we are interested in hearing from you about walter cronkite.

if you want to talk about him, here are the lines to do so. many newspapers this morning have pictures belayed broadcaster who died yesterday. some of the editorials and papers are weighing in on this topic, the "washington post" among them. they say, "what was it about walter cronkite in particular?"

his town, always respectful of subjects of viewers, told of the death of john kennedy, martin luther king jr., and lyndon johnson. he simply seemed like the right person to carry those tidings. like many editorials this morning. to join in on the conversation, it is one of these three lines. as you can imagine, many profiles of the anchor man this morning, including the pages of the "washington post," talking about how you'd competition when it came to looking at his own broadcasts. as a front page spread, a picture of him during the tet offensive, 1968. lower down, something on how we

viewed his news cast. he was always a fiercely competitive news man off-camera. and recollection of a day being spent with him for in 1979 magazine. throughout the day, she was calling subordinates, editing copy, deciding the stories of the plate. at one point, when someone had edited questions, cronkite exploded. he watched nbc nightly news every evening after finishing him own and his staff lived in terror of the explosion of anger that would double if nbc had a fact that had not been on cronkite's show. so for a half hour, your thoughts of the anchor man and his influence on television news.

columbus, ohio, we're hearing from jerry. good morning. caller: walter cronkite helps, with the way he reported, bringing in the vietnam war. he let people in new what was going on -- know what was going on. no one did those days. he did not report the news, like most commentators. he spoke to the nation. that is the best description you could make. he did not want to leave in 1981. he was 65 of that time. -- at that time. he wanted to work a few more years. if there ever is a contemporary of him, get on c-span as soon as you can.

thank god for c-span. host: he said that he spoke to the nation. what did you mean by that? >> he told like keas -- like is -- he told it like it is, pulling no punches. he had such a void. only equal is the late eric sat right. but thank you for c-span, and please, if you can get dan schorr on, he is 92, not going to be around much longer. host: good morning.

caller: as a child, i know that the family did not sit down and eat until we have had all sat down and listened to walter cronkite. he was a great reporter and anchor man and did not put his opinion in. he told the news. it wasn't right or left. he just gave the truth. i wish we had more like him today. host: so if news is a ritual back then with your family, has the same thing happened now? caller: iowa c-span and cnn all day. that is what i watch. to me, that is good television. the only things i watch at night

are "law and order" and those shows. but my major television watching is c-span. thank you for c-span. host: from pennsylvania. caller: i admired him so i could trust him. i notice now that even during the campaign, there were more favorable stories for obama than the other candidates. even as a democrat, i do not approve of that. i believe that today, reporters should tell the true stories. the thing about walter cronkite

is we can trust him. i do not think we could trust others. i think he is a dying breed, and i wish we could bring back reporters and commentators like him because we depend on them to tell us the truth, and he recommended what the press is to do. we can demand deeper in power be held accountable. we can not do that anymore. host: another photo here in the "washington post." ogle walter was a sardonic but sentimental title, so people who grew up turning to him for readings of the american mind and mood might find they have lost more than an acquaintance

or an abiding avuncular presence in their lives, even though he had retired for three decades when he died yesterday at 92. charlie, go ahead. caller: this is laughable. after watching a walter cronkite report on the vietnam war, reagan called richard nixon and said, "if he had done this during world war two, he would have been arrested and charged with treason." what is with your treason? you caused us to lose the bid now more -- vietnam war. you did all you could do to cause us to lose in iraq, and the only reason you failed is because we had an alternative media. when harry reid but the trees in

this statement that the surge has failed and the war is lost, he was attacked by the right- wing media. there was no counter to walter cronkite's treason in 1968. that is the difference between then and now. when he lied about the '68 tet offensive, there was no counter voice. he got away with lies and caused us to lose the war, and he has the blood of millions on his hands. host: georgia, go ahead. caller: i grew up with cronkite, and everything stops so we could watch the news. but we trusted the news 10. i do not trust news broadcasts today.

i work hard to find out what their slant is, what is their point, their commentaries are always so skewed. and the gentleman who just talked had a point, too. there was no count. there was walter cronkite. you did not watch the news if you did not see him. today we have so many sources of news, but all of them are slanted and the journalism is not as good as it was back then. it was not just commentary, it was the facts. i will miss walter cronkite, and i wish we could go back to the journalism of fact and not opinion. host: do you find somebody else who lives up to walter cronkite's standards?

>> lou dobbs seems to be effective. i hate the fact he may be leaving cnn and going to radio, but actually, i think he will get more on the radio as far as news without spin. just get facts. you have to choose a side and listen to news, leaving skew in one direction or the other. i'm not pleased with the news today. host: you can send us a tweet at cspanwj.

walter cronkite. what do you have to say? caller: i really enjoyed him. he was an inspiration, and he just told the facts. as they say, that's the way it is. host: coming up, we will have a round table looking at health care in the sotomayor hearings. later on, we will talk but community colleges, especially since the president talked about that this week, and roger olsen,

former assistant attorney general for the department of justice's tax division will talk about switch banks and efforts by the the destruction for those who hide money in these banks to get more transparency. that and another conversation during our hours together. right now, walter cronkite is a topic for another 15 minutes. arlington, virginia. christine. go ahead. caller: i grew up with walter cronkite and i am sorry to lose him. i feel like his influence on the news did not take. i feel like the news has lost a lot more reporting, not spending half a program on somebody falling down a well or something like that. he allegedly says that he was a reporter and he allegedly said

that people who reported the news today are actors, not reporters, and i agree. host: as far as news go, do you think he still hasps influence? caller: i think it is deliver far more -- there are more actors. they are upbeat and cronkite always had a wonderful voice that people trusted. and they tried to get beautiful people on. it is just terribly different hop. public radio is the same, but

they are a different kind of news. host: a little bit more on walter cronkite's thoughts about the news itself. "dropped out your pocketbook, your beauty, your garbage can. he also advised the staff of cutbacks, saying it is dollars and cents issues with ownership, not his sense of responsibility to old-timers that said this was their duty is out of fargo, north dakota." caller: -- saying this was their

duty." out of fargo, north dakota. caller: i am a liberal democrat. walter will be missed. i do not know what to believe, so i try to draw a consensus. host: what made him believable? caller: he was dead pan. no high voice, no low voice. just monotone. more believable. host: larry in andover, go ahead. caller: i was blessed to send

him a letter, and he responded. i said it was difficult to watch some coverage with children at the dinner hour, and he responded by saying he is putting it on in hopes that would hurry up the end of the war in vietnam. walter did not try to make the news. he simply reported it with integrity. thank you very much. host: 8 tweaked this morning, writing bad -- if cronkite determine what was newsworthy, he also determine what was not. today, we call that cents a share, or worse. -- a tweaked this morning,

writing that if cronkite determined what was newsworthy, he also determined what was not. today, we call that censorship, or worse. caller: after the war, vietnam generals said that they have lost the war. they did not understand why we gave up. all that said, he was better than most of the news people today. other than what he stated about vietnam, i believe he tried to give the news and not his opinion. that was what he did to his vietnam and how he fought against it, absolutely wrong. the gentleman that stated what

had happened and what he had made was absolutely right. i want young people to understand that the vietnam war, the way it was done in the end, we cost millions of lives because a lot of news people that ran that war other than the military. they lost the war. host: another rights that journalists have become "lap dogs" instead of watchdogs. again, you can send us a tweaet at cspanwj.

one viewer writes that the new unit will be used for high-value detainees. it will not be run by the central intelligence agency, who might be in charge. the techniques could be used from scientific studies. the new interrogations team would result -- represent an obama effort to reform counter- terrorism issues that have plagued the fbi and justice department. caller: i grew up with walter as a black man in america, a difficult time for all of us.

not only was the eight classic, he was classy. -- not only was he a classic, he was classy. he may do respect him, right or wrong, or in different. he just made you feel like you were an american, not a black american or a white american or a hispanic. of priscilla it, and i think there will never be another room walter. -- another -- i appreciate him, and i think there will never be another walter host: what does that say about the connection people have with their news personalities? caller: it was personal.

he felt like a family member. he made you feel like he was a part of your family, be it ethnic or religious, whatever. he just made you feel like you were a citizen of this country. we appreciate walter. i will call him walter, but i appreciate him as mr. cronkite. host: you took what he said fortress. caller: obviously, -- host: you took what he said fortress? -- forfor truth? caller: he had humility, and that is what we're missing in journalism. that humility. there is so much arrogance and reporting -- there is all lawyer

attitude. he made you feel like it was your father or grandfather talking to you. host: james is next up. caller: i came up during that time, and i think walter brought us to truth as best as he could. we have people like that now. i think the people who complain some much are the people who have credit cards, advancing incomes.

people are not able to get credit cards and plants that have to live off of debit cards. you know. what i'm saying fete -- is that the president have now is telling us the truth. we trust him. host: our website has details on him. you can see his book notes he taped with us years ago. you can see that tonight on c- span 2. you can see dan rather interviewing camp.

-- interviewing him. a lot you can watch to learn more about his career and his life. another call from orlando, florida. betti, go ahead. caller: i also grew up with walter cronkite. al is a daily ritual. -- that was a daily ritual. i think you need to take your cameras and get on the floor of the senate and house. if i was as slipshod as them about going to the job, i would be fired tomorrow. they're not carrying their weight. they're too busy trying to make friends. we do not need friends. we need people on the job the care of our business. granted, walter cronkite was taken with a grain of salt. but i would like to see him tell how it is on the senate.

get the congressman and senators in the house. we took every newsman back and the grain of salt, and i like c- span, but we take you with a grain of salt, too. host: keep watching. folks can watch the proceedings of congress without commentary from us on c-span as far as how they do their business. one more thing from twitter. he was always a natural, all is himself.

>> there are public relations. that is the way the news is reported today. if you do not want it, you can turn your television off. that is what they're losing viewers. -- that is why they're losing viewers. there is a slant. basically, they're trying to get people to go one way or the other.

i mean the watch abc network news now mostly. host: one more call. from texas. go ahead. austin, texas. good morning. go ahead. caller: good morning. i grew up in illinois. we bring in the news every day and read it in short pants.

i enjoyed him. he was one of the kind. he was like a teacher to me in many ways. if we had many more teachers like the ones i had, young people would be more knowledgeable about what is going on around them and the world. thank you very much. host: again, you concede that at 6:00 tonight if you want to watch the off of our website. again, walter cronkite passed away last night it did in '92. up next, -- again, walter cronkite, passed away last night at the age of 92. next we have our guests.

>> live, saturday afternoon on c-span 2, book tv takes you to the book fair. tech at the entire schedule online. buzz aldrin takes your calls on

sunday's " washington journal." >> sunday, homeland security secretary janet napolitano speech to the nation's governors. live coverage continues through monday on c-span. >> edward humes profiles to multimillionaires trying to take the plan that -- edward humes profiles of the multimillionaires -- profiles of th profiles the multimillionaires trying to take the planplanet green. >> how c-span funded? >> donations? >> some kind of sponsorship? >> taxpayers?

>> full-length the big question marks -- philanthropy? >> how is c-span funded? 30 years ago, it was created by cable companies as a public service, a private initiative, no government mandate, no government money. host: and now, a political discussion with our guests. thank you for coming in on a saturday. there is a story on the "new york times," front page, about health care. the headline is, " democrats grow wary as bill advances." can you give us your opinion about what this indicates for the rest of the work session?

guest: it is complicated choreography. three of five committees working on this bill -- three of the five came up with some sort of product. there were marathon sessions all week long. a big week for health care. as you said, the article points out that there are factions developing on this. it is not just republicans that will have to be worried about. the white house, democrats are having to worry about their own party on this. factions. guest: he there are concerns about tax increases. the senate finance committee has a good shot to be a partisan bill. there is heavy lifting to do.

it comes pentecost's -- at a cost. the cbo is coming out with scores saying it is paid for, but it will not be. host: the cbo cost about this week twice. guest: it was a mixed bag. it was the same time the american medical association back to the house bill, but then the cbo director said this is not reining in costs. the next few weeks could be make or break. host: there are concerns that with three weeks or so, if they

will be able to do this. guest: as bob said, they're saying, look, we need more time, do not rush it. that is what republicans have said all along. the white house wants to avoid that. they did not want this having over their head. for them, members to go to their districts and the longer something sets out, the more it loses momentum. the white house is very aware that and they want to move on as quickly as possible. obama wants to stick to the schedule. whether or not that happens remains to be seen. host: what is his role going forward? guest: very large. rahm emanuel said that failure

is not an option. they need to pass some type of reform, or republicans will see it as a failure. so if it does not work out for a huge bill, i would think they would scale back its some time. but they cannot leave town at the end of the year without something on health care being passed. host: if you want to ask questions about health care or any other issue, call our lines. where do you see the first cuts get made? guest: as far as whether they are going to be able to do everything they want, cut taxes for health care providers

reimbursements, which are politically difficult, those will all be difficult things, especially when you have two senate bills whoever been merged together, and they're saying they will pass when by the august recess, and they have to merge different bills before the health committee and the finance committee. so they still are looking at the big goal of getting comprehensive health-care reform, but if it falters, they could go to plan b period -- plan b period -- plan b. guest: groups have come out and support white house proposals,

and they have orchestrated the so every week there is a new compromise where you can bring in insurance companies to the rose garden that can have a great event to keep momentum behind the proposals. but it remains to be seen with the final tape will be, because they do not know what the and will be. it can be damaging.

>> i think the american people are willing to pay for health care plan. to try to get the waste and fraud and abuse of of the current system, and that will been rethinking how we get health care. we pay providers to treat the sick. providers -- there are a lot of things we believe should these be on the table for consideration.

my concern is with the debate, we are not taking the time and making decisions. host: how much this way did the blue dogs cold on this debate? some guest:, certainly. when they'd do not like what leadership is doing, they are vocal. some said they talk a lot but they fall in line when the vote comes. we saw that on climate change. but, mr. and congressman ross has in making noise, democrats have said they have major concerns. but democrats also know they lose 30, 35, even 40 democrats

in the house and still pass the bill. >> as we discussed earlier, the only hope corey bipartisans product is coming on the finance committee, where chuck grassley and max baucus have been working closely together. baucus had been putting off coming out with the final package because he hopes for an agreement. if you do that, you may lose democrats, as well. so it really depends on what the final product looks like.

the health committee passed the bill this week and that was senator dodd taking the place of kennedy on a party-line vote. host: olympia, washington. thank you for waiting. co-head. caller: he we were a lot in my age. you cannot find a job that has health insurance. the price is outrageous, and there is no way any of us can afford it. when you get set, you try to go to the hospital, there are no

doctors to help you. what is there out there for people like us in the plan? people will not help people out were getting sick. they try to get some help, and your asset bag is going to be bankrupt. host: on top of that, the cbo talks about who actually would get coverage under the plan. the factor that into his question. -- so a factor that into his question -- is so, factor that into his question. guest: it is becoming less prevalent to find a company would offer great benefits, and

increasingly people are going to have to find their own coverage, and that is becoming an increasing reality as the workplace shifts around. does the bill address that in various ways, depending on which when you're talking about? there are subsidies for people to purchase health insurance. there is talk about lower businesses -- a sliding scale were lower income are treated differently than middle-income and people with a provider plans. it depends on what you're talking about, but it is something that lawmakers are struggling to address. >>, yes, and we have between 20 people and 30 people looking at the benefit and it is too expensive. people have been in that situation a lot. this is where we get down to the

man they -- mandate. employers beyond a certain size will have to get coverage or face penalties from the government. not surprisingly, small businesses are not excited about proposition. that will be another issue for these businesses, including the national federation of independent business and others are going to be rallying against those types of mandate. host: covered requirements? guest: in the house, it is with proceeds over $250,000, they are hit. it is a sliding scale. the more you make, the more you have to give. but the blue dogs also expressed concern about that. there could be changed. host: local, go-ahead. caller: i have a quick question for your guests.

i licenced to conservative talk radio, and something caught my attention on this massive thousand page bill. supposedly on page 16, there is a line outlawing the private sale of health insurance. can you verify this? guest: i have looked at the bill. i have not read every page of a 1000 pages, but i look at the analysis, and it keeps a role for private insurers. it does not ban private insurance. they did say we would not discriminate anymore against preexisting conditions, but as part of the deal, they're seeing 49 million people without

insurance will come into the marketplace, and that appeals to them. not to say they have endorsed the bill -- they have not. but they're saying, we are not going to discriminate against preexisting conditions and jack premium ops -- jack premiums up. pat is a trade-off. -- that is a trade-off. guest: that is a big part of the plan. i think democrats were insistent that the part of it. of course we also have the government planned competing with private plans now in the senate. i think this section that was in with the health committee, they have not finished that portion. it is the portion left to the finance committee, and we have yet to see what that product

looks like. caller: hello. i'm a breast cancer survivor, 63. i'm paying $4,600 a year to my insurance. i have never used my insurance when i had a scrape. i would go to clinics, pay my own money. i have to choose this year between taxes and my health fund. i never to the doctor. we use a regular health clinic which is much cheaper. i would like to ask you, why do we have to take care of illegal immigrants with insurance in their own country that are coming fear? why do we have to support them

when our own kids will not be able to have health insurance? once you put all those people on this plan. guest: there is a provision in the house bill that explicitly says health coverage will not apply to illegal immigrants. some house democrats put that in explicitly and they know if they did not have that in there, republicans would have seized on it. host: we also talked this week to congressional democrats. let's hear what the president had to say. >> it is time for us to buck up. congress, this administration, and the entire route of the federal government has to be clear that we should get this done. our nurses are on board, the american people are on board.

it is up to us. we can defer tough decisions, work meet our responsibilities. we can lead. we can look beyond the next news cycle and the next election and the next generation. we have come together to build a system working not just for these nurses before the patients that they care for, for doctors, hospitals, families, businesses, and our future as a nation. it will get done, because we have a great team behind us and we will be continually talking about this for the next two weeks to three weeks until we've got a bill off the senate and out of the house. then we will deserve some rest before coming back and getting a bill done to sign right here in the rose garden. guest: his congressional relationships have been interesting. he tries to be hands off in some ways and i think it learned from the clinton attempt at health-

care reform. yet, his role has been constant pressure, creating friction with congress, a feeling that you will let this get figure at on its own but keep the pressure and have us to the tough work, hashing out details and making it work on capitol hill. but he sort of last what congress did the details and is keeping the pressure on publicly, and there will be points in which he is going to have to interject specifics into the plan to make it come together. the time frame is looking difficult the further into july

and close to august recess we get. but they have been very insistent on the timeframe. >> if the bill cannot pass by august, it will be a debacle embittered. -- a debacle. they're just looking for those guys to be uniform and passed the bill. democrats can say, well, the house passed the bill, we got it out of committee, that is progress. and maybe they can backtrack a bit from a tough goal of actually passing a bill on the senate floor before the recess.

host: both publications are available on the c-span website. we have a tax that -- attached to that. springfield, virginia. good morning. caller: i wanted to ask about the organizing principle for what the bill is going to do. obama keeps talking about competition, and private companies are compelled to obey the sherman antitrust provision. will the public plan be required to comply with it, and if not, will the insurance companies be exempt? in the show, "the rainmaker," matt damon talk about suing insurance companies that denied modern treatment.

will they be subject to suit and have unlimited zero words like obama promised for doctors? when you go to an insurance company, you have enforceable rights under law. will the public have that? you do not have that in social security. host: let's let our guests respond. guest: as far as liability, obama's said he could be open to some curve on lawsuits, not necessarily caps that republicans talked about a few years ago. but the bill in the house does not include that. that is something the president has been talking about but not democrats on capitol hill. guest: also come up with the public plan compared to the private plan, they would look similar. the idea being that they are in competition with one another and

the levels of benefits and the structure would be quite similar from public to private. host: washington, linda. go ahead. caller: i am an average person in america. i make a little under $40,000 and i have blue cross. i think that our angry is that if you're american employer is paying 400 and you are paying 400, and you go for a chest and you have a person at the desk asking for $200. so you are saying you have not used the that the service for 11 months and one month you use it, you have been paying 800 a month, and now you ask me for $200 and i still pay $20 going to see my doctor? where is all my money going. that is the frustration.

we have people with bills in their hands claiming they do not have to read it, but they should go and read it. obama could be the biggest and best president of all-time. take $4 back from the insurance companies. i'm happy to take $4 a backed -- take $4 back that he will be the greatest president of all-time. i will pay for those without health care. problem solved. guest: people are expecting a lot from president obama. he has said if you like your healthcare plan, fine, you do not need to change it. but there is a sentiment from a lot of americans that they want their plan to be better, to be a lot better. the bill mostly focuses on the uninsured and getting them coverage. it is not to say that some

provisions and aspects may or may not improve, but for the most part, this is geared towards getting people who have no health insurance -- and the people who already have health insurance, if they are expecting radical change, they probably will be a little upset because it really focuses on the people that do not have any. host: is a single-payer dead? >> i think it was always on my support on capitol hill. to say it is dead now " -- we will see. but it is not politically viable proposal, and that upset a lot people. they have tried to inject some principles behind that, but i think it simply is not a politically viable proposal. guest: i think it is dead.

it does not have the votes to pass. there are some people who supported. john conyers and has a bill and michael moore has pushed it with just high of 100 sponsors but not the votes to pass. it could cost some votes, because some in congress will accept a compromise bill, but some on the left will not and vote against it. one of the more vulnerable in congress is congressman eric masek, who was elected last cycle. he has been a big proponent of single-payer and is making indications that he may now vote for the final bill. host: from sacramento, california. caller: good morning. my question for your guest is -- first of all, i think republicans and democrats have shown time and time again that

they will sell out the american people for campaign contributions. they will do the same thing for the health care industry. the question i have for your guest is, is the position being taken by senators and congressmen in terms of the disapproval with elements of the plan -- isn't that more of a ruse, more closely tied to how much money they get from this industry with regard to the campaign funds? . .

they need to get some support whether the a.m.a., aarp. if you don't have support of special interests you don't get anything done. host: earlier this week, we saw the former treasury secretary henry paulson come back to congress. what was important about his testimony? guest: i think he was defending what the administration did and lawmakers unleashed quite a bit a frustration on him during that questioning and i think he said there was no alternative and that was his message to congress and he had to go back and rehash what the decision-making process was like. host: this was for bank of america? guest: yes and he was explaining what his role was and what the administration did. but i think congress has been getting a lot of reaction from

constituents and so they want to go back and dissect what happened and that is a little bit of what happened. host: what was important to go back and dissect in the democrats' mind? guest: what people learned from the bailouts of 2008 and from a republican standpoint a lot of republicans didn't want to support the bailout including john boehner, mitch mcconnell. but now that president bush is out of office they are free to bash anybody who is working for the bush administration and certainly a lot of republicans would correct their vote. host: our calls, if you want to call and ask questions, call the numbers on the screen or tweet and e-mail us. caller: i hope your guests and everyone listening will write down the names of two

organizations that together have the answer to the health problem and i would love for your guests to look into it and everybody should make this information known to our representatives. the first company is called health science institute of baltimore. it is a global organization that is made up of medical doctors and medical scientists who have investigated for years the causes of our diseases and the natural things we can do to prevent it and also if you have disease problems, to naturally cure it. and it is very inexpensive. i mean it is free to get their newsletter. i joined for $49 just to support the group. and the name of it, you can go on health science institute of baltimore or hfibaltimore.com

and get their free newsletter. host: next from virginia on the democrats line. caller: i have a question for bob. earlier you said you didn't read the bill but yet you knew the illegal immigration part was in there. then we had a caller saying on page 16 how you cannot sell private insurance. that is very true. that is in the bill. so if i were to get fired i'm forced that the government healthcare. that is in the bill. guest: i read a lot of the bill. i haven't read all 1,000 pages but the democrats have said there is going to be a mix of the public and private plan. some say when you have the government involved there is no way the private insurance industry can compete with the massive government so that eventually we are going to be

leaning more toward a government-run plan. and certainly that is what some democrats have been telling people who like the single payer plan. that this is a slow step toward that. that is not what democratic leaders are saying but that is some of the rhetoric. host: earlier there were several taste of hearings featuring judge sonia sotomayor and it encouraged exchanges. here is some of the exchange with lindsay fwragraham. >> the last question on the wise latina woman comment, to toes that may be bothered by that, what do you say? >> i regret that i have offended some people. i believe that my life demonstrates that that was not

my intent to leave the impression that some have taken from my words. >> you know what, judge? i agree with you. good luck. host: even stories saying some republicans are going to back this nomination. what did this show as far as the process with the judge? guest: i would have to say this week was a little bit dull. the highlight clip you showed was almost as testy as it got. it was a very smooth week for the potential justice and i think that there were some tough questio questions, very much focused on that wise latina comment. but in terms of the process, you did have a couple of republicans -- i think there were they republicans saying they will vote for her -- and i think we only heard one republican for sure who said he will vote against and that is senator mitch mcconnell. so unless they said it from the

very outset of the hearings her nomination or approval was sealed barring any meltdown. there were not any meltdowns so i think you will see her pass through the senate before the august recess. host: but a lot of repeated questions about the wise latina comment. that came to the surface time and time again. guest: yes but she took it off the table a little by abo backtracking. she didn't defend it. and it led to some awkward exchanges. but democrats, since president obama nominated her, the republicans have been on their heels. this has been a very smooth confirmation process and she's going to be confirmed. i think the only question is whether more than 20 republicans will back her. i would bet they do get more than half. host: did you hear anything about the process itself and whether we need these several days of hearings especially since in most cases a president does get a choice as far as who

he wants to appoint to the supreme court? guest: certainly senators see this as essential. this is them flexing their constitutional power. and i think that this is an important process for them where they get to feel out this potential justice and certainly this happens in private meetings which have been going on for weeks. but this is a very public showing and a chance to air some things they want to go on record as having talked to her about. this could be fodder for potential criticism down the line and you are seeing markers thrown down for another supreme court nominee if president obama gets that chance during his tenure. i think you are seeing a lot of that going on because there were not, as bob said, that much fireworks with this particular nominee. host: kansas city, missouri, sherry on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have two questions. one, isn't it true that the senate, congress and president will be exempt from this bill?

and, if so, why? and i believe there is a new representative who was just hired the last cycle that has put forth an amendment that says if whoever votes for this bill will have to come under this bill. and i don't understand why the congress will write bills that don't apply to them. if it is good enough for us in their minds, why is it good enough for them? guest: there has been an amendment offered by republicans that, members of congress should be in the public plan. so, if they -- they won't have the option of the private plan. it undetermined whether that amendment will get in the final bill. but republicans want to make the point if you want the public option then you personally should be in the government-run plan. i think you can see that debate heat up where members of the public are going to say what about you, how will this affect

you. and they have their own plan on capitol hill. host: silver spring, maryland. sean on the republican line. caller: what americans really get is hypocrisy. i think on page 15 it says there is no longer you can do private insurance. to i'm astounded that you guests can come on and not read past page 16 of the bill. it shows the cult of personality that goes on in washington. and it is true that the bill has 45 republicans that signed on with democrats and they have a five-year window that they are exempt from this plan. i'm just astounded. if i was going to go for a job interview i would study on what i'm talking about. host: 1,000 pages. is there some type of executive

summery? >> there are summaries and those that put it together have summaries. and it is important to -- and we do read these bills. i want to be clear that the folks who are covering this do read and -- but we don't have these bills right in front of us and we can't just flip to page 16. it is also important to note that nothing is final. these are working products. so when we are talking about the bill, there is no one "the bill." we are talking about various committees putting together different products. so if we say turn to page 16 of the bill we are a ways off from that. fshlths true. and as far as the process goes, unlike some other bills -- and the bailout comes to mind -- that you have -- and climate change, too -- this bill, unlike some previous ones, you do have the chance to go and read. now, different provisions can mean different things to different people, and republicans and democrats are in that rhetoric war right now.

but this one, unlike previous major bills that it is 1,000 pages, you see a section-by-section analysis and a lot of it is technical whether they are changing one 20-year-old law with an "and" and "the" and you need to talk to experts. host: back to judge sotomayor somebody asks do you think her gender and race had anything to do with her confirmation politically? guest: well, certainly the fact that she is a hispanic woman helped her. republicans have struggled, they lost the hispanic vote in 2008 and 2006. did pretty well in 2004. so, that has been -- republicans have been reluctant to criticize her and we recently interviewed the governor of puerto rico who is a republican who used to serve in congress and he said that he backs sotomayor and thinks republicans should change their tone and they have to watch what they say because it is offensive to a lot of people

in the hispanic community. guest: the hispanic community picked up on it. there was criticism of the tune republicans took during the questioning and i think there might be political fallout for republicans. and i think that was a factor in how she was treated. i think republicans were aware of that, but it didn't go over well in the hispanic media. host: alabama. caller: i want to make a quick comment then i want to ask a question for emily. the reason it is important for your viewers to understand why the public option is so important, federal employees have protected insurance. now, it is private insurance but it is protected. the difference between protected insurance and what the vast majority of americans get is you can go buy an insurance policy from private insurance but you are not protected. in other words, i'm a registered

nurse. as soon as the patients come into the hospital the private insurance company can either deny payment up to the premiums or cancel the insurance. but if you are working for the federal government, even though it is private they make be a agreement because it is such a large pool of people. even if they get sick, the insurance company will pay and they will not up the premiums and they will not cancel the policy. that is why the public option is so important. guest: i think her point about bigger pools meaning lower prices and perhaps a better benefit is dead on and that is one of the ideas lawmakers have been talking about. it is hard for a person on their own to go out and buy insurance because they are one person. but if yo you pool people it lo costs. that is the idea behind the

public option, the more people you can get doing bulk purchasing is hard for individuals to do that. host: another offshoot going by card checks when it comes to forming unions. there is a story in the philadelphia enquirer saying the democratic official familiar with the talks on the bill to make forming unions easier union leaders are willing to drop the card check to win over senate democrats. can you fill in the blanks on this and what this means? guest: this bill up until now has been called the card check now but i think we will have to find a new name. they have dropped this provision and i think that is an indication of the 10 kntenuous situation in the senate. they could not get enough democrats let alone republicans to support this with this controversial provision in it. labor unions are disappointed in this. this was something they really

wanted. but they are saying what is left in the bill, which is a union bill, is good enough for them and it does include making it easier for employees to unionize. that is what is left and now the card check is out in sort of a milder unionizing bill. host: why didn't card check run the distance? guest: lack of votes. arlen specter, who had voted not for the bill but to proceed to the bill, had indicated that he was not going to vote that way this time and some conservative democrats expressed some caution about that legislation. the thing is that that card check provision, i think, could come back as an amendment because labor unions want to get members on record on how they feel on that. an because of the way the cycle is and a lot of republicans are up this cycle some democrats think they could pick up a seat or two in the next cycle and you would have potentially the votes for card check.

but doesn't look like it will happen in this cycle. caller: i keep hearing us talk about healthcare and the one thing you never touch on is a large part of the expense of healthcare is the malpractice in the united states. i was in new zealand and they have a committee of specialists. you do not sue the doctors. if something happens, this committ committee, who understands this, they decide what the cost is going to be for that person, where in the united states it depends on a committee of private citizens you get and how sorry they feel for you when something happens that determines it. and i don't see how we are going to bring down, when i go to the doctor's office and he has to hire about five secretaries to take care of all of this, how you are going to bring down the cost of health insurance. guest:

guest: as far as medical liability i don't think there will be a lot of those provisions in it. what a.m.a. got in the deal in the house bill is that they would restructure the medicare payment process for physicians. that is a huge issue for them. that is very close who how important they view medical liability. so they got a.m.a.'s endorsement and the house democrats are not exactly listening to the president on medical liability. host: next is adam, louisville, kentucky, republican line. caller: good morning. i want to know why bills frequently have been over 1,000 pages, why can't they keep the standard of the constitution? i was wondering if they would lower that. and i was going to ask, they are

trying to pass legislation without republicans, yet there are our representatives so they are ignoring a small minority of the american people. guest: on the bill language i would say legislative language is different than constitutional language. you are dealing with a lot of very detailed, very specific provisions and it gets very complicated and it could be very convoluted and even for those who are versed to read through the bills and figure out what they mean. so, bob's point about there being time to hash through this is important. and when average people read these bills it is difficult for them to pull out a real meaning and how it affects them. and that does provide a difficulty for people. and i think that it is always --

you have to look at the analyses and how people say it will affect people. it is important and i think people are interested in doing a lot of reading from a lot of sources and that is important to be educated about what the bill does and how it affects people and there's been tons of coverage in mainstream publications. host: one phrase you heard in some was a truth commission as the house is going to investigate an al qaeda program that was run out of the c.i.a. talk about that investigation, but talk about the ongoing discussions about some type of truth commission to investigate actions that happened during the bush administration if there is any viability in that. guest: it has been going on for a while. rest surrected by the speaker a with the reports of vice president cheney and his involvement of allegedly concealing a program from congress there are some democrats that have grappled with whether to look back, look

forward. president obama said we should look forward but if there were major crimes we will look into them, but what is a major crime and even senator schumer said last week he is not exactly crazy about going after the vice president on this because he is like we don't know exactly what we know yet. but to go back and look at this and do the truth commission and find out what happened but politically that is not appealing to some voters. guest: i think that you are seeing that collision this week where we were talking about healthcare which is one of the president's biggest priorities. so i think the white house is very afraid if you get into some of those issues you lose momentum on things that really are a priority for the president and that has been one of the big arguments for not looking back because there's a lot on the president's plate not just with healthcare but plenty of other issues. host: we have a few more minutes with our guests, a few more calls. miami, florida, mitchell on the

democrats line. caller: yes, my take on the whole matter is the wheat and the tair should grow together and the law of rjustice is comig because the mean spirit of the republicans from the time of the reagan era, they probably thought the 50-year plan to undo everything that franklin delano roosevelt put in place and you think of the bible and think of hypocrisy you think of the reasoning of what -- the reasopt you sew is coming through. there was an elderly white lady in tennessee who was so embarrass and let down with the religious right who know the law

but will cut their nose to spite their face. you would think the middle class, who suffered the most were dealt the wrong hand. the middle class shouldn't have gone with that reagan mentality. host: do you have a question for the guests? caller: yes. why would you not think this would go through. guest: this debate is something very perform to people. everyone has a story about how this has effected them and their family. so it is not an abstract debate and i think that people who weigh in who look at this as a moral issue, i think they are being hurt. i think people really see that dimension to this debate and that you can't just talk about

it in a way that is just dollars and cents although that is what congress is doing. i think they are hearing from their constituents personal stories and other side of that debate. host: somebody says congress meets 70 days a year. they don't read bills much less write them. they rarely go to the floor. impressive group. what does that say during the debates on healthcare? guest: well, congress is never a popular institution. they are always low in the polls, a little higher than a couple of years ago. but i think there is some frustration that the promise of change, which was enormous promise, hasn't happened as much as you would think. partisanship is still flaring. you still see the house with a lot of rhetoric and partisan bickering. that is kind of a staple of washington. it was tried to change by president bush. he admitted that he didn't succeed. president obama has tried to change the tone.

host: leonardtown, maryland. melanie on the independent line. caller: once people realize that the liberal agenda dates back more to the understanding of sol linsky who was a social communist the progressive movement started under f.d.r. and the reason people put it down is more government doesn't work. i want to have one person call in and say what government program really worked and didn't end up costing us money. we are in jimmy carter times again and unfortunately for president obama and the fact that he really loves sol linsky as a writer, this man wrote rules for radicals. look him up online and try to understand what the progressive

movement is about and you will understand why the american people don't want to buy into it and they are starting to realize this man who ran on a centerist platform is a radical. host: talk about, aside from healthcare, what other things are we seeing on the horizon as far as the remaining three weeks? fshths obviously in the senate there will be a vote on the confirmation of sonia sotomayor. i think that healthcare is really going to be the biggest issue. like bob said, this will be a -- if it comes together before the august recess, the house has to pass a final bill. first the committees have to weave together their product. the house has to pass that. the senate finance committee has to pass their version that has to be connected to the other panel and then it has to go to the senate. host: is it the only pretty much

agenda? fshlths the one that will suck the most air out of the room. there is a transportation and highway bill jim oberstar wants to move but president obama doesn't want to move it and the senate doesn't want to do a short-term extension but they need to add at least $7 billion into the highway trust fund to make it to september. then you have the defense authorization debate and what you will think i think next week is a revival of the debate of guantanamo bay and what we should do with the detainees and the amendment by jim inhofe that would prevent any detainees from coming to the united states for trial. host: in the "wall street journal" there is a story saying a enthusiastic team may be formed to figure out how to go forward with how to interrogate those terror suspects. guest: the obama administrat n administration, we are almost into august, they have to come up with some answers on this,

what they are going to do. they have to close this facility by the beginning of the year. so, the decisions need to be made now both on where they are going to go and how they are going to interrogate them. host: as far as that is concerned, will that debate take place even though healthcare is going to be one of those things that makes the agenda before the end or could it be punted? i think you will hear a lot about it next week and probably the two weeks after that. can congress walk and chew gum at the same time? we will see. host: one more call from arizona, zack on the republican line. sfwloo good morning and thanks for the call. on the sotomayor hearings, if she is a true viable candidate i wonder why in the senate hearings there should be some guy playing the good guy and bad

guy. no one really grilled her on these. she just answered on what she needed to answer. she shuffled to the right, shuffled to the left on some of the statements she made. well, i think should have dug ain and because this is a lifetime appointment and very crucial to the nation. and on that, that is probably about all i need to say. i think they should have rooted a little harder. on the healthcare thing, there is no doubt there is a lot of problems with the healthcare thing. but it is like the healthcare situation for the government and one for the people. now, we know that you -- both of them can't work side by side. they have to be joined like at the hip. on the healthcare, remember, there are millions of teenage ers that don't really care. they have been healthy all their lives. you get sick it is last thing on their minds. so they are out becoming young

adults. if we go and force everyone to pay for this it will put an undue burden on a lot of people and there are a lot of people that will get sick and accidents will happen. but as far as looking at how many people you know your kids that leave home that are not worried about healthcare insurance but people put this on them it is just already going to be hurting an already collapsing market. host: final thoughts? guest: his point about grilling sonia sotomayor, we talked about that earlier. i think that republicans were in a very difficult spot. it would have been very difficult to play bad cop with her in the way the caller was interested in hearing. he wanted to see somebody really rip into her and i think that would have been political suicide for republicans. it would have really angered hispanic voters and people who think that she is a sympathetic figure. so, i think that would have been

politically very careless. on the healthcare thing, certainly the young uninsured are a big worry. the idea being though that if everyone is insured, then insurance costs go down. that is sort of the story on capitol hill. whether that is true remains to be seen. but the idea being if everyone is insured when you have an accident or get sick your costs are not so high because you have that insurance. guest: on the sotomayor confirmation hearings, i think some of the fire out of republicans was tape away because of who she is replacing, david souter. but then you have the other aspect of gun control with the national rifle association has come out against her nomination but not as forcefully as some conservatives wanted and the question is if you vote for sotomayor will you risk your a-plus rating from the n.r.a.? so a lot of factors and they

have always given the democrats an upper hand in it nomination. host: bob cusack. if you go to our c-span website and read their work every day. roll call is represented by emily heil. rollcall.com. we thank both guests for being on. earlier this week the president spoke in warren, michigan talking about strategies to improve community colleges and helping students who attend them. here is what he had to say. >> all too often we don't know what happens when somebody walks out of the classroom and on the factory floor or into the laboratory or office. that means that businesses often can't be sure what a degree is really worth and schools don't have the facts to make informed choices about which programs receive -- achieve results and

which don't. this is important not just for businesses and colleges but for students and workers as well. if a parent is going to spend time in the classroom and away from his or her family, especially after a long day at work, that degree has to mean something. they have to know when they get that degree it will help advance their goals. if a worker is going to spend two years training to enter into a new profession, that certificate has to mean that he or she is ready and that businesses are ready to hire. in addition, we want to propose new funding for innovative strategies that promote not just enrollment in a community college program but completion of the program. more than half -- more than half of all students that enter community college to earn associate degree are transferred to a bachelor degree fail to

reach the goal. that is a tragedy for these students. often they have taken out debt and don't get the degree but they have to pay back the debt. and it is a disaster for the economy. host: our next guest is the president an c.e.o. echle. why was that speech important to you? guest: it was incredibly important to the nation because the president essentially laid down a marker saying we need to dramatically increase the number of americans with college credentials because of the importance a college degree has for the workforce development, civic development and democracy as a nation and i think the investment in community colleges it particular with the focus on job training, the ability to transfer to a four-year institution is particularly important. host: you attended this speech.

what is your role and what is the lumina foundation? guest: our mission is to expand access and success in education beyond high school. we have a specific goal. we want to see 60% of americans with high quality college degrees by 2025. so, our grant making, we are the largest private foundation in america focused on this higher education mission and to support organizations and programs that will help get more students into and through college. host: what is it about community colleges that aids job retraining and learning new skills over a four-year institution? guest: they are workforce relevant. they are able to respond to the needs of community rapidly and helping to develop jobs in ways that result in meeting the immediate workforce needs of a community. if there is a large hospital and they end up with significant growth in that community, a hospital can respond by

developing healthcare programs that will help train people for the johnson needed in that hospital. four-year institutions which are the life blood of our economy in a lot of ways, people with botch lore degrees, they provide broader skills and those broader skills are incredibly important in terms of the long-term success of the country but community colleges provide that immediate help that helps get people into the job market and for some of those students they will ultimately get a bachelor's degree. host: talk about the demands placed on community colleges during this current economy and how they are being supplemented with federal or state dollars. guest: the current crisis is a challenge because they face declining funding and increasing enrollment at the same time. so, the challenge they have is they are trying to do more with less. i think that part of what the president's proposal is about that we we support is the idea this is not just resources to make up for losses in funding

from other sources. it is about getting more people to the completion level. that is, getting them with college degrees, not simply helping to hold the colleges harmless but improving the quality of remedial education, improving transfer to four-year institutions, helping do a better job linking with businesses but the entire focus of the objective is getting students to the completion line and i think that is a very worthy goal. host: what is the best practice for a community college to make sure that happens? guest: many of our community colleges in the country are aimed at doing precisely that but they have been hampered by the fact that many students who come have prior educational deficiencies, they tend to be lower income and so they are coming to the starting point as access oriented institutions with a lot more challenges. lumina foundation has had an initiative the last five years called achieving the dream,

which includes 102 community colleges. the focus of that effort is on improving the success rate for students in community colleges and that is very much aligned with what the president is trying to achieve. host: you can call the numbers on the screen. we have set aside a special line for students particularly those who attend community college to give your input as far as the president's proposal and what your experience has been in a community college. could you outline what the president wants to do? guest: the proposal is to create five million more community college graduates the next decade. that would be a significant increase. we graduate between 600,000 and 700,000 per year from community colleges today. this would represent a substantial increase in the number of americans with

community college degrees. the overall goal getting to the big goal of 60% degree attainment by 2025, this would be a major chunk out of that. besides the effort which they call challenge grant funding which is focused on getting to some of those improvements in remedial education, transfer rates, et cetera, there is an effort to promote online learning to develop new interactive software. our peerers in the other foundations have supported this kind of creative use of technology online and that is another element of this. it is helping to get more students through the community college using technology. host: the first call for our guest is from miami, florida. and it is on our republican line. caller: good morning. i applaud what you are trying to do for the junior colleges, i

really do. but i was wondering if you had an opinion regarding how kids get there in the first place. nationwide i believe 30% of kids that enter high school never get a diploma. in the big city 50% of kids never get a diploma from high school. in detroit 75% of kids going to public high school don't get a diploma. when do we realize the way to solve the public high school situation is through school choice? i want to ask a follow-up but if you could respond to that first. guest: i hope you will agree the challenges of the system are across the educational pipeline so we have issues to address in terms of improving k-12 education. there are a lot of good efforts around that. there is a significant increase in the movement to charter schools that i think is very encouraging. on the other hand, our economy requires people with

post-secondary credentials, the vast majority of jobs being created in the economy require some form of college level or post-secondary education. so it is not an either-or proposition. we have to do a better job of educating kids at k-12 but we have to make sure they are succe successful when they get to college and get through. host: your follow-up. caller: in public school i just don't believe that one size fits all. there was a book written in 5859 by john stuart mills on liberty. it is referred to as the liberal bible. in there he said the government should pay for education but not provide it because whoever provides it has the ability to control the minds of the children. i say parental choice is public school has been a disaster for 50 years, totally democratic controlled. let's put the responsibility back in the hands of the parents and choose the schools for the

children. guest: i think one of the hallmarks of american education is diversity. we have public and private k-12 schools and public and private colleges and universities. and i think that is an important part of our system. we have to protect that diversity in our system and make sure that students do have the kinds of choices that they need in order to meet their life goals. host: todd on the independent line. from michigan. caller: we talked about the young younger kids going to school but i want to bring up another aspect. i'm 52 years old, and i went through the dislocation program because i lost my job in 2006 and i am receiving t.r.a. i just completed a medical assistant course at carnegie institute. i finishing with honors then i have to serve 150 hours of that.

i start more than and they told me -- i start monday and they told me we are not hiring. so i call t.r.a., special benefit unit and they say you only have seven more weeks left. i said i lost everything i had in the last three years, drawing unemployment. can't find a job that pays a wage. i retrained in the medical field and i might as well commit suicide. she said she will send me to somewhere else. what is a 52-year-old guy that did the right things, went to skl, filled out formats showing progress. studied as hard as i could and i can't even support myself. guest: i think that 40% of students in higher education today are actually over the age

of 25. so, the notion that college in america is for young people is a misguided notion and you raise a very important point that i think links to what the president has proposed, which is that a significant part of what we need to be doing in higher education is retraining people, helping people connect more with the new economy. that includes green jobs, jobs in healthcare, jobs in new technology. those the kinds of things for which community colleges need to be focusing their efforts. but the losses in the auto industry and other industries are so massive we have to have a broad plan and i think that the president's proposal largely meets that goal, a broad plan of trying to address what is a significant gap in terms of the adult needs in this country. we should not let the current generation be left behind. we need to focus on their success as we educate the new generation. host: are there programs or areas of skills that work best

in the community college setting? you mentioned the medical field but are there others that work well in a community ledge? guest: different community colleges have different skills and i think the diversity of mission is important. but i do think it is that general responsiveness to the labor market that is something that two-year colleges in general do a better job of. so sure the medical field is a good example. advanced manufacturing is another example of areas where they do a good job. they do a good job in terms of tech jobs, et cetera. so there are things they do well and those tend to be the areas where the fastest job growth is. host: chapel hill, north carolina, from streeter who is a student. good morning. caller: how are we doing? what i want to ask is why do we even need job training? i feel that people get their training on the job. it just seems a waste of money.

kids don't go to school to get an education really, they get it for a degree. i just feel like i'm just going there to school for a degree. i don't see what the point is of more education and paying for that and all that money that will go into it. host: what is your major? caller: economics. host: what do you hope to do with it? caller: i plan to just go into the stock market. guest: i think that you raise a question about the relevance of education and i had an opportunity to participate last week in the world conference on higher education, which is a conference that take places every 10 years dealing with leaders of education from around the world much and this issue of the relevance of higher education is terribly important. no, i don't think that job training is the only thing we do in higher education but it clearly one thing we do. and i have to say that the things that a college degree provides you with are not only content knowledge, that is an ability to know something about

physics or economics orographic design. it helps you think critically, to learn how to write, to be able to communicate. all of those are part of the collegiate experience and things for which you will need to be able to do well to be successful on the job. host: atlanta, georgia. carolyn on the republican line. caller: i'm calling because i have known since president clinton's days he spoke on people going back to be reeducated into job areas this are needed such as healthcare and other service jobs. and also i heard part of obama's spee speech. i'm not quite sure, but i believe he dated something like those colleges or technical schools not knowing how to send students in the right direction. and i believe that those

advisors are very well equipped with letting students know the jobs and areas that are available for them to go into. i do believe that. so, they should put more money into education, but how do you get students into those schools if they don't have the desire or do not finish high school? guest: you are raising an issue between the fit of what the student's needs and expectations and what the colleges document getting that match right is terribly important. we have supported an initiative called know how to go that targets eighth to 10th graders to help them understand what they need to know and be able to do to get ready to college and it is getting the right fit in terms of the institution that meets your needs. one thing that hasn't gotten a lot of attention is the idea of

supporting improved counseling and information for students. i think those services, which start at the high school level but then continue in the colleges is terribly important. getting access to the right information is not insignificant in this world of cacaphonous information that we face. the internet and variety of other sources. host: are community colleges better set for people returning to education or making changes to accommodate for that as you see it? guest: i think they are. i think that although i think they could do better, i think this issue i mentioned of being responsive to the labor force is important. at the same time, the life circumstances of students are changing. many students have children. they are facing economic challenges, elements. the schools need to be able to respond to those circumstances by the way they offer courses, the kinds of counseling they offer. those are the things that i

think we are going to have to emphasize with this new outcomes oriented resource. host: earlier we heard from trea detroit's mayor dave bing and he spoke about those leaving the auto industry to be retrained for other purposes and talked about the role of education. >> i think that detroit is always going to be the motor city. because we are not going to be heavily involved in manufacturing as we once were, when you really look at the brain power and look at what is happening in our area in terms of higher education, most of the car companies around the world still have their engineering people here. all the technical capabilities that are here in detroit i think will remain here. we just won't see a lot of plant activity. that is why they moved down south and offshore. in terms of brain power it is here in detroit and continuing

will being looked at as the motor city. host: that was detroit's circumstances but how does it apply to others? guest: i think that is true for a lot of cities. they tend to have industries for which they don't want to abandon the historic role of the workforce in that area. i certainly wouldn't suggest that detroit should abandon the automobile industry. but the example that he uses i think is a good one because when i was a teenager i tinkered with cars. he don't understand what is underneath a car hood today and technology is so advanced that in order to understand that you need some form of post-secondary education. so the linkage between what the colleges and universities are doing and the reality of the job market is important. host: is it standard to go back for two years of training or is there other ways of condensing that education to get a degree faster? guest: there are. in fact we have supported some efforts to accelerate the green

programs so you could get a degree or credential in a year or less. there are jobs for which you can concentrate the training particularly in cases where students have complicated lives with children, et cetera, getting them through the program more quickly is very important. two years or more to get a credential sometimes is not realistic in terms of life circumstances. host: how do employers perceive those who go back and get a community college education? are they quick to adapt or worried about their skill set as far as having book knowledge but not practical knowledge? guest: one of the largest employers in my new home state of indiana is really recruiting people with these credentials because as the largest diesel manufacturer with the world they are saying these are the graduates they need. they want to support the expansion of opportunities through community colleges. they don't want to reinvent a system. there is one that exists and it

is the higher education system and companies like cummins are saying they have to do a better job with that existing system. host: the independent line from new york city. caller: i have two questions. number one, how does one rate -- is there a place one can go to to rate the community college and see their data base for their job placement? and how proficient are they? if i want to study to be a computer technician i want to go to the college with the quilt how does one find that out? guest: there are sources of information about the success of colleges and universities though most of it is related to college graduation rates. we need better information about what colleges and universities offer and make that match for what they are offering. the document of education, which is www-ed.gov provides access to

certain resources. you can get information through lumi luminafoundation.org to access information. but the kind of consumer accessible information that you are seeking, i think, is not readily available unfortunately. i think that is one issue that they have tried to address in h this proposal is creating the new research capacity to help build these online data bases. host: we have a viewer saying we have a -- guest: yes. fire fight something a good example where high school credential isn't the expectation any more. you have to have some form of training to be able to deal with what is an increasingly complicated job. so, yes, more and more institutions are doing those

kinds of programs. that is an example of something where you don't need probably a two-year associate degree to do that. but you need the post-secondary education. host: what about television commercials that you might see about specialized schools, go 12 months, get a degree. would you place the same weight into the value of that education or quality than you would community college? guest: there are many high quality, these are mostly for-profit institutions, there are many high-quality for-profit institutions in the country providing a needed service. on the other hand, you may be able to get similar training in a community college for a lot less. so, i think that getting back to the issue of fit, you have to spend time talking with somebody who can help you find the right match for your interests and the kind of training you might get from different institutions. i don't think that you should respond to a television ad and

spend your money. i think you should do more research. host: we have a line for students. we hear from chicago, illinois and speak to kim. caller: yes. thank you. i have a question, actually three quick points and if your guest could address them. one, i'm working with developing housing and skills like homes in detroit that are being foreclosed upon, fixing them up and people getting education getting the houses to live in. talk about that. then the public-private charter schools, there are good and bad in all of them and there is a lot of dumping that goes around in all areas fending on where

you live. the one question i do have and is pretty significant is educati education. i work with people, i'm in school and i work with people who have a lot of experience in education and they have a lot of years, but they don't have the credentials. and talking to them, going back to school would be, you know, too hard, or they don't have the funds to do it, yet they have all of this experience and talent but they can't get into permanent positions because they don't have the degree. i'm wonder iing what your progr offers to help them evaluate life experience and -- host: we will leave it there.

guest: i think that this issue of evaluating life experience is valuable. europeans are looking increasingly to try to address these issues in the dramatic expansion in higher education in europe. interestingly by the way, several european countries have surpassed the united states in college attainment rates. the u.s. is now 10th in the world in the portion of 25 to 34-year-olds with college credentials. we were number one a decade ago. one of the issues you get at is the benefits of higher education. i think it is terror by important that is the individuals with college degrees not only make more money, but they have a higher quality of life and that higher quality not only matters to them as individuals but matters to us as a society. people with college degrees tend to vote more, tend to have a higher health status, live longer, et cetera. so, for all of those reasons the challenges of going to higher education should not outweigh

the benefits. those individuals need to understand that the investment they are going to make in their future has a long-term payoff even if right now in the short term the economy is not very good. host: you mentioned european education. we have twitter saying -- guest: we certainly don't have that model. we tend to have the most expensive higher education system in the world. although interestingly a lot of the rest of the world has gotten to this rapid increase in college degree attainment the last decade by mimicking some of the american model and increasing number of european countries are moving toward tuition based models. i don't want to suggest we move toward the model of higher education where we have very high tuition and finances are a barrier but i think diversified funding helps expand capacity and that is something that we need to look at. from our perspective, what we

have to find is the ways to reduce the cost of higher education institutions, i will prove efficiency and effectiveness, productivity to increase the capacity to serve more students. . it was a much better education than universes' poor when it came to the cost, it is too

expensive for the average person. guest: what were your class size? caller: 30 maybe. next year, class size 400 at the university. guest: the the first mission and the expectations of higher education in the country, we expect them to educate people. we also expect the institutions to provide the innovations, do the research to help lead the nation as it explores new frontiers. the point is an important one. we need to concentrate on the quality of teaching, and ensuring the out comes of the students are relevant. what students know and are able to do is important. it is something colleges and universities need to concentrate

on. host: you're the president and c e l of the lumina foundation. thank you for your time today. we will talk to the former assistant attorney general a state department of justice, looking at the tax division spirit he will talk about the u.s. government's tax effort. we will be right back. >> booktv takes you to the

harlem book fair live saturday afternoon on cspan2. check out the entire weekend schedule at booktv.org. >> buzz aldrin to assure calls on sundays washington journal. >> sunday homeland security secretary to janet napolitano speaks to the nation's governors. pulitzer prize winner profiles multimillionaire's who are trying to take the plan agreed. afterwards sunday on cspan2 booktv. technology experts in gadgets you will be using in the future. sunday night at a on c-span skew and day. and the community -- communicators from the shares

media account -- conference. on cspan2. host: roger olsen is our guest. prosecutors are asking the swiss bank to turn over information. what type of information are they looking for? guest: u.s. taxpayers have been hiding money in offshore and various jurisdictions including switzerland for decades. the debt states now is trying to get specific information about the identity of the u.s. taxpayers that have undisclosed foreign bank records and bank accounts, to find out whether or not they have been committing tax evasion and other crimes. host: firms are involved? guest: this litigation only in

part -- involves bank ubs right now. host: how many of these types of banks exist and what kind of dollars are we talking about? guest: we are talking about billions upon billions of revenue loss in the u.s. annually. we are talking about virtually all banks that have u.s. bank branches that have offices in the caribbean, for example, so it is not necessarily the case that the u.s. taxpayer would open the account in switzerland. they could go to the caribbean and opened the account with ubs down there were one of the other swiss or foreign banks. guest: this is a way of putting the money aside and not being taxed on it? guest: it is a common way of having to report your taxable income, hiding assets for whatever reason. they could be hiding from credit

towards, setting up assets offshore for possible malpractice claims, husbands or wives of hiding assets from family members, whatever reasons. host: the u.s. is asking about this information from ubs. what is the response from the bankers? guest: there is a response from the bank and also a response from the government -- swiss government. the u.s. has an income-tax treaty with switzerland. both ubs and the government of switzerland are doing that, that is the exclusive means by which the u.s. can get disinformation. the problem is that the u.s. does not know the identity of the taxpayers. that is with the litigation is about. the second argument is that under swiss law, it would be a violation for ubs to turn over that information because there is no legal precedent for it.

does not fit under the mutual assistance treaty on criminal matters or fit under the u.s. income tax. host: who wins in the end? guest: there has been some precedent of other disputes before. when i was at the department of justice back in the 1980's, there was a problem with swiss banks being used to help inside traders. then they could trade on the basis of inside trip -- trading. we were able to enter into a mutual agreement on insider trading. this case is different. there does not seem to be much wiggle room. i am sure that this case has the intent -- attention of the state department at the highest levels, in the government is trying to find ways to have a

creative solution. swiss may be an neutral country, but it is also a good friend to the you -- shannon said -- united states. i am sure the people are trying to find a way to do that. host: we are talking about the case of ubs involving banks in general. if you want to ask a question, please call the numbers that you see at the bottom of our screen. you can also be mall -- e-mail us and send us a tweet. if the government does get the information, what happens with that? guest: the government has already gotten some information from the swiss.

they were trying to find ways of providing some level of cooperation and showing good faith. that information has been given to the irs and the department of justice. they have conducted criminal investigation and prosecution. they are bringing those triple to justice. host: what kind of conviction, if there is a conviction, what can they expect? guest: they are felonies, and they are serious crimes. poor people don't have numbered accounts. when you come into court you have all the benefits of the society, and yet you are still trying to cheat, it doesn't go well with the jurors or the prosecutors. the judges are not hesitant about imposing substantial jail sentences. host: is the account only identified by a number? guest: that is one of the ways

in which they would hide your dignity. if the bank overseas do not send statements to the account holders, because they don't want to run the risk of perhaps the irs or someone else coming across that information when they executed a search warrant. host: what was the purpose initially of those type of accounts? guest: part of it is because it help their own economy, and it makes sense from the standpoint that there may have been other jurisdictions where we call flight capital. people were living in corrupt regimes and were worried about where they could land if they could leave the country under a short-term. they put assets -- other leaders

have done the same thing. during the holocaust. , there is a long history of individuals being persecuted, they hid assets there. there was subsequent litigation discovering that the swiss banks may not have been as cooperative in terms of providing assistance to those family members who were survivors of those individuals. today, there are people -- third generation owners of the accounts, the original creators of the accounts were hiding from nazi germany. host: the calls are lining up. jackson, ohio, the republican line. go ahead. caller: i had heard of a case where assembly declare themselves to be tax exempt and was taken to the court by the

virus. where in the tax code was pure and taxable income and he was unable to say where. he was declared innocent. thank you. guest: i can't comment about one particular case. it is not infrequent -- you head airline pilots or tax protesters during the time when i was in the government. it is not infrequent that taxpayers will try to subpoena its senior members and the government to try to come in and testify in their behalf. we have had a number of cases where the commissioners or other senior executives will respond to those things. it is not responsible that the

commissioner would not appear to testify. host: georgia is next. caller: i have a simple way that we can find about these tax accounts. how do we not know these accounts are terrorist accounts? these accounts should be disclosed. why don't they have to disclose this? guest: i think they should have to disclose these accounts, but the first part of your comment that they are all terrorists would be a daunting statement after. that would mean we would have 50,000 potential terrorists in the united states alone using

ups accounts. there may be some people who are actually terrorists using these accounts, that would not surprise me. if we need to address that. we are no longer dealing with people who are multimillionaire's who are hiding that money. these are middle income taxpayers who are for a variety of reasons hiding assets. if only one bank is estimated to have 50,000 taxpayers from the u.s., if we start adding up all the other banks, you'll find that the number is getting up over several hundred thousand people. that is a real problem. host: how easy is it to set up the steps of guest: account it is not difficult at all. the swiss have half the service charges. unless you are putting a substantial amount of money in those accounts, you'll end up losing money.

for a lot of taxpayers, the interest rates from the accounts in switzerland are very low. that is because you're not getting competitive interest rates, and are buying secrecy. the service charges that the banks charge are not offset against your income. nobody is claiming these deductions and away, because they are not disclosing the income. they are hiding the interest and dividend is come -- and come -- income. host: how you get access, we have accounts here in the state's. guest: the banks do have the taxpayers name and identifying

information. it is just that this information is not in the united states, it is in switzerland. once you pierce the veil, then it is not difficult at all to proceed. >> i would like to say there is nothing illegal about having a foreign account. probably the main reason that there are some many is because of the tax systems. i think the swiss banks and the swiss government should tell the irs to go pound sand. guest: i don't think they're quite in that position. the problem in this case is also that in the case of ubs, ubs bankers can to the united states and met with u.s. taxpayers' to

schedule out their accounts, their investments, their strategies and activities. it is difficult to imagine that the united states would walk away from transactions like that, where the taxpayers who are deceiving foreign bankers here in the united states, hiding money offshore. it is not illegal to have foreign accounts. what is illegal is not disclosing it on your tax return, the existence of the account, not filing the correct forms with the irs and not disclosing the interest income or the income from the accounts. host: clearwater, fla. on the republican line. caller: my points was set because of the tax policy forcing more people to resort to these kind of illegal means, it

is just another tenant of the obama administration's efforts to distribute the wealth. i think your comment was very telling, more middle-class people resorting to the sec of means. what are your feelings on revamped being -- revamping the tax code? guest: in terms of the questions on whether the tax rates contribute to people cheating on their tax returns, i have been representing taxpayers for the last 22 years since i left the government. i never found any common thread about why taxpayers commit these tax crimes. maybe it is a gene inside their body that tells them they are not paying the taxes. in terms of making the tax system fairer, that is a huge

issue. i am not sure we have the time to discuss it today. i just don't think it is possible to make substantial changes to the income tax internal revenue code. when the economy and -- and the experts can't decide, the idea that you will change the code seems to be an impossible task. the in other promise they don't know what the downside will be for the taxpayers and the economy. will there be some real downside to the changes? i am not sure as a practical means that is possible today. host: how much it is the government inform -- involved in this enforcement?

guest: " when i was in the government, i thought there was not a lot of resources. there has been an announcement that the irs from the criminal side, they will increase the number of special agents by 300. that will take some time to work itself into the system. u.s. to hire and train people, they will have to become experts. these foreign bank accounts are easy to prove evidentiary y s -- wise. investigating taxpayers who might have committed other

crimes, a little more problematic. giva lot of cases would have ben investigated would have been with the fbi. you don't see that as much because the overwhelming amount of resources for the fbi is now devoted to intelligence activities, and less for law enforcement. white-collar crime, my colleagues that i talk to tell me that there is a noticeable decrease in the number of white- collar crimes being investigated and prosecuted today. host: pennsylvania on the democratic line. good morning. caller: there is an individual who work for a swiss bank, took a list of names and accounts. what ever happened to him?

did he just disappear? guest: he didn't just disappear. he was prosecuted out of florida. he is one of the individuals that is really responsible for turning over the information. he is a u.s. citizen. he was employed by ubs banking, he was providing this data of assistance to u.s. taxpayers, helping them set up foreign accounts at ubs, hiding the assets from the irs. he was caught, has been prosecuted, and he is cooperating with the government today. he is doing the best he can to make sure that his cooperation results in the latest sentenced that he can get. but that is the way they trade. host: batson rouge, louisiana. caller: a national sales tax

would make a healthy economy. guest: part of it is to help reclaim revenue. host: what would it do as far as those things we have to fund? guest: sometimes you think the government has an impossible need for our money. whether it will provide money for a particular program i have no way of knowing. several things can happen. the taxpayers that are caught who are being prosecuted, they will pay fines, they will pay

back taxes and pay a forfeiture for certain amounts of the assets that are in their accounts. what it does in the long run is its those taxpayers back into the system for compliance. it serves as a deterrent for other taxpayers about thinking twice about opening up foreign accounts. once the notion is clear to people that there is not any safe haven out there where they can hide their assets in a foreign account, then they will not try to do and it will have a higher level of compliance. the difference between the united states and switzerland is a dramatic one in terms of audit rates. we have a very low audit rate for taxpayers in this country. in switzerland, it is almost 100% audit rate. that means that every taxpayer

gets audited and is confronted with a revenue official. we don't have that in the united states. the answer is that this will have enormous effect in terms of tax plans. one of the problems you have also is that, once we have taxpayers who are considered to be above the rule of law, who are hiding assets in the united states, it has a deleterious effect on taxpayers in the united states. what is important is to try to restore confidence in the tax system. host: georgette next on the republican line. caller: what about this administration went to shovel money to wall street. when will the federal reserve be audited? host: illinois on the democrat'' line. caller: i would like to say that

we talk about patriotism and getting people to sign up for the military, and we hear about serving our country. we need to change the tone and tenor about how we talk about people who avoid taxes. they are traitors. they let the rest of america down by try to avoid taxes. guest: it is interesting. i tell clients of mine that when you file a tax return, it is not an opening bid. you are filing that under penalty of perjury. you are saying it is true, accurate, and complete. and it isn't. the problem then is that once you get into the notion that you can lie in order to save some dollars, you walk down a very dark path. my own experience in representing taxpayers, once they are on the radar screen,

they are terrified. it is like the little kid who wants to put the cooking back in the cookie jar. it is a local lake, and the government will not be satisfied with just paying taxes and interest. they want penalties, and jail time. host: would you said that u.s. citizens hide their assets, you apply -- you imply that the government owns their assets. guest: i am not saying that. the point is that it is not a crime to have the account. it is not a crime to not be public about where your assets are. what is a crime is not to disclose that in your tax return, and not to report the income from those accounts. host: new jersey, on the independent line. caller: if you wanted citizens

to feel better about the u.s. government and what they are trying to do, and to legitimize it, i was a go after the corporations and the corporate leaders that run them, and you would have no big disagreeing with you in any shape or form. to talk about these individuals is kind of insulting considering what corporations get away with. because the lobbyist and the lawyers are involved, that is legitimate. thank you. guest: the caller makes an interesting point. the irs conduct current -- criminal investigations for violations of the tax laws.

there are very few cases involving corporations. the reason is because you cannot put corporations in jail. the best deterrents for the irs is the incarceration of individuals, particularly those that have some ability in the community or nationally or internationally. the caller is focusing on corruption incorporations, the irs will never be involved in that. host: what is the length of time that it takes to prosecute one of these investigations? guest: it usually takes years, in terms of the prosecution, depending on the load in the district attorney's office. but these cases are on a rocket

program. they move very quickly. i know that the u.s. attorney's offices are very interested in these cases for two reasons, high visibility, and they are relatively easy to prosecute. those are fairly simple cases, when you have a clue -- once you have the bank records. host: next call from maryland. caller: i want to ask a question about the sales tax. the national sales tax said they want to apply. and in 2006 and 2007, when --

when all the way up when dick cheney -- they took the money out of the country, the dollar was weak. those other guys you have to go after them. guest: imus knox said sure what you are addressing. -- i am not sure what you are addressing. host: next on the democratic line. caller: i did all the right things and i went to college after i was older, and now i can get a job. i would like to find, there are

two things i want to ask about. there is a lot of confusion. when these things are done, are the whistle-blowers' punish or protected? what would be best for the people if they can find or the terrorists trade their money, why can't they just get this money, return it to the people who -- the taxpayers? guest: the profile of people that the ira's prosecutes year in and year out is different of those of the fbi investigates. the fbi has a dollar threshold that involve several hundred

thousand dollars. there was in those cases back to the local law-enforcement agencies. if you look at the u.s. taxpayers, the great bulk of them make well under $100,000. the large volume of single tax bases for deterrence purposes really fits somewhere in the area of 50, $150,000 of income each year people can identify with that. the irs and the justice department rarely ever prosecute people that are at the low end of the income scale. there is not much need to do that and also there are very little taxes that are involved anyway. host: minneapolis, minn.. caller: i understand what you are saying. there are people who have money

and they're not reporting their money to the irs. i think that is kind of sad that americans find themselves in that situation. i don't think it is a rich thing or a poor thing. why can't we have banks in this country where the american citizens can put their money in banks and not have the government touch it. i am thinking that the reason why people put their money in these foreign banks is to protect their money for whatever reason. why can't we have banks in this country where our money is protected? guest: that is an interesting question to finish this up. in the case of the ubs litigation, we use a john doe

summons. we don't know the identity of the taxpayers. i don't think there is any basis in u.s. law. if a foreign country and ask us for the same information, we would be able to turn it over. take for example, mexico, for years having been viewed having more taxpayers deposited assets in the u.s. banks. it is safe there. the people from other jurisdictions think they are safe also. host: we want to think roger olsen, the former assistant attorney john from the u.s. department of justice. we will be right back. >> booktv tissue to the harlem

book fair live saturday afternoon on cspan2. check of the entire weekend schedule at booktv.org. apollo 11 astronaut buzz aldrin tincture calls on sunday's washington journal, talking about the 40th anniversary and if -- of the first moon walk. >> sunday, janet napolitano space to the nation's governors, live coverage of their supper meeting continues monday on c- span. pulitzer prize winner edward hughes profiles millionaires that are trying to take the planet green.

technology experts walt mosbacher and gadgets she will be using in the future, sunday night at a on a cspan2 q&a. >> we will interview leaders in new media from the shares teachable this year's digital media conference on cspan2. >> washington journal continues. host: we have about 20 minutes before this program ends. if you want to wait and over the funds you can do so now. please call the numbers you see at the bottom of the screen. larry summers, the president's economic adviser spoke here in washington talking about the stimulus plan and it is written in the new york times. he says the plan of tax cuts and

use spending was 70% of its benefits district do to local governments, we are on track to meet the time line. the white house called the progress report pointed out that other independent forecasters also under estimate of job losses, but no one knew why so many workers are in this downturn, greater productivity, bigger financial pressure for companies and employers expectations of a prolonged recession. the local papers around the u.s. play up economic conditions when it comes to jobs. one of 10 out of work in dade county. he said the last time that miami dates unemployment rate was as

high, it is not 10.6% in june, according to the government's records. houston area job losses climbed in june, the largest loss in jobs since 1987. the unemployment rate shot up to 8%. open phones until 10:00 a.m.. republican line is first. caller: i want to refer back to what gary olson was talking about, people were evading

taxes. he said that once they are on the radar screen of the irs, they are scared. once the irs is in, they will pay for what they evaded. right? how come he did not mention the case of the secretary of treasury who did evade taxes and still has a job? he was not put in jail or prosecuted. host: atlanta georgia, on the democratic line. caller: i would like to comment on the sotomayor hearings. they said if she qualified to be

on the supreme court. they don't mention the issue was dealt a torrent of her high school class and and was the editor of the log journal. george bush's it prime example of affirmative action. host: what did you learn about judge sotomayor in the process? caller: she is well qualified. her background as a judge -- she has more experience as a judge than anyone sitting on the current court right now. host: florida, you are up next. caller: i am back on the tax discussion. my concern is this. we have a secretary of treasury

who is obviously played fast and loose with his own taxes. as the john and said, he would come after people from 50,000-1 230,000. to me that is an incredible disservice. it sets up the idea that there are two standards of justice, one for people who are going to be secretary of the treasury and the one for the rest of us. host: a new start out of china this morning, china clamps down on lawyers. officials shut down and illegal research center revoke the licenses of lawyers. they are trying to overseas chinese activist lawyers. and this looks at those involved in the chinese government that monitor --

monitored internet activities. this is a little bit about the activities. they're trying to use censorship at the county and city level. every minister has a special department for collecting and surveying the information on the internet including the police, department of foreign affairs developing research commission. they can gather the authority to keep watch 24 hours. it is in the control of the minister of public security. this is part of a longer piece if you want to read it. it is in today's financial times. oklahoma on our republican line. caller: render unto caesar what

is caesar's. the money belongs to the government. the accountability would be the things that the ira's -- they have tools for examining people and their affairs. they seem like they should be a credible part of the government where they should be allowed to just audit the government. there's just too much government right now. there is no accountability for spending. host: difference page of the wall street journal, u.s. les a special team of terrorism interrogators.

this would be used for high- value targets. it would not be run by the cia. one of the tasks would be to develop new terror written -- terrorist methods. you can read more in the wall street journal online this morning. next call, ohio on the caller: democrats' line i would like to speak about health care. people need to understand that they dbcbo budget office, they don't have about income coming in and going out. back in the '60s it was the

republicans who did not want to have medicare or social security. they destroy the right to take care of themselves. people need to understand that the government is to help us in the time that we need them. host: how would you weigh in as far as what the cbo release about the sustainability about the president's plan? >> it is closed from what i have figured. i figured probably around 1.4 trillion dollars. taking into account 2% tax increase on the richest, i believe that it will balance out in the long run. host: cape cod, mass. on the independent line. caller: right after hurricane

katrina trent lott got up on the floor of the senate and was talking about how insurance companies were exempt from antitrust laws. could you please have an antitrust attorney, on? i think this is a big deal as far as us getting health care put through. no we put these laws back on the books, but trent lott's insurance plan got settled. host: let's talk a little bit about the harlem book festival, which you can see live courage of today on cspan2. that starts at 11:30 a.m. today and we will bring you interviews and panels from the book fair. joining us to talk a little bit about it is the founder and organizer, max rodriguez. what is important for those who

can attend today to know about the festival. >> we continue to spend the conversation around books and the impact on american culture. it is our opportunity to put a foot platform to the contributions that we offer america as a culture. host: what kind of events will be planned and what kind of things we'll have and how does that lead to what you want to do? guest: we cover the range of books and writers, the whole range, poetry of telling stories. we have panel discussions, author talks, we have workshops, office signings, a young readers pavilions.

we like to think of it as an outdoor book party. we bring a public to the authors and authors to the public. in this our 11th year, more and more people are giving themselves access to the conversation that we offer. host: as far as the 11 years you have been doing this, what changed as far as the planning and scope? guest: it has grown. the very first book fair was -- we had 1200 attendees and 43 exhibitors. this year we're expecting over 40,000 people and we have over 200 exhibitors. the book fair has grown both in scope and also an expression and conversation. the share, we are adding a

voice of the --. that is the african world view. we are putting together the scholars to tell the african story and its impact on the globe. this is just another thing to know about the world view. host: as far as you featuring african-american authors and their contribution, what do have for people who are not african- american? guest: we are very happy to say that as an example, the program was promoted in advance by the new york times. what that means is that there is an understanding that the harlem book fair is a contributing platform. for those who are not only interested in the world view and

understanding cultures that are different from their own, this is a platform. what we try to create is a conversation. what you'll find at the book fair are not only african american authors, but all authors who speak about the african-american experience in some form or context. host: our coverage will begin at 1130 a m on cspan2. max rodriguez is the founder of the book fair. guest: i want to make one announcement and that is one of our sponsors they have stepped in a way given the economic

times as a major publisher and has become a premier sponsor of the book fair. it speaks to their commitment to the african american reader. i wanted to take a moment to acknowledge that. it is an important contribution. host: thank you. back to your calls, a san francisco, california. caller: that is a nice thing to do, and i think it is a worthy cause. i wanted to say on health care, i think the president and the congress, especially the democrats should concentrate more on getting the economy back in order. we are just spending more money in an economy that is going downhill. people are laughing at us because we are willing to spend

more money, and we don't have it. as far as health care, i think we should straighten out first before -- this stimulus bill. did not work. we have lost millions of jobs and warren buffett says there will be 11% unemployment. in the case of new york, they get $404 a week on unemployment. if our country would not rush somebody things, he is letting congress, if we could just be patient and start getting our economy in order, and try not to get any more government plans, especially health plan in, let's try to straighten out our

problems so we can get jobs back for our people. host: west virginia on the independent line. caller: over 300 people, most of them were in favor of a public option when i pulled people. all these cable channels-people like the john mccain and all the republicans should denounce racist comments, coming -- calling president obama guerrilla and monkey. host: union grove alabama, go ahead. caller: good morning.

the last caller went a little bit too far. the thing that most people don't realize is this will be cost effective if we jump in on at. we have tens of thousands of ceos and paper pushers, and that is where they make their money. these paper pushers that are paid not to give people the insurance they need, it is their job. if we make this public auction big enough, it would lock out all of this, and it would put millions of people to work. other countries are laughing at

us as -- because how we were throwing these billions of dollars into insurance companies when we could go to mexico and by a pill that is made by pfizer that cost 10¢, well here we pay $3 for the same pill. host: robert burns this morning writing about the trip secretary clinton is making in india and writing about pollution. she urged india not to make mistakes and contributing to pollution. she acknowledges that will present obama that we have made mistakes along with other developing countries that have contributed to climate change. we are hoping the great country like india will not make the same mistake.

she said the u.s. had sometimes fallen short of its responsibilities. that from the associated press. from the financial times, microsoft and yahoo have talked, the discussions have explored a number of structures for a partnership. yahoo would receive a share of the future a advertising revenue and potentially a large cash payment up front. georgia on our republican line. caller: i have been coming to see the island for 15 years. i have never seen the people

here so upset about the tax incentive plans that obama -- a bunch of us are getting organized and want to take the congress back for the republicans. we have a candidate down here -- i have never seen people so upset about all the changes taking place. if we don't stop the spending, when people go to get a job, it is hard to live on this when you are making 25,000. we are fired up about taking back congress. i predict that the republicans will take back over in 2010, and elect mitt romney president in 2012. host: what are you doing in free island, ga.? caller: we love sees -- c-span.

the ones i talked to are all upset about the spending. host: one more call for an independent line. caller: i just wanted to voice my opinion on the health-care bill in that if it is so good, why are the senators and congressmen not opting for it? they are opting to stay on their own current health plan that they have. that is the only comment that i have. host: that is all the time we have. tomorrow, starting at 730 we have a health care reporter.