with a senior fellow at the center for american progress. "washington journal" is next. host: welcome. monday, july 27, 2009. we will start by asking you about health care legislation, the role of the blue dogs in the negotiations, particularly in the house energy and commerce committee. what should the blue dogs do? the question for you this next half-hour or so. as always, you can reach us at e-mail, it is journal c- span.org or twitter, c-spanwj.

we will give you a chance to buy land. the issue of health care is dominating, of course, the newspapers here in washington. here is the front page of "roll call." hopes fading for health bill. the politico this morning, new deadlines, new problems is there headline. and the arizona republic, they have pelosi -- health care bill will pass. speaker thous to overcome remaining obstacles. much the same story in "the washington post reporting on some of the comments of speaker pelosi yesterday. pelosi vows passage of health- care overhaul. it will win -- confidence grows as democrats plan to resume talks. the article, defying skeptics in her party, house speaker nancy bossi vowed sunday to overcome lingering obstacles and pass health care reform in the house, restore momentum to president

obama's top domestic priority and her own unruly democratic caucus. "when i take this bill to the floor, it will win," she said, "this will happen." the speaker, who struggled to overcome a series of setbacks raised stakes are planning to restart talks today among bickering democrats. one of the three house panels with jurisdiction over health care and where the bills stalled next week. democratic leaders are confident these can be resolved, hopefully the time to bring the house bill to the floor. although pelosi did not commit to a timetable. my question to you is, what should the blue dogs do, the democratic caucus. new york is first up, built on the independent mind. good morning, welcome. go ahead, you are on the air. caller: i have been listening to c-span and health care issue. basically it is one where it is

a very simple process. everybody should be in the same health care plan, whether it is blue dogs democrats or republicans. basically what we should do is we should just take and have one plan. i think this plan would be accelerated if they were affected the way many of us are. my wife has als, she is on medicaid and basically it is very difficult sometimes to get the things that she needs. i don't have the time for these blue dogs to say, it is not the right plan. we have been going through this for more than 15 years. all i am saying we need to come together as citizens and say, hey, we are not going to vote you got into office if you cannot come up with a plan. all of this nonsense about the republicans want to do this and the blue dogs and the democrats that have basic fundamental plan for the country. thank you. host: here is what "the wall street journal" looks like, blue dog democrats hold health care overhaul at day. part of the article reads, a

leader of the fiscally conservative group of representatives says he expects any vote on the health proposal would have to wait come likely until after labor day. "i think the american people want to take a closer look at this legislation. they want to feel more comfortable with it," said jim cooper, a blue dog from tennessee. house speaker nancy pelosi disputed any suggestion that the blue dogs's protests threaten the passage. "absolutely, positively not." "when i take this one the floor, it will win. we will move forward. this would happen." blue gauze emerged as pivotal players. a swing group that the white house is wooing more intensely to keep the initiative on track. calo springs, nancy, republican column. what should the blue dogs do? caller: i think the blue dogs should vote against this bill.

i think it needs to be taken time to study. you know, the last woman calling was saying about all the hoops to jump through for medicare. it would be no different once the government controls our insurance -- we will have tons of paperwork and tons of hoops to jump through, which we don't have to do right now. and i think the blue dogs are right on the money where they should be. host: what kind of health care coverage? caller: i am a diabetic, so therefore i am not covered by any insurance, but thanks to the state of colorado's which is where i'm from, i must be covered, so i am under cover, rather. host: that is a state plan? on a cut that is a state plan,

and -- all because that is a state plan and i am covered -- caller: that is a state plan and i am covered and a recovered well. insurance is insurance. i don't have any deductibles, i have to be going every month -- or i am sorry come every year for my check up, and they don't require me to do a lot. host: thank you. clinton, maryland. democratic collar. robert. good morning. caller: it is so nice the lady has health insurance. i think she should maybe think about people don't have it. host: you don't have it? caller: yes, i have appeared but i feel for people who don't have appeared -- yes, i have it. but i feel for people don't. blue dogs should vote for passage. i should preference -- preface my remarks by making a statement that the single payer plan offered by the government was the best plan because the health

care bill in this country is about $2.50 trillion this year and insurance companies take about 30%, $750 billion they put in their pockets for denying care. if that $750 billion can be but it did put back into the health care plan, that could pay for these people coming into the health care situation. so, we need the single payer plan. and the other plan would be difficult to work. holtz cut you sound like a health-care provider. what do you do? caller: i work in a hospital. i will put like that. unless a single payer plan passes, everything else will not be sufficient. host: one of the comments on twitter, from democratsxorg -- blue dogs don't appear to much different from fiscally conservative republicans from the rich and corporations of punishing the poor. independent collar next up --

excuse me, wisconsin, republican, randy. welcome. caller: this is so easy. all you got to do is the people in the congress -- house and senate -- is to put themselves on the same plan that they are trying to pass and i am sure that the recipe -- they think they are above us and they've got a better plan for themselves. if they are voting on a plan that is so good, they should be on it, too. host: asking you about what the blue dogs should do, but moderate to conservative caucus of the democratic party. "the wall street journal" has a look. we used the terms blue dog and caucus and i have a look at the various caucuses and the democratic party, at least in the house. shades of blue gum is their sidebar peace. blue dog caucus having 52 members, those are their positions.

they want a congress to act in a fiscally responsible way. new democratic coalition, 70 to come work for policies that enhance a business friendly climate. and a look at the congressional progressive caucus, they work for economic justice, civil rights and other progressive caucus. about 80 members. you get a visit rome -- visual representation. 41 of the congressional black caucus, promoting racial equality. and the new democrat coalition that advocates within congress for issues affecting hispanics. that is an "the wall street journal." colorado, jim on our democrat line. good morning. go ahead. you are on the air. are you there? caller: i'm here. host: go ahead with your comments. caller: i am 79 years old and i voted first four harry truman --

for harry truman and i voted democratic 95% of the time. but if the health plan of the president does not get through, i don't think i will be voting anymore for either party because i think it is an absolute necessity that all people the insured. host: how are you covered? caller: medicare. host: arkansas, mike on independent line. caller: yes, sir. it is not directly at the blue dogs but i am a disabled veteran. i have had va since 1988. it makes me a little angry that republicans say, well, we don't want the government running health care, what they think of va is? i am extremely happy. republicans say they don't want government running your health care plan, i guess we need to do

away with the va. that is a make sense. i'm very happy with my plan. host: congressman mike ross who heads the blue bell coalition was our guest this week and on newsmaker -- heads the blue dog coalition was our guest. he takes an upfront lead with this negotiation did what are your impressing -- what are your impressions? caller: i talked to him. i have always voted for him. i will give him some of my input and perhaps change his mind. we need a health care plan for people can't afford it. host: do you write your congressman, e-mail? caller: i call him. i talked to him on the phone. he is up front. host: you can get your congressman if you column on the phone? caller: yes, i sure can. host: va, rikki, go ahead, republican.

caller: good morning. i just wanted to say that i have been following the political system for a long a long time. and the blue dog coalition, they got a lot of -- in state with this health care issue and i believe that they go head and stick against their party is planned -- their party's plan. but if they don't do what they do and go ahead and cater to nancy pelosi and them, every one of them will risk their chances of winning reelection in 2010. host: take the politics out for just a moment. you are calling on the republican line. do you think the issue in health

care is dealing with health care something that needs to be done in the timetable that the president would like it? caller: i think he is going to far too fast on this. and i think that they need to lay a little while get health care reform that will not make this country is socialized country like canada or great britain. i think the blue dogs, they've got their feet to the fire now. host: all wings mill, maryland. next up is -- oh wings melt maryland. the democrat line. caller: of the blue dog democrats have got to pass the health care bill. mainly looking at the economic point of view that people are spending thousands of dollars

each month on health care, that is money that is not going into our consumer-based economy and if everybody can get good quality and expensive health care that would free up cash to put back into are still failing economy. host: who are you covered by? caller: luckily this year i am covered by blue cross but last year when i did not have that we were spending $1,000 a month on medications. host: didn't have a plan at all? caller: i didn't have a plan. host: here is from twitter -- nothing will enrich the wealthy and powerful, and corporations, more than a national health care plan or single payer plan. about 15 more minutes. mass., next, daniel, independent. caller: nice to talk to you guys did i watch you every single day. the blue dogs, i see them.

as far as fiscal conservative goes, i really think about passing a bill that leaves the option of people who want to have abortions, that they can do that with their own money. because if people are paying for people who don't have it, it is kind of offensive you are missing money to end life. that would be a concern that could save money as well as responsibility and cooperation as a country. but, anyway. host: the headline in "the washington times." bureaucracy drives up health care plans cost. house democrats proposed new boards, task forces, and the article reads, the health care reform bill, which is expected to cost roughly $1 trillion over 10 years, would create a public

health insurance plan and the health insurance exchange, a clearing house where consumers would be able to shop for public or private coverage. the programs would require a massive undertaking by the federal government that analysts say will likely take years to fully implement. that from "the washington times" this morning. tennessee, next up. republican line. good morning. caller: thank you again for c- span. i and a marine. i was wounded and have to go to the va. i went in march to get a cortisone shot -- i have an appointment next month, i will go to that appointment, come back and they will give me another appointment to return maybe three or four months to finally get the cortisone shots. what i am saying is that there va, it will take me over six months to get service. i hope this passes that democrats will be happy. the va is in debt now. let's bankrupt america.

thank you. host: mich., next appear in valerie, democratic collar. caller: good morning. i'm so disappointed in the whole system. i think we need to get in there and really follow the money. it could be a -- the people voted because they wanted health care. but if you are in the inside of a bill with all of the power, you can design it to fail. they need to give us a clean bill, it needs to be transparent. we can cover everyone in america, every citizen in america, with the money we are spending right now but every single time the president tries to explain himself, you've got all of these different pundits and the health care lobby and the pharmaceutical lobby, they are spinning in their way. they are scaring the people.

and we always seem to go against our own best interest. there is too much waste in the system. and there are too many people out there without health care. the bills are way too high. the insurance companies are making way too much money and it is time for us to stop. we voted for change. the change can be smooth or it can be hard, and they can make it easy or hard and they are intentionally making this almost impossible. host: where do you get your health care? caller: believe are not come after 24 years almost on the job i have none now -- believe it or not, after 23 years almost on the job i have none now. i am almost 60. host: what are you going to do? caller: i have no idea. who is going to pay for me? host: the front page of "the miami herald."

health-care overhaul relies on gop votes. senate democrats and republicans are stuck in a familiar stalemate over the best ways to improve america's health-care system. that is from today's "the miami herald." the headline courtesy of the newseum. back to "the washington times" this morning, outgoing alaska gov. sarah palin. she and are husband yesterday in alaska stepping down. a look at the swearing in of the new government -- governor, who had been lieutenant governor. we covered some of commons last night and yesterday. here is some of what she had to say. >> life is too short to compromise time and resources, and though it may be tempting and more comfortable to keep your head down and plod along at a piece of those who are demanding, said down and shut up, and but that is a worthless an easy path and a quitters way out and i think it problem in our country today is at the

feet. it would be apathetic to kind of hunger down and go with the flow. we are fishermen and we know that only dead fish go with buffalo. productive for filled people determine where to put their efforts, choosing to wisely utilize precious time to build up and there is such a need to build up and fight for our state and our country and i choose to fight for it and i will work very hard with others who still believe in free enterprise and smaller government and strong national security for our country and support for our troops and energy independence. and for those who would protect freedom and equality and life, i will work hard for and campaign for those who are proud to be american and who are inspired by our ideals and they will derive the them. i will support others who seek to serve in or out of office, and i don't care what party they're in or no party at all. inside alaska or outside of alaska. but i won't do it from the

governor's desk. host: that is a resignation announcement. she stepped down late yesterday. the associated press reporting that her first to order of business as a private citizen is a speech next month at the ronald reagan presidential library in california. back to the issue of health care and the role of the blue dogs, what should they do. cleveland, wendy on the independent line. caller: how were you? i am really not sure what they should do but i don't think what they proposed is really going to cut it. i know myself, my father is a veteran. i agree with what the gentleman earlier from tennessee said with respect to just the type of coverage the veterans are getting. he goes through the va, and he has had horror stories. they basically treat these people as if they are getting paid spirit host: about his va treatment?

caller: most definitely. i am in a metropolitan city. it is fairly easy if you don't have health care coverage through an employer or privately to, you know, go to town -- down to a clinic or local hospital to get treatment if there is something that you need. i can't really say that i think it would be beneficial to the nation as a whole to take that va system, if you well, and implemented ever there. i really think it would be disastrous. you will go down and just the care and that you would receive, and it is going to end up costing a fortune in the long run. host: wendy on our independent line. a comment on twitter. from stock market cash -- the market place on fear and greed, what you think is driving the market now? they want our money so they can still look. host: california, jim on our

republican line. go ahead with your thoughts. caller: i was going to say obama could not have rob a bank any better than what he has done with the health care system as far as the trillions of dollars -- he could not have got his hands on that in the private sector. and the blue dogs seem to be always pushing this health care plan -- i want to know what is it for them really. there is a lot of talk here in california about secession from the government right now. i would like to hear what you have to say about that. host: iowa, go ahead, karen, are you ready? we will hold off on that call and show you a headline. president obama -- inside the washington section on "usa today." obama sees chance for national dialogue. once to turn controversy around the positive direction. african-american scholar henry louis gates and the police

officer who arrested him last week i likely to get together at the white house as -- at the white house as soon as president obama tries to quell the fear of that words helped fuel. the president sees this as an opportunity to get a dialogue going on an issue that has been historically troubling, said david axelrod yesterday on face the nation. he said he expects the meeting to take place but did not say when. and this morning on msnbc robert gives -- robert gibbs said he expected in the next couple of days. melissa on our independent line. caller: good morning. yes, 85% of americans have insurance. not only least 15 out of 100. 1% make 75 percent -- some 5000 or more and pay cash and three make $50,000.10 out of them are young people and who think they

are indestructible and the six of those are illegal aliens which leaves for out of 100 so we are going to disrupt the 85% and basically the other 96% because we are not responsible for illegal aliens, so just for people out of every hundred. the banks have been nationalized, mortgage companies have been nationalized -- it is just more of taking over part of private industry so that it can be controlled. our gdp, which is a huge chunk. as long as it is good for us and not for them, i don't think so. i think if they are going to do this that everybody, including the president down, if it is so great, everybody should be in it and i think the blue dogs should actually vote no on this because it is not really about our health, it is about taking over more of the gdp as far as

nationalizing and i hope they all vote no. host: for the next five minutes, getting your thoughts on what the blue dog should do. on health care legislation. today's "new york times" rightabout the blue dogs, and incoherent truth. he writes the reform, if that happens, will rest on four pillars -- regulation, mandates, subsidies, and competition appeared to be asks, what are the objections of the blue dogs? dallas, texas, karen on the republican line. good morning. make sure you turn down your television or radio. caller: i sure will right now. but i need to turn it off? host: we just need you to turn it down. are you there? caller: yes. ok. this is what i think. i think the trillion dollars is

their favorite, favorite -- for some reason, that is all the want to talk about is $3 trillion on this, $3 trillion on that. they are wanting to turn us into social medicine. they are going to ruin doctors, ruin technology. in only one other upper -- other place to go, and that is where to live. i'm telling you right now, it is not going to work because of anything obama has touched has been a complete opposite of what he tells you. it is always -- it is like everybody is in panic, nobody has jobs, people are making tents, they don't have electricity -- he does not care. it is not about democrats, it is not about republicans, it is about the president. it is about the president promising all of these things like no earmarks and that he would put us together as a nation. he never says america.

never once. host: the word america? caller: never. i have never heard him be passionate at all. and another thing, the new health bill that is coming across the table -- if we have to have it, he needs to have it on him, his wife, and his children, and all of the so- called blue dogs and the republicans -- i don't even know why we have parties anymore because i believe in capitalism and i don't believe in large government. i believe in small government and large, large capitalism. host: back to the politics. inside "the washington times" they have a story about what it will take to get it passed. gop votes needed to pass health bill, two democrats say. white house does not expect hill to postpone a august recess. look, says senator conrad, there

are not the votes for democrats to do this on our side of the aisle -- kent conrad, north dakota democrat, chairman of the senate finance committee. and the house side, representative jim cooper, a member of the fiscally conservative blue dog, was just as doubtful about his chambers ability to pass a proposal despite the comfortable democratic majority. "i don't believe so," he said when asked. "i think the american people want to take a closer look at this legislation. they want to feel comfortable with it." chicago, the morning to doris. caller: you kind of coopted may by this article by paul krugman. he talked about the blue dogs. i am not in favor of them at all. he goes through everything that has happened with them. because the blue dogs came into i fact during clinton, around 1995. people really need to go and

read the article and see what is going on because the head of one of the drug companies started -- host: he is head of a pharmaceutical association. caller: he helped start them during the clinton administration and then he became a republican. so, blue dogs need to figure out if they are republican or democrats because they are doing great damage to a democratic president and a call themselves democrats. host: from the president's home town, chicago. thank you to dorris and all the callers this hour. we will turn now to the state department and to hillary clinton, secretary of state. matthew lee is the associated press reporter who covers the state department. we will talk about hillary clinton and take your calls momentarily. this secretary of state was on "meet the press) yesterday and

she talked about a number of issues, including comments back and forth about north korea appeared here is what she had to say. >> i think they are very isolated now. i saw that when i was at the association of southeast asian nations. i was in the same room with a representative from north korea who launched a broadside attack on the united states, blaming us for literally everything that has ever gone wrong in no. 3 of going back decades. i listened. everybody else just didn't even look at him. i was struck by the body language. they don't have any friends left. we saw even burma saying they were going to enforce the resolution of sanctions. and when the representative finished, i very calmly said that north korea knows what it must do and what we are expecting from it. i talked with my counterparts from russia, china, japan, south korea at length during the time

i was in thailand. we are all missing page and committed to the same goal. for host: matthew lee covers the state department for the associated press. she covered a lot of issues, including the dustup they had with north korea. what caused all of that? guest: this goes back to an interview the secretary did on abc for last week in which she compared the north koreans to unruly children, teenagers. and the north koreans obviously took exception to that and fired back on their own with some invectives, shall we say, the woman looks like a schoolgirl sometimes in a pensioner and others. host: just past the six-month mark with the devastation and the secretary has been traveling a great deal of. i am not asking your opinion of her as secretary of state, but how is she being viewed by world

leaders? you talk about the north korean reaction. guest: she just got back from this rather long trip to india and thailand. this comes after a month of relative inactivity on her part. she fell and broke her elbow, which kept her sidelined. but she is now, beginning with this trip last week to, really reemerging and reasserting herself and coming back into the spotlight. she will be going on a trip to africa next week. today and tomorrow she is coasting this u.s.-china strategic dialogue with secretary geithner -- code- hosting. so she has a hectic schedule. host: hosting the summit, she and the treasury secretary have an up ed this morning in "the wall street journal" about opening a new dialogue with china. they write, at the top of their

list will be assuring the recovery from the most serious economic crisis in generations, assuring balance is sustained, global growth, and once recovery has taken hold, when the current crisis struck, the u.s. and china acted quickly and aggressively to support economic activity to create and save jobs. they also sort of focus some of this on policy recommendations. for china. for china it involves continuing financial sector reform and developing. it also involves pairing domestic demand, growth, and making the chinese economy less relying on exports. raising personal incomes -- talking about chinese -- raising the social safety net and address the reasons why chinese feel compelled to say so much money producing a powerful boost chinese domestic demand and global growth. is it unusual for a secretary of state and a treasury secretary to be so asserting themselves so much in another nation's policy

recommendations? guest: these are extraordinary times and we really need the chinese to open up their domestic market, get them to spend more money in order to help us in our recovery. so, yes, this is unusual and also the first time this kind of strategic dialogue will be held at this level. before during the bush administration does have a pretty much only by treasury. host: matthew lee joins us until o'clock a.m. eastern. you can send us your comments by twitter or e-mail. also she talked yesterday about iran. i want to play those comments for you and get your thoughts on that. >> i think it is clear that we are trying to affect the

internal calculus of the iranian regime. the iranian government, which is facing its own challenges of legitimacy from its people, has to know that its pursuit of nuclear weapons, something that our country, along with our allies, stand strongly against. we believe as a matter of policy it is unacceptable for iran to have nuclear weapons. the g-8 came out with a very strong statement to that effect, coming from italy. so, we are united in our continuing commitment to prevent iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. what we want to do is send a message to weather is making these decisions, that if you are pursuing nuclear weapons for the purpose of intimidating, projecting your power, we are not going to let that happen. first we are going to do anything we can to revenue from ever getting a nuclear weapon, but your pursuit is futile

because we will never let iran -- nuclear arms, not nuclear- arms, it is something we view with great concern and that is why we're doing everything we can to prevent that from ever happening. host: secretary clinton leading the policy charged with iran. guest: she certainly is out there and has been active talking about this in recent days. she is at the top of the administration's iran policy thinking. but there is a lot of white house involvement in this as well. dennis ross is heading out to the region to talk to the israelis about iran and the threat -- it poses this week along with james jones, national security adviser. there is a lot of activity now going on with iran, at times to keep it from developing nuclear weapons. secretaire gates in israel today talking about this, and later

this week with general jones and dennis ross. host: is part of that diplomacy also -- does part of that involve speaking to the israelis and assuaging some of their concerns about iran? guest: the israelis are very, very concerned. they see iran as a threat to their existence. the korean president has threatened come after rock, to wipe it off the map. -- the iranian president has threatened, after all, to wipe is off the map. successful administrations have been unsuccessful in getting north korea to stop its activities. israelis say that and say, how will they deal with iran? host: i don't have the report this morning in front of me, but there is word that no. 3 is showing signs now they want to come back. guest: potentially encouraging development especially after the

dustup last week, the name calling. host: north palm beach in florida, ted, independent line. guest: from my observations, this is the typical game everybody is playing. where they say they are building nuclear, they say they've got missiles and they will fire them, they watching and testing and pulling our strengths and seeing what we are going to do. we ought to do what is rounded to syria. if we can go and turn it off overnight, and we showed. we should get with israel. israel wants to do that. listen, we are the strongest nation, the biggest and most local weapons in the world, then we have little punks like kim jong-il kicking us in the shins and there is nothing we can do about it. it is just a game and the airplane was. we need to start smacking him around. guest: makes an interesting

point, but there are consequences to that. and any kind of military strike, no matter who does it, whether israelis or us or the iranians, is going to be incredibly the stabilize the destabilizing and the consequences will be far reaching. i think we ought to be quite careful. host: iran and north korea, it sounded out of the three, access of evil described by president bush, still active concerns of the state department, number one and two? guest: they are certainly at the very top of the list and foreign policy. host: how does the tone of how does secretary of state clinton differ from secretary rice in approaching iran and approaching north korea? the guest: entire administration has adopted a different tone, talking about engagement, desire to engage. so far these overtures have not been met with any kind of positive signal from iran. but the whole idea that we are

willing to talk with the iranians is different from the bush administration. host: the tone is different of answers are the same. guest: right, it doesn't seem tom gotten far, at least on the iranian side. it does not appear yet to have had any impact. but i think people look at the iranian elections and the turmoil that followed and they are willing to give iran a little more time. host: batesville, indiana, robert on the republican line. caller: i'm revival believer in the bible revelations, china, russia, iran will attack israel. a lot of deaths because god is not going to stand for israel to be attacked like they are going to. it is going to happen. there is no way out of it. host: a bit further in the policy area. u.s. pushes is rubbish syria

talks. george mitchell is in the region -- israel-syria talks. his fifth to the middle east since taking up the post. part of a broader push by washington to jump-start the arab-israeli peace process. the issue is emerging as president obama's most ambitious foreign-policy initiatives. and george mitchell, and you mention dennis ross earlier. the administration is using convoys as well as the efforts of the secretary of state. guest: correct, both mitchell and dennis ross -- george mitchell is in damascus and he is in israel. in damascus he is pushing for a restart of these indirect talks -- the turks have been mediating between israelis and syrians. getting a comprehensive middle east peace has been a goal of successive administrations. it hasn't yet happened, but the obama administration is making

this a hallmark. host: mr. to reflect your comments on "meet the press." -- the secretary reflected your comments. >> part of what we have done is organize ourselves so we can concentrate on many issues at the same time. for example, people raise questions on why i pushed so hard to have special envoy is appointed. it is because i think it would be diplomatic and malpractice not to have people of stature and experience handle some of our most difficult problems on a day-to-day basis. i am the chief diplomat, responsible at the end for advising the president and execute what we agreed it up -- agree upon, but it is our advantage to have george mitchell in the middle east, richard holbrooke and afghanistan and a retired general coming back from his sixth or seventh trip in sudan and todd stern meeting our efforts on climate change. i could not possibly give it attention in in-depth way

required of all of this. and i think the feeling on the part of what of this world is the prior administration -- for understandable reasons -- focused so much on some of the specific issues like iraq, etc., that really grabbed it and required a lot of attention, that much of the rest of the world felt that they were kind of second tier. host: not just the envoys, but vice president biden taking a role with his recent trip to russia, georgia, and yesterday on "meet the press the tiered secretary clinton did have something to say about the vice president. clinton moves to calm the moscow remarks by biden. guest: i think there are some people out there that do see the situation now as a bit of a complicated one. you have the president himself doing a lot of overseas travel, speaking out on major foreign policy issues, as he should, he

is the president and he runs the administration. but then you have the vice- president also traveling. and you have this period of relative inactivity from secretary clinton when she was on the sideline with her elbow injury. seoul to there is -- at least seems to be a bit of disconnect sometimes because you have different people of all high power, going around and saying things that are sometimes not exactly the same. host: will you get a chance to travel with her? when next? guest: she will be going to after cut next week, quite a long trip, and i will be doing that. host: have you been able to talk to one on one? guest: not yet. host: matthew lee on secretary clinton and foreign policy. sarasota. good morning, florida. cj on the line. caller: a long time lisser. i wanted to make a comment on secretary clinton and her trip.

the comment about the whole administration. i think for the first time in a long time, we listened to a secretary of state being able to talk about the lot of different things that are happening all around the world. the involvement that we have in all of these things. in the past eight years, almost all of the conversation from the secretary of state, or any politician, has been about justification for our iraq policy. nothing about the rest of the world. i think most of her discussion really covers just about everything that is going on. i think the diversity of the policy discussion was really, really refreshing. and i think one of the things that this administration is that all the nest and the fact that all of our leaders are talking to less, not in sound bites, but actually having discussion --

talking to us. guest: a fair enough observation. there is an argument to be made the bush administration was very preoccupied with iraq and that other things, particularly in latin america, went without much attention. so i think the caller is right, there is that perception. host: you mentioned you are traveling with her to africa. what is the focal point? guest: one of secretary clinton's pet projects is food security initiative in africa, which will play a big role. but there is a lot going on in africa right now, particularly the situation in somalia, which is cheap -- she is going to be next door, in kenya, and i think we will see a lot of activity. the islamic insurgency, the extremists, as well as the piracy problem that you know so well from the earlier this year. host: conn., irv on the

democrats' line. make sure you turn off your television and radio. caller: i just muted. the commentator along with you mentioned the, quote that everybody seems to use about iran -- a the common quoted, that everybody seems to use about iran, that -- the text of that speech that he gave it has been translated from farsi to english, and so common knowledge is that is not what he said. what he said was at -- that the zionist regime would fall more less like the communist regime, on its own. he never said that. that is something that the zionist media seems to be pushing because it sounds good. another point, when netanyahu

was over here and president obama talked to him about the settlements, that the settlements had to stop, the land grabbing had to stop, borders have to be initiated, i sat back and laugh just uncontrollably. israel -- when netanyahu came back, he immediately decided they were going to build more settlements and he made that known, even after sitting there. it has been happening with president after president after president. israel continues to slap the american taxpayer and the president in the face. i remember bush standing in the rose garden with ariel sharon and said the settlements have to stop. sharon was on the tarmac in tel aviv, the minute he came off the plate he said 25 under more settlements. host: lots to react to. because go on the first point, i

don't think and that anyone out there thinks that president ahmadinejad is a fan of israel. no matter what he said or didn't say back in his speech that the israelis talk about all the time. iran posset current leadership is no friend of israel at all. and the second point, settlements is a huge issue, it is a huge problem and the subjects of big, major dispute right now between the u.s. and the israelis, trying to get israel to freeze its settlement activities of the palestinians -- so they can get the palestinians back to the peace table. host: on iran, yesterday's "the washington post" had an opinion piece about the secretary's language. the problem is that they stayed an obvious truth and obviously with the defense umbrella is a term codified by decades of cold war experience and ferry. it is strategic shorthand for

commitment on attacked -- attack the other allied is an attack on us and will be dealt with with such, including the use of nuclear weapons. inverter statements, and in yesterday's conversation with david gregory on "meet the press the," it did she take up some of that down. guest: check left open -- signs she didn't want to be specific on the defense umbrella. those comments in thailand about the defense umbrella, they have will not sink -- things up quite a bit. in fearing there should be nothing wrong -- in theory it should be nothing wrong but makes an assumption is route is not willing to make, and that is that iran actually have a nuclear weapon and can't be deterred the way a rational -- in a cold war-type situation. it is not at all clear that iran's leadership would act the same way the soviet union did.

host: this obviously involves defense policy. you said it's roiled things. as secretary gates' supporter comments or the president? guest: i am not sure it has been put to them yet. i think they want to keep it ambiguous, so i think the less about right now, the better for them. california host:, mark, independent line. caller: i don't understand why israel is allowed levin nuclear weapon but the neighbors are not allowed. israel from the time of 1940 has been a terrorist nation and they did the same crimes the serbs were committing in the balkans. host: in nuclear discussions, has secretary clinton talked about the israeli nuclear program? guest: it is something the americans don't talk about, don't acknowledge publicly.

the israelis acknowledge publicly the did we assume they do. again, it is something i think politicians find better left unsaid. host: as you were sending us from twitter, saying the ukraine desk at the state department didn't help vice president by the end's speech and a, which undermined president obama's approach to russian relationships. guest: i am not sure exactly that refers to. the ukraine desk, not some -- do not know what the heck to do with his speech. the vice-president himself has quite a bit of foreign-policy experience, was chairman of the committee. not exactly knowing what of tweeter was referring to. host: indianapolis, good morning, dave. caller: my concern is i don't

think america is making a big enough stand against these foreign countries like north korea and iran. i think america should make a stand and a point, that this is how it is going to be. if you can't get along with each other -- i don't understand that. the army rangers -- he is 18, i don't want him to serve under this administration that lets the pushers around. what can the american people do to help out israel and all of our other allies across the world? guest: it is a dynamo. it is not all clear what is going to work with the iranians and the north koreans yet. obviously the offer of engagement to iran has not gotten off to a running start

because the iranians haven't responded to it. the north koreans and the face of threats and sanctions have simply launched more missiles and tested more devices. been it is a good question. it is not at all clear how one should proceed. host: your organization reporting today on the meeting with the chinese officials, two days of high-level talks between the u.s. and china. the president having a news conference about that. the meetings are expected to expose sharp differences on trade and soaring u.s. deficit. what are some of the key differences between us and the chinese? guest: of the chinese are the leading buyers of u.s. programs. they are quite concerned at the state of the economy and they want to make sure that their investments in the united states are safe. at the same time you have the u.s. trying to get all of the

morass, the economic morass we are in now and it needs the chinese to keep buying and also needs the chinese to open up its markets to allow more u.s. goods to get in. host: it is this running a couple of days? guest: monday and tuesday. i think the economic policy part will take place today and tomorrow we will look at more strategic issues such as iran and north korea, problems facing afghanistan and pakistan. host: north carolina. danny, democratic collar. of a cut good morning. -- caller: good morning. in the people in these other countries that we have been talking to, will try and stuff like that, until they get their money. because every time we go and

talk to another country, we are handing out money. mundie that is not even ours, money that we borrowed and we are going to turn around and give it to them. host: does this administration have more foreign aid than the bush administration? guest: the hope told -- and hope to. based say they are intractable foreign aid. host: is more from the secretary on the differences between the obama administration and the bush administration. >> of the president is the president. and the president is responsible for setting policy. now, we have a great relationship. i see him, usually several times a week, at least once one on one. and i'm ready to offer my advice. we have an incredibly candid and open exchange. in fact, the whole team does.

>> the whole team of rivals idea. do you have a close working relationship, are you the voice on foreign policy? >> i am the chief adviser on foreign policy but the president makes the decisions. i have a picture of former secretary of state seward in my office, he was in new york senator who went on to serve president lincoln, which is part of what created the concept of a team of rivals. he became one of lincoln's closest and strongest advisers. why? because he understood as i do that the election is over. the president has to lead our country, both internationally and domestically. i saw this when my husband was president. at the end of the day, it is the president has to set and articulate policy. i am privileged to be in a position where i am the chief advisor, i am the chief diplomat, i am the chief executors of the policy the president pursues.

but i know very well that a team that works together is going to be a better job for america. host: sort of an emblematic photo of the secretary of state if you weeks ago, i think "the new york times" or elsewhere, watching a news conference from the sideline. has she really grown into this role as secretary of state? guest: elwell, i think she has. she seems to be enjoying herself. with gusto. although, she was sidelined for that month with this elbow injury, which i think really calls to a lot of speculation about what her role actually was. but she is coming back. host: washington, d.c., one more call, scott, republican calder. caller: good morning, at two major points. somebody needs to correct some of the anti-semitic craft that

had since been called in this morning and some of the information that has been factually untrue. making assertions of -- the one thing that drives me crazy is they like to refer to the settlements as an occupation and settlement. if that is the case, we might as well call most of southern u.s. and california settlements and occupation. the fact of the matter is when a nation is attacked, right after they were created, and part of pushing that back is taking some of that land from which the attacks were launched. it has been that way ever since. and they were convinced to give back a portion in gaza -- what happened with? the exact same thing. immediately set up shop to launch attacks. it seems to me that that is being glossed over. that is just the initial thing. i just wanted to correct that. we had to people calling an earlier saying some things that were not really accurate. .

the perception has shifted because of the ideals of the administration now and the way the media has been presenting it to the public, so there is this perception that there is this massive shift and that somehow we are much more international and we are touching on other subjects. the fact is, not really. the media is simply presenting it that way. host: scott, we will get a reaction. guest: to a certain extent, i think the caller is right. the media is preventing many of the same things that the last position -- the media is

presenting many of the same things that the last administration did. one area where there is really a rather significant changes with iran and the whole idea that -- the whole idea of the offer of engagement. it has not worked, but there are fundamentally different things between the two administrations. host: matthew lee, thank you for being with us this morning. coming up next, grover norquist will talk about the state of the u.s. economy. we will also talk to the inspector general of the state department later on this morning. we will wrap up the program with lawrence korb. but first, and update with c- span radio. >> a bill on the financial regulatory reform on executive pay restrictions may be ready by the end of the week. house financial services committee barney frank says his committee will mark legislation

tomorrow. though it's expected on the floor by friday. congressman frank speaks votes -- votes are expected on the floor by friday. in a few hours, the commerce department releases june home sales figures. analysts expect an increase from may's level. the republican governors association names tim pawlenty as its vice chair today. the minnesota governor will campaign for republicans in this fall's two gubernatorial contests. president nicolas sarkozy has been discharged from the hospital where he spent the night. his office says the french president's collapse during jogging was due to heat and overwork. >> a health-care bill will not likely seek action in the senate soon. harry reid says it will not

occur until the fall. but it is still possible the house could consider a bill before the summer recess. house democratic caucus chairman john larsen plans a meeting today. congressman larsen says scheduling an afternoon in evening meeting will go as long as necessary to answer questions members have. live coverage today includes this morning, president obama, secretary of state clinton, and treasury secretary geithner on u.s. relations with china. they will be joined by their chinese counterparts to talk about opportunities for the two countries. that is live at 9:00 a.m. eastern on c-span-2. live coverage beginning at 12:15 p.m.. >> "washington journal"

continues. host: here to talk about the state of the u.s. economy, grover norquist, president of americans for tax reform. yesterday, sarah palin stepped down officially as governor of alaska, her political future unclear. what are your thoughts on her political future? guest: well, she gets to design her political future. she could not really run as governor from alaska. what she can do now is come down to the lower 48, help elect a republican house in 2010, and as nixon did in 1966, he did so much to help republicans do well in 1966, it allowed him to make a comeback in 1968. ronald reagan spent time between his governor house race and his successful presidential race raising money for republican candidates. host: she is going to make a

living. is there any indication she would pare this with a broadcast or coming to your career? guest: my guess is that she would make money speaking. maybe as a commentator, she could, but she could not do so as a news person or -- host: she is a draw for republican candidates? guest: she is a draw for republican candidates, and she gets to define herself through those speeches and not have katie couric explain who she is and what she does. host: to the nature of this morning's conversation, a lot will have to do with this piece of legislation, h.r.-3200. what are your thoughts on the health care legislation that is making its way in the senate and the house? guest: barack obama, when he ran for president, said a number of things.

he promised never to raise anyone's taxes if you earned less than $250,000 a year. he promised if he was going to spend more money on something, he would reduce spending on other things. there are a series of these commitments that have kind of melted away. it only took him 16 days in office before he raised taxes on people who use tobacco. and the only person who makes -- the only person who smokes cigarettes in this country who makes more than $250,000 a year is barack obama. now you are talking $3 trillion in taxes and spending for health care, the point of which was to make health care costs less. if his reforms reduce the cost of health care, what does he need the $1 trillion, $2 trillion, or $3 trillion two years after it kicks in? the point is it is going to cost more. here is the challenge.

if you show that again -- when he said i'm going to reform health care, he got elected president and he was not going to raise your taxes. he did not show the several hundred-page list of thou shalts and thou shalt nots. when you get sick, when you are old, they will come to you and say you are too old to get a hip replacement, you are too old for certain medicines. it costs too much to keep you alive. that is what happens in canada and europe, and they do rationing in two ways. by having you wait so long to get health care, it saves the government money, maybe because you did not make it. it is the rationing part of this that is so frightening. and what obama and harry reid

and nancy pelosi should have done with spend some time looking what is happening in britain and canada. host: your organization focuses on tax policy. would you say you disagree with a lot of the tax approach of the administration, obviously? would you say that the issue of health care is something that needs to be dealt with in the timetable the president set up? guest: know, the challenges of health care and the runaway costs -- no, the challenges of health care and a runaway costs needed to be dealt with in the last eight years. the democratic party supported by obama said, n no 2 toward reform. host: if you had gotten tort reform, though, how would that

have gotten -- what this tort reform due to cut the gap? guest: toward reform would reduce the cost of health care for everyone. secondly, we need to be careful and not use the democrats talking points about 45 million americans not getting health care. that is nonsense. what that means is 45 million americans do not have health insurance. some are younger and not think they need health insurance because they are not going to get sick. there are others who go to the emergency room and get health care. if you walk into an emergency room, you will get health care. host: what is the number that -- of people they need health insurance that do not happen -- that do not have it? guest: it is not mean they do not get health care, it just means they do not have insurance. what we did pass last year with

health savings accounts, that makes it less expensive. the other thing we need to do it is that the government causes many of these problems in terms of runaway health-care costs. if you live in new jersey, which has a very corrupt government, and they pass laws that say if you buy health insurance in new jersey you have to ensure for a whole list of things that you may not wish to ensure for. it may not be important to you. you may not be able to physically get that disease. and you say i want to insure for that. mandates in the united states, put in by legislatures, not doctors, raise the cost of health insurance about 10% to 15%. we could start by dropping everyone's health insurance by 10% to 15% by dropping the

regulations across state lines. why not move in that direction when the obvious improvements had been on the table for a decade? host: this year from the viewers. good morning to tim on our independent line. caller: good morning. before we get to mr. norquist, as far as the psa about c-span's funding, i wish you guys would make it clear that it is not -- c-span is not the result of the benevolence of the cable industry. according to an obituary i read in "the new york times" a few years back, i forget what senator or congressman, who was pivotal in some kind of legislation that the industry wanted passed. part of that was stipulated that you do have a public service or a public access network which is c-span, and we fund it. i wish you would make that

clear. i am sure brian lamb knows right off the top of his head. host: thanks for clarifying that. do you have a question for grover norquist? caller: not so much a question, but i would like to congratulate him and his fellow republicans for winning the class war. ronald reagan gave the wealthiest americans and corporations the biggest tax cut in the history of the united states. on the premise that, well, if they have all these tax cuts, they will create jobs. well, we had one of the biggest deficits under reagan, one of the biggest recessions in 1983. so much for triple-down economic theory. host: we will get a response. guest: tim, a couple of things.

first of all, when we reduced marginal tax rates, the reagan tax cuts, it was parallel to the kennedy tax cuts. kennedy had tax cuts of 22% across the board at all tax rate. ronald reagan's was 25% across the board on all rates. so if you want to make a partisan point, ragan's tax reduction looked very -- was parallel to the one that john f. kennedy performed. second, there was tremendous job creation. you talk about the recession of 1983. that may be the democratic party's talking points, but it does not really work. we created 4 million jobs in 1983. 1983, when the reagan tax cuts took effect, that is when the recovery took effect. that is when the job boom that continued for more than a decade began. so we had strong economic growth. yes, the government spent too

much during that period of time, and we had deficits. again, the commerce spends the map -- the congress spends the money. if you want to get control of spending, you have to get control of congress. at our website, atr.org, we have a chart shows how much is spent by congress, not the presidency. the economy did not do very well, spent a fair amount of money. it was in the last six years with the republican congress and the democratic president when you had the job creation and the stock market went up. when the democrats took the covers back in 2001, you sell a slump in the stock market and jobs -- use of a slump in the stock market and in jobs. then the stock market, jobs, a went back up again in 1986,

1987. watch the congress when you are focused on spending rather than the presidency. host: i want you to look at the state level for just a moment. should the rich pay more? this is about state income taxes in connecticut. republicans say that the wealthy are already shelling out more than their fair share. they would pay more than half of all income taxes in that state. how big of an issue -- states are pressed financially. how big an issue is the concern of tax rates in states? guest: there is a lot of movement of people in states. the highest -- the states with the highest income taxes have been losing people, the states with the lowest income taxes have been gaining people. people leave and move out of

states with high income taxes and move to states -- texas, florida, nevada, new hampshire -- where they do not have an income tax. host: doesn't that moved to other states pressure those states to raise taxes? guest: they pay sales taxes, property taxes, create jobs and opportunities in texas and florida. if you have a pro-growth economic policy, step one is low taxes, step two is to chase the trial lawyers away from the table. step three is do not let the labor unions take $500 away from every worker for the privilege of working. if you can do that, you have strong economic growth. the problem we have in michigan and massachusetts and new york and california is the trial lawyers, the labor unions, and the tax collectors have been

chasing people out of those states. host: here is a call from north carolina. good morning, welcome. caller: good morning. thanks for let me come off the air -- come on the air. i am in the heart of north carolina, right in tobacco country. i hear so much about tobacco. what is wrong with a man, after he has eaten a meal, kicking back and smoking a cigarette? i have smoked all my life. the federal government did not say anything about it then. put it this way, if it had not been for tobacco, there would not have been a duke university, a duke hospital, there would not be a drum, north carolina, or a winston-salem. i realize some people just want to take away the freedom from

all americans. they tell us what to eat, how to eat, when to eat it, and pretty soon they will have control over our lives completely. guest: well, i am not going to disagree with you. there has always been a strain in american political history of prohibitionists, nanny-staters, people who want to run other people's lives. we went through prohibition on alcohol in much of the 1920's. that was very destructive. it's certainly created organized crime in this country. we are still paying for the mistakes of prohibition. there are some people who cannot run their own lives properly, who cannot take care of themselves, who will not take care of themselves, and they spend all their time pushing other people around, and they use the government for that purpose. i think it is not a healthy thing for people to smoke cigarettes, but it is their own business. the government should not be

telling you what to do or what not to do. the same thing if you want to drink bourbon or if you want to work on saturday. the government treats people who want to work on saturday with high taxes. we will end up with fewer of each. host: next caller, good morning. caller: i want to touch on something that you pretty much mentioned earlier, and that is i would say the state and local tax burdens. in this area, philadelphia, that is something that is not being addressed. i just recently retired. i was considering starting my own business, and i started crunching the numbers and after the dreaded federal self employment tax, the city gross receipts tax, the city net profits tax, state income tax,

before i even started dressing my expenses, i am looking at 50% going before i start paying the bills for my practice. then there is liability insurance. the way i look at i should start doing volunteer work. we want to be the country of entrepreneurs, but there are so many obstacles in the way, it is ridiculous. i just want to get a response to that. thank you. guest: we are getting into the question of how pelosi and reid are planning on paying for health care reform. i am not quite sure if you are reforming health care, that costs less, why we are raising taxes to do that. you should be cutting taxes. when the government reforms things, it always gets more expensive, not less expensive. when they talk about the kind of tax increases that they have been floating, putting into legislation, you are looking at massive increases in small

businesses. this is at a time when bill clinton "raise taxes on the richest 2%." 7% of those taxes were paid by small businesses. a lot of small businesses pay taxes as if they were individuals. so a lot of marginal tax rates on wealthy people are also marginal tax rates on small businesses. you know this because you were looking to become an entrepreneur. but for people who may not be familiar with this, ask the grocery store. ask the barber shop. ask professionals you work with. ask your local businessmen and women what they face and what will happen if obama and reed and pelosi raise taxes on small businesses to pay for their healthcare "reform," which costs more, evidently. if you are going to do that, how

many people are going to lose jobs? there are an awful lot of jobs that have been lost in the last six months since we started obama's economic policies. it is damaging to the economy. host: a comment by email -- a guy in maryland -- i find it disturbing that grover in furs that if it is only 20 million uninsured, then it is not a really big problem. the problem is that the emergency room is the least efficient place to receive health care. guest: well, here is the point. talk to somebody from canada. in the united states, you can walk into an emergency room and wait there is a lot less than the six-month wait that we hear about for real, necessary care in canada, where they tell you to come back in six months. nobody gets told to come back in six months at an emergency room in the united states. my argument was that those

people who tried to panic people into passing a 1000-page piece of legislation without reading it, they should come up with honest numbers and numbers that means something. we have been trying to expand insurance coverage for small businesses for the last eight years. there was legislation put forward so that small businesses could pull together and buy insurance less expensively. the democratic party for eight years stopped that. i am very aware that we need to reduce the cost of health care insurance and make it more available to more people. for the last eight years, the republicans in congress tried to do that, and the democrats filibustered and fought it. so let's get straight who has created this crisis, who is owned by the trial lawyers, owned by the labor unions, and unwilling to fix things, other than creating -- other than by creating a big government

program, which i would argue does not work very well. host: the sunday "new york times magazine" had an article, "the new joblessness." what are your thoughts about what the president has done so far, where the unemployment rate is now and where you anticipate it to go by the end of the year? guest: it started off not good and has gotten worse since the so-called stimulus package. but this should not surprise anybody. the stimulus spending package that obama signed, actually written by the democrats in congress -- again, obama had nothing to do with that seamless package other than agree to the number. it was written by the house and the senate, a series of earmarks from one end to the other, and obama signed it. you can blame obama for signing it, but it was written by the democrats. all the so-called blue dogs that

care signed it. -- wrote it. the argument was that read in pelosi were going to take $780 billion -- the argument was that harry reid and nancy pelosi were going to take $780 billion and give it to people who were politically connected. imagine if they had gone to two sides of the lake, taken two buckets of water to the other side of the lake, had a press conference, said we are going to stimulate this 80 million times, take water out of one side of the lake, dump it into the other side of the lake. you would believe that the economy would do better with dollars. host: didn't president bush agreed that some kind of economic stimulus was necessary? guest: i would not take economic

advice from president bush. that is the guy, along with president obama, the stimulus package for the banks, to bail out the banks. his support for the bailout of the banks, no. the problem with obama is that he has taken every dumb idea that bush had and added to it. he is not the anti-bush. he is bush-plus. to all the people who lost your money in the first place -- if you're a teenage kid and totaled the car, when your first reaction be, -- with your first reaction becoming give that kid another car? host: mike, an independent. good morning. caller: i just like to clarify a couple of things that the republicans are saying, and grover along with them. number 1, they are saying we

should open up where we should do away with state regulations. all they want to do is to deregulate. number two, he talked about health care. i happen to be a wealthy man when they did the trial run. i was doing consulting and had a heart attack at age 42. laying on the operating table, one doctor said you cannot perform that because the government will not pay for that. the other doctor said, i do not care, i do not want this man to die so young. now they want to reprogram the

health insurance companies and this program to this is what the republicans want to do. let's exercise for 45 minutes, the regulate, and by god -- you have a very nice day. guest: mike, i think you misunderstand. the bill would allow u2 buy insurance -- would allow you to buy insurance across states. it will allow you to do it, so if you are in a state that the legislature is so corrupt, they put things into the law saying if you buy insurance and our state, you have to spend x and x to our friends for things that may not happen to you, to go away from that corruption and go to a state that has less corruption. it is allowing you to escape

corrupt regulation, corrupt laws in your own state. host: here is louise in fredericksburg, virginia, on a republican line. caller: hi. i hear all of this about insurance and -- hello? host: you are on the air, ma'am. caller: i pay my doctor $55. i pay in cash money, and i do not have insurance. i do not want the government to give me insurance. i would like to have a catastrophic insurance, and i would also like to have something over $3,000 that i cannot afford. what i would like to say is we have tons of taxes in the state. when you are paying $300 a month for your property taxes and another $50 a month for sales taxes, and then you have your income taxes and your federal taxes -- and i was a small

business owner once, and that was the total sucker's game because you are paying al. you are not taking home money, you are literally -- you are paying out. you are not taking home monday, you're literally paying at the poverty level. your money goes out for all the bills that you must pay and all the taxes that you must pay, and especially if you are the sole provider. guest: you raise the number of very important points. look, we need to get the government out of health care, not more into it. there are tax laws that make it difficult to simply buy the kind of insurance that you want, which is catastrophic insurance. the kind of insurance that you buy for your car or house or many other cases. it is our tax laws that got us into this mess, and the wage and price controls in the 1940's during world war ii, got your health insurance and your job attached to each other, so when you lose your job you lose your health insurance. it does not happen to your home

insurance, your car insurance. again, when the government got involved, they created many of these problems, and the answer is not more government, more taxes, more bureaucrats, more trial lawyers, it is to move out of that. there are two ways to go. i would argue we need to lower taxes, less spending, more freedom between doctors and individuals, and let people save for their own health care needs and be able to do that tax-free. the other is to turn the hospital into the department of motor vehicles. you know when you go into a government building how you are going to be treated. when you go to the post office, how long it takes to get something done, or the department of motor vehicles. we ought not to turn the doctor's office into that kind of operation. host: grover norquist heads the americans for tax reform. the website is atr.org.

thank you for being with us this morning. we had a call earlier this morning about the funding of c- span. the caller talked about the congressional mandate for funding. that is not the case. brian lamb send me an e-mail saying no program has ever been passed for funding of c-span. there you go. we will be back in a moment to look at the embassy in baghdad with the state department specter general, right after this. ?????????????????ó >> the health-care bill likely will not see action in the senate soon. majority leader harry reid

saying this chamber will not look to debate a health-care bill before the fall, but the house could consider a bill before leaving town for the summer recess. house democratic caucus member john larsen will hold the meeting today. he says that scheduled afternoon and evening meetings will go as long as necessary to answer questions members have president obama, secretary of state clinton, and treasury secretary geithner on u.s. relations with china. they will be joined by their chinese counterparts to discuss ongoing challenges and opportunities for the two countries. that is live at 9:00 a.m. and eastern on c-span2. live coverage of u.s. relations with outages 0 and the muslim world beginning at 12:15 p.m.. on "the communicators," more

from new media leaders attending this year's digital media conference. tonight on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us from the state department this morning is harry geisel, of the state department. we have linked this by the way to our website, c-span.org. in a nutshell, what does this report recommends? guest: well, the main thing that it recommends is times are going to change. times are changing very quickly, and the embassy has to change. it was a huge presence during the war. in fact, it is interesting when you think about it. typically, as our report says, an embassy would have been evacuated in the kind of situation that this embassy was

created. now that iraq is becoming a more normal country, our embassy will have to be a normal embassy. which means ultimately slimming down quite a lot. host: to give our viewers some reference here, and look at "the washington post" last thursday. to give them an idea of what the size of the building is -- there are 21 structures at the embassy. two office buildings, one will become a school leader. a recreation building with a gym, barber, and food court. the cost was $592 million to build the facility in the green zone. it is designed to be entirely self-sufficient, located on 104 acres. a look here at the politics and nations section of the washington post, what part of that facility looks like. how is the embassy -- or what i

should ask is, is the embassy's size a concern given the change and role of the u.s. in iraq? guest: well, of course is, bill. although, i will tell you something interesting. as the latest "washington post" story and the mcclatchy newspapers story points out, the living facilities or build for about 600 employees. -- the living facilities were built for about 600 employees. when our inspectors went out to do the inspection in february, they were housed four to one bedroom and one bathroom, except for the two teen leaders, and they had the privilege of being housed -- except for the two team leaders, and had the privilege of being house with each other. these are esteemed ambassadors.

the embassy is totally over tax at the moment, but we think it will ultimately be about the right size. host: the mcclatchy news and "the kansas city star" reporting about downsizing the embassy, ending the reconstruction teams by 2011, which have been the prime u.s. tool for rebuilding civilian life in iraq's provinces. have they outlived their usefulness? guest: we hope they are beginning to outlive their usefulness as iraq returns to normal. i would expect that some of the prt's will become consulates. host: do you have any of the concerns over the safety inside the green zone, that greens and created in the wake of the invasion in 2003 -- that green

zone created in the wake of the invasion in 2003? guest: yes, we have great concern. much of the money spent during our presence in iraq goes to providing security. i am very pleased with what the department of state has done because no one has been hurt, let alone killed. no one under chief of mission authority has been hurt or killed in many years. host: let's get some calls for harry geisel on the u.s. embassy in baghdad. william on our independent line, hi. william, make sure to turn down your television, or radio, and go on with your comments. caller: i am wondering about -- in reading the news about iraq, how long are we going to be over

there? host: harry geisel, were you able to hear that? guest: i only got pieces. host: your understanding is probably better than mine, and we just will move on. i want to bring to your attention in "usa today," "u.s. pulls six of $44 million iraq jobs program. "in a loan is to 2008 audit, -- in a little-noticed 2008 audit, u.s. aid's -- do know anything about this in relation to the size of baghdad's and the sea? guest: actually not, bill. that was the u.s. aid inspector general, and i am glad that you brought this up because we actually have three sets of inspectors general in iraq.

we have the state department office of inspector general, and we have to cover the whole world, so we actually are the smallest presence in iraq. we have the usaid inspector general, and the special iraq reconstruction. between him and the aid inspector general, it is their issue. host: how often did you have to visit there? guest: well, this was the first embassy-wide inspection we have had since the war. we have had many special inspections, investigations, and audits, more than i could count, as a matter of fact. but this was the first sort of taking a photo at 5,000 feet type of inspection where we tried to look at the overall

foreign policy, how well is being administered, and the embassy itself. again, as a whole. host: harry geisel with us till the top of the hour. 202-737-0002 for democrats, 202- 737-0001 for republicans. independents and others, 202- 628-0205. matthew, on a republican line. good morning. guest: caller: this embassy was a boondoggle. obama is expanding bush policies, expanding the war. why didn't obama go to afghanistan and visit the troops when he was in russia? he is being another george bush, and i voted for him.

host: harry geisel, is it the biggest in the world? guest: is the biggest in the world, in size and in people. i hope it will not always be the case. i know the department wants to reduce it, too, because as the embassy gets smaller, that will be a tribute to the success of our work and the iraqis' work. host: if it gets smaller, you have buildings on the grounds. what will become of those facilities? how will they be used? guest: a great question. as i mentioned right now, there are twice as many employees in that building that there should be. before we talk about what we will do with surplus property, it will be quite a few years. host: here is rachel, from palm beach, florida, democratic collar. caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to know who built that? was it halliburton? it does not matter if we

disbanded now, because they got their money, right? guest: well, i do not really remember if it was no-bid or not. but i can tell you, speaking as inspector general, we had a lot of problems with that building. many of which had nothing to do with how the state was administered. many of our offices did a great job of protecting -- of perfecting corrections. host: was that a total foreign company, based in kuwait? guest: it was -- actually, i believe they had an american subsidiary, but this was a huge contract. there were a significant errors

that went into the building in which -- and which had to be corrected. i am speaking of life and safety issues, and they were corrected. we have an audit that is just under way now on other issues regarding how well the embassy was constructed, what we got from our money or did not get from our money. host: fort worth, texas, robert, independent color. robert, make sure you knew your television. are you there? caller: yes. yes, i would like to know how the embassy there -- you might not -- you must not be hearing me. guest: i hear you. caller: ok. i was wondering why this government was saying how crowded it was over there for

the various people. we had u.s. veterans that are living in pasteboard boxes, and you are spending money over there to build all these beautiful places. i was a korean veteran, and by golly, this is the biggest quagmires i have ever seen. you guys all ought to have a number across her chest. host: robert, thank you for your call. harry geisel, the issue of overcrowding you talked about at the embassy, which you say will be taken care of as the mission winds down there. is the overcrowding and issue on par with what you're seeing at the embassy? guest: i cannot really speak for the military overall. i would be surprised if it was not because the job is to win a

war, and winning a war comes ahead of building the facilities. host: good morning to rob, on our republican line. caller: good morning. good morning, mr. gazelle. it is my belief, my contention that this entire venture into iraq, there is a certain permanency attached to it from the very beginning early on. i sensed sort of a trap. this is a ridiculous -- the size of this thing, clearly the cia is present there. it is more of an outpost for the entire middle east and central asia in my mind. that was the initial hope. this one along with the meetings held in 2002 as to which corporations were going to get what frequencies and things like that, what they were going to build in the way of a corporate

presence over there in that country. you know, this is all falling apart. that is my belief. that is not an embassy, it is an outpost. i hope that -- one more thing, if i could ask a question. where are the photographs of all the construction and rehabing of this country? where can we find photographs of all the work that has been done over there? thanks very much. guest: well, you will see some photographs on our website. i also suggest you go to the website of the special ig for iraq reconstruction. i know that he has put out books now. some of the books -- some of the stuff in the books is pretty depressing, the tax money going

to some areas it should not have gone. you are not going to see much more than our embassy because that is what the office of inspector general at the department state is responsible for. host: we have a link to the website on our website, c- span.org. h week -- "many u.s. contractors competed $592 million baghdad project bewildered, u.s. state gave work, first kuwaiti general training and contract." camp hill, pennsylvania. next up, val, it independent color. -- independent caller. caller: hi. i was wondering, when we pull

our troops out of iraq, how are we going to leave that whole area of the iraqis to watch a day after day after day, reminding that we are the ones who attacked them, kill all those people. now we are going to set their -- now we are going to sit there. i do not understand it. guest: well, the idea is that when you have normal diplomatic relations with the country, that country is responsible for protecting foreign diplomats under the vienna convention on diplomatic relations. you can be sure that until iraq becomes a much safer place than is, we will be providing a lot of security, and our diplomats will also be operating under rather stringent guidelines that

are laid down by the regional security office. host: harry geisel got his mba at johns hopkins university, master's at the university of virginia with fluency in italian and french for the foreign service institute. huntsville, alabama, is next. good morning to ned on our democrats like. caller: yes, good morning. i would like to know why we need to put the largest embassy in the world in a third country like iraq. and please be specific. guest: well, i think that is a great question, and i will answer it with a hope. the hope is that one day it will not be the largest embassy in the world. but for the moment, we have such enormous interests in iraq, due to the conflict, due to its position in the middle east, due to the rather bad neighborhood

that it lives in. but i have seen embassies go up and embassies go down in terms of their staffing, and let's hope that you will not have to ask that question in a few years because things will be very different. host: the u.s. pays for the building of an embassy. typically, does the u.s. buy or lease the land on which an embassy is built? guest: typically where land is sold to foreigners, typically a u.s. embassy is built on land that we own. in the case of iraq, it is my understanding that the government of iraq give us the land, which i guess is the least it could have done under these circumstances. host: clearwater, florida. good morning to 80 on our independents line. caller: hi, this is betty jo.

i just want to say that i think everything that we have done in iraq has been criminal, from the invasion to that and the sea. that is 104 acres of iraqi -- to that embassy. that is 104 acres of iraqi land that we should give back to iraq. it is criminal. host: harry geisel, does the embassy lie on 104 acres? guest: i do not know offhand, but it is at least that much. host: in your assessment, is it u.s. and contract employees? guest: or rule, bill, is that we must interview every state department direct higher at the embassy. that is why we had such a big team because we had a lot of controversial and interviews to. the interviews are conducted one on one, and the confidentiality is assured by law. host: good morning, and jane, on

our republican line. caller: thank you so much for c- span. i watched the three inspector general's testifying on the hill regarding the results of your audit, and i want to first of all commend you for the incredible job that you are doing because it seems to me that we have found source of this war and we have not provided the appropriate growth for the audit procedures that have to happen to control everything that is going on with contractors things that the three inspector general's are under incredible pressure to provide the quality insurance is how we are -- the quality assurance of how we're spending the taxpayers' dollars, so thank you for that. one thing that has troubled me is the way the budget works. it seems that a large amount of money goes to the dod and that

the usaid and dos have to apply for supplemental funding along the way every year, and that does not seem to be transparent way to do funding for the kinds of projects that you have to do. i would wonder if you would comment on that. guest: i would love to. but first, thank you for the pitch. if you know any auditors, please tell them to go to our website and apply for jobs because we are very short of auditors, and you have given one of the best stories i have heard for why we need more good auditors. but as for your question, this administration actually announced that the supplementals that went in for 2010 will be the last supplementals to go in. now, that particular supplemental i think covered state and the aid and many other agencies. but above all, i believe it was

a department of defense supplemental. if i am wrong -- i do know the department of defense got a very large supplemental for iraq and afghanistan. host: we are calling you acting inspector general for the state department. are you in between positions, or is this going to turn out permit for you? guest: bill, this was phoenix rising from the ashes. i retired in 2000. i had been inspector general in 1994, 1995 when i was in the foreign service. but i was brought back as a civil service employee when a vacancy developed, and i do not know if my life expectancy is one day or a number of years. host: almost as soon as the moscow embassy was built, there were concerns about the construction of that embassy. any concerns about the physical construction of the building itself?

guest: that was not the subject of our report, but viewers should go on our website and they will see of the reports where we did talk about the actual construction of the embassy. it is really going to be hard to say whether department -- whether in the department got it right or not, but i think they did. it is because we are so crowded, and these huge facilities are currently overwhelm. host: good morning, jake, on our democrats line. caller: i appreciate you all. i just want to know how many people we have over there doing the jobs that we used to do in vietnam. we say we have 135,000 troops, but if we are paying so many people to do the job as the soldiers do, how much are we really paying over there? the last question, are there any mercenaries?

halliburton was bringing in foreign soldiers from different parts of the world to do some of the work that our soldiers will not do, and also some of the -- we just contract goes out for halliburton. i would like to hear comments to these questions. guest: i cannot comment on what dod is doing, and my extremely competent colleagues, the inspector general of the dod, can tell you. i am not sure whether we have it anymore or not. i think we did once upon a time. as for contracting out in general, with respect to dod functions, i have to refer you to dod. with state department functions, yes, we have many contractors.

interestingly enough, most of these contractors are doing jobs that we hope iraqis will ultimately do. we sure do not want to send americans from the states to working cafeteria's because it just costs too much money. host: next call, our independent line. caller: good morning. i am a disabled veteran from vietnam. i was with the romanian security guards when president nixon came over. one reason the embassy -- all countries embassies around the world are considered sovereign territory, and the countries that the indices are in, officials are not permitted inside the embassies. thank you very much. guest: i am always glad to hear from a former marine security guard.

not only do they protect our embassies, they protect our classified information. they give a great birthday party every year. and i appreciate what you just said. it is a lovely way to end the call. host: harry geisel, acting inspector general for the state department. you can read it online, the report of inspection on the embassy in baghdad. thanks for being on this month. guest: it was a great pleasure. call me back some time. host: we will do that. first, headlines from c-span radio. .

the 911 caller did not mention race, according to a station issued by her attorney and backed up by police commissioner. she placed the 911 kahl july 16 saying she saw some wanted men on mr. gates's front porch who appeared to be trying to force open the front door. that call led to the arrest of professor gates by cambridge police on disorderly conduct. israeli defense minister a good brought in an appearance earlier with defense secretary robert gates said his country is taking the option of the table -- ehud barak. this is regarding iran's nuclear program. an indication in military strike by israel is still a

possibility. secretary gates said the administration's attempt to engage iran is not an open-ended offer. the u.s. and israel believe iran is attempting to develop atomic weapons but iran says its nuclear program is aimed at producing electricity. this from "the daily beast." senate armed services committee agreeing to hold hearings this fall on the don't ask, don't tell policy. senator gillibrand requested the hearings after determining she did not have votes in support of a temporary suspension of the band. this would be a first hearing and the issue since 1993. the fifth and final space walk of the current mission of the international space station is under way. the astronauts are installing television cameras on the new porch of the japanese laboratory. it is scheduled isundock tomorrow. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio.

>> health care legislation likely won't see action in the senate soon. majority leader harry reid said his chamber would not debate the bill until the fall. but it still possible the house could consider a bill before leaving town for the summer recess -- recess. jon larson plans to hold a meeting later today to go through the health care measure section by section. according to congressional quarterly, the congressman says the scheduled afternoon and evening meeting will go as long as necessary to answer questions. today on c-span, coverage of a news conference, the opening on a conference on the impact of obesity. the center for disease control and prevention hosting the conference in washington. we will have the opening news conference at 10:00 -- 10:55 a.m. eastern here on c-span. on "the communicator's," new media leaders including bill

bradford, fox digital media, tonight on c-span2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: the centers for disease control is beginning today hosting a conference on the impact of obesity. we will cover a news conference here on c-span at 10:55 a.m. eastern on economic impact on obesity. we want to ask you this half hour up until about 9:30 a.m. eastern about obesity in america, what are the solutions. the numbers to call -- and you can get us on twitter or e-mail. you know whether spreads to lose trans fats -- unilever.

unilever which sells more soft margin than anyone, will unveil today plans to remove all partially hydrogenated oils from its soft spread brands including, i can't believe it's not butter and shedd's spread and country crock. the change, to begin next month, signals how serious the marketing and technology battle about trans fats and food has become. shoppers have increasingly demanded that foods they buy, from big goods to snacks to margarine, no longer carry artery-clogging trans fat that can lead to heart disease. your thoughts on obesity and what needs to be done -- a lot of which we will cover on the c- span networks. a look at a publication in california reporting on the costs there. obesity costs california billions. obesity is adding to the economic crisis in california, according to a new study from the california center for public health advocacy beard that

report proves that inactivity and excess weight is driving up health care costs, slowing work- force productivity, and costing the state millions. fayetteville, north carolina. joe is first up on this topic. your thoughts on what needs to be done. and joe in fayetteville, north carolina. caller: i think the food industry needs to -- trend toward more organic foods. i think the way the food is processed, with the only thing in mind it is profit. putting steroids in animals, foods that they don't naturally eat. it leads to changes. i think that it would help the health industry as a whole if everybody watched their diet a little more closely, watch what

they ate. it would have a large impact on the overall cost of the health- care industry. host: jacksonville, fla., andrew on the republican line. caller: how was it going? i'd just wanted to question how a lot of the health care policy with fat, obesity, with the children. in schools, a lot of these schools try to promote programs for children education for health policy, and some of the problems with that is that they are trying to force on children that they have to be scanning or they have to start monitoring their weight, and maybe some of that is also to blame on society, but does a school have a right to tell children what they can eat and do what they're do with their health? host: gainesville, florida.

the independent mind. go ahead. caller: good morning. if i want to point out that the correlation over the last three decades in the spy and childhood diabetes and in obesity coincided with high fructose corn syrup and government policy, but congress responding to lobbying groups, have subsidies that help us to keep the unhealthy as stuff in our food process. i don't think the schools have gone far enough because those same policies prompted by usda have put a lot of healthy foods on our school cafeterias. we'll have children pulled both ways, come in schooled and eat the sugary foods but you better be skinny. host: new jersey, pam on our republican line -- democrats line. excuse me. caller: how are you doing?

i had a comment, too. just recently nabisco came out with classic cookies, some the came out with, and most of it is loaded with the six some new line they come out with it -- loaded with sugar. once it came out with cinnamon wafer, no sugar and icing, tasted good. also helps the pancreas and detracted -- digestive tract release and arms to break down sugar. host: you go shopping and look at the ingredients. how difficult is it for you to keep tabs on? caller: the first thing i am looking at, avoiding anything with all of the screen -- just solid sugar cream fillings and extra sugar on top of a cooking. i enjoy a cookie, but i want

something on the play inside. and nabisco come up with something that not only tastes good but cinnamon also is an asset for anybody, if you are trying to keep your sugar count down with diabetes, if you take a cinnamon capsule -- let's say you have a sweet and meal, you take halt a cinnamon capsule. not shaking seven in on it, that is a little more toxic to do that. but cinnamon capsules really do help the body keep the sugar count in line. what do you think happens? everytime i going to the store, the only thing i see on the shells and then nabisco classic, you can't buy the cinnamon cookies. host: another view -- birmingham, michigan. tom. caller: disclosure, i am a medical expert and weight management. one thing we have to do is to

try to get away and a sense from a bottle and war on obesity. it is really a battle on port lifestyle and emphasize small changes can make a huge impact. even a 5% weight reduction can reduce the risk of diabetes and lower the risks by 50%. and really tried to retire the issue of will power as a concept. host: how do you retire that? a tough things for folks trying to keep track of weight. caller: emphasize the fact that 33% of the country is obese. if we had the most phenomenal success -- if we knock it down 15%, if they are still technically obese and are date derelict in nature? obesity drives the issues we are worried about, but not everyone at the same weight and height are affected the same. one of the callers discussing

with children -- the last thing you want to talk about is eating healthy just to keep in thin tube -- you want to talk about preventing cancer and heart disease and that a fall were made. but you are budding head against the wall if you are going to get everyone in the country not to be obese. it would be great if we had moderate reduction, 5%. that fact in and of itself emphasizes healthy lifestyle. yes, we want to be a leaner but it is because of the reasons that obesity drives, or i should say toxic obesity. because some people -- i know there will be some controversy, but some people that will fall into the obesity category are going to be relatively healthy so long as blood pressure and triglycerides and they are physically active, probably near them before but still obese. host: is there sort of a historic norm?

percentage of obese people in the united states? caller: now you are getting into a question anthropologist barbara really get into looking back 10,000 years ago -- anthropologist's probably get into. probably a single group -- genetics is a contributor but largely have not changed. it is really the environment. but we really have to -- the concept of retiring cookies are something the other caller -- from your life is probably not going to happen. you know the difference between lifestyle and diet the dieting, retiring things from your house and your environment. willpower is a terrible thing to rely on. " scott a headline here, "usa today." looking ahead to 2010 census. u.s. making double sure census isn't over counted. 11.6 million people were counted twice in the year 2000.

margaret from new york. i hope i pronounced your town right. if not, correct me and i will get it next time. caller: yes. thank you. i just wanted to mention that there is a direct correlation between the rise in obesity in this country starting in the 1970's with the reformation of the rda requirements. host: what are the requirements? caller: in the 1970's there was a recommendation people should eat more carbohydrates, bread and grains, and this seems to have directly correlate with the rise in obesity. people do today consume a great deal more refined sugar, refine flour, and i do think that this contributes to obesity. i am not recommending that people adopt a diet of strict meeat or other components.

host: one of our other viewers agree -- for decades the food pyramid said all oils were the same beard will satisfy hunger and starches and light foods don't. keep the feds out. caller: i would agree with that. it seems if you want to adopt a diet of the good, healthy or else, fruits, vegetables -- i mean, this all seems very obvious. but that is all i wanted to say. thank you. host: atlanta, the morning. democrats line. caller: i am an educator. i also believe that schools should definitely promote more physical activity for the children, 15 minutes twice a week is -- host: what the teacher? caller: first grade. host: do they get recess? caller: very limited, 15 minutes

and not every day. host: is physical fitness part of the curriculum? caller: twice a week. that is a problem, too. more physical activity should be promoted. i believe obesity also correlates with emotional and mental states. as well as, i think americans should be in -- i think people would be unless depressed and it will also help of the matter of obesity. host: "the washington post" has a story about a survey on poverty. this week the pew charitable trust will release findings of a study that helps explain is that economic fragility, pointing to the fact that middle-class blacks are far more likely than whites to live in high poverty neighborhoods, which has a negative effect on even the better off children raised there.

the impact of the neighborhoods is greater than the other factors in children's backgrounds, this according to a study coming out later this week. good morning to orlando, florida. robb on the republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. but one thing i want to say is, you know, you can watch what you eat but you have to get moving, especially the kids. when i was growing up we were outside running around and doing everything, engaged in sports and gym every day in school. stick with that, and it does not matter what you eat, you just have to keep moving. host: "the new york times" has a story about another program, an animated program. cartoon buffett teaching children about money. he often speaks animatedly on television about financial responsibility. soon he will have to be animated for a children's series on the same subject. the web series called "secret

millionaires' club," it will make its debut on aol and the fall. at the short episodes will gain -- aim to entertain kids and deliver a message. john on the independent mind. audit of i -- caller: i got side steps. a lot of it is massive advertising and targeting. they are going to certain segments of the population -- low income, you drive by fast food and ec lines wrapped around. in the supermarkets you see huge people and you look in their shopping carts, so that and crackers and cookies. you look at the majority of their shopping. i think a lot of this is massive advertising, going for these elements of the population. and i think that maybe a lot of it because it is designed for cheap and it looks good, therefore it has to be good. host: calif., independent minded

democrat line. cathy. caller: i just wanted to say that many years ago when we first started hearing about all of the dangers of butter and cream and whole milk, i completely stop using bader and i went to using various healthy supposedly margarine and then i found out they were full of things that were virtually poisoned. i've gone back to using real butter. but i only use less then probably a half a cube a better a week. and the think everything is just moderation. i'm fortunate that i don't like sweets at all, so that is really easy for me, and i use only canola will, so i don't think trans fats are in there. host: is there something different the federal government should be doing in terms of food policy? caller: i think one thing they should do is regulate school lunches. one thing i was born to mention, an issue for a lot of us, is the

fact that when our kids are getting deep fried chicken fingers and deep fried tater tot, and god only knows what else there are getting. on the free lunch program they get a muffin and i think they do get milk with it. but, i mean, what they are feeding our kids in school is atrocious. and then they cut back p. esol much -- p.e. so much. but going back to natural butter is a big move if you don't overdo it. host: thank you for a word of the rise. the issue of health and health care, a prominent topic of conversation with legislation pending in the house and senate. hope fading for a health bill, the headline in "roll call." house democratic leaders hope to quickly defused rising interparty tensions and -- health care deal, but they acknowledge that they may be forced to join the senate and

punt the floor vote until after the august recess. house democratic caucus will meet today in the afternoon at 4:00 p.m. according to the chair john larsen. he will let the members read through the legislation, go as late as they need to go. we will get updates throughout the day. st. clair shores, mich. dear john on the republican line. caller: i'm wondering what kind of example it will set for obesity when obama wants to appoint an obese african female to be the surgeon general. host: is that it? john, is that? caller: that's it. thanks for the call. host: texas, robert on the independent on. caller: f to be a need to mandate big corporations -- fda

needs to mandate the big corporations, the salt spreads and the transplant, a warning like cigarettes saying it has trans fats and them and it can lead to heart attacks and death. host: wisconsin -- help me out with the pronunciation of your city. caller: minong, wisconsin. i find myself overweight, 30 pounds more than i want to date, what normally and. -- what i normally am. i cut my food consumption about half and supplemented and the spot with salads and raw vegetables and lost about half of what i wanted to lose and it is working out. host: in the grand scheme of things, looking at the issue,

partly upon, larger than yourself, but the broader policy issue, is it partially personal responsibility? caller: a lot of of his -- a lot of it is. someone mentioned the food pyramid. being led astray from politicians who take it -- coming up with bribes -- but are influenced by the farmers pushing sugar foods and sugar beets and the manufacturers putting sugar and everything we use. host: some advice from a viewer on twitter, keep it simple -- walk, water weight reduction program, have a bottle of water instead of sodas and schools, what a lot. host: richmond, kathy on the republican line. caller: good morning. i heard a lot of things i do

agree with, with exercise in the schools being depleted, sugar it -- we don't have a lot of cookies and chips laying around house. but the point i would like to make is, since i've got three girls, i stayed at home and raised the children and ". wheat cannot go out in a lot, we do not cook in fat and greece -- we do not go out to eat a lot, we don't cook in fact and greece. sponsored -- two don't have the problems. a third daughter are bigger and taller, and i think it has to do with the steroids making bigger chicken legs, going into the beef. i heard no one mentioned this and i think until you look at that and what they are putting into the food we are eating, even when you are trying to eat healthy, it has to be looked at. i think that is a major cause of

difference. because nothing in their lives have been different. there is no sport they have not attended, they have always done soccer, softball, cheerleading hear it so, there has been very little difference. i think somebody ought to look at that. host: you said you had one daughter having issues with the weight and size. what do it have impacted -- if the issue is true with steroids and growth hormone -- wouldn't it have affected your other daughters as well? caller: i don't think -- i have 21, 18, and 11. so it has been a large difference over time. and my husband was military living overseas, and over there everything is fresh, free range, and so even name -- me, i have issues with that. i don't eat cookies, don't drink sodas, i don't eat candy bars, we don't keep ice-cream around.

so i'm bucking the just about everything. i don't cook with grease, we make fried chicken in the oven. there are a lot of things you have to look back as far as hereditary, the depression i agree with, and in our schools here in prince george county, va., they basically taken -- the first thing they do is take out recess if one kid is talking, recess is gone. host: of your home town paper, richmond times dispatch, the headline says sports programs are in dire straits new richmond, virginia. what can you tell us about that? caller: i don't know about and richmond proper, but and prince george we pay for the county and for lee, va., here near the base. so that has not affected us here as of yet. but i don't know about richmond.

i know they were going through real financial issues because my want ball fields build and rebuild a diamond, to find out how financials are dispersed. >> thank you for your input. franklin, conn. our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. i told the agree with your last caller. i think the government is a huge problem. congress is allowing the food companies to put all of these chemicals that our bodies -- our organs cannot digest all of this stuff. the artificial sweeteners did diet soda. if you read the ingredients, it is actually tried sugar -- it creates cravings. they are putting so much garbage. growth hormones in our vegetables, in our meets and everything we pretty much eat and drink.

and i think congress needs to be responsible for part of the obesity. that is about it. host: of bethlehem, pennsylvania. joe on our democrats line. caller: i am in bethlehem, pennsylvania. i believe some of the reasons for the children and the parents having so much difficulty with the stress of the times, and the high unemployment, the stress of losing their jobs, the schools that are run down and dilapidated, not having good food and also good physical therapy -- i mean, physical exercise for the children. that is the main reason. what the lady said before about some of the food additives that not good for the people. this is -- some of the biggest factors. and people cannot afford better

cut of need and cannot afford the whole wheat. probably the a lot of factors involved. economics is involved in it, too. and i believe the waste of money that they have done with these big companies, aig and all of this, instead of investing in our own country throwing money away to big corporations as part of the reasons. that is what i have to say. thank you. host: more coming up, too, as this which are topic and focus on u.s. policy, recent policy in afghanistan with lawrence korb, former assistant defense secretary and now with center of american progress as a senior fellow. he is with us next. we will be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> health care legislation likely won't see action in the senate soon. majority leader harry reid says his chamber would not debate a health-care bill until the fall. but it is still possible the house could consider a bill before leaving town for the summer recess. house democratic caucus chairman jon larsen plans called a meeting later today to go through the measures section by section geared according to congressional quarterly, congressman john larsen said the scheduled afternoon and evening meeting will go as long as necessary to answer questions. today on c-span, coverage of a news conference, the opening of a conference on the impact of obesity. the centers for disease control and prevention and hosting the conference in washington. they will have opening news conference at 10:55 a.m. eastern here on c-span. on "the communicator's," it more

from new media leaders. including bill blass deferred of fox digital media the bill bradford, of fox digital media. >> host: lawrence korb served in the reagan administration as assistant defense secretary and here to talk about u.s. policy in afghanistan. so many stores have come out and the last few days about issues in afghanistan policy, including this morning where "the guardian" reports a provincial cease-fire with the taliban this morning. how is that government approaching the cease-fires? what i've been trying to do? guest: what they are trying to do is separate those who joined the taliban because they don't have enough money, because they have no other way of making a living, from those who are committed to their philosophy of very strict interpretation of islam. if you can break those apart,

obviously you will have less people trying to destabilize the government. host: somebody recently actually describe what you just described as, if there is a version of the taliban, a taliban lite, for lack of a better term, not engaged with u.s. forces, separated from the militant taliban we are seeing. guest: that's right. i think that is very, very important. people have no other way to make a living and the taliban offer a way to make ends meet, particularly of the government is not in the area. whereas those committed to restoring afghanistan to what it was back before the united states invaded in 2001. host: larry korb is with us until 10:00 a.m. eastern. the numbers -- we will continue to take your

twitter comments and also via e- mail as well, so we will get to your calls momentarily. late last week, an article from "the new york times" won a shift in policy regarding our products. they write the strategy will shift from wiping out opium poppy crops, which senior officials acknowledged that served only to turn poor farmers into enemies, new operations are already being mounted to a trip -- attack, not the crops, but the drug runners and the drug lords. that is a fine tune it can't come is in it, for policy? guest: i think it is a smart policy. the previous ambassador and afghanistan has come from colombia -- and this was opposed by the military and the nato partners. what you need to do is go after the criminals, those profiting. i would go one step further. talking about, just buy the stuff from these people until

you can develop the big develop an alternative way -- from these people until you can develop an alternative way. host: the administration is putting new troops. the marines made an enormous initiative into the helmand province. guest: i think it is about time. basically after 2007, the chairman of the joint chiefs sighing -- we only had some 30,000 troops. with the increase that president obama has put in, we could be close to 70,000. that, i think, would enable us to secure areas and hold them until we can do the reconstruction. host: calls for lawrence korb, philadelphia on the democrat line. caller: i would like to thank you guys for c-span. and i appreciate lawrence korb' s work at the center for american progress, my favorite website. guest: thank you.

caller: do you think eventually we will be able to leave afghanistan anytime soon? guest: i think we have a year or year and a half to turn around the security situation. and while we're doing that, we need to train more of the afghan security forces -- the army and police. if you do that, then i think you can begin to cut down the number of troops there. but it is not going to happen overnight because we neglected for far too long. host: the british is under increasing pressure from their citizens about their presence in afghanistan. what do you hear about how committed in terms of years? guest: of the british government is committed -- the british people are beginning to wonder because last month we had the highest numbers of casualties -- action to come in july. we have 30 americans died and 26 coalition forces died. and i think the real problem, challenge for the obama

administration, is going to be the dutch and canadians who actually had set deadlines. the british have not. there is pressure. host: one of the deadlines? -- what are the deadline? guest: out by 2011. host: afghan forces -- dearth of capable afghan forces complicate mission and south. they say some quit because they are reluctant to work in the violence out and others are expelled to do drug use. the afghan troops here are heavily defendant -- dependent on western forces, are hesitating to take on greater responsibilities. guest: that is the challenge. we ignored that. the total afghan security forces, an army of 160,000 -- in a country larger than iraq. we have neglected it so long. host: this report in "the post" on saturday talks about some of

the issues they had with literacy among afghan troops and police. guest: no doubt about it. it is very hard to train people when they obviously can't understand the manuals. the real challenge, i think, is we waited so long we may have missed the golden moment. that is really the tragedy because we had it actually where we needed to be in late 2001. we diverted our attention to iraq and resources and this thing is allowed to go downhill. host: how is the situation with the pakistan, the taliban complicating efforts? guest: what has happened is if we drive the taliban out of afghanistan, they go into pakistan and regroup and then they can come back again. and the pakistani government finally begun to move against them after the taliban came very close to the capital of islamabad. but that is a challenge. you will never get pakistan right unless you get afghanistan

under control. but even if he did afghanistan under control, you will have a big problem with pakistan. host: minnesota, your comment or question? caller: it sounds like to have the problems with the drugs and poppe is being raised. the way i understand it, russia used to buy most of the commodities raised, the food commodities from afghanistan. and i am sure they would be glad to do it again, you know? if all of these countries in the world are worried about drugs -- and training people and so forth. it would definitely help the citizens and they afghanistan people. the vacant row other stuff other than half days. if you are just going to pay for one crop, go do it and burn it. host: efforts have been made to get them to grow other crops.

guest: violence and this -- security situation deteriorated so they could not get it to market and the taliban and other criminals are willing to buy opium. the caller makes a good point. the ossian's are helpful in afghanistan. in fact, when president obama went over to russia they agreed to allow us to fly supplies over because they are concerned about the opium -- they have a big drug problem in russia. paul host: he writes britain is enveloped in scandals concerning lack of helicopters for the troops. does america have enough equipment for the job? guest: we do now, but we did not up until very recently we gave it sentences. the british do have a challenge to get enough helicopters because it is a place -- it is very hard to drive around given not in this terrain. guest: have we secured a supply line? there was concern, i think year's exxon. do we have a secure supply line

in afghanistan? guest: we do now after president obama went over to russia. host: dave on our democrats line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i was wondering if you believe the war in afghanistan is a war we can end war is the objective to capture osama bin laden and the al qaeda leadership still? do you think that they are in pakistan? are they still in afghanistan? and what kind of commitment from the defense department and the obama administration over the next 10 years? guest: our goal in afghanistan is to ensure that it does not become a haven for groups like al qaeda, terrorist groups with global reach, and to ensure that afghanistan does not become a threat to the other countries in

the region. those are your short-term goals that you really need to accomplish we would -- need to accomplish. we would like to get a society in a place where the citizens would have a different -- decent life. i think given the troops we put in now, we are close to 70,000, 68,000 by the time all of gotten in there. we will see if that begins to turn the situation around. we have afghan election coming up in august. we will see how that goes. it looks like it will be a vibrant election. at one time we thought hamid karzai would whisked through but now it looks like it will be contested and may have a run off. host: what can you tell us about this picture in "the new york times" about dr. of della -- abdullah. it guest: he is concerned about

the corruption of the hermit karzai government. the fact he is willing to challenge his former boss, that he is willing to take this on -- and i offered to debate and hamid karzai did not show up. i think this is a hopeful sign for afghanistan. host: north carolina. go ahead. caller: i am not republican or democrat -- i think the republicans have no need for minorities and democrats pretty much ignore. that being said, i think going after the dealers themselves instead of the crops is a bad mistake. as you see in the inner-city is, we go after dealers all the time and that does not stop anything. it pacifies the general public for a while. i think we have to take a firm stance and destroyed the crops. they are not really affecting the rich. that is just how i feel about it. i am not a politician from you guys award in may but that is how i feel.

guest: i think one of the reasons you have to get the people who are profiting from the drug trade, basically they are using those profits to fund the insurgency. that is what i think we want to stop. and if we can buy them from the farmers, they themselves would have time until they can develop alternative sources of living. so i think we have to be careful about where the drug money goes in afghanistan as compared to where it goes in the united states. host: new york on the republican line for lawrence korb. caller: i'm disappointed to ask mr. korb -- afghanistan and iraq are under central command. the fact that we are saying -- u.s. and we took our eye off of afghanistan when it still has control of the u.s. military is incorrect. i think afghanistan is a nato operation. even if we did not put the entire force in there, the

allies did nothing the whole time to help solve the situation. guest: let me make a couple of comments. nato actually had as many troops as we did in their of until president obama came in. where roughly each at 32,000 or 33,000 troops. central command, actually what happened is admiral fallon, who was the head of central command before general petraeus, wanted to put more emphasis on afghanistan and this went against bush administration policies and when it became public resign. host: florida, james on the democrats' line. caller: concerning multiple deployments of troops between iraq and afghanistan and those being pulled out of iraq and served three or four tours and they are going to afghanistan, has there been serious discussion about some kind of draft being reinstituted? guest: there should be. i think as a country we let the military down.

the volunteer military was never designed to fight the long wars. what we have done to the men and women particularly in ground forces is a disgrace. i would have gone back to a draft right after 2001 when the country was willing to sacrifice and we knew we were going to have these conflicts, particularly when the bush administration decided they were going to go into iraq as well afghanistan. but your point is well taken. what we have done -- we as a country, our politicians and military leaders, as a country really should feel very bad about it. host: all wheat -- "new york times" report, iraq veterans find after an enemy is even bolder. in iraq they hit you and ron, reported by a sergeant, is what leader for company c, fifth marines, but these guys stick around and maneuver. a different tactics. guest: no doubt about it. i think you have to be careful

saying, this work in iraq so we will see if it works and afghanistan. the one good thing about the last call is because so many of these troops served so many tours, they have tremendous amount of experience dealing with an insurgency in and i think that will help in afghanistan because they are not just new to this whole counter insurgency million. -- milieu. host: we have a captive in afghanistan. a picture. what is the latest? guest: the latest as we know he is alive, at least was when he made the videotape. secretary gates and admiral mullen have complained about using prisoners for propaganda purposes. but i think what this should tell us, when americans get captured we expect them to be treated humanely, unfortunately some of the ways we have treated prisoners since 2001 has not,

and that is why our military objected when the bush administration and the justice department wanted to use all of these harsh interrogation techniques because they were concerned about americans being captured. host: frederick, md., on the republican line. caller: during the bush administration we spent about $10 billion to $12 billion on pakistan and all went to military and they put it into the eastern border in reference to india instead of spending some of that money on domestic situations to make the people be more inclined to like the united states and make the country more civil. secondly, what hamid karzai, there is some much corruption, i don't know what we are going to do with that. guest: you make sonntag good points. one is about the $11 billion we gave to pakistan after september 11. we did not monitor where it went and unfortunately it went to buying weapons that were more

suited dealing with what the pakistanis sees as they're major threat, from india. now what the kerr-lugar bill, it will go toward economic development. the military aid has to go through counter insurgency. hamid karzai startup well, he has become corrupt and that is why i think a good sign with this election, that are viable candidates. so hopefully if the afghan people feel as you do, they will put someone else and there. host: orlando, florida. glen on the democrats' line. caller: thank you for having the show. lawrence, i wanted to just touch on one of your points where you were talking about how we could actually buy a lot of the opium from the afghan people and help them in the meantime while we figure out how to control that market.

it is actually one of the best things we could do. opium -- i don't think people realize it -- but it is one of the most prescribed medications in the country. one of the most prescribed in the world. all of your pain killers, codeine -- and out of all the drugs taken in the world, only 8% for people who are actually using heroin, which is the synthetics from opium, and it has its change the and the last 40 or 50 years, relatively the same. so the issue in buying them back, i think we have the issue of action getting the pharmaceutical companies to agree with us. guest: i think in a good point, and at the center for american progress, my colleagues have been arguing that for quite awhile because you find, for example, some countries like turkey do that and you are

right, a lot of it can go to medicinal purposes. host: does your organization considered russian covert military intervention in afghanistan when forming consultation in the u.s.? guest: the russians have been very helpful overall in afghanistan, basically because they do not want to see that instability come into their country, they do want -- do not want to see the open. are they involved? every country looks after its own interest. but a lot of people think the russians are trying to say, we will show you how you will lose like we did. i think that eric is behind us. host: you bring a great perspective from your period of time in the right demonstration and early 1980's, not long after which the russians were ousted from afghanistan with a great deal of u.s. support. guest: no doubt about it. when people use the analogy, we had something about 250,000

people in afghanistan on our side. we were providing very sadistic it weapons, stinger missiles that shot helicopters down. the russians were horrible. they killed 1 million people. 5 million left -- when they were there they mined the whole country, so they were supportive. when we went into afghanistan, 84% supported as, now down to roughly 50% because the way we handle but since then. but it is completely different. host: why did turn around? why were we not able to maintain the support of the afghan people at the time the russians were expelled to the point it became safe-haven for taliban and possibly osama bin laden? guest: the first president bush said, we want to let us focus our attention elsewhere. and i was just over an pakistan -- one of the things people are concerned about. are we a disposable ally? you come when you need as and when you achieve your

objectives -- the molly line host: government officials? guest: and people. we did, the same way pakistan help us against the russians in afghanistan and after it was over we washed our hands of it. and i think we've got to be in the area for a long haul. host: good morning to leave on our independent line. caller: hi. i just want to say that they are misleading the people because the conflict with iraq and iran, a lot of the middle east has been going on since the 1950's. you have the i ran-contra affair, all directly related with iraq. you had the hostages that were taken in iran, with people that i worked with a and i knew were involved -- were part of the hostages that were taken in iran at the time.

then you have the illegal war in pakistan during the reagan administration. all of these work illegal assaults on these countries and then you wonder why people are coming after us here in the u.s. and non of this stuff is being talked about to the public. also, who gave george bush judicial authority to overrule constitutional law? host: several items to respond to. guest: i think if you start with the last one, congress did authorize the president to go into afghanistan and iraq and the majority of the american people supported him. but the caller makes a good point. we have a long history. iran had a democratic government and we would that of the british over through its in 1953 and put the shah and power, was no democrat, and authoritarian. between the war between iran and iraq we were helping iraq and

the iranians remembered that. interestingly enough, iran- contra when we send the missiles to israel and israel sent it to iran so the iranians could use against the iraqis. host: he used the term illegal war in the reagan administration, talking about afghanistan, but the bottom line is eventually afghanistan was flipped and the russians were out and the afghanis reason why, but with our armed supported that was never cleared through congress. guest: it definitely was. if he saw the movie "charlie wulsin swarmer," it was congress who was pushing to send the equipment -- "charlie wilson's wore the tiered iran contra, that is why it was a scandal, because they did not get permission to send missiles to israel and sent to iran because they were using the profits to fund operations in central america which the congress had prohibited.

host: texas, thomas on the republican line. caller: good morning. i used to work for unilever for 21 years -- it is pronounced unileever. afghanistan, a certain path with the british road, the 600 through the valley of death. guest: tiber pass. caller: that's it. if al qaeda and bonds could be held up in that past because everybody knows it would only take a handful of troops to hold off a whole army in there. and if you want to look for them, that is probably where they will be in that area, you will be able -- he will be able to move from where he is at to that area quickly.

guest: i think thomas makes a good point. that. is -- the british joe airline between afghanistan and pakistan. the people there do not recognize it. they are mainly pashtun, they live there. they give support to groups like al qaeda and the television. i don't think we will go in there, that is why we are using the drone's right now to go after the leadership and we are hoping the pakistani military will go from swat valley after they get that under control and hopefully into south waziristan, part of this area. host: in a recent "part affairs the tiered their recent article. -- recent article in "foreign affairs. com

host: are they any farther along now? guest: i don't think so. president obama is right, you need a comprehensive strategy. you need to have economics and reconstruction. and this has to be part of that. i don't think they are there yet. i think general mcchrystal, now we have a new strategy, that this will be part of what he does. he is doing a 60-day review and i think once that is done they will be able to move in that direction. host: a famous " see about afghanistan -- where some buyers go to die. guest: the graveyard of empires. host: how does the u.s. overcome? guest: again, we are not there. i think our leaving iraq is very important. what president bush agreed to before he left office. shows we are not there as

occupiers. yes, the british were run out and then it came back three decades later and took control. i think you overstate it and people have compared it to vietnam. all of these historical analogies, i think, are not quite appropriate given the way the situation there is now. host: missouri, democratic collar. -- caller. guest: with the taliban making money from opium, we use a pair phrase jeb stuart -- the mostest money and take the opium and process it as pharmaceuticals and distributed to hospitals. that stuff is valuable. that is my only comment. guest: i agree with you. certain countries do do it. certainly it is a short-term gap to keep the taliban getting the profits to fund the insurgency, i think it will help

us get the situation under control. host: joe from athens, ga., on the independent mind. caller: good morning. host: make sure you turn down your television or radio so they don't feed back. go ahead. caller: i was very disappointed with president bush, shifted his focus from afghanistan to iraq, going after the oil instead of taking care of national security. but i was wondering, do you think we have the infrastructure in place -- the people to retrain already and are we training people to get them in their so that we can provide a livelihood? guest: i