want to have. what we see in canada and england are long waiting periods. one reason that we have such successful cancer treatment, for example, a man with prostate cancer has a 98% survival rate -- england has half of that. people die because they do not have the intervention. i concede canada close to michigan, from my backyard. we see many canadians coming to the u.s. because they do not get the immediate attention to the medical needs that they have, whether it is hip replacement, knee replacement, heart disease, particularly as they get older. they do not need -- meet this criteria as ideal patients and so they do not get immediate care. that is the concern with single payer that you are finding in legislation.

host: one last call from betty in erie, pennsylvania. caller: hello. i was talking to a friend of mine here and her sister had to have a triple bypass surgery, and per-share in japan was $10,000. i was just appalled. i would have to die in this country if i had to put up that kind of money. your health care is a right, not a privilege. thank you. guest: i think what she said is how important this issue is. republicans believe we need to reform health care but do it in a way with common-sense solutions, providing american

solutions focusing on affordability, accessibility, affordability. there are elements we can provide making changes for small business and others, making a robust overset. we think medical reform should be part of this bill. and a large provision so there is an incentive for people to continue to pursue healthy lifestyles. there are a couple of real drivers. one is smoking, the other is obesity and diabetes coming from it. if we can incentivize people to maintain healthy lifestyles, that will be important for this portion of our bill. host: out what time might we see details? guest: we are in the midst of drafting these details and to legislative language, and we talked about the scoring. it is difficult. in our system, the gym -- the

majority get their bills scored first. so it will take time because we are at the end of the waiting line, but over the summer we will be coming out with these provisions, certainly. host: thank you. representative dave camp, republican from michigan, ranking member of the house ways and means committee. after another short break, we will talk about foreign policy with brad sherman of california. we will talk about iran and take calls. be right back.

>> coming up shortly, rhyme emmanuel speaks to the democratic leadership committee. the senate health committee meets this morning to consider and make changes to health care legislation is -- legislation. that is 10:00 a.m. eastern on c- span 3, and both the mets are also online at c-span.org. right now, look for our redesigned book tv website. every weekend, screen programming right to your computer. it is also easier to search for and watch videos. with the redesigned search function and video player, you can share videos you are watching with everyone you know. look for it today. >> july 4 weekend on book tv, discover an unfamiliar sight of our nation's first president as

we are live at george washington's a stake in about vernon with john ferling. join us live on "in depth." >> "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is the foreign relations subcommittee chairman. we appreciate you joining us. here is the "wall street journal" version of the iran story preconceived fire in the background. -- you can see fire in the background. but they are green to what the call and -- agreeing to a partial recapture what does that mean? guest: the most likely outcome is that ahmadinejad will be extending his brain overran

tuesday extent -- overran to the extent that he can have power. host: the president got criticism to date in editorial pages about not speaking more forcefully about the situation in around -- around -- i ran. guest: i can think of nothing that would help but in the job more than an announcement from the administration and a ham handed effort to put the united states on the side of those trying for regime change -- nothing would help me get a job more -- ahmadinejad more. we have radio, we do have voice of america. to try and get good journalism

to the people of iran is an appropriate goal. the rest of it is to recognize that as president obama said, the candidates do not have very much to say on the cause. whether this movement is -- the movement may be successful and changing the presidency, and may go so far as to change the regime. that is a possibility, but a small one. host: separate lines year for republicans, democrats, and independents. we will talk to john sherman, chairing the committee on terrorism and non-proliferation. for the nuclear part of the around -- i ran -- iran story,

tell us about the dialogue there. guest: one thing most candidates agree on is an all- out effort to move forward with iran's program, which they say is not opposed -- going for nuclear weapons. but if you look at what iran does, it can only be seen as an attempt to develop as many nuclear weapons as possible. if either of the candidates and is up serving -- iran is an unusual place in that the supreme leader is imposed on the people and then they vote on who will be the press secretary. i think i've been a judge -- but in a judge -- but within a -- ahmadinejad has been a bad president. you want to have the best

possible relations. host: the u.s. and south korea are firm and their resolve to encounter the north. when you see that word, what does that say to you? guest: i remember when these articles were on page 22, instead of page one. it is clear that north korea is dependent upon china for subsidies. as long as the subsidies continue, north korea will continue pretty much the same behavior. the united states is unwilling to push china hard on whether to continue to subsidize north korea and its government. i would suspect at, you know, there will be headlines and talks, but ultimately policies will fail to roll back and contain the program.

over the last 10 years, they have moved a couple inches. it is not that china wants north korea to have nuclear weapons. it is that china funds subsidizing the north korean government to be the most convenient way to manage the situation. in making that decision, it is correctly confident that no matter what threats there are two new united states securities, we will not interfere with ships coming into our ports. china can have the u.s. markets and a policy towards north korea. the reason i rank iran first is because the regime is ambitious.

north korea's objective is to just dominate people. my concern is they will build tend bombs for themselves and put the 11th on ebay. but as long as the regime survives within its borders, i do not think they will take aggressive action. iran is the number one state sponsor of terrorism. so you would expect an emboldened iran would be tearing on terrorism with impunity. that puts us eyeball to eyeball with a hostile power. host: sutherland, nebraska. margaret. hello. you are on. caller: i have been worried for a long time about u.s.-china relations and our trade policies about china. i believe the u.s. is too involved with china and it is still and probably always will be a communist country.

why are we still doing so much shade -- trade with china? they have so much interest, and they are not for the united states. guest: it is the most unbalanced trading relationship in the history of international trade, and this is because we have opened our markets to them and they have only pretended to open theirs to us. it holds billions in bonds, and they claim that that has a power over us, and the analogize the situation to, "well, you have to be nice to your banker if he holds the mortgage on your home." if we have real determination, we can recognize it is not analogous to a banker because there is no way to foreclose.

the fact is, we can force china to accept our exports and also changing its policies on proliferation. the fact is, there is just too much money to be made by continuing the status quo. the way to do is to make it for 20 cents an hour and sell it for american dollars in the u.s.. well there is a huge pickup in net profit machine, the fact is that there is enormous corporate power driving us to continue what is a cancerous trade relationship with china and a relationship where we ignore what they do. caller: good morning. i have two questions.

can you give us an update as to how miranda rights, if that is proceeding, householders are handling that on the battlefield -- helps soldiers are handling that? and where will the terrorists be held when captured, and will they be brought before our courts? thank you. guest: this is a question best addressed to someone who focuses on the armed services committee rather than the foreign affairs committee. we focus more on what diplomats do, but obviously our policy stance behind our diplomacy. i do not think that soldiers are giving miranda rights on the battlefield. i think that those captured in afghanistan and iraq are being held in afghanistan and iraq. there are some terrorists that

have already been tried, convicted, and jailed in the u.s. in the parlance of suspected terrorists being brought here from guantanamo to face charges that he allegedly bought the materials to blow up our embassies in kenya and tanzania. host: indianapolis. independent caller. hello, there. caller: good morning. i was studying a doctorate in military history and i am dealing with academics in europe. when president bush was in office, they said that president bush was terrible because he would say -- he was a wild cowboy. eds now they say that obama is a groveling apologist.

there are some people who are never going to be happy with this. other than style, what are the major differences between the current administration and the previous one? guest: in the foreign-policy i focus on, there is remarkable continuity between the last the destruction and this one on every issue except iraq -- the last administration and this one on every issue except iraq. the bush administration was moving toward a phased withdrawal, and that is where obama is now. there is a radical difference in style, and style does matter between these two. i think that if you're going to have a continuity in our foreign policy, there is no better face for america than president barack obama. on the other hand, i find our

foreign policy towards what threatens us most, nuclear weapons and then being in on stable hands, i think our policy has been rather meet. -- meek. president bush was shouting so loudly may have thought he was doing something. let me give you an example. we do not even to the tiniest things. we still import from iran, not oil, only the things we do not need that they could sell anywhere else. so we may scream at them, but the fact is, epicurean are not deprived of southern caspian caviar and do not have to settle for russian caviar. we talked a big game on sanctions and to do almost nothing.

and then we do it again. there is a foreign policy established, and it has tremendous power in the press. they say almost everyone is an idiot and only eight narrow range of views can be discussed. i have seen it again and again hired during the election campaign, where the president talks about new ideas and directions, and they come to washington and their foreign policy, it is very, very consistent. often, there is one or two unusual initiatives, like the invasion of iraq.

host: you mentioned the need for a free-flying media in a case like this, but they have also been talking about the imprisonment of the two journalists. how does it happen? will something happened? will this be prevented from happening in the future? guest: there are two issues. one is the human rights of the journalists, and it is back to keep that separate -- best to keep them separate. they may find it in their interest to release these journalists. but to give you an insight, this is a regime with a kidnapped people. we do not know what side of the border the journalists were on. we do know that they were not friends of the north korean regime and engaged in doing things with the north korean

regime preferring they would not do them. this is a regime that kidnaps actors and civilians. they kidnapped japanese to find good teachers of did -- japanese culture. they kidnapped filmmakers. so this is a regime that carry its our currency, deals drugs, uses diplomatic service to sneak into other countries. the seizure of these journalists is not the greatest abuse of this regime. host: rockville, maryland. democrat line. you are on with john sherman.

caller: thank you so much. i'm basically calling in response to the myriad issues facing the current administration right now. i did not see our foreign policy to change it all that much. i am by no means an anti-semitic person. but i would like to say, however, that there seems to be a certain dysfunctional society as a whole. our finance rules need to be reformed. too many senators are beholden to to any interest.

-- too many interests. guest: when you start saying that u.s. corporations are controlled by israel, you seem to be using as real as a code for jewish people. you may be crossing the line here. the fact is, those who would have us a piece al qaeda, that if it led to the middle east, that would satisfy their appetite. these are folks who have not studied al qaeda.

for example, they talk about spain being returned to the caliphate. so you can say that the ethnic cleansing of middle eastern jews would be significant to satisfy al qaeda, but only if you do not know their claims on spain. if you read carefully, france, as well. >> we know that the prime minister in israel made a speech over the weekend. there is a headline in the new york times, jimmy carter in gaza, urging hamas to go towards acceptance. guest: i wish there were something encouraging about hamas and their policies, but here is an entity devoted to the ethnic cleansing of all jews, and wherever we have seen that

in a we have seen genocide, as well. their position when israel pulled out of gaza was to declare that tel aviv was also occupied and they were going to try and kill as many israelis as possible and kill them all until tel aviv was also under hamas control. caller: i would like to remain to remind the american people that the u.s. trained russians in afghanistan. so we have to look in the mirror to see why the current situation exists in the middle east. and i wonder, with respect to the china situation, they have a stranglehold on the economy when the united states no longer is able to buy chinese goods that

cost 20 cents to produce because we no longer have the disposable income that we once did when the economy was booming, what do you think will happen? will china with barack? will lending start to tighten, -- will china withdraw? will lending tighten? i will take my answer off the air. guest: first, to the taliban, you can blame the united states for supporting those who fought against the soviet and occupation of afghanistan, but during the cold war, we were going eyeball-to-eyeball with the soviet union and that was a greater threat than islamic extremism is now and the fact that we do not wake up every day with the serious possibility of

world discretion, not just the use of one or two weapons, but thousands, is a huge step forward. it is interesting that history has accepted u.s. cooperation with stalin in order to defeat hitler and yet a tax a u.s. corporation with the militia been to defeat the soviet union without -- with the muleta dean -- muhajadin to defeat the soviet union. as to our relationship with china, it is a non-sustainable treaty relationship. it has and, and things eventually do. their economy is based on shipping without expecting -- accepting our exports. our lifestyle and economy is

based on consuming without producing, and this can make us happy and make them happy for a few years, as it has, but we consume a lot of stuff. in one year, almost a trillion more that we produced. now, this is beginning to unravel, but no one has a clear plan for the future. we need a manufacturing base in this country and a trade policy that focuses on results, not just process. and the trade policy we have had for the last 10 to 20 years has made us the greatest debtor nation in history because every year, we bring in -- it is now

down to something like $600 billion a year. we bring in more stuff than we export and we borrow the difference, and that borrowing builds up and built up and builds up. so you have to have some really bad policies to have the best work force and take it and turn it into the greatest debtor in history. we have had bad policies. host: indianapolis, independent line. good morning to you. >> good morning. i would like to ask you, representative, why are there no democrats or republicans out crying about the slave labor in china they used to produce the goods we buy off of them? guest: i think there is an outcry towards the mystery metalworkers in china, but it is

-- it is just one of many things. our focus in our relationship with china tends to be china's in affect here are people in the u.s., and you are more likely to see a news report on a factory being shut down in ohio because of chinese competition than to get a story about how the workers in that chinese competition are treated. you could do news stories on both. host: brooklyn, new york. michael pre-dawn. -- michael. you are on. caller: first a comment. it we are trying to get some peace in the middle east situation. it is probably one of the most failing questions of our time policy-wise. .