Transcripts For HLN Morning Express With Robin Meade 20091026

>> live coverage from the council on foreign relations begins at 12: 3:00 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> tonight, on "the communicator's." the subject is neutrality that mickey providers from slowing down or blocking the way information travels on the internet. that is on c-span 2. this week on "q&a." our guest is barry black. guesthost: explain what the job. guest: you are a pastor for 7000 people who work ona'÷ the senate side of capitol hill. you are not just providing ministry for the 100 senators and members of their families other people who work on capitol hill, the janitors, the capitol police, the journalists. you are a pastor for these individuals. i conduct a bible studies per week, one is just for the senators, another for the spouse of the centers. i conduct a third for the chiefs of staff, the administrators and two pleanry bible studies. and one wants to attend can do so. we can get as many as 200 people attending the plnnary bible studies. we help people master the spiritual disciplines. it is a smaller than you than the big bottle study because i want a give-and-take that i don't have the opportunity to get in the larger bible studies. i officiate at weddings. i officiate at funerals. i do premarital counseling, marriage enrichment trading, leadership training. the many, many things of the -- that the pastor of a large congregation will do, that is what this job is about. host: were due to the bible study sessions? guest: i do it in many different places. for the centers, is held in the capital. -- for the senators, it is held in the capital. for the plenary bible studies it is held on the sixth floor and another one is held in the dirksen. we spread the wealth. host: and the general public a tendency of these? guest: i don't know that we would actually have room. there are people who have begun to come to do not work on capitol hill. they are excited about learning about the bible. host: what kind of attendance do you have with the senators? guest: we have a prayer breakfast each week for the senators. you can get 20 days 25 senators at that. eight or nine at the bible study, 20-25 at the prayer breakfast. that is a fairly significant percentage of the senators taking time out of their busy week, an entire hour for either one of those, to participate in something spiritual. one of the little known facts about the senate is the level of spirituality among senators. the apostle paul in philippians chapter for said "there are saints and caesar's household b." many people were -- accused of cuba and iran. many people think he was talking about nero. senators from both sides of the aisle participate in the prayer breakfast and the bible study. thanks we know that doubt in the power of god to extirpate you from various challenges and predict the occurrence, that is part of cynicism. the great commandment is love god with all your heart, mind, and street. and -- and strength. host: how do you see cynicism in united states senate taurus? -- united states senators per? guest: there are times when the legislative process is laborious and predictable. i think particularly when issues are debated and it appears that the parties go into polarized lockstep. one center predicted what the vote would be two days later. he had read and the number. this was early in my time as a chaplain. i was astonished. cynicism host: host: you are the 62nd united states senate chaplain. in all those years, there have been two roman catholics, no jews, and and 1 seventh day adventist, you. how does the process work and is the denomination and significance? host: don't thinguest: i don't . the first nine or 10 chaplains in the senate. the fact that the early track record. the senate ended up with two unitarians which is not very conventional. the focus on the actual selection process were centers nominate chopin's to be interviewed. it is a matter of chemistry between the interviewer and the interviewee. the bottom line is, this is an individual i feel comfortable with and this person can provide ministry. i did not give the sense when i was interviewed for the job that the nomination was a critical variable at all. what center interviewed you? guest: it was a group of senators from a wide variety of religious traditions, including jewish. guest: of would not rather not mention who -- i would not rather -- i would rather not mention. i think they were selected by the majority at the time. priests and rabbis were interviewed. it was whittled down to attend. the second interview involved very sophisticated questions involving the strategic direction that you would take if you were the selectees. the 10 were whittled down to 12. the two were had an extended interview with dr. frist who is a renaissance man for two hours. no notes, just talking to him for two hours. he is the one who made the final determination. the process has been similar for decades. host: if somebody wanted to move you out of their or the senate did, how does that process work? you started in 2003. how long his return? guest: it is an open-ended appointment. if there is a change in the minority in the senate, there is no change in the chapel. there's a change usually and the secretary of the senate and the sergeant at arms but not a change in the chapel. one chaplain, peter marshall's successor was there for 25 years. he was there five years before marshall providing ministry to the senate and the number of senators a @ definition for sin -- one we know that doubting the power predicaments, that's a part of god with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength." but from egypt to canaan, murmured, complained, and manifested cynicism, and they did not enter into the promised land because least a transgression of the spirit of the law, if not the i would call it a sin. united states senators and when parties going into polarized lockstep where there's almost an attitude, "don't confuse me with are we debating?" i had one said, "the debates haven'tea÷so, i think te fact that the hoping would provide ministry tothe senate ended up with two unitarians, also, which is -- of chemistry between the it was a group of senators from>> well, i think they wereand i think the process had been a nasty question, but it's not iconic peter marshall successor, marshall providing ministry to marshall's church, and hearing of this scottish preacher. marshall became chaplain of the most people think that he was and died and then they went back came back for 20 years, so for a after marshall -- harris>> my office is on the third washington monument is straight ahead. the president. i can watch the new years' eve fireworks, you know just sitting there at my desk. it is one of the most beatific views i think anywhere in the world, and i, in my navy experience, i've seen a lot of beauty, but that to me is just absolutely gorgeous. prayer as a guest chaplain, i didn't get a chance to see the dr. lloyd john ogilvie, a great, the senate at the time. come up and visit with him init was a beautiful clear washington day and i was view. it was -- i mean i just felt goose bumps all over. dr. ogilvie put a hand on my shoulder and with that amazing if a man can't pray for the something is seriously wrong." and we just chuckled together. but i -- my office is the old beautiful mahogany bookcases around the wall and my wife has repeatedly, through the decades of our marriage, accused me of what she calls "bookaholism." we've reached a point in our marriage now where every new book i bring home, i have to get rid of one of my old books. i probably have a library of over 10,000 books. and so i've begun to smuggle books into the house now. these beautiful mahogany bookcases filled with books from home and then this amazing view, it's a wonderful place to write prayers and to prepare bible studies and sermons and i can't morning. >> how many people work for you? >> i have three people on my staff -- a chief-of-staff, who i was chief of chaplains for the the best administrators i've ever met; a communications director, lisa schultz; and an spraggins. senate itself is concerned, how often do you give a prayer? >> each time the senate convenes, i open with an invocation, but there are also also offer a prayer because there are meetings and functions in the -- in the senate where i have an opportunity to offer an invocation or a benediction. when there's a congressional invocation. when there's a new statue placed in statuary hall, i offer an invocation or a benediction. when there is a state funeral, i offer a prayer. for ronald reagan's state funeral, for gerald ford's state funeral, i offered a prayer. a roomwhen rosa parks was lying in honor, i offered a prayer. so, there are many other opportunities to offer prayers. and then there are many, many things happening in washington where the services of the senate with prayers. >> how long is your opening prayer in the senate every day and do you write them? >> i write all of my prayers and i try -- i try to stay within them out. i actually will time them sometimes. i like between 45 seconds and a minute. and that's probably to some extent because of my navy experience. in the navy, most of the invocations and benedictions were offered while "the eternal father," the navy hymn, was being played. and the first stanza of "the eternal father" is about 45 seconds, so you became accustomed to hearing that -- the beautiful strains of music and coming down to the conclusion and you galloped on to the finish line. so, a little bit of that has to, i think, affects my prayer. >> here you are giving the prayer on march 2 of this year. >> let us pray. oh merciful lord, we thank you for the refreshment and accomplishments of our time away and for your clear, shining, inward light that directs our steps. may the members of this body feel your peace and power today, restrain wandering thoughts, and break in pieces those temptations that lead them away from your will. lord, join our senators to yourself with an inseparable bond of love, for you alone truly satisfy. grant that their love may abound more and more in knowledge and bad depth of insight so that they may be able to discern what is best and may be pure and blameless when they stand before you. lord, this is the first time in nearly 50 years that the senate will convene without senator edward kennedy as one of its members. thank you for his life and legacy. we pray in your sovereign name. amen. >> that was actually september 8. i had the wrong date on it -- of this year. little longer than normal? >> i don't know. what was the time on that? >> i think it was a minute 49 seconds. >> ok, well, maybe it was because of the fact that i was mentioning the senator and that was added on to what i normally would do, but i think it's a little longer than normal, yes. >> how often do you single out a senator? >> i think if we -- if a senator dies obviously that is something that i would mention. if there is a serious sickness in the family, i might lift that individual in the senator's family in prayer as well. it doesn't happen very often. >> i ran across a word i'd never seen before in looking at your background. homiletician? >> yes. >> and at the same time -- and this takes me back to my schooling -- monroe's motivated sequence. i don't know that i've ever heard anybody use it but you. >> oh, yes. alan monroe. >> explain -- what's a homiletician? >> well, the study or science of sermon preparation is called homiletics. and a homiletician is a teacher or professor or an educator who is dedicated to the science of homiletics, teaching men and women how to prepare sermons. when i was in seminary in berrien springs, michigan, my seminary professor taught alan monroe's motivated sequence, which is a marvelous way of presenting a persuasive argument or message -- attention need satisfaction visualization. and that is something that i've used in writing expository essays and obviously in writing books and in writing -- in writing prayers as well. >> go back to the beginning. where were you born? >> i grew up in southwest baltimore, so right up the street almost from d.c. >> in your book, you say that you were thrown out of your home three times in your life. explain. >> well, we were in a -- we were in a difficult situation. one of the reasons why i call my book "from the hood to the hill" is because we grew up in the hood. we grew up in the toxic pathology of an inner city ghetto. there were prostitutes on the corner, there were drug pushers, there was domestic violence that you could see sitting on the steps of your -- of your home. so, it was a very challenging situation. and my mother, who for a significant portion of my life was on public assistance, would often have difficulty paying the rent and ensuring that her children matriculated at christian schools because my seven siblings and i all matriculated at christian schools from grade 1 all the way through graduate school. so, to pull this off, many times she couldn't pay the rent, and when you don't pay the rent, you will be evicted. and so, three times in my life, i came home from my nice christian school to find our furniture out on the street. >> what happened then? >> well, it was rather embarrassing because i don't think as a child the trauma of being evicted is great because you don't know where you're going to be staying. i think you're embarrassed by just how little you actually have. and so now the neighbors can see. you know, "oh my god, i knew we were poor, but is this really it?" so, it's -- for me as a child, it was more of an embarrassment than a concern about where will -- where will we stay. and of course, we had relatives in baltimore, so inevitably, the old philosophy of any port in a storm, we would end up staying with relatives, sometimes sleeping three or four to a bed until my mother could locate another port. >> how many children did your mother have? >> my mom had eight. >> what'd your mom do? >> my mother was a domestic. she scrubbed floors and ironed clothing for $6 a day. >> your father? >> my father was a long-distance truck driver and something of a nomad. he was in and out. so, the first five children had a very tenuous relationship at best with him. the third -- the second group -- the three -- the final three had a much greater bond with him. it was very interesting because at his funeral, the first five, and i was in that group, we were almost stoical. i mean we really didn't know him very well. and the other three were almost inconsolable. so, he came home at the eleventh hour and did a fairly decent job parenting the second group. but he was gone most of -- most of my life. by the time i left baltimore to go away to a boarding school in pottstown, pennsylvania in the eleventh grade, i had had very little substantive interaction with my father. >> i don't have the quote in front of me, but i read in one of the seventh-day adventist publications that -- and this is really just by memory -- something to the effect that barry black became chief of chaplain and also chaplain of the united states senate something that we'll probably never see again in our history, meaning the seventh-day adventist. how -- why is that at all controversial and why are they so surprised that they have somebody in your spot? >> well, i don't know that i agree with that conclusion, but james madison, who supported the establishing of the legislative chaplaincy in 1789, when he retired, he wrote something called "practical memoranda" where he just mused about various political machinations. and madison said, "i'm not sure that having a legislative chaplaincy was a good idea," he said. "and one of the reasons is i think that the selection process is sufficiently political that we will never have a roman catholic and we will never have a member from a minority denomination selected as a chaplain in the legislative branch." now, i think it's great to see that our framers were not omniscient because he was wrong. we've had a couple unitarians, seventh-day adventists, and we've had a couple of roman catholics. so, i think it is probably that mindset of senators nominate the people who will be interviewed for the job of chaplain of the senate, you usually nominate people you're familiar with, so you're going to be nominating people from your denomination, and because we haven't had -- i don't know if we've ever had a seventh-day adventist senator, the likelihood of a senator nominating someone who is seventh-day adventist would be slim to none. but i think my case proves that that's not necessarily valid. >> correct me if my memory's wrong -- 25 catholics, 13 jews, and the rest protestants. >> yes, i think that's true. >> go back to your mother. i read this, but i gather that she became a seventh-day adventist because of one happenstance. >> yes. my mother was the daughter of a south carolina sharecropper. she only had a fourth-grade education. she migrated to baltimore and she was having a very challenging time. someone placed an evangelistic handbill in her mailbox, and the title of the sermon that the evangelist used as bait to get the people to come out and hear him preach was "the day money will be thrown in the streets of baltimore, maryland and no one will stop to pick it up." well, my mother, in recounting the story, said she thought to herself, "i'm not even going to stay for the whole service. i just want to know when is the money going to be thrown and where will it be thrown because i know at least one person who will stop to pick it up. she went to the meeting and of course it was a meeting on bible prophecy. she was drawn into the superb scriptural exposition of the evangelist and eventually i guess about 12 weeks later -- were very long evangelistic meetings in those days -- she was baptized as a member of the seventh-day adventist church. and as she entered the water, she was pregnant with her fourth child, she prayed that the holy spirit would place a special anointing or consecration on her unborn child. and i was that child. so, i cannot think of a time in my life when i did not want to pursue the ministry. as far back as i can remember, that is all i've ever wanted to do. there has not been another rival in my vocational affection and i believe to some extent it was because of the consecration i received when my mother was baptized in a meeting where the bait was "the day money will be thrown in the streets of baltimore, maryland and no one will stop to pick it up." >> what makes a seventh-day adventist not in the mainstream? >> well, i think what makes a seventh-day adventist not in the mainstream is probably a lack of understanding of what the doctrines of the seventh-day adventist church consist of. i think if you looked at evangelical protestantism, most of the doctrines a seventh-day adventist would be able to give a fervent "amen" to. in fact, if you look at the apostles' creed, a seventh-day adventist reciting the apostles' creed would say a fervent "amen" to every "i believe in god, the father almighty, maker of heaven and earth, in jesus christ, his only son, our lord. do they believe in the deity of christ, conceived of the holy ghost, born of the virgin mary, suffered under pontius pilate, crucified -- " the entire apostles' creed, there is nothing in that creed that a seventh-day adventist would not say, "i believe that. amen. amen." but i think because seventh-day adventists teach something that is very different from the mainstream, and that is that the sanctity of the sabbath day which we are enjoined to keep in the fourth commandment, exodus 20:8, "remember the sabbath day to keep it holy, six days shalt thou labor," et cetera. the seventh-day adventist church teaches that that sanctity was never changed, and so we worship, as do orthodox jews, on -- from sunset friday to sunset saturday as our sabbath. that many folk would say -- would take us out of the mainstream. there's also the fact that we still eat according to the old testament, and so the hit list in leviticus 11 and deuteronomy 14 of certain foods, seventh- day adventists would not eat those foods. and so that health emphasis would also some would say, would be out of the mainstream. but from my perspective, that's a very small percentage of doctrine in light of the many, many other aspects of biblical christianity that we say "amen" to. >> the diet -- are you a vegetarian? >> i am. but that is not something that is a test of fellowship in my church. i'm a vegetarian because i grew up that way and i believe it's a -- it's a rather healthy lifestyle. >> do you drink alcohol? >> no. >> do you drink caffeine? >> no. >> why not all of that? i mean what's the -- what's >> well, first corinthians 3 says, "know ye not that your body is the temple of god?" and there are physicians who would say that obviously alcohol in excess is problematic and that caffeine in excess is problematic. the apostle paul said in first corinthians 6, "all things are lawful, but i will not be brought under the power of any." and so, i think my not drinking caffeine, i'm not saying that under no circumstances would i drink caffeine. if i'm driving long distance and i'm dozing off at the wheel, i might go in and get a cup of coffee to try to you know stay awake. but you know i didn't drink coffee coming up, i saw the problem of alcohol with my father who was an alcoholic, and so i don't engage in any of that. >> you spoke at a conference, and this is just a minute clip i want to show you. this was actually back in march of this year. let's watch and i'll get your reaction. >> there are remarkable spiritual giants on capitol hill. in fact, i am convinced that going to capitol hill actually makes you more spiritually vulnerable. you see, most of these senators have experienced a succession of successes, and then suddenly they enter the marvelous deliberative body called the united states senate, which was designed by the framers to enable a minority to produce a stalemate and perpetual check for you chess masters. and so, here are people who are accustomed to using their intellects and talents to accomplish things, often discovering that their best efforts will not be good enough, and that will lead you to look up and say, "my god, my god, why?" so, there are some spiritual giants -- trust me -- in the senate. >> how do you see that? >> well, i believe there are senators whose spirituality dwarfs my own, quite frankly. i think that the old saw, "humanity's extremity is god's opportunity." so, here is the senator accustomed to getting it done. and then all of a sudden, because of the filibuster and because of the nature of the deliberative process in the senate, sometimes you can't even get a bill to be voted on -- an up or down vote because of the nature of the -- of the deliberative process. that can become very, very frustrating. and so i think that many times when we reach the end of our resources -- in fact there's a hymn that says, "when we -- when we come to the end of our horded resources, our father's power has only begun." so, i think that that is what i am talking about when i say spiritually vulnerable. it actually can -- it actually can make you more spiritually fit. you'll do a lot more praying, a lot more meditating because of the challenge of getting through the sometimes gridlock that you encounter in the legislative process. >> on the back of your book you have a quote from john kyl, republican conservative, and from barack obama, former united states senator, not a conservative. and john kyl says, "in "from the hood to the hill," barry black shows you how to walk the walk on your faith journey." barack obama says, "chaplain barry black embodies the best of the american spirit and the christian tradition. the senate and the country are grateful for his service." the reason i mention both of them -- how do you thread the needle? do you have strong persona political views yourself and how do you deal with the members who are all over this place politically? >> well, i have very strong political views because i believe in the bible and i think that anyone who takes biblical theology seriously is going to have some very strong political views. but my position as chaplain of the senate is nonpartisan and nonsectarian. that does not mean, however, that i must put my intellect in neutral. one of the reasons i think that i was selected as the sixty- second chaplain of the united states senate is that senators desired someone who could provide them with advice, and they want to hear, "chaplain, what do you think about this issue?" and so they ask for my opinion, and under the radar, behind closed doors, i can tell them exactly what i feel about any issue that is being debated in the chamber, and then they can do with that issue whatever they desire to do. my primary concern is that when a senator makes a decision, he or she has an ethical reason or reasons for the decision that is being made, for the way he or she is voting. and in a number of my bible studies, we talk about the ethical decision-making process. we grapple with, "what do you do with a right versus right conundrum?" because so often the issues that come to the senate are not right versus wrong. they're two colliding stories. they're right versus right. that's why you can get sincere people on both sides saying, "this is the way that we should go." and so, i talk to them about identifying right versus right paradigms like, "is it truth versus loyalty? is it long-term versus short- term? is it justice versus mercy? is it the individual versus the community?" and learning how to do that and then bringing ethical lenses, both theological and philosophical, like an ophthalmologist who is giving you an eye test. "is it clearer now? well, let's try this. is it clearer now?" so, we will talk about john stewart mill utilitarianism -- "strive to do the most good for the most people." or kant, a part of his categorical imperative -- "live in such a way that your action can be made universal law." or the golden rule of jesus christ -- "treat others as you want to be treated." and on -- and i've got about 25 lenses that we talk about and we discuss. so that when a senator votes, i'm not -- i don't care which way he or she votes, even though i have a very definite opinion about an issue, but i want to know, "why did you vote that way, senator?" and as long as there are ethical reasons and evidence for that vote, i'm fine. i'm fine with that because most of the issues that are debated in the chamber are sufficiently nuanced that you know it can often end up being, "you say 'potato' and i say 'potahto'." not always, but many times that's the case. >> how much of an effort do you make to go to each of the senators and spend time with them? >> well, because of the prayer breakfasts and bible study, i'm going to spend time with 30 to 35 of them a week anyhow in a -- in a teaching mode sometimes. when we have a roll-call vote and all of the senators promenade to the chamber to vote, i will usually make my way there as well and i'm interacting with senators at that time. i meet them in the various corridors. i go to their offices sometimes; sometimes they will come to my office. so, there are many, many opportunities that i have to interact with them. i started out by saying my job is like being pastor of a very large church. i think the kind of interaction that i have with my congregation is probably more substantive than what the average pastor can do because very few pastors actually interact with members on their job. but i'm working in the same place where my congregation is working. >> you have a chaplain of the house, a chaplain of the senate, by why no chaplain of the supreme court and no chaplain of the white house? >> that's a good question. i guess the framers never got around to doing that. but i think another reason may very well be that the -- in the constitution, the legislative branch really is walking point, and that may be -- that may be one of the reasons. >> are there members of the senate that want nothing to do with you? >> not that i know of. >> and i don't mean that personally >> yes, yes. >> that they have no interest in your kind of christianity. i mean you have 13 jewish members. what do they do? >> oh, i interact with jewish members very often. ídwe have a rabbi who comes in and gives torah studies and jewish members participate in that. and jewish staffers participate in that, as well as christian staffers. if you really want to understand the old testament, let a rabbi teach it. my experience of providing ministry in a pluralistic setting for 27 years in the united states navy, marine corps, and coast guard has enabled me to facilitate for the spiritual needs of those who may come from non-christian traditions. that's what you do as a -- as a military chaplain. so, i interact with our jewish members and from time to time we have jewish members who come to our prayer breakfasts because you don't have to be a christian to be interested in the power of prayer. >> you've been known to say that -- and i'm not sure how you put it, but the spouses' bible study can be more interesting or more involved than the senators'. >> well, the spouses are very transparent, and very often you learn a lot more about the senators as the spouses interact and talk in the bible study than you would in the -- in the senators' bible study. so, that's what i meant. >> when do you have a bad day and for what reason? >> well, i don't think i have a bad day. my worst day is probably a good day. i get up in the morning and the first thing i do is i get on my knees in prayer. and before i talk to what some have called members of the most exclusive club in the world, i talk to their creator. and that gets me going. i deliberately drive in. it's about a 40-minute drive from northern virginia in order that i can listen on my cd player to the bible. and i pray the scriptures, so i listen until something stops me. i turn off the cd player and i talk to god about it. by the time i get to the capitol, i am raring to go. i am juiced. i've got a high, and that sustains me through the multiplicity of experiences and sometimes vicissitudes that i may encounter. one of my favorite bible passages is philippians 4:6-7 and i try to live it. it says, "have no anxiety about anything, but pray about everything with thanksgiving. and the peace of god that passes understanding will guard your heart and mind." if in christ jesus, if there is peace that is beyond human understanding guarding your heart and mind because you are not having anxiety about anything but praying about everything, you're not going to have a bad day. >> how many times have you read the bible in your life or listened to it? >> probably 20 or 25. >> and this memory thing you've got, when did you know you had such a good memory and how good is it? >> well, when i was in the eleventh grade, i was debating with a teacher about a grade i received on an essay. and she said, "ok, i'll tell you what. if you can memorize one of poe's short stories by tomorrow because we haven't covered poe, i will -- i will give you an a instead of an a-minus." i picked up the book, i started reading "the black cat," which was the first story that i got to, and i walked the half-mile to the dormitory. when i got to the dorm, i was about a third of the way -- two-thirds of the way through it. and i turned around, started reading it on the way back, and was able to recite most of that short story. so, i had, in the old days, almost photographic recall. and so she said, "that can't be possible," and she -- "it started from my infancy. i was noted for the docility and humanity of my disposition. my tenderness of heart was even so conspicuous as to make me the constant jest of my companions. i was indulged by my parents with a huge variety of pets. with these i spent most of my time and was never more happy than when feeding or caressing them," and on and on and on and on and on. i memorized all of martin king's speeches by hearing them. never saw the manuscript. so, there was a time when i had a remarkable memory. i tell people now that it was once photographic, but i've run out of film. so, these days it's not quite that good, but it's fairly good. >> how about your brothers and sisters? are they -- how many of them are still alive? >> seven of the eight. i lost a brother a couple of years ago. and they've all done very well. they all matriculated at christian schools and ended up teaching at the university level, principals of schools, making significant contributions. >> why was your family, with your mother being on welfare, your father not being around -- being an alcoholic, why did they manage to live out of this process and so many families don't? >> well, i talk about it in "from the hood to the hill" about developing a cocoon in which young people are able to survive the pathology of the environment and eventually get wings. the three critical factors for my siblings and me being extricated from a generational cycle of poverty -- one was a godly mother in the home who gave us our allowance based upon scriptural memorization -- 5 cents a verse. and we first picked the low- hanging fruit. we would comb the scriptures looking for bible verses. one of my favorite bible versus today is john 11:35, "jesus wept." and so, we'd get the two-word verses, "remember lot's way", the three-word verses. and i fell in love with the book of proverbs because the verses were short, obviously. so, that training in the home in addition to the scripture memorization, my mother had morning and evening worship in the home. so, that was the first factor. the second factor was a christian education. we matriculated at christian schools where i mean every day we were exposed to what i feel is the life-changing power of god's word. and then the third factor was a supportive church. berea temple, seventh-day adventist church, still on 1901 madison avenue in baltimore, maryland where -- there i found wonderful adult role models and people who mentored me, who encouraged me, and who enabled my mom to afford a christian education for all of us. they had a program where if you were too impoverished to afford the tuition, the church would supplement your income to enable you to do that. >> there's a list of schools you'd been to that are not the norm, and i'll just list them. first, the public schools of baltimore, but oakwood college, huntsville, alabama; anders theological seminary, berrien springs, michigan; north carolina central university, durham, north carolina; eastern baptist seminary, lancaster, pennsylvania where you got a doctor of ministry of theology in '82; salve regina university, newport, rhode island, master of arts and management in 1989; university -- united states international university, san diego, california, doctor of philosophy and psychology, 1996. how much -- who paid for all that? >> well, thank god for the gi bill. and one of the reasons why i continued as a professional student was i would finish a program and i would write a letter thanking the military for financing it and they would call me and basically say you still have money left on your gi bill. now, you don't grow up poor and you're going to leave any money in the -- in the pot when you can get it. so, the salve master's was a part of a program of supervisory leadership that the navy had and when you became a supervisory chaplain, you were able to do that. so, that was tossed in, but i was working on my ph.d. at united states international university and the salve master's at the same time. so >> before we end, the story of the young man that came to you -- your church which led to you going into the navy. how old were you? where did you live? what were you doing? >> i was pastoring in durham, north carolina. i pastored 11 churches before coming into the navy chaplain corps. now, that's not as impressive as it sounds. i pastored eight at one time. i was a circuit rider. and then i pastored three. and while i was in durham, three sailors would drive from norfolk, virginia on the weekend to worship in durham, north carolina. >> what's that distance? >> it's at least a 5-hour drive. and i knew you know -- you know i'm a -- i'm a halfway decent preacher, but nobody's that good that that's worth the trip. so, one day i said, "why don't you guys just you know stay up in the norfolk area?" and they said, "we have never seen an african-american chaplain in the navy." and so that was planting a seed in my mind regarding a ministry opportunity because one of my passions is working with young people. and a few months later my church started soliciting the services of ministers who would be willing to go into the military and the experience of interacting with these three sailors you know motivated me to accept that offer and to become a navy chaplain and it was one of the best things i ever did. >> do you know where any of those three are today? >> oh, yes. two of them are still in the -- in the norfolk/virginia beach area. >> is the seventh-day adventist church substantially african- american? >> oh, no. no. >> and there's 17 million worldwide members. >> right. well, probably 16 and change, but yes. the -- we have a very large work in africa, we have a very large work in inter-america. but the church was founded in the mid-nineteenth century and it was predominantly white initially, but there was a tremendous and aggressive mission program and reaching out to the marginalized, the lost, the lonely, and the least. i think the seventh-day adventist church took very seriously the mandate of christ in mathew 25 to feed the hungry, to clothe the naked, to minister to the incarcerated and the sick and to take care of the stranger, and so they reached out. and so, it's a very diverse church right now. >> how much longer do you think you'll want to be chaplain of the senate? >> well, all i can say, brian, is i am enjoying the ride. and if my health holds up, i'm going to continue to have fun as long as god gives me the opportunity. and i'm waiting -- isaiah talks about a voice behind you, saying, "this is the way. walk ye in it." and proverbs 3 talks about god directing our path, and so that's what i'm depending on. when he says it's time to move, then it's time to move. but until that time, i'm just enjoying the ride. >> sixty-two years old? >> yes. >> sixty-second chaplain of the united states senate. >> there you have it. it must be something providential about that. >> and we didn't invite you for this book, but you did it back in 2006. there is a book "from the hood to the hill" that you have published and it was - >> thomas nelson. >> yes, publisher. barry c. black -- admiral barry c. black, thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. it's been a joy. >> for a dvd copy of this program call 1-877-662-7726. for free transcripts or to give us your comments about this program, visit us at q&a.org. episodes are also available as podcasts. c-span[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> next sunday, and oliver looks at the rise media. he's he is our guest next sunday on "q&a." up next left of your calls and comments on today's guest:." "washington journal." sunday on a book to become a join our discussion with an autism advocate. the items with autism in 1950, the professor discusses her disability and how it has helped her learn about animal behavior. three hours. that is sunday at noon, eastern, on c-span 2's book tv. we will talk with the national review senior editor about the obama administration's efforts on the economy and health care legislation. we will then look at the upcoming elections in new jersey, virginia, and elsewhere. california congressman will be with us on the government reform committee. "washington journal" is next. > . host: we welcome your comments and also your e-mails. we will read those as well and it to your calls momentarily. turn down your television or radio so you will not feedback. if he called c-span in the last 30 days, didn't -- give others a chance. on the front page, stories about the bombing in baghdad yesterday. a front-page photo and story -- shadows -- shatters iraqi complexes. timothy williams writes for months prime minister norah, leakey, who is seeking another term as iraq prepares to hold national elections has painstakingly tried to present iraq as having turned a corner on violence that threatened to tear the country apart in 2006 and 2007. he recently ordered blast walls removed from dozens of streets and insisted iraq forces are capable of securing the country as american troops prepared to withdraw entirely by the end of 2011. the same photos on the front page been a wall street journal , a headline, did the day in baghdad, blast kills 147 and worst attack in two years. "the wall street journal" also writes president barack obama called the attack and attempt to the real iraq's progress. he said the u.s. will stand with iraq's people and government at the close friend and partner as iraqis prepare for elections early next year. the president spoke with mr. menem al-maliki and iraqi president talabani. inside the front page of "the wall street journal" it focuses more clearly on our question to you about u.s. forces and whether the bombings should precipitate the winstrol forces. the article continues the u.s. military has said it would assess the pace of the draw down 30 days to 60 days after the election and then delayed a vote could affect how quickly american forces pulled out of iraq, a peaceful and successful transition of power could mean accelerated u.s. withdrawal, 120,000 american troops currently in iraq, and that figure is expected to drop to around 50,000 by august of 2010. first up is omaha on the democrats' line. caller: i'm a first-time caller. thank you. i just think we should get out of there now. we should of got out of their last year. it is going to be like this every time. it is going to get better and then -- bring the boys and girls home, men and women, and let's get on with charity at home. host: do you know anyone serving in iraq? caller: i have a grandson who was over there in iraq, about a year and a year-and-a-half ago, and set to go back again and we just have to stop this. this just has to stop. guest: thank you for the call from omaha. indianapolis, david, independent collar. -- caller. caller: i agree with the last caller that it would be good to get our troops out of there, but there could be retaliations -- they don't want us to leave so they keep making these attacks. if there is anywhere to find people with the police power, that would be great, and my opinion. host: inside "usa today" the headline. baghdad last seen as a warning. also on that same page, it inside "usa today," helicopter collision kills four you but the streets and afghanistan. four killed and two injured. host: also the store from associated press. 14 americans killed in a series of helicopter crashes in afghanistan. harrisburg, pennsylvania. next up is jim on our democrats landed should the bombings in baghdad precipitate or slow the u.s. withdrawal from baghdad? -- from iraq. caller: it should speed up the withdrawal. i and a stand the elected government there in baghdad is hiding behind a 30-foot tall concrete wall or around most of the city. i wish the media would show more of the wall. no legitimate government needs to hide around the concrete wall 30 feet tall. that government is not going to be able to survive their if that has to build concrete, 30-foot tall wall to hide behind. a the invasion of iraq is one of the biggest mistakes of the last 100 years thanks to the george w. bush administration and we should get out of there immediately. all we are doing is targeting israel's biggest enemies in the middle east, what we have been doing in the beginning. the creation of israel in 1948 was an invasion of muslim territory and what of the biggest mistakes of the past 200 years. we need to cut our ties to israel and israel needs to take that flag with the star of david and put its name back to palestine and -- palestine the way it was the last 1300 years, cut our ties to israel. host: new york. dan on the republican line. caller: i think the bombing in baghdad is more of the same. they want us there because every time a muslim dies would look worse. host: 0 are you referring to, the government, al qaeda? caller: radical moslem, period. whether the taliban, al qaeda. and some because really appalling. we can go to afghanistan and we can chester druglords around to try to protect them in their borders but we can't put the army on our borders to stop what is going on on the southern border. in know what that has done to our children and people in this country over the last five decades? host: would you a quick the situation and our border to the level of violence in iraq? caller: i think a long run, it is just as bad. and the consequences that we suffer, my children, your children, our families over the past five decades. think about how much it has cost our country with the drugs coming over that border and what it has done to the people of this country. host: should the baghdad bombing slow the u.s. withdraw from iraq? san francisco, on the democrats like get caller: -- on the democrats' line. caller: i think we should withdraw our troops from iraq. it is a strain on our economy and it has kavas -- has caused a lot of suffering by our american troops. i think we should get out. that is why we have a good chance -- put all the resources into the baghdad army so they can protect their own country. host: this story about the afghan elections. a "washington post" story inside "the philadelphia inquirer." challenger may boycott runoff election. he is considering boycotting the runoff of the government does not meet his demand to remove members of afghanistan's election commission who he believes are biased against him, campaign officials said. and above this story, they reprint a portion of a "los angeles times" story about a protest in kabul, rumor sparked protests and a couple. burned in effigy as president obama, acting on a rumor that u.s. troops had desecrated the carina. military officials denied that any crop is of the muslim holy book has been banned -- accused the taliban of spreading falsehoods to incite hatred. we do want to let you know that senator john kerry, chairman of the senate foreign relations committee, is going to be speaking about u.s. policy in afghanistan and the upcoming elections and we will be covering that on our companion network, c-span2, 12:30 p.m. today. next up, atlanta, good morning to johnny on the independent line. caller: what was your question? host: should the bombings slow the withdrawal of u.s. forces from iraq? caller: personally i don't think so. what i mean by that is it seems like any time the discussion comes up with withdraw, we have more and more incidences that occurred. same thing like what afghanistan. every time they talk about deploying troops withdrawing troops, we have more incidences. i know in the last month there have been more incidences. the deployment in afghanistan or withdraw from iran -- i am not saying that u.s. media -- but i hear on tv -- and the last three of four weeks, more escalation of attacks in iran. host: athens, alabama. caller: i think we should pull our troops out because they aren't just over in there for nothing, and if anything, send bush and cheney to go over there to finish of what they started. host: back to afghanistan. president karzai's challenger saying the election commission, the chairman of that has no credibility. associated press story this morning. mr. abdullah was a guest yesterday on cnn and he spoke about the upcoming elections and hear what he has to say. >> to call this as clean elections, i think, with all due respect to mr. karzai, it is a bit of ignorance. it is like the fraud of the history, and unfortunately the government was involved, ic was involved, according to everybody. international observers, the elections complaints commission, the people of afghanistan. so to deny it is not the solution. yes, it was a step forward that the people of the afghanistan participated in the elections, but it was not a service to the people to ignore the institutions, the rule of law, and come up with such a process. host: the afghan challenger and abdullah abdullah. the the question is whether the bombing should slow the u.s. withdraw from iraq. from "the new york times" direct attack, suicide bomber -- a tweet here -- also in california, we say good morning to david on our democrats line. go ahead, you are on the air. caller: this is calvin. from hawthorne, california. i agree with the last caller. i don't believe the bombings will slow the withdrawal but i do believe that we need to institute a martial law and have a total clampdown of the whole area. like the other caller said, send in bush and cheney to clean up their mess. i do have friends in afghanistan. host: friends serving in afghanistan? on a cut next door neighbor, find -- caller: my next-door neighbor. host: "the washington times" has been doing a series on afghan stories. the front-page -- "we would not be honoring the lives of the trip to died of we left here without finishing the mission and in the troops are concerned the american people have forgotten where we -- what became a to begin with." again, quoting here, if we left afghanistan right now, it is equivalent amount of someone engaging in a fight to help a rape victim but giving up because they didn't want to get hurt themselves and a level that right to continue, she says, because essentially that's what the afghan population is -- they are victims and we need to follow through on what we promised. new sweden, maine. tim on the independence line. caller: i really like this program. i enjoyed it every day. i asked myself, who benefits from of staying in iraq? all i can think of is kbr, halliburton and black water, because they are the ones making the money on this war. and i really think we need to investigate where those explosives came from. we really do. because this has gone on long enough and we have lost a lot of money and people, and someone has to really find out who is really doing these bombings and who is benefiting from it. host: virginia beach. david on the democrats' line. caller: we watched the balloon boy blow away -- or thought he flowed away -- in iraq, 179 and we have no empathy whatsoever to human life. i think it needs to have an effect on the mission. i served in iraq, two tours in iraq and two in afghanistan. we need to stay there as long as there is some legitimacy to iraqi government. we already see a threat to the legitimacy of the afghan government. we just cannot pull out. legitimacy is the key. if i have to go back, we will, but the thing we can just pull out a country we have been here for the past 67 years, it is impossible. counterinsurgency, you have to dedicate at least seven years to 15 years and our measure of effectiveness is legitimacy. host: is there a possibility you could go back? guescaller: i'm currently in supporting unit and take a break -- but will give back into it. host: in baghdad the day of bombings yesterday or early sunday. he writes -- his description of what happened. he writes a little bit about when the bombs exploded. the cell phone system temporarily crashed as people frantically called to see if their loved ones were safe. foreigners may forget that when they see the endless baghdad carnage on television, iraq is our people just like everyone else, they love their spouses and children and grandparents is as much as you and i did. when service went back to normal, my friend said he has 30 text messages asking if he was all right. this is the column of david ignatius on "the washington post." continuing, he writes -- to brooklyn we go, michelle on mine. she is a democrat. good morning. caller: good morning. that is rochelle -- i actually forgot my whole chain of thought. i'm just really disgusted about this whole conversation and the talk of war and troops thing in iraq and sending more troops to afghan, and when is it going to stop. this is all in humane behavior. our government is just as guilty as those terrorists over there or any of those countries. if you take a life for a life, that makes you just as guilty in god's eyes. that is not what we are supposed to be doing, trying to blow each other off the map. that is just my comment. i would like to -- for president obama to keep getting this piece speeches, talking about how important it is for us to share this land, that is what god meant for us to do. not dividing it all and you have your part and you have your part, but -- and been restricted. host: your guidance to the president of afghanistan, you would want him to remove the troops from the afghanistan? audit, and to teak -- keep talking peace and diplomacy rather than war. host: the president is going to again review his choices today. the associated press riding he is meeting with his national security team. it will be his sixth national security conference and it comes as the country prepares for next week's presidential run off in afghanistan scheduled for november 7 paired as soon as the meeting is over, obama will head to florida to visit troops at a jacksonville naval air station. he will meet with the navy and marine personnel to think of for their service and sacrifice. maryland, chop, republican collar. what are your thoughts? caller: i am just kind of surprise of the body is so quick to get out of there. i know it has been a bloody war, but that is what war is, and they are so quick to forget -- the previous caller says all wars are wrong, and if you take the life, she forgets the germans that were killed to protect the millions and million people were being slaughtered in world war ii. but you go back to iraq, you have president obama, the leader of the democratic party, he didn't pull everybody out right away. if he is the leader of the democratic party, i would think they would be in support of his wisdom. we can't forget that saddam hussein was killing nasa's of people and burying them. and there were horrific crimes. the can just walk out and say, well, i'm sorry, we lost people and we didn't know what was going to be bloody. it is, it is horrible. but you are protecting a nation. we might not have wanted to do it, but we are there. you don't just run away. host: as a republican, do you think the president is seeing things differently than he did from the things he said on the campaign trail? caller: about iraq? host: and afghanistan. caller: pertaining to iraq, he said he wanted to get everyone out and set a time line immediately. i know mccain said he would prefer to about a way as it went wears obama said he would set an immediate time line. but still up as soon as he got in there, i am sure he started to look at things more clearly and with better information as a candidate. host: the headline of an editorial -- obama is dithering. he writes, what should mr. obama do? he says -- handing this is the riding of clyburn corp. from "the financial times." host: new jersey, stanley on the independent line. go ahead. caller: my take is we should remove our troops immediately from iraq. it is an eagle, unnecessary war from the beginning and coupled with that we should be getting our troops out of afghanistan because al qaeda is no longer there. the reason why we went there doesn't even exist anymore. this will be the boats -- bush- cheney legacy, unfortunately, and for the more we must put an immediate end of support to that zionist terrorist entity known as israel. host: i ever falls, one more call, republican line. -- niagara falls. caller: this is the only place where you get to speak your opinion and hopefully mine will get hurt. i don't think that the bombing will slow it down. i believe that the only way this war will be handled is with more boots on the ground. because when you think about past wars, even though we had our little conflict with the nom with lost, like, 20,000, but the boats on the ground is the only way it will happen. fighting two wars now. with the american economy the way it is that it is and what the unemployment rate, in the next 10 years these 18 to 25- year-old will have nothing to live for. i am saying we need to bring back the draft because these kids are running around committing crimes, there are having babies -- host: but the military is committed to an all-volunteer force. caller: you know what? once you graduate high school after 18 years, once you get 18, i think, americans should have a mandate required that males and females, it two years of their lives to serving in the military. just two years. host: the view from paul from niagara falls. "politico." a front-page story about the health care debate. what is behind this? guest: there is a longstanding concern among democrats and how in the senate, the day in which most voters would cheat -- see a benefit is so far off, 2013, it will take awhile to implement something as complicated. but now there is a push among some democrats in the senate to push the benefits that may not have as big an effect on the overall cost of the bills. some concerns if it pushed things up too quickly than it changes how much of the bill would cause. but there are some elements of this reform that can be implemented earlier. senators such as debbie stabenow is pushing for as many things that can come into effect as early as possible. part of that is the desire to obviously get some relief to people. but on the other side, 2010 is on members' minds, particularly in the house, and in the senate, and on the white house is mined as well. if the bill passes, a whole new phase will begin where they have to sell this to the american public the there is actually a good reason why they did this. host: what have republican said about speeding up these benefits, hastening the time line on health care reform in terms of the benefits, proposed benefits? guest: i think what senator john cornyn, the national center campaign committee, pete saying no matter when these taken effect they will outweigh and palin comparison with what they call the bad parts of the bill. they say premiums may not decline for most americans and there will be big cuts to medicare which, of course, the muskrats say is just redirecting wasteful spending within the system -- democrats say is just redirecting whistle spending within the system. republicans will say democrats are trying to show voters they will actually see it benefits sooner. host: as we start this last week of all -- october. this headline. also from "the wall street journal" over the weekend, house leaders lose centrists. guest: harry reid did spend the weekend talking to more members. he is expected to make the final decisions and send a couple of options to the congressional budget office by the end of the day. will present options to the caucus tomorrow. it is unclear when he will make his intentions known publicly, but right now the top dow is looking like his choice, what he is working on this weekend -- the op outs is looking like his choice. there is some trepidation among some democrats. even if they can get 60 votes across the hurdle, there are concerns that it the go-ahead and don't have the votes on the underlying bill, a vote that would take place many weeks down the road, there is trepidation. host: writing for "the politico." you can read her work. she covers health care. read it at politico.com. we will have more about health care and the economy and more with ramesh ponnuru from "the national review." he is a senior editor at "the national review." we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] g >> sunday on "book tv," join our discussion with an optimism activist and author. diagnosed in 1950, the professor discusses her disability, how it help to teach about animal behavior, and develop humane ways to handle livestock and processing plants. three hours, sunday at noon eastern on c-span2's "book tv." tonight on "the communicator's the tier technology and internet subcommittee members on last week's fcc both on their neutrality, that may keep providers from slowing down or blocking the way some information travels on the internet. on c-span2. now available on dvd, "the supreme court: home to america's highest court." it takes you inside one of the most burning buildings in washington and into places only accessible to the justices and their staff. hear about the court's history and traditions, from justices themselves. own your own dvd, a. $9.95, plus shipping and handling. order at c-span.org/store. "washington journal" continues. host: ramesh ponnuru, senior editor from "national review." we just laughed off -- left off talking about the time line on health care. is it will belong to quickly, too slowly? guest: i think mrs. a reformed the democrats have wanted to her breakthrough as much as possible, but the inherent complexity of that has been such that they have been forced to have a more deliberative process. there are, however, a lot of unanswered questions that we deserve answers to. only in the last few weeks have we had any kind of focus on the question of what is this reform going to do to the premiums that most people pay. we don't have a definitive answer. we have not had a thorough look at that question by the congressional budget office, for example, that we have had in previous attempts, and i don't think anything would be lost slowing things down so we can get answers to those questions. host: in terms of premiums, a number of polls show people believe their premiums will go up but other polls say people will like to say -- see things like a public option as well. are those mixed messages? guest: i think we look at the opinion poll and you will find a number of things. one of the key things is nick and have enormous sensitivity to the exact wording of the question. for example, they will say they like a public option but if they are exposed to the argument that a public option might undercut the private sector insurance by having some sort of advantages that are not available and it is unfair competition -- i think what it tells us is the public actually doesn't have a very set of views on the huge number of detailed policy questions. what they have our concerns, they have general and stings, but they don't have detailed views. host: in your view as a conservative columnist, the debate that has happened over the past nine or 10 months on health care -- eight or nine months, has this been a healthy thing for the country or not? guest: i think people have a greater degree of familiarity now than at the beginning of the process with the way the health care systems work and with what the effects of reforms might be. but i do think she's that there has been an enormous amount of misinformation, confusion, about these issues. unfortunately a lot of misinformation start with the president himself. i have host: 9 which showed a few minutes ago -- house leaders will centrists. -- woo centrist. are you more inclined to believe it public option will pass? guest: it is very hard to say what is going to happen. one thing that you talking about what the political reporter, if you try to move some of the benefits, then you throw the whole budget implications out of whack and then you have a new political problem. of a public option, what is tricky to figure out is whether they are trying to set up a system where they push for these votes, they can't actually cleared the 16 vote hurdle and then they'd move to even more partisan strategy of just trying to pass it with 50. host: her story also has a lot to do with the political scene in 2010, what it may look like and what may be the result of pushing the benefits. project out 2010, and the make of the health-care debate, what do you see happening particularly for the folks, the centrists? the blue dog democrats and others who may be the swing interests. guest: a lot of democrats have convinced themselves the big mistake in 1993 or 1984 when clinton the frigid 1993 and 1994 -- that is driving them to pass this thing and it could backfire. if premiums go up without benefit coming on line until a few letters, this thing which is already on popular becomes even more so. host: ramesh ponnuru with "the national review" here to talk about not only health care but the economy, the economic policies of the obama administration. host: -- is a democrat from illinois. caller: i happen to be a health insurance broker, so some of the things that ramesh ponnuru talks about i happen to agree with. but here's my problem with republicans and conservatives, is that i don't know if you happen to see the "60 minutes) program last night where they talk about the $60 billion in fraud for medicare. everybody can say, see, the public 60 doesn't work. but what didn't work, what they talked about at the very end is how the last administration especially with no regulations for anything, no people in the government to go after medicare fraud or just fraud in general, and what a disaster that type of idea, conservative idea has been on our complete economy, so do i believe that some of these things are going to drive up premiums? i do. i know that they will. but also i just have to believe that if this administration can get behind regulation and get fraud people out there, give them a billion dollars did it go and get the $60 billion of fraud, and that money can be used to cover the uninsured. thank you appeared guest: well, -- although i did not watch the show in question, absolutely medicare fraud is a problem. is a one that predates the last administration and frankly there is a bipartisan problem here in that the congress has generally not been interested in the funding series of efforts against medicare fraud. in fact, in this debate you will often hear people say, well, medicare have low administrative costs. one of the reasons is because it doesn't try to police fraud, private insurers do. i don't know if it means expanding public systems is the way forward. host: topeka, kansas. on independent line. you are on the air. caller: i'm from topeka. the thing about the public option -- and the thing about when the insurance companies brought that report back out and stuff, the insurance companies really are against public option is because the public option basically if it gets through, it will be just the uninsurable and the low income people, which is just going to put the cost way over on the public option. the insurance company, that is all they are fighting. there would love the public option to come in because that is basically what they are talking about. i don't know if you have any idea about that are not. guest: well, people have discussed various versions of the public option. generally permit people -- people have talked about being open to everybody. but the point about what insurance, this one are don't want is interesting. because with the exception of the public option and a couple of other elements, they are basic -- basically happy with the kind of legislation the democrats are pushing in congress. they really liked the idea that every single american will be forced to purchase one of their products. host: they are happy because that means business? guest: absolutely. host: what is their concern about the public option? edging them out of business altogether? the guest: at right. partly i assume they just don't want competition but partly they are aware of the sorts of plants have the opportunity to push some of their own costs on to their competitors, that is the great advantage of the government has when it gets into business. host: the senate finance committee waited for the cost estimate from the budget office, and now senator harry reid likewise with the combined bill get a congressional budget office estimates. do you think those are reliable estimates? and do you think they are the best bellwether for the cost of health care? guest: the congressional budget office has been legitimately respected. i have followed the work they have done over the last year on health care, very solid non- partisan work. if but they are tied to the assumptions congressman give them. the key thing is not the reliability, but read the fine print. for example, would that estimate that senator baucus's bill will only cost $829 billion, they assumed some cuts in medicare payment rates would take place when everybody knew that politically they were not on to take place. it is not cbo's job to say we know you're never going to do this. host: senator harry reid tried to jump-start it by getting the bill passed as a separate bill. you saw that vote go down against him. what was your reaction? guest: this thomas lange -- astonishing display of political and comp -- incompetence. he said the american medical association promised a bunch of republican votes that are not there, either. if he cannot count the votes on this item wondering if he has -- host: missouri. caller: are we still going to be allowed to deduct medical bills if? if yes, it is ok. if not, that seems to be another way of raising taxes which obama promised not to do. host: deduct from your annual taxes? and go ahead with your comments. caller: is the new bill going to be paid as a percentage like medicare, and if so, it will be another tax increase for me because i pay for my own insurance and they pass it on to people who pay insurance. the last comment is, i think they should get the waist and medicare fixed. i think the people will see that we will trust the government more if we can fix the way it is being done in medicare. and the wealthy people in washington ought to remember that not all of us are that wealthy. guest: i think every three points. sh= deductibility of medical and expenses, as far as i know that is not affected. the second point was about whether you would have to pay more based on your income. certainly the subsidies that the bills contemplate for people who buy health care on the new exchanges is a sliding scale. the subsidy would drop as you earn more. i think one of the big problems is it means that effectively for a lot of people every additional dollar they make in a raise they will only see about 30 cents after the effect of these government policies are being taken. the last was about cutting medicare fraud. i think it makes sense, let's fix medicare first. if it is true that there are all these great cost savings ideas in washington, let us see them go to work in medicare before we try extending them to the system at large. host: you hear people say that all government health care -- but they are, medicare, government -- the va, medicare. heidi counter that argument? guest: those programs have been budget busters, they are not sustainable in their current form. i understand that if you are on medicare and you are happy with the program, you don't want washington fiddling with it and you don't want change to begin with. some changes are going to have to happen. at the the question is are the ones people are talking about and capitol hill the right ones, did they make sense, and if the answer is, no. host: senator schuler was asked about the public option. a little bit about what he had to say -- senator chuck schumer. >> leader harry reid -- and there is nobody better than counting the votes as he is, he is a wizard at it and people don't give them enough credit for prepared i -- credit for it. the liberals, they would like a stronger but they would be willing to live with, moderate democrats, some actually like it, as long as it is a level playing field. there are others who say that i am not sure i like it but i won't hold up passage of the bill. i think we are very close to getting the 60 votes we need to move forward and my guess is that the public option level playing field will be in the bill but the leader will make the decision after talks with everybody. >> you believe the democrats are close to 60 votes in the senate for health care reform? host: is he on target? guest: i don't know how you can have that kind of confidence after majority leader harry reid after the debacle of the last week? shthe democrats have been saying all year that you need to hold the democrats on procedural votes. you will forgive people who don't vote with the party on procedural votes. 13 of them just defected on procedural votes. host: the next caller is democratic column. mississippi. caller: i think what -- we need to be clear. conservative republicans are out there to confuse people as much as possible to block health care reform if they can. if they can't, they want to water down where it won't work and then they will use it against the democrats in elections in the future. they talk about medicare being very expensive and medicaid being expensive. i heard your guests talking about that. but the fact is despite all of the fraud and abuse, it still operates at an overhead of 2% to 3% compared to between 20% to 30% for health insurance companies. health insurance companies want the government to drive a 45 million people into their arms without a public option, that is way -- that way they can continue to raise the prices of premium it as they want to and the government will have to subsidize it and there will be any competition. this is the game that is being played by republicans at the public needs to understand that. host: your reaction? guest: one way to get administrative costs that lowest to shovel money out the door without worrying about whether it is going to for help fraud. that is what medicare essentially does. that is one of the reason why it got the low rates. the other thing is, medicare doesn't have to market itself the way the public option would. a marketing is an administrative costs. host: john of independent mind. -- line. caller: sonntag things -- first olwen citizen's arrest about a public option, that it -- i would like to address some on six things, first of all, when citizens are asked, that they are not for it. i disagree. most don't care about health insurance companies. health insurance companies and charged with health care. they are charged with making profit. #two, health insurance premiums might go up drastically after the bill. i tell you, i'm self-employed with two kids and a wife and i never use my insurance through blue cross-blue shield and it has gone off 750, 850, 950, and and now i'm in the age range, it is 1250 this year for premium per month. so the premiums are already going crazy and they are taking advantage of this. my question -- dean of premiums would be deductible, not only for self-employed but everyone? host: deductibility of premiums? guest: i don't think that is changed by any of the legislation we are talking about. i would say absolutely the are increasing. there are policy reforms we need to look at. but that is not a reason to pass legislation that will probably cause the premiums to rise even more. for host: kathleen that sends a tweet. guest: interesting. but one of the things we've been hearing from the administration this is just one other competitor, it will not dominate the market but in fact public colleges and universities do dominate a higher education market and for all the attention we pay to private institutions, they are not enrolling the vast majority of students. if host: ronnie on the democrats' line. make sure you turn down your television or radio. mute that set and go ahead. i would just put you on hold for a second. republican line. west virginia. caller: i would like to know, when we worked we paid for medicare part a and b, then when we retired we by medicare part d. $59 for each one of us. first of january, up to $99. i want to know how the new insurance will help us. can you tell me? for guesguest: welcome i don't t will have -- help. in fact, it that administration's plan for medicare part d, the prescription drug plan, are enacted, again, i am just not seen what the benefits are. i think a lot of people who did not affect -- medicare advantage coverage to the private sector will 1 identify the coverage because the payment to one part of medicare actually seem to work pretty well, they are going after because they are against private-sector involvement. caller: what i see here. i enjoy your program so much. the 60 vote requirement. i think it could be done through 51 votes through what is called reconciliation. if that is true, just go ahead and do it because there is so much factions and difference -- it is getting where now you can't get in the emergency room for the hospital for an insured six people. -- uninsured sick people. thank you for taking my call. host: do you think senator harry reid would risk getting the bill through reconciliation and what will look like? guest: there are serious parliamentary hurdles. there is a possibility parts of the bill, the stripped out because they don't qualify for that kind of -- shall we say, expedited treatment. it might have to break into pieces. i think it is a complicated mass that the senate democrats would prefer to be able to get what they want without doing that road. what we might be doing is to show we have to be going down that road to get what they want, that if they fail to get the 60 votes they can just blame it on republican obstruction and then moved to that kind of 50 votes. host: we spent most of the time talking about health care. asking you about the hearings this week, as the energy committee gets underway in the senate, the senate panel to take up the climate built, the cap- and-trade bill as it has been called, what is your view on this debate as it comes to the senate? guest: i think its prospects are pretty uncertain. there are a lot of states concerned about rising energy costs. the epa, as it was, concluded, or at least some part of the obama administration concluded a while ago that climate change legislation would cost the average household $1,760 a year. that is going to be very difficult, particularly in the middle of recession, or perceived recession -- although it is probably over by now -- to get it passed. host: is the debate on health care, do you see them trying to wrap up the debate and use the momentum to get climate change bill pass? guest: i am sure they will. a lot of things are on hold -- financial regulation reform i think is most submit it ever -- while the do health care. but the dynamic and work both ways. upper income folks who voted for obama are not all that of those arrested about the health care legislation and lower-income folks who voted for obama are not that of cozy as the about the climate change legislation. -- not that enthusiastic about the climate change. yet their vicinity of alienating to different parts of the coalition won after the other. host: doesn't the president have to do that anytime a makes a decision? campaigning on one thing, appealing to certain interest groups but he has to make decisions that eventually will -- guest: but this democratic coalition may be particularly unstable because it is the super affluent and the have-nots without representation as much in the middle. host: e n from washington on independent line. -- ian. caller: your guests comments seemed a little disingenuous regarding health care, in particular. he mentioned one reason why health care costs for medicare were so low because they don't have to worry about fraud. that is far less of a concern when compared to that they don't have to make a profit and it don't have to advertise. the private insurance companies that it to those endeavors are significantly higher. additionally, as a country, we already decided that health care should be socialized that's why anyone who shows up to a hospital can go to an emergency room and will get treated. that being the case, let's do the thing where it is the most remind where doctors get paid and the way you do that -- and hospitals get paid, and the way you do that you get the most people covered by insurance. private insurance companies have a right to -- make sure it is a good reason. for those who can't get insurance and the other way, there is a public option. all that being said, if the democratic plan -- what is the best way to get it done? what is the best way to have the greatest number of people in short and still be a fact -- in short and still be effective and cost-cutting? host: the fact of public plan and emergency room care. guest: that's right. it is not an efficient method of getting your health care. there are things we can do to increase the number of people who have insurance. you can have cost-saving reform, states could have tort reform. we could allow people to buy insurance across state lines. we could level the playing field so that people don't get insurance from their employer could purchase insurance for themselves from the same favorable tax treatment that people get through their employer. there are all kinds of things we can do to make it possible for more people to get cheaper insurance, and i think we ought to be doing those things instead of moving down this road to more and more government intervention, in a system that already has a lot of government invention. host: he disagreed with you have to say on medicare fraud costs. guest: he claimed that profit was a bigger factor. people vastly overestimate the percentage of insurance premiums that go to profit. insurance industry is something like 85th most profitable industry in this country. and the other point he made was that medicare doesn't have to advertise, where as private insurers spent a lot of money on advertising geared she -- advertising. so would a public option, because it would not have an immediate monopoly. it would have to spend money on advertising as well. host: ramesh ponnuru here with us until it o'clock 3:00 p.m. eastern. how long have you been with all the national review." guest: 15 years. host: history degree from princeton. what led you to writing for "national review?" guest: i did my journalistic career probably started in grade school, writing for the school paper and kansas back then and i just carried on since then. host: are there more or fewer outlets for various and buried opinion when you started -- that when you start? guest: a lot more opinion magazines on the right and certainly the explosion of political commentary on the internet. . host: when you are talking about a single payer system, you are talking about a totally government-run system? caller: yes, i wouldn't mind having my taxes raised if i didn't have to pay anything out of pocket. guest: most americans who share this view is not borne out by the evidence. host: from arkansas. welcome. caller: good morning. when the people realize the government doesn't want the insurance people to be in business. they want to do this so they can have the control and get the votes. look at the give me give me people that called in this morning and want something for nothing. you are not going to turn this around now. this country is going down the drain because these people want control of anything and everything. as far as tort control and everything else, those would all work. the government created the problem in the first place by not letting them do business across the state lines. i grant you insurance wanted it that way, the government is the problem, not the answer. we've got 50% of the people in the country that want something for nothing and the other 50% paying their way. it's not going to work. it's been proven it doesn't work. >> charles from arkansas. next up is michael from new york. >> how are you today? >> fine. thanks. >> something no one has really addressed is the 30 million uninsured are creating costs for us across the board, costs as they use the emergency roam as their only source of medical care. thep you have other callers calling in saying, my premiums are going up. well of course they are. someone has to pick up the slak when an uninsured person uses the emergency room host: is that it, caller? caller: sure. i would like to hear a little feedback. guest: i am not a believer that the uninsured just are overusing the emergency room. the best evidence suggests that whatever effectiveness this raises premiums 1 or 2%. we can address this problem by allowing people to purchase cheap insurance policies. you mentioned out there 30 million uninsured. from your reporting, what is that core number of people reducing the issue of uninsured citizens in this country? >> do you want to talk about the people who are uninsured at any moment in time? uninsured at some point during the year. these are very different numbers. people get this 47 million people figure. if you exclude illegal immigrants, most people want to talk about legal residents you probably get something like 30 million. >> you touched on financial regulations the senior administration official said yesterday after ex-tensive consultation, representative barny frank will introduce as early as this week. the measure will make it easier to sees control of financial institutions. wipe out share holders and change concerns held out by institutions. guest: once you create the system, this expectation that the government would set out you have a huge problem where too much money and too much risk is going in and taken in. a more orderly system for liquid dating these systems. >> what was your reaction last week when the special assistant to the president made those recommendations on executive compensation for the folks getting money from the tarp fund. going in on the government's business on how to conduct the operations and how to pay. a lot of people who were choring on and enthusiastic about the decision are saying this is just a start. we want to apply this as an industry as a whole. this is a huge step that would be extremely unhealthy for our economy. this depends, how likely did any of this that happened look two years ago. the climate of regulatory policy in it self is a problem if you are trying to make long-term decisions. >> the last eight years, their argument is in a number of areas, regulation was laxed. >> there was some places regulation was laxed. you had essentially a kind of fraud that should have been pleased better than it was. they made things look better and worst during the crisis. it was too simple minded to say how wide that regulation is. host: next up from austin, texas democratic caller. caller: yes, i was paying attention. thanks for c-span by the way. i understand the government is paying $11,000 a year per person. do the math. that would pay for it right there. that's not private healthcare, that's the insurance companies wanting the government to subsidize their insurance. that's wrong. thank you. >> sure. look, if you want to give medicare advantage some kind of hair cut. that's fine. you need a level playing field. you need a competitive bidding process or supply that same model to traditional system. even if medicare advantage out performs the model, it is penalized by the system of have. how do you see them walking to the center and meeting half way, making a bill that comes in conference you have a lot of house democrats that won't sign on to the bill. a lot on the liberal side that said they are not going to sign on to a bill that doesn't have a public option. one reason, once you have a console i dated bill, you don't have a lot of time. the process brings the american public into the process. chicago on the line, moon from chicago on the independent line. caller: this house resolution, what is the likelihood that will be approved to take the same healthcare to give to the public. what if we want to reverse it? host: reverse, ma'am? caller: the publicly run system. host: before you answer, she talked about hr 16. on this week we had a question from the members of congress. here's what she had to say. >> that's really happening right now is a lot of misinformation out there. as people learn more about the insurance exchange and public option, they begin to realize this is not an all encompassing government plan. the only people that have to participate in the insurance exchange are members of congress. host: how does that argument play out? guest: if i had to bet, i would say the financial legislation would include something on paper to include something that they are expecting for others. the comment about the exchange is interesting. they are trying to cut the cost of it to only a select group of americans with access to these programs. i think we already have a demonstration project called the state of texas. it's implemented medical malpractice reform. it's one of several states that have done so. i part company with the republicans. i see no reason why the states can't continue to take the lead on those reforms. host: mike writes, we know it's not free. we will pay our monthly fees but only they will be reduced overtime. that's from twitter. we'll go to the phone. caller: he works for the best magazines in the world, the national review. guest: thank you. caller: my question is is the driving force behind the government and obama is how much money in the obama campaign came from government employees and how much of the work in the campaign was actually government employees. every time i was in the campaign office, it was full of government employees. the second question is the real drive is the people that want government jobs. jobs pay $40,000 more than anything else. we have no idea how many new workers. if we get all that stuff through, how many expensive federal employees do we expect to pay for? guest: thank you for the kind words. i think that that is an important piece to this puzzle. no question the union has been a big force behind the legislation and the form it's taken. the government employees largely drive more and more in the private sector. that is not so much as the chief constituency. i'd be surprised if over the long run, it didn't grow. host: the senior editor at national review. guest: glad to be here. host: we'll be back the the outlook for jobs turns positive. that's it for today. first a look at news from c-span radio. >> it's 8:17 a.m. eastern time, the u.s. military says 14 americans have been killed in a series of helicopter crashes in afghanistan. the u.s. statement says seven u.s. troopers and three u.s. civilians died in western afghanistan when their helicopters collided. us authorities have ruled out hostile fire in the collision but have not given a cause for the other crash. violence coming as the november 7th run off election nears. earlier today at a news conference, the challenger calls for the removal before the runoff. the election commission chairman has "no credibility and should be replaced immediately." president obama meets with the afghan team this morning and go florida to meet with members at the jackson base. >> today on book tv, diagnosed with autism in 1950, she discusses her disease and ability to work with animals. today on c-span 2's book tv. host: i want to ask you about the job situation where you live. this in reaction to a story in the money section of us sa today. we'll do it by region. >> our question for you this morning, how does it look for you in your area of the country. your comments at twitter domenici as well. other news. a story about daniel turillo. the story in money and investing section of the wall street journal. >> people are not showing as far as the out source the desires to be able to go in for sales jobs and things of that natural. one of the things i've gotten through the interaction is going to be able to handle the overhead with backlog of bills that they have. that seems to be some what of a challenge. host: are you saying people don't want to go in for these interviews? caller: it's a half-hearted type thing because they go out with the dissolution deal with the fact that pay that's being offered the overhead of the household. host: what's the job outlook like in chicago? caller: it looks better now than it has.  this lady made me say if i was a republican or democrat. it says pacific or central. host: thanks for the note, we are taking your calls by time zone. 202-737-0001 for eastern and central. 202-737-0002 mountain and pacific. writing in this article that 44% of firms with rising demand as opposed to 44% on failing demand. only transportation, ultilities and communication sectors posted a net decline. caller: the thing that concerns me is all this massive spending that keeps going on. we've been ignoring economic laws for deck ates now. we keep trying to fix this and that. our leaders don't -- are ignoring the fact that economic laws are the same as any other natural law. you can't go and artificially keep fixing things. sooner or later the bills will continue to come through. when they do, there's a price to be paid. it just cannot be done. >> why do you think the unemployment there in august den is a little better than elsewhere. we have been being run more fiscally responsibly. we don't tend -- we tend to be a little behind the times in terms of other portions. we have one of the highest graduation rates from high school in the country, yet we spend probably the lowest per capita per student. money is nfrt problem. albe albe albert instien said. host: here's an article in the u.s. news section in the wall street journal about federal jobs. >> here's pittsburgh. tell us about the situation there. turning positive. it's going pretty well. younger applicants trying to get jobs. it's not going swell. once the school kids are out of school, they get the good jobs. they are able to pay for when they need to pay for for school and whatnot. then there's guys like me with a couple of kids. i recently had a good job, i lost it because of the fact that i broke my hand. host: what kind of job did you do? caller: a street cleaner for downtown pittsburgh. they needed 100% ok for me to come back to work. i don't have insurance. how do i come up with the $90 to come up with the visit. vi to go back to court now for child support. host: are you on unemployment? caller: no, sir. they said i didn't make enough. i didn't meet the requirement >> the u.s. senate later this week likely to make up the bill with benefits. suffox, colorado on the republican line sksh-excuse, the eastern line. caller: it's suffox county, new york. host: go ahead. caller: i'm wandering where they are coming with these outlooks. i have an mba. i'm having trouble finding a job. some companies are expecting a lot more from the workers. even though i have over 15 year's experience. it's not good enough. with an mba in finance, i think i would qualify. i'm trying to understand what kind of companies they have gotten this information from. i know statistics. they can easily be excused to make things look more positive. host: take a look at the article. we'll link to it at the washington journal page at c-span.org. go ahead. caller: thank you for your show. i would like to say i was laid off from my job in 2006. the company closed. i was a mail ride for the company. since then, it's kind of been down hill. my mother got sick. i had to take care of her. i exhausted my unemployment benefits. she's got aulzs. a lot of thing that's have happened with our system, i think host: you have not been back to work since 2006? caller: no, sir. i have an issue. i never graduated. i came up through the southeastern part of missouri. had a very hard time with school i've raised four beautiful daughters, one son. all of them is grown. they are all fine citizens of the community. i'm just mad as hell at our system. i think there's so much that could be done for our communities. host: thanks for the call ronald from michigan. here's a section about theford motor company. closer to making a profit as market share rises. caller: i've been looking for a job for a really long time. i'm also in a job training program. i do nails too. host: what kind of job training. what's the skill? caller: doing nails. nail tech. stylist. host: cleveland, thank you for the call. doug at twitter saying increasing of unemployment is slowing wooo. outlook from north carolina. jack, good morning. caller: let me tell you about this area. this area has had a lot of retireries moving to it from the north several years now, so they come with a pension usually and are able to capitolize on the real estate market. there had been a lot of construction. once the crash hit, real estate, the market crashed only showing a little bit of signs of life now because of the first-time buyer program. manufacturing, we've had entire factories shut down. 500 people, 800 people, gone. i'm talking about companies like the one that's make bay liner boats. i was just looking at the want ads from sunday, i was absolutely amazed what was once three or four pages, now, you are looking at three columns. it's unbelievable. now, with theak retirement fol if you are not working in healthcare or own your own business, you are through. host: what kind of job are you looking for? caller: i'm a regular factory worker rotating 12 hour shifts. i'm thankful to god that i have a job. my thing is basically like unskilled labor. i'm grateful to have a job in manufacturing in north america at this point that at least pays me a reasonable wage. i'm thankful everyday. we have a lot of unemployed here. host: going to san diego, what's it look like in california. caller: you used to see the illegals standing in front of home depot, i live right down the street from one. now you see americans standing there. it's getting worse. that's all i have. thank you. host: portland, sue. go ahead. i'll put you on hold. going to peach tree city. what's it look like in atlanta. caller: what i heard last week, the report was that 2400 georgeannes lost their jobs last month, the government keeps pushing for exceptions. i have come to the conclusion that it's about keeping people on welfare roles an unemployment. let's get the stimulus money where it should be your view is that the stim luis money hasn't played out yet? caller: i don't think so. host: are you working now? caller: no. i'm on disability. however, my focus is on that of all the other american workers that are being taken for granted and not given the support that they need in order to find these jobs. these jobs can be created. i think the money got lost in a crap game it didn't go where it is supposed to go. that's why we are seeing so much unemployment across the country. host: tamika, go ahead. i'll put you on hold. back to portland, oregon, sue. are you there? >> caller: yes. i don't see where the jobs are getting better. if they are, where are these jobs, what are these jobs and what are they paying. i see buildings with vak and signs, closed for business, going out of business more than i see any other places coming in. host: what kind of places do you see going out of business there? caller: many small shots. everyday, there are lists in the papers. i don't see jobs coming in. i don't know what this report is about. we've sent so many jobs overseas. we all know that. that seems to be the trend. i guess we can create them, i just don't see where we are creating them. host: we'll hear more this week from both sides of capitol hill on the healthcare debate. critics call health reform transparenty opaque. host: cleveland, next up. tell us about the work situation there in your area. caller: i also want to talk about some of the stuff you just touched base on. you talked about the tough that obama is doing. obama is also doing a whole lot of stuff for americans as a whole. we keep on trying to jump on his back about this that and the other, which in the long run, the whole thing about you guys and what you guys put on the news cast, it be a whole bunch of bogus stuff though, true. you tell us one thing when all of reality when it be a whole bunch of other stuff or in the government. obama is doing a real good job about a whole bunch of stuff. a bunch of stuff bush messed up. obama is cleaning it up. how much do you expect for this man to be able to do? everybody is krit sdiezing him about he's doing this about the healthcare. he is only trying to do what he is trying to do. about the oil. i mean the oil stuff going on over there in iraq. we ain't never find no mass destruction bombs. it's a word war. it's a religious war going on over there. there's nothing going on over there about no oils. condoleezza -- host: rice? >> yes and cheney going over there trying to get some pipes coming across the thing. host: thanks for the comment. another view from ohio. good morning. caller: hello. this area is devastated. i have people calling up and asking us for money we've been able to help some. i don't know what you are talking about. there's no jobs here. host: what's left there? caller: nothing. it is all boarded up and they are demolishing most of it. they are tearing part of it done. the streets where i live, they are all boarding up these businesses because these people are anti-business. this economy will never pick up if they don't quit attacking the money people and they attack business. these business people do not like these policies. i talk to them everyday. my granddaughter and grandson is in business, we just talk about this all the time. caller: the state of rhode island is at 13% unemployment. i've been out of work myself almost 2 years. i got laid off november 2007. host: what kind of job was it? caller: a medical records supervisor. 15 year's experience. i'm going on interviews, i'm one of 60. i don't have piece of paper. all i have is experience. i'm not getting the jobs. i just want to make a comment about the unemployment. i've been without benefits since june. everyday, there's someone else losing them. the senator from arizona who said it was against unemployment benefits because it would make people not look for jobs. as an american citizen, i am insulted by that. all i've done is look for jobs. everyday. applying on line. host: you've been out of work since when? caller: november 2007. i have a family to feed. i have two small children. for him to say it would give us a reason not to go back to work, for me, as an american citizen. someone who has worked everyday her entire life, i am highly insulted by that. i think he is absolutely wrong. every american, all they want is a scombrob to provide for their family. host: thanksgiving for all of your calls. in the off year elections, we'll be talking to the columnist and fellow at the brookings institutions next. and your calls too. we'll be right back. >> senator john kerry speaks today about the situation in afghanistan. we'll hear from former director and ceo of health insurance plans and health underwriters. as the to cuss on healthcare continues. c-span healthcare hub is a key resource. you can find all the key hearings and events. can you add comments on twitter. this is at c-span.org/healthcare. >> tonight, on the communicators. technology indicators on last year's fcc vote, which opens a process which may keep providers from slowing down or blocking. on c-span 2. sunday on book tv, join our discussion on in depth. diagnosed with autism in 1950. sunday at noon eastern on c-span 2s book tv. host: joining us this morning from the bookings institution i he has a column this morning in the post tell us why you wrote about the boston mayor election. guest: i have an affection for mayors around the country. mayors seem to be grittier and in charge of the hardest problems. the mayor in boston has been there since 1993. if he wins this time, he will have been mayor for 20 years. i just wanted to go up there and check it out. i grew up in massachusetts, i have an affection. host: does he have a tough competition. guest: a young guy. one 66, the other 40. in the preliminary round, there was another councilman that formed a ticket. it's a non-part sdan election, everybody is a democrat in this race. they decided to have non-partisan races for all cities in the state. broughtening out the discussion for these elections, the new jersey governor's race and virginia govern's race the 23 rd congressional race. why is that an interest. normally the conservative party endorses the candidate. you have a republican nominee. a moderate republican. there is a third party conservative called doug hofman. a lot of national republicans have come out. sarah palin endorsed the conservative on her website. other republicans have been campaigning for the republican candidate. shocking. susan collins was up there over the weekend campaigning for newt gingrich as support for the moderate. what you are seeing play out is the fight for the soul of the republican party. people like gingrich are saying, look, not directly but indirectly, if we don't nominate moderate candidates in moderate areas, that's the message there. other conservatives are saying, look, we only want purists. they are winning on the republican split. >> this is the appointed secretary of the apartmenty. >> echo some of what your column has said. this says torching the big tent. they write helping to elect the democrat is not the aim of conservatives. >> when you look at how do you form the party? the party tends to be a mixture of liberals in the case of democrats and moderates that carry the certain kind of district. they've lost one moderate after another. you can think of a number of things. what happened in those middle income, sort of affluent disdirects. they are saying, wait a minute, this party is geared to the right. if i vote for them, i'm empowering the right wingers. in delaware, they are looking to win the senate seed to joe biden and in illinois, they are trying to win barack obama he's seat with mark kirk. if conservatives don't support moderates like that, they are not going to have republican representatives. host: who will run for biden's seat? guest: bo biden, his son who just came back from serving in iraq. there's a dead heat there right now. host: is there any evidence that the so-called reagan democrats are not being appealed to by the republican party? guest: the reagan democrat is an old situation. i think there were -- they were white southers who were historically democratic but were essentially conservative and then you have this sort of white working class voters in the northeast and middle west. some of those stayed in the republican party. many of them came back. i think outside of belts you could see running through where a lot of the reagan democrats are now voting for barack obama. the democratic party coalition now includes african-americans and hispanics includes some of the white working class and now includes a large middle class suburban vote. a lot of those voters who had been once reliably republican are now voting democratic in a lot of races. host: that was played out in virginia in the presidential election in 2008. the "washington post" reported on friday that the democratic nomination there seeking to shield obama in the case of the loss. what's going on there in terms of the campaign and the obama people? guest: it's kind of complicated. my own view is you clearly have the obama people trying to shield themselves from. host: in these last couple of weeks, is he going in? guest: virginia is a state in transition. democrats have done very well there. barack obama got 53%. the difficulties are number one after winning a primary where he was the under dog, he had spent everything he had. i think you president obama did loose some ground over the summer. you have this deeds campaign that was slow getting off the mark for president obama. the challenge for these is to try to turn out some of the vote for obama that doesn't always turn out. that elector rat in 2008 was 20% african-american. if deeds is going to pull off an upset, he's got to pull off those numbers barack obama is the guy that will help him do it. host: let's go to the phone. caller: stop telling these people not to elect -- or to elect moderate conservatives. as a liberal democrat, i am happy, happy, happy that they keep trying to bring in these religious zelots that are so conservative that they shove all the moderates into the democratic party. guest: well, thank you. . . politically, the caller certainly has a point that if the republican party gets too far to the right they will keep losing elections. host: this is wayne, pa., georgia, good morning. caller: i think there shoulde0ce a party to give the republicans and democrats competition. i think there should be in movement that there should be mandatory retirement for all politicians, no matter if it's state or government, not through voting and income and out or firm -- through term limits, but make them retire at the age of 70, just like you have to do in business, and even school teachers. thank you, i will take0adm!=iqì+ answer off the air. guest: i guess i am sympathetic to the idea that voters should, in the end, be able to elect whomever they want. a couple people where i come from got elected even from jail, which would not advise, of course, but it is the voters freedom to do that. i am partial to -- for people to get out their frustration if they are unhappy with the two- party candidates. i think there'll should be meaningful no vote if ever a plurality voted against the cougars on the ballot. i do not think that is going to happen, but i see that as an alternative to term limits or a system like mandatory retirement. on the third party, we tend to get -- a third party stand to rise locally with some success when people are frustrated with what the party toward doing. maine and minnesota are two states where they tend to be most powerful. but third parties tend not to break through unless they have a really big issue. the last time we had a third party breakthrough and knock out one of the third parties was the republicans in 1860 and they had a very big issue there, which was slavery. it is hard to see where a third party right now would find the terrain to sort of take off as a national party. but there is always third-party sentiment and a third parties have served very useful purposes in forcing a lot of the issues to the fore. we will always have them and it will always be hard for them to break through to the majority status. host: is that challenge by the fact that structurally it's difficult to get a 50-state presence? guest: some are hostile, others are less so. you can pick your poison in terms of what kind of democracy is more effective. a two-party system, each party tends to form its coalition before the election and voters -- democrats tend to be a center-left party and republicans when they are successful tend to be a right party. they noted death or a collection of people there will be putting in power. in multi-party systems, the coalitions tend to be formed after the election in a bargaining process. germany just got a new one in chancellor merkel. the whole process of forming a coalition of reported bargaining is less transparent in the end that our system of two parties pretty much know what you are going to cast when you cast your ballot. host: year's philadelphia, good morning. caller: my question is, how do we get the politicians to get the ceos to except these pay cuts? i mean, how do they just by telling union workers that you guys must take care of your benefits, you're celeries, but a ceo making for a hundred times what the average person makes gets to keep the money and they think that is okay? host: those ceo pay benefits to seemed to draw some republican support as well. guest: there are a couple of issues that the caller as raised. the one, there is this enormous gap between the pay of ceos and the pay of average workers. some of that is a change in corporate ethics over 30 or 40 years. we did not you start as big a gap between people at the top and your ivers line worker. most americans, most egalitarian progressives even accept that if a person successfully runs a company and create jobs, they deserve some reward for that. i do not think people hold against successful people in companies that they get a disproportionate award, but how disproportionate sure that vdacs i think ceo pay is way out of line -- should get a disproportionate reward. i think ceo pay is way out of line with what is reasonable. the other thing is that these companies were bailed of our taxpayer money. that creates a special and legitimate form of resentment on the part of taxpayers. i'm very glad to see that they have leased to some substance -- at least took some steps with mr. feinberg to monitor these promises. there is this tensionç between wanting to get the best people to run these companies so the taxpayers get their money back on the one hand, and on the other hand, they are getting paid at a level that most of us cannot even understand it is so high. trying to bring that in is a reasonable thing to start to try to do. host: that caller was next door to the other governor's race drawing national attention. "corzine comes back, but far enough?" is the headline this morning. the other opponents are chris christie and christmas daggett. guest: there was a reference to governor corzine that he lost and knows it and has turned the race into a referendum against chris christie. corzine has sat around 40% of the vote and chris christie, who is in the mid 40's is now coming down. it appears that corzine has criticized chris christie on of a bunch of ethical questions. he says the taxes are unfair, but has clearly raise a lot of questions about chris christie. the people or defecting to -- from chris christie are not necessarily going to governor corzine, but they appear to be going to the independent, chris daggett. gov. corzine is an environmentalist, kind of a moderate. the republicans realize the danger now and are going after daggett and saying he is some kind of liberal. the the thing is, if greediest should lose in va. -- if kreag tcas should lose in virginia, they're going to say -- creigh deeds loses in virginia, the republicans are going to say that president obama has got a problem. i think some democrats will not attribute coming, and providing him with a bases of support that looks to be about 40%. if they can do that, he will probably win that race. host: in these three races we have talked to ross '04, the virginia governor's race, new jersey's -- that we have talked about so far, the virginia governor's race, the new jersey governor's race -- do these the house is what you shape up before house and senate members in 2010? aha guestguest: on the republic, if for some reason the republicans sweep all three races, if they win in virginia and new jersey and some all hang on in the split vote in the 23rd district, they will say this is the beginning of their comeback. new democratic majority was only temporary for two elections and that would be a bad night for the democrats. it would not necessarily predict what is going to happen in 2010. if the democrats hold on to new jersey, they will argue that those two states tend to go against whatever the presidential result is historically. to hang on to read in one of them is a big victory. if they win in new jersey in the trade -- and the 23rd district they will declare it a good night. if creigh deeds looks like the longest shot in those races, and if they win their, their love a lot of bragging to do. i do not think democrats always appreciate how much younger voters contributed to barack obama as victory. the under 30's are the most liberal group. they're the only group of americans that i debye themselves as more liberal and conservative. but young people tend not to vote as much as older people. they move around a lot and make it difficult to register a -- for registration. we always talk about seniors being important, and they are, but young people because they are such a large group now -- there is a kind of echo baby boom out there. host: does that demographic get bigger? it grow guest: by 2012 and will loom even -- guest: it grows by 2012 and will loom even larger. host: here is ocean city, md., fred, rep]bmican caller. caller: i want to know why it has not been told about the economy, it's been misled and interpreted as a failed economy under bush when it was booming in 2006. they keep blaming bush and beating him up in the -- in the liberal media. i want to know why that has not been addressed. he had the lowest unemployment rates in history. the help of more people, african, he freed a country and give it back to the people. i did understand where he is not getting credit for that. i think somebody needs to talk about this. and in of the thing, chicago is the most corrupt city in the country. guest: let me just take the economic question, if i could. implicit in your argument here is that once democrats took over the congress, president bush was not in charge anymore. he was actually president from 2006 to 2008. your feeling of of the year regulatory policies that president bush pursued -- but also in fairness, the clinton administration pursued in some areas -- had a lot to do with financial collapse. we needed to pay more attention to the problems of the financial world drop the bush presidency. you and i could go back and forth on this sunday and maybe someday we will need and do that. -- back and forth on this and maybe someday we will do that. there's no question that many, many more jobs were produced in the clinton recovery if use certain metrics. from 2002 to 2007, that was a much less robust recovery both in terms of growth and job creation. there is a case to be made against the bush recovery and i think democrats taking over congress in 2006, i just cannot think you can say that the moment democrats to go or congress, that is when everything fell apart. they really fell apart, of course, in the fall of 2008. but there were a lot of things falling on the lead to that. host: the picture of president obama campaigning for harry reid. the headline "obama races for cash." also, a comment on twitter from james. is president obama still but rock star? and going into 2010, if his poll numbers decline, will senators want the president out at their fund-raisers as much as they have had in the past? guest: they want him other fundraisers because he can still raise them a lot of money. secondly, on james' point, if he is arguing that young voters will not turn out in 2010 the way they did in 2008, i agree with him. the question is, do they turn out in larger numbers than they have in the past? there are a lot of young voters that can be turned out without a rock star at the top of the ballot. in terms of the next round, there are two metaphors for what will happen in 2010. the republicans really liked the 1984 metaphor where health care failed, people turned on president clinton, the republicans swept to control of both houses of congress. the more normal metaphor is to 1982, ronald reagan was president, the economy was bad, 10% unemployment right before election day in 1982. the republicans took some losses, 26 seats in the house, but they still maintained control. if you asked me to get on one of those two outcomes, i think 2010 looks more like 82 than 94. the democrats could love -- suffer some losses and the economy will not fully recover, especially in terms of jobs. but i think it would take a lot for the republicans to reduce 1994. also, the 1994 republicans had a much better image as a party than the 2010 republicans do. newt gingrich was a fairly popular figure in 1994. the republican leadership is not as popular now as it was then. host: you write about the 23rd race that he andç dick armey ae the opposing candidates there. guest: there was a lot of bad blood there going way back. it was interesting to see this playing out yet again. i think newt gingrich is a very conservative figure in certain ways, but he always understood when he was speaker how much his power rested on the ability of republicans to carry districts where only moderate republicans could win. chris shays in connecticut been a classic case. that they just used to have to go moderate republicans and most of them are gone. gingrich understands how you build a coalition majority. dick armey is an unapologetic ideologue and he is up there saying he wants people only like us. the uses the term "us" and i think he will define that into a smaller and smaller number, which makes the earlier liberal democrat caller very happy. host: here is a call from washington d.c., dawn, go ahead. caller: i think this entire issue will get sidetracked by others. what do you see as a way to bring these issues backe? how do we get politics back to their everyday issues that matter to people? guest: i think it is true that a lot of us who write about politics use short and too much and we tend to talk a lot about liberal and conservative. that is a real thing to a lot of people, but there are also a lot of voters who might just be called solution is rather than liberal or conservative. -- might just be called solutionists. i think obama brand has a kind of progressive solutionist and i think that is where there's a bias on the part of the bigger electorate in favor of that. the idea that with a public plan, people would have a choice in addition to private health plans that would be organized by the government. we tend to talk about that here in the capital as an ideological question. liberals like the idea and conservatives do not. but the public plan has a lot of support in the electric from middle-of-the-road people because they are looking for another health care -- in the electorate from the middle of the road people because they're looking for another health care choice. they say, a gee, if i cannot get what i want out of private insurance, i will least have the public interest as a fallback. that is why the public plan has gained ground here in washington because a lot of politicians are looking at these middle-of-the-road voters and saying, they are not looking at this as an ideological at u.n. they're looking -- ideological choice. they're looking at this more practically. i could get this into a bill. host: maxine from ohio, go ahead. caller: i think everyone underestimates the democrats that are not staying democrats. i am one of them. and a large member of my whole family that i talk with -- and a large number of my whole family that i talk with other states, we will not vote democratic again. in ohio, i really think you're going to lose for the -- lose the governor. i voted for the democratic governor, but it has turned bad here. host: maxine, e.j. dionne has a question for you. guest: nass q. why you voted for obama the last time and what has made you the solution to a as a democrat? caller: voted for hillary. i think you'll hillary thing -- and i may be one of those leftovers -- but i never did turn back. after seeing all of that coming down the line and give the things that happened with things that he does not hold true to. we watch politics very closely. i'm watching from the children, for my grandchildren. as far as my children now, they are in their 40's, yes, they are switching, too. i am just being honest. i am retired and i'm watching all this because it will reflect -- affect them. we do have a way to change our children and help them to see things because they're so busy they do not see it. çi think that the country is jt going the wrong way. and we will not -- i cannot wait for the election. guest: you know, what is interesting is that the caller talks about this intergenerational affect. i do think parents and grandparents have a real and back on the way their children vote, but it also works the other way. you have a lot of stories in 2008 of children actually having an influence on the way their parents looked at the race. and children pushing current toward obama -- pushing parents toward obama. the caller is right that governor strickland, at least according to polls right now, has lost some ground. i think is going to be very hard for a lot of incumbent governors in 2010. the democrats hold a lot of governors chairs in states, and are not talking about ohio here. i am talking about some really read states -- oklahoma, for example, tennessee. they will have retirements and republicans have a good shot of windows. but the worst time to be a governor is in a bad economy because most states cannot run definite -- deficits and most of these governors are having to raise taxes and cut spending at the same time. that is a recipe for becoming very unpopular. you make everybody mad. it is going to be very hard to be an incumbent on the ballot. gov. strickland is a great politician, but right now i agree with the caller, i do not know how it is going to turn out, but casey has a real shot there. host: in this morning's column, crystal has a look at who you contender -- consumers the standard bearer of year. bob mcconnell, virginia candidates john boehner, michael steele, the head of the republican party, john cornyn from texas, haley barbour mississippi governor, mike huckabee, former presidential candidate, mitt romney, of course, another former presidential candidate, and massachusetts gov. tim pawlenty. and sarah palin, his number one standard bearer. are there any names you disagree with? guest: i almost never does agree with chris elizabeth -- chris salida. i do not think the republican party is going to nominate sarah palin as there was a natural candidate. i have no inside information on this, but i do not even know she is going to run for the republican nomination. she is a popular figure in a certain part of the party and is probably easier to maintain that if you're not a candidate and if you are. if you are a kennedy, you take a lot of -- if you are a candidate, you take a lot of hits. interesting, republicans -- go back to the lady in ohio. rob portman is running for the senate, a former congressman and work for president bush. if he wins that race, he becomes an important national figure. that will be a very hard for race. does see host: fit into the role of a more moderate republican? -- host: does he fit into the role of a more moderate republican? guest: is a conservative, but he has a lot of appeal to conservatives. tim pawlenty, as well. he has to -- he won the race, but he may lose something in the process of moving more to the right. he had a sort of minnesota aspect and the militancy of the position he is trying to take now does not square with the tim pawlenty of a couple of years ago. host: e.j. dionne is with us. he is a senior fellow at the brookings institution. look forward to seeing you again. in just a moment we will turn our attention to the house republican ranking member, and darrell issa, and look at the countrywide investigation and more broadly though relationship -- and more broadly, the religious between republicans and democrats there. but first, a news update. >> congress in session this week, unemployment benefits on the agenda and the senate. sent regrets are offering a bill that would extend expiring -- democrats are offering a bill that would benefits 60 weeks. republicans oppose the democrats' plans to pay for the extensions. more on the h1n1 virus this point from health and human çservices secretary kathleen sebelius. speaking earlier on nationally broadcast interviews, the secretary says the vaccine for the swine flu virus is coming out the door as fast as it comes off the production line and it is unfortunate supplies are not where officials intended them to be at this juncture, but eventually there will be enough to go round. an update on the former government scientist accused of espionage last week. court records show the store to nozette pleaded guilty to overbilling nasa and the department of defense $265,000 for kondracke work and spending the money on his personal bills. finally, the to bartenev defense has awarded nearly $30 million in stimulus contracts -- the department of defense has awarded nearly $30 million in stimulus contracts to companies that were under investigation for fraud. government investigators find they were part of larger minority-owned firm and not eligible for small business contract. the nonpartisan group project on government oversight said the case exposed as an oversight get under the $787 billion stimulus plan. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> the c-span's 2010 studentcam contest is here. $50,000 in prizes for middle and high school students. top prize, $5,000. create a five-eight minute video on one of our country's strengths or challenge the country is facing. the deadline, january 20. winning entries will be shown on c-span. greta camera and get started. go to studentcamp.org for information. represented host: tedero is set represents -- host: rep darrell issa is the ranking member on the government oversight committee. the committee begins investigation into mortgage lenders. i want to start before that, backtrack a bit to an incident in the committee last week that was posted on you tube. i want you to have a look and see what was going on. take a look at this. >> we were just asking you whether you had a conversation. if the answer is not acceptable to say hough how it was on a routine basis i cannot tell you whether we had a conversation on a routine basis. what else you talk to them about? >> as i said, have a routine conversation on a wide range of topics. >> mr. chairman, i must insist that we go to regular order. but the gentleman is not in order at this time. >> mr. chairman, the rules call for an alternating five minutes. >> the gentleman will cease. >> point of order, mr. chairman on what time does the chairman speak and ask these questions? >> the chairman has agreed to pursue for the record. >> where in the rules is that stated? can i see a copy of the rules? >> we will furnish you with a copy at the appropriate time. >> i will have you physically removed from this meeting if you do not stop. >> that was not exactly what we wanted to show, but that goes back to last may. you and then chairman and a waxman threatening to remove you from the committee. could he do that? guest: he could not. he was the one that was out of order. he was asking a series of questions after his time expired. it is kind of good to play that golden oldie, realizing it was a mistake in what you intended to play. but things changed when henry waxman left. we went from an adversarial relationship because he would not do anything unless it hurt republicans to a very different one. ed towns has been a very easy chairman to work with and positive on most issues. host: you have been after the chairman for a number of weeks in different settings to open an investigation into countrywide mortgage lenders. why? guest: this is one of those exceptions. republicans and democrats received special loans that the american public could not get. these loans had no closing costs. they were handled through a special office in california for than countrywide, now a division of bank of america. they usually got 1% additional discount over the prevailing rate. which you can imagine, a couple of hundred thousand dollars from a 1%, that over 30 years? they were loans you and i could not get. republicans believe these were intended to either get favorable legislation or cause people not to act@m!átk should have acted, such as when subprime loans were beginning to become something that was obviously got -- detrimental. and yet, the continued for several years after they should have been stopped. host: in the senate ethics committee look into this with senator dodd and others? guest: the senate ethics committee, you remember that one senator received a gold watch and said it was not against the gift ban. that is not the standard the american people expect. they want to know that when the ethics committee of both houses and the senate -- our role say we cannot receive more than $50 and cannot receive it from a corporation -- when you receive something that is worth thousands of dollars might better be available to everyone else in a similar situation where you are not supposed to get it. host: congressman towns has had a change of heart in terms of issuing subpoenas for countrywide, wells fargo and late friday you come to an agreement -- the old newspaper wrote, the move is an agreement for towns who months before -- who monthfor months against it. why did he change? guest: at first he began by saying it was not import enough. and then saying that the senate ethics committee had cleared the two centers. -- senators. we made the point that there were many more people, including people not covered by the senate house -- senate or house of the committees. the minority has the right to think some things are important over and above the chairman. and we made that point. lastly, when some democrats on the committee switched to our position, it began to be obvious that it was important the justice doing it was not enough and we needed to know what we did not know. host: you mentioned a couple of democrats switching over. did you individually lobby those representatives? did they come to you and say we agree with you on this issue? guest: overtime as i kept escalating requests for it, i had a total of six members who said if you vote i will vote with you. i needed five and i felt if i got anywhere close to five i would get more. but quite frankly, the two letters -- the two members decided to do it on their own. host: you and congressman towns have a pretty good relationship as opposed to was congressman waxman. this was posted on you tube last week. ♪ >> thank you, mr. burton, i think we now have a quorum. i believe we have a quorum, at least on it -- the republican side. host: and a look your, i guess the democrats, where they sit on the committee side. was it the republicans oppose this on you tube and why? guest: we did it because there was a scheduled markup with actual pieces of legislation. we waited for 35 minutes while they did not come out. they said there were a series of different reasons and ultimately, people, including the members of the financial services committee ran out the back door, making it clear that they had a quorum, and they should have come out but did not want to face a vote on the subpoena. host: as margot had nothing to do with countrywide, but you wanted -- this markup had nothing to do with kendra webb, but you wanted to bring a vote. guest: those are members, the committee personnel said they were unable to make a quorum because financial services conflict. our people discover that that particular report was incorrect and later revised. host: what do you want to get out of this investigation into the mortgage brokers? guest: the truth. host: we go to baltimore, md., this is louis. caller: as a republican, one of the things i think about is how these arguments are going on. i want to ask the representative two questions, and one of them is, do you believe -- and i know this might be a bit off topic, but do you believe that health care is a right? and if you believe that health care is a right, then do you believe thatç health insurance companies should charge as much as they do? or rather, do you think that health insurance companies are necessary? guest: that is a great question. it is a little off the lead in, but probably the most important when we are dealing with today. the health-care industry overall made 2.2% profit on their revenues. these are not companies that are profitable exactly. they do make a profit, but it is very clear that it is the high cost of health care that has led to the high cost of health insurance. that is the point that republicans want to make sure is understood. you do -- do you have a right not to die on the streets of the rentable illness or curable disease? absolutely, america has stood for the for a long time. is the reason that our emergency rooms take all comers, legal, illegal, injured, uninjured. -- uninsured and insured. it is not simply the interest of these the reflect the rising cost of health care. industry profits go a long way to reminding people that even if you double that to four or five or six% or 7% on, it is not that their profits are rising every year, but the cost of health care. host: richard on the independent line. caller: my opinion is that this is caused by greed. there are so many politicians from both parties that would sell their souls for their career, putting the american citizen on the bottom of the list. and i think the biggest reason for it is lobbyists being able to go to congress with billions of dollars in their pockets. just ban them, bring in the money and i think a lot of our problems will be solved. host: have lobbyists have the -- had an influence in keeping the countrywide investigation from going forward? guest: it is hard to say. personally, i think it is more the embarrassment that is what to come out for staff, for members at both current and former. most could realize how limited the dollars are that you can legally receive. but they do understand that if you succumb than that and do a lot of good for somebody -- senate -- you can circumvent that and do a lot of good for somebody. senator stevens was an example of that. those kinds of things do undermine public confidence. whether it is republican or democrat, and there are examples of both, we need to change that or the american public will not trust us. host: who is your biggest contributor? guest: that is a good question. i guess i am. i have put several million dollars of my own money into my campaign's. i am at about $11 million or $12 million of my own money. after that, there are some who have given me of to $20,000 in my elections. host: how you see this investigation taking shape? qc open public hearings? guest: -- do you see open public hearings? guest: i do, and many of the executives who hopefully will be more cooperative, i see many of them taking the fifth. we reached into the accord with german towns, and i think that was right. we send the packages to them in the subpoena. only as to members. as to staff and former members and former staff and other government officials, we will look at all the rest. if we think there is a referral to ethics, we will handle it. but otherwise, we will hand duplicate copies to the republicans and democrats so there'll be no question about who saw what. host: there is no current investigation in ethics on this issue. guest: the ethics committees, and there are really two of them in the house, we do not publicly known -- at least in the early stages -- and they are doing an investigation. there is a procedure when it becomes public overtime. obviously, this is an exception. people will know that some members, we do not know which ones, have their packets sent and essex should have time to -- [(t essex should have time to clear them or say that they have done something wrong before becomes public. people should know the name of the same time that in no other information and one of the name now in 90 days to try to clear their stuff. host: what is in these packages? guest: their religious loan packages. but we are getting correspondents and if we're lucky, they are now reported as disappeared, but we are hoping to get back of your tapes. it turns out there are audio recordings of every one of the conversations between loan officers and their clients. we have been told they have been destroyed. we are hoping that is not true. host: these recorded by the mortgage lenders themselves? guest: yes, and they existed two years ago. we are hoping that they still exist. host: calling from georgia, good morning to john on the democrats' line. caller: i would like to ask you one question. this axiom as above solo, as below, so above. we do not seem to feel like this is representing the core values of what america started out as being in this congress. based on that fact, we do not see the core of what you guys stand for when you say you are investigating these things before they happen. where were you guys before all of this happened? where were the red flags? where was the representation that represented the solid core of america? it seems as though the bottom and the top are in such disarray that there is no true ethical values in what you say. guest: your question is excellent and that is what our investigation is about, could these be ip loans have led to people on the committee -- these vip loans have led to people on the committee, to go the financial-services, but members of their staffs, could these loans have destroyed what they should have been doing? could there have been investigations or legislations occurring? we're trying to figure out what effect that had. germantown's and i have agreed on over 90% of what we do in the waco investigations -- chairman towns and i have agreed on over 90% level we do in the investigations. many of the hearings that are about us versus the bureaucracy, not about republicans versus democrats. we have to appreciate the fact that we form of an agreed and disagree. host: uc the oversight committee as aggressive -- do you think the oversight committee is as aggressive in overseeing the obama administration as it was with bush? guest: no, i do not, but with every administration they call it the honeymoon period for a reason. they have an opportunity to get their staffs together, except for those care czars. for the most part, our committees have not seen new initiatives of the obama administration that are so critical that we should investigate them immediately. we're looking at the sins of the past. a lot of what the oversight committee does is we do not make legislation. we see legislation after it failed or succeed. that is probably why we have the broadest jurisdiction in the congress because we can look at things after the fact and is it a good thing. the german towns and i get along well because we tend to -- chairman towns and i get along well because we tend to look at a mistake and say, what can we do next time? host: here is a republican caller from arizona. caller: you are one of the few members of congress that i have observed that have done what the average u.s. citizen wants to have done, congratulations. i would say to you that the lynch pin for the elections coming up in 2010 and in 2012 is going to be one thing and that is acorn. when you get done with the investigation that you are currently doing, and acorn is the place that we need to wretched that out and see all thing is taking place because those are the signs of -- the kinds of things that make the government lose all credibility. thank you for your guest: good: thank you -- thank you for your good work. guest: thank you. acorn is an umbrella for not just the organization alone, but anyç organization that takes money from the garment and it is opaque as to where it went. acorn had $5 billion in money that was in puzzled. -- embezzled. they're one of thousands and thousands of firms that should be scrutinized better to make sure that the money does not go into political activities or somebody's pocket. host: you are quoted as saying "is my goal to conduct a complete review of the mortgage companies and their current financial crisis. give us an estimation of this time that it will take. guest: i would hope that it will take 90 days total to do the paperwork, discuss our hearings and to the draft legislation. i always tell people investigations are like peeling back and onion. at some point you get to the center, but you cannot predict how many more layers are there. i would say that we are gwenn to try to do this quickly so it does not get into the political season where it will be harder for chairman towns and i to work together. host: here is joe on our independent line. caller: i have about four quick questions for the center. host: fire away. guest: he called a senator. i'm not sure i can take any questions on that. caller: congressman? guest: yes, sir. caller: why did the republicans voted against the franc an amendment for jimmy jones, the girl the current rate in iraq? -- jane e. jones, the girl that got raked in iraq? the other thing is, do you plan on voting for the unemployment extension for the people in the united states? and where was the oversight committee during bush's war crimes when he went into iraq and destroyed the country? even though we came out with a sort of semblance of democracy there. host: there's a lot there to answer, joe. guest: the first question, i do not know. the second question, the unemployment extensions are controversial because there are many ways to pay for them. we think a logical way is with existing funds that are on spent in stimulus or in tarp, not new spending. we think it should be a clean bill. if i happen to be in california with 14% or more unemployment, i qualified. and if you're one of the 4% to 6% in other areas, of 28% and not in a high unemployment states -- up to 8%, and not in a high unemployment state, you are still unemployed. should you say that they should not be covered under the extension just because they are in a state that is not that bad? if your an autoworker in california, we're closing the gm plant. you will get an expert -- you'll get extended unemployment. what if you're a worker in another state? you will not. host: is there a senate version that will push for all 50 states? guest: our goal was to vote, no, it was not acceptable wade was, i guess, we would like to have a clean extension. -- not acceptable but way it was, yes, we would like to have a clean extension. the other question, about a president going into iraq, i would like to remind people that there was a huge bipartisan vote to deal with saddam hussein some years back. why don't we investigate whether congress should be more reserved in what it grants the president in the future? should we allow the president to have war powers and not actually give him specific permission? i think the vote that was made all those years ago was a good example where we should have said to the president, you of the right to go, but the obligation to come back to lusby -- for a final vote before you go. we did not do that. that is probably the lesson learned. host: are there still issues in terms of the oversight committee -- contractors, spending? guest: the iraqis built an incredibly expensive embassy in which several people were electrocuted because of defects of design. that is a good example of where our committee continues to have oversight because all federal employees fall under our committee. host: here is joe, democratic caller. caller: the profits made by health2insurance companies, you say it was 2%? guest: 2.2%, released today as an industry average for health care companies. caller: can you compare that to the v.a. or medicare? guest: medicare, for example, has 3%, if you will, a surcharge that uses for administration. it also has by the ids only statements, the largest amount of fraud and waste a of any pro- government program -- of any government program. 10% of what it pays out our procedures that were known -- medically not necessary or never done. medicare arbitrarily says will pay -- they name a figure, but it is 70% or 80% for each procedure of what the private insurance companies are paying. that creates a situation in which the hospital -- talk to any hospital administrator. it causes cost shifting. it has large fraud and waste and does not have a real solution for our to lower the cost of health care. just the opposite, it simply crams down payment and says, we are the exclusive provider to seniors so you will take it or leave it. it is a broken system. if you think about it, president obama's solution, at least hr 3200 and its senate companion, they're talking about taking things away from seniors, not how to reduce the cost of health care for seniors. the private-sector is not much better, but we can show problems and need to be fixed. host: what are your constituents saying to you about health care? guest: what they really want is lower cost health care. as you can imagine, often, it is the small employer or the person in human resources coming up to me at a town hall meeting and they say, what are you going to do about lowering the cost of health care? they talk about malpractice reform. to a certain extent, the public is becoming very aware because doctors and health care people are telling them, we do procedures we only do because we have to do it in case we are sued and we would prefer to practice health care. the gentleman previously was talking about the v.a.. the v.a. has one thing going for it, that it really is good, that is, the v.a. and active military, their decisions are based on doctors looking over the shoulders of doctors and they do what is reasonable to do and they cannot be sued if someone is injured. they exempt themselves. host: would it make sense to move that model to a public plan? guest: what makes sense is, first, the right now, the democrats on the judiciary committee have made it possible -- have offered bills that make it possible to sue in the v.a.. if that system is a good system and if you want to go to it, are you trying to get to a canadian- style system that cross 9% of gdp -- because right now one of our problems -- as a businessman, we spend about 8% of our gdp on health care. the bills we're looking at would go up to almost 20%. if we're going to go canadian, that i want that percentage. caller: i have a question regarding the of the committee -- the ethics committee. when they do investigations on members on both sides of the house and is kept private somewhat, the public feels that if there are a couple of democrats in trouble, say charlie rangel and now with ensign with all of his things going on, that we feel that you guys sort of hold each other in checkmate or a game to negotiate how much is going to come out. what is actually going to happen to these guys? we are losing face in how you police yourselves of theiup thed it just seems like you're watching yours -- watching each others' backs and nothing is happening when it comes to nonfeasance and what have you. guest: -- malfeasance and what how you. guest: i entered congress with duke cunningham. he was a thief and is in jail. we should we make sure that of retief is in jail, particularly if they are congressman? absolutely. i want to do an investigation, including those files that come up to the ethics committee. i wanted to keep it secret, but ultimately, i thought it was important that they all be looked at. compromise in congress include taking the part that you can get today, particularly when it is 99% of what countrywide wanted to do, particularly e-mails about wanting to go after a congressman and what they intended to get by helping a congressman. what we're looking for are the e-mails talking about congressman that they may not have even gotten. what i like to make sure the ethics committee does its job? yes. i spend more time looking at 97% of the paperwork and will go back and look at the 3% if ethics does not do their job? absolutely. there were five republicans on the committee. those were chosen by republicans because it wanted them to be ruthless and we want them to be the most unreportable members when it came to any question of their ethics. -- unreportablraochable membersn it comes to any question of their ethics. for the democrats who said, some freshmen, some others, said this was an example of draining the swamp. you cannot drain the swamp if you do not know -- if you do not go to where the swamp is. in this case,do

Related Keywords

Arkansas ,United States ,Alabama ,Brooklyn ,Washington ,Gas ,Ninawáz ,Iraq ,San Diego ,California ,Oakwood College ,Connecticut ,West Virginia ,San Francisco ,Adventist Church ,Florida ,Arizona ,Torah ,Samangan ,Afghanistan ,Massachusetts ,Talabani ,Diyaláz ,Chicago ,Illinois ,Germantown ,Ohio ,Canada ,Portland ,Oregon ,Germany ,Missouri ,Atlanta ,Georgia ,Philadelphia ,Pennsylvania ,Virginia ,Michigan ,Ocean City ,New Jersey ,Washington Monument ,District Of Columbia ,Niagara Falls ,New York ,Berrien Springs ,Capitol Hill ,Maryland ,Jacksonville ,Pottstown ,New Sweden ,Maine ,Minnesota ,Delaware ,Kabul ,Kabol ,South Carolina ,Cuba ,Essex ,North Carolina ,Christian School ,Iran ,Texas ,Cleveland ,Rhode Island ,Boston ,Mississippi ,Athens ,Attikír ,Greece ,Oklahoma ,Virginia Beach ,Tennessee ,Baghdad ,Israel ,Colorado ,North Carolina Central University ,Norfolk ,Kansas ,Americans ,America ,Germans ,Afghan ,Iraqi ,American ,Canadian ,Iraqis ,German ,Christmas Daggett ,Abdullah ,John Boehner Michael Steele ,Doug Hofman ,Kendra Webb ,Kathleen Sebelius ,Alan Monroe ,Duke Cunningham ,Henry Waxman ,Joe Biden ,Ronald Reagan ,Albert ,Charlie Rangel ,Chris Elizabeth ,Debbie Stabenow ,David Ignatius ,Jimmy Jones ,Peter Marshall ,Lloyd John Ogilvie ,Christ Jesus ,John Kerry ,Chris Christie ,Martin King ,Al Qaeda ,Tim Pawlenty ,James Madison ,Marshall Harris ,Newt Gingrich ,Chris Daggett ,Timothy Williams ,Kbr Halliburton ,Chuck Schumer ,Wayne Pa ,Susan Collins ,Darrell Issa ,Thomas Lange ,Thomas Nelson ,Los Angeles ,John Kyl ,Norah Leakey ,Lisa Schultz ,Harry Reid ,Virgin Mary ,Barack Obama ,Jesus Christ ,George W Bush ,Bob Mcconnell ,Mike Huckabee ,Sarah Palin ,Menem Al Maliki ,Dick Armey ,Bo Biden ,John Cornyn ,