart boys on wall stre are going to chi and play by the rules with eir mon. they know where the acti is. ttingly or unwtingly, they willelp the american ecpsed. >> the guys on wall street got us into a big mess, as i recal >> what is bothersome is that we manufacture so little. do not have an answer to recommend, but we don't even manufacture entirely all of our military eipment. this is worrisome and needing some attention >> senate democrats have health-care ll. >> this bi will add a dimeo the deficit quite the opposit it will cut it by $130 billion in the first two years. >> it costs $9 billion over 10 years, financedy new taxes o wealthy america and insurance compies, also by cuts in dicare spending. the congressional budget office says the bill would reduce the federal deficit by $130 billio in the first0 years. doou buy that? >> the fraudulenof these numbs is absolutely staggering i will expla why. the benefits kick in in 201 s outlays are only for half of that decade. the taxes and cuts, premed to spendi cuts, all kick in at the benning. you have 10ears of money in, five years of outlays, so of course it produces aurplus. if you start at 2015 and go until the end of time, the amount of deficit added a free ticket is going be about half a trillion. -- added a free ticket is going to be half a tllion. it wil proce a huge deficit annually. that is an absutely phony mber. >> charles is white. this bills a fiscal fraud. i would still -- charless right. this bill is a fiscal fraud. i woulstill vote fort, but if we were host about it, we wod sayhat we have not dealt with the mey piece of it that we will have to deal with it. weill kick tt down the road and deal with later. >> the thi about the senate bills that it aually tries to do somethin abo costs. starts down that road. >> it does not. it is fake as a $2 ll. >> no, unlike the house bill, it actually tes to do something about crossbreed i am not saying it is ideal. we have a --t actually es to do something abo costs. i not sayinit is ideal. but we have start this. >> the only way you deal with costs is to go to th way doctors are paid. doctors, most doctors, are paid by this ideahat y get all the procedures they built r >> you haveo put on sary? >>es, you have to cnge the basi system of ping doctors or you wilever deal with the cost problem, ver. >> the ama is going to love that. >> look,ou are not goi to get savings, the medicare savings th're talking abo. congress isot going to come ound and let that happen. they will not be able to take those savings ou also, the bille are talking about thathey are going to vote on this weekend far as the cloture, it is not aoint to be thone coming out of the senate. is is the mechanism to gethe bill to thefloor and it will amend e process d really get arted. >> it is alrea a couple thousand pages. >> they lldd more while they are there. the final proct will still be phony. >> we jt had a segme where we talked about being a hostage to the chinese becse of debt and dicit. here w are come with the absence of health re, cbo projects a increase and a deficit of $9 trillion over a decade. now we will create a new entitlement thatill add anotr half trillion on that d complain that somehow the economy has to much debt. >> if we don't do anything about heth care, we will be totally uncompetitive. every other modern coury in the wod pays for health care -- theovernment pays for health care. th is why many in ameri's supporsome sort of universal health care. we cannot afford tdo it this waanymore. >> all thoseountries are morrhaging as a result. >> not t way we aren health care >> the briti and canadians who have a single payer system, are absolutel drowning in debt as a result ofheir health care. >> not compared to ours. thatompared to medicare. >> theres a tax increase in r future. >> who are you goingo tax? >> you, me, that fellow behind the tree. >> ok, very reassurg, thank you very much. let's talkbout the confusion about mammograms. >> i think it is totally ridiculous itay not be potically correct, but i think it'about money d politics, the beginning of rationing care, and i don't think it is about the health of individual women >>he government advisory tk force put commendations on the frequency of mammogram that caused a furor in the medical community and a loof confusion among women. the palf 16 health-care professionals concludes that for most women,outine that our paths are not necessary in the 40's, andnly two -- rtine mammogra are not necessary in the0's, and only two years after that. >> i am all f setting standards thatake both medical and onomic sense, but who are u going to believe, your own damn eyes or something ee? every woman of a certain age knows somebody who has discoved there canr with a mammram. you don'tave to go very far ouide your circle ofriends. what is odd abo this commendation is that it would singularly -- was singularly without oncologts on it. >> we have it and on our pane -- he an m.d. on our panel. >> oncologts are the onesho do epidemiological studies. e base the recommendati on studies of lar numbers of women,ot on anecdotes. as a rest of the study, which i have read, and it is not about the ct, but the health benefits and healt risks of overcreening, one in of the cancer diagnoses is a false positive. it leads t mor diagnos, more radiatn, often surgical interventionand all of those risks. on t basis of that, the epidiologists in the study concluded th it would be neficial to start at 50, and in the aggregate, detrintal if you artarlier, in a mass screening. not ifou have a family history, in which case y want to have the screening. if y have no risk factors, it makes sense to start and 5and not 43 0. ith and without family histy developing breast cancer in the 30' >>n the 20'as well, and nobody recommends mass screening in the 20' >> the panel was notreated to take into accountinancial issu. as a matter of ft, it was specifically set up years ago to look at only the health consequences, not the financial or economic impact. touggest that thi is the first ep towards some kind of rationin driven by financial cisions when you have no evidence of that is irresponsible. >> i think thais what the debate is all about science and evidence ows that ey are right you do more harm than gd by the early screening. i don't buy at. >> i think the evidence is just overwhelming that thats true. but years of believing that we are eitled to every test and you havto doarly prevention and running to t dr. no matter what, thats so deeinto our culture now that if you challenge that, en if y challenge it intligently, as e panel has, it creates a huge politil fear, fea of rationing. that is what its so harto save any mey. >> what is the harm, en? >> falseositives mean a lot of sts that have consequences -- biopsies, removing press that should not be removed. itreatesore death and doing really testing. -- than doing the early teing. >> they discoved as a rest of he epidemiological studi that breast self-examination has no use whatsoever, mes no diffence in health outcos, zero. it recommendthat doctors no longer teach wom self examation. nobodyas disputed this finding. and here we have had decades and decadesf indoctrinatioof how importt it is, hours you hav to spend eve day, that doctors ought to teach ts. is not recmended that -- it is t recommended that it ought to be stopped because it is a ste of resoues. they paired this together and it was probably a big miste, because you hav two things people told do thathey are now being told noto do. but the are leading doctors all of the country who say it has thing to do withost, but thats the wrong conusion. you caotust kiss it off and just say, o well, they are wrong. >> there w a hearing up on the hill where aery angry meers of congres republans, to be sur took on the secretary of t treasury d calling for his head. they areot the only angry peopleppear to jobs,r the lack treof, is at the het of it. >> there is a lot o crazy populism on the hill. anchor in every sense. it has itsumorous aspects. but some of it is not so funny. there is a bill that passed the hoe this wee representative paul, that would basally take away the powers of t fed and gi them to congress. if you think that congress ought to be making policy for t fed, you ought to move to australia. it is reay a dangerous thing and i hope oba vetoes it. >> back in tarly 1980's, t last huge receson, which probably was not as bad as this recession, the democts on the hill that were tryinto defenestrate the d, or at leastmasculate it. >> i thought that meant throwin out the wind. >> if theyould not defenestte, they wanted t emasculate. all the words i ow. >> that is why i had mlegs crossed. [laughter] the fed is a venerable institution but nowell understo. it is indepdent, has enoous powers, and it donstrated that over the last 18 months. now theyre trying to find a way to make it re responsive. this is a shot aoss the dobow. you cannot allow that toappen to the fed and still hava functioning central bankhat we need. >> some of thicrazyopulism is a head of steamnd it is dangous. >> i agree, a lot of it is not a lot of it is destructive and stripping the bed of its powers -- autting at ripping t fed of its pers and pting it in congress woulde a disaster. but there isnhealthy elemes -- othe populace that -- there is a hlthy element of the pulism. the governmt takeover of health care would start with this bill. and the symbol -rimitive but sile truth, which is that health care is so complicated anis of such complexity and interactions that if you have government imposing res and regulaons and commissionsnd assessments like breas cancer assessments and others on this syst, it is going to make it a mplete disaster. i thinks that sentiment -- >> what is it now? >> hours is the best healthcar systemn the world but it is the mo expsive and not ficient. >> medicares not just se passive prram. it is comptely out of control, erybody understands that. >> it diates wt doctorsan and cannoto. it handles control -- >> and liberals want universal medicare. but essentily, that is what they want. >> you three guys actually loved the recommendions byhe fedel panel on mammrams, nuer one, and pt of t recommendations arconsult theidoctor, but if you don' have healthce, you don't have a doctor to consult. thanks. see you next week. for a transcpt of is broadcast,og on to insiwashington.tv.