Transcripts For CSPAN Washington Journal 20090728

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] host: we are going to spend the first hour talking about the fate of health care legislation on capitol hill. joining us for this first segment from "national journal," marilyn werber serafini. thank you for being here early. i want to show you the front page of " the new york times" talking about the senate finance committee. they write that the fate of health care overhaul largely rests on the shoulders of six senators who since june 17 have gathered, often twice a day, for many hours at a stretch, in a conference room with burnt sienna walls with conference chairman max baucus. some of the key players, including senator max baucus. senator conrad is here. not in this picture is jeff bingaman. in the back is olympia snowe. why is so much attention focused on the senate committee? guest: out on capitol hill there are five committees working on health reform for the most part. the finance is one of two in the senate and one really out of 5 working on bipartisan legislation. bipartisan is not so of born in the house because of the super majority but in the senate it is important to get a bill passed to have some sort of bipartisan support and this might be necessary. host: tell us about the house. where do things stand in the energy and commerce committee? guest: is on again and off again and yesterday house democrats won four hours last evening, went through a tutorial to learn what the committees have been considering some of the members can understand what is in the legislation they are talking about. in the meantime, house energy and commerce has been stalled because there are conservative democrats on that committee that really have similar concerns to what the republicans in the senate have, so they have been discussing -- on-again and off- again. the goal had been to start marking of that bill, i think last week already. but they have been stalled over a number of issues. right now they are on again. they are talking about medicare, creating a new medicare entity to have more power to deal with medicare payment rates and such. the idea is that kind of proposal might actually bring down some of the costs in medicare spending. so right now that is what they are working on. host: i want to make sure the viewers are on the conversation. reach us at twitter, c-spanwj an e-mail, the journal@c-span.org. the congressional budget office had some serious things to say, concerns raised about the cost of the legislation. guest: the have. the congressional budget office has been working around the clock, over the weekend. they came out with analysis that really said -- so far we have been looking at the cost of health reform over a 10-year period. their analysis is that there would be budget deficits after that 10 year period so they took a step beyond and things didn't look so good. host: is a reality this cannot be done without some tax that line, either on health plans or upper income workers? guest: we are talking about bills that could cost upwards of $1 trillion over 10 years. really every committee looking at raising money is looking -- to pay for this is looking at tax increase of some sort, whether surtax on the wealthiest, whether a tax on health benefits. everybody is looking for some kind of tax because it is hard to get to the $1 trillion figure. host: long island, freddie on the independent mind. -- lined. -- line caller: this is how you fix it -- you get all of the health care we finance for iraq and make it for americans. if you do a global search cnn and health care and you discover we finance all the health care for the iraqi people. i don't understand about what is evil and bad about us, taking tax money and applying it to americans. host: a little out of your territory. but do we cover health care for iraqi citizens? guest: i don't think so. it really is a little out of my territory. i can say we do provide health care help to many nations, but usually it is in the way of helping to create health care system. we have done work in afghanistan helping them to build up their hospitals and health care system there. i don't think it is anything, like we are paying for insurance and those countries. in fact, most companies were very differently than we do in terms of insurance. but we do provide some help to other countries but not quite to the extent you think it may be. host: washington, michael on the republican line. caller: how are you doing today? host: fine, thanks. go ahead. caller: the convention -- chocolate obesity, diabetes -- childhood obesity, diabetes, we could save a lot of money through these prevention programs. thank you. guest: that is correct. in fact, there is a lot of attention, a lot more attention being paid to the issues of childhood obesity and well as issues. these are issues we have not paid attention to in the past. they are really starting to take hold and we are just darling to sing significance of evidence that these problems -- people not taking care ourselves as leading to significant health care costs not to mention the fact is not good for our health. a host of the front page of "usa today" reporting on that, obesity is a key link to soaring health tab. part of a conference on of the city held at the capitol -- nation's capital, part of which on the sees the networks. caller: thank you for having me and thank you for doing this subject again. i have seen this serafini and she is to representative of health care experts who don't know the answers to questions posed by viewers and serve as propagandists for the insurance industry. i don't understand why we were not debating single payer health quick -- health care. there was tremendous enthusiasm countryside. obama tried doing town halls -- to give the insurance companies out of medical care. and they do not belong there. it is interesting the british callers seem to bring up aspects of shame and decency around this issue that i guess we as americans are supposed to date -- but again, that is our media propaganda -- i would ask c-span to be more responsive to the public. you cannot date of in support of republican party. host: we are having marilyn werber serafini on because she is the health care reporter for "of the national journal." guest: of the sing about single payer is there are people from the country support it -- nothing about single payer, there are people around the country supported and people from congress to support appeared many of the democratic leaders in congress would love nothing better to see a medicare-style single payer system for everybody. but even those folks have really pulled back on this idea for political reasons. they have come to the understanding that there is not enough support for it so they have backed off of that issue. i wanted to mention that there is a broad conceptions that most other industrialized countries have single payer health care. some of them do, but many of them to not. and many of them are actually pulling away. they have tried it, they have discovered that -- they are not abandoning it completely -- and number in europe are moving from strict government health care and they are starting to add back private insurance in the mix. so it is actually a bit of a misperception. host: that caller mentioned lobbyist. one of many full-page ads in publications. their vision for health care reform. how different is the lobbying effort this time around from 1993 and are they lining up generally against legislation or in favor? guest: it is really very different from the clinton effort in the 1990's. in the 1990's the clintons came out with a very specific plan early on and presented it to the industry and to the public. so there was something already out there on the table, this is the way it is going to be. there were many elements folks did not like. they came in and hit hard and killed the bill. this time around the president obama really learned and he studied that effort, and as a result, he came in not with a specific plan in hand but handed it to congress and congress has been working on the bill. but in the meantime industry group said that a seat at the table. they let their feelings known from the beginning and it won a seat at the table. we see industry coming in with these deals, their own voluntary deals. i will help you reduce costs by this much. we have seen it in the pharmaceutical industry most recently and hospitals. and the insurance industry also, they are coming in and saying, we will go ahead and accept all of these new regulations on the insurance industry, for example, we will take everyone with pre- existing conditions and higher health risks if you cover everybody, get everybody into the system. there is a lot of dealmaking so isn't -- it is a little bit different, and the industry groups have held off from any big attack. host: an opinion question -- selling of the need for health- care reform. it seems to be a want, not a need. guest: elwell, my opinion is a little bit different. i think the administration sees it as a need, both in terms of this is what the country needs both for economic reasons and for consumers. but also there is a political factor. president obama really ran on doing something about health care and if he comes up short, it would be not be good for him politically. host: mass., tom, independent color. caller: i am a first time collar -- caller. i heard on the morning news there seems to be bipartisan consensus in a committee that eliminates the public option as well as allow for pre-existing conditions and allege it attempted to crack down on insurance premiums. that very much concerns me. it sounds like the lobby is winning -- and that insurance premiums will start to rise again. i really appreciate it if you could look into that because this is i opening news to me. i will take my answer off the phone. guest: i think you are speaking about the senate finance committee, the partisan group that is working together. real key decisions this group made. nothing is final. they don't have a bill they are voting on yet, but one of the things they decided to do is not have a public plan, public insurance plan available to people who would compete with private plans. all along we talked about this exchange or connector type and a jane to allow -- entity to allow folks a choice of private insurance plans and also won public plan and the idea is they would compete. the public plan has been a concern for many members of congress, so the finance committee yesterday decided -- welcome of the group of six decided that they would not have a public plan. these folks also decided these would not have an employer mandate, meaning employers would have to either offer insurance to their workers or pay something into the system to help them buy insurance. this is very different from what the other main committing in the senate is doing, the health committee which is senator ted kennedy's committee. in that committee, they have already decided to live and employer mandate if employers to not offer insurance but have to pay 750, close to that, a year per employee. host: california, collin on our democrats line. caller: i worked my way through college -- certified nursing assistant. i've decided to teach because i did not want to go any future in medical because of staffing shortfalls but in the 10 years of working, constantly were short. any one of these plans -- a shortage of nurses, are they addressed and what of these plans going to do to affect the number of people going into medicine. are they going to still want to go into medicine if one of the plans go through? i work my butt off and i have not had a pay raise in five years. i would like to know. i would not stay anywhere near madison work-wise because even if it is a constant job, it is not worth it to burn myself out that way. guest: your concerns are shared by many and policymakers also share your concerns. in massachusetts where we already had some experience with a moving to universal health care or near universal health care, this problem has really come to the forefront. folks are having trouble seeing doctors. there are physicians and nursing shortages. this is throughout the country, even without going to universal coverage. some of the discussion among policy-makers is that we need to change the way we pay medical providers. there is a real disparity especially among physicians, we pay certain specialties huge amounts of money while we pay our pediatricians and internists much left. a lot of the payment changes and payment reforms they are talking about on capitol hill -- but there are other proposals on the table to try to ease some of the shortages, both in terms of loan forgiveness programs and that nature. host: our guest is marilyn werber serafini who covers health care issues on "national journal." i want to pull this issue and show a headline from this morning's "usa today." they write that vermont could be a guide. the article talks about covering the uninsured is at the heart of the debate in washington beard also as carver struggles on how to offer and pay for health care reform for more than 46 million in the usa without coverage, the green mountain state, vt., to get different turn. they cannot afford to cover everyone, so they focused on cutting costs and improving care what the goal of ensuring more people. they won over critics of the legislature and the public by not raising taxes. instead, the state persuaded insurance companies and hospitals to kick in. the federal government gave, the flexibility how to spend medicaid dollars and the only hit to the public was a tax on cigarettes that is 80 cents per pack and a $365 per employe penalty for businesses that don't offer health insurance. sounds like a smaller scale of some of the ideas talked-about on the hill. guest: i think it is. it is very different from massachusetts, which is cover everybody, get everybody in the system and later on we will deal with the cost issues. both of vermont and what we are talking about here in washington is a different strategy. we don't have the flexibility here in washington to move forward basically because of budget rules. budget rules won't allow congress to spend $1 trillion to cover everybody and not pay for it. it just won't happen, which is why we are talking about needing to contain some of these costs. at the new phrase is bending the cost curve. host: most dates have to have a balanced budget so they have that to deal with on their level. -- most states have a balanced budget. ron, independent caller. caller: several bills that were presented by republicans to -- for small businesses to pool their resources so they can get insurance cheaper as a group. but that was killed by the democrats. it seems to me they say there are 45 million uninsured -- that it is a bogus number, really have that, and that includes illegal aliens. why do they have to take over the whole health care insurance? why not just come up with a plan to ensure those who don't have insurance? host: is that still alive, allow small groups to ban together? guest: really what we are talking about now are these health insurance exchanges. again, this is an entity where individuals who don't have insurance -- this would be available to some small businesses also, that they could go through this entity perhaps to buy insurance and to make it easier. in a way, it is something of a similar concept in that it allows them to be part of a group. and this is a very large group of the uninsured. there is also discussion about giving small businesses tax credits or some kind of help to entice them to offer insurance. so that is also a possibility. host: hanover, pa.. republican, chris. caller: i have first a comment and then a question. first of all, i have had hmo's for most of my life, and i don't understand why everybody is so against insurance company, and in the titular, hmo's. first, i gave birth in 1988 and in 2001, and, yes i paid premiums through my employer, but when i go through my hmo, i never get a bill come all the paperwork and that everything is paid up front, it is done come over with. host: you are happy with your hmo? caller: i yes. then became disabled. now i have medicare. i have to have a premium just to get part b, and i have paid since 2000, started out at $30 a month, and now $93.95 dollars a month, and that doesn't cover my prescription, it does not cover dental, all it covers is going to the doctor and hospital, plus i have a co-pay. and that is with my limited income on disability. so, i would like a question -- nobody really in this bill is actually dealing with the most major issue of the government which is medicare and medicaid. they are trying to take all of the insurance companies, tried to take them all in. host: alright, we will get a response. guest: of the most recent discussions on capitol hill have been about medicare and how to make the program more effective. this has been an issue all along. a little more than a week ago the congressional budget office director roman door brought this issue to the forefront -- elmendorf raised concerns that this will not do a whole lot to bring down health care costs in general, and that is where a lot of discussion really started to kick up about medicare. that is why in the house we have a lot of discussion, and in the senate, about creating some sort of entity -- or something that would be controlled by the administration. that would have more power than the current medicare payment advisory commission which currently advises. the whole idea is to give them into a more power so it could make medicare more efficient and hopefully lower costs. host: there is an up and cartoon in "the washington post." with the august recess, in the lives drivers running away from u.s. healthcare in tatters here. why is it important for democratic leaders to get -- to get this done before the recess? guest: if you did -- don't get it at least through the committees by the august recess, there is great concern. then you've got to get it to both the house and senate floor. once you have it on the house and senate floor and pass the bill pass and even when you get to that point you would probably end up with significant events as between the bill the house passes a bill the senate passes. the two have to come together and conference committee and worked out differences. there is a lot of work to be done if you don't get a significant amount -- accomplished in the committees before the august recess. if you don't get the whole thing done by the end of the year and signed, it spills over into next year, and next year is an election year for congress. a lot of politics are coming into this issue and that can kill an issue. the president still has a lot of political capital. his ratings and the poles are still very high. a lot of that starts to disappear the longer -- host: in this column in "the wall street journal" he is missing a few key players -- john dingell, the longer chairman, ted kennedy, absent from of negotiations, john mccain, who has often gone against his party, and also tom daschle. you talked a lot of the bottom -- not asking you to speculate but what would he have brought to these discussions? guest: you just mentioned the big players -- not having ted kennedy, not having an active presence for him, some people believe that really made a big difference. he has been one of the most the fact of legislators in bringing both sides, the democrats and republicans, to the table together and coming out with something that can actually work. when you speak about tom das chle, he was the original bid to the health and human services secretary and also the health reform is are working at the white house as well. he of course is the former senate democratic leader, and not only that, he was an obama adviser during the campaign. so he really was very well connected. he knows the workings of congress, he has directed ties into obama. so, to not have his presence right now, many people believe things may have gone a little smoother. host: is he having any input lobbying? guest: he is saying what the things, talking to folks. what he is having -- not having a direct role. -- is a direct role. host: floyd, a republican. caller: i know a lot of people are saying that nobody has read the bill, and i'm wondering if you read it. the woman who called in on the weekend, i believe paige for the injured and 50 there was a provision where older people -- i believe paige for 50, the was a provision of all the people would have to go to counseling on how to die. host: we had that bill here yesterday in front of us but we don't have today. what do you know about his question? guest: i really don't know anything about your question. it is interesting. i will look up. host: there was a report in " congressional quarterly" about that meeting of the caucus and they report a democrat from colorado saying, nobody can say we haven't read the bill. they had a lengthy session, at least on the democratic side. guest: they did. what was interesting is that -- they had a lengthy session, they wanted to go over it. in fact, the democrats were promised a period of time to review the bill before it is actually considered in the house. the republicans came back yesterday saying, well, this is proof, the fact that you need to sit down and have this lengthy review process, it is proved that it is too complicated. host: marilyn werber serafini writes for "national journal. could you talk about your own encounter with h1n1 flow and you tie it in to the health-care debate. i would need to briefly tell us what happened. guest: it is interesting. in mid june my own daughter was ill and i took her to the pediatrician, the test of her and she came up positive for flu, just regular influenza. at the time, they said they were going to send her specimen down to the cbc to be tested for swine flu. a couple of weeks later -- and she recovered, she is fine. a couple weeks later we were told, well, no, they actually don't do that, they were only testing in june the folks who are health care workers and hospital inpatient. that raised some questions in my mind about, do we really know how many swine flu cases we have? right now the cdc is saying more than 98% of cases in june and july were indeed swine flu come h1n1, so we know that my daughter, unless she was one of the 1% of people that had the flu and it was not swine flu, that she had disappeared so there are really interesting questions that i pursued for a story for "national journal" about how we know and how we actually calculate how much swine flu we have. what i discovered from the story is that there really are some limitations. we have this surveillance system where a certain number of physicians and hospitals to send what i have down to the cdc and to actually test for swine flu but other than that we are really just trying to get a little bit of that so we know what the trends are. but many experts i spoke with said the system needs some work. it is patchy. and it is just not sufficient. host: you can read that article on nationaljournal.com. guest: yes, many of the stories on their website. host: new jersey, on our democrats line. caller: good morning. i would like to ask miss s erafini simmons of questions -- how often have you been to europe or any other places that have one pair insurance and how many people have you talked to that they like it or don't like a and which countries don't like it? you said some are trying to do away with it. host: do you have an experience in a foreign countries of the system? which one? caller: i am from germany. host: tell us about your experience. gcaller: the only thing i could tell you is if you go to work on monday morning at 8:00 you are insured monday morning at 8:00. and if you get sick, brick leg that day, it is taking care of. whereas here, when you go to work and you have to wait six weeks -- so if you get sick you are of the creek. it host: thank you for your call, we will get a response. guest: i suppose what i was trying to say before that -- people like the health care arrangements in europe but they don't like it. but i would say many of the leaders in europe are rethinking public-private partnerships. there have been some countries -- and there still are some countries that have strictly public plans were the government runs the entire plan. many of the countries are either considering or have already begun to insert private insurers back into the system. host: littleton, colorado. independence caller. caller: i wanted to say at least in my opinion, all the little things that are trying to work with the insurance or health care people, they are very nice, in the end, it is out of good will that is going to prevail. what i am thinking that anything that you can possibly do is going to be short-term because we are a very capitalistic society. when it comes down to it, the medical system, health care, pharmaceutical, everything is very money-oriented. and the lawyers to go after them. unfortunately, if you are going to try to do any effected change, i did not think it is going to try to tax everybody into a single payer. i don't think it is going to be working with all these various things. i think you basically have to either put a cap on the profit or come up with a completely new system altogether, something that over time people will just get used to it. as it is right now, i just don't think anything is going to be very lasting in society. it is just not. you would have to go after mcdonald's and burger king -- there is so much to do it would be overwhelming. host: thanks. guest: assured of capping profits, the general ideas behind what many of the bills on capitol hill right now what do, the general idea is to change incentives on the way to pay insurance, the way we pay doctors and hospitals. so that we encourage more efficient health care. we discourage waste and abuse. we discourage multiple tests that do the same thing. the idea is to make the system more efficient. the also are saying that you believe anything we do is going to be short term, and i think many will agree with that. many policy makers will say, yes, we will do what we can right now but we expected to be an evolving process. once again, there is going to be more to be done. i believe the thought is, let's do what we can hear, whether it is the whole thing, getting everybody covered. some people are talking about, well, if we can't get everybody covered, what can we do? even if they get everybody covered, tried to reduce costs, it will still be an evolving process. host: before we get to the last caller, i want to go back to the political discussion on capitol hill. after the caucus and its marathon session speaker need to policy said house democrats are wary of voting on the controversy legislation until they see what the senate will consider. "we need to see the direction the senate is going the tiered she said. -- the direction the senate is going," she said. guest: there are a lot of tough choices to make and members of congress to not want to stick their neck out on something that could potentially buy them when they go home and talk with their constituents. if they believe the other body is so against that that when they eventually come to gather you don't end up with the difficult provision in the bill that they voted for. and then it is really offer nothing. host: one more call for you, from tucson. drain on the republican line. guest: thank you for taking my call. i'm a little nervous. -- caller: thank you for tag and a call. i'm a little nervous. i went public insurance plan. i republican. i have been working since 15. i were free grocery store, 150 stores in arizona, one to chapter 11. they have been readjusting our insurance coverage tighter and tighter, they dropped my vision and they started $10 a week out of my paycheck more and we are feeling the squeeze here, and i get jobs here and there but i am so disappointed with the republican party, i am ashamed of them. it is so upset i cannot even begin to -- i mean, i voted for john mccain and if the election were today it would be for obama because i hear the debates and watching them, i saw the thing with centre sanders and had and i was so ashamed of patch i could not believe it. it is very upsetting. that is all i have to say. guest: you talked about wanting a public insurance plan, and at this point that it is not clear whether that is going to be available now that the finance committee appears they may be taking that off the table. but of the way that the other committees have a public plan to set up, it would simply be competing with private plans. there would still be some kind of minimum benefits package and these plans would be competing and they would have to follow the same rules. so it is quite possible you may still get what you need from a private plan through something like this exchange they are talking about. host: marilyn werber serafini covers health-care issues for "national journal." it is linked on our website, c- span.org. thank you for being with us. we will continue with your phone calls on the issues of health care and discussion on capitol hill and look at a couple of articles related to health care and the debate. we mentioned the article earlier but did not get deeper in depth. obesity is a king -- keeling to soaring health have -- key link. as congress searches for ways to control health-care costs, a new report -- sizable target, a busy. americans who are 30 or more pounds over a healthy weight across the country an estimated $147 billion in weight-related medical bills in 2008, double the amount a decade ago, according to studies by government scientists and a nonprofit group. obesity now accounts for 9.1% of all medical spending and that as of 6.5% in 1998. overall, an obese patient has 4008 runs and 71 medical bills a year compared to 3004 runs and 42 for a patient with healthy weight. your calls on health care. michigan, normal on the democrats' line. -- norma on the democrats won. caller: first time getting through. i was watching this morning with president clinton, and he was talking about this very thing. host: speaking of the obesity conference. caller: yes, about this very thing. i think that people should be aware that health is no longer taught in the schools the way previous generations were taught. both of my children were college graduates and they know nothing about attrition. host: about nutrition? caller: right. my daughter has become more aware, and now she goes to farmers' markets and buys the good meat, etc., she is in to it. but my son being a policeman and at home at regular hours eats the regular police diet. and when i tried to talk up -- talk to them about that they say, well, that's what is available. so that is what they eat. host: right, so they say they don't have other opportunities for a healthier diet? caller: my daughter does not, but previously she didn't because she was in the news business and there you eat on the fly. the thing being is that nutrition is no longer being taught in the schools. the kids come out and, you know, the key to what they see advertised on television because that looks good. host: where did you learn about the treasure? caller: where did i learn? i learned in school. you know of the two high-school that we have no longer have home economics, they no longer teach home economics? in any of the schools? host: thank you for your call this morning. this isn't exactly health care but certainly life-and-death issue. texting lifts crash risk by large margin, 23 fold. talking about texting while driving. truckers typically took eyes off the road for five seconds. the first body of drivers tax thing inside the vehicle shows that the risk sharply exceeds previous estimates based on laboratory research and far surpasses the dangers of other distractions. the new danger at that detailed outfitting the cabs of long-haul trucks with video cameras showing would and drivers texted their collision risk was 23 times greater. i want to take a look at some texts -- a tweed from twitter. several calls and comments about what is in the bill. he writes that, see page 30, section 123 -- there will be a government committee that decides what treatments and benefits you get. it can take a look of the bill on our website, we have a link to it. new hampshire, the morning to katherine on our independent line. caller: i am calling to say i am for a government-run health care option. host: what is your plan right now, do you have one? audit, i am on medicare and we have one that backs that up. we already have a government run health plans. we have federal employees covered, postal workers and so forth, our senators and representatives, medicare and medicaid, veterans' and all the people who are incarcerated and they talk about how we are going to pay for this public opgen and what are you willing to give up. i will tell you, i would be willing to give up fighting wars in iraq and over in pakistan and so forth. i would be willing to give up stimulus package. i would be willing to save bailout for companies and day -- banks ending and i think we need to put our priorities in order and this is what the people made and they don't need all of that other stuff. host: yesterday marked the end of the armistice -- the korean war. this is a front page look in "the washington times" of a ceremony at the korean veterans memorial in washington. recalling the for robot war, july 27, 1953 -- recalling the forgotten war. the same front page, cbo gives a boost to obama health plan, says it will not kill private insurers. steny hoyer trumpeted the report from the congressional budget office, nonpartisan analysts that said private insurers could survive competition from a government health insurance option, contradicting the chief criticism from republicans. augusta, georgia, good morning to dawna, republican. go ahead. caller: good morning. i'm really concerned about rationing care. i used to have my own private insurance until i had bad circumstances and i had to go on medicaid and medicare. i have had cancer three times in sohn said years. and i could not have the cat scans for them to find -- i worried about being rationed on that because i have had three surgeries -- host: who is your health care provider? caller: i had to go on medicare and medicaid. i used to have my private insurance -- but i had an accident which has nothing to do with my cancer. my concern is, you know, i told you i had three surgeries and chemo but i have been cancer free so far for two and a half years and had it not been that i was able to have the tests that i needed, i could not sit here and say it today, i would be dead. host: how are you doing with your cancer? caller: i have been two and a half years intermission. thank you for your call. a.p. report on the negotiations on capitol hill on the senate side. after weeks of secret talks, three democrats and republicans on the senate finance committee were edging closer to a compromise that excludes a requirement is a requirement many congressional and proceed for large businesses to offer coverage nor would there be a provision for a government insurance option despite president obama's support for such a plan. about 10 more minutes from your calls and at the top of the hour, it o'clock, we will be joined by congressman jeff flake from arizona who has been the monsters -- the monstrances -- a demonstrative on the house floor about year marks in the spending bill with 2010. here he responds to rep hastings, the debate on one of the spending bills last week and then back to your calls. >> what has this legislative body come to? i suppose the gentleman is referring to the 540 amendment i offered for the defense bill. i offered 540 because that resent the number of no-bid contracts that this body is often rising for private companies in the defense bill. that is why there are investigations swirling around his body. and yet we come to the floor and authorize 540 -- not often rise, but appropriate money for 5 condola 40 no-bid contracts so i make no apology at all for offering 540 amendments. but i knew i did not want to tie the hands and type of legislative council. that is a bigger worry about. so we went to them and said, how could we do this without causing trouble? they gave us a template and we did it all in our office. my staff and other staffs were up nearly all night last night making 30 come -- copies of 540 amendments of our own, not taking any legislative council time just so we can do this body and this institution the favor of trying to actually vet some of the earmarks, no-bid contracts for private companies that come through this body. and then we get scolded for that? host: back to your calls on health care. alexandria, va., justin, democratic caller. at all because i am calling to respond to an earlier caller. -- caller: i am going to respond to an earlier caller. there's a provision in a bill that she said would encourage people to end their lives early. host: what do you know? audit, that is not true. that was a piece of misinformation that believe may have been started by rush limbaugh, i don't know. i know he commented on it. it says that people who enrolled in medicare, if they have not had a certain type of counseling every five years they must get it. what it is is counseling the -- on issues like hospice, living wills, health care proxy, which is where if you are not able to make health-care decisions on your own you appoint someone to do it, kind of like power of attorney. i'm a lawyer and actually a military lawyer and one of the things that we do is council people, retirees on things like wills and one of the things we always do is explain to them provisions about living wills, health care proxy's. because if you are deploying and you are subject to the kind of dangers you may face in a combat zone or elderly and subject to concerns that make you not able to make decisions, these are things -- that is all this bill says. host: tell us what page and we will send folks to the web site and make him look for themselves. caller: if you want an introduction, on the pdf file, the actual internal page number is page 451-452 -- action come i'm sorry, 425-426. host: i appreciate your weighing in. new hampshire, carl on independent line. caller: i couldn't pay for my blue cross-blue shield due to competition from foreign workers coming in and then the real estate fiasco caused a big drop in hours, so it was of that it was too expensive but had to get rid of it anyway. since then i have been taking care of myself. i have always taken care of it by plenty of exercise, reading to exercise the mine, spiritual come every aspect. what i go in the shopping store, what i put my basket is what i put my belly. i don't think i should pay for someone's health care who is loading up their kids with huge boxes of honeycomb's -- those are not going to be healthy kids and that kind of stuff will really hurt our country, and not only that, it is such a socialistic program they are offering, every part of it, i urge every american to look deeply into it and think seriously -- do you want every choice of your life run by the government or do you want your own choices? there is a lot of other choices available, we need to make sure -- i suggest we do not vote on it. host: one more call on health care, huntington, pa., michael, republican. caller: ofirst-time caller. first time trying -- host: you hit the lottery than. caller: about 45 minutes ago. the person who just talked about the bill, page 425 -- that medicare and medicaid. every five years you have to go to him and they will read about you and they are going to take the sickest people off of medicare and medicaid. host: have you had experience with this? caller: i am totally disabled but i am on medicare. i am not confined anywhere -- but i am blind and that an e- mail from a friend -- i called my rep. our inspector yesterday and told him not to vote for this bill. host: @ thank you for all the calls on this issue and more coming up later on as we talk to democratic caucus chair john larsen about how things are going on the house side. paul singer from "roll call" joins us. yesterday the headline was -- this press club is quite flesh. not the national press club but call the capitol hill press club. paul singer, what is going on at the capital press club? guest: actually just a private office building. and it is largely an office building for political organizations, some members of congress, some political action committees, and it is just a small, unmarked office building on capitol hill and it is called the press club because at one point of the owner intended to have precedence there but it never came to fruition but you will find a lot of money being spent by political offices at this address and address of the capital press club. host: of what led you and your colleagues to sniff out the details of the place? guest: it was funny, we were looking through a campaign contributions and expenditures and we saw mentioned people were paying money to the capital press club. we sorted through the database by address and we discovered there were millions of dollars being donated to this address, to entities at this address. host: you write the most striking thing is the money that flows through it. donations to campaigns, lobbyist, from what? guest: but they have some fund- raising organization that live in a building. so if i have a private fund- raising company and i raise money for your campaign, basically the address for your campaign becomes my company, so people will mail checks to you in care of me. in essence, millions of dollars being donated to campaigns in this building. the other thing is members of congress maintain offices in this building where they can go and make fund-raising phone calls. host: why can't they make phone calls for office? guest: of the walls or you cannot use congressional resources -- the rules are you cannot use congressional resources for its campaign. you cannot have staff making political phone calls from plat -- congressional office buildings and members of congress cannot make a fund- raising phone call from their offices using their office phones. they have to go some place off campus. host: how far off campus? how far is this capital press club? jon scott it is about one block to one block and a half. -- guest: it is a block or block and a half. it is convenient because there are restaurants and delicatessens where people would go to lunch and it appeared then they can just hop upstairs and make phone calls. at one point, the building itself advertised offices by the hour work. you could basically rent a cube, go in and make a few phone calls and leave and paid by the hour. the owner tells us they don't really do that, it is not an office available to people but it is a rate -- it is an arrangement for a few long-term tenants. " scott is a bipartisan? guest: yes. dennis kucinich's presidential campaign was there at one point. eric cantor, republican whip has a campaign office there. it is a very bipartisan thing. basically in politics, everybody needs a place to raise money. host: bipartisan, but in your reporting you do not see anything nefarious going on? guest: the beauty is it is not only legal but it is sort of required by law. . host: we will rack up the program with a discussion on the u.s.-china dialogue. first, we will get an update on the news from c-span radio. >> defense secretary robert gates has a red dye in southern iraq for an unannounced visit to get a firsthand look at the u.s. mission. he will travel to a u.s. command force in visit troops serving mainly as advisers to the iraqi forces. it is a prototype for u.s. forces. a former countrywide says chris dodd and kent conrad were told they were getting vip deals. the senators denied they ever getting a sweetheart mortgage deals. congressional ethics rules bar lawmakers from getting special deals or benefits not available to the general public. more from yesterday's statement that republican senator bunning will not run for reelection. he cites a lack of support from fellow senate republicans. wall street is pointing to a lower price as investors wait for consumer confidence data. dow is down 15 points. the nasdaq is 0.2% down. >> today the senate judiciary committee votes on the confirmation of judge sotomayor to the supreme court on c-span 3, c-span radio, and c-span.org. and the supreme court, this fall on c-span. >> on c-span radio, 1968 lbj phone calls. richard nixon and evangelist billy graham. >> join the conversation on civil rights and race relations with juan yen's. that is on sunday and at noon eastern on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: jeff flake joins us to talk about your marks -- earma rks and spending bills. what is behind all of this? guest: they have gotten out of control completely for the past two decades. in the 1990's, we ran to be the practice. initially, earmarks were used to protect vulnerable members. it's kind of income protection thing. host: incumbency protection. guest: yes, but since then it has become a lot more pernicious. both parties discovered that earmarks could be used for fund- raising. many are not just wasteful, pork-barrel projects, but they are no bid contracts. on the other end, the recipient are executives and lobbyists and political action committees will contribute. host: you have made a concerted effort over the last weeks and months to bring awareness on earmarks in legislation. is the problem with earmarks worse under the democrats that was in the previous congress under republicans? guest: the ramping up of earmarks happened mostly under republican rule. republicans bear a lot of the blame. in 2006, in a deathbed repentance, republicans passed some earmark reforms. they came in and enacted so little of. i felt a little bit better. having said that, some of the transparency is there. when i challenged an earmark, i used to not know whose earmark i was defendinchallenging. i do not have as many opportunities to challenge now. the democrats have really closed down the appropriation process. that is unprecedented. we have a lot more information about earmarks, but we do not have the accountability that we should have because of the inability of members to challenge these earmarks. host: jeff flake is with us until 8:30. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205. we will take your e-mails and tweets. host: do you ask for earmarks? guest: no, i do not ask for any. ihost: how do you go about making it happen? guest: there's a lot of federal spending that goes on all over the country. earmarks represent a tiny portion. i think somebody has got to stand up and say i will not do it at all. once you get earmarks, if you go to the floor to challenge other earmarks, the appropriators will say you have this earmark in this bill, so how can you criticize others? hostit is not just me. there are a number of members who do not take earmarks now. host: another thing you have been talking about on the house floor -- you have been making a point about lobbying and the impact of lobbying on congressional spending. guest: earmarks used to be -- the chairman of the appropriations committee will point back to 1992 when he chaired the rooappropriations committee. he said there was not one earmark in the labor bill. today there were 2500. there were more than 1000 in the bill that just passed the house last week. as i mentioned, it was kind of wasteful stuff. now it has become circular fund- raising. the member will get the earmark, likened the defense bill this week. there are 548 no bid contracts to private companies. there are more than 1000 earmarks in the bill and 548 represent no bid contracts. in many cases, you see a pattern of circular fund-raising. the member who gets the earmark will see campaign contributions come back, usually when the earmark is requested, and later when it is granted, and also from a lobbyist that represent it. there are a number of investigations at the justice department focusing on the practice. host: you have called for an ethics investigation on the pma group. guest: that is correct. they're looking at the relationship between campaign contributions and earmarks. there are allegations that his firm used -- basically reimbursed employees. there are a number of other investigations going on regarding mostly defense contracts. host: was the largest beneficiary of the pma group? >> i do not want to name anyone. there are a few that received a lot of money. our own ethics committee, when you request earmarks, you have to say you have no financial interest in the earmark. our own ethics committee says campaign contributions do not necessarily constitute financial interest. they have greenlighted circular funding. i think that exposes members to investigation. in the house, we should set a higher standard than whether or not you can be indicted or convicted. we ought to say that if there's an appearance of impropriety, we should stay away. i have proposed resolution is to try to get the ethics committee to investigate pma. i offered eight in a row. i got an increasing number of members each time. finally the democrats offered their own resolution to basically force the ethics committee to indicate that it was investigating. host: when will we hear about that? guest: the ethics committee has indicated that it is under review. there's no ticking clock. i would like to see the ethics committee established a committee to look into it. only then do you really know it is investigated. host: jacksonville, fla. on the democrats' line. caller: good morning, jeff flake. i saw york exchange last week on the floor. i called my representative and told her in a last time voters for the democrats. i do not like the way the minority is being left out of the process. i think you need more time to debate the bills and have some kind of change in the process where an equal number of amendments can be presented, especially in the appropriations. it was very difficult to see what was going on when the minority side was left out of the process. guest: it is a great point about the appropriations process. for the first time in anybody's memory, the appropriations committee or the rules committee on the democratic side has decided to bring appropriations to the floor under a closed rule. the rules committee and not the members at large decide which amendments can be offered. under the typical appropriation bill, as long as the amendment is germane, can breed to the floor to move money around in a bill. this year, the majority has decided to close those rules and only allow the amendments that they want to see offered. we were told this was done because of time constraints. appropriating is what we do in congress. i do not think we should try to do as we are doing this week, to the defense bill in one day. even if that were the case, the democratic majority has given me a number of amendments, mostly because they know they can beat my amendments. logrolling takes affect. host: what does that mean? guest: i have an amendment for a bridge, you have an amendment for the rock and roll hall of fame. i will vote for yours and you will vote for mine. it's a process where everybody has each other's back and nothing gets done. the democrats know that, so they have allowed a lot of my amendments to come to the floor. and then they said, we got 10 amendments. of course, eight of them are flakes. what i have been doing is asking for unanimous consent to substitute one of my colleagues amendments for one of mine. we are under the time constraints already. it is basically calling their bluff. if it is a time issue, simply allow us to offer the amendments we would like. i have asked for unanimous consent 16 times and it was objected to every time. the majority has decided they do not want their members to take some of the tough votes. host: a question on twitter. guest: i think you can say there is in economic benefits whenever money is spent, fleeting though it may be. whenever you take money from one area, when you have a budget, you typically take it from another. but the of these earmarks -- many of these earmarks are very wasteful. yes, you can say that they promote economic development. what spending does not? that is part of the problem. we have accounts that are simply for economic development. a member can get earmarks to renovate a theater or whatever and they can say that is economic development. they're right, fleeting as though it may be. host: a republican call from rhode island. caller: thank you. i don't really have a question for you. i have a comment. i have been watching you on the floor of the congress. i sure wish you were from rhode island. guest: [laughter] i wish you were from arizona. caller: i would love to vote for you. i do not see an end to the corruption and high taxes. even when we get a republican -- i am a republican from the old days. when we get a republican, they're not even a moderate. host: are there enough of you to form a flake earmark caucus? guest: i used to get 30 votes or 40 votes for some of my earmark amendments. i have offered a few hundred. now, routinely, it is over 100. that is still not enough. i have. -- i have won once out of a few hundred times. host: hollywood, north carolina on the independents line. caller: thank you. i watched you and rep king the other day. you guys make a ehcheck of a team. i called your office because i wanted to express my appreciation for the way you stand up for us. it has not been seen for a while. you make a great team. i do not know. it is like no one in our government cares about what the american people are thinking anymore. it was just so wonderful to see that. it was refreshing. please keep up. i do not want to read about anything that in the newspaper about you. i want to stand behind you. i hope you go far. i know it sounds crazy. you are not my representative, but i like you guys. guest: please move to arizona. host: does this interfere with such a focus on earmarks -- do you find it hard to get other work done? guest: no, it is an important part of what i feel i do here, but it does not consume everything. there are a lot of other issues i am concerned about. the earmarks problem the is not just the money wasted with earmarks. they consume a lot of other things as well. when you get a earmark in a bill, you are somewhat obligated to support that bill, no matter how bloated it becomes with other spending, and no matter what items there are. there are times when real debates occur in congress on a number of issues. that debate is muted because people have their earmarks, so you have overwhelming bipartisan support for a bill that should not be there. when great example is the last reauthorization of the highway bill in 2005. we overspend what was in the highway trust fund by billions of dollars. we knew we were to read the chairman of the appropriations committee said we are overspending. this week, we may do another chargtranche. host: because it is time that much debt? guest: it is in that much debt. we have 6300 earmarks in that bill, including the infamous bridge to nowhere. very few members there to vote against the bill because they have their own projects. 8 votes against the bill in the house and three in the senate for a bill that everyone knew should not be passed. because it was larded up with the earmarks, everybody felt obligated to do so. that has become the norm on appropriation bills and it does not do well for the covers and other areas. host: representative jeff flake , a master's of political science at brigham young. a democratic caller is next. caller: i really admire you. i wish we had 100 more like you. there are just not many people in our congress now that will stand up and fight for the people. the earmarks are not the only way that congress is getting in the taxpayers' pockets. on social security, they have taken now over $1 trillion that did not belong to them and use that. host: thank you. guest: she is right. it is not just earmarks. it is in a lot of areas that we have overspent. a lot of the programs of people rely on will not be there much longer because we cannot sustain the path we're on. host: the current issue, the major legislation working through its way through house and senate. health care legislation. guest: i'm not a fan of this kind of reform. they're a lot of good proposals out there. what is on the table has a lot of terrible aspects. i think it will lead to more government control, not less. the decisions that individuals make now will be made by others. host: what do you hear from constituents? guest: they obviously want to make health care more affordable and a sensiblaccessible. overwhelmingly, my constituents favor the more free market reforms. host: here's a call from florida on the republican line. caller: i call as the loyal opposition republican reform. we are known as the moose herd ers. we are going into our opposition for the coming elections with a 1000 word essay. would you be our debts in it to write a 1000 word essay on earmarks. -- would you write our 100 word essay on earmarks? get olympia snowe. host: a tall order. guesta comment from twitter.com. is there not something to be said for getting spending bills done in a timely order in the house? guest: you bet. thus timely me we should do the defense bill with such huge amounts of spending and also earmarks with a number also -- and also with a number of earmarks that should be vetted? we should take at least a couple of days. the defense subcommittee passed this out and very little time. the full committee march up the defense bill in 18 minutes. it took 18 minutes. last year, they did not mark it up at all and it came to the floor under completely closed rule. now we have seen the investigations that happen when the members are allowed to get no bid contracts for private companies and received campaign contributions from those who received a earmarks. host: same bidders fost. peterss the. caller: you ran all over the democrats and pushed everything you could push through, including the war in the bracken the afghanistan. -- the war in iraq and afghanistan. why don't you people to get your heads together and start working for the people rather than filling your pockets with campaign money? you are not helping nobody but yourself. guest: i appreciate the call. we were in the majority and we did not change this practice. that is part of the reason we are in the minority today. sometimes republicans use roles in a heavy-handed way. we held open the prescription drug vote for three hours. whichever majority is in sometimes abuses the process. i have never seen anything like this today, where appropriation bills come to the floor under closed rule and members are not allowed to offer amendments. there were times when republicans were in charge that myself and other members brought some very uncomfortable amendments up during the appropriation process. i challenge my own speakers earmark at one. -- at one time. for example, the interior bill. we have interior bill for three days. the majority watched member after member bring earmarks and other amendments to the floor. three days on the interior bill, and now we do a defense bill in one day. host: the speakers tortured will appear today on capitol hill -- the speakers portrait will appear today. guest: as you can imagine, i do not get much from pax. it is individuals in arizona who believe that government is too big. host: one of our regular tweet ers -- guest: there is a reporting going on, be it will call, the hill, "the washington post" and "the wall street journal" -- and "the new york times." there are wonderful grooves on the outside. they have already analyze the defense bill. was it is to give up with a few days ago -- members the represent less than 4% of the entire body in the house of representatives, get their taking home 32% of the earmark dollars. you see that over and over. the appropriations committee members take home the lion's share. they have also analyzed campaign contributions that have come back to these members on the defense appropriations subcommittee. there are some resources out there. citizens against government waste and a lot of other organizations. host: miami, fla. caller: i do not like you too much. every amendment that made the other day was designed to kill the bill. do not bs me. next, republicans do not get it. this is the law united states -- this is the united states of america. you do not operate that way. getting back to earmarks. without earmarks, there would be no southwest of this country. earmarks were good until 2001 when you guys got a hold of it. host: just a minute or two. we will let jeff flake response. guest: he brings up a good point of funding projects. you like the spending, but you do not like these earmarks today. i would point out that those were not earmarks. it was debated for years. it was as far from an earmark as you can get. i'm talking about a contemporary practice of earmarking where members try to obfuscate and then try to hide priorities. host: kentucky caller. caller: thank you. i have two questions. if the president's new health- care proposal is so good, why is it that congress and the president have a different health care plan than what is recommended to the overall people? two, is the primary objective of this healthcare plan to curtail the increased medical and expenses they it is they will cover the baby boomers. what we were bored, they had to increase hospitals, the elementary schools, schools, universities. then we have the housing boom of the 1970's. host: i will let jeff flake answer. guest: on the government-run plan, an immense were offered in two committees of the house to force members of the congress. those of the bids were rejected by the majority is time. it's a great point. i think both republicans and democrats understand that we have an unsustainable amount of growth in medicare spending and medicaid spending. we have got to reform. all of us recognize that. is the type of reform that is the question at this point. host: jeff flake, thank you. guest: thank you for having me. host: open phones are next. we will talk to john larson. we will wrap up the program with a half an hour on the uss china's strategic dialogue that is taking place in washington this week. -- u.s.-china strategic dialogue that is taking place this week. we're back right after this. >> today the senate judiciary committee votes on the nomination of judge sotomayor. and toward the home of america's highest court, the supreme court, this fall on c-span. >> on c-span radio, 1968 lbj phone calls with the secretary of state. republican presidential nominee richard nixon and evangelist billy graham. >> join the conversation on civil rights and rage relations with juan williams. that is on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: open phones for the next 25 minutes. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202-628-0205 we will continue to take your tweets at twitter.com. this is from "the washington post." host: also, from the front page of "the wall street journal" an article about u.s. efforts in the middle east. host: also, the writer says the white house -- host: mississippi, bill on the independents line. you are on the air. caller: i am regular listener. i want to make a comment about the health plan. the lobbyists are spending like $1.5 million per day on this. the president is normally have a plan. -- the president does not really have a plan himself. he went on prime time last week and came up with no plan of his own. nobody knows what he wants. that's all i have to comment on. host: william from new orleans on the republican line. caller: you know, these guys taking up social security and everything that is good for the public -- they are fighting against it. they are not going to allow them to sit there and get the retirement. i mean, they need to work for the country instead of their pockets. i do not see how people can keep voting for this people. host: here's a look at the kentucky senate races from "the hill"newspaper. bunning will not seek a third term in the senate. indiana on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. we are confronted with the health-care cost as of november. $1,500 per month for two people as a result of our job going to germany. that is from a retiree from a corporation. we are asked to pay family rates. there is an expected 10% increase. that actually is a payment that is in excess of our mortgage payments. i have yet to hear from congress with their figure is in terms of what is affordable health care. host: how will you manage that? caller: we will be able to for a year, then we will probably have to pull one of our inflation ira's. host: thank you for the call. the politico this morning -- host: the timing of the meeting was first reported by abc news. this is from inside "the washington times" this morning. and a picture of the chief of police in cambridge issuing some of the recordings that were done during the incident. let's go to wisconsin, connie, independent. caller: good morning. i am really happy about c-span. i have watched a lot of the comments that congress has been making on the floor about the health care bill. one of the things that is missing, i do not understand why everyone is so quiet about -- they will talk about how bad tobacco is for people's health, and how many people it has killed, but they never bring up alcohol. somehow that seems like it is sacred. host: in what context? in terms of taxation, or what? caller: i'm talking about how much it costs in health care for alcoholics. it is huge. yet, nobody brings that up. they will say all these different things, and the prevention for different things. they want to hike up prevention's for people in this health care bill, but they never even mention alcohol. host: thank you, connie. here's a story about oshkosh, wisconsin. host: "the wall street journal" article we are reading from has a picture of this vehicle that they're going to build for use in afghanistan. here's missouri on the republican line. caller: i was calling in regards to health care. with health care being a big issue right now, you do not talk about preventative health or initiatives for people to get up and go to the gym. or to take on activities. the bottom line of this health- care debate is that us americans love to change lifetime -- us americans will have to change lifetime activities. host: how do you legislate that? guest: say it zerotwere cheapero buy a package of vegetables then a package of chips. let's have preventative health. once that happens, then we do not have to worry about the extra cost of health care and things like that. the premiums will go down lower women look for ways to boost health-care. -- the premiums will go down lower when we look for ways to boost health-care. host: open phones for the next 15 minutes. north carolina, good morning to janet on democrats line. caller: good morning. we had two strategists on last weekend they talk about the problems of getting things done. they talked about things like power and influence and they never said people suffered by the amount of money that lobbyist -- profit from the amount of money that lobbyists get. until we have no money campaigns, we will have this problem to they do not even use the word money. they call this power and influence. even though they are smart and good people, they're all profiting by the fraud and abuse that goes on in congress. newt gingrich mentioned it. the congress is owned by big money, the insurance skie guys, and pharmaceutical guys. we do not need to shake their hands. there are only three ways to campaign. money is not necessary. we can talk and talk about these problems that come up because of lobbyists, but we will not get any good government until we get rid of lobbyists and we have no money campaigns. host: a tweet on twitter.com [laughter] to redford, mich. on the intended linindependent line. caller: thank you, c-span. i have two points. the legislators on both sides of the aisle have good ideas, but they do not want to solve the problem as much as they want to win. i have a solution i think my work for health care that i'm sure they would not go along with. if we would like to get health care done, we should give our legislators a $3,000 race. at the same moment, take away their health care plan. i think it was sick, i think i'd get it now. thank you. host: two different views on the blue dog collusion host: "the wall street journal" opinion page. after their spending spree, they are widely believed to of tarnished their brand. are the blue dogs tarnishing their brand, too? if 80% vote for the stimulus bill and 75% voted for the 2010 federal budget, can the group rightly claim that this conservative? the opinions of merrill matthews in today's "the wall street journal." another view from jacob hacker, who writes -- and a picture here of a health clinic in rural virginia that accompanied this opinion article. good morning to jackie, republican caller. caller: 80% of people are happy with health care. host: make sure you wait 30 days between calls. we appreciate you honoring our policy. minnesota, to shirley, democratic caller. caller: i wonder if anyone thinks about the fact that insurance is just a socialist type of thing that is only good for those who can afford to pay for it. i wonder how many of the people who have insurance realize what i know. that is, the insurance companies can't dump you any time they decide you are too sick -- can dump you any time that you are too sick. i checked with my republican congressman in iowa years ago and asked him why they did not make a rule in congress that after you were injured for five years or 10 years, they could not dump you. he said, you know why we do not. i said, the premiums would go up. he said, that is exactly why. are we injured when they can dump you anytime they want to? -- are reinsurwe insured when tn dump you anytime they want to? my husband was dumped. host: which company? caller: blue cross blue shield. host: he had heart and lung problems. host: thank you for the call. open phones until 9:00 a.m. eastern. an article here in "usa today" -- host: that was "usa today" and this is houston, texas on the independents line. caller: good morning. the problem i have with health care and stimulus is the american people are wanting the government to do something for them all the time. nowhere in the constitution does it say that. i'm tired of this crybaby things. the government needs to do this. the government needs to help me. i grew up very poor in my life. i educated myself. i got my degree by myself. i asked no one for help. anybody can do it if they want to. instead of asking for help, why don't they get off their behinds and do something themselves? host: are you covered by insurance? caller: yes, i am. host: here is farmington hills, mich. on the republican line. caller: good morning. i do not know if the american people are aware that your guest yesterday from the center of american progress, he is a -- what do they call them? left leaning organizations supported by george soros. he has 20 to 25 different organizations, including acorn that he spends millions and millions of dollars. he supports. host: he was a senior fellow. he was a senior fellow for the center of american progress. caller: john podesta -- there was a former person in the clinton administration getting paid by george soros. he and mrs. clinton, the secretary of the united states -- host: secretary of state. caller: she was supported by george soros. he spent millions and millions of dollars to support her reelection. i hope the american people realize he is a socialist progress of communist. he wants the united states turned around and upside down and run by a socialist government. host: this is the front page of "the hartford courant." this official testified yesterday in front of a senate ethics committee. new york city on the democrats line. caller: thank you for c-span. it came to me, the name of a flat health care, like the flat tax. host: how does that work? caller: the name just came to me. i did not work it all out. a flat tax is you get taxed 10% or 20% or what ever it is. a health care system would no pre-existing conditions, no exclusions. a choice, perhaps, of your deductible. people are going bankrupt because of health care. some people have health care and are in good shape. i have a problem with my health care. there are huge cracks in the system. the health care i have for myself, with the exclusions for not covering for imaging and the potential for out-of-pocket expenses that could go anywhere from $5,000 to $10,000. host: who provides your health care? caller: that is another problem. i pay my employer in full, which is costly, for my individual health care plan. i am kept out of the loop. i cannot get any information from the health insurance co. about pricing. it goes through the company planned and illustrator. -- it goes through the company plan administrator. i cannot control it. i think that companies, especially when it comes to cobra, can turn around and make a profit for administrative costs on the very employee that requires coverage. lastly, liability insurance coverage for business should be -- there should be some effort to deny liability coverage, not health insurance. host: why? caller: arising out of claims from undocumented workers. this would put americans back to work. this would put businesses in fear that if they had an undocumented worker, and they ran somebody over, they would not have the liability coverage required to defend themselves. that usually falls on the insurance company. they would stop hiring illegal workers and it would hire american spirit that would solve many problems, unemployment, and illegal immigration in one fell swoop. host: our next conversation is with john larson, democratic chair of the democratic caucus. we will talk about the progress on the house side on health care regulation. gary halfhufbaur will join us. before that, we will get a c- span review update. >> at a town hall meeting at aarp headquarters, he will take questions on his healthcare plan from members in the audience and over the telephone. later the president meets in the oval office with delegates to the u.s.-china dialogue. president obama continues his healthcare reform in out-of-town appearances in north carolina and virginia. vice president joe biden and attorney general holder announced grants to fund the hiring and rehiring of law enforcement officers around the country under the american recovery and reinvestment act. . israeli prime minister benjamin netanyahu trying to resolve a reported dispute over jewish settlements in the west bank. washington wants israel to freeze settlement construction but prime minister netanyahu says israel must continue some building to allow for the natural growth of settler population. they met earlier in the prime minister's office in jerusalem to iron out differences. the senate judiciary committee meets in one hour to vote on the nomination of supreme court nominee judge sonya sotomayor. though the two leading republicans said they will vote against the nomination the associated press says a committee vote to move the nomination to the full senate is all but assured. here the committee meeting live at 10:00 a.m. eastern on c-span radio. those are the latest headlines. >> "washington journal" continues. host: of the representative john larsen represents the first district, hartford and bristol and other towns joining us from the canon office building and he chairs the democratic caucus which had a meeting that ran late into the evening. rep larson, well -- welcome. tell us the results. guest: it was five and a half hour meeting starting at 4:00 and the idea was to make sure we went through every single section of the bill, some 31 seconds -- sections, and answered questions for the members and debunked a lot of the myths out there. but i am proud to say our caucus continues to make progress and we feel confident that we will have a bill and that health care reform will be enacted this year in the congress. because the american people demanded. we want to make sure we arm our members so when they go home they will be able to go back and have town hall meetings and inform the public and debunk a lot of the myths. you know, americans understand and want to make sure we do away with pre-existing conditions. that we make sure that their insurance is guaranteed issue. that it is portable -- whether you retire or get fired, you are able to take your insurance coverage with you, and you will not go bankrupt, that we will have caps on catastrophic care so if it happens to be one of those unfortunate circumstances where someone in your family has leukemia, that that doesn't put you into bankruptcy. and we are going to do it in a way that bends the cost curve and brings it down so it is affordable. every time you talk about health care we are really talking about the economy and jobs. people understand with 14,000 people a day losing health insurance coverage, that jobs and health insurance is almost synonymous. we had a very positive caucus, it lasted five and have hours but i think our members are energized and certainly educated with respect to what the bill does. host: we will have the representative with us for the next 25 minutes or show -- or so. this was a meeting of the entire democratic caucus but how did the members of the subset, the blue dog caucus react? you talked about debunking myths. guest: there were at the caucus but some were also at the conference committee that was going on. they want to see health care insurance for the country as well. there has not been a purpose i talked to in that caucus that doesn't want health care for this country. blue dogs have raised a number of issues around the cost and want to make sure the cost curve -- a number of thoughtful individuals have participated. the vice chair led a whole issue of talking about what happens with regional disparity and its impact on medicare and rates and utilization geared all very important -- all part of a very important complex issue. when you are not when one of those important committee sometimes you feel left out and that is why we went to extra lengths. we will be meeting again today at noon. we have had over 550 town hall meetings. excess of 100 hours of hearings and forms because of this issue is so important and complex and because the american people need it. people in my district, for example, just the other day reporting a small businessman, his costs have risen 60%. it is unconscionable what is happening to these individuals. they've got to be a part of the system, they want to ensure employees but they got that this system that both brings aboard -- about competition and low was the cost. we will provide that opportunity and the blue dogs have been an important part of the discussion. host: lasalle, mich., tracy on our democrat line. caller: how are you today? guest: good, how are you? caller: doing better. what i want to know was how sure are you that there is going to be a public auction in this bill? i am extremely disappointed that single payer was taken off the table. i have no insurance -- i have a problem -- to enter the $50,000 to a hospital, no way to pay that. i can't work. i had to apply for social security disability and i know i will be denied. what can you do that could assure people to be able to go to the hospital and not have to pay an exorbitant amount of money to pay healthy? guest: you are echoing the sentiments of so many americans and i can assure you there is going to be a public offer -- option in the plan and robust. many who indicated in our caucus for a single pair could still prefer to see the system, understand that what we will be creating here with this bill is something unique in this world. we will have an american plan -- not a canadian plan, not and european plan, but an american plan that provide -- combines the best with entrepreneurial instincts with respect to the private sector and arguments on the government side that make sure for people with pre- existing conditions, that make sure insurance companies cannot rescind people who have had coverage but then they go back and focus and say, you had a pre-existing condition or something we can decline you with. guaranteed issue. we will cap the cost. we will make sure we emphasize prevention so we are able under the bill as a first arts in 2010 that people on medicare, for example, no longer will pay co- pays intervention. host: would you say the issue of single payer is off the table on the house side? guest: i think the idea is never off the table but i think the practicality is that the bill is going to go forward that the president supports and house leadership supports and the two committees that reporter out so far all report -- support a robust public auction. host: the speaker said she is keeping an eye on what the senate finance committee is doing. do you share those views? guest: we always keep an eye on what the senate finance committee is doing. i know senator chris dodd posset committee reported out a bill that is synonymous with what the ways and means have reported -- we like to think the ways and means committee sets the tone in terms of focusing on what kind of a robust option we are going to have, that is what the ways and means committee reported out. host: len the republican line. shelby, michigan. caller: listen, i've got many, many things to say about -- host: just a couple of them. caller: i know, i know. i am trying to put together in my mind as far as what to say here this morning. one of the things that really gets me is the fact that these guys, and they are trying to put this bill together that they themselves don't even want. look at the health care bill that the congress people have -- are you going to dump your current health care plan and put it into the habit of this debacle that you guys call? guest: i think what the president says it is instructive, if you like the plan you currently have come on a matter where you are, you can keep it. but the plan we are modeling this after in terms of the public exchange where the public supermarket is going to provide people like yourselves and others with a choice. we will provide small businesses who don't have any choice who are getting forced out of this marketplace with the option of being able to go to an exchange, an exchange that will provide competition. i think competition is a good thing. and in this instance we will be able to both cap the cost so instead of paying increases, just as i noted earlier with a small businessman and connecticut paying over a two- year period a 60% increase, they are capped at 8% in what the out of pocket expenses are going to be. so i believe that competition will work, that the program will be robust and we will have a unique plan and the private sector will continue to flourish, contrary to the myths where people saying this is a public plan and will get people out of the system. cbo reports that about 10 million of the 300 million plus people in this country will be part of the public auction by the year 2020. so i do think it will provide competition. people will make adjustments and that will drive down prices and also drive it down the cost, which will help us on several fronts, not the least of which is the economy. host: jackson, mississippi. good morning. on the independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i want to know in the health can plan -- now, i have glaucoma and at first i was getting ssi and medicaid, then after i got a search age, i am over 50, i got a certain age and they changed it over to social security and medicare. now what they are doing is having my medicaid pay for my medicare premium but i was forced to get a supplemental medicare program for drugs, the supplemental medicare program is paying for all of my doctor benefits but if the doctor don't sign up, medicare will not pay for the doctor before i had glaucoma and stuff. host: how does the issue, the problems medicare have? caller: i am proud to say been ama supports the bill -- and interphase, i think the ladies problems suggest -- guest: i am proud to say the ama supports the bill -- the interface, doctors will participate in the plan. a lot more we have to do especially making sure we provide more primary-care doctors which this bill provides for an week incentivize through our hospitals. there are reforms in medicare that will help put more money back into the system while streamlining it and balance off some of the impact that medicare and medicaid share alike. so, i believe as we go forward with respect to the specific concerns that this reform legislation is just what the doctor ordered, if you forgive the pun. host: a viewer asks -- what if i choose not to have health care and day out of pocket like to do now. that is not an option. guest: well, i think cbo scored at this as saying there are a certain number of people who certainly will resist insurance no matter what the case is. it will cover about 97% of all americans. if you choose not to sign up for a plan, you are subject to a penalty. but i heard many people say they will pay the penalty and resist that. i think as the plan unfolds -- and take a look at the benefits, look at what the cost will be and how they will be capped, i think they will find this is a common-sense way of dealing with a very complex issue. if it were simple, it probably would have been passed that during the truman administration when it was first laid out before the public. but the time is way past due. the cost of not doing anything with the gross domestic product approaching 20%, just on workable going forward into the future. why can't i put -- we put our oars in the water together as a nation and make sure we come up with common arguments and combine that with our entrepreneurial greatness to buy the best plan for all americans, that is with the country wants. host: miami, florida. so be on our democrats line. caller: yes. ii would like to make one comment and i have one question. first of all, i think we have to start emphasizing more the moral aspect of this issue. because it is unthinkable that the christian right would accept all of these millions of american citizens that have no health care, no health insurance. it is something that should not be tolerated. my question also is, why aren't we emphasizing more the corporate powers behind the opposition via pharmaceutical and health insurance and the dollars that are behind it and the lawmakers about are behind the opposition be bought by the dollars. guest: well, look, you know, the president, i think, has been very good on this. from the start he summoned individuals down to washington. he explained how important was and i think all america agrees. but people will cling to their turf and began and resist, then of course we won't be able to achieve this. he followed that up in may and i believe he had major key players -- whether they be hospitals, whether they be doctors, insurance, pharmaceutical, medical device companies, all came down. they pledged they can get about $2 trillion in savings. $2 trillion in savings over day -- over a 10-year period. our bill is roughly $1 trillion, slightly less than that. i believe that we have to hold them accountable to what they said they will produce. and this way trigger a response from government that if you don't live up to what you say you will produce, if you don't achieve the cost savings than a tax will go into effect on your industry and that will provide them with an incentive to achieve those goals and continue to lower-cost, etcetera. to your point, you know, those interests, if they choose to come in and -- to fight this proposal, they can do so at their own peril. this is not anything new. certainly health care has been fought before by special interest. but nothing as big as this is more worth fighting for. we accept this challenge and this fight and we are going to be engaged to what august along with our president to make sure that on behalf of the american people we provide them with the kind of coverage and the kind of cost savings that they need. host: well, congressman, involved with the president of the spirit of the headline says nancy pelosi one might give up yet. the health care votes are still possible -- the headline. and in -- a story from the politico come house leadership issued an e-mail, health care events for august district work period, to help you, meaning members, host a successful health-care reform of then. providing you with easy to use materials to explain and sell the legislation. plans in place for carrying this discussion through august. guest: i think the speaker -- no one ever underestimates -- certainly the speaker is referring also to the commitments president obama has to both houses. he asked them to live a plan before the august break and he asked them to do that because of the fierce urgency. speaker nancy blows a has always focused on the fierce urgency of not -- speaker pelosi has always focused on the fierce urgency of now and the people who can't wait, and she also has a great -- as a great leader has a strategy to go forward, not only in july but also in august and then again in september. i can assure you this, and all the viewers out there, we will have health care reform and a bill this year. host: of fort wayne, indiana. amanda. on account i have a question -- caller: i have a question. instead of putting the medical thing -- well, just making a mess of the, why don't you just start out by fixing the problem that we have now? like for people who have pre- existing conditions, you can't get insurance. it seems to me that would be more common sense than putting everything in a tailspin. also i understand you want to take away quite a bit of our medicare to pay for this, and i want to know if that is true. guest: that is not true. and while there will be savings that come from medicare, there will be more money going back into medicare. we would be closing the do ughnut hole. pre-existing conditions will the longer be in effect and immediately know insurance company will be able to rescind a policy once a person as got into the plan. community health care centers, which we already seated the money for, will be opened and running an encouraging prevention and dealing with issues like obesity and diabetes -- diabetes, that we know prevention can provide us with the health care savings that we need. so much of that cannot be scored by the congressional budget office yet when of the savings exist out there. we are going to achieve those. but you make excellent points. host: minnesota, sandra, independent line. caller: i want to the doctor last monday, i got my bill from the insurance company and the visit was $156, medicare only paid $90, my blood test was $24 and medicare only paid $3. is this new bill going to limit what i pay my doctor? is congress going to -- guest: under this new bill there will no longer be any co-pays for medicare. and there will also no longer be co-pays in medicare for preventative business -- visits, going to a doctor for checkups and making sure, no matter what you need, whether it is your eyes or just a regular physical exam, we want you to do that. we want to make sure -- we are closing of doughnut hole that the board pay for the prescription drugs. it will reform medicare that will reduce some of the excessive cost but add back in some of the most onerous things that we've heard from seniors like yourself. host: phoenix, ariz., beverly, democratic color. caller: congressman, you are driving me crazy with your hands. guest: i am sure about that. if they tied my hands i would not be able to talk. host: go ahead, beverly. caller: oit made me forget my question. ok. i want public health. i am on medicare, so i don't need it. but public health is what we need. and if the congress has health care right now and that taxpayers pay two-thirds of your health care, why can't you all paid two-thirds of the public health? if you can't, you need to reduce the payment to you, and if you would answer that question directly and don't go off on all of these other things, i would appreciate it. host: thank you, beverly. guest: thank you, beverly, for the question. congress people have a choice in terms of what insurance they would like. i don't belong to the congressional plan but you can belong to the congressional plan which you pay for. some have said it is two-thirds of the cost. i don't believe that is accurate. but certainly congress people would have the same opportunity to go into the public auction. and in that option they could select from a, b, c, or the program -- d being sued for health care or providing you greater benefits. -- d being super health care. depending on your means, that is how you focus. that is how members of congress choose their plan. that is the similarities. host: we know you have to run in a moment. what can you tell us, the latest news on where the energy and commerce committee negotiations are. guest: i think the energy and commerce committee discussions are moving along. i think henry waxman has been working overtime. we started at the outset talking about the blue dogs. listen, let me say again, blue dogs want to have health care. and i think we will work in a corporate says veined -- part of sharing of which we will work in a cooperative vein, to make sure we have a bill today that will assist most americans. i predict that ended the week we have the plan. all three committee will have come together to forge the bill. it remains to be seen whether or not we will be able to vote on that bill this week. but we will have the bill. and if we don't vote on this week will be -- we will be able to take it home and selling to the public is of they would have an opportunity to hash it and ask knowledgeable questions like individuals. host: connecticut representative john larseon joins us from capitol hill. in just a moment we will turn to the u.s.-china dialogue, the economic dialogue that began this week -- we will talk to gary hufbauer, but first a look at some of what president obama has said about relations between the u.s. and china in the 21st century. >> today you looked out on the horizon of a new century them as we launch this dialogue, it is important to reflect on the questions that shape the 21st century. while growth based called by events like the current financial crisis or will we cooperate for balanced and sustainable growth bringing more people out of poverty and greater prosperity in the world. will the need for energy read competition or climate change or build partnerships to produce clean power and to protect our planet. denueve -- will nuclear-weapons spread unchecked or will we forge a new consensus to use this power for only peaceful purposes? will extremists be able to stir conflict and division or will we be able to unite on behalf of shared security. will nations and peoples the find themselves solely by their differences or can we find common ground necessary to meet our common challenges and to respect the dignity of every human being. we can't predict with certainty what the future will bring. but we can be certain about issues that will define our times and we will also know this, the relationship between the united states and china will shape the 21st century, which makes it as important as any bilateral in relation ship in the world. host: talk about this dialogue with gary hofbauer from the peterson institute. the strategic dialogue, is first of its kind? guest: the name was changed. when henry paulson was running a it was strategic economic dialogue. you wonder what difference it makes. the difference it makes is that secretary of state clinton is co-host thing on the u.s. side with treasury secretary geithner, kind of sharing the power. you can imagine there is some jostling over that issue. so we have two issues, geithner for treasury and clinton for state. otherwise, it is pretty much a continuation. host: allows them to broaden the agenda. guest: in the old days -- i mean undersecretariat paulson, but was north korea, iran, and other high-profile diplomatic issues. but not in a public way. it is clear all of those things are on the table. host: a number of newspapers are the slick covering this dialogue in washington. here is the front page of "the financial times." u.s. seeks close of china ties. writing while they praised china for lifting hundreds of millions of people out of poverty they also highlighted u.s. calls for the religious and culture of all peoples to be respected and protected. washington responded cautiously to recent clashes involving china's uighur minority in the xinjiang province. u.s. diplomats are likely to balance the like would visit by mr. obama to china this year with a possible meeting between the u.s. president and the dollar llama. individual freedoms entering into the discussion as well. guest: that is true. that is part of the discussion going back to tenement square. it is a major concern of the united states. but it is fair to say that this is an issue on which the chinese are quite testy. they regard it as an intrusion into internal affairs and if they are pushed on and they will probably talk about our treatment of indians on reservations, our racial issues and so forth. they see this human-rights dialogue as rather troublesome from their standpoint the. the obama administration has tried of the tone of showing its concern, gently pushing but not raising the profile to a level that causes a big blow back or push back. host: mr. t dialogue going and washington this week. -- lee strategic dialogue going on in washington this week. we will get to your e-mails and tweets as well. following of your comments on china being put away on the issue of human rights, that is the headline this morning. u.s.-china tackle prickly issues. it really goes to the point of the u.s. looking at chinese policy. the article reports of the global economy is expected to be a central theme this week. the obama administration wants the u.s. economy to be less reliance on consumer spending and less of a repository for foreign imports. to do that it must persuade china to stop dealing export as a key to its growth. has the u.s. tried in the past to affect china's trade policy, for example? guest: to be fair to secretary paulson and the bush team, yes, indeed, they did. they started on this path of encouraging the chinese to increase domestic spending, not only at a private level, consumer, but also hospitals, schools, and all the things you do domestically. actually the chinese took that message on and they are moving in that direction. of course, we think they can move faster but they are moving in that direction and that theme has now been continued with a push by the geithner team in the treasury. and just to state the record, the chinese trade surplus has dropped thanks to the recession. yes, their policies are part of it, but the big crisis is the other part of it. and our trade deficit has likewise dropped a lot. so we have come down. we are getting closer to some kind of balance, but the dialogue we are talking about here is really looking forward when we all recover so we won't go back to both bad old days. host: china still holds a substantial part of u.s. debt, it increased quite a bit from last year. last year, $507 billion and this year they hold 802 billion. from our policies enacted by the u.s. and china i fact that and tried to reduce that debt? guest: to put the overall number, china's total foreign exchange reserves at the official level is $2 trillion, of which you said, $800 billion is held in various u.s. securities. the number has gone up because while exports have come down, imports have come down so they are still running a trade surplus. and the policies are meant to slow the growth of those reserves of time and reduce the imbalance between the united states and china in terms of trade relations. host: wide as china continues to be an attractive place for u.s. companies to place manufacturing facilities, etc.? guest: it is companies from around the world. i think the reasons -- there are several. the ports work extremely well. you can't get stuff in to be manufactured and stuff out much more quickly than almost all around the world with the exception of possibly singapore and hong kong. that is one thing. infrastructure is very good. the roads are there, railroads and so forth. electricity. kind of the whole society. plus, you have an extremely large and willing labour force. you add it all together and it is the golden fleece, manufacturing assembly for the world. host: dimension the two things before labor, the port facility and construction. of those more than cheaper labor a high priority? guest: i know in this country we consider cheaper labor as a decisive thing. there are lots of places with cheaper labor -- why don't you go to haiti? well, the ports don't work, the police are corrupt, the roads don't work and there is a lot of violence. you don't have anything like that in china. it is not only the cheap labor. i am not going to say that is not a part of it. but there are lots of places around the world with tremendously cheap labor, cheaper than china, but china has other things. host: chris in houston, the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am a novice when it comes to economics, i come from the i.t. world. just trying to grasp the situation between the united states and china and how it works. the value when of the dollar -- why is china continue to buy treasurys in the united states? guest: elwell, that is a very good question. the chinese have asked the same thing and that is probably something we will talk about more as the program goes on beard -- goes on. as you take a large amount of foreign reserves, they have the largest in the world, and you ask where are my going to put this money where it is very liquid -- that means, i can buy or sell $10 billion in 20 minutes and not change the market, and where overtime over a long period of time, the value has been quite stable, you end up with the u.s. dollar. now, there are alternatives. there is the hero and european bond, but that is much smaller. there is the japanese yen. again, you can't deal in these very large amounts but then you run out, down to the swiss franc and the canadian dollar and australian dollar, and that is about it. the result is, they might be a little bit unhappy about the u.s. dollar having such a prominent, but there is no alternative. host: one of our tweeters asks can you dress workers' rights, wages and pollution? guest: it is not what sweden has for sure, but let's look at history. i for started following china in the sick -- 1960's and 1970's. they have come a long way. workers' rights and not of our level but the of our improved from what they were, freedom of speech and being able to move to one place and another, that is better. political rights -- there is a little going on at the local and provincial level. the central level is not by our standards a democracy. so what we have is a lot of improvement from the bad old days of mao to today's government but still short of western standards. host: present obama acknowledged the opening of china by president nixon. here is what he had to say. >> during my time in office we will mark the 40th anniversary of president nixon's trip to china. it at that time, the world was much different than it is today. america has fought three wars in east asia in just 30 years and the cold war was in a stalemate. china's economy was cut off from the world and a huge percentage of the chinese people live in extreme poverty. back then our dialogue with guided by a narrow focus on our shared rivalry with the soviet union. today we have a comprehensive relationship that reflect the deepening ties among our people. our countries have now shared relations for longer than we were estranged. our people interact and so many ways. and i -- we will make state progress on some of the most important issues of our times. host: do you think president nixon could ever and that in the u.s. and china would have the relations and the level they are now? guest: absolutely not. i speak with a little authority because i was in the treasury at the time and one of my desk's handle the china file. of course, it was a big thing, an enormous thing. but as president obama said, no one could have imagined what happened. we were very concentrated dealing with some old debt issues that were pre-second world war. host: that china had it with us? guest: yes, china told us money. -- all with us money. but in terms of trade relations, we made some projections, they were so low compared to what has happened is quite laughable, but remember we still had mao in power and things that really change until deng came in quite a bit -- well, in 1979 or so, and started changing the whole system. so i guess i will say if mao had stayed on or his concepts stayed on, we would not have nearly the relationship and openness we have now. host: bill in new york on our democrats line. caller: yes, sir. thank you very much for taking my call. i am concerned about the quality and safety of the products being manufactured and exported from china. i am sure we have all heard about the toothpaste that south america got and the baby formula, milk. host: does that continue to be an issue? guest: it is a big issue and a big black eye for the chinese and they executed some execs -- some executive, and partial panel to then we would have. they shot an executive in china. executed executives in charge with the miller mean, i think the caller referred to. they take it very seriously and it has very much damage to their brands of they are doing what they can to pull up their socks, but we are also -- and the ambassador said at the other day -- we are also going to be looking into this and we have in the congress some bills moving which would strengthen our own food safety security and it is really a matter of putting more people on the case. so it is a dual problem, but you are right, it is an issue. host: marietta in new jersey. independent -- maria from the jersey. independent. caller: i have a question and comment. i don't understand how we could be partners with a regime that has policies can difficult to everything we believe -- stand for. why did we have an import tariff that kept our country solvent, and we are indemnifying profiteers and money changers to go and make 1000% profit and pay no taxes to this country. how much are we supposed to take of this economic treason. i encourage people to look up constitution and call congress people. thank you. guest: there are a lot of questions. i will start with the comments. obviously the united states and china are not on the same page on all issues but compared to the days of mao, we are much closer and economic system they adopted is a catalyst -- capitalist system in a communist country. there is a lot more freedom now than there was. and difficult? -- anti federal? well it is not the same to the degree it once was and differences that probably existed between the united states and russia today. there it is. maybe we are coming closer and they are actually moving in our direction. the second part of the question was about import tariffs and u.s. firms and so forth. if you want a very high level of protection around the united states, i guess the tariff erected during the last great depression in the 1930's, the famous smoot-holly tariff, that was 30% on average. i happen to believe that that would ensure a second great depression in this country and the world, so your economics and my economics are coming from different polls. the third part of your comments is about u.s. corporations going abroad and earning very high profits. again, there is a different view. my view is when u.s. corporations go abroad, they bring a lot of benefit back to the united states and if we didn't do what we would be laggards to the british and japanese. those are big questions of more that bill wants to -- more than what bill wants me to talk about. host: you mentioned a capitalist economy in a communist government but you mentioned the communist government shot or executed one of the owners for ceo's of companies. do the owners and boards of a capitalist economy, the benefit from the growth of their companies, the salaries and their earnings limited by this communist government? guest: the actual pay is high compared to ordinary workers. but when i say hi, in china today, a salary of a half a million u.s. dollars would be very magnificent -- host: a ceo there? guest: where as in the united states it goes up to five, 10, $20 million. the difference is enormous. secondly, unfortunately a lot of ceo's and other officials in china do have money on the tape. they get in various types of bribes, which is a big problem for that society and occasionally they round up somebody and put them in prison or shoot them as well. so they are a big user of capital punishment, they believe in capital punishment as a way of discipline in society in a way most of us don't. host: green bay, wisconsin, bruce on the republican line. caller: of good morning, sir. i have just a comment and a question. this country has been pretty much in economic crisis of the past year losing jobs by hundreds of thousands. we are still committed to greenhouse gases and we have been fighting to find a way to knock them down. china has been grabbing jobs on the the same reasoning, they are not controlling their greenhouse gases. they seem to be totally ignoring the ibm and telling us we do what we do and they do what they do. why can't we tax their imports into the united states, a greenhouse tax, so it can even the playing field and protect american jobs? guest: thank you. that comes to one of the issues that i think has been intensely discussed particularly between secretary clinton and her counterpart. the real difference on greenhouse gases is not between the u.s. and china, but the u.s. and india. if you may recall, last week's minutes -- went out of his way to be offensive to secretary clinton when he was visiting in india and is a cassette india will not limit its gases come all of the problem was because of the united states and it was not up to the united states to tell the what to do on greenhouse gases. this is a bomb like that. secretary kallenbach the efforts -- this is a bump like that. secretary clayton's -- secretary henry clinton is seeking cooperation i think she'll get much more cooperation from china on this very import issue than from india. now, coming to your point on taxes and tariffs and so forth, i don't think the u.s. and china cooperation will be at such a level that congress will be relaxed. if you look at the current version of the waxman bill which is now out of the house and over in the senate's, but senate will look at a very quickly and i do believe there will be tariff provisions on u.s. imports on countries that don't appropriately limit their greenhouse gas emissions. so, congress is aware of this and for the reasons you said, it is not going to put limits on here and allow stuff to be imported from anyplace else. host: buying a $500 flat screen, how much would that add? guest: that is not have the energy intensive so it may be at most $10 and not -- that is not have the energy intensive. but if you take cement, pulp and paper, steel, aluminum, those products, the tariffs will be made on a level that is comparable with the cost of the united states. so it could be very high, at least that is what the bill will say when it comes out of congress in my forecast. host: calif., denise. caller: i have a question. don't you believe the amount of trade we do with china, like steel and what we need to build the infrastructure, sort of a security risk when we export all of the jobs like that? because when you look at china, they are aligned with iran to a certain extent. they don't treat their people well, and one of the word to say, let us cut the united states off? an example is above bridges being retrofitted and supposed of a shutdown labor day -- host: and the bay area? caller: i am up in the san francisco bay area. there was something in the news about, there might be a problem getting steel from shanghai. that affects a lot of people. that is one little thing. isn't that something that should be in the dialogue when we talk about trading with a country that is communist and doesn't treat their people well? guest: of the issue you raise is an important one. i don't think it is something that can be addressed in this high-level dialogue because we don't have the technical experts on the securities issues there. this is something the pentagon, commerce commerce department of the treasury will look at quite -- quickly and will come if the chinese want to buy a u.s. firm and at times have been rejected on security grounds and in terms of u.s. firms moving their technology to china. i agree with you, there are limits on technology we want the chinese have been sensitive areas. i probably would not put still there because there is a huge supply -- canada and mexico, obviously, korea and japan, obviously europe, as well as china. so, steel is actually pretty competitive and there are alternative sources. but the general point is a good one and this is pretty carefully watched by the government, by our government. host: bill from topeka, kan., says what would happen if the chinese which to the bureau of a new world money? guest: if they did it overnight, there would be chaos. but the chinese are pretty smart and they don't want chaos and they don't want a huge revaluation of currencies that would come from an immediate switch that would first of all reduce the value of their holdings of dollars and, secondly, would probably trigger a big reaction in this country and elsewhere which will then lead to a lot of attention that would be bad to them because they benefited enormously from the open world economy, and i also -- one that's up to the chinese, and the size that you are a big but -- beneficiary of a system we crated in brockton woods. over time it is a different story, and i think they are going to gradually acquire more foreign reserves, denominated in euros, denominated in yen and maybe canadian dollars or the australian dollar and so forth, and i don't think it is necessarily a bad thing for the united states because, remember, the only way they acquired u.s. dollars is to acquire more than they buy from us. i would just assume they have some of that trade surplus with some other parts of the world. host: you said there reserve of the u.s. dollars is on the order of $2 children? guest: know, their current reserves of all currencies is on the order of $2 trillion and the amount we know based on our record is $800 billion. so that means $1.20 trillion in other currencies which they do not disclose, so i can only hypothesize. host: ohio, rich on the republican line. caller: how are you doing? i have a question that confuses me. the growth rate that u.s. shoe's four is one to three, not exactly right. china issued for 18%. if we compete with them over years they will have a heck of an advantage over us. in seven years it will be four times -- why should we handicap our country when we have to compete with countries growing at that pace? guest: i guess a couple of answers. first, the projections my colleague mylardy -- nick lardy subscribes to is that china in the least the next 10 years to 15 years would have an average growth in the 9% range. it has had 15% in a couple quarters in the last decade but that is a bit high. 9% is really remarkable and rights and world record. so at 9% they would be growing quite rapidly. now, the other point is about the u.s. growth rate and i hope we would do better than 1% to 2%, we are in deep trouble if that is our right. i hope we would get back to the 3% growth rate. even with those numbers, there is a big gap, as you said. so, right now in the short run, we welcome the fast growth in china. in fact, if they were not growing as fast as they are, the world economy would surely be in a depression that we kind of seemed to be coming out of. so that is a good thing. all over a long period of time should we worry that they grow faster than we do come up nine vs three? yes, in 2025 or 2030, some people, using these numbers would say the economy will be larger than ours. now it is about one-third or one-fourth the size of our economy. so you might close that gap. when a per-capita basis they would still be well below us. is it worrying? yes, it is. and i think the next generation in this country has to see what we can do to keep technologically in the lead and keep our country ahead. but does that mean we want to isolate ourselves from china will try to have an adversarial relations with china? i'm old enough to and have lived though the cold war and i don't want to see that again or do not want to wish to that for my children. host: yardley, pa., rick of the democrats' line. caller: of two things grow quick. smoot-harley is a moot point, where the u.s. had a huge manufacturing infrastructure. the great depression was not caused by it and not certain -- with deficit spending that has teetering on bankruptcy is the result of free trade. we should have fair trade. i am an american blue-collar worker living in a democracy with constitutional rights cannot compete with workers from non-democracies where the worker has not the fundamental rights, effectively a slave to their government. guys come -- guest: there is a lot there. i agree with the caller that smoot-harley tariff did not cause the great depression, it was that monetary and fiscal policy but it exacerbated it. but going back to the central point that we would do will be much better with quite high tariffs. my belief of the fact is that high tariffs on a range of goods would actually weaken america of because we have essentials industrial inputs for our manufacturers that would be that much more costly. everything we buy would go up so people would be a lot more in this country. i think if we went back to those days, you could say we could easily hot -- easily cut half a trillion dollars of national income. we obviously come from different polls. we can export a lot of stuff, and we do, at high wages. we are the leaders in heavy equipment, a caterpillar. we are the leaders in civilian aircraft, boeing. we are the leaders and all kinds of medical equipment that you think of -- pakistan and so on. we can make a lot of stuff and selleck, and we do. and as i mentioned earlier, we cut our trade deficit in this recession from $800 billion down to $300 billion and a lot of it is export growth. host: that larouche, gloria on the republican line. caller: good morning. i am sure you have a very interesting job. but i have to say one thing that you said that we are not on the same page with china. i think we are getting there quickly. i think sending hillary to deal with the chinese is like sending a pit bull into -- i just don't think it is a very wise thing.

Related Keywords

Brockton ,Shropshire ,United Kingdom ,Jerusalem ,Israel General ,Israel ,West Bank ,Australia ,Shanghai ,China ,Connecticut ,United States ,Mexico ,Green Mountain ,Colorado ,Arizona ,Massachusetts ,Iowa ,Cambridge ,Cambridgeshire ,Singapore ,Miami ,Florida ,Canada ,Japan ,Germany ,Missouri ,Afghanistan ,Town Hall ,North Carolina ,Indiana ,Virginia ,Georgia ,Michigan ,Pakistan ,Iraq ,New Jersey ,Petersburg ,Sankt Peterburg ,Russia ,Sweden ,North Korea ,Capitol Hill ,District Of Columbia ,Bristol ,City Of ,Alexandria ,Al Iskandariyah ,Egypt ,Vermont ,Minnesota ,California ,Washington ,India ,Hollywood ,Switzerland ,Jersey ,New York ,Haiti ,New Hampshire ,Xinjiang ,Jiangxi ,Iran ,Texas ,Kentucky ,Rhode Island ,Wisconsin ,Farmington Hills ,Mississippi ,Littleton ,Fort Wayne ,Hong Kong ,Phoenix ,Houston ,Ohio ,Americans ,Australian ,America ,Iraqi ,British ,Swiss ,Israeli ,Japanese ,American ,Canadian ,Chinese ,Soviet ,Henry Waxman ,Kent Conrad ,Nancy Pelosi ,Joe Biden ,Billy Graham ,Olympia Snowe ,Tom Daschle ,Juan Williams ,Merrill Matthews ,Benjamin Netanyahu ,Newt Gingrich ,John Mccain ,Henry Clinton ,Yardley Pa ,Undersecretariat Paulson ,George Soros ,Jeff Bingaman ,John Dingell ,Sonya Sotomayor ,Max Baucus ,Henry Paulson ,King Keeling ,Dennis Kucinich ,John Larsen ,John Larson ,Richard Nixon ,Hanover Pa ,Chris Dodd ,John Podesta ,Jeff Flake ,Ted Kennedy ,Steny Hoyer ,