[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] host: good morning. defense secretary for african youths has announced the increase in the size of the army by 20 two thousand forces -- defense secretary robert gates has announcing increase in the size of the army. he says the increase will raise the army's size to 569,000 troops and cost an additional $1 billion per year. july marks a key month for

president obama's efforts to shift from iraq to afghanistan. the president has warned that casualty's are likely to increase in the months ahead. other articles covering the same topic from "the new york times" -- gates says army's size will grow by 20 two thousand. he did not say what it would cost over all but indicated he would ask congress for money to pay for it in 2011 and 2012. host: take a look at, and secretary gates made yesterday . >> we believe we did not have enough forces to properly support the operations in iraq,

afghanistan, and around the world. shortly after taking office and mindful of the decision, i recommended and the president and congress approved a permit increases the size of the army of 65,000 and the marine corps of 27,000. at the time, it was judged this would sustain the projected level of the plants. -- of deployments. host: our first guest is michael, a senior fellow at the brookings institute. what do you think will mean success in afghanistan? guest: in terms of time, it will take a while. it will take at least a year to even see the strategy is working. the main way to describe the difference between afghanistan and iraq, the violence against civilians has never been as

severe as it was in iraq. it has been quite tragic for our troops. there have been a lot of attacks on our troops. the fighting is more the taliban against the uniformed military and police. and what will we have to do is train the afghans so they can carry out that fight. in iraq, we had to bring down the level of violence immediately. it is different in afghanistan. it is a different kind of challenge. in some ways, it is a little bit easier. the violence is not as widespread. on the other hand, you have to create something out of nothing. host: you have a recent piece in the daily beast where you compare and contrast iraq and afghanistan. you talk about aafghanistan as a

potential quagmire. guest: i am not a in afghanistan expert, but having fallen as much as they can about this country, it is roughly as old as the united states in terms of the modern nation state of afghanistan. it has had extended periods of peace. there was a lot of war in the 19th century because the russians and the brits were coming from different directions and fighting over the territory. the taliban, funded now out of pakistan. we have to view our mission as giving the afghans the tools they need to win their own work and build their own state. the last 30 years have been unusual because the rest of the world has been ripping apart afghanistan. they do have a certain sense of mission. they do not want to be stuck in the 14th century.

most of the population is very young. they are tired of war. they do not much like the foreign presence. host: what did you pull from secretary gatescomments? guest: phil is a little internal dissent -- there is a little internal dissent in obama administration. there is a camp that says we have problem we build up enough in afghanistan. vice-president joe biden said this. then there are others who basically say to keep an open mind and do what we need to do to win. robert gates is in the latter camp. he is open-minded about it. that is why he announced this increase in the army.

host: our guest is michael o'hanlon and we're talking about u.s. foreign policy in afghanistan. democrats, 202-737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202- 628-0205. how do you think americans are viewing the war in afghanistan versus the war in iraq? guest: mike overall view is americans are a little tired of all this stuff. afghanistan will become the longest war in history sometime in the course of this year. it has been a much lower level of violence and much less catastrophic for our country. it does not change the fact that more than 700 americans have died there.

many troops have been taken away from their families on repeated the plymouth. -- repeated deployments. and iran's nuclear program, so afghanistan has to compete with a lot of other issues. reports on the casualties' we suffered tend to be on page 10 of the newspaper. we have had our bolivia'bloodie, but those stories are typically buried in the back of the newspaper. host: look at the story in usa today on page 4a.

host: how do these numbers affect the direction of the obama administration? guest: the two issues are seen as a interlink. the obama administration is very worried about the congress and how long will sustain this. in my judgment, they're too worried. president obama has declared this to be the top national security priority. i cannot conceive of a democratic speaker of the house and democratic senate majority leader pulling out the rug from this president in his first year for a war that has already taken 7.5 years. there is a little bit of hypersensitivity to this concern. on the other hand, it is good to have a sense of desperation because american troops are fighting and dying.

you want to turn the thing around as fast as you can. i'm glad for the sense of urgency. i believe they probably have a couple of years. host: first call is julianna on the democrats' line from california. caller: thank you. i feel that iraq and afghanistan are another vietnam. i protested the war in vietnam. finally we got out and realized it was not winnable. leadership did regret it. i think the same is happening here. in 90 years old. i have been protesting war all my life. i think war is not the answer. we have to help the people.

we have to legalize all drugs and then there will not be the drug wars. it will save the money from wars to help people who do not want to be terrorists. terrorists come from dissatisfaction. even obama understands and promised we would get out. i'm sorry that he has increased the number of troops instead of working things out so we could get out. guest: it is a powerful message. let me try a couple of competing powerful messages. the world have the trade afghanistan for 30 years. -- the world has betrayed afghanistan for 30 years. afghanistan has had a lost

generation totally caught up in warfare among its own people with a lot of foreign elements. we stood by and watched. once we accomplished our goal of driving now the soviets, we did not care. that was the attitude we had in the 1990's. after we overthrew the taliban, secretary donald rumsfeld did not care much what happened. if you care about the afghan people, this idea of hands of does not work. there. -- does not work either. we do have to listen to your message. if this strategy does not work, i agree we need to abandon the effort. i think the current strategy will allow us to be more careful in the use of force because we have enough people walking the streets now. we do not need to use these big

air bombing campaigns as we have sometimes in the past. the afghan people despise the alternative that would most likely result if we left. the popularity of the taliban is somewhere between 3% to 7%. the afghans have seen that world and they do not want it back. we think of our mission as giving them the tools to fight this war on their own. i think it's morally the best choice. host: you have a recent piece published in "the washington times" where you talk about ways to help afghanistan that would be parallel to the military effort. also, should nato forces by more produce and bottled water from a local economy?

can you talk more about that? guest: i will take the last one. it was from an atlantic council report. general jones was very involved in a lot of what they're doing. they basically said, we're living in the spbases and we are isolated and we bring in a lot of food from the united states. it is sort of emotionally reassuring to see pop tarts and everything else. on the other hand, afghan farmers are looking for markets. the afghan economy is something we need to prop up in order for them to be successful. the alternative is to grow opiate. if you can buy more produce from the afghan economy, it makes a lot of sense. obviously, you have to take

security measures. our soldiers are walking the streets every day in afghanistan. i think they can afford to eat a afghan tomato. propping up the economy is one of our best ways to succeed and give the afghan people some hope. that is just one example. on the economy, we have about 50 or 60 donor countries doing their own thing in afghanistan today. they all do a little bit in one part of the country for another. we need a stronger overall strategy. we now have general microscope back up by general rodriguez -- general mcchrystal. i would suggest we ask the european to take the lead.

and have a strong international aid coordinator. host: you mentioned in this article it could be european or japanese officials. guest: i think that makes sense, partly as a gesture of solidarity. the brits have now taken 175 fatalities. we have seen incredible efforts out of some of our partners. they deserve a little more appreciation. we do need a strong central command on the military side. that has to come from the united states. on the economic side, the europeans are good that this sort of thing. i would submit that we might ask them to take a stronger coordination role. host: on the republicans line, charles from richmond, va. let's go to carol on the independent line from georgia.

guestcaller: good morning. thank you for c-span. we have no business being in afghanistan in the way we're doing it. if we want to win the minds and hearts of the afghan people, we do need to give them food and shelter and stop bombing the schools for the children. we will have a great loss of our men and women in afghanistan. we are taking the wrong approach. do you know the reason why they will back the taliban? that is because it is the only choice. i have watched programs on free- speech tv and link tv. we have bombed innocent people, innocent women, and children. the steeple are suffering. when is the war going to stop? -- these people are suffering.

when are we going to look at ourselves as american people and decide we will not put our tax dollars into killing people? we can win the world economy if we can help other nations instead of killing them. guest: thank you for the powerful point. there have been big mistakes made in this war, no doubt. if you add up all the afghans that have been killed by accidental nato air strikes in the entire war, it may be a couple thousand people. that is a couple thousand too many, but there are 7 million kids in school in afghanistan who were not in school under the taliban. under the television, there were less than 1 million kids in school at any time -- under the taliban. that is a bit of congress would because of the change of regime that has occurred -- that is a big change because of the change in regime that has occurred.

i think we need to protect the schools and these health clinics well enough so that more afghans can make use of them, that they will not be destroyed by the taliban. i do not think the afghan people want the taliban back. they bought new strategies -- they want new strategies. they are angry when we do not do enough. they assume we are all-powerful. i think we have to prove that we are committed, we will help them protect the schools and health clinics, complete the big road projects. i think we're at the verge of turning this thing in a positive way. 7 million kids in school is a huge accomplishment. 1/3 of them are now growthirls. i do not think it is a hard

comparison to realize that things have gotten better in afghanistan. unfortunately, it is not stable and not good enough. host: the article in "financial times." how much does poppy and opium, and to play? guest: a huge part. the police in afghanistan are very corrupt. a big part of why they're corrupt is because they're involved in the drug trade. the police are not dependable, the local population do not believe in the strategy. they see the taliban as the only alternative. i do not think too many view the taliban as for jews, but they might feel like they're getting a straight deal -- i do not think too many people view the taliban as virtuous, but they might feel that they're getting a trade deal.

and working to moves with drug dealers and allow those people to get through. this is probably the most important way in which the drug trade is competing our effort by corrupting a lot of the institutions, including the police. if we can build up the afghan army and the legal system, we can basically leave. they will have strong enough state control of their own territory that they can probably win this thing on their own over time. if we cannot build up strong and dependable organizations, then we are in trouble. host: we have a comment from twitter. let's go to our next caller, bob on the democrats' line from texas. caller: good morning.

i it to me with the gentleman totally. we are used to instant gratification. we want a microwave solution to everything including more. in reality, i think it will take 20 years before we see the progress of cabalism type of -- capitalism type of paradigm in afghanistan. there's also the problem of the islamic hurdle. as people get educated and realize they do not have to rely on drug money to get an education. some of the things we have lost track of -- i think we will see a change there. we just have to be patient. we have to stick to our resolve. the reason why we see the world

we see it today is because we had strong religious reform and also, industrial growth. it is a battle of philosophy. you cannot win that with bullets. some people are willing to die for their rigid beliefs. guest: i think it is well said. the taliban does have an extreme distorted view of islam. there were elements of the taliban philosophy in the 1990's that appealed to afghans because they sensed a certain sincerity and a certain commitment and a certain devotion. it became quickly apparent -- there was also this brutality, this cruelty, and this wanting to go back to the seventh century. this very rigorous fundamental form of islam.

then the taliban became cruel and ruthless. the afghan people are a devout people and very committed. they do not want this extreme distorted view of his loislam. the only way the taliban can be successful is if the state is so weak that there is no alternative. there's a vacuum. and then create a minimal level of support in that way. we need to give the mainstream afghan people the tools to be able to take that on. that means a strong government and strong security institutions. host: what effect does the capture and video release of the

private from idaho -- what affect is that going to have now? we have not seen this from afghanistan lately. do you think this will have an affect on the public opinion of the war? guest: to be direct, no. we all feel for this captured soldier. capturing hostages and using them to try to distort the public view, that is something we were much more vulnerable to in the 1970's, 1980's, and 1990's. after 9/11, something changed. americans realized that if we gave in in order to free this one hostage, that would trivialize the casualties of the war, and it would impede the war effort.

more lives would be lost in the end. because we did not take the risk of may be losing a few dozen people. americans have learned that if you take the easy way out in the short term, sometimes to pay a much higher price of a longer- term. i hear no debate proposing that somehow we deal with the captors of this hostage and given to their demands. no one has said that. we're all preaying for this soldier. host: michael joins us on the republicans line from pennsylvania. good morning. caller: good morning. i'm very glad to hear you talking about infrastructure. it is my belief and my

experience that as we provide infrastructure and education, we're giving the afghans eighta chance to become a country. this is rice flatly disagree with you. at this point in time, there's a substructure were afghans -- this is where i slightly disagree with you. you have a group of very independent, strong minded tribes. hopefully we can work to make the different tribal groupings understand that there is an advantage to working together in afghanistan. i wonder if you could talk for a bit about whether we're having any success in combining the different ethnic subgroups and or tribal groups.

guest: thank you. i cannot really disagree with you. you are right. you are emphasizing the strength of the tribes historically. both realities are in afghanistan. you have already seen president karzai tried to build this multi-ethnic group of leaders and his government. sometimes we do not like what he does in the process. we think one of those guys may have been implicated in some atrocities were implicated in the drug trade. i think president karzai does make some mistakes. he is trying to avoid the kind of sectarian divisions that we saw in iraq and try to create the small ethnic -- create this

multi-ethnic coalition. he won. bringing in question mobile people at times. -- he winds up beinringing in se questionable people at times. you do not have attention the way you did inside iraq or bosnia. that gives me some hope as well. you do not have to contend with this incredible hatred that we've seen in other countries around world. host: on the democrats' line, alfred from santa monica, monicca. guestcaller: in regards to the

captured soldiers, we all wish him to return to us. when you consider that president obama, my hero, is trying to release the prisoners who have here based on some liberal agenda of freedom of will over enemies into the world -- i think it is sending the wrong message. we are holding our captured enemies because they were captured on a battlefield trying to destroy us. irish soldier was fighting a just war based on -- our soldier was fighting a just war based on his decision to go into the army. he knew the risk. i believe our brave soldier is prepared to die for our country.

it is important that america does not capitulate to the demands of a small group of individuals. i do not believe afghanistan has an organized army. these are small pockets of resistance. you would be hard pressed to suggest the taliban is willing to be capable of rising up in the story on us from where they are. guest: i think tennis general legal said -- i think that is generally well said. there is not the answer of the united states capitulating over the hostage situation. we're all very aware of his fplight. i'm sure there are thoughts and

ideas percolating above will leave my people to do to secure his safe release. the negotiating with the resistance will not be one of the options. the idea of calling of military operations to give the release of one person with even more lives at risk over the longer term. i am quite confident we will not do that. host: from shreveport, shelton on the independent line. caller: we went into afghanistan because of al-qaeda. we overthrew the taliban, which was the government there, which was totally wrong. the thing of trying to establish some form of government does not come from outside forces. i do not know where it has been done.

it comes from the people themselves. the people have to have the will in terms of the direction and the form of government they want to have. it cannot be imposed. it is a -- it might not be the same as the drougiraq. the mixture is going to be the same case. it is one to be a quagmire. guest: afghanistan might do fine if it had a chance to run its own affairs, but it has not had that chance for the last 30 years. in the 1970's, the soviets did not like the afghan leader. they overthrew him and debated. they dropped all sorts of bombs on the country.

they probably killed 1 million afghans in the process. after we worked with pakistan to drive the soviets, we said, okay, we have given you all these alarms and advice, so now we will leave you to your own devices. good luck forming an umbrella government. of course, it did not work. then the taliban came to power. and they brutalized their own people. some people were grateful at first because there was not this chaos that the outside people that brought to afghanistan. we're normally choosing between and afghanistan left to its own devices and -- we have had nothing but outside intervention for 30 years. it has been malicious. it has been done with a certain type of indifference at best and cruelty at first in the case of the soviets. i think we owe afghanistan the chance to give them some tools to try to build their own

country. you are right. in the end, they have to do it on their own. we can only go so far. we're having outside powers -- i believe we have to give them one serious fair chance to have the tools they need to build the country themselves. i believe there's a decent chance that we finally do this mission the way it's supposed to be done that the afghan people will grab that opportunity. host: from charleston, south carolina, on the republicans line. caller: good morning. i appreciate what you just said. another should assess -- not allowing the country to become a base for al-qaeda. it does not relate directly to

we were talking about. you seem to have different knowledge about the area. people call in all the time and say things like there were no weapons of mass-traction found -- mass destruction found in iraq. the reports i heard is that we were finding elements of tools of mass destruction on a daily basis. i wondered whether you could comment on that. guest: thank you. in iraq, the overall verdict is that we did not really find in the advanced weapons of mass destruction. on the other hand, saddam had such things in the past, so it was reasonable to believe he would have them again. most of us were of the opinion that he at least had chemical and biological. .

-- chemical and biological weapons. there was no reason to think he had not had them. he had brutalized the shia and the kurds. he was a stream dictator. -- he was an extreme dictator. the idea that he would not have those weapons of mass destruction is not something that most of us think about as a plausible possibility. i was wrong, like many others. the most unfortunate conversation was about the potential for him to have a nuclear weapon in short order. he was not close to that. we knew he was not close to that. also the implication that he had ties to al-qaeda by some in the bush administration. there has never been any serious evidence to back that up. on chemical and biological weapons, most of us felt that he probably had them, and i have to administration give the to some

leeway -- i have to give the bush administration some leeway on that. host: our guest, michael o'hanlon is a senior fellow of foreign policy of the brookings institution. thank you for joining us. now on the phone, jonathan al len will talk about judge sotomayor's nomination to the supreme court. what can we expect to happen today? guest: we can expect the pushing off of the judiciary committee for a week. republicans can exercise their options. jeff sessions, the ranking republican on the committee, has indicated they will do that enforce the vote to happen july

28 rather than today. host: a story from cq online says none of the seven republicans have indicated how they will vote. guest: i think that a lot of the republicans on the judiciary committee will end up voting no. some of the republicans of the committee -- we have seen richard lugar and olympia snowe will vote for sonia sotomayor. even republicans who have said they will vote against her on the floor have not indicated that they will attempt to filibuster. even the minority leader, mitch mcconnell, said he did not think anybody would attempt to derail what appears to be the inevitable on the floor.

host: a number of republicans say they intend to vote for her. richard lugar, olympia snowe, and martinez. how significant is that? guest: very significant. ben nelson is still reserving his fire. he said he wants to hear what some of the committee democrats have to say about her. he is one person who could vote no. democrats have the numbers to prov move her through the floor. i think this is pretty much a foregone conclusion as a matter of timing. host: how significant is the delay the will see? guest: i do not think it is very

significant. this happens frequently with the judiciary committee. it is not balanced in terms of numbers. the minority has the power to put off the boavote for one wee. it is not going to change the politics of this. host: has the tdrama concluded will we see more debate? guest: drama concluded when she was introduced at the white house on the first. she did a very good job of playing the role of a supreme court nominee who is going to be confirmed in a revealing too much information about how she

might vote on a future cases. some people have revealed that she provided more risewritten answers for the judiciary committee yesterday and none of them brought up issues that would be a problem for her. host: water you looking for in the overall time line -- and are you looking for in the overall time line? guest: to have her situated on the bench for the opening of the next session of the supreme court pan the fall. -- in the fall. i do not think republicans see a real advantage at this lifpoint.

they had some bad moments that made them look incentive -- in sensitive. we have a moment where the senator tom coburn of oklahoma quoted this your guess -- desi arnez. i think we would like to see this nomination move forward sooner rather than later. host: thank you for joining us, jonathan allen. our next question for the rest of the hour, what do you think about secretary gates' decision to raise troop levels in iraq and afghanistan? he plans to bolster the army with 20 two thousand more troops. we have a headline from "the washington times."

the number is democrats, 202- 737-0002. republicans, 202-737-0001. independents, 202- 628-0205. look at some comments secretary gates made yesterday. >> on the recommendation of the chief of staff of the army and with president obama's strong support, i am announcing a decision to temporarily increase the active duty in strength of the army by 22,000. that is a temporary increase from the current of the resof to -- authorized 547,000 active- duty soldiers.

host: gates talking about troop numbers. this is the second increase since 2007. an article from "the new york times" says -- per first caller is hatcher, a democrat line from pennsylvania. what a thing about the decision to raise troop strength in afghanistan and iraq? caller: i just finished reading a book about the civil war in pakistan and bangladesh which ties into the issue of what we

are encountering in afghanistan. you're dealing with a cross border environment between a huge people that do not even recognize the border. you have a centralized international movement that will prevent america from making any headwind whatsoever. the amounts of collusion is endemic. as much as i love my new president -- i think he is the greatest president we have had in many generations. i think we will have a very difficult time unless we really forced the pakistani government to coalesce behind a real strategy of limiting the obscene morphing of islam because of what they're doing to women around the world. air subjugating women and

beating women in the streets. we need to insist upon an international coalition to make this happen. host: on the in the and the line from california, ray. caller: i think it is high time that united states army -- it is high time that the branches of the services should be combined into one single force for the united states to save money on training, personnel, and all the competition between the branches. host: you can also e-mail your comments or send us a tweet. look at some of the headlines around the country. these come to us courtesy of the

newseum. "the los angeles times" big story -- and they hope this will alleviate the budget problems and also stopped the iou situation. the detroit free press is looking at layoffs. folks have heavier workloads, guilt and fear of being the next, and it is taking a toll on michigan workers. former chrysler headquarters gets four hundred jobs. a slightly different story. in the "richmond times dispatch" -- summer construction season is in high gear right now all over the

country. obama shifts on health-care deadline. we will be talking about that later in the show. a republican and democrat will talk about the ongoing health care legislation. our question for you, troop strength. secretary gates has announced the army will and 22,000 troops. abraham is our next caller on the republicans line. guestcaller: good morning. i think this is the wrong idea. we need more people from the region, from pakistan, from india, even from the ruiran. especially saudi arabia. when they see other groups coming into this -- they need to

work more with the neighboring countries. host: rubin on the democrats' line from north carolina. caller: this guy needs to go. they should not have a bush holdover. host: you are talking about secretary gates. caller: they should have no bush holdovers in this cabinet. obama don't need that. host: mike on the republicans woline. caller: now obama increases the number of troops, civilians are getting killed, and all i hear from the democrats is -- you

know, we have got to do this. there is such hypocrisy within this group. where the demonstrators marching up and down the street in teaching bush for war crimes, etc.? host: the story in "washington post" today -- the comments that one question that comes up is what will happen to soldiers it's a wrap up their tour in iraq, will they

be shipped to afghanistan? our next caller this morning is ron on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have not heard any more about the marine manger that refused to report to to the in afghanistan because president obama will not show his first certificate -- birth certificates. there was a tape played on every station that president obama's

grandmother was there when obama was born in kenya. this morning will not report to duty. what is going to happen when a lot of other soldiers and marines decide they do not want to report to to duty. host: our next caller is f elaine on the democrats' line. caller: can we bring these people to justice for 9/11, for the afghanistan war, and for iraq? can we see some kind of justice? host: what would the justice in your eyes? caller: knowing what we are doing instead of kicking in doors. we need to know what is going on. we need to know when it is going to stop and tell it is going to stop.

we cannot endlessly do this. host: coming up in 10 minutes, we will be hearing from christopher hill, the u.s. ambassador to iraq. looking back at this article by walter pincus, there's a question about how to increase troop strength. secretary gates believes it will be through interesincreased recruitment. extending tourists from 12 months to 15 months has ceased to happen. next up, mary on the republicans

line from the sea michigan. caller: good morning. we should bring home our soldiers because pelosi and the democratic party have already said that the cia lied to us. i do not see how we can trust them to protect our soldiers. i believe that we should bring them home. host: on the independent line, and john from new york. caller: i disagree with the move only because we spend too much on the military already. people do not realize this. we spend more on the military than every other country could to get their. -- put together. this is a military industrialized countrcomplex.

they're complaining about the health care and everything else. we're going broke on the wars. we are just getting too much. we are spread all over the world. it is ridiculous. this country was never designed to be the police of the world. we are going broke over it. someday we will be bankrupt. host: on the democrats' line from columbus, ohio, sue is calling. caller: thank you for c-span. i want to say that i think it is superfluous to the kind of foreign policy that took place in iraq. my son is a veteran of the iraq war. it really decrease the violence. i also want to say that i support the military draft.

if we are going to be at war and people like your previous guest just decide staying there, that everyone should be equally interesteinvested. kind of like the german model where everyone serves the country for at least the minimum amount of time. host: on the republican line, mitch from florida. caller: i am a veteran myself. we have this war going on over there. are we going to teach them the same values that we have over here as far as homosexuality and how the minority rules instead of being a majority like we used to thbe? host: take a look at some other

stories. ""usa today" -- the mayor says it will be catastrophic. also, economic jitters tugged at obama in a poll. we will be talking to a guest about that. and some side stories today about walter cronkite by dan rather. taking a look at "the washington times" -- they also have a story about the mayo clinic and how calls the house plan bad medicine. in the get no delayed review by six months. getting back to the question

this morning. what do you think about the increase in the troop numbers? linda from florida on the independent line. caller: good morning. i do think there should be more sent to afghanistan. i do not know about iraq. i do not think we should have never gone there to begin with. i think that was the bush s cheney way of making money for themselves. iraq did not cost the taliban and did not cause al-qaeda. feder in the reagan-bush years, when afghanistan was a free country -- in the reagan-bush years, when afghanistan was a free country open to all people, we paid the telephonaliban to fe

soviets. with the soviets were out, we abandoned afghanistan. the taliban totally destroyed this beautiful country, afghanistan, and the beautiful people. we owe them to get rid of every taliban. the taliban is what started al- qaeda. if we had not gone into iraq, there would be no al-qaeda. the whole world wind down this terrible wave of islamic extremism. caller: the lady that just both stole my thunder. we know there are not terrorists in iraq. we wasted our time and money when we should have stayed in afghanistan.

i think the republicans call to complain because we complained about bush and now they want to complain about obama. give me a break. thank you. . this afternoon at one house. in two hours, house members hear testimony on the economy.

the inspector general will tell the oversight committee that the treasury department has declined to allow recipients to explain what they are doing with government funds. also on the hill, ben bernanke delivers a report on the country's economic and financial health. that will be at 10:00. stock futures are holding steady as investors await remarks from ben bernanke. those are some of the latest headlines. host: and joining us now is u.s. ambassador to iraq christopher hill. good morning. you just returned from iraq. give us an update on the situation. guest: we have had quite an important month because in june 30 date has come and gone, and

that is the day that the remaining u.s. forces are to be out of iraqi cities. we have been mostly of the country for the last couple of months, but in a few critical cities, we have remained. this milestone in our security agreement with iraq is an important one. so far it has gone well. it has not gone perfectly, but i think the iraqi forces are holding their own, and the iraqi people are pleased to see this milestone reached. now that we are moving on from political developments -- and that is what is taking up time right now, including the visit of prime minister maliki to washington today. host: u.s. troops complained of limits in iraq, according to the "washington post." tensions are rising between

governments in baghdad's push to restrict american military operations. guest: we are hearing that. it is not a problem across the board, but no question these things happen. he tried to set up systems to deal with them. we have a joint iraqi operations center, and we have to try to have some transparency. it is not to say that we will not have issues, but there is a means to deal with them. i want to make one other point. under the security agreement -- by the way, this business of being on of the city's depends on agreements made by the bush administration. the u.s. forces absolutely have the right of self-defense.

no one should be under the impression that our forces are not able to respond to provocations. host: let us talk about what this has meant for everyday operations. there have been a couple of incidents where american forces were doing an investigation or raid and iraqi forces decided that they would take the lead on that. you have any thoughts about troops being put at risk? and not being able to guard american basis? guest: we worked a lot with iraqi troops. we tried to train them in our doctrine as well, to look at things the way that we do. do they always do that? probably not. there will be differences of opinion between the iraqi and u.s. troops, and that is a bit

of what this report is about, but these reports is not what is all about. it is about taking our patrol found of the city, being replaced by the iraqis. one thing iraqis do that we cannot do is they set up additional checkpoints when they move into an area. some say that if you set up another check point, that is another target. our forces prefer aggressive patrolling where we try to clear of a neighborhood and go after these bad guys, and by doing so, keeping them off balance. the iraqis have a slightly different approach i expect they will be moderating, adjusting the approach. i think you have to realize this is a very tough security environment and we are not going to solve all the problems

overnight, but taking u.s. patrol out of the main cities -- by the way, when an iraqi citizen sees one of these mrap s, this issue of military patrolling in the city is frightening to iraqis. they would like to see less of that, which is why they are supportive of this security agreements. host: what is happening in the more rural areas? will we see a more similar policy enacted there as well? guest: what we are seeing our milestones along the way to the withdrawal of u.s. troops in iraq. that is why this is so critical. this is the year that, in addition to getting our forces out of the remaining cities, we will also be reducing the

overall number of forces. we have about 130,000 forces in iraq. by august of next year, 13 months from now, we will be down to about 55,000 forces. they build the entirely training role. that is, and they are now combat operations. -- that is, and they are not doing combat operations. what we need to do is make sure that we are standing up with civilians, that the embassy is up and running, that we are engaging the iraqis, and trying to change the face of america in iraq from a military one to a civilian one. host: let us take our first phone call from the bronx, new york.

good morning. caller: i just wanted to say, during the vietnam war, there was a canadian who asked andrew johnson won he would not end the war, and he said, all my friends are making money. they say the taliban is cruel and ruthless, but they did not bombing iraq and destroyed the country. we need to get out of the business of empires, if we are going to afford health care. host: do you have any comment on perhaps the legacy that has been left by the prior administration? as you have come into this new position, how much do you look back at history and what has happened in the past as you go

forward with this new policy? guest: diplomats tend to look forward, so i am of the mode of trying to look forward. there will be a lot of opinions, a lot of books written about how the u.s. got into iraq, our motivation, etc. i had a lot of personal views on it, but what is important is, here is where we are, and this is what we need to do. we do not want a situation where our troops come back from iraq in a state of chaos. we want to leave them in a state of stability. i do not think anyone foresaw how difficult it was going to me, but we are making progress. the fact that we have an iraqi government, prime minister coming to washington this week to discuss some things that we

would discuss with any other country is a good sign. we want to have a normal relationship. the other day i had a group of iraqi academics coming to the u.s. to study in the fulbright program. 25 of these kids are going off to the u.s. to study computer science. it is very moving and that they understood they will be in the face of iraq for many americans. i invited them to my home, as well as past recipients of u.s. grants, including a woman who was the first, in 1952, she went to columbia university. we need to get back to having a normal relationship with iraq. that is why it is so critical we drawdown in u.s. military and switched over to a civilian presence.

host: next phone call from eastern, pennsylvania. caller: i wanted to make a couple of comments and have you respond about my observations on the middle east. when president bush went into iraq, it was an unpopular attack, but it was something that had to be done, whether it was the right or wrong place to start. we would respond to international terrorism, that we were not going to lay down. i would like to see more continuity between the administration's so that we do not leave the afghan people flat, like we did. the focus of no more nukes in

iraq, we had the remnants of chemical and biological warfare, but the rationale of an attack against the u.s., that we have no stomach for a prolonged war has been adopted by the totalitarian regimes, whether communistic or radical islam. host: any comment? guest: with respect to continuity, what i have been talking about is implementing a security agreement. i have also been talking about implementing a strategic framework agreement, the framework agreement under which we have things like educational exchanges. both of these exchanges were reached in the last months of the bush administration.

now the obama administration is trying to get this done. i would actually say there is a lot of continuity. i know american differ sharply about the issue of going into iraq. the caller is much more positive than most cars. certainly, like any american, whether you believe in the invasion or not, i do not believe anyone is enthusiastic about saddam hussein in iraq. having lived there, seen what he did to the country, i realize that it was a tough six years for everybody, but it was a tough couple of decades for everyone there. we are doing our best to get a number troops home with a sense of accomplishment, that they so deserved. the caller mentioned the idea of

a totalitarian state prepared to outlast americans, but there are not very many countries who would be able to hang in there like we had. to watch our forces have handled these situations, how second lieutenant's deal with issues out there, it is really quite conspiring to americans. we do have a certain positive stubbornness where we are not willing to give in so easily. and i would assure you that there is a lot of continuity, but of course, if you want to look at the reasons for going into this, there will be a lot of differences, but on looking for work on this. host: christopher hill is our

guest. i wanted to look at an article from the "new york times." 5 the iraqi police officers and three civilians were shot dead in a series of seven attacks on monday. a car bomb near the provincial city of ramadi killed two security officers. american soldiers who have normally been involved in operations have larger left the city since june 30 and our man garrison at a large base outside of the city, according to the security agreement. how can u.s. forces deal with this kind of violence now? are we depending more on diplomacy rather than troop strength, because of this agreement? guest: people who throw bombs at civilians, they are not really

interested in diplomacy, quite frankly. the question as to what the u.s. troop can do that iraqi troops are not doing. u.s. troops have a much more dynamic content of patrolling the city. they make sure that terrorists -- by the way, that is the right word for them -- making sure that they are not comfortable in the city. no sanctuary. they go around doing a very aggressive patrolling. sometimes that has caused problems for some iraqi citizens, but the overall idea is to keep them off-balance. the iraqi army understands that balance, but what they have so far preferred to do it is an additional checkpoints so that people cannot bring additional weapons into the city. however, that can also cause casualties.

perhaps iraqis will look at these tactics and the sign that they need to do more patrolling. they need to make a decision on how to handle this thing. these iraqi forces can handle themselves. when you get a development of militias, which is what was so dangerous co couple of years ago, you start to get private armies that are outside the overall security force agreement, then you have the potential for the restart of sectarian war. so far that is not happening. even though these attacks on civilians are occurring in a sunni area, people are not retaliating. people really want to get on

with their lives. our task is to work with iraqi forces, help them manage their security within their city's. if they want to discuss new tactics, we can. but our task is to do that. sooner or later, the iraqis will have to do it. it is the judgment of the iraqi government that june 30 was the day that u.s. forces should be out of the city, and we are going to make that work. host: christopher hill has also served as ambassador to eastern asia. he was also a lead negotiator on the north korean nuclear issue. next phone call on the democrat line from florida. >> [unintelligible] host: moving on. washington, d.c.

caller: afghanistan was because of 9/11. the leader of the country took all the money from the banks and left. then we but to iraq. then we completely killed the country. the way that we did it was horrible. all of these soldiers at walter reed with no limbs, it is terrible. the money that we are spending here -- god is crying. we need to leave.

we cannot keep policing one tried to another tribe. host: any comments for the caller? guest: i think they are calling for a job down, but the province wants to see a responsible draw down. as we see iraqi forces stand up, as tough as the transition will be, we will be able to turn the u.s. presence into a civilian one. indeed, we are withdrawing our military, but doing in a way that leaves stability, and not creating conditions that will produce further bloodshed. i understand your frustration, and for good reason, but the

task with have at hand is how to make this work now. how to get our forces back and keep iraq in a stable and developing mood. host: on the republican line from the chicken skin, new york. -- kingston, new york. caller: i do not know who appointed you, but i find you very interesting to listen to. my thing about afghanistan is, if i wanted to be conspiratorial, it seemed that all of our fighting soldiers, when obama's says that they are coming home, he is sending them back. the way people are taking sides, it is as if we are not speaking the same language. common sense is not ruling between the democrats and

republicans. neither obama is a savior or the devil, there is nothing in between. remember in the bible when moses came down and people were turned into babylon, the first thing god did to them must confound their language so that they could not communicate i get goose bumps thinking about what could be happening. guest: first of all, i have my hands full with shiite, sunni, kurds, so i am not going to take on republicans and democrats on top of that. again, this has been a pretty tough situation that has been difficult. as i said previously, we have an approach that does enjoy some bilateral -- a bipartisan support.

i think that is what we are trying to do, get our forces out of iraq, leave behind stability and leave behind a civilian presence. as for babylon, let me just say, that is right in the middle of iraq. when i went to see one of our provincial reconstruction teams in central iraq, south of baghdad, i was able to see our local troops in beijing with politicians at the provincial level, working on various development projects, and working on building a civilian presence. i did spend some time looking at there rubens of babylon, and it does take your breath away. it is the place that the tower of babble on a bus. this is where alexander the great spend his last days.

-- tower of babylon. it is amazing to see these things. it is about iraqi history, but it is also about world history. so much of our western civilization comes from this area. what we would like to do is ensure that iraq is a stable and secure place, and maybe we will start to get forced to visit soon. host: how are you concerned about your safety? there were alleged attacks. how is everything going for you right now? guest: there are roadside bombs, these improvised explosive devices. often, people plant them on

short notice, are activated by a cell phone or something like that. obviously, that is worrisome, but we have strong, talented security people. and they follow some very tried and true methods of handling these risks. i think, overall, it is a question of managing risk. risk will always be there, but we need to manage it in a way to get our job is done at the same time. what is important is, even though bad things happen, we are continuing to engage the iraqi people and get out of the so- called green zone. host: next phone call, brendan from the state bill, arkansas. -- fayetteville, arkansas.

caller: i enjoyed hearing you say that you lead to look forward. what tools can our government used to make sure that iraq's greatest resources, oil, can benefit the nation as a whole, and possibly make our presence there end up in a better light than it has been, therefore benefit in the iraqi people? guest: let me just say, oil is not only an important, but essential to the iraqi economy. for decades and decades, iraqis have not had international companies come in and explore their oil. frankly, i think and they could do a lot more with their

resources and a half. part of the problem is iraq has been beset by isolationist tendencies. saddam hussein wanted to make everyone in the country fearful of each other and the outside world. that is the game of these terrorists who are trying to isolate iraq. but there is also the old notion that iraq somehow needs to be insular, kept away from foreigners. what was significant a few weeks ago, for the first time in many decades, iraqis were able to bid on oil fields. the first winner of these bids was british petroleum, which has a chinese partner. if they are able to exploit this field, as they hoped that they can, there is the prospect of

that one field doubling iraqi oil production and giving the government a lot of the revenue that it needs to rebuild the country. we very much support this process and work closely with the iraqis on this, but our reason for being there is not to take their oil. our reason for being there is to help them develop their economy. to do that, they need a proven but more vigorous effort in developing their oil resources. that is underway. it is encouraging that the process has started. it is politically excepted in iraq that they need to invite foreign oil companies, and frankly, i hope we can get some american companies in there. host: the iraqi prime minister will be meeting with the u.n.

security general ban ki moon today, as well as president obama tomorrow. how significant is this visit? guest: a lot has changed since his last visit in 2006. certainly, a lot has changed for the prime minister. in 2006 there was concern that he was too weak of late leader to run the stuff country. now some are saying that he is too tough. -- of a leader to run this tough country. we hear about the hideous tragedy's of people killing other people, but compare that to win the prime minister came last time -- it is a far, far less than it was before. one thing that he will be doing

now is talking about things that are not necessarily related to security, but perhaps our civilian and relationship, extensive talks with secretary clinton about this framework agreement where we can see what we can do to boost our economic ties, cultural ties, educational ties, scientific, agricultural. there are a lot of things that we can do with the event there are of mutual interest. iraq is a very large country. if you look at a map of the middle east, it is right in the center. iraq is of interest to us, and having a prime minister talked about a broad number of issues, rather than just security, is the direction that we would like to be moving. host: next phone call on the democrat line. st. louis, missouri. caller: previously you talked

about warlords in the middle east and people in a situation like this. throughout history when the u.s. tries to invoke policy in the middle east, there is always some kind of problem where we put readers in that people do not like, or we pull out too soon, and then we create these terrorist situations. history has a tendency to repeat itself. in afghanistan, we promised a lot of things and ended up being more hated. we created a lot of these terrorist leaders, so what are we going to do to make sure that we do not do this and try to go

in under a more peaceful means? we need to be working with the people, not overwhelming them with u.s. forces and corporations using their oil, and trying to teach them to set up their communities. guest: let me just say, the general proposition is far better that you help a country set up institutions, procedures for selecting their government and leaders. it is far better to do that rather than trying to name someone is a good guy, and may turn out not to be. one has to approach these complex situations with a certain amount of humility. it is very important when we come into a place like iraq, we do not presume that we know

better than the local people as to who should be the leader. frankly, we do not know. mistakes can be made in those circumstances. what you would like to do is help the country with its procedures, help it come under rule of law, but it will be up to the country to select their leaders. i was a peace corps volunteer many years ago. it was one of my favorite trumps. it was always better to teach people how to do something, rather than do it for them. i think that is something that you can take too many endeavors in life. host: thank you. coming up, representative christopher murphy, talking about health care.

>> following last week's confirmation hearings, the senate judiciary committee meet today to consider the nomination of sonia sotomayor to the u.s. supreme court justice. a vote on the nomination is expected to be postponed until next tuesday. john kyl of arizona has said that he thought the floor debate could be completed in four days. you can watch last week's hearings on line, or take a look at specific question and answer sessions organized by senator. go to featured links at c- span.org.

>> donations? >> taxpayers? >> through philanthropy? >> 30 years ago, america's cable companies created c-span as a public service. host: congressman christopher murphy joins us right now, representing the fifth district of connecticut. you serve on the energy and commerce house commend you which is working on health care legislation now. what is your role in the process? guest: when i was in the state legislator in connecticut, i figured out early on, if we wanted to cover everyone in

connecticut and needed to do something about cost, we needed to have a national approach to cost reduction and coverage expansion. when i got to washington, i figured out that being on the energy and commerce committee was a place to be. right now we are in the middle of debating the house version of the energy bill. we hope to have that tell the committee this year -- excuse me, this week -- and to the house floor for consideration next week. host: chairman waxman has announced that you will resume tomorrow? guest: no meeting today. i think we are going to use the week to get behind some of these essential issues of health care reform. the reason that 50 million people do not have health care is because it costs so much. we spend more than any other man our industrial partners on

health care. this needs to be about reducing the cost of health care for individuals and businesses purchasing through the private companies, as well as through the government. i think members of the committee will be trying to get at that issue of cost because that is really the central issue. host: president obama will be meeting with democratic members of your commission. will you be attending? guest: he will be meeting with some of the more conservative bloc. i think they will focus on trying to reduce costs. that is an important exercise. if we can find a way to bend the cost curve and start paying for quality care, instead of the volume, that will benefit the process. i hope that they can find some

common ground because it will be something that a lot of us can support. host: about seven blue dogs on your committee. how significant is their ultimate verdict on this issue? guest: we have a diverse caucus. what happened when you win majority is you have a real breath of the logical and policy diversity. i think there is a real consensus around these issues at the blue dogs are talking about. in particular, this idea that we need to stop paying just for the amount of health care we are consuming in the country, and start paying for quality. it is bad enough that our health care system is the most expensive, but it is even worse that the results are in the middle of the pack.

frankly, i think you will see a lot of conservative, moderate, and liberal members willing to support this. host: you are a strong supporter of universal health care. how realistic is that, is it playing into your discussions right now? guest: our first call, again, need to be cutting costs. that gets us to universal care. we do have care available come but people are waiting to go to the emergency room, and that is bankrupting our system. people are waiting until they are so sick and they get treated in the emergency room, which is often the most expensive way. the bill before the house gets

to 97% coverage, as cbo estimates. i think that we are going to require health care reform in order for us to support this. host: gop focuses on killing the health bill, on the "washington post." polls show rising anxiety over president obama is handling of health care in the economy and republicans launched an aggressive effort to link the two. they are labeling this a failed economic stimulus bill. the pr war. where are democrats in that, and what needs to be done before august? guest: obviously, in 1993, republicans saw health care as an opportunity to win back the majority. it is clear republicans are seeing the same opportunities

here. jim demint said the other day in this could be president obama's waterloo. that is emblematic on a sentiment on behalf of a lot of republicans, that the matter is this is the right thing for the american people, no matter if there could beat a constructive role, and there are many people in the party who are stopping any constructive action. i think the president is right to call them out and say, even though you are a skeptical member of congress, press yourself to engage and make this better, not a political issue, not just stopping the president's agenda from political -- for political gain. host: next phone call. texas. caller: i was just hoping that

republicans could get along with president obama. he is doing the best he can. i voted for rick perry. i think we should compromise. let us get on with the business. i lost my husband last year on april 21 because i could not get him in a nursing home because he was not under the traditional medicare plan. i had to find a nursing home that would take him in, in his situation. he was also a veteran. i was very devastated. guest: i wish that your story was unique. the problem is there are

hundreds of thousands of people throughout the country who are dying or becoming built -- debilitating lasik because they do not have access to health care. the richest nation in the world -- that is just not right. that is not a republican or democrat issue. getting sick and not being able to get care, that does not discriminate between party lines. i wish there was more common ground on this. i think one of the central questions on this as we move forward is, do we want a bipartisan bill for the sake of having republican votes, where do we want a good bill? it is my view that we want a good bill. we need to deliver insurance to as many people as we can and reduce costs for individuals and businesses.

if that means that we are not going to get a lot of republicans but it is the right thing for the american people, then i'm going to press the leadership to do that. host: what will it take to get a good bill? the president says that she could be backing off his previous time line. as long as there are indications that things are moving forward, and may not necessarily need to be done and august. you are a relatively new member of congress. how can this be productive? guest: it is a complicated issue with an enormous amount of interest groups. i would like to get a bill before we leave next week but it is important to get a good bill, get it right, and make sure that the members are comfortable. if it takes more time, then we should do that.

under not think we should set up artificial deadlines. -- i do not think we should set up artificial deadlines. we have talked about health care reform for decades. the american people have waited long enough. the elements of the public discourse are in place right now. i do not think we will get a bill done by august, but we want to make sure that we get a bill that members of congress are comfortable with. if that means that we wait until the fall to pass the bill through the house, then that may have to happen. i do think it is possible to get it done by next week, bill. host: president obama is refusing to take a surtax off the table in the health-care debate, according to the ap.

talk about paying for this, and where that money should come from. guest: the fact is, in the last major health care bill that was passed in congress was in 2003 by republican when the extended prescription drug benefit to the medicare program. they did not pay for any of it. a bar and that entire program. we cannot afford that as a nation. -- they borrowed that entire program. right now the house bill has half a trillion dollars in cuts to the system. i think we can probably get another $200 billion to $300 billion reduced. that is why i'm encouraged about this conversation happening right now because we can get more savings. we may have to increase a few

means of revenue. right now the proposal is to ask those amongst us that have done very well to give a bit more in order to pass health care reform. whether that number is people making $275,000, $500,000, that is an important discussion to have, but i do not think it is unrealistic to ask people who have done extremely well in this economy to pay a little more to make sure that their neighbors have coverage. host: nancy pelosi suggested revising the tax measures. she said that she would prefer to tax fewer people. we have a comment on twitter. carroll says -- is that a message you are hearing from many people?

guest: i do not have a ton of constituents who are volunteering to pay more, but i do think that people understand how big problem is. i think people understand also that we need to spend money up front to get savings on the back end. by insuring these 49 million, it will save us in the long run. again, the amount of revenue increases in the bill can be much smaller than it is today if we focus on a bending the cost curve, enacting more aggressive pay for reform on quality rather than volume, we may not need to make drastic measures. host: next phone call from omaha, nebraska.

caller: [inaudible] host: host: i think we are going to have to move on. next phone call. caller: i have lived in waterbury, conn. all my life. my wife is still with me. just this past summer, i switched from republican to independent. i will still vote for some republicans, some democrats, but i will not vote for tom murphy. i cannot understand where he comes from. he talks about this country

being the richest. yet, i cannot pay for my own insurance, see my own doctor. my wife does the same thing. i am just about making ends meet to do this. i understand, if this is the richest country, why cannot i pay for my own insurance? the government should not tell me who to see and when to see them. guest: i think your concern is a fundamental aspect of health care reform. at the foundation of everything we are talking about is preserving the ability for you and anyone who wants to stay on their private insurance, to do so. there are some good things about our health care system that we do not need to throw out. what we're really trying to say

is to those people who do not have coverage, we want to give you some options, either through the government or through the government plan. and but to you in the millions of people who are satisfied with the coverage they had, whether you are purchasing it yourself, or it is through your employer, you will be able to keep that. 70% of people who have insurance today are satisfied with what they have. we have no interest in taking that away. we are just looking to give you in the business you work for more options and choices, which is the foundation of this package. i'd been there is broad agreement on using that as -- i think there is broad agreement on using that as the basis for these discussions. host: let us take a look at some of the comments that michael steele made yesterday, criticizing democrats.

>> president obama is a good man in care deeply about the country but he is determined, with an unprecedented single mindedness to transform this into something that none of us would recognize. candidate obama promised to change, president obama is conducting an experiment. he is conducting an experiment with health care and quality of our lives. he is conducting a reckless experiment with our economy. he is conducting an unnecessary experiment with tax dollars which will transform the way of life and our country. the president is rushing this experiment through congress so fast, so soon, that we have not had a moment to think if it will work, or worse, the consequences to our nation, economy, and families, if it does not work. the barack obama experiment is a risk our country cannot afford. it is too much, too fast, too

soon. guest: i think it is interesting when i hear chairman steele or others talking about not being able to afford perform. the question is, how can we afford to do nothing? the studies that i have seen suggest sitting back and doing nothing right now will cost this country and its health care system twice as much as any estimate that we see today. over the last 10 years, health care premiums have gone up 120%. during that same time, worker wages have gone up only 30%. that is not sustainable. if we want to know my we aren't in such a deep recession, part of the antar is health care costs is crippling the business community. if we wanted to meet -- compete in this world, one of the things

holding back domestic business is the cost of health care. i understand the chairman of the republican party wants to stop national health care reform because he thinks he can recreate 1994 from a political perspective. but if he actually spoke to small businesses and individuals who could not afford health care, then this is not an experiment. host: a new poll from politico. respondents were asked about what kind of affect government would have on access. 40% believe that it would get worse. 38% said it would get better. asked about the quality, 42% said it would get worse. 33% said it would get better. how do you account for this? guest: this is based on the public option?

polls that i have seen show, over all, anywhere from 60% to 85% of individual support the option of buying into a government-sponsored health care plan, unlike what members of congress have access to, or medicare beneficiaries have access to. the fundamental question here is giving people the choice to do that. if folks want to stay on their private insurance, they should have the right to do that. but if they think they can get cheaper health care insurance, or get more efficient products through the government, then allow them that choice. that is what will bring the price of our system down. the cbo told us just that, before the committee when they give testimony. they said the public option

would save $75 billion in our system. that is a savings that i do not think we can afford to pass up. host: john on the democrat line, philadelphia. caller: i see this problem differently than most people. to me, the problem is not that so many people have lost their health care can do not have it today. the problem is the probleis peoe it. there were tens of thousands of people working at general motors auto dealerships. they all had insurance. they all liked their health insurance. fast forward six months. general motors closes those dealerships and these people have no job and no health insurance. everything they own is at stake,

their life savings, the house they live in, 401k's, and they are wiped out problem with me today is not -- wipe od out. the problem with me today is that people who are losing insurance have no insurance for that. then they go into bankruptcy. guest: we have this image of bankruptcy as someone who made in irresponsible financial decision that puts them into insolvency. the fact is, half of the personal bankruptcies in these countries are caused by a medical illness but a person could not pay for because they did not have insurance or the cost sharing they were required through their insurance plan and granted them personally.

everyone is one pink slip away from exposing themselves to that type of life altering change. you are right, health care reform is not just for people who do not have it, it is trying to give assurance to people who already have insurance, that if they lose their job, they will not lose their health care insurance. even more so, speaking to people in my district who have a great idea to start a new business, create a new product, at some benefit to the economy, but do not because they are locked into their jobs because of health care benefits. the amount of innovation that we are stifling in this country because people cannot leave their jobs just because of their health-care benefits is maddening to someone who sees the ingenuity of the american economy as one of the strengths to get us out of the recession.

this is about people who do not have insurance, as well as people who do, and all well and then the assure ability and flexibility that they need. host: next phone call from morris, tennessee. republican line. caller: you are foolish to be talking about all of this. this is the problem with the democrats. and this is such a good plan, how come you are not going to be on it? i was on a good plan with my company but that men and i turned 60, they pushed me over to medicare. that is how nancy pelosi is going to squeeze money out of the plan. they are going to start rationing things. there is nobody that does not have access to health care. they may not have insurance, the mexicans and the gang bangers are still treated. do not be so naive to believe

that we will believe you. have you even read the bill? guest: i have. and it is a complicated matter, so the solution will not be in a few pages. as a foundation of everything we are talking about, even over this issue of a government auction, the central issue is a choice. . i think there is reason to do that. but the basis of health care reform really has to be the notion we will increase choices.

there still will be a choice. again, caller's skepticism, i hear in my district and we need to repeat that nothing in this healthcare reform bill will force anybody to do anything they don't want. the more people who understand that, the more willing they will be to accept what is a big change, a bill with a lot of pages but i think is long overdue and necessary reform. host: our guest has been congressman chris murphy, a democrat. coming up next, a republican from texas, congressman joe barton joining us. we will be back after this news update from c-span radio. >> congress continues working on spending bills. today in the senate, a vote on the f-22 is scheduled for noon eastern time. it would strip the money for the jet fighter from the defense spending bill. president obama threatened to

veto the legislation if the f- 22 money remains. education spending, the focus of remarks by the president today. he travels to michigan to promote investment and community colleges. it is a $12 billion plan to help the institutions reached, teach, and train more people for jobs of the future. in an hour, the house oversight giddy -- committee hears from the special inspector general overseeing the tarp fund. part of it sets aside $8 billion for high-speed rail. although the law requires the u.s. to buy american, the rail plan requires so many trains and expertise that the administration says foreign companies are likely to be part of it. the federal rail administration plans to release the first round of grants by mid september. " the new york times" reports the national highway safety in ministration withheld

information from the public about the hazards of cell phone use of driving partly out of fear. the head of the agency said transit officials told him he could jeopardize billions of dollars of this financing if congress thought the agency crossed the line into lobbying. critics say the failure of the transportation department to disclose the findings resulted in traffic deaths and allowed multitasking while driving to grow. the findings were obtained by the center of auto safety and public citizen through freedom of information request. vice-president biden says washington supports ukraine's bid to join nato and the budget country is free to choose foreign-policy alliances. moscow opposes potential middle membership for ukraine. the vice president said attempts to improve relations will not come at the expense of ukraine. he met with the country's

president in kiev. "the new york daily news" says vice-president dick cheney's secret service protection was extended at least another six months beginning today. normally ex-vice-president only did six months of protection but mr. dick cheney asked for an extension and president obama recently signed off. those are some of the latest headlines. >> "washington journal" continues. host: senator joe barton of texas is the ranking republican in the energy committee. you said you were leading the charge against the health care bill and intent to kill it. guest: i don't want to kill health care reform, obviously. the bill currently being marked up in the energy and commerce committee is a bad bill. it is over 1000 pages long, it radically changes health care as we know it today.

there is about 15% of the american population that doesn't have health care or not the kind of health care -- or health insurance, excuse me. about 85% of the american people have health care insurance that they like. this kills that. within five years to eight years, over 100 million americans who are currently covered by health care plan that they like would lose it. when you have a 15% solution that creates an 85% problem, that is not a good bill. that is what this bill is. it is radically changing health- care delivery and health care insurance as we know it in america. host: what is the process that it would eventually destroy or kill private insurance? guest: there are employee or employer mandates, something you have to do. it is a federal requirement.

the employer, unless they meet a very minimal small-business exemption, has to provide not just health care insurance, but kind of a health-care package that today would be considered kind of a cadillac plan. if they don't, they are subject to an 8% per employee payroll tax every year. most small businesses, and maybe large businesses, are going to look at that mandate, look that they will have to provide -- covering all pre-existing conditions, mandates about the types of coverage and the level of coverage, and they will probably opt out of providing health care insurance for their employees. on the other side of the equation, the employee has a mandate that he or she has to have health insurance. and if they don't, they are subject to a 2% payroll penalty

on an individual basis. so, you are kind of catching it coming and going. there are provisions in bill that create -- in the bill that creates various new medical health review boards. and we offered an amendment last night from a congressman from georgia, that would say no federal official or employee may interfere with the practice of medicine. every democrat voted against that amendment. so, you are creating a system on one side where the government is going to tell the health care profession how to practice, or at least potentially they could. every time you give government officials power, they use it. on the other side, you are creating mandates that have to be met. health care insurance as we know it today in america, health care delivery, as we know it today in america, within five years to

eight years of this bill's passing will be gone. it is just a fact. that is not republican rhetoric. host: in "the wall street journal," 10 questions on the health-care overhaul. it asks which industries are most likely to use and which may gain. perhaps no industry stands to gain more our health insurers because americans will be required to require -- carry health insurance. pharmaceutical companies would sell more prescription drugs because more would have coverage. hospitals and doctors would not have provide as much free care. how big of a player is the health insurance industry and how much are they weighing in on this debate? guest: that is an interesting question. i think the honest answer is in terms of their impact in washington, the debate, it is 0. they are not being listened to. they have become come on the democratic side, one of the bogeymen of president obama and

the democrats on the committees. and as much as i respect "the wall street journal," i would take a little bit of issue with the author of that particular piece because who gains in terms of this plan for the obama proposal is the government-run health care option because it creates such a mandate, eggplant with all of these various things that have to be covered -- a plan with all of these various things that have been recovered, if you give the government plan, you might gain, but if you are a private unsure who doesn't manage the government plan, you are out of business. host: are guest is republican congressman joe barton.

the phone numbers are -- you can also e-mail us to journal@c-span.org. we have a comment from twitter -- mr. barton, as a fellow texan, would you agree we have no health care, but instead disease and injury management system? guest: if the doctor is talking about the status quo of the current system -- i am not sure exactly how to answer this question. i would say any american, or any person in the united states -- does not have to be american citizens -- if they need health care, they will get it in some way. it might not be the perfect delivery system where you go to your primary care doctor and then referred to a specialist or go to a hospital if it is a serious situation. but you will be cared for in an emergency room or clinic or in the normal private health care delivery system today. there are people who say what we

have is a sick care system as opposed to a health care system, in a sense of the way the insurance policy practices are set up. we don't do the full range of preventive wellness programs because traditional is -- traditionally some are considered discretionary and you have to be really sick or in bad shape before the insurance system kicks in. host: let us go to the phones. california, on the democrats' line. caller: what wanted to say, the republican past and $800 billion pharmaceutical bill -- passed $800 billion famous -- pharmaceutical bill, tax cuts for the rich, and have no plans themselves for reforming health care.

and they ask, how we pay for this? i don't think any of the other things, including the iraq war, have been paid for. i pay just as an individual between $2,500 up to $3,000 a year for basic health care coverage. i know i'm one of those people paying for everybody else. and i wanted to know from the congressmen, how do you changed that -- how you change that? i would like a government auction. what is republican response? guest: first, very polite caller and very good question. first thing is, republicans do have an alternative. we think we ought to have a refundable tax credits for individuals who make below certain income levels. we think there ought to be vouchers also, if you don't have

an income, so that we give you the money and you go out and purchase in the private health care insurance market the health care plan that is best for you and your family. we also believe that every american who can't get health insurance under the regular system that wants to get health insurance should be able to have every pre-existing condition covered, should be able to go into either a polling situation where you create these regional pools. the congressman from arizona has an amendment. perhaps have a co-op -- a democratic congressman from virginia floated the idea of some sort of national co-op where you could use these vouchers or these refundable tax credits to go out and purchase your own health insurance plan. i am going to offer an amendment sometime during the market this week, the energy and commerce committee, that would make it

possible for every american in this country that wishes to have health insurance to go out and purchase that, and if you can't pay for because you don't have a job or are below certain income, the government would pay for it. that is not having a plan, it is having a plan. those ideas -- ideas taken together collectively do not cost anywhere near $1.60 trillion as the president's plan, and the plan put forward in the house. they would be voluntary. they would be market-oriented. they would not interfere with the doctor-patient relationship. they would go directly at the problem in some of the different ways that we have today -- that is that some people who have -- once health insurance can't give it and the delivery, because of the various bureaucracies that already exist in medicare and medicaid and all the requirements that go around those, are raising the cost of

care. and so, republicans do have alternatives, we do want to solve the problem, but it is interesting to me -- and i think the american public needs to know -- that president obama asked me to go to the white house twice back in january when it was photo op time. he hadn't asked me in the last week or two. as far as i know on the house side -- and i think this is true on the senate side -- no republicans have been invited to go to these big pow wows today. i think every democrat on the energy and commerce committee is going to the white house to meet with the president. no republicans were invited. so, when the president wanted republicans for fuddle copps, people like myself were asked to be part of the drafting and solutions -- for photo ops. it was drafted behind closed doors and it is a radical departure from health care but we as we know it today, it is extremely expensive.

the congressional budget office said somewhere in the neighborhood of $1 trillion up to $2 trillion over the next 10 years with no real cost cutting or improvements. that is from the congressional budget office. that is not from the republicans. host: let us look at some items. it would expand medicaid to cover people with incomes up to 133% of the fun of poverty level and provide subsidies for people with incomes up to 400% of the federal poverty level. guest: the first item is for single adults, which currently no single adults -- you have to be a single adult below 100 percent of the poverty level to be covered by medicaid today. it is low income health care. their bill expands it to 133%. but it covers everybody and it is 100 percent federal match.

again, instead of having a mandate -- create a pool, a co- op, let people who wish to participate do that but not make it a mandate. host: the republican line from salisbury, north carolina. welcome to the program. caller: i hear some much -- and mr. murphy before you -- make the same statement and i hear it every time it comes up. i have a policy with blue cross blue shield, and i have medicare. they say you can keep in the insurance that you want to and if you care to do that -- well, i prefer the way i just said it to you. i don't understand, is medicare

going to be eliminated as far as a choice? and what i have to go on the nationalize program and order to continue medicare, or can i get the two together? i am 80 years old and i do have a serious health problem and i recently lost a friend in canada who was approximately my age from alzheimer's where they went blind. who knows what came first -- the blindness, i am assuming, came from cut off from the brain. but this is what we are faced with. people living as long as we live now -- and i am in good health except for that particular problem. try to explain some of it to me, sir. guest: of first of all, it is a very good question and that really has not been given much attention. medicare as we know it today probably wouldn't be the same because it would have to be some

of these mandates that are newly enacted. your medicare supplementary policy would almost certainly change. so, the plan, as you have it today, there is a five-year phase-in period, i think five years to eight years. so within five years to eight years, that would probably change. and you are in the medicare plan yourself today. when the president says if you have something you like, you can keep it. it is only a true statement if you have a plan that exactly matches the mandates and the bill, and on an individual basis, you worked in a large company where they already have the kind of the gold standard plan. but if you don't need those the two conditions, the health care insurance policy that you have today will be changed.

while i am not told lee schorr on medicare with the medicare supplementary policy -- totally sure on the medicare with the medicare supplemental policies, i would think it would change, too, and you certainly would not have the options you have today. host: an e-mail asks, what he should do as a 31-year-old student and former soldier who is not working and not able to see a doctor for any preventative care. i could have a problem that with proper screening and treatment could not only save my life but a large amount of money. something has to be done. guest: that is one of the holes in the current system, is that most insurance plans to not cover well as programs or preventative care. the solution to that is not a radical socialization of the entire health-care system. the solution to that is a targeted approach. again, some sort of a voucher program, refundable tax credit if an individual has a job, with

a range of options in the private sector where you join some sort of a co-op or some sort of a pool, and within that have options. we can take care of this ex- soldiers' problems without destroying the entire health system as we know today. host: kansas city, missouri. good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. with all due respect, the congressman from connecticut is absolutely right. we need a single payer system. why is it we are the only industrialized western civilization without socialized medicine? my answer to you is that we go to the lowest common denominator, which is greed, money. that is the main reason. i can't believe that you said that insurance companies are

lobbying against any kind of reform texas -- are not lobbying against any kind of reform because they are spending money as we speak. guest: well, i can only say what i know. there hasn't been any insurance company representative coming into my office. i am not aware of any major insurance initiative in terms of the media. perhaps it is out there, but if it is, it is so mis-targeted that someone like myself on a major committee with jurisdiction is not aware of it. but in response to what we need to do your exhortation that we need a single payer plan, -- in response to your statement that we need a single payer plan, put i do not agree. when he bought a serious illness, the place to go to is the united states -- when people have a serious the list. they don't go to canada,

england, the eastern bloc. they go to the united states of america where you have a private, free market system where researchers can conduct research in a wide area of fields, where there are dozens, if not hundreds of health care plans available for people to choose from, where there are thousands of hospitals and tens of thousands of doctors and health-care providers operating in an open, for-choice system where people can pick and choose what is best for them and their families. think about what you just said. you want to go to a single payer system, socialized medicine system, where you have to wait and mine, everybody's health care is the same, no innovation or ability to differentiate based on your specific needs. with all due respect, i could not disagree more. i am not saying our current system is perfect. i think there are things we need to do. we do need to find ways to help those who don't have health

insurance or who have special conditions have access to the health care delivery that they need, but we don't want to destroy all of the innovation and freedom and choice that has made us the gold standard for health care in the world. host: "the washington post de," it industry cash flow to drafters of reform. it talks about there has been a fellow of contributions -- hospitals, insurers from other medical interest groups hoping to shape legislation to their advantage. one of our listeners rights on twitter -- how much money have you taken from the insurance industry? you have not? guest: i am not saying over 25 years in congress i have not received some political action committee donations from the health insurance sector. i am sure that i have. what i am saying that is, at least in this debate -- maybe because i'm a member of the minority and not a member of the

democratic majority -- maybe they are putting all of their debts and all of their money on the democratic side. they are in the majority, so i guess that makes some sense. but i think it is because, what people like myself are trying to do, is fix the current system, create more options. we want the 15 percent solution -- we want to help the people who under the current system are having problems. we don't want to destroy the system where 80 per cent sign -- 80% or 85% are satisfied with their health care. host: mark is calling in on the republican line from arlington, texas. guest: a constituent. host: good morning. caller: @ thank you, c-span, for a great opportunity to come on and voice my opinion. i am a precinct chair here in arlington.

i didn't know you were going to be on here. guest: we didn't plan this call. i have no idea what you are about to ask. caller: i am going to say this i do believe if they are going to do this -- i'm going to say this. i do believe that they are going to do this money thing, do not give this to the insurance companies. they are the ones who created this bad problem. outrageous. the other thing is, how come if we do do this, how come we don't get the same kind of insurance that our representatives get? because you all gets a great -- you all get a great insurance policy, and we don't. i want to tell you i think you are a great american and i appreciate all that you do all this. i'm going to hang up and let you talk. guest: where is your precinct? caller: 2100. guest: where is that? caller: off of collins and part

growth. guest: i don't live terribly far from there. my home in arlington is off of green oaks. first of all, let us talk about what congressman have for insurance. we have the shape -- same options as any federal and deploy e. there is a federal employee benefit handbook, and there are 20 or 30 plans we get to choose from. i chose the standard blue cross/blue shield plan of texas available to any federal employee who lives in texas. i pay for myself and my family about $350, to $400 a month as a premium and my employer, in this case, you come of the constituency, pays about $600, to $700 a month, so the total premium is a little bit over $1,000 a month. i believe that is correct. that is available to any federal

employee. that is my health insurance plan. i do agree with you that the insurance companies have engaged in practices that are not as they should be. this ability to rescind a policy, if it is an individual policy, if you have a plane. there -- have a clean. there is a constituent that had a blue cross/blue shield group plan through a hospital in dallas and when she quit the hospital to go take care of our father in florida, she converted it to an individual plan, and then she developed breast cancer and blue cross/blue shield tried to rescind the policy on an individual basis saying she did not fully disclose when she filed her individual application because she didn't tell them she had treatment for acne five or six years before. i put a bill in that passed the

house last year, and we are trying to get it passed in this congress, to not allow insurance companies to rescind policies for minor discrepancies if they are not directly related to the claim that is being filed by the individual. so i am not a defender of the insurance companies from every practice that exists today. i will say this, however. any health insurance plan, any health care plan that we put in effect at the federal level should allow you and every citizen opportunities to pick and choose, create a range from a different types of plans for different cases, so that you can customize your health insurance and health-care delivery to what is best for you. in my opinion, what we don't want is create a system that has all of these government mandates, the word shall in the current democratic draft is mentioned 1700 times.

the correct draft created 33 new entitlement programs. -- the current draft. and 50 new positions of authority that can dictate the type of coverage, research, practices that are offered. so, i am trying to maintain choice and freedom of opportunity. i am opposed to government intervention and government mandates, socialized medicine, and a huge new burden on the american taxpayer. host: helen on the democrats' line from massachusetts. caller: good morning, representative barton. actually my comments was to follow on what the previous caller said. there were points the past four mention that i agree with.

i did want to ask you -- and i wanted to commend you for what you did for your constituents on the issue. i watched the subcommittee hearing, and your constituents, who you help, along with two other women who had the same issues with the insurance company. sorry, i'm a little bit nervous. what would a tax cut have done to help your constituent go about with her situation? she had to go to you and you had to intervene. the other woman -- i forget who are relative was -- who had to go to the attorney general in chicago -- guest: that was her brother, i think. caller: correct.

and the insurance company is -- companies all were asked the question would they commit to the subcommittee to stop the revision program and none of them would do that. my basic question is this -- the socialism bureaucrat, all of the words that are constantly thrown out, what would you call those people who have that practice? guest: we need to change that. we need to do one of two things. we need to great enough -- create an of transparency, so those making a purchase on an individual basis, know what the recision practice and for the various plans. so, if you put transparency and openness into the marketplace,

the companies that do those practices are going to change and they will go out of business because nobody is going to buy their plan. you can do it that way. you could also make it illegal, which is a bill -- not just me, but a democrat from michigan, and a democrat from connecticut is supporting also -- so it is not just republicans -- that make the practice illegal if they are providing health insurance and interstate commerce on an individual basis. they either need to do due diligence when they make the decision in underwriting whether to offer the policy to the individual, but once it is offered, as long as the individual has been truthful and not intentionally failing to disclose a major pre-existing condition, then that policy will remain in effect if they had a major claim like my constituent had with breast cancer. she didn't intentionally develop breast cancer so she could file

a claim beard she had a very serious medical condition, life threatening. she had insurance and she tried to use her policy to help her with her condition and the insurance company in this case attempted to rescind the policy. but luckily, we were able to get them to change their mind and reinstate the policy and she had the surgery and she is now having chemotherapy, and so far, so good, although she is still not out of the woods. host: congressman joe barton represents the sixth district of texas. let us go to mike allen from politico, which has a new poll looking at the public trust and how obama is bearing. good morning. guest: good morning. host: thanks for joining us. tell us some of the key points. what is the polls show that is most interesting? guest: we did this with public strategies, inc., and it found

that trust and president obama to solve america's problems has fallen into a trust in that president obama. -- found that trust in president obama to solve america's problems has fallen. it has fallen to the mid 50's. the white house will say it is similar to president reagan's numbers. we don't have a karcher situation. but it does it show the complications for the president as we move from -- is indeed a great president, everything is exciting and new -- to actually getting things done. and that is the problem. the american people like obama more than they like his policies. so you see when you delve into the specifics, for instance, the possibility of a government auction for healthcare. people think that would probably make. last instead of making it that appeared more think the government will hurt care. -- people think that would

probably make it last instead of making it better. more think they would hurt care. that you could only downside risk, that you could only get less care, the selection -- disruption, and pay more. the president is aware of this. going back to the town hall, abc in prime time, he has been making the point in numerous events. he made the point, if you have health care and you like it, you can keep it. of course, there is an asterisks in that, which means only if your employer does. but you will not be forced to make changes. host: politico's chief white house correspondent. in politico today says -- whatever problems faced by a bomb, he still has higher approval ratings than other washington leaders of the republican party, and the loss in trust and democrats did not respond to a gain in the gop. trusted republicans fell from

46% in march to 36% in a recent survey. guest: this doesn't surprise me. because people had such a fantastic feeling in the government back in january and february, the early part of the year. it was ironic, because a lot were hurting and a lot of fallout was going on from the economic meltdown and continues today. but president obama did something a good leader does, whether it is a coach or anyone else, and that he made people feel better. and people were rooting for this governor -- government in part because of all of the problems. even the republicans won at the economy to recover, depression is not good for republicans either -- wanted the economy to recover. now we see the government -- the president's popularity going down a bill -- a little bit. he put all his marbles on health

reform and he will work hard to get it done. the events we saw on c-span, we saw the president is a fighter and he doesn't like to lose. but there is a problem for him, and that is, if this health care bill gets watered down so much that it doesn't really solve the problem, then there is a potential for another disappointment for people. so that is the tension for this president, to keep it muscular enough that it addresses the problem, steps to the principles he laid out, and yet something that everyone is willing to sign onto. even these conservative -- conservative democrats, perhaps in districts that mccain carried, are very squeamish. they took a tough vote on climate. not wanting to take another one on health care. here is a little scoop about something that has been discussed today. because house democrats don't want to jump off a cliff, if the senate is not also going to take a boat -- because in the senate doesn't vote it would mean they voted on the tax increases and

changes on health care for nothing -- so if the senate is not making progress in the latter part of next month -- next week, when the house of schedule to go off on its summer vacation, the house may wait. they may go ahead and vote if the senate is making progress. they are not going to wait for a senate vote to be in the books. but if the senators are not making progress, they can either delay their vacation or wait to vote on this health care bill in the fall. host: one other interesting note from this piece in the politico. he writes, further regulation for american business drop up markedly but only two-thirds polled fear the government will provide too much financial help to ailing companies. he writes, the increased trust and corporations and dropping faith in government may not lead indicate that those polled believe the economy is on its way back. asked which of the small double play a larger role in recovery,

32% said the government and 60% said business. guest: i think it is well put. we, rightly or wrongly, no longer feel we are looking into the economic abyss as we did in the early part of the year. and people see what it is like for the government to take over a country -- freudian slip there -- a company. general motors became government motors, as they said. and people don't necessarily like that. it is not clear that the president had a lot of choice. but it is not what people are used to. overseeing the numbers -- and none of them are terrible for the president -- but what we see is this is still more or less a 50-50 country. it used to be tipped in little bit the republicans' way and now probably take a good bit to the democrats' way, but it is an obama country still, not a democratic country, not a liberal country.

so the president is always going to nafta fight to get the big changes that he promised and is determined to deliver -- going to have to fight. have a great day. host: you, too. for the rest of the program, we want to hear from you. are you optimistic about the stock market? the numbers to call -- host: we are on twitter at c- spanwj or e-mail us at journal @c-span.org. in today's "the wall street journal," the dow gains 104 points. optimism about earnings and bullish calls from analysts combined to push stocks higher, giving the dow jones industrial average itch -- its sixth consecutive day of gains and putting it in a positive territory for the year.

it rose 1.2%. taking a look at another piece that we have from "usa today." this is in the money section. " sends stocks to 2009 high. -- hope sends stocks to 2009 high. the broad u.s. stock market hit a new 2009 high, amid more good earnings reports, fresh evidence pointing to better days ahead for the economy and a bullish market call from a respected wall street bank. are you more optimistic about the stock market? do you see this as a sign the economy is improving and house of an advocate is it for your life? markets bullied by leading indicators, a gain momentum -- bouoyed by leading indicators.

looking at papers across the country. this is courtesy of the news e.m. -- newseum. this is "the state." it comes to us from south carolina. customer postings -- boone are bad for business? looking at social media, how valuable is it? looking at some development there and that community. are you seeing development in your community? "the time spector report," he'd killed k-9 unit dog left in car -- heat. "the boston globe is a tiered racial talks swirls with arrest. harvard professor was returning from a trip and arrested for breaking into what turned out to being his own home. he was arrested on charges of disorderly conduct and allegedly

shouting at the officer. he was eventually taken away in handcuffs. it turns out he was just trying to get into his own home. questions are arising -- is a racial profiling or correct police action? the topic for the rest of the hour is are you more optimistic about the stock market. if the first caller join us from of republican line from birmingham, alabama. caller: good morning, c-span. i am rather confused as to what we are hearing on the media these days as far as the stock market -- it is the government now. the stock market is the government. i would like someone make some comment like that and explain to the people exactly what these comments mean.

host: let's take a look back at this "usa today" article, hope sens stocks to a 2009 high. the gains were broad based, adding to last week's impressive 7% gain. the benchmark s&p 500 to the highest level since the bear market ended in early march. the dow jones industrial average turned positive for the year. the nasdaq composite finished up for the ninth consecutive session geared our next caller is on the independent line -- ninth consecutive session. our next caller is on independent line. caller: i am not optimistic about the stock market because you have to look at the reality. i remembered dabbling in the stock market, and it really doesn't affect me that much because all of these are big corporations, people speculating on what the future of them will be and what not.

so for the average person, i don't think there is anything to really be optimistic about. the thing to be concerned about is all this money the government is spending. we are mortgaging our grandchildren and their children's future, but we are mortgaging our own future. we just have to change our monetary system, period. because it really does not reward the average person. host: shawn writes to us from twitter. he writes the current market is based on industry of deaf and greed so will ultimately fail. tim on the republican line from alexandria, virginia. good morning. caller: good morning. i have very little confidence in the rally that is going on now. when bank of america announced their earnings, which were profitable for the quarter just passed, they hinted at the fact

that mortgage foreclosures, the worst we have not seen yet is still around the corner. i am just a phase -- afraid of the fall, september and october, we will have another terrible problem. the government has yet to fundamentally fix the mortgage problem and that is what underhand everything. host: thank you for your call. of course the united states is not alone in dealing with financial crises and difficulties. iceland puts $2 billion into collapsed banks. three institutions will be recapitalized after their economy tank last year. david jolly rights -- iceland took an important step in rebuilding tattered financing and unlocking more aid. recapitalizing three banks and giving control of three to creditors. iceland trying to jump-start their economy and make a difference.

ron is our next caller on the independent line calling from vermont. caller: i am not all that optimistic, and the reason is, is because it is really the same system. it is not that the numbers go up and down, but what is behind it. the sec and the commodities futures trading board at this point cannot be trusted, even though the president offered some reforms. congress has not acted on it. we lowered our contributions only to the point where we still get the company match, but no more than that. basically for every dollar i put in, the company matches. i still have something that's hitting up, the company contributions, but i will not give any more. host: if i could keep you on the line. what would it take for you to invest more heavily? are there signs that would point to more confidence? caller: if the congress and president follow through.

but it will take another couple of years to see that. in the meantime, i can take the money that i am saying -- saving, even though i take tax on it, invested locally and by from my local farmers' market, donate to my church. i just bought a new general motors car -- i am from michigan originally, so i'm going to buy general motors cars until i die. that is what i have done with my money. host: stored on the independent line from easton, pa. -- stu art. are you optimistic? caller: kind of laws of physics. when you drop it, it hits a low and then bounces up but then it bounces down again. i think we are going to see another drop next month. i am guessing things will not start to improve until the

holiday season. host: on the democrats' line, john is the next caller from windsor, connecticut. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: to me, i think it is like a casino. but another question i want to ask you. a lady just called and she said something about the stock market is the government'. i think you know better than that crap -- why did you corrector? the stock market is not the government. some lady is calling and asking questions like that -- are you not allowed to answer, or just take information? host: i can certainly answer a back -- -- answer. how would you differentiate? caller: i know the stock market is not the government, i know

that much. letting someone go on like that, is kind of on ethical to me. host: anne on the republicans line. caller: i just wanted to say that i think this is another bubble that will crash due to the extremely high unemployment rate and the deficiencies and everything. and the government is pouring money into banks, reviving them. the jobs are still caught, and we will see the bubble burst eventually. host: we have a comment on twitter -- i thought last year only gold was safe. the second quarter of 2009 was entirely a bear market rally. mortgages and credit aren't fixed. a call on independent line from cleveland -- missouri? caller: mississippi.

thank you for c-span. i didn't get a chance to get ahold of you when you had people on the health care thing, but i have a comment. host: let's make it quick so we can get back on topic. of a cut -- caller: i have been in business for years and i am basically inactive retired. but the biggest rip-off we have in this country right now -- i pay approximately $58 a month for medicare, but a supplement would cost me $170. they are paying 20 percent of sign of the bill and medicare is paying 80% -- they are paying 20% of the bill and medicare is paying 80%. host: this says -- while many wall street traders remained cautious about pushing share prices much higher, momentum seemed to be building in the

marketplace. the chief united states and business strategist at goldman sachs, for instance, raised the year-end target for s&p 500 index to 1006 become a nearly 11.5% higher than monday's close. there's a loud noise coming from reports turning out better than expected, said james w. paul so, the chief investment strategist at wells capital management. we've got tons of the formation telling us we turned the corner. do you agree? let us go to our next caller on the democrats' line, michael, from philadelphia, pennsylvania. caller: good morning. i just wanted to say the greed hasn't changed for wall street. everyday you see and hear different things from them. it is nothing but greed. the working man or the common person, we can't do that. it is not going to change.

i am a construction worker, union. this is the worst i've seen in 25 years. host: are you choosing to invest your money? caller: i invested my money through my local union and other things like that, but i can't touch it. i've lost money. i lost over $30,000. i don't know what i'm going to do. i just want to get enough hours for the year so i cannot benefits, and it doesn't look like it is going to happen. -- so i can have benefits. i am right in the heart of it. in construction, there is very little work. a lot of my friends aren't working.

i just hope that people -- you see things on the news that just shows the housing, the wall street' -- we can't even get together on health care. i always think of something my father always told me. what was once viewed as being right is now viewed as being wrong. and we have changed as a society. it's scary. i don't want to the regular news, i just watch c-span. i am trying to keep positive. but it is up. host: thank you for your call. let us go to jim on the republicans line from texas. caller: yes, ma'am. and my on the air? -- am i on the air?

where is the money from the smoking deal? they paid the state so many billions of dollars -- where did that money go? and the drug makers, ok? they came up on the news on the commercial and said we had a $38 billion set-aside. i am sitting in a wheelchair, 75 years old and when i turned 65 and it put me on medicine and done me wrong. i did not a penny. host: what do you think about the stock market, any signs? caller: like that guy you had a while ago.  i've got four boys, and they've got kids and some have grandkids. i have never seen this kind of deal before. nobody wants to do anything right.

i keep telling my congressman, you expect the kids to do right. you gotta do right. our congressman got it right, the government got to do right and i don't see it. host: let us go to the independent line, sharon calling from st. louis, missouri. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a comment about the stock market. here in st. louis, our local economy, we don't reflect a lot of optimism here because we have so many car manufacturing companies like ford and chevy, and a lot of those are just completely taking a dive. and i know a man who has been in sales most of his life, and he has been out of work since before christmas. i just think that there are so many that -- the stock market is basically fluctuating right now.

i am sure it will go up a tiny bit because of all the money that is pumped in top from the tax dollars from the president -- they hear that the president put all this money into the stock market -- or not the stock market, but the general economy, saving the banks and all of that. but that is our tax dollars going to that. and i think that from our point of view, as just a regular everyday citizens that go to work every day, we have not really seen a reflection of that in our own personal lives. every day i'm going to work, and luckily i am in the health-care field, so my job has been pretty safe. if i lose my job, we know the economy has really tanked. host: thank you for the call. let's go to the senate judiciary committee meeting to consider the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor of the supreme court.

..