intelligence. senator grassley is the ranking member of the senate judiciary committee. they have continued to demand information from the department of justice and have been stonewalled at every turn. senator chambliss and his colleagues on the intelligence committee have made perfectly reasonable requests consistent with the committee's oversight responsibilities related to the obama administration's guantanamo bay detainee review task force. senator grassley, on the other hand, from his position as the ranking republican on the judiciary committee on which i serve, has requested documents concerning serious allegations that the bureau of alcohol, tobacco and firearms and explosives knowingly allowed straw madam chairmanners to buy firearms which were then provided to criminal drug cartels in mexico. it's later been reported that at least two of these weapons were later found at the scene where a border patrol by the name of

brian terry was murdered. i fully support senators chambliss and grassley and regret that the administratio administration -- that the repeated requests for information that were well within the purview of the oversight responsibilities of congress have been unreasonably rejected. mr. president, when a minority in the senate is denied the usual and customary information that's necessary for us to do our job, we are left with very few options. one of those options is to force resolution by exercising our rights as a minority to block cloture. that's not necessarily a permanent move. it means debate continues on the nomination and you can't come to a vote. but i would submit that if rational minds would come together on, senator grassley, senator chambliss could get the information that they and their committees are entitled to and discharge their oversight responsibilities and we could come much closer to resolving the differences on this particular nominee.

mr. president, i yield the floor and i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

senator from iowa. mr. grassley: i ask that the calling of the quorum be suspended. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. grassley: i ask for the regular order. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion: we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate, hereby move to bring to a close the debate on

the nomination of james michael cole of the district of columbia to be deputy attorney general, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, of the mandatory quorum call has been waeufpltd the question is -- waived. the question is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of james michael cole of the district of columbia to be deputy attorney general shall be brought to a close? the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll. vote:

vote:

vote:

vote: vote vote:

vote: the presiding officer: on this vote, the yeas are 50, the nays are 40. three-fifths of the senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted in the affirmative, the motion is not agreed to. the majority leader. mr. reid: [inaudible] the presiding officer: the motion is invoked. mr. reid[inaudible] the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: i ask unanimous

consent that the foreign relations committee be discharged and we now proceed to s. res. 153. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 153, recognizing the 25th anniversary of the chernable nuclear disaster. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged and the senate proceeds. mr. reid: ask unanimous consent that the amendment at the desk be agreed to, the resolution as amend be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. reid rye i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow morning, tuesday, may 10. following the prayer and pledge, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, the time for the two leaders be reserved for that use later in the day, the following any leader remarks the senate proceed to period of morning business and there until 5:00 p.m. with senators permitted to speak for up to ten minutes each, with the first hour divided between the leaders

or their designees, with the majority controlling the first 30, the republicans controlling the next 30. the senate phrase 12:30 to 2:15 p.m. tomorrow for the weekly caucus meetings. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. reid: mr. president, i believe there's no further business to come before the senate. therefore, i ask that it adjourn under the previous order following the remarks of senator isakson of georgia. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from georgia. mr. isakson: mr. president, i rise hon a point of personal privilege to commend the gentleman from georgia mr. keating hatcher. 25 years ago when i worked with my father, my father, among other things, was the past president of the georgia association of realtors. i remember one afternoon he came in my office and he said, son, we just hired someone today that's going to be special. hires name is keith hatcher. i want you to look him up the first time you get a chance. a week later i met keith. i was then a member of the georgia legislature. showed him around a little bit.

he became the assistant to john coverage the hav venerable representative of the georgia realtors. i knew he was going to a great one and great one he has been. in his 25 years representing the georgia association and landowners and homeowners around our state, he's fought hard for limitations and curbs on the power of eminent domain, fought hard for lower taxes and transfer taxes, fought hard for landlord-tenant laws. he's worked day in and day out for the realtors of our state and has done in in the most professional and comprehensive way anybody could possibly do t he has got another great story to. he face add significant health hazardrd a few years ago. beefs to lose a kidney and he could have lost his life. but he went through a transplant program in birmingham, alabama. the transplant was successful. he rehabilitated himself. today he works as hard he's did before the injury but as w welle works as a member of the board

of the national kidney foundation and supports the transplant program so that others will have the same care that he z so this week if the realtors come from town from georgia and i think every other state in the union, to talk to the members of the senate will laws that affect their descraindz their profession, the one from georgia will be led by keith hatcher, as he has for the last 25 years, he will be a voice for home oarm, a voice for wide distribution ownership of land which makes the united states of america the most unique country of any on the face of thernlg. and eu78 pleased to commend him today on the celebration of his 25th anniversary representing the georgia association of realtors. i yield back my time. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.

quorum call: a senator: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from ohio.

mr. brown: thank you. mr. president. i ask unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer:. mr. brown: thank you, mr. president. yesterday across this country we celebrated mother's day, marking the contribution of mothers across our country. two months ago the health of tens of thousands of expectant mothers and their unborn children was threatened by a drug company putting profit over public health. two months ago there was justified public outrage that the cost of a drug hormone, a projest roan to prevent premature births went from approximately $10 a dose, 20 doses are needed through the course of a pregnancy, to $1,500 a dose. the entire course of the 20-week treatment therefore was about $200 three months ago. two months ago it went to $30,000. from $200 to $30,000.

this was a once affordable and common treatment to help women facing high-risk labor. i visited toledo's children hospital, metro health in cleveland and saint liz berth's center in -- saint elizabeth's center in youngstown to hear about how the price increase affects them. patients explained with twhas like to rely on this progesterone. the risk was explained to health if it was no longer accessible. medicaid directors worried about what such an exorbitant increase would mean to stretched budgets. colleagues and i began to ask questions about how and why the increase happened in the first

place. we're concerned about how private companies abuse the f.d.a. approval process or manipulate existing rules to shortchange consumers while companies reap massive windfall profits. that's especially so because in addition to fixing such a high cost of the drug this company, k.b. pharmaceuticals, sent a letter to pharmacies, those pharmacies that make their own progeste rone in this case. further solidified k.b. pharmaceutical's monopolization of the market. market monopolization, outrageous prices. all the while pregnant mothers are left without the critical medicine their doctors prescribe for them, either taxpayers foot the bill, insurance companies foot the bill driving the price up, or women simply do without,

increasing the number of miscarriages, increasing the number of low birthweight babies, increasing the cost to taxpayers and increasing the heartache in mother after mother and father after father. fortunately, in an unusual response, unusual in the sense that this case was so dramatically outrageous and unbelievably greedy on the part of k.v. pharmaceutical executives, the f.d.a. did something it normally doesn't do. it asserted its authority. it made clear it would not enforce k.v. pharmaceutical's cease and desist order. what was k.v.'s response after the f.d.a. refused to enforce the cease and desist order therefore allowing pharmaceutical companies to keep producing this progeste rone. it reduced the price, remember it was $10 times 20. take a shot every week for 20 weeks during the preg unanimous

seufplt it was $10 a dose. they raised it to $1,500. you know what they did after the f.d.a. and a small number of senators pushed them -- embarrassed them in public. they brought the price down to $690 a dose. it went from $10 when compounding pharmacies were doing it to $1,500 down to $690 as if they are doing america's woman a favor. that means instead of it being $30,000 for the whole cost of the pharmaceutical, the 20 doses, it would be about $15,000. on top of that k.v. pharmaceuticals did what companies whose hands are caught in the cookie jar always do. they hired high-powered d.c. lobbyists to fight for its rights, its exclusivity for this drug, trying to prevent the critical work of compounding pharmacists. i agree with the drug companies generally that they need to recoup their investment. i want america's drug companies

to do the boldest, most innovative, most progressive research in the world, and i want them to make a profit doing it so they can afford to do it and keep doing it. they should reflect the amount of r&d required to bring treatments to market, the cost of manufacture, the cost of their distribution. but in the case of this progesterone, the case of this compounded pharmacy, this pharmacy compound, taxpayers in this case through the national institutes of health funded initial research, continued to fund critical research on premature births. k.v. pharmaceutical, they didn't do the research. they bought the exclusive rights to a monoply by reimbursing another company, contracting with them that actually conducted the clinical trial costs needed for f.d.a. approval. something is very wrong when a company with limited r&d investments can grossly overprice a drug that in its absence virtually increases, virtually guarantees an increase

in premature birth. think of the greed involved here. $10, they paid some number of millions of dollars to do a clinical trial which was a good thing. they then brought the price from $10 to $1,500 times 20, again, with what the number of, the number of doses that people need in their treatment. they would have, an initial investment of less than $200 million, they the first year would have reaped over $3 billion in revenue. that's the kind of numbers they were operating on, as if that's fair. when a company uses taxpayer-funded research to produce a drug so important that it reduces infant mortality and birth defects, that company should also take on the responsibility for pricing it in a reasonable manner. prices should never be inflated particularly on a public health drug where this company did not do the basic foundational research. all it did was pay for clinical trials that didn't prove much more than we already knew.

companies should never be allowed to inflate prices of a public health drug to reap massive profits. nor should the f.d.a. approval process ever be manipulateed to achieve that same end, which it was. while balancing corporate earnings and societal benefits -- and i understand the balance and want the drug companies to continue to invest and move ahead, while they can be challenging balancing corporate earnings and societal benefits, --. i'd like to close with a story about why all this matters. not too long ago, last month i guess it was early april, i was at port columbus international airport about to fly to washington when karen torino, whom identify never met before, walked he -- whom i'd never met before, walked up to me to share

a story. she sent me this letter. i met you at the columbus airport with my husband and our 17-month-old son. i wanted to say thank you for the work you're doing to make the progeste rone shots affordable again. i prematurely went into labor at 24 weeks. i had an emergency c-section. tyler was born at 9:59 weighing 1 pound, 10 ounces. thad went to be with me since i was recovering there surgery. he called me the next morning and told me the worst news a new mother can hear. there was nothing more that could be done and tyler would pass away. my mother-in-law took me to hold tyler for the first and last taoeufplt it was devastate -- last time. it was devastated. i worked with authorities to raise awareness on what we can do to help premature births. after i became pregnant with

riker i was monitored closely. i started shots at 16 weeks which continued for 36 weeks. she had shots for 20 consecutive treatments, one a week for 20 weeks. i'm convinced these shots allowed me to carry the pregnancy to term. understand when a doctor sees someone -- when a doctor sees someone like karen who has -- who has had a pregnancy like she had where a baby was born that prematurely, that doctor understands a progesterone can make a huge difference in carrying her baby to full term. rye kerr was born at 38 weeks, my halloween baby, she writes. my husband is a fighter. i'm an attorney. we look forward to more children in the near future but the cost of this shot concerns us greatly. we experienced the horrible pain of losing a child.

no mother or father should have to go through this pain. she writes signed sincerely karen, thad, r*eu -- and riker. today is karen's birthday. i thank karen for sharing her story and to to patients in tolo and youngstown who have spoken out about this. i'm optimistic we can continue to find ways to ensure that the majority of women in this country will still have access to affordable versions this have critical lifesaving injection. it shouldn't take public outrage. it shouldn't take congressional action. it shouldn't take the f.d.a. altering a policy it normally doesn't alter for a company to do the right thing. mr. president, you know in the state of oregon with the unemployment in your state, the unemployment in my state, the problems we have as a nation on 0 so many levels that this is

particularly outrageous, because this is a public health, this progesterone is a public health pharmacy compound that has worked and meant many more women will have safe births with a growing healthy child, contrasted to if they don't have the opportunity to get this progesterone at a reasonable rate, at a reasonable price, we know what happens then. rest assured, mr. president, we'll keep up the outrage and we'll continue to move through congress if that's what it takes to get this progesterone at an affordable price. it is an outrage what k.v. pharmaceuticals did. i applaud f.d.a. for changing their policy to make it more accessible. i ask k.v. pharmaceutical to again come to the table instead of lobbying congress to get their way and get a huge amount of money on a relatively small investment. i ask them to work with us so we

can make this very important pharmacy compound accessible to all american women whose doctors prescribe it to them. mr. president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: under the previous order, the senate the previous order, the senate

from today's washington journal, this is just under 45 minutes.ig >> joining us at the c-spanll cable, carroll doherty, research center for the people and the te press.ciate dire he's the assistant to director there to talk to us about a new studyctor. a new study just came out saying

that voters are more deeply divided. we want to address you to a "washington post" article on that very issue from friday. host: what is the major finding of this study and how people are divided along political lines? caller: -- guest: people being more consistently conservative, liberal, and independent voters have strong positions on a number of issues, just not consistent in a liberal or conservative way. independents are the wild card group of american politics.

host: in the research that you did, what is making the middle more divisive than it used to be? caller: -- guest: people are rejecting party labels more than ever. host: so, subgroups within the middle, within the center, are less defined by republican ideology or democratic ideology? host: on some key issues they do associate with the party. republican groups, one thing they have in common with core republican groups is a deep criticism of government. but of other issues, libertarians, very tolerant of acceptance of things like homosexuality. host: among the growing segment

of americans identify with neither party, they call themselves independent, there are fewer moderates. many in the middle hold strong ideological views. the study concluded that three groups in the center of the apology have very little in common aside from their avoidance of labels." tell us about these books -- groups. guest: we have those that are critical of government, and then we have the post-modern liberal- leaning groups, agreeing with that the democratic party (some issues, but not necessarily of the role of government. host: the disaffected of the right, is that the tea party?

guest: 70% of staunch conservatives, they are associating with the party, although the libertarians also include tea party supporters. host: we are talking about a study put out by the pew research center. give us a call, the numbers for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. you can also send us messages using e-mail and twitter. our first call comes from colorado. patrick, an independent line. caller: good morning. i have been thinking about this divide this morning. it appears to me that this is no accident.

the political system that we are living in today, there is quite a bit of effort that goes into creating a wedge issues and controversy. aggravation of all kinds. host: carroll doherty? guest: that may be true, but there are also big issues that divide the public. significant issues facing the country like how to deal with the deficit, the appropriate role of government, this is what we will be talking about over the next year. host: over the next 40 minutes or so we will be talking about the political divide. if you want to get involved according to research center criteria, go to the web site and you will find this quiz to

identify your political topology. select one response from the prepared statements. if neither statement is right, choose the response that comes closest to your view. take the quiz, see how it turns out, it might change how you identify yourself, politically. republicanacuse, wha line. caller: one thing i have noticed about politicians, it is not the tea party, it is the establishment politicians who have been there for years and have rejected any form of change. the people that have already been established. without solving that problem, we will not be able to move forward. host: with that the tea party

this year, we saw a clear rejection of the status quo. that is continuing today. some of the struggles republicans are getting their own nominee, none of these people have governmental experience. it is a sign that people do want change on the republican side. host: is there something in the poll that points to which group, center, right, left, appreciates the government service more than other groups? caller: -- guest: liberals are still hanging in there with government. they support a strong government safety net and appreciate government performance, which is unusual these days. host: sandy, you are on "washington journal." caller: thank you so much for c-

span. down here in the hills of north carolina, it appears to me that the biggest abide is being caused, nurtured, and fostered by a deeply religious system that is trying to go back to a time. guest: both parties are divided by social views and religious views. typically the democrats are the ones who have their own debates over gay marriage, but now there are republicans as well. there is a libertarian group that supports abortion rights and is evenly split on by a marriage, putting them out of

step with the republican coalition. host: andrew, independent line, you are on "the washington journal." caller: my name is andrew. host: go ahead. caller: i was a rescue worker of the world trade center, developing two cancers, pst, i need my health coverage. people are trying to cut our health coverage. our medicare. as far as i can see, people that would vote for anyone that would us, they areis to wa pretty stupid people. i will say that out loud. that would try to hurt the working people, the middle class. host: i would -- andrew --

caller: i would fight and die for the united states -- host: you are calling on the independent line. do you find yourself leaning center-left, center-right? caller: i do not know. i feel that we need someone else running for the president. do you know who i really like? i'd like donald trump. host: we will leave it there. credo, pa., will be with us in a second, but first let's look at the numbers supplied by the research. this one with the headline "republicans different attitudes towards business, environment."

host: how do you explain these huge differences? guest: there is a real big divide. these are core republican groups and these are basic issues. it does not mean that these mainstream republicans are going to go elsewhere, but they really differ with hard-core conservatives on business.

on the environment, that is a bit of a surprise. main street republicans, they are not quite as staunchly conservative. there are a few differences between those groups reflected in those attitudes. host: st. joseph, missouri -- well, we do not seem to have st. joseph, missouri up. angela, go ahead, republican line. caller: how are you? host: fine. caller: the problem is that we had decades of indoctrination in our schools with marxism, socialism, liberalism, half of this country is blinded by the allies and the manipulation of the democratic leaders in washington. what we have got here is a fight

for our future and whether we will be living under a totalitarian government or living a constitution. i became politically wise when health care passed. that is what woke me up. i fight every day to wake people up to the lies that the left uses to destroy the republicans. thank you. host: that seems to go along with the numbers that we have here regretting the intensity gap between the base, how they feel about the president abbas job performance. -- president's job performance. guest: i think there is a little bit of disillusionment among democratic supporters, his strongest group of supporters.

you see it on the healthcare bill. conservatives are saying overwhelmingly that it will be bad for the country. only about 40% of liberals, unqualified positive impact on the country. so there is a gap there. host: why is there not as strong solid support among liberals for the president and administration, as there seemed to be strong, solid disapproval from conservatives? guest: the economy is still rocky, no doubt. the president has made some tough decisions that has frustrated his own base as well. host: st. louis, carol. democrat's line. you are on the line. caller: he said he thought the tea party was just for change. i think they were just wanting

to change the democrats being in control. that is why i think they are definitely all republicans. guest: there is a partisan component to this. the previous caller observed health care was a defining moment in the tea party, and opposition was intense. most of them now are falling in the republican camp, no doubt. host: carroll doherty is a director at depew research center. he is responsible for writing and editing the center's reports. remind us, how many folks did you talk to for this study? guest: about 3000. host: over what period of time?

guest: mid february to mid march. all across the country. host: akron, all i know. dorothy, you are on. -- akron, ohio. caller: unfortunately, most of americans do not know about our history. the republican party was actually a third party that was innovative at one time. now we cannot have a third-party come in because the two parties have created a monopoly to keep out any other part is, like the green party. it is time to get back to ethics. most of the politicians have political or personal agendas. honestly, it is time for an ethics party.

time to get back to the basics where we do right by everybody. part of the problem, too, is the fact that the media is playing a large part in keeping the truth out of what is happening. i was a commander in the military. i have two multiple degrees in political science and advanced government studies. it makes no sense that americans have no clue what we are doing in the world and what is going on. host: does the research, in any shape or form, suggest that because of these divisions, we are moving to a time where a third party could be viable? caller: formidable obstacles stand in the way of third part is, as we have seen. however, there is, across the board, cynicism about

politicians and their motives. host: another set of numbers. who has the better approach to the deficit? staunch conservatives say -- are these numbers that folks on capitol hill and the white house will be holding on to as they tried to get through this congress and 2012? guest: democrats will say we need to read gage with the base. republicans will need to keep expanding and hold onto the metal. -- middle. host: fayetteville, north carolina. caller: the problem is, with

this whole conversation, very much what happened with the call screener. i called in as an independent and i said i was a registered republican but i tried to explain to her, i both both sides. -- i vote both sides. neither side pays attention to the average middle-class citizen. people did not want to be associated with these parties. they have become stale tears in the system. as soon as they get to washington, they get pulled in by the party hierarchies. -- they become failures in the system. i would want to see a third at the party come to fruition. host: you anticipated my question.

your dissatisfaction with the way the parties are laid out now, does that mean you will be working towards creating a third party? if a third party emerges, would you be supportive of that party? caller: i voted for ross perot the first time around, even though i got disaffected by the time of the election. it was more of a protest vote. if a solid candidate emerges, with solid ideas, i would support a third party. republicans, although i agree with them on a lot of issues, i agree they have gotten so mired in to some of their core social issues they are no longer effective in getting some of the more economic and less social issues fixed.

guest: you are seeing those frustrations with politicians of all sorts. what was striking after the 2010 election, even the republicans made huge gains, the party's image has not really improved. there had that been a groundswell for the republican, or democratic party, for tha. when you have an economy the way it is, that is part of the problem. host: mclean, va. david on the republican line. caller: you have several callers that call in and say, our children are being indoctrinated. they are communist. c-span should call a live a lie. there was a study from the

university of toronto. -- a lie a lie. it put political party is all around the world on a chart and showed the true government, like bolivia, far to the left. it and the democrats one point to the right and republicans 3 points to the right, so this is truly a center-right country. when donald trump says something, you should respond, this is a federal matter, this is a lie. they are filled with just a bunch of low educated voters. guest: again, you see these

sharp, harsh criticisms of the republicans. you see that kind of polarization we discussed in our report. host: you seem to be saying this is not your father's republican party, but the same could be said for democrats as well? guest: republican party has changed a good bit over the decade. it is becoming more conservative. moderates are less numerous, nation wide. host: gop topology groups. we have staunch conservatives by race. 92%. black, not large enough to measure, i guess. hispanic, 3%. mainstream republicans, 80%,

white, 2%, black, 4% hispanic. guest: that is a problem for republicans. democrats do have more appeal, at this stage, to younger groups. host: a and then voters under 30. 8% said they are staunch conservatives. that would indicate what? guest: in a midterm election, those are not bad numbers to have because those are the groups that turn out. old people do tend to turn out. in the future, the demographics

are working against the republicans, to some extent. host: at the bottom of the page, solid liberals. 72% white, 9% black, 11% hispanic. under 30, under 50, 50%. guest: one of the interesting groups next to them are these coalition democrats, who are very different, and demographically. they're different from the solid liberals in terms of their demographic makeup. more minority concerns, more conservative about social issues. host: regarding this study from the queue research center, tell me the difference between a new coalition democrat and a solid liberal democrat. guest: new coalition democrats

are kind of the people on the way up in the country. they have a sense things are going to get better. they are seeing success in their own life, and they have hopes in the future. where they differ is on the social issues. host: we are speaking to carroll doherty, associate director for the peer research center. we are talking about a new study coming out talking about voters be more deeply divided. frederick, maryland. logan on the line for independents. caller: i happen to be socially conservative, conservative across the board, for the most part. however, i realize, conservatism, if you take it to me logical conclusion, we can

be socially conservative, but if you really want the minted government, we should be kind of along the lines of the libertarians. we should not support government intervention in 99% of these social issues, even though personally hold something different. limited federal and state government. all the conservatives out there that are holding a line on all these social issues, you have to wake up. you cannot have it both ways. i want you out of my life, except some of these issues that i support. host: carroll doherty? guest: the sentiment on the republican side is less government in the economic area, some intervention in the areas

of restrictions on gay marriage, and things like that, but notably, there are libertarian dissenters to that. host: rich in new york. good morning. caller: i was just going to say, people talk about the two-party. the modern father of the tea party is ron paul. he is an anti-globalized. it is for the united states of america. the new world order is trying to degrade america.

i have heard osama bin laden has been dead since 2001. host: carroll doherty? guest: of ron paul does come up a bit in our poll. he does pretty well. ron paul, mitt romney, there is no front-runner yet. no one has broken out yet. host: 8 twitter message -- a twitter message -- guest: again, that is a pretty strong comment. taxes, deficit, budget, all deeply divisive. host: jefferson, new york. burlakov on the democrat's line. -- veronica on the democrat's

line. caller: last summer, all the meeting had about health care budget, it caused a lot of dissent. i do not think it was understood well. it was the tea party who said that they were going to kill granma, they were going to do this and that. this year, when paul ryan's budget came out, they got a dose of their own medicine, and they did not like it. it did not go down well. the thing that bothers me the most is, i feel they do not listen to the people. i do not feel congress and the senate is paying attention to what the public wants and needs. we are being hurt out here very deeply. everyone is struggling.

i think the rich can afford to go back to clinton tax times. we are not raising taxes. this was supposed to expire in 2010 but everyone was held hostage. if they did not let that go through, we were not going to get things for the troops, unemployment. i do not feel that they are out for us. i wish they would feel more for the american people. i do not really feel they are serving us. thank you for your time. host: carol dorothy, your response? guest: -- carroll doherty, your response? guest: health care was a major issue.

it is a big change from what people have been experiencing. it is drawing intense opposition. probably not surprising that major initiatives like that get intense opposition. host: some more figures. democrats divided over social issues. where they generally agree, the best way to deploy peace is through diplomacy. why the dip? guest: all things considered, that is a point of agreement on the democratic side. post-iraq, i think you see some dissension about afghanistan.

there are some ideas that the country is over extended militarily, and there is some thought that we should be using diplomacy. host: where they differ, for example, homosexuality should be expected by society. -- accepted by society. why the drop off? guest: these divisions are not new. i think you are seeing more religious democrats, more minorities, who are also very religious, some of them. again, this is not a new division, but it is a major fishfissure. host: how did you describe a hard-core democrat? guest: on the basis of their own values, the questions that they

answer. host: we want to remind our viewers and listeners, if they want to take the quiz for themselves, they can find it at people-press.org/topology. caller: the lines of political parties are intentionally blurred. partisan politics. in just think about it. mika is on msnbc. the war on terror places trillions in the hands of each of these players. saudi bin laden group. carlyle group.

conspiracy theories and all that nonsense are perpetuated by the media. the part in the bush for financial crimes, wiretaps, and the war crimes. bloomberg just won a freedom of information act. the federal reserve gave trillions to their friends, including international banks, during the height of our financial crisis. host: anything in your research to suggest, as some have suggested, that the media, in any way, shape, or form, presses people's ideas, shapes the political debate? our people do that by themselves? guest: we do ask some media questions in the report, and as expected, people on the left and right choose different sources. one of the striking findings is

the degree to which staunch conservatives really rely on fox news. that is, by far, their source of maine news. host: liberals on the far left? guest: more diverse sources. npr, cnn, even fox, in some democratic groups. host: let us take a look at this twitter message. this comes from spooney35. guest: with the country facing the deficit, public views are somewhat conflicted. that is understandable. people do not have a desire to seek cuts in programs or tax hikes.

so the public's message on that issue is not altogether clear host. host: we are talking with carroll doherty of the pew research center. next call from lakeland, florida. caller: i am one of those rare people that have voted the same way all my life. i have voted republican all the way up through pusbush 2. but when he raised taxes, started the wars, ran a deficit up, i realize that i was following the wrong party. we were not the republicans that we were with dirksen, dole,

honest, upright people. now all we have is sean handy, andl o'reilly, glenn beck, all these people believe what they say. host: is your switch more of a sign that you are dissatisfied with the republican party, or something more attractive in the democrat party? caller: i am dissatisfied with george bush. when he ran, cut taxes, had a necessary wars, and ran up the deficit, that is where the deficit started. guest: it would be interesting to see where jim heads in 2012.

if he is disappointed with the in the deficit, it will be interesting to see where it goes. democrats are also responsible. host: where do you see the debate going in terms of policy versus politics? we had the first republican debate over the weekend. guest: we do not bring much clarity to the 2012 race on the republican side because there is not much clarity yet. in terms of the general election, we see some strength for obama, but some witnesses as well. host: senate races, house races, local races? guest: turnout is always keep. what you see, especially with democrats in 2010, there was a

big falloff. they definitely need to address that in 2012. host: independent phone call. long beach, california. .caller: caller: i have a bit of an issue of the way that you are describing independence. -- independents. a false dichotomy that this is just a republican or democratic country is not true. there are a lot of us who are different. people seem to think that it is just two different versions of the businessmans party. there are a lot of us who have interests that are not of the

rich. you do not hear many people from democracy now!, most think tanks, young liberals -- again, the young people to the left of the liberals. guest: that is the kind of independence we are seeing. if it ever was monolithic, it certainly is not today. very liberal on a lot of issues, others that are very conservative on certain issues as well. host: last call comes from david in williamsburg, va. republican line.

caller: first of all, let me say the democrats andst a dislike the republicans. do you think that the way that people vote is their familial background? how their parents voted? i was just wondering if familial background is indicative of the way that people tend to vote. i know government workers are usually democrats, for obvious reasons. people in the private sector tender vote republican. -- tend to vote republican. i just wondered if family background influenced the way that people voted. host: are you the product of a

one or two-parent family? two-parent family. my father was from the south and he intensely hated the way that democrats, at the time, were treating blacks. guest: it does play a role. what we have seen is, a lot of these independents these days not only come from democratic or independent families, many were republicans or conservatives themselves. high percentages of the independents

administration officials from the u.s. and china convened in washington, d.c. today for the start of the annual economic

and strategic dialogue between the two countries. some of the major issues of concern include china's currency and human rights. next a portion from this event with remarks from secretary of state hillary clinton followed by china's the vice premier. this is about 15 minutes. >> good morning. we are delighted to welcome you here to the department of the interior, a department that deals with the beautiful landscape and nature of the country along with the national parks that have been established. it's a jury historic building which is appropriate for the third round of the strategic and economic dialogue. it is an honor to host vice

premier wan and the entire chinese delegation on behalf of secretary geithner and myself. i am pleased we are joined by so many officials and experts from throughout the of the united states government and the government of china, and we are delighted we will shortly be joined by vice president biden. and i know that president obama is looking forward to meeting with of the leadership of the two governor teams later today. the strategic and economic dialogue is the premier forum in a bilateral relationship that is as important and complex as any in the world. since we first gathered in washington back in the 2,009, the depth and breadth of our discussion and the participation across the two governments have grown significantly. through these meetings and the

conversations that take place within them, both of the informal conversations like the ones we had last night over dinner at the house and the formal meetings, we seek to build a stronger foundation of mutual trust and respect. this is an opportunity for each of us to form habits of cooperation that will help us work together more effectively to meet our shared regional and global challenges and also to whether the disagreements when they arrive. it's a chance to expand the areas where we cooperate and narrow the areas where we diverge. while both of us holding firm to our values and interests. now, more than ever, with two years of dialogue behind us, success depends on our ability to translate good words into

concrete actions on the issues that matter most to our people. so as we begin this third round, we will keep that goal in a clear focus. our work really begins with our commitment to better understanding one another, to building trust between each other, and working to avoid misunderstandings and miscalculations. we all know that fear and misperceptions linder on both sides of the specifics. i will be very open about that. some in our country see china's progress as a threat to the united states. some in china worry that america seeks to constrain chia's

growth. we reject both of those views. we both have much more to gain from cooperation from conflict. the fact is that a thriving america is good for china, and thriving china is good for america. but to work together, we need to be able to understand each other's intentions and interests, and we must demystify long term plans and aspirations. that is why, for symbol, secretary defense robert gates and i have spoken often about the importance of developing more sustained and substantive military to military engagement that increases transparency and familiarity. so i am very pleased that for the first time senior military officials from both sides will

participate in this dialogue. they will join civilian counterparts to discuss how we can reduce the dangerous risks of misunderstanding and miscalculation. and in particular, i would like to thank deputy chief of the pla general for being here with us for these important discussions. we are also working to build a greater understanding and trust between our citizens and to foster stronger ties between our students, our businesses and our communities. expanding on the consultations that were held here in washington last month. that includes the 100,000 strong program. this is a program to boost educational exchanges. for the entrepreneurs and investors i'm looking forward to

launching with business leaders from both our countries. we'll also emphasizing programs to connect to the women leaders and new initiatives to bring together state and provincial officials and of course we want to continue our strong people to people diplomacy. we both agreed state incurving the climate change and charting a queen and secure energy future. we both care about promoting responsible and sustainable development around the world, and we both are committed to stopping the dangerous spread of nuclear weapons.

the future peace, prosperity and progress of the world. whether it is the global financial crisis or the people in the middle east, the recent history has underscored the link between the economies and global security and stability and that intersection is at the heart of our dialogue. so we will be discussing the need to work together to rebalance the global economy and a short strong sustained future their support national security issues we will be discussing as permanent members of the united nations security council, the united states and china came together to enact tough sanctions on iran, and now we are working to implement them. our two countries sharing a vital interest in maintaining peace and stability on the corrine peninsula, and that includes the complete

denuclearization of the peninsula. as we continue to urge north korea to take concrete actions to improve relations with south and refrain from further provocation and to fulfill its international obligations towards denuclearization. like any two nations and i would argue like any two people we have a reverence is and like friends we discussed those differences honestly and forthrightly. we will be discussing the recent u.s. china's human rights dialogue just held in beijing we have made clear publicly and privately our concern about human rights. we worry about the impact on our domestic politics and on the politics and stability in china

and the region including public interest lawyers for artists and others who are detained or disappeared and we know over the long orchestrate that societies that work towards respecting human rights are going to be more prosperous, stable and successful. it's been proven time and time again but must particularly in the last months. so this dialogue offers as a forum to help these candid discussions while continuing to focus on where we are going to operate effectively. as my friend, the state councilor knows i am fond of finding chinese savings and proverbs. and one that has been for me that has been the inspiration for the participation back in 2009 that china and the united states are like people in the same boat and we have to row the same direction to get anywhere.

the chinese expressions as when confronted by mountains one finds a way through. when blocked by a river one finds a way to bridge to the other side. we are here to keep building those bridges. and we are not doing this alone. we are part of a web of institutions and relationships across the asia pacific and the world. the united states is practicing what we call for word diplomacy. we are expanding our presence and people programs and high level engagements. we have renewed our bond with our allies and we've broadened our involvement with multilateral institutions and we% on the east asia senate triet we have both bilateral and regional the and globally and we have a lot to cover in a short time. so again, i am delighted to

welcome all of you here to express my confidence in this relationship and the importance of this dialogue. and it is now my great honor to invite the vice premier to address you. [applause] >> translator: secretary clinton, secretary geithner, dear colleagues we are gathered here today. president hu jintao and attaches great importance to the s and ed and has asked me at the state

councilor to president obama, vice president joe biden, 63 clinton, secretary geithner and all of those who work for the s&eds on the u.s. senate. president hu jintao highly appreciates the role of the s&eds in deepening the understanding, enhancing the strategic mutual trust and strengthening the communication and cooperation between the two countries as bilateral, regional amol global levels. he hopes that both the chinese and u.s. sides will make the most of this round of dialogues to have an in-depth exchange of views on the ways to further enhance the strategic mutual trust and deepen the practical cooperation. he looks forward to the implementation of the agreement he reached with president obama and the advancement of the u.s. of the china u.s. cooperative partnership based on mutual respect and mutual benefit last

president president hu jintao pay visit to the united states which achieved a great success vision and foresight the presidents opened a new page in the china u.s. relations. over the past 32 years since the establishment in china and the united states the relations have captivated forward. our two countries differ in history, culture, development stage, resources, endowment and national circumstances as we are highly interdependent and mutually complimentary economically to lead china and the united states are each other's second largest trading partner. the united states is the second largest export market and the fastest-growing export market for the united states. together china and the united states account for one-third of the world's gdp and the global

trade. china u.s. relations have far exceeded the bilateral scope and growing global statistics we are witnessing profound complex changes in the world economic landscape, changes driven by the globalization. at present we still face many where we are striving to tackle global economic recession and economic recovery against such a backdrop as the development in china and the united states this common challenges and opportunities. now, there are both commonalities and clashes in the policies to ensure the economic recovery. however, we have far more shared interests and cooperation than differences and competition. both sides must, therefore, must become make better use of the s&eds as an overarching framework for the examination of long-term and strategic issues,

and take forward steps to advance the sound development of china and u.s. economic relations. dear colleagues, the past and present have proven and the future will prove that nothing can hold back the trend of china and u.s. cooperation. we have confidence in that. our confidence comes from abroad, and interests between the two countries, the shared aspirations of the two peoples, as well as from historical and philosophical reflections. one action is better than 1,000 words. let us use that opportunity brought by the current round of the s&eds to earnestly implement the important agreement reached between our two presidents, and deepen our cooperation and economic trade investment, financial infrastructure, and other fields in an all-around way. by doing so, we will contribute to the strong, sustainable and balanced growth of not only our two economies, but also the world economy. i wish