the mayo clinic. bertha -- bert bell lewis, the head of acorn. washington journal starts now. . >> i saw this myself and the late 1970's and sent to cisco, this kind of rhetoric was very

frightening and it gave a climate in which we -- in which violence took place, so i wish that we would all again curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made, understanding that some of the people, the years it is falling on are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume. but again, our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe, but i also think they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause. host: you have been watching politics over the last couple of weeks, a couple of months. do you think the political rhetoric is overblown? 202-737-0002 for democrats, 202- 737-0001 for republicans, and

all others, 202-628-0205. if you have called any c-span program in the last 30 days, please hold off so that others can get in. you can also send us a tweet at twitter.com/cspanwj. "pelosi took care to say she does not think the debate has crossed into dangerous territory. our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe, but i also think they have to take responsibility for any insight and they may cause, is what she said her press conference. in "usa today," the " papers and some people on polite society and on political rhetoric. this is from the "report louisiana times." "we value authenticity even when it made others uncomfortable, but sometimes that is ok. but keeping it real does not

equal rudeness." victor davis hanson, the author and political commentary and and historian. "over the last three decades was so vicious attacks on ronald reagan and on bill clinton, and a tough replies in turn. but recently the bush's rhetoric has escalated far beyond anything in the past. the smears seem reminiscent more of the brawl and on the eve of the civil war or the nastiness during the 1960's that took decades to heal. no one knows what the rules of engagement are now. remember that while we are shouting at each other, the country is at war in piling up debt at the rate of $two trillion a year, while rivals and enemies abroad are smiling as never before." that is victor davis hanson in "usa today." here is the tweet from fred patterson, "the right seems hell bent on the total destruction of the obama administration, political rhetoric, motivated by

his race." rosedale, new york. sean, democrat, do you think the political rhetoric has been recently overblown? caller: a lot of the stuff that does not get pointed out in the media, if you look at some of the youtube clips or other blogs, is getting really intense, and there is a fringe, but it is also going up to the highest levels of the people of the party, where i think they are being hijacked by the conservative movement, where some of those who really wanted to beat -- want there to be diplomacy, to help, what the issues debated are not getting heard because the other elements are creeping in. it is becoming destructive to what we need as a country. host: sykesville, kentucky, and are independent line. caller: we are getting away from the main issue, trying to buy health services for citizens of this country and people who need

health care. we have gone into a situation where we are trying to divert it away from and concerned about the profits of the big insurance companies, and divert it away from who should have converge, who should have not, bringing in the race issue. we are discussing everything trying to meet the needs of the people in trying to provide adequate health care. both parties have got to work together, and health care will lose either way it goes. host: devin brooks this morning in "the new york times" in his op ed. "barack obama leads a government of the highly educated. his movement includes urban politicians, academics, hollywood donors, and information-age professionals. in the first few months, he has used federal power with wall street, the auto industry, the health-care industries, and the energy sector. given all of this committee was

guaranteed he would spot -- sparked a populist backlash, and it was guaranteed that it would beat bill manner, as conspiratorial, and over the top since these movements always are, whether they were led by huey long, father coughlin, or anybody else. we now have a populist news media that exaggerate the importance of the evangeline's and acorn stories to prove the elites are decadent and un- american, and we have a progressive news media that is at great stories like the joe wilson shout and the opposition to the obama school's speech to show that small town folks are dumb wackos. one could argue that this country is on the verge of a crisis of legitimacy, the economic blotter arnold claim rights. the -- arnold kling writes. it is not race, it is a conflict deep and old.

houston, good morning. john is on the line. caller: yes, i think it is racially motivated because whenever have you seen -- i was born in 1971. host: do you think it is overblown? caller: no, i do not. i think it is warranted because you see people going to town hall meetings with guns, you see people like joe wilson calling the president a liar. you know, fair minded people would not do it again. i would like to say one thing. people do not have a situation until this happens to them. they need insurance or something happens in their family, that is when people, "yak, they should do it like this, yak, they should do it like that." nobody wants to help, nobody wants -- everybody wants to just think somebody wants

something for nothing. host: mauling from tallahassee, florida, independent line. what do you think? caller: i think it is really overblown. i am an independent so i do not really have a hunt in this dogfight. i think it is totally overblown. i think some of the things that they said to bush or not even close to that. i'm tired of hearing that everything is about race. many -- maybe some people do not appreciate what theis going on. i think the race issue is just overblown and shows all the rhetoric that is being overblown. when i mean by that is everybody making a big deal about picking on the obama. it is not about obama, it is about policies, and the liberals.

unfortunately, he is going to be a useful fool, i guess is what i want to say because i think the liberals are eroding right over him. that is all i have to say. host: on the front page of "the washington times," "policy drives obama fos." "rise in opposition to president obama's free-spending policies has nothing to do with race and dismissed -- is nothing with a political happy talk." that is a 0 washington times" peace. "obama ties immigration to health care debate." "president obama said this week that his health-care plan will not cover illegal immigrants, but that is all the more reason to legalize them and make sure they do get coverage.

in major break with the 1996 welfare reform bill which limited most public assistance programs to the citizens and longtime immigrants pick up he spoke the other night -- and longtime immigrants." "the proposition was outrageous, how landers, and representative james e. o'keefe iii's alley. hannah giles was on the phone from the district, and she was asking him to dress like her pimp, walk into the offices of the acorn community activist group, openly admit to wanting to buy a house to run as a bottle, and see what happened. it was serendipity, o'keefe said thursday. o'keeffe, 25, packed his grandfather's white brimmed derby hat, his grandmother's

ready chinchilla shoulder throw, and the cane he bought a dollar store, then drove from his parents' home in northern new jersey to the district to execute the idea with giles, 20. what happened next was a scandal that has shaken acorn to its core. they secretly videotaped acorn workers in the district, brooklyn, and baltimore as they coached the secret filmmakers on how to evade taxes and misrepresent the nature of their business enterprise to get into a home." that was a story on the front page of "the washington post" this morning. starkville, mississippi, what do you think on our republican line, of the political rhetoric today? caller: good morning. i think that the political rhetoric is probably hurting the republican party. i think probably -- this is just my opinion and i know there are those that disagree -- but i think that some of the far left

republicans are hurting our mainstream old traditional republicans, and i would like to compliment our governor, haley barbour, who has shown the politeness of the old traditional republicans that we have known in our political history. i think the far left republicans need to go back to school and learn some politeness. they should stand up for the issues, but they should do it in a polite way. i am afraid that these groups that are forming and having political meetings and rallies to incite republicans against

policies, what should be done is to study ways to make our country more fiscally possible and our republican leaders should promote that. i like the way governor barbaror has promoted fiscal responsibility in mississippi, and this is what i have to give my opinion on. host: thank you for calling. rockville, maryland, robert, democrat. what do you think a recent political rhetoric? caller: is a situation where it is the same playbook that has been used over and over four years, decades upon decades. whenever a movement, a so-called populist movement, means something, they go to the corporate masses of the world, pitting blacks against whites,

they pit different generations against each other. it is all a big distraction because the bottom line is if they do that, we will remain stuck with the status quo. they do not want to see anything changed. as far as partisan politics between republicans and democrats, someone said it really nice the other day when they said basically there are two wings of the same bird. this health care issue, they basically have all these lobbyists fighting against reform, and now it is not the public -- is the public option being taken off the table. now with the democratic side, too, if anything were to slow down, any reforms that gets through the house, both houses,

will be so watered down. host: we have the tweet from somebody who refers to themselves as dr. miami. "is not overblown, we do have these discussions to help alleviate people's hatred for minorities, including gays and hispanics." in "the washington times," "media blitz helps -- where you can see him, he will be on five of the weekend talk shows. he will be on "this week with george stephanopoulos," "face the nation," "meet the press," and "univision." he will be doing the opening speech at the climate change some it sponsored by the u.n.. wednesday is the opening of the

u.n. general assembly, and thursday and friday he will be playing host to the g-20 summit in pittsburgh. fort atkinson, wisconsin, kerry, air republican. what do you think about the political hot rhetoric? caller: where do i start? while we all agree that representative wilson was not doing us any favors by blurting out, he was correct. the president was misstating that illegals would not be covered, only because the language in the bill, which most of the people that are at these tea parties are reading, while its states it does not cover illegals, it has no enforcement policies to check if these people are actually citizens, and that, among other comments that the president made that night, if you were to watch that

speech, it would have seen when the president said there was no constructive input from the republicans, all of the republicans, with a camera panning in on them, or weaving the numerous bills they had been trying to said met -- were waving the numerous bills they had been trying to submit since early spring, so there were many misstatements on the president's part. so you are seeing this frustration that people are getting one side of the story, and that is why these two parties or these health care rallies are popping up. we are not getting media coverage. it is very biased on one agenda, and what is going to happen with this? i watched c-span the other night, and they showed another whole different perspective that i had not even seen. they showed pie charts of how the actual coverage of all the people in the united states turns out to be about 4% in

comparison to those who are covered by different programs, and of that 4% illegals are in there. people that make enough money that do not want to purchase this, they are young and healthy, maybe, for various reasons. but when you see it in that type of light, they are totally trying to drastically change something eventually to socialized medicine, and we see it as this. where there is really only a small amount of people that do not have coverage under some kind of program. host: mike in raleigh, north carolina, what do you think about political rhetoric these days? caller: i think it is out of hand. i am an independent, i do not support either party. i see it being very dangerous to this country. i have never in my life -- and i have served in the military, my son is in afghanistan now -- but to carry guns to a presidential rally, regardless if it was

george w. bush or barack obama, i think it is abhorrent and something should be done about it. it is amazing to me how you can get on, say for instance, just yahoo!, read the news come and see bull's-eyes on our president and read the racist comments that go down every day by the hundreds, by the thousands. the whole socialist thing, the argument of young people not having to pay for health care -- i wonder if people considered that if a young person gets in a car accident and it is almost catastrophic and he ends up in the hospital for a year or two, without health insurance, you know, if they think that is the problem solved inbreed on health care. to blame it on hispanic people -- is the problem solved,

bringing on health care. to buy non-hispanic people -- when you do? -- to blame it on hispanic people -- what do you do? host: next call. caller: at this time, nobody seems to know that yesterday the president refused to protect our allies in czechoslovakia and poland and pulls the missile shield. nobody knows it, nobody hears it. this whole thing as a smokescreen for him to sneak through other programs that he wants other people to support. host: we will be talking about missile defense and about 10 or 15 minutes with the former u.s. ambassador to nato. this is the lead editorial this morning in "the baltimore sun," "let's not blame race." ": people racist does not help

with the argument. -- calling people racist does not help with the argument. it is hard to believe that less than a year after a solid majority of the country elected mr. obama, not because of his color and in spite of it, but regardless of it, that many would have concluded that his race was a disqualification. but even if mr. carter is right that racism is at the root of the unrest, the course mr. obama has chosen to deal with it is the wise one, not to talk about it but to do his job. many americans feel about the future that the president will lead us to a better one. that will take time and stay focused on his goals. not argue whether his opponents are racist. richard in omaha, nebraska, republican. hi. caller: thank you for taking my call. i do not think it is overblown at all. i am a republican, a working man, married, i have three kids.

i pay my bills, i am not deep in debt. go to church, play with my kids come and just because i would go to a rally and speak out against the government seizing more power, we do not have time to be professional protesters like a lot of people on the left do, so when you see these people at the key parties in the town halls, it is just working guys, working women, like me, because we enjoy our freedom and we do not want the government to take more of it. we just want to be left alone. host: what kind of work do you do? caller: i am the parts guy. we sell parts for forklifts and other heavy equipment. host: did you attend any of the rallies in omaha? caller: no, but people like me

did. i would go if i had the time. host: are you satisfied with your health care insurance? caller: yes. host: so what are you hearing in the debate that worries you? caller: this public option just seems to me is going to -- they are talking about, well, if anything changes in your policy, you are not born to be eligible to keep your health care. here is the basic thing -- if something is free, it is just going to flood the system. i would like it if the government would get out of health care, like they can show it -- they could sell insurance across state lines. i do not like having my health care tied to my employer. i would like to buy it like i by car insurance. i get three or four mailings, and they want -- i can get a good deal and i can shop around, but i cannot do that with health care. if i lost my job, i could not

afford my home. i would like to be able to buy my health care independently, but i hear the government restrictions, you cannot sell across state lines, everybody is putting across mandates for insurance companies. i would like to be able to pick my insurance company like my car insurance. host: paul and ohio, what do you think? caller: i do not think there is a whole lot of rhetoric. i am not actually republican, democrat, or independent. i am an american, and i feel that the administration that is in there now is trying to take everybody's freedom away, and i think some of the things they're doing, or the insurance, i believe, if you need the insurance, get out and get a job. i run heavy equipment, i am off on disability right now, and i

am still managing to pay my insurance, so some other people that is out there, they can go out and do the same peri. host: we will leave it there. i just wanted to show you this ad from "the washington post" this morning. "how did abc, cbs, nbc, msnbc, and cnn miss this story?" they show the anti-big government march in washington on september 12, and on the bottom, fox news as saying, "we cover all the news." gainesville, florida, charles, democrats like, what do you think about the political rhetoric? caller: i cannot think it is rhetoric and all. as a matter of fact, i am positive it is not rhetoric because it would have been the same thing during president

clinton. you are hearing the same thing from the people who want to use their position of privilege, and they are white, 99.9% of them. let them go out and get a job. hard-working people like me. when you hear this, these are the same signals that they had against african-americans when all they wanted to do was sit at a lunch counter, ollie wanted to do was get an education, and they work -- all they wanted to do was get an education, and they were telling them the same thing. you always see them cycled and recycled through the penal system. anybody who accepts the lack of understanding, the lack of any kind of introduction to reality, about the people from florida,

the republicans who call you with this racism -- i live here. you know, something is wrong. when you have got a president who they call a president who is trying to be a socialist when this man is only trying to help these people -- and like i said, nobody said one word when bush was dropping bombs on innocent people and giving his buddies who make the bombs billions and trillions of dollars. this is a sad commentary on this country when the village idiots are allowed to speak when the leader sits back and says nothing. host: charles, would you say that you just engaged in political rhetoric? caller: i would say i have expressed a position from an african-american perspective. host: do you think the words of "village idiot" might incite some people to -- caller: know, when i say local village idiot," i am saying an approach to a situation that is not designed to solve it, it is

designed to exacerbate it. in the media, you can annihilate anybody. that is why you have the republicans that are the masters of symbolic annihilation. that is why they can send these talking points to people and can tell them what to say when basethey send them to this townl meetings. it is different -- it is there relating to african-americans and debt rating to this country. -- sending a message to annihilate americans -- and eyelet african-americans, and they want to do everything they can -- if you listen to this, they are telling you nobody deserves to have any rights in this country but white people who work hard, white people who get up and drive their heavy equipment. host: what do you do in the

media? caller: by running magazine and i have a national sports show. i have never seen one black- owned newspaper that you have used to highlight a story. host: which one would you suggest? caller: there is a lot of them. you have got my publication, the african-american voters guide. there are so many african american publications out there that have a message that has a heckuva lot more clarity, that does not have a person that comes to the computer with an agenda that will surely have a clear message that is fair and balanced than the ones i see sometimes from deacons to rid of newspapers and sometimes even from the liberal news -- from these conservative newspapers and sometimes even from the liberal news papers. host: a tweeted -- front page of "the boston globe"

this morning, "house backs an interim senator." "house lawmakers approved legislation last night that gives governor deval patrick the power to appoint a temporary successor to the late edward kennedy. now it goes to the massachusetts senate." what do you think about political rhetoric these days? caller: overblown, absolutely. i mean, nancy pelosi, of all people. here is a woman who owns a $100 million vineyard and she is complaining about little things. this woman as out-of-control. she ought to take care of the san juan keene valley -- san joaquin valley.

this is not created by white people, this is created by the democrats themselves as part of the plan. it is the deal that, man, things are not going well with the obama administration's health care policy. things are bad. we have got to change what people are talking about. actually, i am surprised that c- span's is carrying this story. the story they should be carrying is the acorn story. this is the story you should be running. host: we will be talking to the ceo of acorn, bertha lewis, 8:45 this morning. "to a dozen social conservative activists from 49 states gathered for a values voters summit in washington friday and saturday pickup after "washington journal," today, we

will be joining that gathering in progress today. you have the last word. caller: good morning. yes, i do believe it is overblown, but there is an element of racism in these gatherings because i have seen the signs. i know there is. the republicans say they do not want big government and they say they want the government out of their lives, but they want to tell you what to do, tell you you cannot take some off life- support, who you can marry, and other issues. people, especially the lower middle class, they're hurting very bad, especially the ones who have -- my husband has a good union job, so we're very fortunate, but there are so many out there that do not and they do not have insurance, they cannot afford insurance. i listened to the caller earlier

who said he pays for car insurance -- there are so many people who cannot even afford car insurance. we live in a rural area. you have to have a car. they cannot even afford car insurance and they are dropping car insurance. the government tells you you have to have it, so therefore they go and they buy this insurance once every how often to get their license renewed. and then they drop it. host: we will leave it there. "the washington post," "defense secretary robert gates said thursday that he has ordered the deployment of as many as 3000 more u.s. troops to afghanistan pickup in "the new york times," this article -- "indiana court voids id law that u.s. justices upheld."

it was struck down last thursday by a state appellate court. that again is in "the new york times." you have probably seen the headlines this morning and heard the stories about the missile defense issue. we're going to be talking about that next with robert hunter, who served as the u.s. ambassador to nato in the 1990's president obama spoke about the issue yesterday. >> we will continue to speak with our allies, including the czech republi andc and poland, and i have reaffirmed our deep and close ties. together we are committed to a broad range of cooperative efforts to strengthen our collective dif -- our collective defense, and we are committed that attack on one is an attack on all. we have also made clear to russia that its concerns about our previous missile defense

programs were entirely unfounded. our clear and consistent focus has been the threat posed by iran's ballistic missile program, and continues to be our focus and the basis of the program we are announcing today. in confronting that threat, we welcome the russians' cooperation into a broader defense of our common interests, even as we continue our shared efforts to end it iran's nuclear program. going forward, my administration will continue to consult closely with congress and our allies as we deploy the system, and we will evaluate the threat posed by the ballistic missiles and by the measures we are taking to counter it. >> robert hunter joined us now.

what is the practical effect of what the president said yesterday? guest: they have scrapped the missile defense system they were going to put in each republic and poland the capacities that exists now, and it also will be effective against a more likely iranian challenge or threat from a shorter-range missiles. it is based on, according to the administration, new intelligence about what iran is doing, and an assessment of what the capabilities are. that is the very straightforward argument, and it makes a lot of sense just on the merits. host: can the president do this on his own, or does he have to get congressional approval? guest: i suspect that there is

no problem, and in terms of scrapping the program, he can do that as commander in chief. host: you support this decision? guest: i support it very much. i never supported the idea of putting missiles that we do not have in an area where it might not work. this is not just a tactical decision or an intelligence based decision, this is just international politics. host: we want to put up the number so if you want to talk about what happened with regard to missile defense yesterday, you can dial in and talk with ambassador hunter. 202-628-0205 if you are an independent. "obama under fire for u-turn on missiles," says "the financial times." guest: i do not think the

problem is the decision, the problem is the way it was done. the timing is obvious. coincidence is a rare event in politics. there are three meetings coming up. the president is seeing the president of russia next week at the u.n. general assembly. then there is the meeting in pittsburgh at the g-20, in which there were to have been talks about having more sanctions against iran over its nuclear programs. then there is the beginning of talks with iran, the so-called p5, the permanent members of the security council plus germany. where we went wrong is instead of going to the european allies and saying, look, you know -- we know you went on a limb on this and were willing to risk the ire of the lessorussians, instead of

going to the allies and saying let's figure out where to go, we dumped the decision on them yesterday. it is not so much about changing the policy, it is, do we really matter to the administration when it comes to a major decision like that? it was more on the method than in the decision itself. host: so if you were the current u.s. ambassador to nato when this decision was made by washington, what would you be doing today? guest: i would have said hold on a couple of days, i want to call my colleagues together, let's do some apparent consultation, because this makes a lot of sense if you explain it right. but come in the way it did looks like we were taking a -- but coming the way it did looks like we were taking a unilateral decision. we will be laying an all-out, and they will not lightly and go away and say what in heaven's name are the americans doing?

they gave it to us without consulting us. the czech deputy prime minister talked about it. i read it in the newspaper, and now they're taking it away it is kind of a technical thing, but in terms of the way we did it, it really does not help. host: nearly every newspaper this morning has an editorial on this issue. in "the financial times," "new u.s. realism on missiles plan, but there are anti-editorials this morning. most of them on both sides say the political reality sais -- guest: i think it is to make it a better climate with the russians because the united states wants them to help in putting pressure on iran. that is what this is about.

how do you increase the pressure on iran before the talks began on october 1, and another little part which is to reassure israel that the united states will be deploying an anti-missile defense that is likely to be helpful to israel not against some iranian nuclear weapon that might come along some day, against conventionally-missiles that the iranians are building right now that could strike them. host: where does benjamin yet in yahnetanyahu posit coming? guest: to try to get the russians to understand from the israeli point of view of how important it is to put pressure on the iranians to deflect the march toward nuclear-weapons.

it is about getting the russians to be engaged. it is really about trying to reassure the israelis. the president has got this bind. he is trying to keep the reins from marching toward nuclear- weapons, but he really does not want to -- he is trying to keep the iranians from marching toward nuclear weapons, but he really does not want a war with iran. host: there is an article in "the washington post" this morning about the sale of missiles to turkey. how does that fit into all this? guest: the turks have been worried about support from the united states ever since we invaded a muslim country, iraq, in 2003. the turks do have some concerns in the longer-term about the iranians and about the iranian missile program. so shoring up relations makes sense. this is a three-corner shot by

the president, or a trifecta. it is all focusing on that meeting on october 1 of the western countries with iran. that is what the focus is on all of this. host: robert hunter served as the u.s. ambassador to nato from 1993 to 1998. he was a former adviser to senator kennedy, currently a senior advisor to the rand corporation. what kind of officials to work on with the rand corporation? guest: i just worked on a new security structure to the persian gulf to enable us to fulfil our responsibilities wwithout being so -- so we can start focusing more on other things. host: he served on the national security council under the carter administration. rowland, a republican, you

are the first on with robert hunter. caller: ambassador hunter, in the preliminary with peter, i was going to ask questions about how this i think is exactly -- russia does not appear to be acting, doing a lot of things that are best interest, so we have to, as a strong nation and a leader in this world, we need to be able to make decisions that are good for everybody, especially in our interests. by us now eliminating it in poland and throwing them and the east europeans out in the woods, that is bad form, i think. i would hope that obama would take a little bit more care, president obama, take a little bit more care in exercising this

decision. i have one question, ambassador, and i wish you good luck. were you in favor of the persians when you are willing to put them in eastern germany? guest: the so-call-- a lead it t of the west europeans to wonder about the guarantees to them. beginning with jimmy carter, carrying on with reagan, we deployed some persian missiles and some ground launch missiles and negotiated with the russians, and eventually the negotiations went to zero. with regard to the russians, i did not like this particular system and the czech republic and poland to begin with.

they were not particularly happy, but you cannot change the way we changed it without people wondering what we are up to. what we need to do is work constructively with the russians on things that are in our interest, but at the same time, we need to draw some red lines against doing again what they did in georgia, against what they might do in ukraine. as a result, i think we are going to do some fast footwork right now to show the central europeans that they have not fallen off our radar screen. host: valerie, baltimore, maryland, a democrat. caller: good morning. mr. hunter, i had a question about the comment you made that you thought the decision that the president made was clearly political at the highest level, and i just want you to explain that a little further. thank you. guest: i did not mean political in that sense, but it dealt with high politics in international

relations, namely to try to build support for factions against iran if it is not prepared to be more cooperative on its nuclear programs, to try to get the russians on board with that, to try to reassure the israelis about their security, and in effect to try to shape a situation in which we will be more in the driver's seat in dealing with iran and some people think we might be. i do not think the president made this decision for any domestic political reasons. he was trying to fit together a series of issues, and i think he had the right decision. i just wish he had done it differently with the allies because it will take awhile to get over some bruised feelings. host: mike mike garrett tweets -- "do your thing that latimer -- guest: i think it is misplaced great the russians dug holes for themselves. when this was first argued about, they said this is a

threat to russia. it was never a threat to russia. there were going to be 10 interceptors, and the russians have 2000, 3000 nuclear-weapons. they knew that was happening, there were trying to intimidate central europeans. when the united states went forward with that, the russians just looked a little bit stupid. this does help the russians save a little face, but the objective is to get the russians to be cooperative on what the united states wants with regard to sanctions on iran. maybe it will work, maybe it will not. but i suspect the russians will be a little bit less ought to read them they were before, and that is an achievement. host: "nato secretary-general rasmussen has urged the western alliance to -- guest: this was pose under the bush administration and it makes sense.

the real problem when you get to it that the allies can agree upon and the russians can agree upon is shorter range missiles, which are more likely to be deployed than the longer range things by iran or somebody else, and also missile systems that can help protect troops in the field. we are building them, some others are building them, the russians are building them. this is an opening that can be built upon in which people will agree, hey, as a potential threat there, why don't we combine it? you have to remember that even when we propose putting these lager-range these defenses against long-range missiles in the czech republic and poland, the russians said instead, why don't we put them in southeastern russia to help protect us as well? in effect, this is a move that will enable the russians to feel a sense of greater security from the system then from the one we just scrapped. host: from "the new york post,"

"putin pushed, buckled." kentucky, you are on the air. caller: i have tno love for the soviets and now the russians, but i think the former warsaw pact emasculates the russians in much the same way that our allies inflicted on arab nations for years and years and led to some of this terrorism that we have right now. it putting us around the russians really serves no strategic or tactical advantage to the united states or to nato, but it does put the russians in a position where they cannot control the countries surrounding them. we would not like to have the

russians missiles in mexico or canada, and i can understand their point of view. georgia has been a member of nato when their idiotic president launched an attack, and we would be in a bad position with georgia. guest: one thing the russians have to understand completely is that these are free and independent countries, and we have to constantly reinforce that. but i do agree that the idea of putting these missile defenses in poland and the czech republic really did not help to reassure the russians that we did not have some kind of taking advantage of the fact they lost the cold war. in 1987 when we were expanding nato, taking in new members, nato reached an agreement with russia to have a relationship

with nato. one of the pledges in that was that we would be not putting permanent military forces in any of these countries. so i can see the russians saying, wait a second, these missile defense systems might be something a lawyer can justify, but it surely drove the spirit of that agreement. it played badly with the russians -- is surely broke the spirit of that agreement did badly with impressions that we do not have any attend -- host: "i think the idea is to be more mobile and to go where we need to go on short notice." is that true? guest: absolutely. the eagis system, we can put it wherever we want. we have these new things called the standard missile that will do a better job defending against one of the iranians can deploy, i accurately -- high

accuracy, troy range against missiles, that could come along any time now. host: right now if iran for any reason launched a missile, is there any defense against that? guest: absolutely. host: so what is needed here? guest: the iranians do not have a lot of missiles right now the israelis, that would probably be the target, have the arrow, and a very fancy radar called the expand radar. host: developed in israel or or developed here? guest: developed in the united states. we have an awful lot to deal with whatever the threat, if somebody when iran were so stupid to launch one of the two or three missiles they have now

in the direction of israel, the chances are they would not get through. but this is reassurance. how do you reassure the israelis? how do you reassure the turks? how do you tell the iranians, the matter which way you go, it will not make any sense for you. sit down, bargain seriously to get rid of the fears that they're going to get the bomb. host: is there a school of thought in washington that says we do not need any of these systems? guest: i do not think so. maybe the money will end up being wasted, but i would rather waste the money in it than when up one day and find out there is a ballistic missile threat that you cannot deal with. we have been working on the standard missile, the eagis, the expand radar, and the patriots. if you were thinking of launching an attack and they would make you think twice,

three times. host: michigan, and george, republican, you are on with robert hunter. caller: mr. hunter, you are my kind of guy. i would love to sit down with you and pick your brain for hours. i voted for george w. bush the first time, which was a big mistake. do you ever read, "no simple victory," by robert davies? guest: i have not. caller: don rumsfeld told george bush to stay away from the middle east, but he was ignored. cheney thought differently which is why it was a mistake. why would iran want to attack

amsterdam, london? what would be the motivation? he would be killing his own people and he would be annihilated. guest: that is one reason i never thought very much of the system to begin with. but what we are doing now does relate to something that could come into being, which is shorter range iranian missiles, more than likely targets in israel. even as they do not use that, it helps to reassure the israelis. the united states, every single president since lyndon johnson, has regretted having to deal with the middle east. this is a real tar baby. what i'm working on with iran is to try to come up somewhere with getting regional security so that we do not have to be so much up to our armpits in it and get the locals to do more for themselves. frankly, if you can, draw iran into it. we are mesmerized with iranian

nuclear issues right now, but we have come -- july host: overly so? guest: we have some things we want from iran. the number one thing, from the united states, is help from iran and afghanistan? would it be there? yes. in 2001 it made it a lot easier for us. al qaeda hates the irradiance, the taliban hates the iranians. then george persian turnaround and abetted this thing called the axis of evil -- then george bush turned around and invented this thing called the axis of evil. i would go to the iranians and say let's work together. the iranians would like to dominate it, but they also worry about an unstable iraq. they might be helpful on that.

that is why we have to sit down and talk about everything, not just the nuclear issue, and i am not sure we are ready to do that. host: gary johnson jr. says, "ambassador hunter, does this decision helped ambassador holbrooke strength and a contact group for the ass bafpak with te russians? what is that? guest: this is really a route -- this is really about iran. host: next call for robert hunter, a democrat. caller: if i had known, i would not have wasted my call. just to pare back the military budget at all, and, you know, i do not think i would take your word for it that obama and just

dropped it on everybody, i am sure that he was a little bit more -- guest: i hope you are right, but i did not see any evidence. caller: when you say the rand corp., my hair just goes up. but i, like you, thought it was a very bad idea, but you have to follow the money. i just know the media is going to just bury him, and i just want to support him on it, because i have never been for that in the first place. thank you for your time. guest: think you for your time. i very much support with the president did, it was a very smart decision. i just have one little quibbled in which -- in that the way in which was done, there could

have been some consultation with the allies and do some other things to make them understand that we are really going to hold the russians to account on not fooling around in places like ukraine. host: "the washington times" this morning says the white house is abandoning warsaw and prague. guest: ridiculous. there is no threat to them at all. except the things that the russians are up to in terms of manipulating energy, cybersecurity, and general huff and puff that mr. putin is good at. the united states needs to work carefully with all the allies to make sure that we're there and we will keep a number of troops in europe. we have a number of meetings. nobody senior from naida is going there, nobody senior from the indicted states is going there. host: "obama's again that

threatens to open nato rift in eastern europe." guest: of hers already been some problem. a couple of months ago, 50 former leaders of central european countries wrote an open letter to the president saying do not forget us. well, we have not forgotten them, but i think this is time to do reassurance, have some folks visit, to have some more military interaction and the like. these people are always going to be frightened of russia, even the ones that now belong to nato where they have the absolute guarantee, and mr. putin has, i think, stupidly, rattled the verbal sabre and helped these people cling more to the united states. .

iranians if you do everything we want on the nuclear, on afghanistan, iraq, no opposition to israel, we will give you security guarantees. we have refused to do that. and that is not making sense anywhere in the world. that is international politics 101. host: robert hunter with the rand corporation. thank you for help being us to understand this issue. up next the head of the mayo clinic returns to take calls an

talk about healthcare reform. first radio news from c-span. >> it is 8:02 a.m. eastern. the w.h.o. spokesman says local production of vaccines for pandemic flu will be substantially less than the previous forecast. speaking to reporters earlier today in geneva, he said production will be lower because some manufacturers are still turning out vaccine for seasonal flu and production problems have reduced the output. in israel george mitchell's effort at shuttle dloems is apparently ending without agreement. he held talks with israeli and palestinian leaders but the palestinian chief negotiator said he wants israel to stop settlement activity. in florida a note saying an explosive device might be on board force add plane to return

to miami airport. a spokesman said it was severaled after the 168 passengers and six crew members disembarked safely. he declined to say if anything suspicious was found. the threat remains under investigation. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. at 10:30 secretary of state hillary clinton will preview the u.s. agenda for the united nations general assembly meeting. her comments live at 10:30 on c-span 2. then mary shapiro is the keynote speaker at the conference on the future of global finance live at 1:00 p.m. eastern here on c-span.

"washington journal" continues. host: dr. dennis cortiz is the president and c.e.o. of the mayo clinic. president obama spoke about the mayo clinic at his healthcare town hall at capitol hill. >> look at what the mayo clinic is able to do. it has the best quality and lowest cost of just about any system in the country. so what we want to do is help the whole country learn from what mayo is doing. we want to help the whole country learn some of the good things that are going on in minnesota. that will save everybody money. host: dr., i was not on capitol hill but it was in minneapolis st. paul. what was the president referring to? what is the may yes clinic doing right? >> i suppose what he is referring to is the fact that

other people who have examined the outcomes and compared it to the amount of dollars that are spent seem to kata mayo clinic is one of the many institutions that are in the upper quartile or upper levels that have pretty good safety scores, pretty good service scores, very good outcomes and the cost over time is lower than the national average and that has been a true statement for many years actually as the information has been looked at going backward. so what i think he is really talking about when you distill those components to one concept is places in the country that get higher value care. with lower overall cost over time and that is after all what i think patients really want. they want to get the right

thinking done at the right time, the right way, have it done same and very good service from the heart, the compassion, people who care about them, and that the price, the costs spent particularly over the long term is worth it. host: what kind of systems do you have in place that may lead to those outcomes? guest: i will answer it at two levels. from mayo clinic itself then from the level of a macro view of what other organizations do. cou or t and what are some of the common kashths. we have a large number of people on the staff who -- we have over 15,000 employees all together in five d states. host: 50,000?

guest: 50,000. they all work around a single core value and that is that the needs of the patient come first. so it is a patient focused culture. that goes back to 1900 when the mayo brothers started. the second component is that we expect people to work together in teams, to cooperate with each other, collaborate. and this cooperative atmosphere helps people by focusing on the patient. we realize we need to get the help of everybody to take care of the individual patients. some patient are easy to take care but others have complex problems and you need to bring teams together. we also have a mechanism of paying our physicians a salary. we pay them a salary so there is no real incentive to do more. we find that the salary approach is one way -- not the only way but one way -- to reduce the

conflict of commitment and conflict of interest that might exist for a physician when they are making decisions about what might be best to do for a patient. so, we basically say if the surgeon thinks the patient doesn't need the operation, say it. so, those are some, just a few, of the cultures. we surround that at mayo clinic, we surround what i described with education programs and research programs that support the way we take care of patients. it is very important that we look at those other two missions as part of the way we take care of patients. the education program, the way we communicate with each other and let us all know what it is we know. what does mayo clinic know collectively and how we do that. our research programs are all focused in trying to find incremental values to take care of patients in a better way. those are part of the way we do

our work. through both environments we continually look backwards to see what the results were on our patients and try to improve it as we go forward taking care of people. then around all of that we have an infrastructure, a unified paper record we used to have all last century that was started in 1907 by dr. henry plummer, that unified paper record had all the records of the patients. that was our way to distribute information that is converted to an electronic record for the last 17 to 18 years. but the concept is the same. we surround everybody who is working for those patients with the information that they need to have when they need to have it wherever the patient goes. so, when you look at that, we have a learning organization that everybody is learning from each other and working together surrounded by that information. now, let's take that general

observation -- one other point. mayo clinic is physician run and directed. when you look at other organizations in the country and other regions of the country, other cities in the country that also get outstanding outcomes and in several cases better than we do and at lower costs will are some common characteristics. the common characteristics are, in my observation, they tend to be more physician run, physician involvement. two, there is a culture of focusing on the patients. there is a strong belief that by focusing on the patients they have to work together in teams. there is more of a culture. they do not all have salaries but they tend to have incentives that are oriented around quality or patient satisfaction. so, there are some common characteristics that you can find when you look at other places that produce the same kind of value. host: and you are a nonprofit. . we happen to be nonprofit.

the main reason is because of the fact that we take money and fund education and research programs. we are providing that back for the community. but you can get these kinds of results even in for-profit atmospheres. if the atmosphere in the for-profit is to making money only that is another story. but if you make money while taking care of patients in a very fine way and get great out comes at high value. it is ok to make 2% or 3% or #% margins. you need it to grow and replicate yourself just to replace your own costs. host: have you written a letter to president obama and to your senators or congressmen about the healthcare or health insurance reform debates going on on capitol hill? and, if so, what did you say? guest: we haven't written a letter per se to president obama but we have written letters to

others that you have listed. we have been in communication with the o.m.b. and office of the national coordinator for healthcare in the white house and administration. we have had chances to speak with all of the individuals involved in congress, both houses, that are debating this and we have hammered on what we think are two important messages. first, there should be relentless focus on high value care for people. and it is the idea of what do people really want in the country. our feeling, based on the interaction we have had with a lot of people through the last 3 1/2 years, that they want really good outcomes, want it to be safe, they want very good service, good access, and at

affordable cost. that is the value equation of we should focus on value, define it, measure it, seek it out, identify the high value providers and make sure they stay in business. make sure they are paid for doing what they are doing. that is one message. the second mentkcond message is everybody insured. we prefer to see that people own their own insurance, that is portable and affordable. those are the basic two messages that we have been promoting. and you can see that is what the struggle is. right now folks are debating both of those issues. host: we will get to calls before we get to more questions. fred from farmington hills, michigan, independent line on with dennis courtese. caller: good morning. as usual with a c.e.o. you don't get it. people are losing their insurance every day. do you know why that is?

have you efficient thought about why? because they are losing their jobs. what c-span ought to be talking about is extending unemployment and getting people back to work. you are just out of touch with the average person. how can you help when you don't have any food to eat and you are always upset, full of anxiety about where your future is or how you are going to pay your rent? why don't you start talking about what people are really wanting. they want sdoodecent paying job that pay a living wage. you ought to talk about that before you talk about violence in southeast michigan. guest: i didn't know we were talking about violence in southeast michigan but we are talking about people who need insurance as we go forward and i couldn't agree more with you from the concept of people, if what you are saying is people are having trouble with insurance and losing it because they are losing jobs, you are

exactly right and that is why we are emphasizing to decouple, to delink the idea of having your insurance linked to your job. we think the insurance should be the person's insurance that they own that as their insurance and therefore they are covered. so, it is really sad hau get the double whammy by when a person loses a job or leave the job or voluntarily try to get another job they may have a gap in insurance coverage and that is a hard decision, do i leave a job, what do i do for three or four or six months before i get new insuran insurance? they should not be linked together and not linked to just your employment. host: patricia, in washington, d.c., democrat. caller: hello. my kquestion is how many

congressmen have asked you to come to their office and speak to them about your program? and whether they are democrat or republican. my statement is that i think americans are working so hard and so many long hours that the only thing they are looking for is some entertainment when they get home. so they look at these talking heads and they are not thinking or using their critical thinking. or we have an educational problem. the president doesn't have a bill at the moment. he is trying to push congress to make a bill that is the best for the united states. he's only talking about what he will sign and what he would want in it. people need to listen and really look at more than one news program or i'm afraid a lot of people are not listening to the news and keeping up with what is going on in the country. guest: i think i hear two observations there, patricia, in

what you are saying. one has to do with your specific question how many congress people have asked us to talk with them. the other has to do with the fact that people are working hard and are overwhelmed and you can't escape all of the people like me being on this show talking about the key issues in the country like education issues, energy issues, healthcare issues and jobs, for instance. it is overwhelming. all of us -- i feel the same way when i go home. i just want to watch something on of it or watch nothing and relax or do something to get away from all of this chaos we have in the country. the fact is the leaders in the country can't get away from the issues. that is their job. their job is to try to come to grips with the education issues, energy issues, healthcare issues and the job. you are right, people tune out or let others do their thinking for them. but leaders can't let that

happen. leaders have to stand,and say this is where the country ought to be. this is where we need to be the next three to five years. that is why away emphasize that we need to have a vision of where we want to be for healthcare. and if we want to be that people are getting better, healthier listens and better care, we need to have that as a clearly stated vision. give ourselves three to five years to get there but get everybody insured and making sure they are getting insured in a good delivery system so had he get good access and good care in a safe environment. from the standpoint of the congress people, there have been a number of them on both parties and both highways-- both houses have asked to visit with us and others to hear their opinions and advice. we have gone in and emphasized the same two big areas, getting everybody insured and value in healthcare. we have not gone in and struck

bargains or done any deals. we have just tried to take our position from the standpoint of what we think is best for people in the country, that they have insurance and get high value healthcare. host: senator baucus's mark came down, no tax in senate health machine draws bipartisan fire. have you read or heard about the tax on the so-called cadillac health plans and what is your view? >> first, i have heard about what you are saying. i think that the fact that the baucus mark is drawing criticism from both is a good sign that they may be on to something. it will be in the details and there are a number of details. but remember, this is just the mark from the chairman, which means this is just what they are thinking about doing. i think the finance committee has to hammer out all of this. there will be amendments and it

looks to me that in the bill there's an attempt to get more people insured, to get everybody insured. and there's an attempt to begin to move in the direction of value based purchasing or value based payments. so, both of those are attempts to move in the right direction. the big problem that i believe senator baucus and we all have -- and whole country has it problem -- how much can we afford to make this work. they have set a target if i remember right of about $900 billion over 10 years. i think that is the number they want to get to or below that. i don't know how at the derive it but it is a number. as a way to get there they are suggesting these additional taxes and suggest inging a tax some sort of upper electrical insurance product. from my viewpoint they have to figure out a way to get all of this done. and there will be more taxes. change is difficult and there will be some pain and i think senator baucus and the rest of

the committee are doing their best honest effort to make something work out because there will be more money being spent and especially there will be more money being spent if we do not -- i want to emphasize that -- if we do not find a way to start paying for value and rewarding high value care. because it is only through high value care that costs will go down as demonstrated many times. if we get everybody insured in a delivery system that is very expensive it will cost us a lot more and we probably will go broke over it. we have to get to high value in the short term. soers doing the two together is important, and i think they are taking a significant step in that direction to have it happen. so, whatever taxes there are going to be there will be some somewhere along the line.

host: what is the average salary for a physician on staff at the mayo if there is such a thing? >> i would say it is probably in the ball park of $250,000 -- we have never calculated but i would say about $250,000 when you look at the wide range of primary care, pediatric physicians, neurosurgeons to cardiac surgeons. but that is an interesting question. i don't know for sure. but i would put it in that ball park. 225 to 250. host: with 50,000 employees chances are you have a health care plan. guest: yes. we have a health plan that covers around 100,000 lives, 0 110,000 maybe. that costs us roughly around $300 million to $330 million a year. host: is it a mayo plan? are you self-insured or blue cross, blue shield, united, et

cetera? >> we are self-insured because we are large enough and we are our own providers. but we offer that and we give people three options. so, there are different levels and at different levels there are defend levels of co-pay and deduct believes and -- dedu deductibl deductibles. one is more of a cadillac plan if you will but even there we have to pay a pretty good premium. we don't charge any co-pays or deductibles for co-pay and primary care but it is up to the individual to choose which one they would like to have. host: what percentage of your revenue comes from medicare and medicaid? guest: medicare, in our rochester practice, is roughly 40% of our practice.

in jacksonville, florida, it is about 60% of our practice in the hospital closer to 67% in the hospital practice. and -- because remember we are a clinic and hospital. we all work together. in arizona it is roughly 55%. host: i expected a higher percentage. guest: it just happens to be the other way but it is pretty high medicare in both places. our medicaid population, many think that folks don't come from medicaid but our medicaid volumes are on the lower side than some other places would be. but they are somewhere around the 5% to 10% range in all of the sites. host: do you not take medicaid patien patients? guest: no, we see medicaid patients. host: louisville, kentucky, pat. caller: i have a question about the public options.

to me, i have heard that there is a level set -- there is a $60 that medicare would save $35 than your private insurance reimburses so much over medicare. to me the government is already making the playing field [inaudible] we have state regulations, et cetera. i don't understand the private option making things more level when the government already sets the playing field with the payment. guest: i don't know that i quite hear the question in there but i will make maybe two

comments. one is there has been some talk about a public option. we are asked our opinion all the time about that. the best answer i have back about the public option is i'm not really sure what the public option is. what are people really talking about about the public option? if they are talking about a public option as being another thing that is created and owned by the public, the closest thing i have actually heard to that concept would be the co-op. senator conrad's idea, which is a very interesting one. and as you move toward the west and midwest, and look at what is going on out there, there are some co-ops out there and they do work and the public owns them. they are not government run. it is publicly owned by the citizens of that community or reasonable and they provide extremely good care. and a few of them the public

option, the co-op that is the insurance company also pays the doctors and owns the doctors. it is an interesting set-up and some work in puget sound, for instance, in washington state. to the but if what people mean by a public option is a government-run program, then it is not at all clear to me what government-run program people are actually talking about since there is no plan. are they talking about medicare, which sets what they will pay which is what the caller was saying, medicare sets the prices. they decide what they are going to pay. there is no negotiation, they set the price and if there is a gp between how much medicare will agree to and how much they pay, which is always lower than what they agree to, then the patient has to make up the gap. currently that is almost running up to 50% in the current government-run medicare program. if we are talking about medicaid, which is state and

federal government-run, if we are talking about the v.a. or military system or something like tricare which is an insurance company that does a very good job and for military, nobody i have heard has talked about that but that is a government program, or are we talking about the federal employees health care plan, which is another government program but that program is distributed to the government employees through a whole series of private insurance companies. so, having clarity to what people are talking about on a public option would be very helpful if we are going to have a substantive discussion about it. but there is no real clarity so far that i have seen. host: existing overall healthcare more than doubled costs past 10 years. what is cost of doing nothing? this is a tweet from howard threaten. guest: úx the cost of doing nothing is fatal. we have to do something. so, i don't know what the

question was alluding to, but the doing nothing option is not an option. if we don't do something take medicare. that is the largest government run insurance dark the largest insurance company in the country. government run. it is scheduled right now with the given number of people that are enrolled in it and about throw months i will be in medicare myself. we all who will opinion medicare are faced with a bankrupt program in about four to five years. so, we have a serious problem that we have to step up to. so the cost of doing nothing is not an option. the president is correct about that. host: why have the costs gone up so radically? guest: there are so many reasons. some is introduction of new technology which when we add new ideas, in m.r.i., c.t. scans, medications they always seem to be put on top of what we already have. so it is incrementally going up

and so many say i want that technology or new treatments. if i have back pain i want that m.r.i. the fact is that 99% of people with back pain don't need the m.r.i. but try to tell that to people. they think it is there, we have to have a so we want it. and we want somebody else to pay for it. we are not looking systematically as a comparative effectiveness of each new technology to find where it really adds incremental value. what person should get that? it is going to get a lot worse as we do more of the envelope diagnostics -- novel diagnostics and treatment out of individualized medicine. genomic and genetic research. on top of that you put the fact that medicare is one model -- i'm singling out medicare because it is something the government can actually take a

step on. it currently pays all of us physicians a fee for service. we are paid piecemeal. in that mindset, those of us who are physicians do better the sicker you are. the more we keep you coming in to the office the more we keep you in the hospital shall the more that you are in i.c.u.'s more money comes in and the government just pays for it. instead of hooking at what physicians are getting really god results at lower rates of what we call utilization, with fewer tests. in other words, getting to the bottom line quicker and faster, keeping you healthy at home, out of the hospital. well, if we keep you health at home we don't get paid for that. through medicare. if we keep you in the hospital we get paid. so the payment mechanism is set up in a way that rewards doing more things, more volumes, doing things to people. so that is another contributor to it and even when medicare,

which is a big insurance company, medicare manages what they do by controlling the prices. over the last 15 to 16 years there were many studies that have demonstrated as medicare has reduced the payments to doctors, the line item payments, it has reduced the prices, what has happened is that we have just done more testing, more procedures. so, the overall spending stays the same. the spending is a function of how much we are paid and how often we do it. so, the attention has been let's ratchet down on the payments but we keep doing more tests. so the spending hasn't changed. we need to focus on what is the right amount of things to do, the best thing to do for patients and begin to pay just for those high value things and costs will go down. host: my guess is that the mayo clinic has bigger, better, faster technology than most anyplace. so are you saying that that is

patient driven, that you are getting the technology or competition and your desire -- guest: no, it is patient driven. not only do we have the current technology and we are using it, but we use it less often than other places. that is the key. because there is no incentive for our physicians to do more. so, when you put those two things -- the stuff is available for people, the technology is available for people. but the environment is such, latinos only use it on the people that really need it. that is our ideal goal, what we strive for. we are not perfect in that regard, but at least the environment is to do only what is needed and do it the first time an as soon as we can rather than doing it later. and doing it many times over. so, it the combined philosophy of technology is good, i'm not knocking that. but if there is a new drug we are going to learn more that it

may work for you but may not work for me. and an old mind would say let's treat both of us. there is nothing with a lower value than treating somebody like me with a medication that may be cheap but doesn't work. it works for you, you get it. if not me i shouldn't be on the medication. so, we need to know that as we go forward. that is the search for value. host: next call is philadelphia, kirby, india. caller: good morning. i feel like giving more power to the government -- i think obama has already an authorize tarn bent and -- authoritarian bent and fox news just reported a cross country high speed is expected to transfer people to concentration camps.

host: jack in manhattan, democrat. caller: thank you for c-span. i'm just a regular guy but i think i don't know why medicare can't be opened up as the public option where we are charmed as like we buy into it. it says that the administrative costor medicare are very hoe and it is -- very low and i think mcgovern has said, several people have, but for me to say my quick few points. quick conditions, exclusions, deductibles, co-pays, i think you are right on. you should be the healthcare czar as far as i'm concerned. but i don't understand how when you have an insurance policy, healthcare insurance policy and you have this myriad of exclusions that the average person doesn't even -- when you buy insurance, you should have insurance.

but a simple guy like myself must understand, i have a deductible, i know what it is. i understand if i have a co-pay i know what it is. but when you have exclusions written in fine print and of course the issue of preconditions is now being dealt with supposedly. i don't know how they can get away with it. you would think you buy an insurance policy for yourself and you anticipate that you are covered and then when it comes -- i think a lot of people you see the c-span moderate oors as are you happy with healthcare i think a lot of people you are asking are people who are relatively healthy and don't necessarily have to tap into it. the nightmare story that we hear when people need healthcare that often it is not there for them. so i think that we are avoiding the discussion of exclusions. there should be no exclusions in our policies. guest: ok.

well, jack, i find myself agreeing with just about everything you said. let me take them -- i heard throw things. first, with the issue are people happy with healthcare. the fact that -- and these are roughly correct numbers -- about 80% of people in the country don't actually get any healthcare in a given year so you will get almost 80% saying they are happy sour right. if we have a lot of relatively healthy people not using healthcare they are going to say yes, i'm pretty happy with the insurance though they may not know what it is exactly. it is the other group that have multiple chronic illnesses sometimes real severe, acute illness, those are the folks that need the coverage and when you get sick and you need the coverage you need the coverage. so we agree with that. the second point, i couldn't agree with you more that significant insurance reform -- that is what we call insurance reform -- not healthcare reform,

insurance reform -- significant insurance reform has to happen. preconditions and exclusions have to definitely be put in place. they have to be removed from the table when you are insured, you are insured. i agree with the points you made there. that has been one of our principles and everybody should have access to insurance. the final point was which is the one you started which which is the most intriguing, why don't we just open up medicare for all. well, my answer to that is at the present time if we opened up medicare for all it would bankrupt the country in about one year versus the five years where it is opened up only to those who are going to be medicare age. because medicare doesn't focus on value, it doesn't pay value, it doesn't reward value. and until medicare begins to focus on what we really want out of healthcare and start to reduce that spending that it incurs, it is not ready to be opened up to anybody else at this point. can medicare change?

well, congress is the board of directors for medicare. the administration oversees this. they could instruct medicare to begin to pay for value in three years. take a three-year run-in, define what value is, begin to measure it, become transparent about the measurements and start to pay for the higher value care. those providers that are getting better outcomes, better safety and better service with lower cost over time are kept in business. they are paid enough that they can keep in business and maybe grow. begin to shift the mindset here. and people will say that is an overwhelming task. i don't agree. it is not overwhelming in medicare started to focus on three to five medical conditions. the top most expensive medical conditions that all of us may have. like congestive heart failure, high blood pressure, stroke. that accounts for about 70% of all the spending in medicare today. and if you focus on three to

five procedures that are the most expensive and for medicare that happens to be hip operations, knee operations. if we focus on those so you take three to five conditions, three to five procedures, define the outcomes you want, look at the safety performance, look at the service, look at the cost over time, you would be able to define why high value providers are and move medicare to purchasing high value care. if they ever got there may be you could have coverageor everybody. it would seem to me that the democratic party and liberals should be screaming for high value care out of medicare so it is ready to become something that might be offered for more people. so, until we get all of this right we are not really ready to go to any one system. we have to get everybody covered, private insurance has to get rid of preconditions and medicare has to pay for value. host: leesburg, virginia. elizabeth, republican. caller: good morning, doctor.

i lived in arizona for a while and did have mayo insurance through america west. and i was so extremely pleased with the service i received. he i wanted to know how does mayo differ from other healthcare companies and how can everyone get the same level of care as i received when covered by mayo? guest: firsters thanks for youricallour ical compliment but we're not the only organization that provides high value care. when you look at the actual data and information that is available i will just list a few of the other places. you have scott white clinic in texas, guysinger organization in pennsylvania. cleveland clinic in ohio. the intermountain group in utah. you have folks at virginia mason in seattle. we have cities in the country that have collectively high value care.

grand junction, in colorado. the lacrosse area in wisconsin. the states, there are states that have extremely high value care. hawaii, iowa, vermont, new hampshire. you begin to look at the various laces in the country that -- various places that are providing high value care and it is all over the place. there isn't a single model that does it. people do not have to be like mayo clinic. they don't have to be like cleveland clinic or geisinger but they have a culture to focus on the patients and they collaborate to get the problem solved in an integrated coordinated fashion where doctors come together working with nurses and perhaps nontraditional providers, where there is some kind of payment mechanism so they keep you at home, healthy, working as much as you can and not be rewarding more and more hospitalizations

and more procedures. we have to foggy -- we have to on what patients want. we have systems that outperform all the european systems that we can learn from. so it is not just mayo but we focus on culture, the patient and teamwork. and we focus on bringing the current latest information to help make a decision as quick as we can and many other places can do that also. host: our last call, jay from potomac, maryland. caller: hi, dr. cortese. i'm a private physician in private practice and i have a huge problem with every single thing you have just said. you are sounding like a company man that is making megamillions as a c.e.o. and you have nothing to do with physicians. the backbone of american medicine that sets us apart from

the rest of the world is the culture of private practice where the individual physicians are responsible for their -- they stand up to the lawyers, they stand up to the auditors, they stand up to the regulators. they stand up to the patients. the rules are based on their quality of work. none of your physicians about the referrals or lawsuits or anything. and i mean for you to stand up there and say that our quality is the best, you are like a modified canadian system or u.k. system. host: what kind of medicine do you practice, doctor? >> i'm and the and these yogide. -- and these ideologist. most people in private practice have to work their tails off and commit their lives to the professional medicine. and they have to be personally responsible for their patients

where they are open to -- and that is the backbone of the american system where you have the best quality of care, you have -- and if not, i mean i'm personal responsible, like the lawyers can look at me, the patients can look at me, my referral sources can look at me. i'm exposed to everything and that is what makes the quality and -- if i'm screwing around -- host: ok, doctor, thank you very much. guest: i think that he makes several very good points. first, the way i would start is sort of step back a minute and say unfortunately, jay -- and i'm a physician. i stopped practicing about four years ago but i have been practicing all along. a pulmonologist and critical care physician. i have taken kerr of patients. i'm responsible for all decisions i make and subject to any lawsuits or malpractice in any way just like you are.

and we have a number of people that participate in our mayo health system which is in iowa, wisconsin, mondinnesota and the are groups of doctors close to practice the way you are talking about. now, my comment is that this isn't about you and me. this is not about the doctors. it is about the patients. and the fact is -- and i would ask you to answer this question for yourself. what is the best way to career parents? is it that a single doctor has to be out there feeling that they have to make a single decision and they are ultimately responsible -- which they would be no matter what, but they have to make it themselves? or is it about making the right decision for the patient and that the physician should be expected to make use of whatever resources are available in the count country, not in their community, not in their neighborhood, not

in the doctors that might be available in their hospital but the best decision support that patient based on whatever knowledge is available wherever that is it the country? that is what i mean by a learning organization. private doctors can still practice but they need to link up. they need to be communicating. they need to be part of a virtual integrated practice because that is the way -- and that is the only way -- that we get better career people in this century. it is not about doctors or hospitals or insurance companies. not about the government. it is not about politics. this is about how to provide better care for patients and the results speak for themselves. host: we will leave it there. dr. dennis cortese head of mayo clinic. we appreciate your come on "washington journal." next up the head of acorp. bertha lewis.

>> next month take a rare visit inside the supreme court as we tack to the justices about the role, tradition and history of the court. >> brandeis said he would not come in here.

the reason he wouldn't come is he said this build something so elaborate and go to their heads. maybe he was right. but it has become over time a symbol of the court system, the third branch of government and need for stability, rule of lawyer, which is what america stands for. >> supreme court week starting october 4 on c-span. as a complement to this production we offer teachers free teaching resources on the judicial system. go to c-span classroom.org. "washington journal" continues. host: bertha lewis is the c. evident o. of the acorn organization. now this congress has voted to country federal funding what is next? guest: of course, we don't agree with that decision and we want to see if there is a way to change it because we are trying to save people's homes and keep them in their homes. we are also trying to make sure people have affordable housing and affordable healthcare and

that they are not discriminated against in housing. our work continues. we have been doing this work for 40 years. we have a half million members and we have been on the ground a very long time. so, for us it is a little disappointing. however, we think that we will challenge it and see whether or not we can turn that around. but work doesn't stop. host: does it -- how much of your funding has come from the federal government, from taxpayers? guest: a very small portion. we are a membership organization. so, our members pay dues annually. we have private funding foundations, large donors, small donors. we do fund-raising events. so, maybe about 7% to 10% annual annually. very small portion. host: what has happened over the past year, last two years, that

has politicized acorn and caused the consensus bureau to say no more to acorn? guest: well, i think for us it began back maybe in 2004. we were always register iing fos to vote, most to poor people, low and moderate income folks, people of color, plaqu blackses latinos, the folks shut out of the electoral process, disenfranchised, millions of problems and subverting the vote. so, it seems as though the previous administrations, white house, mr. rove in particular, decided that he would send out u.s. attorneys to investigate our voter registration program because we, quite frankly, were very effective. as we know recently a series of

e-mails shows that he particularly targeted us because we were so effective. and david iglesias in new mexico was the first u.s. attorney fired because he came back and said there is nothing there. so, this continued -- i guess we should have known -- during the last election season when the theme of the republican party was to denigrate community organizi organizing, saying that president obama had been a community organizer. i guess it of the reason that, being the largest community organization in the country, i guess we should have realized they would be coming for us next. so, all our good work that we have been doing every day for 40 years helping poor people in this country, it is good to be known but we would rather people had talked about what we have been doing all of this time. so, i think that starting back

in 2004 is when we really started to come to the attention of the right and they saw us growing and being more effect e effective. when you say that an organization like ours probably moved a million people to the polls this year, making rumors like my god, they are going to be a part of the sencensus, we never had a contract to canvass for the census. there were about 80,000 groups and filled out a form and said yes, we agree everyone should be counted. our members, our constituents, black and brown folks, poor folks, everybody con seeds that they have been undercounted and i think that there was a fear that if we were involved that this would -- making sure that every american was counted -- somehow this would be a threat

because we do know census really determines a lot of power in this country and everybody concedes that pretty soon we are going to be a majority minority country. and if we country everyone that has been traditionally undercounted, then i think that upsets the power apple cart. so, we are effective, we are saving people's homes every day, making sure people have good schools, good jobs, good living conditions and healthcare. and i guess that is a threat to some folks. host: there seems to be palpable anger on capitol hill overwhelming folks. guest: i know it may sound rhetorical when you say this is a form of modern day mccarthyism but it really s. it is a chilling effect for nonprofit communities, especially to

community organizations that do the hard work every day. that if you displease someone, or you are targeted and made to seem controversial, that we will cut off your funding and not just cut off the funding but you won't be able to compete in the futu future. so, that gives pause to a lot of people across this country that do great work every day. that is why this is so disturbing. it is sort of have you now or have you ever been associated with acorn. and that harkens back to the mccarthy era when there was just fear everywhere. but we understand that republicans, the right wing, they lost the election, i guess there has to be someone to blame. so, since they probably have not a whole lot of other stuff to do -- host: santa fe, new mexico.

jack on with bertha lewis. caller: what an honor. my question is how many hundreds of thousands of marginalized or impoverished families have you actually helped to get a home? we have a great homeless problem in america and the face of homelessness that nobody wants to see is the children. guest: that is a very good point. for yours we have fought against red aligning and people being discriminated against and weeshl able to make sure that the banking industry actually treated people fairly. so, we think probably about maybe 250,000 people across the country over these past 40 years were probably not -- would probably not have a home or take in their home. someone did a study about the

effectiveness of acorn and the work we did in communities, whether we were helping people get the kind of earned income tax credit they deserved or being first-time home buyers or being able to recover when they have been duped or discriminated against. and over the past 10 years it was estimated that we were responsible for putting $15 billion back in low income communities. so, i think that the work we do and are still doing really speaks to the real issue, what we should be talking about. the lack of affordable housing across this country in groups like acorn trying to address a problem in a real way. so, we have helped hundreds of thousands of people in many different ways and you are right, this is what we should be talking about. host: steve in st. petersburg,

florida. republican. gl how are you doing? i'm a registered republican and i have called your office in ohio before i moved here. i'm a laid off union worker and i asked you for help after my unemployment went out. you told me no. i came down here. a friend of mine gave me enough money to come here and rent a place six months. i have been touched with your florida office and they say they won't help me. efficient zero income. i have exhausted all of my savings. you cannot find me a job. you won't do anything for me. i'm a damn taxpayer and i have paid a lot of taxes in the state of ohio. i have been in touch with your csiu. if you have an 800 number i can call because i'm a 50-year-old man i would sure like my rent paid and i would like some healthcare from you people and i got -- i have the numbers that

you can call. now, if you have any way you want to do that for me then you will get barack obama get my vote. guest: well, un fortunatefortu are suffering like millions of americans are suffering. we are a community organization that really can't do everything for everyone. i don't know if we can get you a job. we can try to refer you to folks who do that. we can't pay your rent, but i'm sure that we could refer you to agencies that do do that. our work is trying to help people day in their homes. so, if you have a problem with inco income, part of president obama's keeping homes affordable and keeping people in homes, you a -- you may qualify for that. acorn is not all things to all

people. we do try to help as much as we can. we don't provide a lot of the services that people need, but what we do do is try to steer you to folks that can do that for you. so, i know your situation is unfortunate and call the office again. we may not be able to help you. we can't help everyone but at least we can give you some advice and where you might be able to go to get help. host: you have been the c.e.o. about a year? guest: yes. host: why did you become the c.e.o.? frjt we suffered greatly after katrina and we had one founder for years that led the organization. and last year our board found out that his brother in fact had been misappropriating funds. we got all of that money back and our board said you are

fired. immediately you are fired. let's review everything and let's chart a new course. so, surprising to me, the board voted unanimously and thought i should lead the organization to the next 40 years. made a lot of changes. my style is different from the previous administration but the board put me in charge and i intend to make sure this organization is strong. host: new york city, independent, you are on with bertha lewis. .

that white guy with for what in your offices. you got to give me a break. guest: i absolutely agree with you, which is why as the ceo i took swift and immediate action, terminated those employees because regardless as to what we know and on the tapes and you cannot see everything and finally people were thrown out in dozens of our offices, it is inexcusable and indefensible to have such poor judgment. that is not our professional standards. that is why those folks were terminated. all of my other employees, of course, they did the right

thing. they saw this ridiculous couple who, by the way, were very aggressive and refused to leave some of our offices, but other employees and did the right thing. i wanted to make sure that people understood, this is not who we are. we will not tolerate even two minutes of that kind of conversation. our standards are much higher, and in fact, these folks got thrown out of a lot of offices. this handful of employees, it is unfortunate, but you know what? you cannot work for me if you do not have common sense. host: what would you like to say to james o'keefe iii? guest: i know mr. o'keefe is a conservative videographer. he went after a planned parenthood and called up and said, oh, i want my money to go for abortions for black women because there are just too many of those black people.

this young man, he has his agenda and i guess he is trying to make his way in the world. i do think it is disturbing, however, that if you want to go undercover, to coming to an organization that 99% is black and brown people, that you would think to dress up as a pimp and prostitutes and sort of believe your way into these offices. i think that says a little bit about what mr. o'keefe things in black and brown organization would go for. i hope the republicans and the right wing compensate him in this economy. i guess everyone needs to find a way to earn a living. but i do think that mr. o'keefe should talk to his mother. i do not think his mom would be pleased with him playing a pimp. host: chicago, doris, a

democrat. caller: good morning, i am a fan of acorn. i receive the newsletter and i did send you a donation yesterday. guest: thank you. caller: and i would urge people to do that. and i know in 2003, you helped people stay in their homes, 20,000 people. new health renegotiate their mortgages. and i see that you also took on hsbc finance corp. guest: oh, yes. caller: the subprime lenders, and made them give back some of that money. keep up that work. guest: thank you, we have never stopped doing the work that we have to do for lower-income neighborhoods. we had a campaign called the home record campaign in which we really were -- the home wreckers campaign in which we really were

defending people from being thrown out. there were in trouble with their mortgage, maybe they were not council before, and the banks of delay, delay, delay, and instead of working with folks and trying to redo their mortgage, there seemed to be a crossneassness at it. you know, the tax base goes down and the neighborhood suffers and local government suffers. in terms of federal dollars, billions went to these banks and we think they are to give back something to the american public by way of seriously ill people stay in their homes. that is what we do every single day and we will continue to do that with the support and help of folks like you. host: eagle side, texas, andrew, youérd on with bertha lewis.

caller: i am and 82-year-old -- guest: god bless you. caller: i am 82 years old and i voted for tom dooley in 1968. and i bought my home, pay for it, worked for it without any help from anyone. i would like ms. lewis to tell me why the people of the united states, black and brown, need help. why can't they take care of their own business? this organization is not necessary. that is my opinion, thank you very much. guest: i thank you for that opinion and i would ask the same question. in the greatest country in the world, why there are folks that are living in crushing poverty,

shut out from the system. you know, god bless you, 82 years old. my grandmother did not live as long as you and i hope that you state in very good health and that you have -- that you stay in very good health and that you have good health care. my parents worked, as you did, for years. had eight children and put kids through college. we never got any help of any kind. my mother worked two jobs and so did my father. so, i understand the work ethic and being upright and honest. but there are people in this country, and they are not just black and brown folks. there are so many low and moderate income agents, white people that really need help. across the country we are seeing the economic crisis affect folks. there are people who were traditionally stuck in poverty and they were white as well. there is a rainbow of folks who

suffered in the united states and we are, as a country, we are a great country. we take care of the least of hours, making sure children and other people are protected. i think it is to this country's credit that it actually does help everyone, anyone that is in need. but i agree with you, we should not have people in the greatest country in the world suffering in poverty, no matter what their color. host: where did you grappa? guest: i was -- where did you grow up? guest: i was born in a place called spuuds, florida. and i grew up in philadelphia and new york. now i will be commuting back and forth between philadelphia and washington d.c. host: how much time will you be

spending of the capital in the next six months? i think we guest: will be spending a lot more than we originally planned, as we wrap up the coming year. -- as we now out the coming year. but when an organization such as ours is singled out and targeted in a way that we have been -- maybe we did not realize this would happen to us, but it is a reality. i think we owe it to our members, we owe it to folks that we organize to spend the time here because, again, it has a very chilling affect when one group is targeted. the old saying was, they come for us in the morning, they come for you at night. we will be spending a lot of time here. i just want to let congress and the senate and washington d.c. know we will be here in force, at least for the next six months.

host: fox news is one floor below us. have you been invited to be on fox? guest: i was invited to be on fox. i have not been on fox. as you can imagine, they are not my favorite station. last year when we were being attacked relentlessly in the run-up to the election with all sorts of wild allegations about voter fraud, which proved to be baseless because every single card that was of question, we turned in every employee that we even suspected of doing something that was not right -- we turned in. and you know, i thought fox was a news ort!áju)jr(rp" journalistic standards and after our experiences, we knew that we would never be treated fairly. however, i will be on this sunday with chris wallace. i respect mr. wallace.

i think he really does try to be, at least, fair and balanced and thoughtful. my one and only fox appearance will be with chris wallace this sunday. host: for two more calls, or rich from texas first. caller: i will be opposed to the spending of federal dollars on any nonprofit organization. is against our constitution. every one of the lawmakers' pledge is to defend our constitution, but i do not hear anyone talking about it. the federal government is to have very limited powers and a very short list is in the constitution of what they have power over. health, education, welfare, non- profit organizations are not on the list. host: bertha lewis? guest: well, i will not

challenge your constitutional acumen. i think that is debatable. people can disagree about that. i think the federal government has worked with nonprofit groups for generations, for years. and to reach out and help tens of millions of americans. and using their taxpayer dollars to actually, you know, fight lead poisoning in children, to be able to make sure that people are treated fairly in housing, that they have affordable housing, to make sure that folks actually get paid a decent wage. there are many different things that the federal government can do to help and protect its citizens. we just happen to disagree that the government should not be funding nonprofit groups. the government funds tens of thousands of nonprofit groups. host: and finally, jacksonville,

fla., naomi, a democrat. caller: i wanted to find out about all of this health that is supposed to be offered out here to people. my husband and i our senior citizens. we own a small home and have for 45 years. we had to go through and refinance and some things that we had to do it over the years so that we are still paying a mortgage on this home. our mortgage servicer has reached up to help us, but they are so rude to their. when they went through the modification process with us, we are now paying through this modification more -- more, i repeat -- more than before the modification plan. i also reached out to some of the local organizations that said they had funds for the -- from the government that said

they had paid for the people that might help a person repair the home, do stuff to the home. my route is falling in. -- my roof is falling in. whenever i call these people, different agencies, they always tell us, we cannot help you. there is no money in the fund in jacksonville, florida. guest: well, again, you are a story that is repeated across this country millions of times over. you are absolutely right. these servicers, they are not interested in doing a true modification. there is always -- there are always middlemen that get paid. i do not know which agencies you have called and i do not know if you have called acorn, but this is the kind of work that we do. we are saying, look, some of these modification programs are not modifying anything except to put people more and more in debt.

you are right, they are supposed to be programs that actually are effective. we believe that we are written in don't we are. we know that with -- reno that we are pure -- we believe that we are. we know that we i do not know what agencies you have been talking to. this is the kind of work that we doç. makenna tania this, if agencies are not doing what they're supposed to do, and you do have every right to challenge them and report them and hopefully, you will, and corn in jacksonville. host: bertha lewis is the ceo of a corporate i please come back and join us on the "washington journal." michael turnoff house, a new vote -- michael chertoff has a new book out and he is our guest next.

this update first from c-span radio. >> is 9:17 a.m. eastern time. more on the president's decision to scrap plans on the missile shield for eastern europe. nato's secretary general is urging the alliance and russia to consider linking their defensive systems. in russia, vladimir putin called president obama's move right and brave and said that it has raised hopes that the u.s. will also move to cancel all existing restrictions on trade with russia. in poland this morning, the headline in the publication "the fact" the trail, the u.s. solis to russia and status in the back. and a resolution has been passed directly criticizing israel and its atomic program for the first time in 18 years. israel is considered by many to have nuclear arms.

this meeting was sponsored by arab nations and supported by many developing countries. turning to the war in afghanistan, italian prime minister berlusconi says it would be best for his troops to leave afghanistan as soon as possible. this after six italian soldiers were killed yesterday in a car bombing in kabul. giving a time line for a withdrawal, he added that any pullout would be coordinated with italy's allies. meanwhile, afghanistan officials are saying that a u.s. serviceman and a canadian soldier have been killed in separate provide bomb explosions in southern afghanistan. this year has been the deadliest for american and nato troops since the 2001 invasion. finally, japan tells us that tokyo wants to strengthen bilateral relations despite potential areas of disagreement, including their longstanding military alliance. assistant secretary campbell

says washington is looking forward to having a wide range of talks with the new japanese government the prime minister made the remarks on this, his second day on the job. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. >> michael chertoff, in your new book "homeland security: assessing the first five years" you write about the september 10 mindset. this is where you ride, "the voice of complacency sounds something like this. here we are eight years after 9/11, and because there are no attacks on our soil, 9/11 has got to be a freakish aberration that is not going to repeat itself. al qaeda a is a threat to the government and exaggerating the threat. there are other things to worry about and we should move to something else and focus on other elements of the public agenda." guest: i think that is a concern, and to be honest, it was a predictable concern even in the days after zakaria 11.

i remember president bush warning this was going to be a long-term process. i think other people said we were terribly afraid of another attack, but if we were successful in preventing attacks, the irony is that it would likely communicating to assemble they are to lower their guard. for me, it is not to get people to the level of fear or anxiety right after 9/11, but also to make sure that we do not go back and repeat the mistakes that led to 9/11, which is not being -- not persevering in terms of building our defenses and in terms of making sure we are taking on the enemy and not adapting ourselves to what is an evolving strategy that we see the terrace engaging in. host: you do not write about this in the book, but do you see any signs in the obama administration that, in your view, they are returning to that? guest: the obama administration at this point seems to be

continuing largely along the course that we set over the past eight years. certainly, in my department. i think secretary the paulick tunnel has been a very good leader and i think she has continued to press for on a you talk to our regularly paxman guest: not regularly -- do you talk to her regularly jackson a a guest: not regulate, but we are friends -- do you talk to our regularly? guest: guest: not regulate, but we are friends. prior to 9/11, the think board about most was the truck bombs. -- the thing people were most worried about was truck bombs and that was a reasonable concern. but of course, after 9/11, we sought airplanes become the weapon of choice. now we have seen, of course, the airport and airlines are targeted. we saw that most recently in august, 2006. still more recently in 2008,

there was an attack in mumbai and for the first time we saw a different kind of a threat, a roving attack with guns or the terrorists move from place to place. the terrorists continue to refine what they do and what is important is that we continue to think ahead about what is not only happening -- what has not only happened before, but what might come next. host: when you talk about what some of the things that need to be done are, the first thing you stress is securing the border. why? guest: from the standpoint of moment security, if you cannot stop the enemy overseas, you want to stop them doing -- coming in. and you do that in two ways. you look at the courts and you have documents that you can check and you look at whether they should be admitted or not. the second half of the strategy is between the borders. and there, we've built over 600 miles of fence, began to lay down some sophisticated

technology. in both of these areas we have made substantial progress, but the job is not done and it has got to continue. that is the current agenda. host: our guest is michael chertoff, served from 2005 through 2009 as secretary of homeland security. the numbers are up on the screen. we want to hear from you. also, we're going to hear from some law students up at dressed -- drexel university in philadelphia. they turned -- they attend the earl mack school of law up there and the c-span bus is parked there. we will talk to some of those students, too, let questions for michael chertoff. matthew is the first student. please go ahead with your question for secretary chertoff. >> given the recent disclosures to which -- to the extent to which the federer has lied about things like blackwater, johnson that were traditionally

the role of the government, whether they be interrogations' or assassinations, the you think the supreme court doctrine of either integument [unintelligible] host: matthew, i'm sorry, we lost your audio. you were talking about the contractors. could they be effectively considered what? caller: state actors. host: ok, thank you. guest: this has a lot of different dimensions. when contractors aren't as the federal government, they often are considered state actors and they are held to the same standards. clearly, there are a number of areas in which contractors make a lot of sense -- logistics' cause of why, even security were they could supplement a military

-- logistics, supply, even security where they could supplement a military that is already stretched thin. in the end, the government has to reserve the ultimate decision. the contractors, however, can help the government in formulating that decision and carrying it out. host: first call-up for michael chertoff, st. petersburg, fla., william, independent line. caller: good morning, gentlemen. guest: good morning. caller: you mentioned the september 10, 2009 mind-set. that made me nervous. [unintelligible] the $2 trillion plus missing reported by donald rumsfeld. where did that go? did you ever find it? guest: i must have missed the news report about the missing trillions. i do know that in the run-up to

september 11, theç 9/11 commission and took a look back at what had been done and what had not been done. i think they found the key problem was correcting information and using information -- correcting information and using information to get the best possible picture. in the cold war, we worry about bombers and missiles attacking the united states and that is why we had radar. in a war involving terrorists, we do not have radar that is going to attack -- detect bombs and missiles, but what we have is intelligence, the ability to gather and analyze and integrate intelligence as the principal way in which we protect ourselves. host: your predecessor, tom ridge, wrote in his book, but then denied it, saying that the color-coded system, he raised it and it was a political -- he raised it and it was a political issue why he raised it. guest: actually, i do not think

that tom ever went that far. he wondered why some are making a political calculation. i can tell you that unequivocally during my four years, there was never a with or hint of any political calculation or white house pressure with respect to the color code. we raised it twice, right after the july 2005 london bombing for about a month and we did that only with respect to mass transit, and that we did it after the august 2006 airline plot for obvious reasons. it has remained at an elevated level because we have continued to see efforts to attack our airline system. there is a reason we raised it. there are a series of operational steps that are taken either at the airports or subway stations that are tied to the level of the alert. we want to have a high degree of security in a particular place and we need to raise the alert level to do that.

i read in the paper there is a recommendation to reduce the number of levels. i have advocated for that myself. it is unlikely we will be getting down to the most benign levels in the foreseeable future. but i think the voice vote -- the basic system is sound and has not been changed in the last few years and that reflects the fact that it has become a more stable and accepted process. host: as a private citizen now, what you think of your tsa? guest: i have had an opportunity to go through it frequently. i am impressed by the screeners. i have had the opportunity to talk to them face to face. they enjoy the challenge, but also in -- understand the importance of the job. and we have also reconfigured the with the system works to maximize the ability to move efficiently and not compromise on the level of security. the next big step is going to be a technological jump. even last year, i could see evidence that we were getting

close to some positive developments. the better the technology, the more efficient it will continue to be. host: next call for secretary chertoff, new book out, gwenn, mich., mark, republican. please, go ahead. mark, you know the rules. you have got to turn the volume down on your tv. i'm going to put you on hold and we are quick to talk to a truxel law student in philadelphia. go ahead with your question for michael chertoff. caller: what you think is the biggest issue with: security that is currently not being addressed via [no audio] guest: the biggest issue not been fully addressed by the current administration. i do think they are continuing the initiative that we have with respect to the border, with respect to the transportation security. one issue we have launched -- in

2007, 2008 had to do with cyber security, protecting our computer networks. president obama spoke about this early in the administration and talked about the fact that it was a critical area of focus. i think that was the right thing to do. i am concerned, however, that it has stalled and we do not have much forward progress and i'm concerned that we will lose the momentum that we had addressed -- and we have developed on addressing this problem. it is a complex set of issues to understand how to manage security over the internet, but the alternative, which is to ignore it, is going to expose us to more threats peter from foreign countries or criminals, or from terrorists that willç t our cyber assets at great risk. host: and that is chapter 8 in your new book. but give us a specific cyber security risk.

guest: there are three things that we see. the one that gets reported most often is when someone comes in and steals personal data or manages to manipulate the financial system to commit a crime. that when we get from time to time. recently, i think there was a huge hit on a number of retailers. a number of customers information was stolen and was abused to illegally make money. but there a couple of things that we are concerned about. if a blood years ago, estonia was attacked in a denial -- georgia was attacked that was parallel to the attack by russian troops. the issue of denial is a big problem. and the third problem, probably these often reported, is espionage. people stealing our secrets, whether trade secrets or government secrets curato.

all of these areas demonstrate the kind of vulnerability is we have. we are working to reduce those vulnerabilities but this is going to take a process that is not only government, but the private sector as well and that is why we need to get this cyber security strategy reinvigorated and push forward. host: mark in going michigan, you've got your volume down i know and go ahead with your question. caller: mr. chertoff, i wanted to let you know that i called the department of homeland security and was trying to get them information. they connected me with the fbi and as soon as i mentioned the wealthy elite they cut me off. i called back to the department of homeland security and ask them, i am trying to get to the department of homeland security some very information -- very important information. they connected me back to the fbi. host: what is that important information? caller: it is called the wealthy

elite. we have overwhelming evidence to prove that these people have taken control of the united states federal government. they are the ones that attacked as on 9/11. host: mr. chertoff, if that man has information to share, where would you recommend himal to send it? -- recommend him to send it to? guest: i think they did the right thing by sending in to the fbi. they have to evaluate whether there is actual evidence to proceed. but normally, the fbi is very responsive if there is a serious, credible piece of information. host: what is your general opinion of people who think that government was involved in 9/11? guest: i think that is grouped with a holocaust denial and the people who think that president, was not born in hawaii. it is conspiracy -- president obama was built not born in hawaii.

it is conspiracy theory. -- president obama was not born in hawaii. host: next call from new jersey. caller: is it your opinion that most of the problem with immigration in the united states has to do with the people who overstayed their visas as opposed to people who are crossing the border? if that is true, why are more resources focus on border control as opposed to trying to get reform for a visa limits? my second question has to do with the whole thing with nafta. do we think that because we are in naphtha that we should have an agreement with our neighboring countries not just for services, but a free transfer of labor? guest: two great questions. first of all, the caller is right, when people focus on illegal entry between the ports of entry at the border,

particularly the southern border, about 40% of the people here illegally came in that legally and overstayed their visas. it is true is important to focus on all end of the spectrum and the way we did that was that we not only put fencing and technology at the border itself, but we have better systems in place at the airport to try to judge whether people are really going to abide by the visa terms and go back home or stay illegally. another big piece of this is enforcing the law against employersç who basically make a business out of hiring illegal workers and that, of course, creates encouragement for them to stay. we have to deal with all elements of the problem. with respect to the second question, again, i think that nafta does a couple of things that impact immigration. by stimulating the economy, particularly in mexico, it creates more jobs in mexico,

which reduces some of the pressure for illegal immigration. but i think the caller makes an interesting suggestion, which is, if we're going to talk about comprehensive immigration reform, which we tried to enact in 2007, we do need to talk to cut trees -- talk to countries like mexico and they need to cooperate with us. we need to make an arrangement with them that they will work with us so that only people who are approved by us come into our country as opposed to thinking across the border. host: in your book you right -- here is a tweet that came in from lynette. guest: i appreciate the sentiment. i can tell you, though, as a matter of fact, that we

significantly reversed the problem of the border during my tenure. for the first time in the last -- for the first time in the last couple of years, we saw a decrease of the border and a minimum of stabilizing across the country. we go over 600 miles of fence. we doubled the border patrol. we laid out the technology. would dramatically increase the number of criminal cases against employers. we get a lot to change the dynamic, but i will also make the point that it has taken years to get where we are. and it is going to take some years to finish the job of getting the border under control. host: nicole aidan is a student at the earl mack school of law at drexel university in philadelphia. go ahead with your question. caller: good morning, mr. tradeoff. that should the executive branch comply with international law in the use of force in conducting

its war on terror including those laws and treaties to which the u.s. is a party or perhaps customary international law? guest: a very good question. the constitution says that treaties are the law of the land, therefore, when we enter into a treaty, we comply with the treaty as a matter of law. the -- the issue of customary international is a bit different. for people who are not lawyers, that is a doctrine in the international law that says that if you look at the way states gave and they seem to basically be eight as if there is a legal principle involved, -- behave as if there is a legal principle involved, then you can actually derived that there is a legal principle. whether we are bound by customary international law depends on the feeling of the role of congress in setting our own laws. to the extent we deferred to international laws we have not signed up to buy trudi, it undercuts congress' constitutional role to ratify

treaties. some things are so well except that i think we would all agree that they are and -- a matter of international law. for example, the laws against slavery and genocide. but there are some that we would have to have a certain from of social work from -- welfare system or educational system. then i think we go as a constitutional matter, we owe it to our own citizens to make sure we are not getting ahead of our own lawmakers and what our constitution requires. host: where are you doing today? guest: going to go back to the office. host: no, i mean, what are you doing these days? guest: have an advisory -- i have an advisory system that i have set up with a number of former colleagues. host: 0 haden. -- michael haden. guest: michael haden as well as

others. we call it the truck group. i divide my time between security advice -- we call it the chertoff group. i'd bet my team between -- my time between security advisor at other things. the do host: enjoy yourç time - did you enjoy your time as common security secretary? guest: it was a very good and challenging time. in a very personal way, i felt the impact of 9/11 and i lost friends on 9/11. to participate in helping to secure the country along with 218,000 fine men and women who serve the country, was a great privilege. were their frustrations? sure, was it hard work? 24/7, yes. to be honest with you, the real test at the end of the day was,

no successful attacks on our watch and that is -- that has been a meaningful metric for me. host: chapter 14 -- guest: that is one of the great myths of the west for several years. i spent a lot of time as a common security secretary working with my counterparts, particularly in europe, and what surprised me initially, but also pleased me, was the close relationship of that relationship. people believe there is a wedge between the u.s. and europe and the rest of the world. there are small differences that a rise in some areas.

in my experience, there were strong views, everyone understood the threat, there was cooperation in sharing information. there was -- there were some differences in sharing information. we were able to work those out with agreements. some of my closest friends since i have left are my counterparts in europe that i have worked with over the last of all your years. the good news is that we actually get along well with europeans and our friends in asia and around the world and it will continue to be that way. host: you are on the line with michael chertoff, go ahead. caller: would you please allow me a follow-up because i know what this man will predictably answer to my questions? mr. graaff, do not feign ignorance on this because if i can find this out, certainly, you know it. recently, six of the 10 9/11 commissioners have stated

publicly that the 9/11 commission was hogwash, that it was set up to fail and it was a whitewash. recently, in publications, nine scientists that were given debris from the world trade centers have found evidence of a high-grade military explosive. host: we're going to leave it there because we know where you are going. mr. chertoff, you have addressed that question. guest: crops up from time to time and has been looked at thoroughly by everybody. people witnessed the planes going into the buildings. it is like holocaust denial and people who believe the president was not born in hawaii. it is just a myth. host: kevin been co goes to the loss will at drexel university. kevin, please go ahead. caller: how much deference to

the executive branch show the judiciary regarding issues of national security? should the president be allowed to ignore court orders when we are talking but the war on terror? -- talking about the war on terror? guest: every president with the exception of abraham lincoln has always abided by court orders, would you agree or disagree with the order. obviously, you have the right to appeal and the executive branch will appeal when they disagree with a lower court decision. but the answer is, no, the president does have to abide by the law as set forth by the courts. the one exception was abraham lincoln. he was ordered during the civil war early on by the cheese -- by the chief justice to release imprisoned under habeas corpus and he refused. that is one example -- to release a prisoner under habeas corpus and he refused. that is one example.

host: here is a tweed. çguest: dhs did not do that muh with the patriot act. it was more directed to the department of justice and intelligence agencies. another area where there is a lot of misunderstanding, and i will often ask people, what is the exact part of the patriot that you object to and i find that people have a hard time articulating it because they do not have a particular provision in mind. most of what the pitch redact dealt with was sharing information, making sure we did not have -- with the patriot act dealt with was sharing information, making sure we did not have a repeat of 9/11. the other major element of the page redact was upgrading for technological change. there were certain things you do

with telephones you could not do with voice over internet. we had to make sure that you did not create in a scene -- and asymmetry, where people who do things on the internet are immune from being scrutinized in the where the people on the telephone can be. but there's nothing in the act that undermines civil liberties and nothing in the act that is unconstitutional. i am not aware of an accord that has held it to be unconstitutional. it was passed almost unanimously in the senate and with a substantial margin the house back in 2001. host:: security -- "homeland security: assessing the first five years" before word is by lee hamilton. the first book was by tom ridge and your friend of food under the radar. is that when to index guest: i did not realize -- is that coincidence? guest: i did not realize tom was writing his book. my book is not a memoir. for those looking for someone to gossip his colleagues, that is

not my book. i was trying to lay out homeless security doctrine and what the philosophy and principles are as a way of building a foundation for a homeland security in the future. i think tom was much more focus on his own experiences and i think we appeal to different audiences. host: johnson city, tenn., david, you are on with michael chertoff. caller: i want to thank you for serving your country, and i have heard that with the former terrorists, there is a change of heart. in one instance, a conversion to christianity. in your experience, what seems to be the most common factor for people who do have a change of heart? guest: there are terrorists who have become deradicalized or have had a change of heart. i do not know the one you are specifically referring to, but i have dealt with a number of people who were terrorists, or at least very sympathetic in

their views and were radicals who then wound up changing their view and actually in our work to counteract radicalization. sometimes that is an internal process. they just change their views over the course of time. sometimes it is an experience which shakes them up. i can tell you that in parts of the world like saudi arabia and parts of southeast asia there are actually programs in place to deradicalize terrorists after their capture. they bring muslim care -- moslem clerics and mainstream clerics to explain to people who have been radicalized that their view of islam is incorrect and they have essentially been sold a bill of goods. these programs are quite successful. it does not work for everybody, but for those who are perhaps less at the core of terrorism and more at the periphery, many of them do wind up essentially

getting and brainwashed and that is one tool that can be very effective in our response to terrorism. host: back to philadelphia at the truxel law school, rafah d.l. as a law student. please go ahead, rafah yelled. -- raphael. caller: i was wondering what your thoughts are on how stopping the defense shield in eastern europe affect our security. guest: you have to break into two questions. one is a more tactical matter, one is to start building a missile shield in the middle east to focus on a shorter or medium-term missile. that is a judgment that has been made onç the most current intelligence about where iran is, based on the judgment of the military, the joint chiefs,

about where they think the need is most urgent. i am inclined to defer to bob gates and the chairman of the joint chiefs and his folks on a tactical question. but i think there is a second question that is as important if not more important. what would be a very bad thing would be to send a message to our allies in eastern and central europe that we are somehow backing away from them for any reason and, worst of all, because we're trying to curry favor with the russians. the russians do tend to push their weight a little bit in central and your -- central and eastern europe. it is critical to demonstrate not just with words, but with deeds, that we continue to be forced or committed to our allies in eastern europe. i think putting a patriot missiles there is good and additional assets there is good just so we do not make any mistake that we are totally prepared to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies in eastern europe if they do feel pressure from the russians.

host: orlando, fla., nelson, a democrat, hello. nelson is gone, it appears. we will move on to georgia, clyde, independent. caller: good morning. i have 33 years in the military, five years working with the department of defense and to this day i still see cover-up on 9/11. we note there were able to infiltrate terrorist activities and had photographs of the attacks and they knew they'd planned their targets. the report went forward either on clinton's desk in 98, or 99 and it was never acted on. host: you write in your book -- you call this a generational challenge.

what do you mean by that? guest: the 21st century is a given kind of warfare of them the 20th century. we're used to have been massed armies, and became of the hill and you could see the cloud of dust and people were uniforms. there was a set of rules and principles that were very clear. 20 for centuries different. the line between the military and the a -- 21st century is different. the line between military and a criminal is very thin. we have to use analyzing or defense, we have to choose one or the other. it is unfortunately leverage by a technological revolution, which means a smaller and smaller number of people can do more damage, as we saw in 9/11. that means we have to reconfigure our strategy and our menu of options in dealing with this kind of threat. we cannot afford to have boxes

and silos anymore. now have to have an open architecture for how we deal with this, a very new and dangerous challenge. host: do you think the way the intelligence community is organized today is better than it was, and have we gotten to the point where we are sharing? guest: it is clearly better and there is more sharing, but it is not completely where it needs to be. i would say there is a couple of areas where that is true. one is, we still tend to view what goes on overseas and what goes on over here as two separate domains. the fact of the matter is, particularly with the internet, you cannot draw that distinction. we have to have a more seamless intelligence capabilities. second, legal principles have not kept up with new challenges. one of the problems that we face right after 9/11 is that will have been written with dealing with foreign intelligence and how we surveil it back in the days of worrying about the soviet union or other countries. while we still have concerns about nation states, the issue

of terrorism is now equal in importance. we did not have a legal mile to help us deal with that. one thing congress needs to do is actually sit down and think through in a bipartisan way what is the legal architecture we need to deal with this 21st century challenge. host: kevin frost, a drexel law student, please go ahead with your question for secretary chertoff. caller: my question is about the intersection between sick -- security issues broadly defined and our national drug war policy, and whether it is the funding of terrorism and afghanistan or directly the ability to control our southern border, i'm wondering if you think we need to rethink our national drug war policy to effectively control our national security. i think guest: to the extent that our drug war is focused -- guest: i think to the extent that our order of words focus on keeping drugs out of the country, i think it is the right

thing to do. what concerns me is the beginning of a convergence between terrorism and transnational criminal activity, including drug activity. we saw the first with fark, which was a colombian revolutionary organization that eventually engaged in drug trafficking. we know that crime is one of the ways that terrorist groups finance themselves. just recently, i heard from a friend who is involved with overseas intelligence that there is increasing evidence that some of the drugs moving from south america into europe, as we have tightened our own border, is moving to parts of africa where they're getting terrorists to help them move the drugs from the coast into the interior and ultimately into europe. and the terrorists do it of course because it is a financial aid to them in terms of their own activities. to me, the real challenge we face is, how you deal with multinational terrorist and criminal groups, which sometimes

-- not always -- sometimes work together, and that means we have to continue to be very aggressive in fighting the drug organizations which are still very powerful in various parts of latin america. host: citrus heights, calif., randy, republican, what is your question? caller: my question is regarding the mumbai style attacks, but i would first like to very quickly thank the secretary for his service and i can only imagine the responsibilities he had to bear during his tenure. it was probably rivaled only by the president and vice- president. i regret the personal attacks you had to endure just because you served under a republican. you are -- your professionalism and competence is evident every time i see you. thank you for your service. guest: thank you. caller: the mumbai attacks scared me because this was a

pretty low-tech thing and i worry about people's ability to respond and i am wondering what you think about in regard to second amendment issues and people carrying firearms in public. host: let's leave it there. guest: again, a great question. mumbai did demonstrate what people have been worrying about four years, which is that we can not only focus on bombs and the high level plot. we have to look at the rather low technology plot. and of course, we have not seen an attack with guns in this country from a terrorist standpoint, but we have seen other attacks with guns, for example, the shootings at virginia tech. we need to, first, have our city and county police prepared for dealing with this kind of event. the good news is that we have seen a lot of work done even prior to mumbai, particularly in

big cities. second, we need to prepare our hotels and commercial establishments. they need to plan about what they would do if there were an attack. as far as the second amendment is concerned, i am a believer in the second amendment and there are all kinds of good reasons for people, if they're properly trained, to have firearms. i would not, however, plan to engage in self help if there was a natarus -- if there was a terrorist attack. it is best to leave it to professionals because you are often dealing with terrorists with people who are pretty well trained and they may have some heavy firepower, which is more than the average citizen is going to have. host: and tabitha kennedy, drexel law student up in philadelphia, you get the last question or comment for the secretary. caller: i wanted to go back to immigration. you discussed the importance of building a border fence, but do you see