dollar. they are available. it's a pretty short book but he decides people don't read the constitution because they don't understand the context so his idea is to do an annotated constitutions of the book itself is the full context but for each article of the constitution he goes back and looks at the historical context into which the amendment or the article was written. he looks at the way it's been applied through history and how the court has applied it. i wish i had the book right now because he would be quick to comment because we are talking about the court's interpretation so since we know there will be inevitably another supreme court justice to be nominated and approved we will be ready to roll this out, but seth lipsky is very well-known conservative journalist and we are excited about this. it's his first book and we think it's going to get a lot of attention. >> john sherer, current publisher basic books, thanks very much. ..

>> and i am looking forward to a book about the involvement of the united states in the middle east. i read his first book of the six days of four and i higher

recommended that book. it told me things even though i live through that war against the arab neighbors of israel there are things i did not know that have happened behind the scenes. that is why it is worthwhile and that is why i think my book is one that people should listen to or read because it tells you things that you think you know, about you really do not know the full story of what the discussions were, the controversies and of the trade offs to produce legislation. people usually hear about the scandals, the end up to this and people have been poisoned cents reagan is the problem, not the solution, it but to think that government can do nothing right but a kn and it must do that affect positively millions of americans and i have tried to

show how bills that i fought for some that are very controversial were so successful and i believe the kinds of changes we are now working on with congress under the guidance under the leadership of president obama energy health-care to make it affordable to all americans and hold up the cost because the biggest cost we have under medicare and medicaid we have to bend the cost curve as we can pull down the deficit and make sure we have a more rational system government can be a force for good and it has been a force for good and i tried to point* out how congress often does the right thing that you don't hear about as you always hear about the negative side.

headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined >> host: we're joined by congressmen henry waxman chairman of the 86 u.s. just now with a new book called "the waxman report" how congress really works" thank you for joining us 81 my pleasure. >> host: how does congress really work? >> guest: i wanted to point* out government can make decisions that are so beneficial to millions of

americans and there is a lot of cynicism about congress and government. i think there is a lot of reason for it but people should realize what they don't hear about are the things going on behind the scenes on a bipartisan basis to work out legislation that will make a real difference. we hear about the scandals, the ineptitude and a whole long line we have then fed how government cannot do anything right but i have worked on bills that have made a huge difference like nutrition labeling which gives people the ability to know what nutrients they are getting when they buy different food products and empowers them to follow a diet of their own choosing or house. that was a huge fight and now we take it for granted that we have that information. or smoking warnings or no smoking on airplanes. when that was passed only by

wonder two votes i think it was four or five on the record because once it past some people decided to switch and we were told it would never work now no smoking on flights two hours or less and we did it two years with the expectation it would not work and there have been other bills like the clean air act that have been very controversial but now taken for granted one of the most successful environmental laws ever passed. they can be what we intended or sometimes better than what we intended and they can affect positively millions of people. >> host: we're talking to congressmen harry waxman days and relax men from california how did you pick, you write about eight separate pieces of

legislation and you mentioned a couple of them why specifically these bills? >> these are bills that i authored and saw through into law. they are bills that have done a chimineas amount of good. for example, we adopted the ryan white's law dealing with hiv/aids. i was chairman of the subcommittee and as we heard about a disease that was affecting gay men in new york, los angeles, no one knew what was going on but the cdc told us it was multiplying geometrically. we have a pretty good idea from the beginning of the epidemic would hit us but a lot of people said it is gay men. maybe they deserve it. there was a very low interest in the disease until i tell

the story and the book it killed rock hudson and he had aids. id remember being invited to a sunday news shows but the we don't too be bothered. it took a lot of time and a hysterical moments a very difficult o ranking republican and who was very homophobic and tried to make dealing with this disease a social issue being back against homosexuality rather than recognizing a public health issue to deal with the problem from that perspective. it took awhile before we pass the ryan white act but it is the main legislation to deal with this epidemic in the united states to provide drugs for people who were hiv-positive and strategies to stop the spread of aids and it

is an important piece of legislation. >> host: what are some of your lessons in this book of how good laws are made? >> guest: they're made often by things you don't expect. i had a call from a constituent, a young man who said to my staff%, i have to read syndrome, it is a rare disease that use a drug that helps me but it is not available in the united states but i went over seat -- overseas and day lettuce to an angry of people with rare diseases that could not get drugs made for them even if they were available little research because the drug companies looked at it as very little profit potential there is such a big group of people to buy the drugs after trying to figure out what to do we said let's get some encouragement for what was determined or for drugs or

orphan diseases it has been a tremendously successful law it has meant the difference between life and death and it but drug companies have realized it is profitable at least enough for them and to focus on the research of these products. >> host: two major of pieces of legislation of a major role in an energy reform and health care reform. >> guest: we have to recognize when you hear some of these a exaggerated claims or the consequences of the bills will do you have to put it into perspective. on the energy bill we hear how expensive it will be, it will destroy the economy, we were told the exact same thing when you're dealing with sulfur emissions coming from power plants in the midwest borat -- poisoning divorced

and the streams in the northeast and they said if you put limits on sulfur e missions it will cause some the billions of dollars we will have to go out of business. bree point* and a cap-and-trade system and said figure out the most cost-effective way to make the reductions but make them nevertheless and the reality was it was one-tenth of the cost we were being told during those hearings provide heard that over and over. and during clinton they said it would cost exorbitant amount of money but in advance of the scheduled but a fraction of the cost. we work on issues like the energy bill now and you have to keep your perspective that some of the cries of the special interests are exaggerations. i think 10 years from now if we pass the energy bill which has the goal of trying to make us more independent as a

nation from foreign oil certainly affects national security, produces more jobs because of the technology that will be developed, and reduce carbon emissions that cause global warming and serious consequences the scientists tell us they have because of that. 10 years from now people will say what was the fight all about what was the big dear? and -- atil? we pay more for health care in this country than anywhere in the world and we have 46 million uninsured and people are insured and still cannot afford health care? the system is increasing the cost so rapidly it is bankrupting the federal budget because we pay for the medicare and medicaid program so obama has stated we need to reform the system, hold down the cost and make affordable high quality health insurance coverage available to all americans. we will do that and some day

in the not too distant future people will say what was that by all about? just as they say and other countries or they have health insurance they take it for granted and cannot imagine being without it. >> host: let's hear from our callers the first is on the democratic line. >> caller: hello. what a pleasure. i am one of your biggest fans. i listen to your hearings particularly when you were growing fell lady from gsa. i doubt if the you are a great american and there is not a lot of men in the congress like you and john conyers you can really expand and speetwo issues in a clear voice. my question, i think said democratic platform for the new century is obviously healthcare, we have to reduce the cost of energy for green jobs, but i wonder if you can

clearly for all republican listeners out there you are one of the few men, i can you please explain how healthcare, energy, education is the right formula to bring this economy around and position america much better for the future? thank you. >> guest: people say where redoing these big things when we're faced with a historical recession or depression and our economy? shouldn't we wait? one obama has said and i agree completely this is the time we need legislation and these areas. people are losing their jobs in record numbers. and as they lose their jobs they lose health care coverage. while we have 46 million uninsured we're probably closer at 50 million. there is a real problem when we have healthcare tied to employment and a lot of people work hard and don't get health

care available to them because they cannot afford it and if they did they would lose their insurance as well. the sun-times to say we have to hold down the cost. it is hard if a hospital certain people show up been in recent days she emergency room the have to be taken care of you have to shift the cost to those who do have insurance whether public-private that means it if we have everybody covered it would hold down costs and if we have a system where people can choose between competing plans either private or public, h. choice and competition is good. it produces more efficiencies in the system than we need to look and see it is not very

effective because a lot of that is unnecessary and wasteful spending. >> host: on the independent line we have advanta. >> caller: good morning. i have something i like to say that i have a question. first a lot of people that listen to the "washington journal" by radio they may not notice or realize and also people that call or watch the show from the beginning they may not know that the post today her name is susan and she works for "the wall street journal". my question for

for -- representative waxman the origin of labeling for our food, i want to know where it stands? can we expect to know where our food is coming from? >> guest: i think consumers ought to have information and have the ingredients and nutrition information about the food and where the product is coming from. it may or may not be relevant but people want to know. we are working on a bill right now with food safety as a champion for this legislation is congressman john dingell who has been pushing for legislation to give the fda which has a lot of area of food safety, it has been hampered by a lack of

resources they do not have full authority to do the things we expect them to do and they have not had the leadership they needed. the new leadership that fda the group will give more money to fda to do the job of inspecting and making sure our food is safe and making sure it they can involve the food producers to make sure there is no salmonella or harmful substance in our third. it will be a plus with labeling and it is worthwhile because i think in fact, i believe in the right to know consumers ought to get the information. >> host: we have the republican line from new york or are you there? >> caller: i have two issues with energy and

commerce. have you checked out this general motors family company where their cars, all of them get between 50 and 60 something mpg? and what is the bill doing to get us off of oil? >> guest: the legislation is trying to get us off oil in a number of areas but the one of the largest uses of oil for motor vehicles. we have strong incentives for cars to use less if not in the oil we're trying to produce electric cars, hybrid cars and all of the innovations that will come about once it is clear that is the direction it will take. the president with the auto industry agreed to tighter emission standards it is based on fuel efficiency of the automobiles and the whole country is not covered by what california had which is always ahead of the rest of the

country. that is good we have to go further than that so we will be giving strong incentives and loan guarantees to the next generation of motor vehicles. the second area where oil becomes a factor is some utilities are oil birding. oil and coal are two areas when used as fuel produce a lot of carbon. in the area of coal we recognize here in the united states that we don't import it we want to use it as a cheap source of electricity, but we have got to develop a way to use call saqqara is taken out and it becomes the ninth for the environment. we're invest -- investing billions of dollars what we did in the bill with the utility's we said we will give them the allocations for the

permits to pollute that they will need so they can hold the ratepayers harmless from the increases but they still have to achieve the reductions. they can look for offsets. the farm industries produce offsets to produce the carbon that is what we need to do but they can still continue to use coal for quite a while as long as they use the carbon emissions overall we are accomplishing the environmental goal and a meantime we try to make cold liable as a source of energy. is better to use coal ban to bring an oil and it is better to have less oil in our vehicles as well as electricity and it is better to produce more oil in the united states but that is still not going to be enough because we use 25% of the world's oil now and reproduce only 8% of it.

we are clearly on a pattern of being dependent on having to import that loyal. a lot of countries are hostile to the united states. >> host: on the democratic line we have new york. >> caller: i have watched c-span for 30 years now and in this medium gives me a chance to actually speak to you as if i called your office ever have to leave a message i wait 30 days each month so i hope i will not get cut off after just one minute. first by want to talk to you about healthcare. i have a petition if people go to google and type been a search for changed its.org prescription drug benefits you

will see a petition for people to sign that they demand a revamping of medicare or a new prescription drug benefit. we want a prescription drug benefit that covers 80% of all medications. please pass this onto pete stark and nancy pelosi and the progressive caucus but the we won a prescription drug benefit that covers 80% under par to me and let the premium and deductibles under part b cover this benefit. why do elderly and disabled people have to pay two sets of premiums and deductibles just for a lousy medicare part b benefit when it should have gone into their in the first place? and without any coverage

gap, without any means test and remove the means test for medicare part b that the republicans put an and remove fell late sign up penalty of "the sopranos". it is a crime family as far as i am concerned. they should have not put the late signup penalty to force seniors and disabled people to have to sign up for that. they should remove that so that i never signed up for medicare part d and i am disgusted with "the sopranos" who have held office in one way and blocked of the last 30 years. one more thing. if people go to google and type been changed.org/single payer that will give the insurance companies a chance to sell life insurance and auto insurance and put them out of the business of selling

health insurance. they should be put out of business broker we should nationalize the insurance companies and not the doctors. >> guest: i did agree wholeheartedly with your statement about pharmaceuticals. i have been trying to get pharmaceutical coverage under medicare for the longest time. in fact, one of the reasons my book is called "the waxman report" is we produce a lot of reports when the republicans were in power and a lot of those reports were about the high cost of prescription drugs. people were angry at needed to use that congress use all of the country they found the exact same thing that seniors were paying the highest price for pharmaceuticals. if you compare those prices to what people pay and other

countries, we pay twice as much for our drugs. this gave the republicans the political idea that they decided to do a prescription drug benefit but reward the drug companies by making people buy an insurance policy. we never had insurance policies for drugs before. they created it and said you can buy the insurance policy bergamo's a time with medicare you don't buy a special policy for your doctor or another policy for your hospital care. you have a as a benefit under medicare he made by a supplemental policy for your coverage to pay for the out-of-pocket cost, but we did not have a separate insurance policy you had to buy but they created one for the pharmaceutical area that created way for insurance companies to make money and the drug companies hand windfall profits.

under medicaid under the health-care program for the poor, some of those people are also on medicare, seniors who are poor. if they are on medicaid the medicaid program insisted the drug companies give a discount to reflect the low-price that they give others. if you give the best price to others then give it to their government payment under medicates a week at a discount on the drugs for that populate -- population. the republican bill took that population that was medicaid and medicare and switch them to medicare, increased the amount of money to pay for the same drugs to the same people it was a couple billion dollar windfall for the drug companies with no explanation just a windfall. these insurance companies get rebates from different drug

producers but they don't pass those on to the customers then of course, repay a certain amount for your pharmaceutical coverage, if you have a high amount of drug costs to end up with the doughnut hole suddenly no payment or help from anybody have to pay all of the cost of the drug until you get to a certain level then that the government helps that is all within the course of one year. it is a very efficient way to cover pharmaceutical coverage it should have been in medicare benefits and people should have covered it under the medicare program is self and it would have reflected under the:pay and the part to be premium and we could have negotiated the premium. when you buy a drugs for that population you think you have a buyers' discount as opposed to you or i. the government could negotiate a lower price but instead that

republican bill prohibited the government from negotiating prices. that meant the only ones negotiating prices for the insurance companies to do not have the strong enough incentive to hold down the cost and the drug companies who made a bundle on this program and the idea was to help people pay for drug costs not just make the drug companies richer. >> host: independent line we have to access. >> i have three real quick questions for about how come we don't drill? we have oil everywhere. number two how many people tell me covered under in this healthcare plan of the 47 million are uncovered? how mini are illegal? or don't want insurance because they don't think they need it? the third question, who was that it that hired the speed

readers? >> guest: hours to the drilling there is no prohibition against drilling we did have one offshore and that prohibition expired and president bush refused to continue it for of the oil companies want to drill off the coast they are free to do so. i think there is a problem in doing that is certain areas because they are beautiful resources and they should not have oil tanks or oil rigs spoiling the natural resources of the ocean but put it in perspective, we as a country used 25% of the world's oil. we now produce 8% so that means we obviously have to import more. if we drill more maybe we can get at 10 percent that we will still have to import oil

purpose seems to be the sensible thing is to use less oil and we have to figure out ways to do that. we need more domestic production but more importantly we the vehicles that use less oil in the future and in that way we will become less dependent on those countries from which we have to bring in the oil. the second question about the millions of people that are uninsured, most of those uninsured people are working people. if you are under poverty and not working you are more likely than not on medicaid which is the health-care program for the very poor but if you were working and your employer doesn't offer coverage because they cannot afford it, then you have to buy a policy on your own. if you have a pre-existing condition, forget it. nobody will give you insurance. you're elderly the insurance company will charge you an

exorbitant amounts. the people we're talking about for the most part are working people a lot of those people are no longer working and they had insurance and are no longer working half loss insurance. so now 46 of 50 million and some people have insurance that does not cover their needs when they get sick. we have a problem for the uninsured and a bigger problem with health care costs continuing to go up and up which means when paying for medicare or medicaid under government expenditures, we go into deep deficits to do it. we have to bring the system together and hold down those cost. you asked about the speed reader. there is a procedure and there are a lot of procedures in the house that we talked in our book that a relatively unknown. the one procedural way for an opponent of legislation to stall it is to insist on the bill re-read by think that

dates back to the time in this country when some congressmen did not know how to read so each member has the absolute right to have the bill read it to him or her. because of that absolute right any member can assist two re-read by a clerk. but we had a bill last year to provide child health insurance to the states. it had such strong bipartisan support and finally signed but when bush was in charge he said he would veto the bill. why? two reasons. one, why should we provide health care coverage for kids? they can always go to the emergency room. that doesn't make sense because that is the most expensive place to get health care service. the other argument was so astounding. he said why should taxpayers

have to subsidize children whose parents can afford to buy them a private health insurance policy? think about that. what is somebody made the argument why should the taxpayers have to subsidize and the public education of a child whose parents can afford them to go to a private school? that is if if we don't have an interest of them getting an education don't have an interest of children getting health care when they need it? we got that child health care bill passed, but when we tried to get it passed in committee the republican leader of that committee insisted the bill re-read and it took so long to read the bill that we finally said we cannot complete the work of the committee we went right to the house floor without the committee acting for the we feared that would happen on the energy bill because any member could insist on there reading and we knew it would take a long time to read this bill so we hired

a speed reader. he said he could do 100 pages per hour and to read a 900 page bill would take nine hours. i don't think that is a very good use of congressional time. i told republican leader, let's not go through that and offer amendments and debate the amendments let's get into the policy and not try to delay. we agreed and we did not have to read the bill but we hired a speed reader just in case. and we were both curious has it to how well he would really do. we ask him to read part of an amendment that was being offered because not only can you require the bill two re-read every amendment and some of those can be 900 pages. 1,000 pages. we said we will not make camry the whole amendment but let's start off to see how well he does as a speed reader procure

this guy was terrific he read faster and clearer than anybody had ever seen before. that is a skill that i wish i had. i wish i could read quickly and i wish i could throw my voice so people it did not know it was i that was talking. but we did try amount and we were very pleased with the job he did. but i was even more pleased we did not have to require him to read the bill. thanks for your question i hope i responded 57 rehab a health-care question that says why don't you pass a bill for less expensive prescriptions? >> guest: we should require the government negotiate better prices with the pharmaceutical companies and as a results the government and the consumer would pay less for those drugs. we ought to have less prices charged by drug companies to

the consumers who are individuals or businesses and the best way to get lower drug prices is to have generic drugs competing. that is a result of the bill that orrin hatch and i authored in the '80s to provide for generic drugs. those of the same drugs as the brand name drugs except when the patent is over they can compete and when you have competition, it lowers the price. we are now trying to get an approval prices -- process for the biotech drugs but some of these are so expensive they could be 100,000 or $500,000 per year. imagine if you don't have insurance coverage. most people could not do it and it could be the difference between life and death. if we get competition it is not the exact same drug as biotech but fda can assure us it is just as safe and

effective as the original drug i think will help bring down prices. that is the best way to hold down drug prices to negotiate a good price for a large group and get competitive drugs so you can say i will go to your competitor and pay adolor price that will guarantee both will their price two key business. >> host: we're talking to representative waxman chairman of house energy and commerce committee let's go to columbus, ohio. >> caller: could morning. i am nervous i usually don't talk to anyone as powerful as you are. i have a question about the monster cap-and-trade bill. i hope he will tell me this is not and the bill that if i want to sell my home or anybody in this country wants to sell their home they have to have it inspected and brought it to a certain energy code before it can be put on

the market and even if i start the process and they decide they want to change the code or add to the code is that i cannot sell it until i match that code? i wonder if these are facts or not? >> guest: these are not facts and i agree they would be very burdensome and interest of. we have done is give tax credits for people who want to make their homes more energy efficient. if you want to, we help you do it. we also have a rating for newer homes that are built. so there is a great team of highly efficient it is. we do not require it too but if you wanted to buy a new warehouse that was more energy efficient, it would have a reading it to that effect just like a lot of appliances have

a gold star of some sort that tells you coefficient that product is. people are interested to know when they buy something new it is more e fishkill but we don't require people to buy more e efficient washers or dryers but we do require new appliances to meet the tighter standards so when you go buy that he will reduce the amount of energy that goes into it. but nobody will tell you you can sell your home that you have to do something to make it more energy efficient. that is not part of the legislation we have adopted. >> host: the next all on the democratic line from miami. >> caller: thank you for our having the congressmen waxman. i just want to comment on the health care option. i have heard a lot of republicans complained that

people will not have the option or be forced into the government sponsored plan sometimes it is natural and economics and i personally see nothing wrong with that. i commend you for doing something it has been a long time coming. i have a question you mentioned it generics. how long does it take for these medicines to be able to come on the market? >> guest: for a traditional medication and they have a patent for 20 years, they get additional time for a period where the fda to get approved because they cannot market the drug until it is approved so sometime is restored if it is

a new breakthrough drug they can get as much as five years and exclusivity after that is over can a generic drug go to the fda for approval and after they are approved, then we have the abbreviated process they have to show they are the same as the other drugs they can go on the market. we save billions and billions of dollars with a generic drugs people would rather get generics because it will save money. the benefit managers and pharmacists to encourage people to use the generic drugs. it is a good deal for the consumers. the brand-name companies already have their market place because they have been out there with the monopoly for a long time. that is traditional medication but the biotech drugs have no competition they have a monopoly. they don't face generic competition and at all. that is what the legislative

fight is all about in that area. we suggested they have five years as well as a exclusivity after their patent is up and time is restored for the fda approval process. those companies say you cannot make it then they said yes you can make a generic but we should get 214 years after all that time an additional 14 years of exclusivity which means a monopoly. if you have a monopoly you have the ability to charge the highest price and if that is the only drug that can keep you alive he will figure out a way to pay that price but sometimes people just can't. we want a generic competition for biotech drugs and it will not be the same. that have to go through a process to determine the

generic version of the biotech drug is just as good, not just the same drug but just as good because oftentimes the biotech drugs dealing with the process itself and that process has to be duplicated but then they have to establish to the fda scientific approval it is it is just as safe and effective. but it cannot be substituted for a small molecule drugs it is a big fight going on write now with billions and billions of dollars are at stake. people frightened about change i find there are often frightened about changes especially with interest groups come in and tell them to be frightened. they hear their cries of the

group's of the status quo. in this book that i know many viewers of this program will want to buy a and read "the waxman report" how congress really works" we talk about some of the fights we had and they are not much different than the fights we have now where there is a lot of controversy and a lot of people objected to the changes. once they were adopted and we looked back at it it was as if what was that fight all about? why should we not even take for granted we can get the food label information on the products that we buy? people can understand why was there ever a controversy about stopping smoking on airlines? there was a big struggle to adopt the bill by a bitterly two or three votes on the house floor to experiment with no smoking on airlines flights two hours or less and we tried

it for two years to see if it would work but a lot of people said it won't work for govett changes to bigger radical an alert smokers will go crazy. we heard all of these things and the clean-air act we wanted to stop acid rain from sulfur emissions and we were told it would bankrupt the industry but instead it was accomplished at one-tenth of the prices we are being told would be the cost for achieving those results. keep in mind when you hear about health care or energy legislation, i believe when we pass these bills people will say what took us so long to make sure every american has access to reasonably priced high quality insurance coverage? just as they do in other countries. what is a big deal? why does united states spend more money on health care and have a system where the cost keep going up and so many

people don't have access and people go without the needed medical care? people don't understand and other countries and some day we will look back and say it is a peculiar time in history i am glad we're not there anymore. >> host: the independent line. >> caller: how was it going? >> host: how are you? henry waxman. >> caller: politicians just tried to please people to get reelected instead of doing the right thing. how can a congress man from a state and a fiscal crisis advocate increase federal spending? >> guest: i would disagree with your premise that all politicians are refusing to do the right thing because they're facing reelection and in the house every two years. there are some who are afraid of their shadow and others are very courageous and anxious to do the right thing. most members of congress i think one to do the right thing. they want to pass laws that

will help constituents. we may disagree on how to do it by sikh most people want to do the same thing. republicans want to be ensured. we have different approaches to how we accomplish that goal but i hope that the end of the day we are together. we may not, but oftentimes what you don't see when you hear about the scandals of politicians is oftentimes these politicians are talking to each other and trying to work things out and often do work things out but it is not a new story. when a compromise is reached unless it is a big fight democrats versus republicans usually does not make attention especially with somebody is low-fare who is married. you ask me from california how can i be an increase in taxes? what we need more than anywhere else our jobs. we will not get jobs by

staying still. we will get jobs by trying to go into the future and deal with the concerns that we have for our children and hurting a planet that would not be polluted by carbon and offers a tremendous opportunity to produce new jobs, millions of new jobs and billion of new investment in energy efficient technology. it is the kind of thing you have to recognize you just can't stay where you are. you have to reformer. we want to accomplish three things for you tell me if they're worth doing. less dependent on oil from saudi arabia and venezuela and producing the world market that makes iran rich enough to produce nuclear weapons share. to produce more jobs to give incentive for the new technologies that surround it and use the ideas that are not even do but make sense but would not be done unless you

provide the economic incentives. third, reduce the carbon emissions that do harm to our planet, our scientists are telling us with the overwhelming consensus there is global warming. because of man-made pollution and it has consequences that are dire and very serious if you want to minimize it. very, very serious those of the goals we are trying to achieve and i am proud to work in those areas as a californian and american. >> host: from twitter asked mr. waxman said he doubts electric rates will double. >> guest: they will not. we have worked very carefully to make sure the electricity sector will provide the allocations to the utility's so they don't have to pay for them and therefore they will not be able to pass on those

cost to the consumer and they will have to reduce the carbon reductions but they have to be done very cheaply by buying offsets. the agricultural industry is looking forward to because a lot of those offsets are on the form and how they produce more efficient ways that will reduce carbon that can become a market for those that have to make sure they are achieving cut carbon reduction >> host: let's go to republican in line from pennsylvania at. >> caller: a good morning mr. waxman and c-span i want to congratulate c-span on this fantastic program at the "washington journal" is a fantastic program and despite what you're earlier caller said and criticized, i think they should be very thankful

we live in a country where we can discuss these issues objectively and have on eminent guess like mr. waxman. >> guest: thank you. i agree. >> caller: hold on please. >> host: i think we lost him >> caller: thank i can get my question and. it appears to be even with the fight between the drug companies that have the fight, i forgot my eighth thought that a quick. let me go on to my next question, the vitamins, people that used vitamins they wanted to outlaw that's then said they were not a good for people because a the fda had not checked it.

but what really bothers me is how dr. it costs or the pharmaceuticals advertise their drugs whether they're good for you are not through the television for about there are many people better gullible and will get the drugs and i know of a personal friend of mine that tried at the drug and in the side effects were worse than the medication. will that continue where they can advertise their medication through the air waves and to make money that route? and when you stop other people from doing people from going overseas or going to canada to fill prescriptions cracks. >> guest: if it were up to me i would not allow those advertisements on television. a drug can only be purchased when prescribed by the doctor so what the doctors and for the future use of their medicine which they try to do but to get the public to see all of these happy people

using pharmaceutical products is increasing the market because all doctors do not want to say no when the patients ask for the drugs but sometimes asking for drugs they should not use and suffering from the side effects. there was a situation where the drugs are heavily advertised as soon as they are approved and sometimes we do not fall the awful consequences of large numbers of people using a drug. half a widely used drugs may cause problems and we should monitor that post approval period, they should restrict the advertisements. i guess the reality is the prevailing view the first amendment allows drug advertising to consumers. i don't believe that.

i think commercial speech is different and political speech for i have a different point* of view but i am in the minority. i thought certainly when a new drug was approved for three months or six months there could be a restriction on the amount of advertising. there was a drug that was promoted so heavily and it turned out to be so harmful people using and massive numbers before we realized the harm that it did. i propose that. i have the drug companies against me, i had newspapers and magazines because they wanted advertisers, broadcasters, nob ody wanted to entertain the idea of any limitation on spending money to get consumers to buy drugs even if it is a possibility. i am sorry to say we will continue to push that a future time the right now it does not look like the best time but up to me i would not have those ads to make it look like you are happy to be using a drug.

in fact, last week i had a medical problem we still don't know what it was. i was hospitalized and when i came into the hospital i was barely awake. somebody said why is your needs 13? i thought he was making a joke and i said i have restless lay negative sentral. i don't think there was that i will hear from people now but i thought it was a disease we created from eight drug company that wanted to sell a drug but i thought i was making a joke when i looked at my record they said he plans to have restless leg syndrome i know there is such a thing but how the. but a lot of people start thinking they have medical problems because they have seen too many of these commercials. i don't think that does the

public a lot of good answer in a makes a good drug company richard. >> host: we have the independent line from virginia. >> representative waxman good morning. from someone who does have restless leg syndrome. [laughter] it does exist. absolutely it is a terrible thing and i achieved that through a back in reaper -- injury. talking about medicare and medicaid and the prescription drug plan and the medications to push heavily the generics. on the medications i take there are two that are brand names that are very expensive and i appreciate taxpayers taking care of me but i have already had to switch insurance companies a couple of times because they stopped covering them because they are

so expensive but fortunately i can switch companies when 92. -- 92. there are differences with brand-name drugs and generics and certain circumstances. you miss the question as to covering people with insurance. with illegal immigrants. i do understand that is a tough issue but it is important to a lot of people to understand what will happen in that circumstance. part of the immigration bill is for them to bring family members oversee you can't extrapolate the one that the answer that i do want to talk about that subject. some of what we are going to

do in this legislation is subsidize low income people so they can buy insurance otherwise it would not be affordable if you are below poverty were eligible for medicaid. but we're not going to make subsidies for undocumented aliens. there is not support in congress to do that although people feel they are here illegally and therefore they should not be subsidized. but there are people here illegally that do have private insurance that they pay for and they will continue to private insurance we do not subject to see if your legal when you buy a product. we will not subsidize anybody or let them go on medicaid. we do allow people even if they are here illegally or undocumented aliens if there is at the auto accident or emergency to go to hospital we allow any h b