administration has not done the assessments on nuclear weapons and defense. but we need to have an assessment. what is our leverage on russia. someone that i don't necessarily gladly quote, freeman said when you go to middle east and negotiate, i am in favor but i want to have maximum leverage. whether we go to negotiate with the russians and chinese, we need maximum leverage. what can that leverage be? it can be among other things, hard -and-fast ways that government officials and corporations are playing with their finances around the world. there is plenty of russia money, property and investments that need to be examined.

if you are trying to get tough in terms of the legality of the tax regimes and money laundering issues. that's one area somebody could take a look. this is transborder, transnational area that needs to be examined. secondly, we need to take another look on security in the neighborhoods of russia. in ukraine in south caucuses and central asia. we mentioned turkmanstan, that's in a situation where both the bush administration and current administration doesn't have an ambassador. that's a scandal. why won't we not only have an ambassador there, but probably start working on getting the

president [inaudible] can you repeat? we need to get him here. and start talking seriously about gas. otherwise all the gas will go to russia. so there are many things on energy security, on hard security, on money laundering and finances that can be done. but i would rather not spend time on that at this juncture. >> ok, take one more question. >> hi, from american progress, this question is for mr. sanders. this question has come up of the u.s. president and government and state department can be so eager to repair things with russia in wake, and that certain issues and interests fall to the way side.

my question is do you think it's highly likely that human rights or rule of law in russia is an issue that will fall by the way side. or that other interests that u.s. and russia have in common? >> i hope not. there is definitely a risk of that. we saw some with the prior administration. but i hope with this administration they will stick to some policies they talked about during the campaign and election. and that president obama will stick with positions he's taken before. and we have to be careful of what we expect. it doesn't have to be public to be effective. it can be -- and maybe more effective if it's done privately. because in a public speech and reaganesque movement and it may not work with the rule of law.

not that they oppose it but could make life more difficult. and can't be seen as cowing to the demands. but hopefully privately these issues will be raised. and in an effective manner. not that my constituency requires that i raise and it doesn't matter. for both it's in the issue of peace. >> would you consider this similar to iran or more options there and situation there. and restrained his options? >> i have to go back to the conference on iran. thank you. >> the panel has done a great job this morning. in fact both panels have done a great job. ariel and janusz and sandy for

doing a fabulous job. obviously this conversation will continue in the public domain and in this auditorium for a while. join me in thanking this panel with a round of applause. [applause] >> and president obama heads to moscow to have meetings with president medvedev. the president will hold

conference on health care, happening at anadale, scheduled to start at 1:15 eastern. in about 40 minutes. in the meantime other views on health care from this mornings "washington journal." host: mr. johnson, we have had headline, walmart back slides with company health coverage, walmart told companies to provide health care to workers and of the president's effort to provide coverage for americans. what is the chamber's reaction? guest: walmart is a member the chamber, but there are a lot of members. when you talk about a piece of legislation that runs 800 to

1,000 pages, there is room for disapprovement. we will look at walmart's proposal and take it into consideration. now we do oppose a position in this. host: saying that it would prompt companies to lower wages and drive them out of business. why do you see it that way? guest: it's not the chamber but the means and ways committee and they have a mandate that requires employers to provide a health care plan that will be defined by the government at some point or pay or 8% tax. and that's the so-called play

or pay. and when you multiply that amount out, it's a good chunk of change. in this area lots of studies are done on the employer mandate, pay or play, and they have found adverse effect on low wage earners and the employer will take this out of wages that could result to the workers. it's not the chamber study, it's c.v.o. and harvard. host: i want to invite the public to call in. we are talking about health care legislation. mr. johnson is it fair to say that opposed to universal health insurance? guest: if you are talking about

what hillary clinton had back in 1994, yes, we are opposed to that. when you say universal health care, meaning government run, we oppose that. we want it to be easier for individuals to access health care and to enjoy full deductibility of their premiums, which do i don't now. that businesses do. and we provide subsidies, and we recognize there is a problem. and it's something that congress is looking at and supporting. it doesn't mean that supporters have to pay for that tab. we are spending $500 billion to provide government based insurance for the employees. and the census data provided that half of americans get

coverage. and that's not pensions, employers are doing a lot. when we look at new mandates and costs, we look at those skeptically. and i would say that congress is rushing these bills through. when i testified last week, we got the 800-page bill on friday and i testified on tuesday. compared to when hillary clinton submitted her bill. back on the hill when hillary clinton presented her bill was a model of clarity compared to now. and that's what you see in the polls, a lot of people outside of the beltway are mystified and scared. everyone wants cheaper insurance and more insurance, and people are afraid what might happen could take away what they have.

and i am not surprised. host: let's get the calls, miami, you are up first on democratic line. caller: hi, i am very concerned with what is going on. this doesn't seem like this is america. it seems like the government is taking control of our lives. our taxes are going to go up. and now the health cares are going to be runned. and like in canada and other countries, with government coverage they have to wait in line. their health care is not as good. either way here, if you don't have insurance, you can still go to the hospital and be taken care of. it's not if you don't have insurance you are not taken care of. you can go to the hospital, they have clinics and things in place. there is no reason why our taxes have to be going up. and no reason why the

middle-class, we have to be paying for everyone else. obama said we are not going to get any tax hikes. any tax increases if we were with a government health care. that he would not tax us. he is, because he has to. host: thank you. guest: on your point there are lots of taxes being talked about on the table. and to his credit, the president has said he will not impose new costs without figuring out a way to pay for it. and those are scary, some are taxing your employee benefits that are tax free. and other proposal ares taxing sugary drinks and new value added tax. everything is on the table. and it's clear that taxes will go up.

is that to be a certain? congress will decide but your concern is valid. host: what about the prescriptions and should they pay for this? guest: i am not going to take a position of which taxes we impose. when we spend on voluntary provided health insurance, we feel we're are -- are doing our part. and when the president talks about the fair share, i would put what we have on cabinet reform compared to what they are doing. host: we have bill from michigan on the independent line. welcome to the program. caller: hello, am i on the air? host: yes, sir, what would you like to say about health care? caller: i find it interesting that people are against the

health care, and saying that government is inadequate. they say we do the best job at war. we are the greatef. but when it comes to health care, the united states can't do anything. they look at the countries that are not doing as well as the other countries. europe, france, germany, they have very good insurance. they are very happy with it. you don't hear our senators and congressmen talking about that. so -- i would like to hear what you have to say about that. guest: bill, i would say we have a forum at chamber on this issue of preparing the health care systems across the world from taiwan to england and switzerland. the reality is that there is myths, all have rewards and

advantages. and some have long waiting lines. others don't. they have very diverse populations. switzerland has a diverse population that makes comparisons difficult. it's easy to make realizations about all the systems. there are legitimate issues about rations and government programs that people have to wait for operations at later times in their life. but you are right bill, there are lots of simplifications that are not valid in this area. host: republican line, nancy. caller: yes, i was wondering if they are thinking that the taxpayer pay it or businesses. is it the employer going to pay it or the employee themselves pay it? i have a brother who pays his

employee's insurance, and he pays his as well. so the is employer or government? guest: i have to caveat and we have talked about health care and no legislation is introduced. we have gaps in policy questions. i think it's a combination of both, under this pay or play, the employer would have to pay a penalty that helps pay for the coverage. in other words there is a mandate on the bills, if an individual did not have insurance, they would have to pay a tax based on the their income that goes into a fund or purchase insurance. that's an individual mandate. it's not either or, the drafters of bills are pulling

from many sources, whether it's robbing peter to pay paul. and both are being looked at as potential sources of income. the potential tax that people are talking about regard to talking benefits that are now tax free. is a huge controversial issue. but there is a lot of money there to be had and congress is looking at that as a honey pot to pull from. host: speak to us of the connection of health care and the broader economy. what concerns do you see happening economically if a major bill is passed? guest: i know there is loose talk about health care to help pull us out of the economy. the merits won't kick in until four or five years out. and by then it's katy bar the door, and who knows.

and when we look at mandates and $32 for employee and on top of what congress is looking. we are concerned of it having a depressing effect to having the ability to dig ourselves out of the hole. and the long-term question, that's what we feel about the bills and everyone has talk about it's different. host: you have a broad membership you talk about, but how are small businesses doing these days? guest: small businesses, god bless, they are entrepreneurs in our country. more than half fail and those who make it, make it. and those who survive move up the economic ladder and can provide for their employees when they are on their economic

foot. many can't when they start out. but they are struggling. some are doing well, ironically in the health care area. but obviously we are membership-based organization on dues income. we have a sense of the hurt they are feeling. host: one viewer sends this tweet our way, there is no difference between employer or employee paid anything. the employee always pays even if he doesn't know it. we have cindy on the democratic line. caller: hi, i have a question for your guest. sorry, a comment and then a question. the comment, i find it always ironic that a lot of people who are against government-runned health care work for the government. it seems that they don't have faith in themselves. so i am not sure i should.

another question, my question is, why are you against government-run health care? and also against -- excuse me, a mandate for health care? if you are against -- if you don't want a mandate that you have to have health care for your employees as a business person, why wouldn't you want a government plan or option that that person can go to, because you can't afford to cover them? guest: right, i am not sure if your listener thinks i work for the government. sometimes the u.s. chamber of commerce is confused with the department of commerce. i don't work for the government, we are a privately based organization. in other -- in regards to the

government health care program, what we have now works well. but it's running in a huge deficit and c.b. o. is concerned about it. and lots of medicare costs get to the private sector by cost shifting. doctors shift the costs to the private sector. so the lessons of government-run health care are not that sanguine when you get to it. there is talk of expanding health care or plans to cover individuals who are much younger than 65. perhaps everyone and to give them a choice to be in the employer plan or public plan. if the employee has a choice, that employer can't calculate who will be in his or her plan

or go to the public plan. and the bills require the employer to pay the prem -- premium to go to the public plan. it's the cash-opt plan. and i can't leave this system, and that's not what they want to do. they want to have a workable system and provide employees with coverage. and they do that with 170 million americans. the government-run health care has not run that well. and we have concern and the bills of the expansion of the public sector plans will bump up what is going on in the private sector. host: one viewer tweetered and asked, how many insurance companies are in the chamber? guest: i don't know, we have a

lot. host: how are the companies doing in the secor? -- sector? guest: some are doing well and some not doing so well. host: let's hear from michigan, independent line, vicki. caller: hi, thank you for taking my call. first i will quote glenda from washington review, she said first let's kill all the lobbyist. i heard george on your program and set himself up as an expert in health care. however when a caller said that she worked for one company or her husband worked for one company and they -- i had combined yearly amount they had

to pay out of pocket of 5,000 each before the coverage kicked in. while her daughter worked for another company and that her deductible was $300 a year. it's very simple. the insurance company is in business for making money. what they do is look at various actualiary things and decide how much it will cost to insure the employees of a company. and the company decides how much they want to pay. so they pick from a variety of options. and the insurance company

collects the premium up front, and puts it in bank investments and various holdings. host: caller, any questions specifically for the guest? caller: well, it's already been asked. how many insurance companies does the chamber of commerce represent? guest: i think i haven't had a chance, for those of you, you raised legitimate issues. in all bills there are insurance market reforms, that's part of the so-called individual mandate, they have accepted strong change, and how it's controlled. the risk is limited and guaranteed renewal and issue. and other qualifications zeroing in on these areas of

what we can say are difficulties in the past. and they recognize and working with congress to address a lot of areas that your last caller looked into. i am not an expert in all of those, but people with those issues ought to call their congressman and ask about the bills on the legislation. and see if your congressman can answer it. host: why do you say that part? see if your congressman can answer. guest: when i am here on friday night and i worked on capitol hill and know how the process works. we're in a process where the more complex the issue and the more congress wants to hide it than to take the shell off. and they say that's because we don't want the opposition to grow. and that's part of the democratic process. and lobbyist is not a bad word.

and i was on a panel with six of them. and this is a process that our founding fathers wanted us to work. we are talking about mark-ups next week and going to the house floor before the august recess. i guaranteed you that most members of congress will not have read that bill before it goes to the floor. host: yet it's a process for years, what is the best process? guest: i say we need to slow it down. hillary clinton had criticisms because she wrote the bills and not on the floor. i went to the hearings and there were lots of them and people understood it after months of review. that's not what is going on now. and people say, that's why the bill didn't get through. but the american people spoke and the bill didn't get 32.

-- through. it's democracy. host: president obama will have a hearing today and we will have this live and he will talk to audience and take through facebook and youtube and have that this afternoon at 1:15. and probably replay later. we have missouri on the line. caller: good morning, thank you for c-span. my question is more of a three-point comment. we are all talking about how much health care will cost and cost is one of the considerations. but any cost are going to be flowed through corporation -- sorry, i am nervous. any costs will be flowed through corporations to individuals. so that's one thing that taxes,

whether they are taxes or how that cost is flowed through the actual individual. another cost/consideration is time. and i know when i go to a doctor, i already have to sit in an office and wait a couple of hours to be seen by the doctor. if we have universal coverage we will be spending more time waiting in the office. and be spending more time waiting our turn to be called to the office. and my third point is relational. the president commented on his program on abc a week ago, that seniors may have reason to be concerned, because he said in talking about hip replacements or other things like that, these high-cost procedures, they may be sent home with a pill. and i am just barely into my senior years,