♪ host: good morning, president obama arrives in moscow for two days of meetings with diplomatic leaders. the senate returns from the july 4 meeting and will work on an appropriations bill. on the headlines, calls grew to increase stimulus spending. alltel prices of oil hobble the industry. firms are listing ex-lawmakers aid for another problem. you want to hear -- we want to hear from our viewers.

you can also the comment on twitter. we start this morning with the front pages of "the wall street journal," concerning calls to increase stimulus spending. in this paper today on the front page -- recession takes a bitter

toll. one year after $4 gas some struggle to cope. we go to a clip now of vice president joe biden who began this discussion yesterday. >> the truth is we and everyone else misread the economy. the figures we work off in january where the consensus figures of most of the blue chip index is out there. everyone thought at that stage -- everyone -- but there were all in the same range. no one was talking about that we would be moving toward, worried about 10.5%. >> we're looking at 10 now. >> no, we're at 9.5 right now. the truth is there was a misreading of just how bad an economy we inherited. i am not laying this -- it is now our responsibility of the second question becomes, did the

economic package we put into place including the recovery act, is it the right package given our circumstances? we believe it is. we misread how bad the economy was. we are now only about 120 days into the recovery package. host: we are joined by david drucker, a staff writer for roll call. tell us about this stimulus package. guest: generally speaking, i think that congress is a little bit skittish and has to do with the amount of money the first package cost. on top of that you have another $1 trillion over the next decade for health care reform. then you have money for various things still being spent. when you add all these things

together you have many members of congress, democrats included who are just getting increasingly wary of piling on another round of spending. it is not the individual measures, but rather a combination of things. even with democrats to have trouble finding support for another package, at least for now. the new have the political problem. the minute that the administration and democratic leaders in congress if there were too, the minute we were to go to a second package would go to be a tacit acknowledge that the first round of stimulus spending did not work. the auto would be spun by the opposition. i do not think democrats want to go there yet. -- that is how it would be spun by the opposition. watching joe biden this week, and that that will end up in a 30-second ad played in multiple households next year.

it will be repeated and repeated. it will be played in senate races that they got wrong and that's why the economy get worse than expected. host: how much political pressure do think congressional members are sprinting back home? guest: according to a poll we have recently seen voters are getting increasingly wary of the level of spending. you only do not like deficits if you do not like with the money is being spent for. but americans generally want the economy to be strong. the more day you pile of the more the perception is that it could cause a long time economic problem. people are more wary than usual with the levels of debt projected at this time. everything would change if the

economy turned around. if you are at 4% unemployment you could probably deficit spend until the end of time and no one will really think twice about it. but when people are out of work, or worry that they might be, and they see a government that appears to be running out of money to spend for key parties that becomes a political liability. host: let's hear from our viewers in woodbridge, virginia. caller: good morning. i'm going to say it is a good again. i think the stimulus will help a lot. i think there would have been far more people out of work. yes, opposition. people say how can you tell? but let me say one thing. if you look over the past several months, new jobs were lost compared to last month, there will be a steady decline.

let's give it a little time and be patient. but also, it is better to do something than nothing. first of all, let's talk real quick -- the iraq war. if that had been put on budget it would have significantly hamper the republicans. the republicans cannot talk about president obama as a stimulus at this moment. they have to get a chance. just like they wanted us to give a chance, the war in iraq. just give yourself an opportunity. anyway, america just hang in there. otherwise we will be double, and god bless you guys. host: steve, on the independent line. caller: i could be better. i live in a suburb outside detroit.

i voted for obama, but it is a waste of time voting because nothing ever changes. the corporate as the media. they only tell us what they want to hear. the people in power with money -- basically, the call all the shots. there is no way that all these manufacturing jobs could have gone overseas without the help of crooked politicians. it is just about greed. they say that unemployment is like nine%, 10%. but on some of these politicians go down the river near detroit and take a look on both sides of the street. try 25%. host: what do you do for a living? caller: you know what? i was laid off in 2006, lost my job to canada because they have national health care. i have not worked in three years. i just graduated medical school through my tra benefits and

start my ex-turn shiernship tod. but my credit has been run, i've lost everything through unemployment. how have to pay taxes on my own implementing go but everything that i watch on tv, everything i hear from these candidates -- everything here's just a lie. try living in our shoes over. to be honest, i don't think anything will change until people get out into the street and just start civil disobedience host: on the democratic plan we have daniel, from massachusetts. are you? caller: doing well. i want to make a couple points. i listen to c-span a lot. lots of people call in about economics and have no clue about how economics works. it is frustrating to listen. if you even read the most elementary textbooks on topic it

will take six months before the stimulus will have any effect. we have this dishonest conversation about -- is not working now? it is too bad. it does not do the country will toot not talk about actual issues. it would be nice if he could get economists on to explain of the various, not advocate for a theory. just explain what people are doing and try to inform the public a little better because it is very sad to listen to the kind of conversations. host: along those lines, to date on the opinion page from "the washington post" -- economists out to lunch. one intriguing subplots of the crisis is the failure of most to predicted. we have the most spectacular economic and financial crisis in decades possibly since the great depression, and the one group that spends most of its waking hours basically missed it.

a few can lead to many claim some foresight, but they are a handful. let's go to our next call. on the republican line. caller: good morning. what this last caller was talking about with economics -- i was thinking about this, how we are spending money continuously that we do not have. there is no back to the money. when obama was talking about

change -- and i will not say who voted for in the past election, but i do not think either of them had a very clear idea as to what money we would spend, regardless. the change everyone was so excited about, i don't think that is coming across to many people. most conservatives, whatever people have a sound idea as to where money comes from and where it is spent, it is just appalling to see how it is spent. for someone to think that we need to give it another six months, or whatever that ludicrous statement was, we're not going to see it returned. if we keep doing as we doing and the military budget is out of

control, and we are still borrowing from our friends of the red china, i don't think there is much in the future unless we change something drastically. host: let's go to john on the independent line from bellevue, new jersey. caller: hello? yes, i am here. host: what are your thoughts on the stimulus package? caller: i did not believe the first stimulus package really helped. we still have american families and people down and out. i think it will call for a second stimulus, but it must go to the american people. probably in the form of some type of check or something like that, but it will take for the american people to feel relief, not corporations. that is my opinion on the matter. i hope that he does the second one whereby the people will benefit from it rather than the corporations. we all know the ditch and dodge

taxes as a this, so why should we help them? help the people who are suffering, help those who voted you in there. if this is not done i would urge heavily for the people to remember this. host: ok, let's hear from john boehner of ohio. >> the way to help the economy grow is to help small businesses and american families keep more of what they earn because at the end of the day they are the ones to get the economy going again. this was supposed to be about jobs, jobs. it turned into nothing more than spending, spending. in ohio the infrastructure dollars that arrived months ago -- there has not been a contract left to my knowledge. the fact is i don't believe it will create jobs. the president said earlier this year we will not see unemployment above 8% if we pass this bill. the real question is, where are

the jobs? you cannot spend $800 billion of taxpayer money and not create jobs when you said that is with the goal was. the president said unemployment would not get above 8%. we said early this year that the plan with the work. our plan cost half as much and according to the same economists would have created twice as many jobs. host: let's go to steve on the republican line from vermont. caller: good morning, i am on disability/security in watching this national health care plan. what a lot of people do not understand is that when i go to the doctors i have a co-pay. i have two hands that need surgery and they're not getting it because of a co-pay i have and i have a federal health care. so, to me people go that way, did you will wait in line for six years for an operation so

you can go back to work. as far as the stimulus package for jobs -- ok, they are all infrastructure. they are temp jobs. when the building is done, the job is gone. bill clinton did this when he passed nafta. i worked for multi-million dollar corporation that got out by mobil oil corporation which does not exist anymore. we do not need temporary jobs. we need real jobs. you take the baby boomers generation which will be retiring, you give them each $1 million to retire. instead of giving it to the barack obama buddies in the banks and such. they retire, they free of jobs for in the people. we go back to work, stop by and products and the whole world economy goes back up. if you put the biggest purchases

in the world, the americans out of work -- we don't buy anything, the world goes broke. host: all right, let's go to "the wall street journal" were the right that congress shifts into high gear to tackle a full agenda. according to senator harry reid he says "this will be one of the most challenging periods in the legislative session." the spokesman says that with a little bit of cooperation they can get all of their work done. republicans said they have objected to the democrats initiatives because they involve massive spending with little benefit. our guest, david, joins us. what you think about the five- week stretch? guest: i am fearful. i will be running around in the senate because there will be trying to get so much then.

and you get health care reform and confirming sonia sotomayor to the supreme court, if you look at the fact that the house managed to pass that kind of bill that will be kicked over to the senate for nothing will get done, but it is just one more thing they theoretically have to consider the you have certain appropriations to look at. and the list goes on. you have the the senate going to be in according to harry reid 5 days per week. there will be in one week later than the house. there into the first week of august. -- they will be in the first to august. i am skeptical that can get everything done just because of the way senate and congress work. it is certainly an ambitious agenda. you are looking at july through december this year as the best chance that you have of getting president barack obama's major

agenda items done before we turn the calendar into an election year. it now gets impossible to do anything substantial. on top of which you're probably looking at another six months of the best approval rating to will ever have barring an immediate economic recovery. it is always easier to get things done when presidents' approval ratings are having of this creates a rush to squeeze in as much as you possibly can. i am curious to see what the finish by the end of the first week of august. also, do they get out of town on time? host: we're talking with david drucker, a staff writer for roll call. you have a story about the timeline of the health care bill. you write that senate democrat leaders' hopes of approving health care reform appear all but dead.

why is that? guest: when i look at the senate process which calls for the senate health, education, labor committee to finish marking up its bill, calls for the finance committee to mark up its bill -- it has not started yet -- and then that two committees have to merge them into one before consideration, and then the kind of floor consideration necessary for something that huge -- and just question whether that can get done by the end of july, early august. they will need for time for sonia sotomayor. i know that is a major party. the one her on the bench by the time the new supreme court term starts in october. -- they want her on the bench by that time. all of this together, the fact that individual senators and even a depleted republican minority cannot master of a

filibuster, but they can still employed a lot of delay tactics. they did that in june for the meetings take much longer than necessary. it was simply to draw things out and make it tough for democrats to get things done. take the process, the big ticket items, in putting together two bills that are very different -- the health bill was crafted with liberal reform goals in mind. you have max baucus and the finance committee tried to put together a bill that is a very bipartisan. you have to reconcile those two. it will probably take kerry reid. but it takes time. there is only so much of it even working five days per week. -- it will probably take harry reid. i'm not looking for a total breakdown, just for things to

take longer. host: our guest will be back with us within the hour. to our next caller. caller: thank you. number one, i support his assertion of all of what he just said. we are putting the cart before the horse. it took the republicans eight years to do this and will take obama time to fix it. i support the stimulus package. as a veteran i have received last year and a this year misogynists check which has led me to put the money back into the economy. yes, i pay bills, added to the economy also. we cannot think that obama is going to come into each

citizen's home and fix their problems. there is a responsibility each one of us has to education, going back to college, increasing marketability. and supporting obama and his administration. supporting his requirement of as having responsibility to make sure we do our part. we should spend right and not overspend our limit. make sure that we do our responsibility to support the administration. that is really what i would like to add. thank you so much. host: on the independent line from georgia. caller: i do not think the stimulus package will work. i do not believe the health care will work.

but every bill has been going to special interest groups and lobbyists for big business. iit is not helping the american people. host: to the republican line. caller: this stimulus bill is a disaster. most of it went right to the cities, counties, states. those are on the spending binge. if your homeowner in any one of these states your property taxes have probably gone up triple or double. in the end when all the stimulus money is gone the wages of the unions at the state, county, city will still be had. they have no concept of cutting back. i do not see the need these counties or states cutting back. furthermore, the bill will ruin

the auto industry in the cap and trade will ruin it more. it is like putting your 1 foot on the throttle and 1 foot on the break. it is a complete disaster. i think that obama is kind of dumb because i called bush down when he was in, so i will call obama down, too. host: all right, the democratic line from michigan. caller: thanks, suzanne. -- cspan. the money is going now to illegal aliens to. i am not prejudiced. which is still have the money to support them. a few months ago a window to get a postage stamps. -- i went to get them. the bottom line is these people

-- " sitting there, there was one brother who was mexican and could not speak english. this guy was helping her with her forms and calling her his homegirl. here we seen to subsidize 8 million people. host: ok, calif., on the independent line. caller: think america has gone very high-speed with the technology. when you look back from world war ii both before and after, it is extreme. people are not taking time not to consider overpopulation. a look at the lottery in every state.

people can't win more than 17 million in the jackpot per week. let's make that ultimate jackpot 5 million rather than 17, and why can't they use that? if you add them up every week from every state i don't think americans would fight with that. that money could be used to get the deficit back up and i think that sociological classifications play a big role in this and mental health should be combined to complete health care programs so people can cope better not spend money on drugs, and i get into trouble. they're spending mindlessly, not taking care of their health because they cannot cope. people at the bottom have only one option. people who cannot speak for themselves, learning disabled, developmentally disabled people, elderly, people highly gifted,

such as myself -- i cannot get an accommodation for ged because i cannot see my psychiatrist because medicare has been prolonged. host: how is they coming? california has been hit hard. do you feel it in your area? caller: big time. i have been on social security disability for a learning disability i have had my whole life that never got treated. kids today get to graduate high school without taking p.e. are certain things that are mandatory in my day. i had no accommodation. i cannot get ahead in my education. a new committed suicide because i was so depressed about how i cannot contribute to society. -- i almost committed suicide. i want to know what is going on with the lottery. i think americans would be

willing. host: philadelphia, on the line. caller: there is no education going on in my party because we have been hijacked by uneducated federalists. i represent a party of muslims who look at the author of lincoln, grant, garfield in congress passed the commission in 1883 which was dedicated to garfield -- my point is that the muslims republicans, we threw our weight behind oliver cleveland. in 1886 the supreme court ruled in one case that the supreme corporation is taxed one person. then you had the and the greek

carnegie theory -- host: what do you think about the economy today? caller: america's film. because of my party we were supposed to provide endowments because of this corporation ruling. if there is anyone else up there who provides endowments for schools, please speak up. -- america failed. today is george bush's bertha. peoplhost: returning now to con. democrats will finally receive the air 60th but in the chamber. one of those in isalfranken, a democratic from minnesota who finally won a contested battle against coleman. his tenure is no laughing

matter, this paper rights. franken told the ap he will try to emulate a couple of senators -- both came to the senate was some celebrity and some skepticism from people on the hill. the book put their heads down and did the work and one of their colleagues by not bowing to the camera. what you think, david? guest: it will certainly give us something to talk about. it will give harry reid a chance to see what you can do with 60 votes. when the republicans had 55 and was a blessing, but turned out to be a curse because every time they could not get something done republicans, democrats, independentss wondered with 55 votes why they could not get anything done.

the world just once results. they see a large majority as the ability to get things done at will. it is the curse you want, but it will be very tough. i think after eight months of this the republicans would have liked one more senator. it would have theoretically given them the ability to filibuster, but i think they will make good use of it for 2010 elections. john cornyn's team has been that you must elect more republican senators in 2010. they can now use the fact that it is a 60/40 majority to emphasize that theme.

it gives them at least something to work with in terms of a message. for democrats in gives them an opportunity. they do have 60 votes. with this means with franken in the senate is that nearly all the action on capitol hill will be within the democratic senate caucus, not in the house. on the senate side the republicans cannot do much. if you want to see for legislation will shake out and look like, the democrats will be negotiating and sometimes fighting amongst themselves to determine it. host: let's look at "saturday

and live" with the role that al franken played. guest: the committee assignments have been pretty much determined. later today the senate majority leader and he will make an appearance before the cameras. he will be sworn in tomorrow. i am always leery of assuming that a funny man will come here and act like a clam. that is usually when i'm wrong. they usually put their nose to the grindstone. they have even more motivation to show everyone they're not here to be a joke. when arnold schwarzenegger was first elected governor of california in that recall -- if you look back seven years it was that he was just a movie star, what does he know? he turned out to be even more of your typical governor than his predecessors. the expectations are such that

he will be wall decoration and give entertainment, but something tells me he will try to stay out of that spotlight. just do his job for his constituents. after eight months there is the expectation they need that second senator to do lots of normal work. he will want to prove to people he deserves to be here. that is not just some entertainer who parlayed his name into the sentencing. host: let's go to california on the democratic line. caller: good morning, i want to take a short history lesson. first of all, last year when they passed, the republicans passed the three or four page stimulus bill that gave $750

billion, i don't believe this question was asked back then. also, i wanted to saying the fact that president obama told everyone he would not release the entire stimulus into the economy right away. little portions would be released throughout the next couple of years. it is not $700 billion that is automatically released since he took office. i also want to remind everyone, what is the alternative? it seems like the republicans smell blood. what is the alternative? boating republic againin? i don't think so, not after eight years. the last time we had a republican house, republican senate, and republican president, it was the depression

and the stock-market crash. so, i don't think we can afford to even look down the road again. host: on the independent line from petersburg, virginia. caller: number one, it is not mr. obama, it is not obama -- it is president obama, ok? i.m. unemployed, highly certified special-education teacher. i am unemployed. next thing, i have health insurance. my son who was in college just aged out of my insurance policy. i cannot afford to buy him insurance. you have these people coming online. i think they are all reading off

of some script because they say the same thing. i do not tweet, face, the the internet anymore. it is a lot of crap and everyday i have to go and download and erase all- crap before it affects my computer. however, our new president -- give him a chance. he inherited this mess. we inherited this mess. my house is falling down because i am [unintelligible] property, and i do not own the title to. my relatives all own this property and i can i get a loan on it to fix it up. host: david, from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. caller: let me tell you the real deal. let me share with you what is going on behind the scenes with regard to the recovery package.

the republicans, first they create a groundswell -- oh, nothing is working, nothing is working. then they want to hold up everything in the senate and of the house. well, this is only due to the fact that they want to make sure that they hold on to the supreme court in 2010. if they can hold on to the supreme court in 2010 by allowing people -- by lulling people to sleep now about this in this -- it is not working, go back to sleep. that means we will be stuck with those republicans there for the next however many years. that is what is happening. if they can get us to go to sleep, then in 2010, and 2014 it will not matter. the republicans just want the

supreme court. do not fall for it, people. give the man the time that he needs. host: the caller brings up the supreme court. the confirmation hearings of sonia sotomayor are coming up. in the paper today the right that her hearings could be difficult for the republican party. one week before her cheering republicans are flooding in their efforts to trip up the nominee, unable to find an effective message about why she is not fit to serve. when the tricky politics of opposing the woman who be the first hispanic justice, especially for party struggling to broaden its base. they did with roll call newspaper, is set up the hearings. what should we expect next week? -- david come up with local newspaper. guest: there will call her ready to go, judicially balanced.

i do not think you will see republicans call for her not to be confirmed. you will see them say there are a lot of questions we need to review. they will say not to rush. they will say it is something this important, what we have to rest? there will say they need more documentation. at the end of the day she will be confirmed, i believe, unless there's something out there waiting to be dug up. republicans know that. i think she will get a number of republican votes. but if you are a republican politically there's no benefit to russia. you have your own constituents to take care of. -- to rush this. second of all, the longer it takes to get sonia sotomayor

confirmed, the longer it takes to do other things like health care, climate change. you want to eat up as much floor in committee time as possible and soak up as much of the political oxygen as you can and not make this easy for the president. there is a delicate balance as that article pointed out because you do not want to offend the hispanic voting base, but there is a way to do it if they do right that will accomplish their goal to delay in long enough to satisfy people on the right. they cannot have the votes to filibuster. they need of lease41 votes which they do not have. -- they need at least 41 votes.

there are not enough of them to stand in the way of the president with his first supreme court nominee who is female, a hispanic. it is supposed to be advise and consent cannot block and replace. host: you do not think this will be held up in the senate? guest: no, i think that the republicans are doing to diligence and exactly what democrats have been in the past. it will take things she has said or written in decisions and parse them out. when you were in the opposition your job politically is to make things sort of as hard as you can for the majority within reason, meaning without damaging yourself politically. as long as sheet ends up

confirmed in time for the new term in the fall, then they will not suffer politically for holding it up even until the last minute. host: let's go to the republican line. caller: the president's idea of fixing the economy is pretty much like his constituents. they do not want to take responsibility. they are in houses they cannot afford so they blame others. president obama does not want to take responsibility for his disastrous decisions. you have all these people with all those in the in jealousy. if there are no corporations where do the people work? if there are no -- are we

sending our children to school to work for the government? no one wants to take responsibility, especially on the democrats' side. spending money they simply do not have and blame everyone else because it does not work. host: on the independent line from santa ana, california. caller: happy belated fourth of july. i think the stimulus package is a very bad idea. we are already probing the i am afraid we will continue the package because people who voted for obama did not do their research. some people do not have to worry because they have so much money and they can go to germany or

france. i am a minority. i don't care if sonia sotomayor is voted in. i want someone who respects the constitution. host: we have cathy from houston on the democrats' line. caller: i have a problem with these republicans. we pay the money to represent this country, not china, not mexico. another thing, bill clinton had this country on cruise control. bush shoved it in a ditch and el obama gets the deal. every democrat for the past 50 years, carter got vietnam, clinton -- sorry, clinton got reagan and bush debt. it took him four years to clean that up. here we go again. democrats get the bill. republicans spend all the money

and they think it work for china. because you know what? they were put in wto because china paid the bush goes to london million dollars to be there. i wish we had news. host: the last leading needs to take her medications. -- host: let's hear from a republican. caller: the last lady needs to take her medications. i get tired of obama whining and saying he inherited this mess. they forgot democrats took over the senate and house in 2006 and everything has gone downhill since. they are the ones who voted last year for 700. they pursue that $700 billion stimulus package to bail out the banks.

democrats pushed those subprime home loans that failed in got us into the mess to start with. it is the democrats who caused all this. they keep on whining and crying about the republicans. wake-up, people. take responsibility for the mess you got us into. it is not going to work until we get more republicans backed in and get us out of this. when obama took control in january unemployment was five%. what is it now? he said if we did not hurry up and pass this $780 billion stimulus it would go to 8%. now it is 9.5, going to 10. it still is not working. host: on the independent line from georgia.

caller: good morning. this economy and this administration has already failed. if you go back just a year and half when unemployment was approaching 5%, noticed that the media was talking about the worst economy since the great depression. now unemployment is at 10% and they're talking about a silver lining in the economy because we only lost 400,000 jobs last quarter compared to 500,000 the quarter before? this is a total farce. you cannot tax and spend your way into prosperity. no government in no country ever has. in order to create a living wage jobs to send your kids to college, buy cars and houses, you have to stimulate small business. that is not happening. this is a government-created

package to create government jobs to put illegals to work, to keep them here long enough to keep these politicians in power. this is going to fail. when it does, hopefully you, we will get an economy that will put us back where we should be. host: florida? caller: about the infrastructure, as to the movement down here which is very bad. they have done a wonderful job on creating a lot of jobs here in florida. also, concerning the medical -- i live in three countries where they have had national health. the republicans are putting it in scare tactics. there are no waiting lines. the national health, i have had absolutely no problem. i have been in the hospital twice. my husband has been in hospital

once with a. it is nothing but scare tactics coming from republicans on national health. you have to give the infrastructure time. there are bridges falling all over the ups because the republicans did nothing for eight years. now everything needs to be repaired. host: let's go to the front page of "the washington post" with the investigative piece on the number of former lawmakers and aides who are now working for the health care lobby. it is part of a record-breaking campaign by the health care industry spending more than $1.4 million per day in the current economy. the scale of the effort has drawn attention. phrma has doubled its spending to nearly $7 million in the first quarter of 2009, followed by pfizer.

additionally, in "the new york times" to date they have a profile of the two republican senators, talking about the intensity of the outside help care interests campaigning in their states. how strong are these lobbyists affecting the debate in congress? guest: dead is a good question. despite all that spending the lobbyists have been playing ball with the top senate committees, working on health care reform. the word was put out very early that if you cross thus you will not have a seat. the word was put out by top senators handling health care reform. the industry's you are talking about see economic opportunity depending on which direction reform goes. they have been playing ball. you get 15 years ago and the

story is that health care had no interest in reform. they made sure everything was the real. this time they have all been at the negotiating table. they are very wary of publicly crossing key senators. i have covered this. the questions i have asked my sources -- you guys do not appear to like everything happening in terms of legislation drafted. when are you going to speak up? i find out that there is some tension between members of these organizations around the country paying dues for those in washington -- tensions between them who are very wary of reform and of the players in town themselves who want to stay at

the table and see opportunity. one example, if you look to the health care insurance industry they see an opportunity because the discussion even among republican-like bills are a national mandate. you must have it the way some states require car insurance. well, by law then you would seek 5 million new customers. that is very economically motivated. the question is, this the ultimate bill allow us to make the kind of money that we see there? what are the tradeoffs? there are members in the country worry they might get stuck with the plan that long-term will do them more economic damage. they are asking, when will you speak up on our behalf? should we wait or speak up ourselves? host: ok, david, thank you for joining us. let's go next to the republican

line from charleston, west virginia. a caller: thank-you for taking my call. a listen to these democrats colors and hear a lot of blame bush, blamed bush, but i your note defense of what president obama is trying to do. let's look at it. -- and i hear no defense of president obama. in the first six months he has spent more money than all other presidents combined. look at where the money went. look at how many billion dollars went to acorn who helped to get him elected. secondly, he is trying to nationalize health care. he once millions dependent upon the federal government for health care. the blatantly defies the common principles of this country. look at the constitution. look at the legislation passed. look at this cap and trade

monstrosity. it will literally eliminate thousands of jobs in the energy industries and make electric, utility for the common person at least three times as high snl. that is not standing up for the working man. that is enough for big government. when obama talks about transforming america he is talking about transforming us into a civil socialist nightmare with the weak appeasement foreign policy abroad. host: the president is traveling to moscow today to begin a week- long diplomatic trip. determined to change the way the world views of the u.s. he is on to his next foreign mission. he will prove to leaders that america is serious about climate change and outline his vision

for africa. when in rome he will visit pope benedict for their first meeting. let's go to the first caller on the democratic line from connecticut. caller: for starters in into to the gentleman who just spoke, we are at the democratic party, not the democrats. it would be like calling him a republicrat. first of all, he just pulled out every bogyman that though right- wing republicans, not moderates are doing right now. acorn is not involved. cat and trade is not going to be the numbers -- anyone with internet can research. i would also like to speak about insurance. the reason why american manufacturing cannot compete is because japan, france, singapore, china, all of these

nations have national health care and pension. if you were to take out what they pay employees in those countries, take out those expenses, you would find the american worker is right on the same level. for more working hours and less vacation band our foreign competitors. it is key to manufacturing to get the health care done. host: on the independent line we have christine from ohio. caller: hello, to the lady who just called, she needs to start reading stuff that actually tells the truth. as far as president obama's universal health care, my mother is on the medicare system. every time she goes to the doctor they say the entrance is cancelled so she has to go find another one. then they spend another three

months trying to find another. she went to one doctor at metro hospital in cleveland because she was in a car accident. the other driver had no insurance or anything. now she lives with the trachea and no doctor will touch your because the medicaid pays for. she cannot speak and her device bleats constantly. i cannot find a doctor who will take her. -- shebleeds constantly. host: on the republican line we have to go from oklahoma. caller: i think america has to blame themselves for what is going on. they're not paying attention to what the government spends on this national health care issue. i guess they do not remember the child vaccination all that was mandatory. that was followed by something,

liability to these doctors if people get infected -- you cannot sue the government health care. if you are soldier you cannot touch it. so, let's just see who gets sick and who get sued. host: coming up on the next hour we will talk to a foreign policy analyst for the conservative think tank, the heritage foundation. later we will speak with henry waxman on what is coming up in congress and his new book. . .

new york district before he leaves for the pentagon. president obama's 22nd in command for the army has secured $44 million in earmarked for new york companies and an army base in his district. house members are spending millions on e-mail and other electronic can't reach to voters, often in ways that avoid additional communication. in the run-up to the last election, house members spent $3.5 million on the electronic of reach. but rules for e-mail, social

media tools, and the internet, are less restrictive, and in some cases, nonexistent. >> today, and look at the moscow summit between president obama and president medvedev. that is live starting at 1:00 eastern. tonight on "the communicators"we will look at some of the items on display at the telecommunications technology forum. >> how is c-span funded? >> i do not know. i think some of it is government. >> it is not public funding. >> from my tax dollars.

>> 30 years ago america's cable companies created to spend as a public service. host: we are joined by helle dale of the heritage institute. we are talking about america- russia relations. what do you think the president needs to accomplish on the trip? >> he needs to establish himself as a world leader with a vision, seriousness, and with a right set of priorities the russian government. he is also going to africa. so he has a wide-ranging agenda.

i am concerned that his undead that is not necessarily the agenda that i have. he is going to talk about arms control with the russians. they want a new treaty. i do not know if that is what the world needs right now. host: explain the treaty. guest: it outlines the type of weapon that can be held by certain countries, essentially, nuclear powers in the world. that is not the case anymore. we are not in a bipolar world with two world powers. in essence, we are in a world with multiple nuclear players. there are also countries that are aspiring. that is not something that can

be resolved with a treaty. host: we are talking with hello dale on u.s.-russia relations. -- helen dell on u.s.-russia relations. we want to take your phone calls. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. i want to read you something from the "wall street journal" talking about vladimir putin. they say, "bill clinton and george bush also pursued a strategy to little effect. set aside in the dime store psychoanalysis and returned to american interests. this relationship is based on infection that the russians can

offer us something in terms of indulgence." guest: i think that is a pretty accurate analysis. our policy has not done us a lot of good recently. russia could contribute on the international scene if it did some of the things that president obama wanted them to do, like pressuring the iranians to give up their nuclear program. there is no chance that the russians will be doing this. they are part of the problem with iran. they continue to block security council sanctions that would pressure the iranians. the russians have sold a lot of equipment to the iranians. they are one of the major suppliers. if the russians were to do something that was constructive, that would be a

contribution, but it is not very likely that they will do that. host: how significant are their oil interests? guest: russia is one of the bigger producers in the world. they have huge natural gas resources. they are not dependent on iranian oil. many countries that they are friends with, of course, are dependent on iran. if iran were to cut off its exported oil -- which is unlikely, because their economy depends on it -- there would be a problem. however, iran would collapse as a country. russia is a big player in the energy field. host: president obama will be meeting with president medvedev and prime minister putin. there has been a lot of

discussion about who is really in charge. what is the dynamic of the two, and in your opinion, who is in charge? guest: i think it is pretty clear by the mayor putin is in charge. he found a way to become -- remain politically engaged by becoming prime minister. is not a very comfortable set up for mr. medvedev, but at least mr. obama is giving him the courtesy to meet with him. tomorrow, with mr. putin. so she is taking his bets, meeting with both of them. host: let us hear from the callers. on the independent line, carmen from indiana. caller: i see we had the

heritage foundation again. all of these people from the think tank -- the think tanks, what they do this so thoughtful for america. when i think about what they do for america, i get so frustrated and disgusted. i cannot the way you keep letting these eric h. foundation people back on. they are the ones that started nafta. now they want to get involved with russia. everything they do is to exploit resources of other countries and they also put a tax on american people. you are the ones that put us into this massive debt. imf at c-span for letting these people back on -- i am mad at c- span for letting these people back on. host: can you explain what the

heritage foundation is to our viewers? guest: absolutely. we are an independent research institution. we cover politics with a conservative point of view resting on three part market principles, limited government, strong family values, strong defense. those are the things that lay the foundation for the work that we do. but we are a research institution in public policy issues and advocate solutions that we think our creative. we cannot accept government money. we are funded exclusively by private donors. so there are a lot of people who seem to appreciate what we do and like to be engaged by donating to the foundation. we do not force solutions on

anyone. we present research that politicians, or anyone else who is interested, can take a look at. host: we should also said just -- say that we are going to have a representative from a liberal think tank later on today. next phone call. caller: good morning. as far as the cold war is concerned, in a way, it did not really depend. march and were finding the mujahedin. under the current conditions, how much is russia doing to jeopardize americans in the middle east, afghanistan, lebanon, iraq, and possibly north korea? guest: has the cold war ended

-- in some ways, i think it has remained the same. it has ended in the sense that the world does not look the same. when europe was divided, when there was the iron curtain -- and as i said before, before the nuclear standoff -- that is a bit in the past. however, some issues remain, like north korea. there missile program is still thriving and they have their own ambitions. we talked about iran. russia has ambitions to reestablish its influence in its former empire. when now they are holding

massive military exercises on the border with georgia, a country that they invaded during the olympics. unfortunately, i do not think president obama is for to make that a priority in his leadership. on the american side, president obama has decided that the cold war is over and will operate on a different level. it is a bit of a strange disconnect. one side is pretty hard line, the other side sort of pretending that he's serious issues are not going on. host: what is u.s.-russia policy in terms of what is happening in afghanistan right now? guest: russia tried to persuade the government of canada extend from resupplying of our troops

in afghanistan. that was about a year ago. it did not entirely succeed, and that russia suggested that they use a russian resupply route to reach their troops in afghanistan. of course, supplies would be critical for our troops. so we are sort of hostage when it comes to russian goodwill. we need them to let us through. we had good connections with former soviet states in terms of resupplying, but it is a contentious issue with the u.s. and russia. right now those relations are good. host: more speculation about u.s.-russia relations, quoting a russian analyst, what happens

when you push the reset but therbut not on a computer? the screen goes dark, and then comes back on again. next phone call. caller: good morning. in 1995, russia and the u.s. were holding simulated disaster drills. do you think this could be reignited and used as a tool against terrorism? if you see two big powers working together, maybe others will see us and say, we can work together. guest: i do not see a problem with having common disaster drills. despite our differences, the

u.s. and russia work together. in fact, both participate in the nato organization. the u.s. is a founding member. russia is a part of the nato- russia council which was created to reach out to russia. if girls were deemed to be a benefit, and i do not think anyone has a problem -- and girls were deemed to be a benefit, -- drills were to be a benefit, i do not think anyone would have a problem. >> russia needs worldwide will prices to be high to build on

their economy. the biggest natural gas producers are also russia and iran. let us say they would like to have a relationship in terms of fixing natural gas prices. they have suffered a catastrophic economic blow as a result of dropping energy prices. host: do you agree with that? guest: that is a pretty interesting observation. the russian economy has suffered pretty badly. energy prices have declined. in the aftermath of the fall of the soviet union, their economy collapsed and was rebuilt on energy resources. that is an interesting of starvation that could have some merit.

host: next phone call from indiana. caller: good morning. i was listening to everyone earlier and i was interested about the cold war being over. my concern for the american people is, they say russia is our friend and ally. how come we are not always working together? guest: we are working together on some levels. obviously, there are still some differences between these two nations. the u.s. is a superpower, russia is a former superpower, one would argue.

in terms of terrorism, we work together, on the international level, we cooperate with trade. but there are still major differences, and we should not ignore those. my concern with president obama's visit but russia is he has revisited certain things on the agenda that were left to go years ago. -- left years ago. many democrats believe this is a just can't. president obama has decided that this will be his first issue. there are political rights in russia which have been curtailed severely under vladimir putin. there have been human rights,

legal structures which are in decline. the free press basically does not exist anymore. even broadcasts from voice of america, radio-free europe, are being blocked by the government. there is no more free media, certainly on the electronic level. there are many things that we should be addressing, not the least of which come and georgia. -- least of which, georgia. you also have ukraine, imposing high energy costs on them. they are using all sorts of

tools to regain control. those are the sorts of things we should be talking about. host: what is the state of dead russian economy? guest: -- state of the russian economy? guest: they were riding high on energy prices. right now they are suffering, just as any other energy- exporting country. host: do they depend solely on oil? guest: and natural gas. they expect -- export that mirror and abroad, into europe. -- near and abroad coming into europe. russia is such a rich country. they have vast resources. they have everything that you could wish for.

but because of their political system, their history, the way the government has been run for over a century, it has not produced a society that has really benefit from all of the blessings it has. it also has great agricultural land. there is magnificent potential there which is being frittered away. host: next phone call from las vegas. caller: good morning. i am a fan of the heritage foundation. i am sorry about that other person. do you feel president obama is naive to think that russia is going to abandon their nuclear weapons?

guest: i wonder myself. this is an issue that most people were not focused on. when you look at domestic policy, here in the united states, president obama is not particularly naive. i think in their administration has shown themselves to be adept in forming the political scenario. they have pushed major changes in the american society, american governance. i do not think the administration is naive. on the international scene, it may appear that way. psychoanalysis is not my specialty, but i get the

feeling that mr. obama would want to avoid an international turbulent scene. he would rather deal with domestic issues. he does deal with international leaders, but he does not want confrontation. also, he has a pretty high opinion of his own diplomatic abilities, to put it nicely. i think he feels like because of who he is, he can interact with people around the world when the others could not. in some ways, that is true. but i do not think the world is going to change outside our borders because he is president. those changes will come at some point. for the moment, she just wants

to play nice. whether or not the world wants to play the same, we will find out. host: what is your opinion on how world leaders and you president obama? guest: he has very high ratings. in russia, and they are not extremely high, because they selook at people in power from a position of strength. some people on the right heahave called this the american apology, when he is outside the borders. he often talked about mistakes of the past, and that does not express power. russia looks for power.

his approval ratings in russia are only 23%, perhaps the lowest in the world. i think they look at him as america's gorbachev. that is interesting because we, in the west, the appreciated him for bringing down the soviet union, reaching down a hand -- out a hand. from our point of view, it was a blessing. from the russian point of view, it was a disaster. internally, in the u.s., because of the domestic implosion, it will bring the united states to

different level, as a country. i think they are evaluating his strengths and weaknesses, and are seeing more weaknesses at the moment. host: next phone call from goose creek, south carolina. caller: good morning. the heritage foundation does not just issued information. they push their agenda. you always talk about everyone in the middle east have been nuclear weapons, except israel. if i was a country next to them, why would i not want to be armed with nuclear weapons? most of the time, israel has been the aggressor. guest: i would like to respond

to two points. first of all, the project of the new american century does not exist anymore. it was a project that the american enterprise institute, not the heritage foundation -- which is not to say that it was a bad thing. i know some of the people who produced that study. as far as israel is concerned, yes, it is widely known that israel may have nuclear capability. however, they have been surrounded by enemies since the date of its founding, and have not been the aggressor. they have been attacked by their neighbors in two wars, the second of which established its

current borders including the west bank and gaza strip. israel has had to defend its existence almost from the day that it was created after world war ii as a refuge for the jewish people after the extermination was attempted by the germans. israel has plenty of reasons to want to defend itself. it has not used its nuclear weapons, nor is it likely to, unless it's in existence is threatened. -- existence is threatened. do not forget, iran, through its government and president ahmadinejad, has repeatedly said that is real should not exist as a nation.

if that was you, if that was your home, wouldn't you want to establish some defensive parameters? if we could establish diplomatic relations, i am sure israel would look at the world in another way, but right now i do not think israel is the problem. he ran is a far bigger problem. -- iran is a far bigger problem. host: there was an article citing a former russian foreign minister talking about their relationship with iran. he said, the green president is an enemy of america, which is great from an american -- the iranian president is an enemy of

america, which is great from a russian point of view. guest: at death geneva human- rights commission, it was so embarrassing, people walked out on him. i do not think that causes russia too many sleepless nights. again, russian and american interests are not always the same. mr. ahmadinejad is a troublemaker. host: next phone call, fairfax station. caller: i have heard about secret banking operations.

our lifestyle has been hijacked by people like you, you neocons. i wonder how much people like you support someone like ron paul. host: let us go to the "financial times" where there is an article about disarmament. they talk about a key element of the meeting today when they come to an understanding on the starke pact which you referred to earlier. they will want to finalize an agreement by the end of the year when the pact expires when they will move to putting limits on the number of nuclear warheads they can possess, bringing the maximum to around 1500. is this a good agreement for the u.s.?

guest: i do not think necessarily that it will be. i should preface that by saying the obama administration has not even done a review of its own nuclear strategy. at this point, president obama, in my view, is turning things on its head by saying that we are going to negotiate with the russian before negotiating what our strategy will be. that is a chicken and the egg in the wrong order. i think it is premature. there is no need to rush. russia and the u.s. are not in a nuclear standoff. in fact, the problem with this type of approach to

international relations, to nuclear disarmament, is that president obama has suggested that he would put on the table the missile defense project that is currently under way. i wanted to bring some attention to that. the u.s. has negotiated with poland and the czech republic about anti-missile installation. there is a radar planned to be installed by the czech republic and 10 missile interceptors on polish soil. those agreements were difficult to reach under the bush administration. alaska and california also have missile interceptors. this european side of would help

us protect from incoming missiles from "rove nations." in is a world where many players in the world have aspirations for nuclear and missile technology. this is a protective measure. the russians are aware of that but they have insisted that the u.s. give up that project, in exchange for a new starke agreement. that is a bad deal for us. i am hoping people will pay attention to that. it is giving up something for nothing. host: matt on the independent line. caller: only 5% of the world population cannot dictate what

the rest of the world should do. how many wars has america been involved in in the last 20 years? people get information from all over, not just the united states. we are just a small percentage. we might be the most powerful, but you have to listen to other people. it is not only in your own interest. host: dennis from sacramento. caller: i have been disappointed with c-span has lately. you did a wonderful job. he did not even give that ron paul supporter a chance to ask their questions. i do not support him, please do

not cut me off. the problem with a new american century is the problem that got us into iraq. our middle east policy has been a failure for the past 10 years. every day, c-span has another right-wing pundits from aei or the heritage foundation, and you never fall off from someone from a liberal think tank. host: actually, tomorrow we will. caller: but the representation is far more on the right wing. at least with fox news, with rush limbaugh, we know what we are getting. with c-span, is in serious when you have been doing. i do not remember these questions being asked when president bush was in office. i want fair representation on

the television. host: next phone call. guest: could i just address the previous caller? the heritage foundation does not support any individual candidate. i want to stress that. we are and individual research institution. we did not support ron paul, nor john mccain, nor anyone else. to say that the project center of america got us into the war in the middle east is ridiculous. that was a small project that advocated a point of to you. -- of view.

this sort of conspiracy mongering is quite unproductive. host: coming up, and just 10 from the independent line, walnut creek, california. caller: good morning. how are you? we are still talking about obama and russia? host: yes, do you have a question? caller: first of all, nice earrings. i wanted to comment on how russia and obama are going to do with the north korean situation together. guest: good question. i do not know if they are.

there is a contact group of six nations that have tried to negotiate with north korea, which include china, south korea, japan, and russia. we have tried to negotiate with the north koreans about stopping their nuclear program with little success. the north koreans have their own very singleminded agenda, which they seem to be pursuing, regardless of what anyone else does. we have been engaging in these talks for years now. i do not think that we can say in the u.s. and russia will be able to do much. even under the bush administration, which took a

harder line, there was not much progress made in terms of containing their ambitions. host: next phone call on the democratic line. caller: i have a bit of a complex statement, and then i have a question. to me, our heritage, history, and most of us were born since world war ii and only know of it through history. but i do remember this. near the conclusion, franklin roosevelt' -- to the heritage foundation hates -- men with world leaders -- met with world leaders and decided on how to end the war in europe. that included russia having its opportunity to fight from the east, while we've got from the

west with england. of course, rose about prevailed. -- roosevelt prevailed. the way that we won against japan was with the cooperation of russia. we have a history of working with russia initially to build the american century. i have a bit of an analogy to the last eight years of how foreign policy was conducted under george bush. george h. w. bush was able to build a large coalition to liberate kuwait. george w. bush was unable to build a coalition to invade iraq, so we started to make fun of the french. host: do you have a question? caller: yes, i do.

we used to say politics and at the water's edge, today we have so much criticism of our president trying to repair the damage that george debut bush had with cowboy -- george w. bush had with cowboy diplomacy. but we lived in such a global world now, we cannot have it both ways. guest: there was a lot in there. a couple of points that i should respond to. in world war ii, i do not believe that it was up to churchill and roosevelt to start the two front war.

the soviet union, at that point, was not a particularly appealing partner, but they were available, which is why churchill and fdr agreed to the alliance. almost as soon as it happened, the soviet union prime large chunks of central and eastern europe, and refused to leave after the war. that created the iron curtain which separated europe into two portions. one which was free, that was under u.s. and british power, and then left after the war. whereas, in eastern and central europe, all they got one of

soviet oppression which they took decades to come out from. to say russia was a partner in building the post world war is, and i am afraid, absolutely wrong. president obama made some similar points in berlin during his speech in front of the victory monument in berlin. he said all of these nations have come together to conduct the berlin airlift. that occurred because the soviet union did not allow supplies to reach berlin from the west. this is some thinking that is not really in tune with his to me. -- with history. in terms of the iraq, yes the first president bush did a good job of dealing with the invasion

with kuwait. that was an admirable effort. i would say, under george w. bush, we also had a coalition with over 40 nations participating in the initial military action and occupation. that number has almost disappeared and the u.s. is pulling up of iraq itself. to say that there was no coalition is wrong. in fact, many of those countries that were helped to liberate in europe stood with the u.s. when it came to dealing with saddam hussein. host: we are going to have to leave it there. thank you for being here.

>> today, a look at the moscow summit between president obama and president medvedev, including missile defense, missile disarmament. tonight on the communicators, we take a look at the technological technology that was on display. among the guests, gary locke. that will be at 8:00 eastern, on c-span2. >> how is c-span funded?

>> i do not know. a government-rays? >> probably donations. >> 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. no government mandate, no government mondamoney. host: we are back and we want to hear from you. republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. in other news today, on the front page of the "new york times" -- the instability of oil and gas prices is puzzling analysts who fear the jeopard

-- the recovery. it is also humbling businesses and consumers who are already hurting me -- from the recession. let us go to our first caller on the independent line from orlando. caller: good morning. thank god for c-span. please give me the opportunity to say something about the civil war. i am 72 years old. the defense minister of israel asked two questions in an interview which were never shown on tv. the first question was how it is it possible for israel to say that they were attacked by arab countries, when during the first hours of the war, 90% of [unintelligible]

he smiled and said they threatened to attack us. the second question was, when would it is real withdrawal from the 1967 occupied territories? he said when all arab countries decide not to attack israel and recognize them. that happened in 2001 with george bush. he spoke to the king of saudi arabia and asked him to do that. israel denied and said that they wanted 3% of the land. host: do you have a question?

caller: no, i wanted to correct that person from before. host: next phone call. caller: your guest is an example that c-span has a duty to identify the affiliation, groups of these organizations which these people are members of. the heritage foundation. she only gave a partial truth about the fact that they do not represent or support any one political candidate. the fact is, they cannot because they are a nonprofit organization the and there are cards -- organization. deep in their archives you'll

find out that they are a southern baptist organization which has certain biases for the middle east and for the way that things go in the middle east between specific countries. therefore, their agenda would be known, if you could give an identifier tag under their organization name. for example, when the roots of the organization are. host: thank you. michael from safety harbor, florida. caller: good morning. addressing the last caller. she was pretty wrong. first, let us hope that obama is like gorbachev. things to him, they ended the possibility of nuclear annihilation. it took a leader with as much insight -- everyone gives ronald reagan the credit, but it would

not have happened without gorbachev. secondly, they talked about the artwork coalitions, that people went along with our country. countries like palau? they were not the traditional powerhouse countries that would support us to take care of a despot. thirdly, and this is my last point -- look at the project for the new american century. these were individuals who were promoting the imperialistic wars throughout the world. let us look at who the neocons were. paul wolfowitz, dick cheney, paul fife. these are people that you could

go back a couple years before the iraq war started, and they had on their website the desire to go to iraq for all of the reasons. all of this information was available. then after the war, they claimed it was for weapons of mass destruction. they hijacked the country and took us to war and it is just they're just came to go to world and become a world imperialists. hopefully come up about my can erase some of this. -- hopefully, obama i can erase some of this. host: an article today talking about building the presidential library four-door debut bush. one of the items, saddam

hussein's pistol. it was found in the spider hall when he was discovered in 2001. four of the troops presented the pistol to mr. bush. he considers this a pretty significant item that reminds him of his time in office. next phone call. caller: in a time when rebel democrats have gained the ascendancy, a group like the herd on the debt -- heritage foundation is needed. we need some people in terms of activism opposing obama is administration -- obama's administration. the heritage foundation is doing good. the cato institute is doing good.

the bush administration, republicans had control. then the liberal watchdog were doing good work. i appreciated what your guest had to say this morning. the more the date you get from a good side, which is honest, is all for the good. host: next phone call. dutchess county, new york. caller: it seems that people did not do their due diligence on bush. where do you separate fact from news propaganda? you are what you eat. you almost need to throw your hands up in the air and ask, who is telling the truth?

host: george from norwich, new york. caller: i have a couple of points. this observation may be upon of balance, but that is for you to decide. why was jimmy carter's bad economy not his own in 1983? the other question that i want to bring up -- and i do not like to point fingers -- but when we have the heritage foundation coming on, we do not know that they are really there. now we know that tomorrow we have someone from a liberal think tank. are we going to have michael savage-like colors calling in

tomorrow, ripping them to pieces? that was an issue. now that you have scheduled a liberal tomorrow, on the phone lines will be flooded. host: on the independent line, we have julia's from baltimore. -- julius from baltimore. caller: good morning. that person who asked about the seven-day war. you did not even answer the question. he took his time to ask you a question. is it possible may be in the next hour, next day, next week, to answer these other questions? just answer the questions. is this possible?

host: on the democratic line, austin, atlanta, georgia. caller: i am calling in response to the heritage foundation. they are in extremely far right think tank where i attended the university in washington, d.c. is interesting to see how the debate continues to muddle in the center right. if you look at polling numbers, most of the country is in the center-left. hopefully, tomorrow we will get a more balanced view. we continue to see this in the media with iran. there was so much coverage of the protests, rigged elections. in honduras there was recently a coup.

we had very little coverage of that. in fact, npr recently had a segment featuring all supporters of the coup. there is definitely a bias, here in america. i know that people are yearning for a more balanced perspective. .

and everyone else will do the same. that's not. host: when we come back we will have congressman henry waxman, a democrat from california and chairman of the energy and commerce committee to talk about his new book, "the waxman report." first, c-span reappeared >> just reported, former defense secretary robert mcnamara passed away. mr. mcnamara served as defense secretary for president kennedy and johnson during the vietnam war from 1961 through 1968. he wrote his book about his time as secretary entitled "in retrospect: tragedy and lessons of vietnam." he was 93 years old. a nato spokesman said four soldiers were killed in a roadside bombing in northern afghanistan. the lieutenant commander chris hall did not identify the

nationalities. but the governor of the northern province said the attack targeted american soldiers traveling in two armored vehicles. bloomberg reports that james carville will act as an adviser to u.s.-educated, afghanistan's former finance minister in his bid to unseat hamid karzai in upcoming elections. he says he has not discussed his trip with secretary of state hillary clinton. he said he is going to afghanistan for an exploratory visit as a private consultant. united nations secretary general ban ki-moon said the world body may need more than $1 billion to fight the swine flu pandemic through the rest of this year but funds have not come in as expected. speaking to reporters today in geneva, he said the relative mildness of the pandemic so far should not be taken for granted. in economic news, stock futures are down this morning following falling stock markets around the

world. investors are waiting for a key report on the u.s. service sector due out in an hour. dow jones industrial futures are down 86 at 8155 and a nasdaq is down 13. finally, new york congressman peter king is commenting on media coverage of michael jackson in a youtube video. he says, in part, that society is glorifying a lowlife while ignoring the efforts of teachers, police officers, firefighters, veterans, and volunteers and the day in and day out coverage of mr. jackson's death is too politically correct. congressman king, who says it represents the interest of blue- collar conservatives, is among the possible republican contenders for the seat held by democratic senator gillibrand. of those are some the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are joined by congressman henry what -- henry

waxman, democrat from california. he came out with a new book entitled "the waxman report -- "the waxman report: how congress really works." how does congress really work? guest: i wanted to point out that government can make decisions that are so beneficial to millions of americans. and there is a lot of cynicism about congress and government, and i think there is a lot of reason for it, but people should realize that what they don't hear about are the things that going on behind the scenes often on a bipartisan basis to work out legislation that will make a real difference. we hear about the scandals, about the ineptitude, and in fact, we have been fed a whole long line about how government can't 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 enables and empowers them to follow a diet of their own

choosing for their own health. that was a huge fight, and now we take for granted that we have that information. or smoking warnings or no smoking on the airplanes. when that was passed, it passed in the house by nearly one or two votes, i think 45 on the record because once it passed some decided to switch the four or five on the recon. we were told smokers would go crazy. no smoking flights for two hours or less and we did it for two years with the expectation it may not work and there would be chaos. and there have been other bills like the clean air act, very controversial, but now taken for granted. the most successful environmental laws we have never passed. the bills can be what we intended and sometimes better than we intended and they can in effect -- millions of people.

host: if you want to call in -- how did you pick -- you wrote about eight separate pieces of legislation. you just mentioned a couple. why specifically these bills? guest: these were bills that i offered and sold through into law. and they were bills that have done a tremendous amount of good. for example, we adopted the ryan white law dealing with hiv aids. i was chairman of the subcommittee on health and the environment, and in the early 1980's we first heard about some disease. we did not have the name of aids. it was affecting gay men in new york, los angeles, and no one knew what was going on but the

centers for disease control told us it was multiplying geometrically. so, we had a pretty good idea from the beginning that an epidemic was going to hit us. a lot of people said, well, it's a man, and maybe they deserve it. there was very low interest and the disease until -- i tell the story in the book, until rock hudson turned out to have aids. i remember getting invited to a sunday news show and they said we want you on unless rock hudson doesn't have aids, then we did not want to be bothered. it took a lot of time in a hysterical moment. a very difficult ranking republican named -- he was very homophobic and tried to make the dealing with this disease a social issue, beating back against homosexuality rather than recognizing it was a public health issue and we need to deal with the problem from that

perspective. it took a while before we finally passed the ryan white act, but it is the main legislation to deal with the he did -- with the epidemic. it provides drugs for people, strategies for stopping the spread of aids, and it is an important piece of legislation. host: what are some of your lessons of how good laws are made? guest: good laws are made, offered by people you don't expect. i had a call from a constituent, a young man who said to my staff person, i have to read syndromes. it is a rare disease, i use a drug that helps me, but it is not available in the united states. i went overseas and brought it and they are seizing it from me at the border. do something about it. that led us to a whole inquiry about people with rare diseases who could not give drugs meant for them even if they were available, let alone research on

more drugs, because the drug companies looked at it as very level -- very little profit potential. they did not have a big group of people. after a series of hearings and trying to figure out what to do, he said let's give encouragement to orphan drugs for orphan diseases. it has been a tremendously successful law. it has meant the difference between life and death for a lot of people who suffer from diseases and the drug companies realized that it is profitable, or at least profitable enough for them to focus attention, research, and the development of these products. host: apply what you say to major pieces of legislation that you have a major role in -- health-care and energy reform. guest: i think we have to recognize when we hear some of these exaggerated claims of what the consequences of bills will do, we have to put it in

perspective. the energy bill, we hear a lot of people saying how expensive it would be, but we were told the same thing we were trying to deal with sulfur emissions from the midwest, poisoning the forest and the strains, and industry said if you put limits on sulfur emissions, it will cost so many billions of dollars we would have to go out of business. what we did is put in a cap and trade system, we said figure out the most cost-effective way of making the reduction but making them nevertheless, and the reality was it was the 10th of the cost that we were being told during those hearings. and i heard that over and over with the clean air act, although industry said it would cost exorbitant amounts of money to produce cars that polluted less and it turned out they were able to do it in advance of the schedule and at a fraction of the cost. so when we work on issues like

the energy bill now, you have to keep in perspective that some of the cries of the special interests are exaggerated. i think 10 years and that 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 our national security, produces more jobs because of the technology that is the way to be developed, and it reduces the carbon emissions that can cause global warming and serious consequences that scientists ellis may have been because of that, i think 10 years from now people will say, what was the fight all about, what was the big deal. same thing about health care. we haven't unsustainable surge which it did we pay more for health care in this country -- we have and unsustainable situation in health care. people are insured and still cannot afford health care. and the system is increasing the cost so rapidly that it is

bankrupting the federal budget because we pay for the medicare and medicaid programs. so, president obama stated we need to reform this system. hold down the cost and make affordable, high-quality health insurance coverage available to all americans. and we will do that and some day in the not too distant future people will say, what is that fight all about. in many other countries where they have health insurance coverage for all of their people, they take it for granted and they couldn't imagine being without it. host: let us hear from our callers. the first call is from david from the democratic line from va. caller: hello. what a pleasure. i'm one of your biggest fans. i listened to your hearings, particularly when you were grilling that lady from gsa. let me say on that only you are a great american cannot many men in congress like you and john conyers who can really speak to

issues in a clear voice. my question, congressman, is that i think the democratic platform for the new century is obviously health care. we have to reduce the cost of energy -- grain jobs and education. i'm wondering if you can clearly for all of the republican listeners, you are one of the very few men who can do this very well, please explain how health care, energy, and education is the right formula to bring this economy around and position america much better for the future. thank you, congressman. guest: a lot of people are saying why are we doing this -- these big things when we are faced with historical recession, maybe depression, in the economy. shouldn't we wait? and what president obama has said -- and i agree completely -- this is the time we need legislation in both of those areas. people are losing their jobs and record numbers.

as they lose their jobs, they lose their health care coverage. so, while we have 46 million uninsured, we are probably closer to 50 million. it is a real problem when we have our health care tied to employment, and a lot of people work hard and don't get health care available to them because their employers cannot afford it. if they lose their jobs, they lose their insurance as well. this is a time where we say, look, we can't afford the system. we have to hold down costs. it's hard to hold down cost when at a hospital some people show up in the emergency room without insurance and they have to be taken care of, you have to shift those costs for the hospital to stay in business to those that do have insurance, whether public or private. it just means they are paying more. if we had everybody covered, it would hold down costs because we would not go through all of the contortions. if we had a system where people can choose between competing

plans, either a private insurance plan or a public insurance plan, a choice, choice and competition is good. it read boys' -- reduces more defense -- inefficiencies. then we need to reform the way health care is practiced. it is not effected to pay for every test that every doctor wants to impose, because a lot of that is unnecessary and wasteful spending. host: on independent line, atlanta. caller: good morning. i have axillar something i would like to say and then i have a question. -- actually, something like this appeared first i would like to say that a lot of people listen to "washington journal" by radio, they may not notice or realize, and also people that call, watching the show from the beginning, they may not know that the hostess on today, turning is susan davis and jack

to worse for "the wall street journal." -- and she actually works for "the wall street journal." my question for senator waxman -- i am the biggest fan, not the other guy. guest: i like this competition. caller: i wanted to ask you about the country of origin labeling for the food. i wanted to know where it stands, and is it in effect and can we expect to go in and find out where the food is coming from? i would take my answer offline. thank you. guest: i think consumers want to have information and they ought to know the ingredients and nutrition information about the foods and also need to know where that product is coming from. it may or may not be relevant, but if people want to know, they are entitled to it. we are working on a bill right now on food safety, and the

champion is congressman john dingell, and he has been pushing for legislation to give the food and drug administration -- which has a lot of the area of food safety -- not the meat side, but everything else. the fda has been hampered by a lack of resources. they don't have full authority to do the things we expect them to do. and they haven't had the leadership they needed. so, the new leadership at fda, this food safety bill will give a lot more money to fda to do the job of inspecting and making sure that the food is safe and making sure that they can involve the food producers to check and make sure there is no salmonella or harmful substances in the food. i think it is going to be a plus, and labeling is worthwhile because i think clinton --

consumers are entitled to know. i believe in the concepts of right to know. consumers are to get information. host: new york, chris on the republican line. are you there? caller: can you hear me? i had two issues with your energy and commerce. first, have you checked out -- the general motors family company where their cars, all of them get between 50 up to 60 miles a gallon? what is the bill going to get us off of oil? guest: of the legislation is trying to get us off of oil in a number of areas. the largest uses of oil is for motor vehicles. we have strong incentives to produce cars that will use less, if not, no will. we're trying to produce electric cars, hybrid cars and all the of innovation that will come out

if that is clear that is the direction we will take. the president, with the auto industry, agreed to tighter emissions standards. they are based on fuel efficiency of the automobiles, and the whole country is now covered by what california had, which is always ahead of the rest of the country. it is good. i believe we need to go further than that. we are going to be giving strong incentives and loan guarantees -- to produce the next generations of motor vehicles. the second area where oil becomes a factor is some of the utilities are oil burning. oil and coal, when they are used as fuel, produce a lot of carbon veered in the area of coal, we recognize that it is here in the united states, we don't import it, and we wanted able to use it. it is a cheap source of electricity. but we've got to develop a way

to use coal so the carbon is taken out and it becomes the ninth for the environment. we are investing billions of dollars to come as that goal. what we did in the bill with the utilities is that we will give them the allocations, the permits to permit that they will need, so they will hold -- harmless from increases. but they still have to achieve the reductions. they can look for all set. a lot of farm industries produce offsets. they produce the carbon, and that is what we need to do, but they can continue to use coal for quite a while as long as we are reducing carbon emissions over all. we are accomplishing the environmental goals. and in the meantime we are trying to make coal viable as a source of energy. it is better to use coal than to have to bring in oil. it is better to burn less oil in

our vehicles as well as electricity. it would even be better to produce more wheat in the united states, but that is still -- produce more oil in the united states because -- but that will still be not enough. we are clearly on a pattern of being -- having to import that oil from a lot of countries that -- to say it they don't have our interest in mind is an understatement. a lot are hostile to the united states. host: on the democratic line, dennis from bethpage. caller: good morning, mr. waxman. i have watched c-span for 30 years now and this medium gives me a chance to actually speak to you, whereas if i called your office i would actually just have to leave a message. i waited 30 days, so i hope i want it cut off after just a minute. first, i want to talk to you

about health care. i have a petition where, if people go to google and type in change.org, prescription drug benefit, you will see a petition there for people to sign, that they demand a revamping of medicare part -- well, a new prescription program that we demand. we want a prescription drug benefit that covers 80% of all medications. and i want you to pass this on to nancy pelosi and the progressive caucus. we want a prescription drug benefit that covers 80% under part b and let the premium and the deductibles under part b cover this benefit. why do our the way and disabled

people have to pay two sets of premiums and deductibles just for a lousy medicare part d benefit when it should have gone into part b in the first place? and without any coverage gap, without any means test, and remove the means test from medicare part b that the republicans put in and the late sign of penalty -- i call them the gopranos, it is a crime family as far as i'm concerned. they should have not put this late sign up penalty into force seniors and disabled people to have to sign up for that. they should remove that -- i never signed up for medicare part d and i am disgusted with the gopranos who blocked for the

last 30 years. one more thing, if people go to google and type in change.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. we should nationalize the insurance companies and not the doctors. caller: i agree wholeheartedly with your statement about pharmaceuticals. i have been trying to get pharmaceutical coverage under medicare for the long this time. in fact, one of the reasons for my book is called "the waxman report" is we read -- produced a lot of reports when the republicans were in power and a lot of the reports were about the high cost of prescription drugs. this buildup from the bottom. people were angry having to pay

so much for the drugs. we did reports and members of congress found the exact same thing. seniors were paying the highest price for their pharmaceuticals. if you compare those prices to what people paid in other countries, we were paying twice as much for our drugs. this eagerness to do something about the problem gave the republicans a political idea. they've decided to do a prescription drug benefit but to reward the drug companies and to reward the insurance companies by making people have to buy an insurance policy. we never had insurance policies for drugs before. they said you can buy an insurance policy. most of the time when you have medicare, you don't buy a special policy for your doctor or another policy for your hospital care. you have it as a benefit under medicare. you may buy a supplemental

policy for your medicare coverage to help pay for the out of pocket costs. but there was no separate insurance policy you had to buy. they created one for the pharmaceutical area. it cleared away for a lot of the insurance company to make money and the drug companies had windfall profits. let me give you an example. under medicaid, the health care program for the poor, some of those people are also on medicare -- seniors who are poor. if they were on medicaid, that program insisted the drug companies get a discount to reflect the low price they are giving others. you give the best price to others come and get back for the government payment under medicare -- medicaid. we got a discount for that population. what did that republican bill do? they took the population that was medicaid and medicare and switched them to medicare, it

increased the amount of money to pay for the same drugs for the same people. it amounted i think to at least a couple of billion dollars windfall for the drug companies. no explanation for it. just a windfall. these insurance companies get rebates from different drug producers -- they don't pass the rebates on for the customers. then when you pay a certain amount for your pharmaceutical coverage, if you have a high amount of drug cost you are in with the doughnut hole -- you have to pay all of the cost of the drugs until you get to a certain level and then you get the federal government to help. that is all in the course of the year. a very inefficient way to cover pharmaceutical coverage. it should have been and medicare benefits and people should have had it covered under the medicare program itself and it would have been reflected in your copiague -- copays and

premium and we could negotiate the price. millions of people covered by medicare and you are buying drugs for the population -- you would think there would be a buyers' discount as opposed to you or i by a drug. if millions of people were buying the drugs the government could negotiate a lower price. instead, that republican bill prohibited the government from negotiating prices. that meant the only ones negotiating prices would mean insurance companies which did not have a strong enough incentive to hold down the cost and the drug companies, the made a bundle -- the idea of was to pay for drug costs, not just make the drug company's richer. host: on independent line, ray from texas. caller: three questions real quick. number one, we've got oil everywhere and we are not going to drill? number two, how many of the

people being covered under this health care plan, the 47 million that you all claim, are uncovered, how many are illegal , signs it, don't really want insurance because they don't think they need it, and the third question, who was the idiot that hired -- guest: as to the drilling, there is no prohibition against drilling. we have a prohibition against drilling offshore the united states, and that provision expired and present bush refused to continue it. so, the oil companies want to block the coast, they are free to do so. i think there is a problem doing that, because they are beautiful resources and they should not have oil tanks and oil rigs spoiling the natural resource of

the ocean. but put it into perspective. we as a country used 25% of the world's whale. we now produce eight%. -- we now produce eight%. if we drill more, maybe we can get to 10%. it seems to me 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 need vehicles that would use less oil in the future, and that we will become less dependent on those countries from which we have to bring in the wheel. the second question about the millions of people who are uninsured. most of those uninsured people are working people. if you are under poverty and not working, you are more likely than not in medicaid, which is the health care program for the very poor. but if you are working and your

employer doesn't offer coverage because the employer can't afford it, then you have to go out and buy a policy on your own. if you have a pre-existing condition, forget it. if you are elderly among the private insurance companies will charge exorbitant amount. so the people for the most part who are not insured are working people. now, a lot of those people are no longer working and those people had insurance and then along working. they lost their insurance. you talk about 46 million or 50 million. a lot of people have insurance that does not cover their needs when they get sick. so we have a problem for the uninsured, and we have a bigger problem with health care costs continuing to go up and up, which means when we are paying for medicare and medicaid under government expenditures, we are going into deep deficits to do it. so, we've got to bring the system together and hold down those costs. you asked about a speed reader

-- there is a procedure -- there are a lot of procedures in the house, things that are relatively unknown. but one procedural way for an opponent of legislation to stall it would be to insist that the bill be read. i think it dates back to a time when this country, when some of the congressman did not know how to read so each member has an absolute right to have a bill read to him or her. and because of that absolute right, any member can insist the bill be read by a clerk. well, we had a bill in the energy area -- we had a bill last year to try to provide child health insurance to the states, and it had such strong bipartisan support and was finally passed this year and signed by president obama. last year when president bush was in charge, he said he would veto the bill. why would he be to the bill? two reasons -- one, why should

we provide health care coverage for kids, they could also go to an emergency room in the hospital. that doesn't make sense, because that is the most of the other argument he made was to me so astounding, he said why should taxpayers have to subsidize children was parents can afford to buy them a private health insurance policy. think about that for a minute. what if somebody made an argument, why should taxpayers have to subsidize the public education of a child whose parents can afford to send them to a private school. it is really quite amazing. as if we as a society don't have an interest in children getting an education or we as a society don't have an interest in children getting health care when they need it. well, we got that child health bill passed, but when we tried to get it passed in committee of the republican leader of that committee insisted the bill be read, and it took so long to

read the bill that we finally said, we can't complete the work in the committee and so we went right to the house floor without the committee acted. we feared that will happen on the average bill because of any member can insist on their reading. and we knew it would take a long time to read this bill. so we hired a speed reader. the speed reader said he could do 100 pages in an hour, and to read and 900 page bill would take nine hours. i did not think that is a very good use of congressional time. i told the republican leader, let's not go through that and offer amendments and debate the amendments and to get into the policy and not just try to delay. he agreed. he did not have to read the bill but we hired a speed reader just in case. we were both furious, joe barton and i incurious, joe barton and i, how he would do.

we asked him to read part of an amendment, because not only can you require a bill to be read but every amendments. some of the amendments can be 900 pages, 1000 pages. so we said, we will not make a revolt amendment but let us start off to see how well does. this guy was terrific. he read faster and clearer than anybody i had ever seen before. that is a skill that i wish i had. i wish i could throw my voice so people did not know it was i who was talking but, we did try him out for a while and we were pleased with the job. i was even more pleased that we did not have to require him to read the bill. thank you for your question and i hope i responded. host: we have a health care from the twitter page -- why don't you pass a bill for less expensive prescriptions? guest: i think we should require that the government negotiate better prices with the

pharmaceutical companies. and then, as a result, both the government and the consumer will pay less for those drugs. and i think we ought to have less prices charged by the drug companies to the consumers who often individuals or businesses, and the best way to get lower drug prices is to have generic drugs competing. that is the result of a bill that orrin hatch and i offered in the 1980's. to provide for generic drugs. generic drugs are the same drug as of the brand-name drug except when the patent is over they can compete. and when you have competition, it lowers the price. now trying to get an approval process for these biotech drugs. we did not even know about the biotech drugs and the 1980's. but some of these are so expensive -- they can be $100,000, to enter thousand

dollars, $500,000 a year. remember -- could you imagine if you do not have insurance coverage. it could mean the difference between life and death. if we get competition -- it would not be the exact same as the biotech but the fda can assure us it is just as safe and effective as the original drug. and i think it would help bring down prices. that is the best way to hold down prices. negotiate good prices for a large group of population and get competitive drug so that you can say, i will go to your competitor and pay a lower price and that will guarantee both will lower the price in order to keep the business. host: into california democrat henry waxman. i next call from judy on the republican line from columbus, ohio. caller: good morning. a pleasure to talk to you. i am really pretty nervous. i don't get a chance to talk to anyone as powerful as you are. i have a question about this

monstrous captain trade bill. -- capt. trade bill. i hope you will tell me this is not in the bill -- if i want to sell my home or anybody in my country wants to sell their home, they will have to have it inspected and brought to a certain energy code before it can be put on the market, and even if i start that process and they decide that they want to change the code, that i will not able to sell it until i pass that code. i want to know if these are facts or not. guest: these are not facts. and i would agree that they would be very burdensome and intrusive. what 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 new

homes that are built so that there is a rating of how efficient is -- it is. we don't require it, but if you want to buy a new house that is more energy efficient, it would have a rating to that effect. just like some of your appliances have some kind of goldstar of some sort that tells you how deficient that product is. people are interested to know when they buy something new, it is more efficient. but we don't require people to buy more efficient washers or driers, but we do require new or appliances to meet a tighter standard so that if you go out and buy that you would reduce the amount of energy that goes into it. but no one is going to tell you you can't sell your home, that you have to do something to make it more energy efficient. that is just not part of the legislation we adopted. host: the next call is from

miami, alex on the democratic line. caller: thank you for having me. congressman waxman. i just wanted to comment on the health care option. i know a lot of republicans complain, you know, they are afraid that there is going to be no choice and that people will not have the option and they will be forced into this government-sponsored plan, which i don't think is really the case. there is going to be competition in the market, which is natural in economics. i personally see nothing wrong with it and i commend you and the democratic party for actually doing something about health care. it has been an long time coming. i have a question -- you mentioned generics earlier. how long does it take for these medicines to actually be able to come on the market? and that is about it. thank you.

guest: out for a traditional medication -- for a traditional medication, they have a patent for 20 years. they get additional time for the period. to get approved, because they can't market the drug until the approved so they get some of the time restored. if it is a new breakthrough drug they can get as much as five years -- the exclusivity, and not until all the time is over and the generic drug go to the fda for approval. and abbreviate process -- just have to show there is same as another drug -- they can't go to the market. we save billions and billions of dollars with generic drugs. people would rather get generic drugs because it would save the money. benefit managers are encouraging people and pharmacists and coverage people to use generic drugs. it is a good deal for the consumers. and the brand name companies

have their marketplace because they have been out there with a monopoly for quite some time. that is traditional medication. but these biotech drugs have no competition. they have a monopoly now. if they don't face generic competition at all. that is what the legislative fight is all about in that area. we suggested that they have five years as well of exclusivity after the patent is up and the time is restored for the fda approval process. at first they said, you can't make a generic, it is impossible. then it finally came around and said, yes, you can make a generic but we should get 14 years after all the time -- an additional 14 years of exclusivity, which means a monopoly. and we've got a monopoly -- you can charge the highest price, whenever the market will bear. if that is the only drug that

can keep you alive, you have to figure out a way to pay that monopoly rights, if you can. we want generic competition for biotech drugs. it is not going to be the same because they have to get through a process to determine that the generic version of the biotech drug was just as good. it is not just going to be the same drug but it will be just as good because oftentimes these biotech drugs were dealing with the process itself and the process has to be duplicated but then you have to establish with the fda scientific established approval that it is just as safe and effective. but it may not be substitut able -- like traditional, small- molecule you -- molecule drugs. it is a big fight going on now and billions of dollars are at stake.

you talk about people being frightened about change. i have found that people are often frightened about changes, especially when interest groups come in and tell them to be frightened. they hear the cry is of groups that like the status quo and they get are worried about what change will bring. in this book that i hope many of the viewers of this program will want to buy and read, "the waxman report: how congress really works, " we talked about some of the fights we had. they are not much different than the fights we are having now, where there was a lot of controversy and a lot of people objected to the changes. but once the changes were adopted and we looked back at it, it is as if, what was that i know about? why should we not even take for granted that we can get different labeling information on the products we buy? people cannot understand, why was it ever a controversy about

stopping smoking on airlines. as a mentioned earlier, it was a big struggle to adopt a bill by literally two or three votes on the house floor to experiment with no smoking on airline flights of two hours or less. we tried it for two years to see if it would work. but a lot of people said, it won't work. that change is too big, too radical. smokers will go crazy. we heard all of these things. and the clean air act, we wanted to stop acid -- acid rain from power plants and we were told it would bankrupt the industry and hurt the economy and instead it was accomplished at a 10th of the prices we were told would be the cost of 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 that every american

had access to reasonably priced, high quality, insurance coverage. just as they do in other countries. they will say, what is the big deal. why is it the united states spends more money on health care and has a system where the costs to going up and up and people -- people going without needed medical care. people don't understand it in other countries and some day we will look back and say, isn't that a peculiar time in history and i am glad we are not there anymore. host: lewis on independent line from raleigh. caller: how is it going? i just wanted to start out by saying it is all polished -- politicians do is try to please people to get reelected without doing the right thing. my question is, how can a congressman from a state who is in a fiscal crisis advocate increasing federal spending and our federal debt? guest: first of all, i would disagree with your premise that all politicians are refusing to

the right thing because they are facing reelection. in our case, and how come every two years. there are some who are afraid of their -- in our case, in the house, every two years. there are some who are afraid of the shadow. but at the most members of congress wants to do the right thing. they want to pass laws that will help their constituents. they may disagree on how to do it, but i think most people want to do the same thing. republicans want everybody to be insured, as the democrats. we have a different approach as to how to accomplish that goal. i hope that the end of the day we will be together. we may not be. but oftentimes what you don't see when you hear about the scandals of politicians is that oftentimes these politicians are talking to each other and trying to work things out and often to work things out, but it is not a news story. when a bill is worked out any compromise is reached, unless it is a big fight, democrats versus republicans, it usually does not

get attention, especially when you have some bodies low-fare to cover. -- somebody's love affair to cover. asking how i could be for an increase in taxes. i think and california what we need more than anywhere else and just as anyone else is jobs. we will not get jobs by staying still feared we are going to get jobs by trying to go into the future and deal with the concerns that we have for our children in directing a planet that will not be polluted by carbon and offers a tremendous opportunity to produce millions of new jobs, billions of new investments in energy efficient technologies. it is the kind of thing that you have to recognize, you just can't stay where you are, you've got to move forward. and we want to accomplish three things. tell me what it is worth doing -- being less dependent on oil

from saudi arabia and venezuela and producing it market that makes iran rich enough to produce nuclear weapons. we want to reduce more jobs by transforming the economy and giving incentives to the new technologies and jobs. and ideas that not even new -- that would not have been done unless you provide economic incentives. thirdly, reduce the carbon emissions that are doing harm to our planet. our scientists are telling us, there is an overwhelming consensus about global warming, it has causes, because of man- made pollution and it has consequences that are dire in some ways and very serious if you just want to minimize it, but very, very some -- serious. those are the goals we are trying to achieve and i am proud to be working in those areas as a californian and an american. host: another question from the twitter page -- ask mr. waxman

if he doubts electric rates will double. guest: electric rates will not double. we worked very carefully to make sure that in the electricity sector, we will provide the allocations to the utilities so that they don't have to pay for them and therefore they will not be able to pass on those costs to the consumer. and they will have to produce the reductions in carbon, but a lot of those reductions can be done fairly cheaply by buying offsets. a lot of the offsets in the agricultural industry -- the agricultural industry is looking forward to because a lot of these offsets are in the farms and how they produce more efficient ways that will reduce carbon that can become a market for those who have to make sure that they are achieving the carbon reductions. host: our next call from the republican line, somerset, pa.. caller: good morning, mr.

waxman and c-span. i first want to congratulate c- span on this fantastic program. probably the best program on tv, " washington journal." i listen to it every morning. despite what your earlier callers said and criticized, i think they should be very thankful they live in a country where we can discuss these issues objectively and have on a minute guests like mr. waxman. guest: i agree. caller: -- host: i think we may have lost him. gillian from maryland. caller: i hope i can get my comments and my question. it appears to me, even with the fights between the drug companies, they had that fight over -- let me go over to the next thing.

no, the vitamins. the people who used vitamins, they wanted to outlaw that and said that they were not good for people. the fda had not checked the beard that is not be here nor there. what really bothers me is how doctors were of the pharmaceuticals are advertising their drugs, whether they are good or not, via the television. what did you need the drugs or not, many people are gullible and will go and get those drugs. i know of a personal friend who tried the drug out on the side effects were worse than the medication. i'm wondering, is not going to continue where they are going to able to advertise -- is that going to continue, where they are able to advertise over the airways and make money that route and stop other people from doing different things like going overseas or to canada?

guest: if it were up to me, i would not allow those advertisements. after all, a drug can only be purchased when it is prescribed by the doctors. let them and form the doctors of the virtues, which they spend even more money trying to do -- let them in form the doctors. but if you see the public seeing all of these happy people using the pharmaceutical products, it is increasing their market because the lot of doctors don't want to say no when the patients ask for the drugs. but sometimes people use drugs they should use -- should got -- should news, and they suffer from the consequences. there was a situation where the drugs were heavily advertised as soon as they were approved, and sometimes draws as soon as they are approved, we don't know the full consequences of large numbers of people using the drug. so, i suggested, if the fda has suspicion that a drug, if widely used, may cause problems, and they are going to be

monitoring that post-approval period, they ought to be the to restrict the advertisements. -- be able to restrict the advertisements. i guess the reality is the prevailing view is that the first amendment allows drug advertising to consumers. i don't believe that. i believe commercial speech is different than political speech. i have a different point of view. but i'm in the minority. but i thought certainly when a new drug is being approved, for three months or six months, there can be a restriction on the amount of advertising. there was a drug that was promoted so heavily and turned out to be so harmful and people were using a in massive numbers before we realize the harm it did. well, when i proposed that, i had the drug companies against me, i had the newspapers and magazines, because they want the advertisers, the broadcasters, nobody wanted to entertain the idea of any limitation on

spending money to get consumers to buy drugs, even if there is a possibility it could harm the consumers. we will continue to push that at some future time. right now it doesn't look like the best time. but if it were up to me, i would not have all of these ads to make it look you are really happy to be using a drug. in fact, last week i had a medical problem. i still don't know what it was. i was hospitalized. when i came into the hospital, i was barely awake. somebody said, why is your knee jerking? i was making a joke and i said i have restless leg syndrome. i'm not sure if there is such a thing called restless leg syndrome -- i will hear from people. i thought restless leg syndrome with a disease created by a drug company to sell a drug for a disease they created, and i was making a joke. when i got out of the hospital

and they looked at my record they said, he claims to have restless leg syndrome. i did not know if there is such a thing or not. i don't have it. but a lot of people start thinking they are having medical problems because they are seeing too many of these commercials. i don't think that is doing the public a lot of good. certainly making the drug company's richer. host: stop on the independent line from va. caller: representative waxman, good morning. as someone who does have restless leg syndrome -- [laughter] it does exist, absolutely. it is a terrible thing. i achieve that through a back injury. guest: iic. caller: anyhow, you were talking about medicare and medicaid and a prescription drug plan and wanting to push heavily

the generics. well, 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. aikens -- anyhow, it is very, very important that you understand that there are differences between brand-name and generic with certain circumstances. you missed answering a question as to come roaring people in this country with insurance. with illegal immigrants. now, i understand, you know, that is a tough issue and everything. but it is important to a lot of people to understand what is going to happen in that

circumstance. you know, part of the immigration bill is for them to be able to bring family members -- you can extrapolate that -- guest: sorry, i didn't answer that question. i do want to talk about what my thinking is on that subject. some of what we are going to do in this legislation is to subsidize low-income people so they can buy insurance, otherwise it would not be affordable. if you are below poverty, you are eligible for medicaid. but we are not going to make subsidies for undocumented aliens. there is no support in congress to do that. a lot of people feel that they are here illegally, and therefore they should not be subsidized. but there are people who are here illegally moved to have insurance that they pay for, and they will continue to buy private insurance. they don't check to see if you are legal or not if you are buying a product.

so we will not subsidize anybody, not let them go on medicaid. we do allow people, even if they are here illegally or undocumented aliens, it there is an auto accident or an emergency, to go to the hospital. we will allow any human being to go to the hospital. that is one of the reasons why i think we need to continue the extra payment to the public hospitals and hospitals that are called the disproportionate share hospitals, that take a disproportionate share of uninsured people, that they get an extra subsidy not to have to pass on the full cost to people who do have insurance. and that is the way people who are illegal get health care. but they have to be genuinely in need of emergency care. not just show up in an emergency room and just have some medical care given to them. there has to be a genuine