there has been a lot of work over the last six months and now in congress to focus on economic boom abilities in iran. particularly diligent vulnerability because the import 40% of the gas we use every year -- they use every year from abroad. there are two embargoes that might pass that we should starve them of gasoline. is it the silver bullet? i don't think so. they have a lot of black market potential, alternate suppliers. but it is the proper start of the conversation. we should be thinking about what we can do to ratchet up the cost of this program to the iranians. what is happening now is the opposite.

. . those in gulf are watching what iran is doing because they're prepared to go back to business. they know once we are fully engaged in negotiations there will be a green light. that is dangerous. the treasury department has been a lot of important work of the the last couple of years and preventing iran from interacting with the international market. we would not want negotiations with them to roll back that progress. host: ilan berman is with the american foreign policy the parma. thanks for joining us. "washington journal" gets under way every day at 7:00 a.m. tomorrow neil king will be our guest. he had a row yesterday about the

white houseczars. chuck is the editor of a new series with the ap of the next five weeks called "nil down legacy" looking at the one-year impact of lehman brothers. gary will join us, the chairman of the commodities trading platform. rachel is an editor of the website. thanks for being with us on this sunday. enjoy the rest of your weekend and have a great week ahead. ♪ . .

>> on monday, the house conversation authorization for nearly $3 billion for energy dmt based research. also, conversation of a measure that would change federally subsidized student loans. the house gavels in monday at 12:30 p.m. eastern for general speeches with legislative work starting at 2:00 eastern. live on c-span. the senate also returns on monday to work on fiscal year 2010 federal spending. senators are considering 122 billion for transportation and housing programs. they'll gavel in at 2:00 for general speeches and then at

3:00 they will begin business. live coverage. >> health care legislation continues to be a moving target, particularly in the u.s. senate, and that's why we're pleased this week to have a member of the gang of six, senator jeff bingaman as our guest on "newsmakers." here to question him, jeff young, and michael coleman. senator, i understand that you have just left a meeting of the gang of six. could you give us an update on the progress gregs of your talks? >> there's not a lot of news to report. i do think senator baucus has continued to solicit input from us as to whealed include in his proposal or his mark that he has indicated he will release next week. he has also said that the week after next, i believe on monday of the following week, we will go ahead and mark up

legislation in the finance committee, which i believe will at least start with the package of proposals that we've been talking about. and of course everyone will have a chance to propose amendments and additions, and i'm sure there will be a lot of that >> are you you the point yet where you agree with the basic structure for health care legislation? >> well, the basic structure that the president outlined the other night where we tried to expand coverage, where we tried to reform the payment system and medicare, where we tried to reform the insurance markets, that basic structure i think is generally agreed to, as the way to proceed. there's a lot of uncertainty about the details of that, and i don't want to suggest that everybody has signed on to all the details or signed on to a

final package. that's not the case. senator baucus is going to put this out, as i understand it, as his chairman's mark, and then there will be a chance, as i say, for everyone to offer amendments to the extent that they still have concerns. and of course the full committee has not been part of a lot of these discussions and they will have a lot of amendments i'm sure >> does it hurt the senate and the gang of six to be a month or so behind where the house is when it comes to health care legislation? >> i tend to think the month has been pretty we will spent in the sense that we have been working on the detail of this legislation. of course the finance committee has the responsibility to pay for whatever is done by way of either re new or offsets of spending elsewhere, and that's been a lot of the focus. and that's a very important part of what needs to be done. the president talks about not signing a bill if it adds to the deficit and about

controlling the future growth in health care costs. down the road. those are, those have been central focuses of our discussions and i hope that will be reflected in the bill. i'm confident it will be reflected. >> i think all the other questions that i have, i'd like to ask you what is your definition of success here? what will you consider a good piece of legislation, a legislative victory here? what does that look like to you? >> well, i think success would consist of a major reform of the health care system. and by that, i think it's the elements again that the president talked about the other night. i think we do need to reform the insurance markets so that we don't have companies continuing to deny coverage for

preexisting conditions, continuing to refuse to sell policies to folks who they determine are sick or likely to get sick. so that's part of it. the expansion of coverage. we've got an awful lot of people, the statistics just came out the other day that my state of new mexico, we are the second worst off in the country for the number of uninsured, and, therefore, we need to find a way to provide coverage for that group. this legislation would do that. i think that's very important. and then the payment reforms. in the federally funded programs in medicare and medicaid, in order to eliminate some of the inefficiencies that exist there. >> go ahead. >> the simplest way to put this question is you've been in those meetings. you're in the room with the two

other democrats and the three republicans trying to figure all this out. from that advantage point, after the friday meeting, the last meeting of this week, what is your gut feeling? do you think you're going to get a deal? >> well, i think what we've got is legislation that in many respects is acceptable to all of us. and, frankly, i can support what i believe the chairman is planning to put out by way of a mark. that doesn't mean i wouldn't support some proposed improvements in it if that opportunity arises in committee, and i think that's probably true of all of our group in that all of us would want perhaps to see some changes in what the chairman proposes. i can't, as i said before, i can't speak for any of the other members as to whether they would support the final package that senator baucus puts out. i think the real question is at the end of the markup in the finance committee, do we have a

bill that we are then reporting to the floor that democrats and republicans can support. and i hope very much that's the case. i don't know that's the case at this point. >> it seems to me, senator, that in recent days this gang of six almost seems more like a gang of four with senators eensie and grassly disapvowing the key parts of this. can you actually get a bipartisan bill or support for a bipartisan bill if they're not on board with the bazic frame work or certainly key elements of the proposal? >> well, each senator of course makes up his or her own mind on the legislation. and i do think there are some strongly held views by each of the group of six. so i can't tell you that -- i think i would like to see all of the republicans who are

participating in our discussions able to support a final package. i don't know if that will be the case or not. i think, again, we'll probably have to wait until the end of that markup and then they will look at what the committee has finally settled on to decide. i don't know that's going to happen, but i think it may well. >> assuming you don't get ultimately the republican support you need to pass a bill, you were one of the first or maybe the first to say that you would support using this controversial recksillation budget maneuver to pass the legislation. as that's supposed to be legislation that affects the deficit yet you say this will be deficit neutral. how would that qualify? what might you include in a reconciliation bill? >> frankly, i haven't sat down with the parliamentarian to try to understand what would qualify to be included in a

reconciliation bill and what would not. but my hope is that we are able to report a bill out of the finance committee that doesn't just -- isn't just deficit neutral but that in fact does reduce the deficit. and if that's the case, then much of that legislation would presumably be -- would quality of life to be included in a recksillation bill. >> you're on both the finance and the health committee. for you, what are the essential elements of a health care reform bill? >> well, i think they're somewhat the ones i've described. i think we need to reform the insurance markets so that we don't have in the future the kinds of abuse that -- of individual policy holders that we have -- that we currently suffer with. >> so like a precondition? >> yeah. i think clearly the president

said that he supports legislation that would outlaw the issuing of policies that excludes illnesses that arise because of preexisting condition. i think that's a good thing to do. i don't think we should have those kinds of policies sold in the future. now, i do think the president also has made the point repeatedly and i think it needs to be made in that if a person has got a policy they like right now they can keep that. they can add their family members to that. and we have that specified in both the health committee legislation and i believe it will be in the finance bill that we wind up passing to. so i think that's very important. so the people's current coverage is not updiesed but in the future if they want a new policy, if they want a different policy, it would have to meet certain requirements and this preexisting condition is one of those key.

so that's part of it. i do think it's important that we do go ahead and expand coverage to some of those folks, most of those folks who are uninsured now in order to reduce the cost shifting that is currently occurring. people who have insurance now are paying something over $1,000 a year on the average family polls yes -- policy to cover the medical expenses that are incurred by people without coverage. and we need to try to eliminate as much as we can. >> through a public option? >> not necessarily but i favor a public option. i voted for a public option. and i think that the way that the legislation is contemplated both in the health committee and in the house passed bill and the bill we're working on in the finance committee is that you would expand coverage

and you would implement these reforms. one additional way to try to bring competition to the market is tro provide a public option. and that would be another seller of health care -- of health insurance that would be set up as a nonprofit. i think that would be a good thing to do. i think it would encourage competition. and i think it would help keep down the growth of premiums in the future. but even without that, there are other provisions in here that also try to accomplish those same objectives. >> if a public option is not in the finance bill or the health bill, would you support it? >> well, again, there are a lot of important reforms that are in this overall package that i

think we ought to try to get across the finish line. and i'm not one who says unless you do this particular thing i won't take the other thing that is you're doing that i also support. that to me is not a very constructive position to take. so i think we should get the very best package we can. i hope we can include a public option in that. and we need to just see where the votes are as we move forward. >> speaking of the public option, most democrats of course do support it even in the senate. there are some who don't and there are some other whose haven't really said one way or the other. do you feel as though -- senator baucus had you and all the other finance committee democrats in a meeting right after the week after the senate returned from the recess. is your feeling that among democrats on that committee that there's enough support

within, among yourself to report out the bill basically as senator baucus had proposed it whether or not you get republican votes? some of your colleagues came out of the meeting telling us they had some serious problems. >> i'm not familiar with what they were alluding to specifically that they had problems with in wheafs proprosing. as -- what he was proposing. as i say this is a multistep process and senator baucus has indicated he is going to put out his mark and then we have a procedure in the committee where everybody gets to file amendments, proposed amendments that they want to call up to change what he has proposed. and then we have the markup itself where everybody gets to bring those amendments up and get a vote on them. so i can't predict for you precisely where we'll wind up at the end. i do think there's strong sentiment on the part of the democrats i've talked to on our committee in favor of doing some type of comprehensive

health care reform because the need is there to accomplish it. and the growth in health care costs absent health care reform is just unsustainable. i think the president tried to make that case strongly last wednesday night. >> do you think that a health care reform bill with all the other elements that i've described, insurance market reforms, all the thing that is you've talked about here, do you think a bill that looks like that that does not have a public option in it can pass the senate? >> well, i don't know, frankly. i don't know if it can or not. but, again, i think this is a multi-stage process and the first stage is to get a bill out. senator baucus is committed to do that next week. the second stage is to do the markup of that legislation. the third stage is going to be for senator reid, as the majority leader, to decide what

portions of the finance bill, if we're able to report a bill out of finance, what portions of that to bring to the senate floor, what portions of the health committee legislation to bring to the senate floor. he's going to have to merge those two. just as the speaker, speaker pelosi, is going to have to do that with the three committee that is have acted in the house. and that's how we'll actually get a bill on the senate floor for conversation. >> senator, one of the thing that is as you know republicans have been clamoring for is tort reform, the idea of limiting medical mall practice awards. president obama seemed to kind of throw that bone out there if other night in his speech, although he was a little vague. your democratic colleague from new mexico said he thought tort reform should be on the table as part of the discussion. what's your view? the gang of six doesn't seem to be doing much with that. >> it's very much a part of the

ongoing debate and the president did talk about it and talked about what he is intending to have the secretary of health and human services proceed with in the way of demonstration programs around the country. there are proposals that are clearly going to be brought up in our finance committee deliberations to deal with the problem of tort reform and getting away from so much defensive medicine which the president also talked about. so i think it's an issue and it's a valid issue to be discussed. and, again, we'll just have to see where the votes are when we start having votes in the committee. >> is it something you could support? >> i can support some provisions related to tort reform. others i would not. but i've got to see the specifics of them in order to

make a judgment. >> i've been told that in the room in the meetings with the gang of six that -- well, for one thing i think it's pretty clear that you among the six are the strongest supporter of a public option. i don't know if you'd agree with that but it seems that way, that particularly since you voted for the bill in the health care committee that had that in there, you talk about how you favor it. although you've said it's not the be all and end all, the way the president described it in his speech the other night. in addition to which, my understanding is that when it comes to making sure that the subsidies for insurance for low and middle income people are adequate and the benefits are good, that you're maybe the strongest voice in favor of those things. and what i wanted to ask was, do you feel as though you have a special responsibility to represent the work that you and your colleagues did in the health committee and to represent maybe the more liberal point of view among senate democrats when you're in those meetings?

>> well, i don't feel that i have a particular responsibility. i'm basically just representing my own point of view which i represented when we did the bill in the health committee as well. i do think that if we're going to have a package of -- if we're going to have a requirement on people which of course we're talking about doing, a requirement that people obtain coverage if they can afford it, then we need to help them to afford it. and particularly low income, moderate income individuals. and so that's been a focus of our discussions and i think we're doing reasonably well in that regard. there are significant differences between what the health committee has proposed in that regard, what the house has proposed in that regard, and what we're likely to wind up with in the finance committee. and of course the finance committee effort is constrained by the need to pay for whatever we do.

that's a big difference between the finance committee and what else has gone forward. >> earlier you talked about the bill not only be deficit neutral but maybe helping to reduce the deficit. i was back in new mexico coffering these hall meetings. that seemed to be one of the biggest scoffing points, when somebody said that. how do you save that money? where are you going to say that money? can you explain a little bit how you arrive at that? >> the president made the point fairly well in his speech that when you look ahead and say what's going to happen to the federal budget deficits in the future, the biggest growth item in the budget deficits is health care spending, and particularly on medicare. someone on medicaid as well. and that is driven by the increase in the growth in health care costs throughout the society. so we're trying to put in place

provisions that will rein in the growth in health care costs and i think the president's example was that if you could reduce the growth in health care costs as much as 1/10 of 1%, you would save $4 trillion. and i don't know what period of time he was talking about. >> ten years. >> well, i'm not sure about the accuracy of all of it, but i do think that bringing everyone uses the phrase bending the cost curve. if you reduce the growth in health care costs even a modest amount, you save enormous amounts in the federal budget. >> where are you going to achieve most of those reduction sns where do you save that money? >> i think a lot of the growth in the federal budget is i think most experts would say is a result of overutilization of

the system. and when you look at it and say how do you discrverage some of that overutilization of the system, one of the things and again the president talked about this is companies selling health care policies that are so expensive that there's no dedoesn'tible, there's no co-pays, there's really no disincentive to anybody to just camp in their doctor's office even if their health situation doesn't justify that. so what we're talking about, what the president mentioned the other night was putting a tax on these very high end insurance policies so as to discourage companies from issuing those. have them pay an excise tax if they want to issue a policy where a family policy would be over $22,000 in premiums each

year or something. the average in new mexico is about $11,500 each year. so we're talking about a pretty rare fid small group of policies, but it does, according to experts, help us reduce the overutilization of the system, help us bring down the growth in health care costs. >> senator, are you satisfied with the level of political and legislative support that you've gotten from president obama and from majority leader reid on this issue? >> oh, yeah. i think the president has made this his top priority. he's been very up front about that. he's been in regular communication with us when i was working on the bill we reported out of the health committee. he was in regular communication. he's been in regular communication with us in the leadup to the markup in the finance committee. and, of course, his chief of staff, rahm emanuel and others

on his staff, the secretary of health and human services, they've all been very hands on trying to be helpful. and ofpk -- of course, senator reid his position is he wants us to move ahead so that he can then take on this job of merging the two bills and bringing something to the floor. he strongly is in favor of accomplishing health care reform. >> and he's endorsed cooperatives. >> i saw that, and the proposal on cooperatives of course ken conrad from north dakota has put that forward as an alternative to a strict public option. but as another way to bring competition into the health insurance marketplace, and i think depending upon how it's implemented it could be quite effective in bringing competition. as i say, my preference, i've

always said this. my preference would be to do the kind of public option we've adopted in the health committee. but if that's not something we can get the votes to do, then this idea of co-ops is certainly something to explore and it could serve the same purpose to a large extent. >> jeff young, one more question. >> over the course of these months when you've been having these meetings in the gang of six and finance committee, you've been sort of the quiet one. senator baucus is chairman. he talks to the press and he is on television. senator grassley, senator ensly, they're much more vocal about the problems they have and they've been much more in the mix politically. i just wanted to ask you what your thinking behind that is. you've taken a different approach publicly and i wonder if you can talk about that. >> well, i just sort of thought that i could be most effective in the discussions