improvements everywhere else in the economy. we need those kinds of savings so we can continue to affod@@@@) city, missouri. good morning, c-span. i have a couple of comments in just a couple of questions. i have been in the insurance field for a couple of years. i wanted to throw it out there. our big problem is insurance companies. i have worked for them for years. they would rather see someone die before that would help them. . people have to understand their

policies, also. they do not understand them. i have denied so many crimes because of pre-existing. i have sympathy for these people. -- i have denied so many clailms because of pre-existing. the entire claim gets denied. i was very sympathetic with the i was very sympathetic with the other la called, saying she paid look cross and blue shield. i worked for them for years. i paid medicare claims with blue cross and blue shield for about a 11 years. i think medicare is great now. it is a whole lot better than it was back then. the big issue back then was the flu shots that seniors could not get paid through blue cross and blue shield. we had people always wanted to know why the government would not pay for it. medicare is a government-run

plan. they tell you what to do. also, the insurance companies set all these fees. it is not the doctor and patients. it is the insurance and the doctors. i am sorry -- i am kind of nervous. it is the insurance companies. they tell you how long you can spend in the hospital, what is covered. most of the plans -- you have to know your plans. most have clauses where they do not pay for something. host: do any of the companies, or any of them health insurance companies? guest: yes, they are. one of the things that is important and gets to what the lady was just saying -- part of reform needs to be insurance market reform. the insurance industry has said

that we recognize that and are prepared to make reforms that make the system work. she mentioned pre-existing conditions. the insurance industry has said they are for reform that eliminates the nine claims based on pre-existing conditions. the key is to make it affordable. to make it work we have to have the kinds of reforms that are already proposed by the insurance industry, and things they're willing to do. host: how the represent insurance companies? what is your reaction when congressional speakers have cast the insurance industry as a villain in this debate, as with nancy pelosi? guest: for the americans we cover, we take our perspective

from athe standpoint of payers. we look at it from that standpoint of payers in the system, like everyone else. it is politically tempting to vilify somebody. everyone is looking for a villain in this argument, but the fact is, if we are going to get what we all want -- and affordable coverage for everybody in america -- high- quality health insurance and high quality health care for everyone, then everyone must be part of the solutions. so, i do not think it is productive to vilify anyone. everybody has to be part of the solution. host: let's go to our next call

from buffalo, new york, on the independent line. caller: good morning, sir. when i was 18, 19, 20 years old starting now let me tell you i was driving corvettes and had anything i wanted. i had the women, the money for the women -- i want to know what my kid cannot have what i had. he is healthy and strong and takes care of himself -- why is my kid going to lose the opportunity to buy a vette and have a girlfriend and take her to a movie -- where are you in the president did not telling us what we can and cannot do with our own money? host: i think we will go to our next caller from tupelo, mississippi. caller: that was an interesting question. [laughter] guest: i want to know how you

get the corvette. caller: being from mississippi and republican i have a minority view. it seems the best thing we could do is go to single-payer medicare-style. the biggest market to drive costs down would be every american in wonder. that would be the biggest co-op. the other thing, if we did our exports, the cost would go down. if we try to sell american cars overseas we are 17% behind europeans. if you had single-payer, that wouldn't happen. the other thing, you would see an explosion in the growth of small businesses. the biggest thing keeping them from growing now is the tight credit -- decides that it is the healthcare insurance costs. if we can reform the system, the other thing i think would happen

if she would have more international business come into this country because there would not have to worry about health care costs. if they decide to build a factory without the expense of health care, they might choose the united states. the biggest cases we have in courts because of judicial resources in this as money are the cases for people who have pre-existing conditions, older, the age discrimination cases, and those who are disabled. if you have single-payer, employers would not have the temptation to discriminate. those people would not drive health care costs up as a result. guest: you make some very good point. the business roundtable at the beginning of this sat down and asked ouourselves this

question of why we should not have a single-payer system as they do in europe. they're good reasons why we did not think it would work. first and foremost were concerns that a single-payer system just cannot innovate. right now we spend $2.20 trillion on our health care delivery system. while we have the best health care in the world for those who can afford it, we did not do very well as a nation collectively when compared to europe, china, and even brazil. we are concerned that a government-run program cannot give us the in addition to improve both the quality and that reduces the trajectory of the costs. if we throw another $1 trillion into the system will be even less competitive.

secondly, we know that we can innovate better than the government can in the workplace. there are great programs for type two diabetes management that companies run. even for smoking cessation, one as an exercise. governments do not do that well. the third thing which is interesting, we still view good health care coverage as a way to attract and retain good, high- quality employees. despite the current economic slowdown and unemployment, when this economy returns, our ability to be competitive globally will depend on a high quality, well-trained, and a bit of work force. we need to attract those people. host: here is a question from twitter. guest: the business roundtable is lobbying congress and yet that is what we do.

we try to bring our perspective, that of those to run the largest companies in america to the public policy process. we provide information to lawmakers on the committees. and the house is the energy and commerce committee, the ways and means committee, and the education and labor committee. in the senate it is the health, education, and labor policy committee, and the senate finance committee. we know things about the health care system that even congress does not. where the cost savings of the kiddies are, where the innovative opportunities are. what does and does not work. we also provide them with our perspective on what they are considering would do to our ability on what everyone wants us to do. everyone says we want to keep employers in the game. we want to allow those who have what they have to continue to

keep it. to do that, some of the policy decisions help us, some hurt. we bring that perspective and tell members of congress and staff how the different ideas they are considering would affect our ability to do it. host: the next call comes from bethpage, n.y.. caller: i heard your propaganda, but as a liberal, i buy products and leave in businesses, but in a climate where -- and believe and businesses, but in this climate where business has taken over the legislative process, i have decided to take certain companies who give money to lawmakers campbell. i have told people to call tyson foods, a constituent of that conservative blue dog democrat at this phone number. asked mr. chuck henry at this

phone number -- either you do mike ross and the entire conservative coalition to back a single-payer resolution, and until that happens we will boycott tyson chicken and any tyson products. guest: good for you. that is the great thing about this country. everyone gets to exercise their political views and articulate it to members of congress to places where they buy products and services, but companies have a stake in getting this right. tyson foods, every company in america has a stake in getting this right. we want to have a health care system that not only works for the companies and employers, but works for everyone in america. right now if you do not have health insurance you still get

health care, not well or officially -- you go to hospital and get treated. we end up paying for it because the government will not. we employers pay for it and that is unsustainable. host: milwaukee, wisconsin, on the republican line. caller: thank you, c-span. you guys do a great job. you have been on a for some time. the whole premise of the health care reform was to bend or lower the cost and provide for the under-insured or uninsured, yet i have not heard anything spoken about tort reform. i have not heard anything about what attorneys did with the asbestos issue for about 30 years or more now. the number of businesses who have had to reorganize. there is a tremendous cost

associated with malpractice lawsuits and what it does to those psyches in the medical profession, yet you have not mention that once this morning. guest: it is not off the table. thanks for reminding me. it is an important part of what needs to be fixed. the litigation environment in this country which is very severe causes behavior that costs everyone. you mentioned many of them. defensive medicine where tests, procedures are ordered that are only done because you're protecting against a potential lawsuit -- we all pay for it. we have to bring reason to our litigation system. we particularly have to bring thesreason to our litigation bill. it nearly cost though ob-gyn

practice to leave some states because they could not afford their liability insurance. their liability insurance. we got to be airing -- bring reason and sense of this. that is an example of how powerful the trial lawyers are because everyone is running away from it, and you are right, we need that reform, and i am sorry i did not bring that up earlier. caller: understand the interest you represent and their concerns in terms of innovation. that is an important thing in terms of drugs and new medicines. something i have not heard talked about is the fact that the price of advertising for drugs from big companies does not usually matched up with the

prices they spend on research. it seems to me i have read a few things about that. it took -- if he could talk about that i would appreciate it. guest: one of the keys to innovation is not just the way we deliver about the nature of the health care what we provide. pharmaceutical companies spend an inordinate amount of money on research and development. that is the business they're in. they have to develop the next products that provide the kind of relief and cures that the american people want and need. american people want and need. they are among the biggest spenders in the world. one of the issues we're facing is that we do so much in the u.s. the we subsidize really the rest of the world. people talk of being cheaper to buy a drug in canada or france or in the u.k. -- it is because

the u.s. does all the research and development. we subsidize those drugs around the world. those countries have price controls on those drugs. we need a system to provide appropriate incentives for pharmaceutical companies, medical device companies, for providers to do the best research so that we get the best health care to get a fair return for shareholders. any of us with a retirement program have a place as shareholders. you have a good point. they spend much more money on research and development than on advertising.

>> coming up, the state department briefing, including remarks on the release of two american journalists from north korea. then the defense department gives an update on afghanistan. later, senator james risch on issues being debated in the senate. >> facebook. a best selling author on the success of this networking site and help it tore two friends apart. >> the state department spokesman said secretary of state hillary clinton and others were deeply involved in the release of journalists from north korea. this briefing is a half hour.

>> good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the briefing. let's start out with a couple of things. some housekeeping. yesterday you were emailed detailed instructions on how to obtain press credentials for the pittsburgh summit. you can apply on-line beginning today. the deadline to submit applications is august 15, 2009, at midnight eastern. i encourage you to apply it right away. if you have not received instructions, we will send you the credential information package. there is an e-mail address that you can write if you have additional questions.

item number two. i want to run down the secretary's activities in the nairobi. she had the opportunity to reach out to her husband for a brief conversation about euna lee and laura ling. as she said to colleagues, she is gratified that they have been reunited with their families. the secretary gave an address at a conference in which she pledged the u.s. would be a full partner, but encouraged africa to fully use trade opportunities with the lead states and with africa itself. african nations do less trade with each other than with other regions. she later met with the president of kenya and members of the cabinet. she was clear with what kenyan needs to do in addressing the challenges it faces to fill the

aspirations of its people. she thanked kenya for its efforts regarding piracy. she visited the kenya agricultural research institute along with the agriculture secretary. she encouraged all countries to from -- to provide additional support to women who form the background -- the background -- the backbone of the agricultural system. women will lead the way. before attending a dinner, she and the trade representative announced the beginning of negotiations with the country of mauritius. >> d. say she spoke to the to reporters? >> no, i said she spoke with her husband. >> she has already said she does

not expect some huge, tremendous change based on what happened. it is a positive step. is it a step in the direction of a better relationship? >> we don't know yet. we have made clear from the beginning this private mission is separate from our interaction with north korea -- north korea are guarded its new -- its number 3 -- regarding its nuclear program. we will have to see. >> officials said this could be the catalyst that this would give them a face-saving opportunity to back themselves out of a corner and and gauge if the journalists were freed. >> we will have to see.

it is too early to judge that. what we are going to be looking for and what we have been looking for is for the north to live up to its obligations. we have offered them a path to get back into the international community. we hope it will take up that offer. we will have to see. the ball is really in the north's courts on this issue. >> could we talk about the secretary paulson involvement and the president's trip to the north. was she involved in the discussions? >> the secretary said there will be time to get into the details of all that transpired, but clearly she had a role in this. there were a lot of discussions. the state department was involved. it is inappropriate for me to get into this. >> why is it appropriate? the girls are home state. he said he did not want to say

anything because it was jeopardize their safety. they were landing just a while ago. >> now is not the time. >> why not? >> because my boss said it was not the time. >> you agree with the proposition that each side has to take steps, that it is not a one-way street, and could this not be counted as a positive step, or if it is separate because it is humanitarian, must not the united states do something, like ease up on its search for tougher sanctions to get the north koreans to be more forthcoming, or are you just going to wait for them? >> the secretary and others have been clear in saying we are willing to look at how we can better bring the north back into the good graces of the

international community. if you remember, we were engaged in the process with the north. we got as far as the number meeting to give us some assurances about their commitments to verification that they were unwilling to do in written form. the north took a number of all tile provocative steps that the not improve the climate. it seems to have walked away from the six-party talks. we and the other members of the international community that are interested in this issue have encouraged them to come back. they have yet to you that. we want to see them come back. we have offered them a path. it is up to the north to take it. this is not anything that the united states, korea, japan, or russian need to do at this point. >> a brief conversation with mrs. clinton, did they get into

substance, or was it the sort of conversation one might expect. how did it go? >> it was more of the latter. it was a brief conversation. the press -- the former president was delighted that he was able to facilitate the departure of the journalists, and how happy he was for that. that was in essence the gist of the call. there's not a discussion of substance. clearly there will be a follow- up discussion that they will have about what transplant -- transpired. >> secretary clinton said north korea note rewarded for coming back to the talks. where is the ball exactly? what is the u.s. government isn't about what north korea would have to do now specifically to get back in --

to extend this game? >> north korea needs to recommit to the six-party framework, this show that they're willing to continue negotiating on into may didn't -- on implementing the goals in the joint statement of 2005. >> how so? >> we need to see a willingness of the north to fulfill those obligations. we await for the north to give us some kind of response. no one forced the number into joining the six-party framework. this is something the north committed to and we want to see them live up to it. >> is there any goal for bilateral talks as a way of a following up on thesis visit?

>> we are willing to have bilateral talks in the framework of the six party talks. it is all the other countries that are members of the framework. >> that would only be after the six-party talks -- >> that has been our position for quite some time. >> following up on that, you talking the need to see a willingness from the north koreans to come back. you know in any conversations that the president had he sensed that willingness? we know it was a humanitarian mission, but he did speak to kim jong il for three hours to. during the press conference on the arrival in burbank, it was president bill clinton said they're worse state department officials present, and i --

said there were a state department officials present, and i was wondering who they were. >> there were two state department officials. the first part of your question? >> was there a willingness from the north koreans in the discussions before president had to come back to the talks? >> that is something you will have to get from the president's office. >> nothing has been related to the state department? >> nothing. >> is this something that the obama administration will be looking to president clinton to be doing? >> if you recall from the briefing, what the secretary said earlier today, this was a

message communicated from the two journalists to their families, from the families to the vice president, the former best president, -- the former vice president, who transmitted that message to the administration. the president made a request to see if the for president would be willing to undertake this private humanitarian mission. >> the rest of the world sees they would like to work with him. >> you are now getting into speculation. >> the state department was in default on working with the swedish, trying to talk with the north koreans and to a certain point, and then it seems the white house completely took this over. over the last few days we have heard from white house officials and it was a briefing as you alluded to that did not mention the state department once. they said president clinton was

going to be coming back and briefing president obama's national security team. why was the involvement of the state department over the last couple of weeks, and is their concern that when there is a foreign-policy success that the white house is trying to take it for their own? >> that me say clearly that the state department was involved in this. you know the secretary is the president's chief foreign policy adviser. you can expect the state department has been involved, will be involved in the debriefing. the national security team of this administration is very in synchrony and works close with ever won, so i did not subscribe to this view at all. , no feeling the last couple of days, talk about president clinton going on this mission, and the white house handled all the press communiques, this is usually something that the state

department handles. why was this all the sudden a white house mission? >> this was a request from president obama to president clinton to go on this mission. it is only natural that the white house is going to be involved, but the state department was involved as well. i do not want to get into the details of what took place, but i can assure you the department was involved. >> critics say the former president's is it shows too much legitimacy to the regime. >> our primary interest was to try to win the release of these journalists. this was something but the president and a secretary or concerned about. as i said earlier this was a message that was communicated, i am giving you the path of that

communication, and we wanted to do what we could. president was approached -- president clinton was approached and agreed to do the mission. it was a difficult ordeal for the the two women. in terms of whether we are giving the north koreans in the legitimacy by having president clinton go, this is purely humanitarian. >> you still have a fourrmer president of the united states standing beside kim jong il. >> there were no concessions. this was a humanitarian mission. it was clearly that. photos the not necessarily reflect what went on there. we are pleased that these two

journalists have been released. it is a humanitarian mission. >> who will president clinton be meeting with when he comes back here to debrief? >> i do not know those details yet. >> this was a part and the journalists got. isn't that a concession? it does not erase the stain of gilts. -- of guilt. pardons -- they are freed. did the president trying to get it put in more favorable terms than the pardon? >> i was not privy to these specific discussions, but what i can tell you is we did our

homework in terms -- or due diligence to make sure that president clinton would be able to win the freedom for these two . we received those assurances, and they are at home, back in los angeles. beyond that i do not have any more information or details. >> so i guess you do not attach much meaning to the terminology to pardon? it is the way they do it, the main thing is getting the mouth, is that it? >> the important thing was winning the release, and we did that. everyone is very pleased. it is a great day for us for everyone in the united states to get these journalists back. >> the two people in this dick

armey, -- in the state department, or the on the plane with the present proo? >> i do not know. more of these details will be coming forth later. i do not have them all. >> do you know that the white house provided briefings to the former president over the phone and in person at his house in washington? or their state department people involved in those meetings? >> i am not sure. i stand by that. clearly the state department played an important role in desperate -- played in a poor

role. >> cannot -- >> we will provide you more details in terms of what the department did specifically. >> you also have detainee's that strayed into the iranian border. they expressed remorse, suggesting perhaps there was wrongdoing. is there any thought to your consular department sending out some kind of something to americans that they need to be careful. your role is to provide safety for americans that get into trouble, but is it on the responsibility of american citizens to not cross over the border into our country where they should not be?

>> we put out travel all arts. -- alerts. >> something more robust? >> we encourage americans to go to our web pages, check the travel all arts. we do that often and we reiterate that at every opportunity we can. it is up to citizens to follow that advice. beyond that there is not much more than week -- that we can do except to continue that we can do and that is to alert travelers to different situations in terms of travel. >> when you look at the amount of resources of the united states government and caught the government had to exert not only to get these women freed, but diplomacy going on with iran or you could use this chips some or

else, don't you think that these activities of americans doing what they should not do provides a challenge for you in your diplomacy? >> our priority is the protection and safety of americans when they travel overseas. this will continue to be a priority. we do what we think it's prudent and responsible in terms of informing travelers about situations, and we will continue to do that. there's not much more we can do about that. >> can i finish with mind? one question that came up a couple weeks ago, but i never heard an answer during the town hall meeting on june 10, the question that was asked about the women in north korea by an employee of the department, some suggest it was planted. did you find out how the

question was planted or otherwise -- clearly it was something that an employee at town hall meeting would not ask. >> many employees have pieces of paper where they are reading from an asking a question. >> was this question planted, or are you aware on -- of any one of hapless characters -- of anyone on the secretary must team of planting the question? >> not at all. >> is there any fear for a prominent former president, that you would have to do it this next time, that they can get a prominent visit from an american like this if they play hardball? >> east situation has to be of i waited on its own merits. we cannot sit here and give you

a cookie cutter approach to how we deal with these situations. we have to take them on their own merits. i do not think there is any talk about a precedent here. this is normal procedure when you do with a whole range of issues. there is no way you should try to apply that type of approach because it does not always work. >> is there not fear that the iranians could see it that way? >> i can tell you how they will view anything we did. we cannot judge -- you cannot say that you can solve one particular case because each has its own peculiar circumstances. i cannot tell you how a government is gone to interpret an action by the united states. this was a humanitarian issue.

the circumstances i was -- i have outlined for you. this was a peculiar case. >> is there any new on the status of the americans detained in iran? >> my understanding is the ambassador went in yesterday from the swiss embassy to see if -- the ambassador tried to contact the iranian mfa yesterday, and no further information has been forthcoming. we're still trying to confirm that these three individuals are indeed on iranian territory. we have seen a lot of reports. we have no reason to doubt this reports are true. until we have an official confirmation of that, we cannot go forth and seek consular

access. >> the conversation always turned aside? >> i do not think the ambassador was turned aside. the ambassador in court. there was no further information. officials of the ministry of foreign affairs have tried to get us information on the whereabouts of these individuals. >> did he ask again today? >> i do not know, but this is the latest information we received. >> can you give us the role of dow chemical's involved in north korea? >> i do not know. >> this is a slightly different

topic. the meetings in hawaii? the you have a readout? >> i believe he will be discussing issues with north korea's north coat -- nuclear program. i promise we will get to something once we find out. >> there are reports that the president asked north korea to address the at the issue there. >> i will have to refer you to president clinton's office. we as the u.s. government remain concerned about the fate of these individuals. >> there will be criticism of rewarding north korea of this bad behavior. how are you going to counter that? >> this was a humanitarian

mission. we successfully got these journalists out. we have not given the north koreans anything. >> if president clinton was not speaking about the nuclear issue at all, this was sending -- that is giving the korean government the kind of high level american attention that it is wanting? >> president clinton did not have discussions about that issue. i was not privy to those, so i do not know. as i have said, we keep these two issues separate. what was important and i have explained to you the tick tock of how we got to where we are today, of what was important to us was trying to get to win the freedom of these journalists, and that was it. it was a humanitarian mission plain and simple, and that is

all i can tell you. i will have to refer you to the former president's office. >> you said you were interested in some actions on the part of the north koreans to determine their intentions. opposite -- obviously your experts were looking at the meeting closely before you had discussions with president clinton. is there anything you can say about the attitude of kim jong il, the people he brought in at the meetings, the main negotiator, and also another fellow who had not been seen for some time who was considered more of a moderate, whose name i cannot recall, but apparently he was also brought in. what is the overall reading of intent looking at the body language? >> there were people in the pacific affairs bureau that are looking at this right now. i do not have a sense for you, but that is not to say that

others are not looking at that. i cannot have a readout on what their thinking with regard to these officials and what the situation is with regard to the north korean leadership. >> was there any reporting that substance of stuff was not discussed, and reporting to the others in the group of six? >> certainly, the chinese and the russians were briefed about this mission before it was undertaken. we did consult with others on the visit, so we wanted to make sure that people understood that this was a humanitarian mission. >> you told them all? >> we had discussions. we made them aware that this was just a humanitarian mission and wanted to keep them abreast of what was happening. >> on the humanitarian side, the

u.s. government is considering resuming any effort to north korea, in essence as a reward response to their gesture? >> nothing that i am aware of. >> how about st. thank you? everybody has been seeaying sayg that you to president obama, president clinton, but how about seaying thank you to korea? what about that it was a gesture on the part of north korea, a positive sign? >> we're happy to have these two journalists back. i will leave it at that. >> president clinton went to

north korea's parliament. why cannot you recognize the gesture proo? >> ahmadinejad was sworn in again. a lot of the opposition did not attend the ceremony today, said there are great rifts still on the paris is the united states going to go on and deal with ahmadinejad once he gets his cabinet in place or are you going to wait and see what happens between the opposition and amadinejad? >> although he has spent inaugurated, clearly the iranian people have many questions about the selection and his ability to lead.

we will deal with whatever government there is in iran. the question of legitimacy is going to be something that the iranian people will have to side. there are a lot of questions with regard to the leadership. >> are you waiting on something from iran, or is the u.s. going to make the overture again? >> we are waiting for response to attend the pf +1 meetings. >> it was said today that israel will find itself free to launch a military operations on lebanon no matter what consequence is of

this operation. they will not accept the current situation, whether his poellot is represented in the parliament and the government. how do you view that? >> i have not seen the comments by the israeli defense minister. we remain concerned about his poellot's -- hezbollah's conformity to security resolutions. they continued to pose a threat to peace and security in the region. the united states fully supports the implementation of the resolution 1701. it is unfair for me to comment on them, but the israelis are concerned about the type of activity that hezbollah has been

engaged in. >> the u.s. is trying to get syria to demarcate the border with lebanon, and now it is said the goal is to get is really forces out of the farms area. >> i do not have anything on that. >> news reports from pakistan about the death of the wife of a taliban leader. the have confirmation? >> no i do not. this the first half heard of it. >> the you accept that amadinejad is the elected president of iran? >> we will have to deal with whatever iranian government people decide. we have offered to engage iran

directly. they have not responded. that is all i have on the matter. >> will you engage with the opposition, the reformers, inside iran? >> we are supportive of the iranian people's efforts to have a democracy and to be able to have the country function as a democracy. we support those types of activities. i do not have anything specific for you in terms of engagement with the opposition at this point. thank you. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> the defense department gives an update on operations in afghanistan. then senator james risch. and later the postmaster general on financial problems at the postal service. >> sunday, frank rich reflects on 15 years of political columns

for "the new york times." sunday night on c-span. >> an update on operations in afghanistan. geoff morrell address the possibility of additional troops being sent there. we join him in progress. this is a half hour. >> the assessments we got in 2006 and 2007. this is a product that was conditioned by the secretary and by the secretary general of nato, and it is designed to get those two people and the people who work for them a better sense of the situation on the ground in afghanistan, and the way ahead is the commander hasees i. again say that the secretary's

meeting with the general that he was impressed with the briefing he got and the assessments thus far. he wants him to take into consideration a few other ideas he had to address some additional issues in this review of the situation on the ground. in light of that, the secretary has told general mcchrystal to take beyond the 60 days if needed said he anticipates getting this final product in late august, released september at this point. this was also communicated in a fall call the secretary made yesterday to the new secretary general, the primary purpose of which was to congratulate him on

his the job and what of him, but he communicated that he had tasked general mcchrystal with a few other things to incorporate in this review, so he did not anticipate getting it until late august or early september. >> can you frame out with this task will be? >> the secretary did not share them with me. i simply do not know. the second question was you referred to two work products or something of that nature. the assessment will not be, despite erroneous reporting i have seen, a work product that includes specific resource requests, if indeed there will be additional resource requests. admiral smith, who is responsible for communications

matters, has captured the some of you. the assessment will focus, as i have talked about on the issue on the ground, and the way ahead, but it will not offer specific resource requests or recommendations. if is determined subsequent the review been received and reviewed that there are additional resources required to complete the mission, those resources will be requested as they always are, to the normal process so they can be validated and a decision will be made by the secretary of whether or not recommended to the president additional resources for the mission. pardon the drilling that is underway. this is what i live with in my office. >> as far as the review is concerned, is this with nato

only, or are you considering countries in the region like pakistan or india or russia or china? >> the commander -- this is a commander's review of his area of responsibility, which is limited to afghanistan. that is what this assessment is on. it is an assessment of the situation on the ground as general mcchrystal and his team see it. >> we're looking at additional more troops -- >> i am laughing at the hammering and drilling. >> president karzai was saying they might need additional resources. >> if it is determined by the commander that he needs additional resources to complete his mission, that request will

be made to the normal chain of command. it will go up through cencom, be validated along the way, and the secretary will make a determination whether or not he recommends to the president additional troops. . . . ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ?ñ

>> is a secretary in touch with countries like india for additional resources? >> i don't know of any communication with india. if he is satisfied with the progress, and i don't think anybody is satisfied with progress, i think what he is heartened by is the fact that we have a new commander, a new deputy commander, a new ambassador, a new team that he thinks is better equipped than any other to solve this problem. if it can be solved, it can be solved by this team. that is how he approaches this problem. but i think it is very, very early, too early to be gauging satisfaction of progress. we have just undertaken these

major operations as a result of us getting additional forces on the ground. i think anybody who were to make judgments about the direction of things is premature at this time. everybody is very cautious and mindful of the fact that we are early in this new approach by general mcchrystal. at the same time, he has seen signs from the afghan people that if we are there to stay, if we are committed, if we are willing to see this through, that they are with us. they want to support us, but they also want to know we are there for them and that's the whole purpose behind this new strategy. general mcchrystal's that's what i would offer on that. >> on his last trip to iraq, the secretary indicated that

acceleration of [unintelligible] is it fair for us to link in any way with the possibility of more [unintelligible] >> is not fair in any way. the opinion he offered on the situation in iraq was based upon the situation in iraq. it was not offered with the potential need to in afghanistan in the back of his head. he was merely commenting on the incredible progress the general has noted in iraq. just last month, in july, he had four battle deaths. that's the lowest in the history of this conflict. we had our lowest number of security incidences on record overall, just under 900 about the country. on the security front, there has been enormous progress, by,

despite what some kernels may offer in their memos, there are real concerns out there, particular attention to between arabs and kurds. as we heard from the general and others and the secretary, their concerns about a potential flashpoint is between arabs and kurds. that's why there was the meeting between the prime minister and the kurdish leader about -- in which they both pledged to reconcile differences through political and peaceful means and not military conflict. his judgments about accelerating withdrawals are solely based on the conditions on the ground while being mindful of the fact there are still hurdles that need to be cleared, including solving these arab-curd tensions.

>> if asked for more troops for afghanistan, he can draw for that well? are there enough to draw from? >> we're getting to a hypothetical. but i think the drawdown plan, to answer questions, focused on iraq. the drawdown plan from iraq is predicated on conditions in iraq exclusively. >> you've made the point that it's too early to be either satisfied or dissatisfied with progress in afghanistan. that's fair enough, but there is a military bloc on the ground and a political bloc back here. many people are saying that you need to show some kind of sense -- some kind of success by a certain time to maintain support. what is the sense of when you will come to the podium or the general or the secretary will be able to say yes, it is working? >> i think the secretary has talked about the notion that

within one year-18 months, we would be able to demonstrate to the american people that the situation on the ground in afghanistan is not stalemated, that we are indeed making progress. perhaps not definitive progress or a victory, but clearly progress in the right direction. with additional forces in the country making a difference on the ground. that has to happen in the next 12 or 18 months in order to maintain support of the american people and their representatives in congress who funded the war. it's also frankly necessary to maintain the support of the afghan people. they are the ones suffering through the day to day violence. i would note that just yesterday as an example, you see rocket attacking the capital of the country indiscriminately,

aimlessly, wounding civilians in the process. you see the attack on the marketplace killing civilians in the process. the taliban has complete and utter disregard for the well- being and safety of innocent civilians. in order to sustain this, everybody recognizes we have to show progress. does this mean i'm not going to come up here or he's not going to tell you in a time sooner to that that he sees progress or good momentum or gains? no. we hope to provide -- we hope to report the far sooner that the efforts of our forces on the ground are having a tangible and packed. i would say to you now that clearly the marine operations in the south are making a difference. not a game-changing difference yet, but clearly a difference. we are going to keep that until we make a difference that

ultimately results in either the taliban laying down arms and becoming a contributing member of the afghan society or the eradication of al qaeda in afghanistan. hopefully, the support of the afghan people. >> can you tell us with the russian submarines are doing off the u.s. coast and whether the united states had any idea they were coming? >> it's a wonderful time of year to visit the united states. i don't know what they're doing. i don't think any of us know what they're doing. do we have an indication there are coming this way, sure. we have an indication of most things of that nature. the larger question is, is it of concern to us and the answer to

that is no. so long as they are operating in international waters, as frankly we do, and behave in a responsible way, they're certainly free to do so and it does not cause an alarm in this building. >> did they tell you in advance or did you see them coming in advance? >> i don't know this was communicated in a formal sense, but we certainly have the means to derive where they were going. i tell you nobody is alarmed by because nobody is. but it is the first time in roughly a decade we have seen this kind of behavior. we know it and watch it, but it is not of concern. >> [inaudible] >> we operate in international waters around world. have we had our submarines or ships off the russian coast from time to time? sure.

we operate in international waters freely and they are entitled to do so as well. >> have you asked for clarification from the russians? >> we're talking about ending several hundred miles off the coast of the united states. while it is interesting and worth the that the art -- that they are in this part of the world and doesn't cause any threat or concerned -- we watch it and are mindful of it, but it does not necessitate anything more than that. >> apparently congress recently approved -- >> let me just note one thing -- pardon me. let's put this in the larger context of the fact that president obama has made it clear he wishes to reset our relationship with russia. as he made clear in his july

speech in moscow, the days when we face russians as cold war rivals have long passed. we don't look at this action and automatically see threatening motives. we view this and are mindful of it and watch it, but we do not assign motives we do not believe are there. >> what would be the threatening motive? >> the russian navy has to exercise and train. they work in different conditions and i assume that's the purpose of this. >> do you see a greater projection of russian naval power? >> i think you have seen over the past year or to a greater projection of not just russian naval power, but airpower. we have noted on several occasions that there on our flights -- that there are bomber

flights that has -- that have caused other nations, the canadiens, the british, we have seen long-range russian bombers fly to south america. we have seen the russian naval forces make their way to south america as well. clearly there is an effort on their part to project force around the world or at least take excursions around the world. we are mindful of it, but no one here is overly concerned by. -- buy it. -- by it. >> the air force has asked for congress to approve money for a learjet type aircraft. >> i think it is a gulfstream. >> yes. congress approved money for three of these aircraft.

now i am hearing they asked for a 737 and congress gave the money for two additional aircraft. does the airforce need that many jets that they're asking for one of peace and are given money for three? is the fleet getting that outdated? >> what i would say is we ask for what we need and only what we need. beyond that, i direct you to speak to congress. if this is something added to the budget above and beyond our request, they are the ones who should answer to it. we make it a point of asking for those things we need and nothing more. we have always frowned upon earmarks and that this that are above and beyond what we ask for because inevitably in order to

fund those or at least sustain them after they are appropriated, we have to find money from elsewhere in the budget to support those new buys. it comes at a cost to us even if the front money is appropriated above and beyond what our budget request is. >> [inaudible] >> is an enormous budget, as you know. i don't know that this specific line item, this gulfstream jet has come to his attention. his attention is mostly focused on the items he believes are redlines. additional f-22's are clearly a red line. an alternative f-35 engine or the vh71 program is a red line.

he is focused on big ticket items and frankly not an additional gulfstream or two. that said, we ask for only what we need and nothing more. congress would be the ones best equipped to answer why they have had additional gulfstream added to the budget. >> this is two hundred million dollars -- this is $200 million. [inaudible] >> i think have addressed the range of concerns associated with this. >> are there concerns may be well accept this and will become another red line? >> i don't want to speak for the secretary. i note in terms of what may or

may or not may become a red line. i know what they are right now and i have communicated some of them to you. i do not know this to be one. anything above and beyond what we ask for comes at a price to us. maybe not in upfront costs of purchasing aircraft, but in terms of the follow-on, may 10, and sustainability of the aircraft, that comes out of our budget and we have to find dollars elsewhere from programs that are needed in order to fund one that is access to our needs. >> one independent report said deployment could [unintelligible] >> obviously he is watching the

f-35 program carefully. his budget calls for huge investment in that program. the fiscal year 10 budget has a lot of money for the program in an attempt to boost the number of aircraft available to do testing. the hope is that by providing more funds and aircraft for more testing upfront, we can avoid delays in the program down the line. you are referring i think to some internal work that was done by one of our organizations to determine -- and it is their job to be skeptical about the program estimates about how fast they can develop a program. this group, the jets of valuation, was that there could be a delay.

-- the jets evaluation, was that there could be a delay. the jet a valuation was provided to congress last fall nearly one year ago. there was a report about it in march, seven this was out there. the -- so this was out there. the program office agrees with the evaluation, one of the reasons the secretary put more money into the program was to avoid delays by doing more testing now. the jet is in the process of doing more evaluations. it is nearly one year after the last one. they will soon go to pa &e with the results of the valuations and there will be results about where the program is headed. if it is that they anticipate delays still, we have the ability to fund even more money

to the test phase to buy back time and avoid delays, essentially. that will be the determination made at some point in the future. in terms of delivery of our first production aircraft, we are ahead of schedule and lee some senses. the airforce will deliver in june of 2010, i think that is ahead of schedule, the marines are due in september 2010. the navy in december 2010. so the air force is ahead of schedule, the marines are on schedule and the navy has slipped by two months in terms of the aircraft produced. but we are mindful of this and are watching this.

the secretary has placed an enormous priority on the f-35 as the fifth generation tactical fighter for our forces. it's one of the reasons he believe -- he believes we do not need any more additional f-22's. >> i know the pentagon is reviewing the policy to give uniform policy regarding social networking sites. the marine corps said it would essentially ban them. to what extent can you say whether this policy would supersede the marine corps banning the use of these? >> the department says the policy for the building, the services. that would supersede.

i think the marine corps policy has come to light now, but i think it has been in effect for quite some time. commanders have the authority and wherewithal to take precautions if they were able to secure their operations and i think that was a judgment made by the marine corps some time ago. i think that the secretary has ordered this review by the chief information officer. it will probably be the most exhaustive look taken at social networking. i think we will all have a better understanding of the pros and cons. i think you heard from the secretary several times in this room about the value he sees in these new communications devices. especially in communicating to 18-25 year-old. the majority of his force is

roughly in that age group. they are using these tools. we need to be mindful of that. we have to be able to use them to greater effect to communicate with our own folks. the people who we are trying to win over and avoid conflicts around world are in that age frame and they are also using these tools. they can be enormously voluble not just communicating to our own force, but friends and foes around world. that said, there are clearly risks associated with these devices. we have to get a better understanding of the benefits, risks, and how can protect ourselves from cyber threats that may be associated with it. not just cyber threats, but we have a need to protect intimation. -- any to protect information. through carelessness, sometimes information is disseminated that it should not be.

so we have to be careful. our own actions in terms of leaking information's inadvertently. we will look at these things as part of a review and in the next few weeks, hopefully we will have a better understanding of the way forward. >> are you aware that burma is acquiring nuclear weapons? [unintelligible] >> i am not aware of those reports. i would directly to the state department. maybe they have a better sense of the goals and the opera -- goals and aspirations of the burmese military, but i do not have a sense. >> can -- did you provide support on president clinton's

trip? >> i had that question and as far as we can tell, there was no u.s. military role in this at all. but that is based upon our initial look at this. as far as we can tell, no. >> the land and air force base in japan? >> i don't know. did they? if it was going to come out, you would find a way. that's news to me that they used either of those facilities. i don't know if that's a courtesy we would extend to other people as well. the white house has described this, and i think they are taking the lead on how to talk about this, as a private mission. i don't know otherwise. you should talk to them. i will follow up on the news you

provided me in terms of what role we had in all this. last one. >> late last week, the iraqis tried to establish a police station in the northern iraq. from our understanding, the u.s. asked them to be gentle with it and it turned out there were some deaths and the u.s. used a helicopter assets to pull wounded or dead from the camp. for some clarification, because it is a confusing situation, they are classified as a terrorist organization. what is the role with the united states in monitoring, protecting, and [unintelligible]

>> as i understand it, part of the security deal with the iraqis is the control, the monitoring, the responsibility for that can't was turned over to the iraqis some months ago. -- the responsibility for the camp was turned over some months ago. that reflects their sovereignty throughout the country. they are now responsible for the camp and we have some assets nearby to monitor the situation. obviously we have made it clear to the iraqis that the people who live within the camp should be treated humanely, regardless of what their designation as by the state department. they deserve to be treated humanely and i think and have been encouraging the iraqis as think about exercising their sovereignty over this area, that

they do so in a responsible and humane matter. we are providing some assistance from a medical standpoint to assist the people who were wounded in this operation. but in terms of specifics, i frankly don't know where it stands at this moment. this has been in the works as far as the iraqis taking responsibility for this camp away from us for some months fell. -- some months now. >> the do you still have interest in the camp in terms of intelligence? >> i think not at this point. but i cannot say for certain. we did not oppose or in any way had an issue with iraqis taking responsibility with this can't. all we ask is that how they move

forward to exert their sovereignty be done so in a humane and responsible and careful manner. hopefully, going forward, it will be. thank you. >> the sec continues to debate the sonia sotomayor nomination to the supreme court. next, that and other issues on the senate's agenda. this is from today's "washington journal." journal quality continues. host: joining us now is senator james risch. let's begin with one of the big topics of the week, the nomination of sonia sotomayor. why do you oppose her nomination? guest: for the same reasons that president obama opposed the two nominations that he voted on. first of all, she was kind enough to spend a considerable

amount of time with me and answering questions. she is charming, well-educated, and bright. but this is philosophical. i take my constitutional responsibility very seriously. the president is in charge of the advice. he did not ask me for mine. but i'm in charge of the second part, the consent. he made his decision on the two nominees for philosophical reasons. he believed these people were too conservative from his point of view, what you call it philosophical or ideological. regardless, he believed there were too conservative. i have the same point of view. i represent a state that is probably one of the most if not the most conservative in the united states. frankly, i have difficulty because of her political philosophy and ideology.

i am an attorney. i do have difficulties on some of the positions. the second amendment is very important in idaho. she is at the very least sell- off on the second amendment. she has called it a ride that is not fundamental. -- she is very sfooft another key votes this week is the extension of the cash for clunkers program. you have said you would oppose that as well. what is your position on that program? guest: i voted against it the first time. this is giving out a billion dollars we do not have. it is my grandkids billion dollars.

the difficulty i have is that it is not just the automobile industry having difficulties. our family ranches, and my friends at home said what about bucks for beef? if we would just stand on the corner and hand out money, it is not right. the question from a purely republican standpoint is, what is the proper role of government? it is not handing out money for people to buy cars. i voted against it for that reason. now, having been in place for some time, what we see is, the government which as usual is an apt at handling most anything. they cannot tell us how much has been spent or will be spending a -- they are inept and handling

nearly anything. host: you have the distinction of being one of the two senators voted in 2008 in the year not particularly good for the republican party. what are your thoughts on the current state of the party and how they're doing in the eyes of the american voter? guest: well, that is an ongoing issue, and probably much more credible than my statements about this would be what does polling shows. last fall on a generic ballot, the republicans were down 12 points. obviously, we see those every week. we look at the mall. we look at the average. right now the average has us dead even bigger -- we look at them all. -- right now we look at the

average which has us dead even. i am old enough to remember watergate. my friends in the republican party say this is a terrible. you should have been around when we watch richard nixon did on a helicopter and leave the white house. our stock was lower than. host: we're speaking with senator james risch of idaho. you're welcome to phone in. before we go to your calls we want to get your thoughts on one more big issue -- obviously, health care reform is moving through congress. in a story from "the new york times" today it's as the democrats were urged to persevere in turn to get a

bipartisan deal passed on health care. is there still bipartisanship? guest: how long is this program? you do not have to take my word for, but go out and ask and nay democrat governor would hapn to their state budget and state taxes if congress passes this proposal. bill bankrupt the states. -- it will bankrupt this is. it is bipartisan, but that is the opposition that is bipartisan. it -- it will bankrupt the

states. caller:c⌞@>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>@>> i am one of those c-span watchers and hopefully most democrats are who are calling in, but the republicans do have a plan. it is toward reform, and opening borders, pre-existing condition clauses and the good things we need to to bring down costs. to me, that sounds like a reasonable plan and the right one for this country. i don't understand why the republicans are not pushing that agenda harder than they are with their own commercials and their own words so that other independents, democrats, and republicans can understand what the plan is. so that they will not be blamed if obama fails in his attempts.

guest: that is a really good question. we do get accused of just opposing the health care reform. i don't think there is anyone that is not in favor of doing some type of health care reform. but right now, the other side is headed 100 miles per hour in the wrong direction. a bipartisan direction to move 50 miles per hour in the wrong direction does not cut it for us. just as the other side talk in generalities, and i can describe ours which are in the opposite direction. first of all commit any plan should be market-driven. that is not a government plan. secondly, it should be patient- centered, so that we americans have full control of our health care, the insuring, assessment,

and delivering of it. it should be a quality-focused. these are the objectives. unfortunately, this issue is very, very complicated. there was a lot of over- promising that took place in the campaign. the other side as funding is virtually impossible to deliver. no one has even broken into its component parts. to the president and means everyone will be covered. two doctors and hospitals and means they will finally be paid 100% of their delivery costs. to the average american is a means having absolute, total full control over their own health care and a lower-cost. to each group mean something different. everyone is throwing it into one

pot and try to resolve all aspects at once. it does not work. host: atlanta, georgia. caller: i am a retired member of an international union. i served for six years on our health insurance fund. i began my firm in 2000. i lost my legs in 2006. i'm the guy who had to return and tell them they could not have a race and tell them to put more money into health care. i saw health care triple in cost. i'm the guy who had to tell them that your cat is being lowered from $300,000 to $100,000, and so on down the line. pained me to do that because if

anyone had a heart attack and open heart surgery, these are working guys and would hi-- andt would get hit with $40,000. they got mad at me and i got angry. i had access to all local unions across canada and said there must be a better way. i called from one end of canada to the other and talk to everyone. i talked with everyone in every province. those guys and the men they represent loved their canadian national health insurance. did not have to wait for service. they can see any doctor they want to. i hear nothing but lies, lies, lies about that. it is untrue. guest: we are just the opposite. we hear horror stories that are

the opposite of what you have reported. believe@@ if you look at the difference in success rates of treatment and survival in breast cancer, the difference is stunning and significant between the american system and virtually every other system in the world. that is true with a lot of other diseases and situations. we do hear it both ways, but the statistics are pretty clear. we do have a good health system in america. i will be the first want to say it is expensive and that's what everyone is finding out right now. promises to lower the cost of health care. one of the difficulties is, it is an expensive system because we americans demand the best. when you do that you will have to pay for.

the same is true with innovation, such as with different prescriptions and medical remedies. the alternative -- many people say to let the government to pay for it. the government is us. i saw a t-shirt that said if you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it is free. when you're talking about $1 trillion -- that is the bottom. it could go much higher. that is a lot of money. to bring a new, lower-cost health care online. host: former president clinton buy back the two journalists from north korea. what you make of that trip in the long-term implications on u.s.-north korean relations? guest: you always hope that it

will help. that is a dangerous situation, primarily because of the personality of the personality of their leader. certainly, congratulations have to go out to this administration and to the president, certainly to secretary of state clinton, and to bill clinton. people predicted this for a long time. that the north koreans would use it as a photo opportunity, as a p.r. gimmick to raise their standing in the world. but they still have great difficulties in that country and have a long way to go. but anything you can do to open gates is important. everyone here has breathed a sigh of relief that bears were answered and these two ladies are coming dhome.

host: the next call comes from new hampshire on the independent line. caller: hello, senator. how long have you been a member of the senate? guest: i have only been a senator for six months. i am new, but not new to public service. caller: i wanted to ask you so i would know whether i can when you are not for what has happened. we are a country of laws and no one can do anything that is not within the confines of the law. let's say that my house is on fire. i pick up the phone and call the fire department. someone breaks into my house and a call the police the problem. they take care of it. why can't we go to a single- payer system? why can't we rely on it? as citizens, we support our

police and fire departments and any other socialized system, to protect and serve us. yet we are allowing the insurance companies to make huge profits. i cannot understand why. guest: fair question. that is a philosophical question. i trust the fire department to put out the fire at my house. they do agree job. i trust the police department. i do not trust the united states government to take over the delivery of health care to myself and my grandchildren. delivery of health care is complex and very personal. i have watched the united states government all my life struggle, tried to make successes out of things. they do not have a stellar

record. i have no trust. i have no confidence in the united st@@@@@ i don't think people understand. i have heard some estimates and i hope nobody takes c-span away from us, but there would be 7.5 million jobs lost if someone destroys the health-insurance industry. we are a free country. i want to give you my take and it will take very long. this is what i want to hear so i hope somebody listens. i don't believe you can create innovation with government and did -- government intervention. this with government intervention. you cannot create private ownership with government taxes and eminent domain. you cannot create free trade by taxing means of production.

you cannot create of voter base with this paygo and non-profit illegal immigration. you will not create national security with our compromised orders. you will not have leaders if you do not have an education that lacks a competitive spirit. you cannot create national pride with these apologies. you will not create a strong defense with this week offense. you do not create prosperity with government takeovers. you cannot create healthy people by taking over all of our industries. i hope that you will tell people we do not want any more government expansion. you will not create a spirit of unity when you ignore people. i have a congressman who does not listen to anyone in my district. i am the eighth district in minnesota.

i am so unhappy that our stimulus money paid for bike paths and we have miners out of work. -- when we had minors out of work. these progressives running our country -- it is ridiculous. guest: let me go back to her first statement. right now, the senate committee passed on a building of their three over at the house. i invite anyone to randomly pick one page from the 1,100 pages and then try to explain to me in plain english. this will be a disaster if they keep trying to push this so rapidly. everyone speaks in platitudes, generalities. nobody talks in specifics. there it is not anyone who knows what is in those bills except

for the staffers, and even they are only familiar with a particular paragraph or the pages they wrote. it is more important that this be done right than in a hurry. president obama has four years. he does not have to have this done in the first year. the only way this will be done right is if we step back and take a breath. host: silver spring, md., on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, senator. thank you for the opportunity. before i watched c-span i thought congress was filled with stupid people -- now that i what i know that the congress is not filled with stupid people. they are smart. what i do not understand is why the congress is so ineffective. guest: that it is a really good

question. it is easily answered. that is, democracy is not efficient. it was not designed to be. it is full of acrimony, this agreement. but the great thing about this country and is the greatest in the world -- the best system ever devised by people -- and it is the people's government -- we debate back and forth and then vote and accept the results. it is the way we do things. for all of the complaints we all have about our country, if you just travel abroad a little bit, when you come home you kiss the ground. it is the best in the world. host: pittsburgh, pa., on the independent mind. caller: -- line

we will lose this partisanship between republicans have their faults and democrats have their weaknesses and their fault. to the senator, i would like to say you sound very partisan trade that disagreeable for american values. when you say you are back and forth, actually what you do it is of no republican. republicans vote one way and democrats vote the other. the last thing is about health care. you mentioned breast cancer. my mother died of breast cancer. my aunt had both her breasts removed. i'm 53, middle aged and middle

income and have worked all my life. all my retirement just paid for two years for my son to go to college. i don't know about the next two years. i have no health insurance. we are working family. i am unemployed now, thanks to all the republican shenanigans and the nafta agreement. likeross perot said, it was a giant sucking sound where it all went overseas. when i will likely get a lump on my breast bridging what will i do? the previous thought was that i will go to a bank, hand them a note and to give me on your money -- when i get a lump on my breast, but will i do? then i will wait for officials to come and get me so that i can go to a federal prison to get my cancer treated. guest: let me respond to your

initial common. thank goodness, when people go to the polls, the vote for those who have the same philosophical bent that they do. but we see issues all the time that are very much philosophical. republicans do think in a free- market way, and democrats look to a government solution for all problems. so, there is no doubt that the two parties have philosophical differences. frankly, the strength of this country comes from the debate between the two. neither party wins 100% of the time. the pendulum swings back and forth. given the strength of this country, we live better than any people could ever have hoped to live, even the rulers and the richest people in centuries

past. we should all be thankful for what we have today. host: winston-salem, north carolina, good morning. caller: good morning, when talking about the expense of health care, we do not need health care reform. we have the best in the world. we do need of the reforms -- medicaidnd medicare need to be reformed because the doctors are not being paid the amount for their services they should be. therefore, when the rest of us go to the doctor we are supplementing to pay for it. but also needs to be reformed are the lawsuits because the doctors have to pay so much to cover them. insurance needs to be reformed because they look at us as

individuals if we do not work for a company. it should be very large groups and even across state lines. do away with pre-existing conditions. guest: those are points well- taken. from day one i have said that before we take on health care we should fix social security, medicare, and medicaid. all three of those giant social programs are good, but they're not the sendestined, sustainable continued in their current position. not only that, but the bill they are talking about makes it worse. they want to reduce medicare benefits. i will not vote for that. i would hate to go home and tell the elderly in my state that i to benefits from them. medicaid is the same. if you talk to any governor and

ask what will happen if they upped the eligibility for medicaid, it will break them. we on the social security will run out of money. those points are well-taken. we have three giant social safety nets which work well. but something must be done about them. instead of writing >> coming up this evening on c- span, the postmaster general on financial problems at the postal service. then, the jewish urate committee chairman on the sonia sotomayor debate going on in the senate. later, remarks at the return ceremony for two u.s.

journalists released from north korea. >> the senate continues to debate the nomination of judge sonia sotomayor to be just as on the supreme court. a final confirmation vote will likely happen before the senate adjourns for its august recess this week. the chamber could also take up legislation that gives $2 billion for the cash for concord program and the bill that promotes tourism to the west. that is live on c-span2. >> of the postal service has reported a third quarter loss of $2.4 million. it expects to lose more than $7 billion by the end of the fiscal year. next, the postmaster general comments on the postal service budget. this is about half an hour.

[inaudible] >> good morning, everyone. let me begin with some opening remarks. as the postal service reaches the final quarter of our fiscal year, it's clear that weakness in the overall economy is continuing to have a profound negative affect on our finances. virtually every element of the mailing industry has been experiencing the effects of reduced employment, reduce spending, and reduced consumer confidence. we see reflected in the mail volume and revenue, with the third quarter adjusted net loss

of $2.4 billion. we will provide you with a larger look at the third quarter results in a few minutes. let me assure you that we have not been standing still in the face of this economic storm. our people have been doing a spectacular job as they work to reduce costs in every corner of the organization. we're well positioned to exceed our goal [unintelligible] today, we have over 37,000 fewer career employees on the rolls than we did at the same time last year. although we project a net loss of $7 billion this year, without these focused efforts, our loss would have been over $12 billion. i am particularly proud of the postal team and it comes to service and customer satisfaction. in the face of severe economic pressures, service performance

has not faltered. in fact, it's only improved. we made it in a bid to customers that we would do everything in our power to maintain excellent service and we stand by that commitment. over the course of this year, we have been very candid with all of our stakeholders regarding the postal service's economic prospects. we have been clear about the causes of the problems and we have been clear about the solutions. the economy, as i mentioned, has taken its toll. huge funding obligations for the retiree health benefits imposed by 2006 federal statute have raised their costs by more than $5 billion a year. we simply cannot afford these costs. legislation to modify these costs was introduced in the house in january. similar legislation was introduced in the senate two weeks ago. both bills have moved out of

committee. if this legislation is enacted, it will improve our solvency, reduce our losses, and help shore up our financial position. . this effort will serve as a gateway for a much-needed, broader debate about the manner in which the postal service can continue to serve the american public in light of recent economic conditions.

but as senator tom carver said, when he introduced his legislation, it is not a silver bullet. there's more that must be done by the postal service and by congress. the postal service will continue to reduce expenses with the goal of eliminating another $3.8 billion from our base in 2010. we are developing and implementing smart, innovative growth strategies like our summer mail sale. new approaches to pricing and easy to use products are showing positive, early results. our ultimate success also depends on structural change. the biggest element is our ability to move from a six day delivery to five day delivery. no one element by itself will be sufficient to meet our short- term and long-term financial challenges. but if we address all the issues

i just described, together they can provide us with the financial stability necessary to preserve the viability of the nation's postal system for many, many years to come. now would like to ask joe to talk about our third quarter financial results. >> thank you, jack. i am glad to meet you all, and want to provide you with a brief summary. you all have the presentation in front of you. just a couple of quick slides to give you a little more detail on what jack mentioned. on slide to you can see the economy starting to show mixed signals, which actually is a good thing relative to the last six to nine months, where most of the signals were negative. we are not reading too much into that yet, but we hope the trend continues. when you turn to slide for, you can see a graph which shows that are decline in volume for mail

has continued. we have 10 quarters of straight declines, and when you adjust for, ability, we have 10 quarters of accelerating declines in million. virtually every class of mail has been affected by the recession. on slide 5 you can see the results for the third quarter ended june 30. we had revenue of 61 $3 billion and a net loss before a workers compensation adjustment of $1.6 billion. we had a non-cash worker's compensation adjustment of $800 million, resulting in an overall adjusted net loss of $2.4 billion for the year. on slide 6 you can see very clearly the job -- the results of the job we are doing to manage the overall decline of

revenues. in the first column you see volume. volume has declined for the nine months ended june 30 at by 12.6% in terms of total volume. we have been able to adjust our variable work hours in the mail processing and customer service areas but over 13% in total. we actually have been able to take more hours out on a percentage basis than the volume of mail actually has this up -- has declined. the folks are doing a remarkable job chasing that volume decline downward. all other areas of labor are decreasing in hours, even though they are primarily fixed in nature. for example, city delivery and rural delivery hours, which about 50% of our overall compensation costs. those folks continue to deliver to 150 million addresses, six days a week. that is primarily a fixed cost. the cost does not vary

significantly, regardless of whether they are carrying four or five letters to each one of those addresses. yet we have been able to decrease those hours by about 5% over the last nine months. on slide 7, you can see that our revenue for the nine months ended june 30 was $52.4 billion, and our overall adjusted net loss was four $0.6 billion. -- $4.6 billion. we have been managing the costs. we have already reduced the total labor work hours by 88 million hours. that is the equivalent of almost 50,000 full-time people. in addition to that, we every negotiated over 300 contracts with suppliers, resulting in over $200 million of cost

reductions, and we have also put on a salary freeze, had a hiring freeze, and have been able to reduce transportation costs three negotiations as well as to having to move lower volumes of mail. the loss for the year is $4.7 billion. we expect a loss for the year up upwards of $7 billion. through this period, we have a 12.6% drop in volume. thank you. >> this chart shows what are your end debt has been carried in 2001, we hit the peak of our debt at $11.3 billion. shortly thereafter, we were put on the high-risk list by the

gao. we worked very hard to get off that list, and you can see we actually got to the point where we had zero debt. since the paea has passed, as well as the recession, which for us started back in 2008, you can see that our debt has increased as a result of both the economy and what has happened with the recession. just as a comparison, what would have happened had we not been paying $5.4 billion in debt? i think you each have a chart that shows in 2007, we actually would have made $3.3 billion. in 2008, would have actually made $2.8 billion versus hefty losses in both years. this year the gap would be only

$1.9 billion. i focus on that only because this payment is very unusual. if we were part of the federal government, and treated as an agency, we would not be paying refunding retiree benefit trust. if we ran the private sector, we also would not be refunding these retiree health benefit payments. there in lies a dilemma. the postal service is a bit of a hybrid. some people call as a government corporation. other people call us a government enterprise. we are not an agency and we do not receive appropriations. although we are required to operate and follow-up procedures -- follow gap procedures, we have exceptions,

and retiree health benefits is one of those exceptions. in addition to that, i would like to point out that if you look back on 2000, we give you a fact she. in 2000 we had 167,000 40070 city carrier rights. we work delivering 5.9 pieces of mail per day per address. today that is down to four 0.1. today we have 630,000 career employees. our peak was 803,000 career employees back in 1999. we have been steadily managing our work force to match the changes that have occurred in terms of mail usage over the years. what has occurred with the economy is unprecedented, and has created a much bigger challenge than we are able to respond to in a very quick

manner. we are trying to balance the need to provide excellent service, and are -- our folks are doing an outstanding job of that, with that need to reduce costs and the obligations of the law that say you have to deliver to every address six days a week. you cannot close post offices for economic reasons. we are trying to navigate our way through what is a challenging period of time within the constraints that the law obligates us to. with that, i will turn it to joanne. >> [inaudible] >> what is your cast position going to be as you move forward rejiggered cash position? how are you managing that >> our

cash position this year, unless legislation passes, we will have a negative cash position at the end of the year of some $700 million. that is why we are working hard with the administration and the senate and house to get legislation that will give us relief from our retiree health benefit payments. this year, the postal service will pay over $7 billion for retiree health benefits. that accommodation of $2 billion for those people who are currently retired, the cost of their benefits, and $5.4 billion into the trust. we will have a negative cash position of $700 billion, assuming that no law changes. >> what is the latest on

[inaudible] >> i am very encouraged about getting legislation passed. there is a bill in the house that has over 300 sponsors, and there is a senate bill that was recently moved through committee. i know that the administration is engaged, and i have spoken to leadership in both the house and senate. they are actively engaged in assuring that some piece of legislation moves through before the end of this fiscal year. >> what happens if that does not come to pass? [unintelligible] >> we have communicated this

issue to the secretary of the treasury. and to the folks on capitol hill. we have been very clear, and they have been very clear with us, that we will continue to deliver the mail, that that will go on uninterrupted. we have also made it very clear to our employees that payroll will not be interrupted. our employees will receive their pay for the hard work they perform. we have also informed the treasury debt, should we come up short, we will not pay the full $5.4 billion into the trust fund this year. we have been very clear about what would happen to all interested parties.

>> that is where the money would be going? >> exactly. the postal service does not want to do anything that would disrupt this economy. there are over $1 trillion that moves through the mail in any given year. we or the hub of an industry that employs 8 million americans. we have no intention of doing anything that would disrupt the flow of mail. however, on the optimistic side, i am fairly confident that action will be taken -- legislative action will be taken before the end of the year. in the event it does not, that is our game plan. >> you would still have to work with the hill on some return? >> as i said in my opening remark, when it comes to the

postal service, a think we are facing a public policy issue. -- i think we are facing a public policy issue. how should the postal service operate, not just this year or next year, but it is time to set a path for the future in terms of our business model, and provide for usurp -- universal service for americans for many years to come, but to adjust the business model that we have to provide greater flexibility to grow the business, greater flexibility to become more productive, to deal with some of our legacy costs like retiree health benefits, and make sure that whatever the payments are, they are affordable, and that we look at the service that is offered by the postal service. one that i put forth that needs to be debated is 6 day to 5 day

delivery. there has been reduced demand for services that we offer. >> the house and senate bills are different in their approach. do you have reverence for one over the other, and why? -- you have a preference for one over the other? >> i have a preference that legislation move. the bills are somewhat different, but they both seek to help us, and they both are focused on the short run. i see them as, if you think of it this way, phase one of global be a multi faced legislative effort is yet of what will be a multi phase to a legislative effort to put the postal service on the proper path going forward. >> a report put out last week

projected another federal deficit for 2010, after $8 billion of cost reductions. how much is planning to cut next year, and where those cuts come from? >> our plan is to cut $3.8 billion next year. 80% of our cost is labor, so the bulk of the savings are labor associated. we continue to have opportunities to write size our delivery network -- to right- size our delivery network. we are working of letter carriers jury adjust our number of city routes. we have been bringing those down on a steady basis. we continue to have opportunities within our plants to do some consolidations. we are taking ships and consolidating -- taking shifts

and consolidating tours. the bulk of it is labor associated. there are other savings, as joe dusjust described. there are adjustments to the transportation network, but the bulk of our labor related. >> are you looking at facility closures? >> some might, but it is modest at best. the way to think of this is that it would be more associated with tour consolidations, adjustment to processes within facilities, and basic staffing and scheduling. the opportunities are there. we know where they are, and we are modifying within the constraints of our contracts are

employees' tours of duty and days of work. there'll be some consolidation is, but again, the bulk of savings are associated with labor. >> on that consolidation, at a house hearing last week, i think there were four different numbers shared about the number of facilities you were considering closing. it went from 3000 to about 1000 to about 677 on the list. what is the process, and what do you say to lawmakers who have expressed a lot of concern that you guys have not been very straight with them about which facilities are going to be closed? would you consider some kind of commission that would go state- by-state, city by city, saying these are the ones that will be

closed? >> let me first discussed the process. what we are undertaking right now is something that has occurred multiple times in my 30 year career with the postal service. there is a 2006 law that requires us to be transparent. when we were looking at our multi coded cities, for the most part, cities that have multiple postal facilities within them, like chicago -- it has multiple stations, branches, finance units, over the course of time we have done this review, but we have never had a law that said the review had to be done in a transparent way. we filed paperwork with the postal regulatory commission that said we were undertaking this national review of these

larger cities to look at where our facilities were, determine whether or not they were needed, determine whether there were opportunities to consolidate backroom operations , and this is something that has been done over the course of the years. there is someone on the phone that is a little bit too close to the microphone. we are hearing some very heavy breathing on this end. [laughter] we notified the regulator that we were going to conduct this review. we put some testimony before them to give them detailed information. there is no predetermined outcome. what happened was, over the course of filing that testimony,

and then a hearing that occurred last week, as they ramp up to that hearing, we were asked by the committee to provide an update on where we stood. we were in ant from 3200 facilio under 800. it changes every day. we provided that information to the committee, not necessarily thinking there would be public disclosure. the regulator asked for a copley of it, and published that day. that has created a bit a firestorm, because there is an assumption that everything that was published on that list for facilities that were going to close. the fact of the matter is, the list includes some facilities that have not even been looked at. in other cases, there was a

preliminary review that said there would be follow-up. at the end of the day, my expectation is that we will consolidate the back room of some stations around the country. in cases where we have facilities that are blocks apart, we may not need two retail outlets. i expect we have some pretty valuable property in downtown areas. if we are able to consolidate backrooms and there is value to the property, we may move out of expensive property and move to a business run in a retail outlet that we continue to provide access for customers in that area. again, i think that, if anything, the matter that we have been transparent has created a lot of attention. i think it is great that people

care. if this happened and no one reacted to it, i think it would be concerned as the postmaster general that people really did not have any for the postal service. i think this points out the fact that people do have a need for the postal service. it is reinforcing in all of our minds that people like to be able to go to our facilities and conduct their business with a human being behind the counter to answer any questions they might have. we are working very, very hard to provide access in whatever form it can. our internet site is being improved, and when all is said and done, it will be world class. we want people to be able to think of their computer as the post office. we want them to be able to walk into our facilities and conduct business at our automated postal centers, or to be able to go when conduct business with our

retail associates behind a traditional post a counter. -- postal counter. >> can you commit to 200 postal facilities that will be closed? >> there is no prejudicial bone in my body when it comes to that review. we are reviewing everything in the postal service to determine whether or not there are opportunities to cut costs without affecting service to the american public. that person probably has a lot more knowledge than i do. i do not have a number. i will tell you this, there will be a local review. it will move up to the area offices, and we have nine of those around the country. then it will move to the headquarters, where it will be reviewed to make sure that no one is being overly aggressive. i cannot commit to a number. i only know that we have

whittled that 3200 down to about 780, and that further review is underway. >> is the current financial situation the kind of circumstance that you would consider an exigency circumstance where you might seek to be able to break the cpi cap on rate increases? >> when it comes to the situation before us, obviously it is a big challenge we are facing. i think everything has to be on the table. decisions about rates are made by the board of governors of the postal service. i can tell you this. there have been some rumors out there that we are going to raise our rates double digits. i can assure you that this

postmaster general will not be making a recommendation along those lines to the board of governors. to precipitously raise rates would drive mail out of the system, and would only compound the problem we are currently dealing with. >> if you were to attempt to invoke this, is this something you understand you have to wait until next year, until the end of the normal cycle that you have developed, or is it something that could be done at any time? >> my belief, if i read the rules right, and i am not a lawyer, my belief is that you can do it at any time. i am not saying that is what we would do. i am simply saying that as a matter of law, i believe we could ask for it any time. that provision was put in for emergency purposes.

when that part of the law was being discussed, it was shortly after we had just gone through 9/11 and then anthrax. i think it was -- the perception was there might be an emergency would have to react to. i think the law was very liberal in terms of when we might ask for that adjustment. again, keep in mind writ -- my response to your first question. raising rates will only drive mail out of the system. it would not be helpful at this time. but again, that is not to preclude that come next may, there might not be a modest adjustment in prices. we might have to use an exigent process to make that adjustment.

>> back to the cash shortfall you are projecting by year end. even without making the retiree health benefit payment, your still going to come up short, according to your own projections, right? >> no. the payment is $5.4 billion. i said we were $700 million short. that is a lot bigger than $700 million. thank you for coming today. this was a little bigger than our normal quarterly get together, but we are happy others were available to join us. thank you very much.

>> coming up tonight on c-span, senator patrick leahy, sonia sotomayor or debate. then remarks at the return ceremony for two u.s. journalist released from north korea. that is followed by president obama's remarks. >> now, patrick leahy. he talks about the debate in the senate on the nomination of sonia sotomayor your to the supreme court and other issues. it is 30 minutes. leahy, a member of the senate judicial committee. i want to ask you about sonia sotomayor. there is a story talking about the white house meeting between

president obama and senate democrats. they say there was so little suspense, the sun -- subject barely came up when they met. this is not even an issue, patrick leahy said, as he returned. guest: actually, it was done. i was sitting next to the president at lunch, and we talked about a little bit, but there is nothing to worry about. he made a good nomination, and she is going to be confirmed. it will be a bipartisan vote, it will be a significant vote. host: are you surprised by the number of republican to have said that they will not support her nomination? guest: yes, some have taken the attitude that no matter who the president nominated, they would

have voted no. sometimes i'd joke, even if he had nominated moses, they would not vote for him. her qualifications -- after all, she has had more experience on the public bench compared to any nominee to the supreme court in the last decade. she has the highest possible rating from the apa. she has a tremendous reputation as a prosecutor. as a prosecutor. she has as a mainstream judge just about by every organization. if she had been nominated by a republican president, i suspect that everyone would be voting for her. i appreciate those who have bucked their priority on this,

despite being told to vote against her by their party. i will also say this to complement the republican senators -- some of the leaders of the republican party referred to her as being equivalent to the head of the kkk. none of these senators use that terminology, and they expressed a different reason for being against her. i thought that was very respectful. i agree that both sides need as much time to ask questions. i appreciate the fact that we were able to have all of the questions we wanted. i appreciate the fact that at

least one republican will be voting for her, and that is lindsey gramm. he made an interesting comment tha, similar to a, that i made about chief justice roberts. he said this is not a person that he would have recommended to a republican president, but elections have consequences. we have a democratic president, and she is qualified, so he is going to vote for her. that is the same thing i said about justice roberts. it was not someone that i would have nominated for a democrat, but he was qualified, so i voted for him. i went to get the party leadership for doing that. host: i want to follow up on one question. one of the side debate is what this would do for hispanic voters.

there is a story talking about republican opposition. a latina strategist goes on to say -- guest: i think that is the way they see it. if she had been nominated by a republican president, they would be appointing her because she is so extraordinarily qualified as a prosecutor, a trial judge, then a court of appeals judge. she will be the only nominee who had currently served on the u.s. supreme court. she does have a compelling life story. her father died when she was young, her mother worked very

hard to raise her and her brother. he became a doctor, she became a lawyer. she moved from the projects, learned english. it is the american dream, the sort of thing that most immigrants will tell their children, if you work hard, you can succeed in america. she did that. now many hispanic communities are saying, why are they trying to close the door on her? there will be a rally here in washington today by a number of civil rights groups and hispanic groups, and frankly, i understand why they feel that way. i have seen letters about them in the recd, i will speak about them today. they have a great sense of pride about this woman, and they showed. host: when is the final vote

expected? guest: i suspect some time tomorrow. she will be confirmed in a bipartisan vote. usually the supreme court comes in in the first week in october, but this year they will come in in september. host: first phone call from benton, arkansas. caller: i am troubled by what i perceive to be in double standard. when clarence thomas was nominated, you tried to fry him on the judiciary committee. he was not the type of black person you wanted. but in no way did the blacks ever say, shame on you, democrats, for trying to ruin democrats. but when republicans say something about sonia sotomayor's decision about that firefighter case, when it was clearly obvious that they passed the test and were not given the promotion because they were

white -- oh, no, that is not something that white people should say anything about. when someone both against sonia sotomayor, you always talk about it like you just did, because she is hispanic. i think this is a double standard. guest: of course, i voted against him because i thought he did not tell the truth in the confirmation hearings. i said so at the time. you may have missed the beginning of the program but i said none of the republican senators have talked the way that you described. that was republican leadership. you have also misstated the results of the firefighter case. she was bound by supreme court

decision and following precedent that mandated the decision. republican and democratic appointees came out with the decision based on the previous decision. the supreme court, in a 5-4 decision, changed the president -- precedent. host: john, on the independent line, new york. caller: i will make this as brief as possible. regarding judge sonya manner -- sonia sotomayor, i was not happy with her answers. i thought she danced around answers.

guest: what do you not like? caller: i do not want to make that the subject of my call, i want to talk about health care. we have not heard much from you relating to the health care program. to make some comments and then get your response. i do not think we need a major overhaul of the health care system. of the few issues we are addressing, we could cut costs and still maintain a healthy system. i also do not hear anything about addressing the enormous amount of fraud in medicare and medicaid which is in the billions. if that issue was focused on more aggressively, i think that would save an enormous amount of money. guest: one of the reasons you have not heard much from me is i'm not in the committees that handle health care. i have been busy on the senate judiciary committee.

i have passed legislation in another area that the president will be signing into law which will be protecting consumers in mortgage areas. there is more than just saying, we need to go after them. why is prescription medication costing more in the united states and virtually any other country? why can't some hospitals cut costs by having electronic records? that saves money, we need everyone to do that. i am pleased to see the american medical association, who had originally opposed any sort of reform, no working with the white house on a reform plan. one thing is obvious is we cannot continue with this. we are spending more than any other country on earth for health care.

our people, in almost every single index there is, we are way behind in almost every category dealing with the help of our population. host: what are the major issues your committee will be turning to in the future? guest: we have some nominations come up in the future. some of them have been blocked. i do not know why. we are going to have what will be a hot button item, immigration reform. i do not feel anybody feels the immigration system is working the way it should. most republicans and democrats feel like it is not working correctly, but how do you put it together? i agreed strongly with george bush on this, to have a

comprehensive reform bill, rather than a piecemeal one. some of the proposal that president bush had, had they been passed, i think we would have been better off. there is no perfect answer. with a country as large and diverse as ours, it is difficult, but we need to do something. there are significant antitrust matters. i would like to see a change in the cocaine issue, which makes no sense. we are going to have a pretty full plate. host: john, on the democratic line, from washington, d.c. caller: 5 was watching the confirmation hearings, and i think you did a great job.

as far as town halls and go, everyone should be able to show identification before they enter to show that they are part of the district. it is not fair that republicans can bu is in people to block the message. guest: we only have 600,000 people in my state, so it is different, and everyone knows each other. we go to the grocery store and people discuss any issue. even on sunday when i am putting gas in my car, going to the farmers' market. people have the chance to talk. i think it is discouraging when

you have a small group of people who are bused in to make a big scene at a town meeting. usually you have veterans and people who are concerned about health care, people concerned about family members in the military in afghanistan and iraq, or they are concerned about the environment, and that would actually like to ask their member of commerce -- member of congress several questions. then you have a small group who want to shout and carry on about the president not being born here, although everyone knows he was born in the united states. i think is unfortunate. fortunately, in vermont, we tend not have that. in vermont, people know there are only three members of our delegation. we are easily approachable. that is one of the nice things about government in our state. everybody is very approachable.

republican line. called for, virginia -- culpepper, va. caller: i am sure you are familiar with "casablanca" and everyone is shocked about gambling. that is how i described your attitude but these republicans. my goodness, i am shocked. i am sure you can understand. this is my question. i am a child of the 1960's, raised by the color blind, as far as race knows. can you understand when someone says a wise latina person, or any other race, could make a better decision than a white man or a black man, or whoever it is, that those kinds of words

deeply troubled me. i was raised to see the world without race. that should be our goal, a colorblind society. guest: were you upset when clarence thomas used similar words when a republican president nominated him in his hearings? host: i think they hung up. guest: she was so far out of context, i am not really going to answer. she said completely, t law is what covers. just about every nominee has spoken about their background. justice alito talked about his background. immigrant members of his family. of course, that shapes his

thinking. i found nothing wrong with that. with clarence thomas, the republican president talked about his background, how that shaped his thinking. we are not all the same. even as members of the senate are not the same. her answer was, over and over again, ultimately end completely, the law is what is in control. every independent study on her shows that that is how she judges cases. host: next phone call, michigan. jim on the independent line. caller: when will you folks who call themselves leaders, stepped out of the way? you have ruined reasonable planning opportunities for our

country in favor of your selfish political gains. when will you any other political hacks get out of the way and put regular people first? most people in the country are not political people -- not members of any political party. guest: a question like that does not really bear answering. host: royal oakes, michigan. sabrina, on the democratic line. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you for working for the american people. i am calling for a couple of reasons. i am for the single payer system for health care because nine years ago today i was involved in a high-speed

rollover accident that has not allow me to live the way i used to. my husband pays, with his employer, half of our medical insurance which is over seven down dollars a year. copiague it is about $500 to $1,000 a month in addition to pay for health care. since we have all these expensive -- expenses due to this accident, and i cannot buy my own insurance because his employer has their own, they will not let me by my own, and now we may have to file bankruptcy because we cannot cover the high cost of health care. it is a crime that people are calling in against a single payer systems when they probably do not pay a nickel for their

own health care as it is. guest: you raise one of the most troubling things in this country. we find bankruptcies in the middle class. the highest percentage is occurring in the middle class because of health care bills. study after study shows that. that is one more example why we need a better system. no other industrialized nation faces these kinds of problems, and most industrialized nations have health care people. i was at the luncheon yesterday with the president, and he made a strong pitch that we come back this fall to work together, try to figure out how to get a health care plan. the senate and the two major committees worked very hard on this, and bipartisan support has

been achieved. host: i also want to get your thoughts on the cash for clunkers program that is expected to be extended. there is a story on it. "there is no sound economic reason to produce cars that consumers are not willing to pay for in full. legislators are planning to subsidize the cost of cars and this will only postpone job losses in the auto sector. the other than the lang the inevitable, the government should invest." will you vote for the extension? guest: i do not know, and i spoke to the secretary of transportation last night. i want to know how well this works. i have seen a lot of money going into bailouts of banks, and i'm

not sure that worked very well. this one seems to be working, but i want to see how. my wife and i each have a car that is almost 10 years old, and they get pretty good gas mileage. i am not about to trade in to get two miles per gallon more. i am not trying to avoid your question, but i have gone back and forth on this. i spoke to ray lahood last night, perhaps again today. i am not sure if this is the best idea or not. guest: next phone call from north carolina. barbara on the republican line. caller: i wanted to say the hearings went pretty well. when republican to oppose someone for a judicial seat, they complain about her

philosophies and issues, the way that she voted. democrats go after personal character. you said you did not vote for clarence thomas because he lied. sonia sotomayor was not very consistent. she disagreed with statements she previously made. i have a problem with her because she had an issue where she would not answer the question about americans having a right to self-defense. she also has had multiple cases that have gone to the supreme court that have been overturned. i have a way about -- i have a problem of all the way that she rules. guest: she has had over 3300 cases. 98% of them have not been overturned. those people in baseball -- most people in baseball would like a

record like that. host: next phone call. richard on the republican line. caller: my concern is the voting process. many people in the country are losing confidence in our voting system. we have organizations like acorn who are now being investigated or indicted in 13 states in being considered in 14 others. yet, i see the house of representatives chairman, john conyers, fiduciary committee refuses to investigate the problem. my question to you, as chairman of the judiciary committee in the senate, will you put forth an initiative to protect our voting system, our belt system? many people i talk to believe the whole system is rigged.

guest: after seeing the mistakes in the bush-board elections -- gore elections, i think we saw how poorly the system is run. what bothers me the most, -- first, i do think that you can have a fair system. i do not like the idea of having just electronic voting. i want to see a paper trail with it, so that when you have the recount, you can look at the ballots. that will protect both democrats and republicans. what bothers me the most is seeing low turnouts in the elections. i was too busy, it was raining,

so on and so forth. i am proud of my own state where we have one of the highest voter turnouts in the country, but we have to do better. in some places you see people lining up at 2:00 in the morning, insuring that they have a place to vote. i think we need to see the same thing around the country. we need to be consistent. we need a consistent way to check what was done. states will have to determine how people vote, but they ought to have a way to check the record after. i would like to see more done to get people to comeut and vote to begin with. host: last phone call. stephanie, on the democratic line. caller: good morning. i am glad to get a chance to talk to you i think -- talk to

you. i think you are doing a great job on the judiciary committee. we have a great candidate. the other thing i wanted to say to us, vermont had done a great job with their senator. i am from south carolina, so i really do not have too many senators that represent my point of view, so i kind of watched you guys -- watch you guys. about these town hall meetings, where they are busing people in, i would hope that there would be some security at the locations. we are grown-ups, and we need to do something here. guest: we have not had this

problem in vermont, but people ought to be heard who actually care about the issue. when you have so many people taking time off of work, needing to get babysitters, to come to these town hall meetings to hear these matters, they do not need someone coming in from elsewhere who just wants to shout and disrupt the hearing. yelling that the president was born in kenya. we do not need to these things. if they want to demonstrate and they want to go somewhere to do that, that is fine, they have the right to do that. but these people who are talking but these people who are talking about health the people want to talk about