"washington journal" is next. host: contract has been secured in iraq to drill oil. a federal court has said that congress is ever to cut off funding to acorn is unconstitutional. this is "washington journal" for december 12. many topics will recover but we want to start off this morning for the first half-hour with the house of representatives. they are passing tougher regulations which would affect firms on wall street. a moment. here are the numbers and other addresses you contact us at.

most of the headlines this morning are dealing with the bill passed yesterday about a 12--- two hundred-page bill. "tl street journal." here is the breakdown -- dhçsome consumer elements of the house financial regulation bill or -- it would create a consumer protection agency to oversee products and credit cards and mortgages,q%ñ it gives shareholders advisory vote on executive pay, it would use $3 billioneñ of tarp funds to redue the risk of foreclosures for the unemployed and would create a whistleblower program for those who uncover security fraud.

that is part of the highlights. [eeáç"the wall street journal" s more detail. wsçc/this is by all accounts, e senate presents aw

do for wall street.:ecs(p&c+ here are the numbers. journal@cspan.org is the e-mail. greensville, n.c., on our democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning. çiñ2ipt%9-:uz need to do what franklin roosevelt did. there is an amendment that is going up against this legislation that was passed in regards to regulation. they want to restore a glass stiegel, the banking act of 1933 when we separated commercial

banking and investment banking. basically, these too big to fail institutions wouldn't have gotten that way if we had not ignore that policy and repealed in 1999. larry summers was the chief lobbyist to get that done and he is obama economic adviser. obama need to act like' true democrat like franklin roosevelt in the banking crisis. host:ñi you think that is a more effective route and was passed yesterday? caller: definitely. caller: these people are supposed to help the economy and not enrich themselves ridiculously. ñihost: what do you mean it does not go far enough? 5(kcaller: the need to put thee people in a situation where the making reasonable amount of money. considering how much they

actually do, they said around and said buy and sell and they do not do something that takes a great they go to school for a long time but you do not learn how to do this in school. if they were actuallyñlmaking money based on what they do, so @÷ physy would not be getting millions of dollars per year. it is ridiculous that people make that amount of money. host: on twitter -- one message says, "it's about time." "the washington post" has a breakdown of the new÷ executive pay. this would break down the details of four firms which are

citigroup, a.i.g., gm, and gmac. ñiat least half of ané.÷&rñzgvrl years and cash cannot make up more than 45% of total pay except for companies who can show good cause and compensation should consist of cash seller, be accessible for one year, and a bonus that could be paid in cash and stock. itñ cannot exceed $500,000 unless companies can show good cause. half of annual bonuses must be paid in stock which can be sold for three years. that is the highlight of the new pay structure scheme that will take place at citigroup, a.i.g., gm, and gmac. back to the poems, gardner, maine, are independent line. caller: i was watching earlier

this morning about bank of america. they said they would pay out up to $5.8 billion. in executive bonuses. they ended up paying out-wñ $3.9 billion. k se looking further banks and looking into!#ñ what d of fraud they are being put through. there are many people out here reduce not have any employment and bankamerica gets tarp money from the government that we have to pay into. vw4il [ñithey got those moneysf their executives. that is usage of all of our money.

host: next up is dinar, pa.,mown our democrats line. where are you located? caller: we are 26 miles south of pittsburgh. host: go ahead. listened to cspan,y bzça i am as amazed about the fact that so many people do not understand this and so many people do not understand the history that brought us here. if we reconstruct glass steal from the 1930's, it cannot possibly cover all the technology or technological things that have happened in the last 60 or 70 years. however, this did not just start

or end in 1999. ronald reagan began unwinding this whole thing in the 1980's. it took until 1999 for clinton to buy into it. and dismantle the glass- stiegel. here we are 10 years later in the soup. what barney frank has done has tried to put us back to the point where we can combine the progress that we have made all along with the rules of the road. there is just too much money. there is too much money from lobbyists and what have you in the system. if the senate acts the way on this as they have been acting on health care, this country is up

the creek. host: another twitter -- allowing bankruptcy judges to modify mortgages on primary residences should have been in this bill. san antonio, texas, independent line, go ahead. caller: i am curious we have a bunch of folks who are thieves. they want to regulate the private sector. it was a for the private sector, we would not be here today. government can only create debt. the debt that they create for themselves -- last year, when the president was talking about the post office, the guy standing next to him was making $800,000 per year.

i think that is a little bit too much money it for me to work my backside off so that he can live better than we do. there has to be a reason why government employees, federal, state, local, get more money for whatever they do than those in the private sector doing the same thing. it bothers me why a janitor in government makes more money with better benefits than a janitor in the private sector. host: we are trying to talk about is the house passing these regulations on wall street. caller: that is what i mean. if they are passing regulation on wall street, why don't the past regulation on themselves? if the private sector that given the lifestyle they are living at our expense -- they say the poor get poorer and the rich get richer, that is because the

government does the taxation host: al-jazeera reported this morning that iraq has signed an agreement with russia to develop one of the largest untapped oil fields. the company agreed to the deal giving it access a day after a consortium awarded contracts for other oil fields. lukkoil has won the contract to develop oil fields. it was the iraqi oil minister who announced that yesterday. on a related story -- iraq is poised surpassed iran in the global oil leak. d. the company has offered iraq a very good tiryns because they believe that the oil fields hold

more recoverable oil than previously assumed. on the basis of the bids that iraq would get, the improved reserves would be over three years. these have been -- these companies have been studying and i ran for a long time. next up is rock hill, south carolina, go ahead. caller: i feel that the regulations they are passing are not designed to put big constraint on wall street. it is not only the financial aspect of the way these companies are going. they have been given the right to act as human beings for the 14th amendment. this amendment almost makes them human but they never have any kind of regulations that would cause them to fear actions -- to fear the most of their actions. they do something wrong, they

cannot go to prison. you have corporations to file and pollute areas and they are not responsible in the same manner as a human being. by trying to regulate them for more regulation, they will find more loopholes and more expenditures for lawyers to keep them from having to bother with these things. you have to wait three or four years to touch their money and they still have migrated to is an illusion that they are trying to present to the general public. host: if the regulation does not go far enough, what would go far enough, in your mind? caller: jail time would probably do these people some good. they are being -- they are making enormous amounts of money and are not accountable. if i was to make an enormous amount of money and was not responsible to my community or my nation and still piled "--

pilot the sanctity of human beings in a profit of the people dying of cancer or what ever diseases i might create and not being held responsible and being able to be rewarded for causing these health problems or other issues from my actions on wall street, the crisis we are going to know and not have any kind of responsibility. they can make great sums of money. host: you made your point. turner, maine, our republican line. caller: hello, i have tried to get hold of you for a long time. one thing that i cannot understand is why all the people do not see what obama is really doing.

what he is really doing is trying to crash america. the reason he is trying to crash america is because you can think back to when they called the american people stupid. they are not stupid out here. you don't have to go to school or go to college to figure out what is going on people are intelligent. all it does is take common sense. with all the money he has spent, i think charges should be brought against him and his cronies. i am sorry the man is not for the people. he is doing something else. you people need to look into it before it is too late once it crashes, the money for medicare is not going to go for medicare. it will be gone. host:"the washington post" this

morning is the headline the house prepares bills on the debt ceiling, jobs. they want to raise the credit limit of the nation by one percentage point recurre. it goes on to say that chris holland says we are determined to have a jobs creation program. the democrats are working on funding for increased unemployment benefits, "ralph insurance, food stamps, and etiquette and will include as much as $50 billion in infrastructure projects which will help states avoid laying off personnel. terre haute, ç(÷indiana, you're next.

caller: we should not get any more than the consumer price index increase throughout the government. that is wall street, work street, retirees, the infrastructure, the new amount they are trying to raise for the total government expenditures, if we put a cpi increase on everything, we just quiet the entire economy down. that was done by president nixon back in the early 1970's. i was in the health-care field and ask for a raise and i was told that i did not write one because of the cpi freeze. i believe we need a total consumer price index brees not only for the retirees but also for all government. thank you.

on twitter -- the bill goes in the house to the senate where a bunch of representatives are owned by corporations. chicago is up next, our democrats line. caller: i watched the debate on c-span yesterday. i think it's a good first start. i was amazed how the republicans did not want to do anything. they don't want to do anything. america needs to wake up and realize what is going on with the economy is not republican or democrat issue. it is an american issue. it seems that the republicans want to defeat this president so bad that they are willing to ruin this country. they vote against everything they can. overall, the democrats try to pass the eggs to help the average joe blow. i am not happy with all the democrats and some of them need

to go. i think they are involved with the bags. the legislators are playing on people's emotions. you should not vote against your own interests. why would you want health care? everybody sees their premiums go up. what we do not want regulation on these things? they try to make this look crazy. if government was more involved, we would not be in the mess we were involved in last year. i wish people would understand that the republicans, the majority of them, are concentrated on defeating obama. if the country goes down, they don't care. i'm an optimist and i don't think that will happen. have a great day. host: there's a blurb about acorn, the group you have heard about. there is an effort to cut off funding to them from congress,

calling it unconstitutional. a u.s. district judge ordered that federal funding be restored saying that the group had been singled out for punishment without any finding of guilt. employees were secretly videotaped. savannah, georgia, good morning, on our independent line. caller: the queue for cspan. to start with, acorn is a political animal. if they do anything illegal or immoral, it should be stopped. i vote republican but i am embarrassed by the behavior of republicans, most of them right now, about a barack obama. he is one of the most intelligent people i have seen in president in my 60 years.

this condemnation of him, the only problem i have with him and i have this problem with everybody, energy got us into this situation. the price of gas going up affects small business as part of host: let me point to to what we are talking about as far as the regulations passed by the house as far as wall street. what are your thoughts about that? caller: talking about the cpr was a good idea. i made union and might cpi has always been locked down very i have not got much of a race in two or three years. we hear about ceo's making a lot of money and getting bailout money. i think our politicians need to look at that, too.

host: tennessee on a republican line, go ahead caller: thank you for taking my call. i would like to say that i have been a republican and i voted democrat this term. i thought that the democrats would do better and help us out. i did not agree with what george bush did. i think that the congress and all these people that boded their cells i raise should work for nothing -- that voted to their cells a raise should work for nothing. we don't need these bills passed. they should get down and supper on in washington for the people we voted for. host: so you think the legislation on wall street was not needed? caller: no, they make more money than anybody in the country.

host: the legislation would put regulation on the industry of wall street. caller: more or less. host: what do you about that? caller: i don't like it. host: why? caller: i don't know. host: our democrats lined is next. caller: i don't understand what is going on with these people. i think they have a very short memory of all the things that have happened in the last couple of years. they are trying to have this situation and criticizing and trying to turn obamas head down instead of lifting him up. these people are really crazy. host: mandeville, louisiana, the last call on the house passing legislation putting regulations on wall street. what do you think? caller: what he is doing is

minuscule. capping the $500,000 limit -- the amount of employees that will affect is like 0.01%. i feel sorry for president obama. i really do. the guy is in a real predicament right now. the sad thing is washington really has no wisdom. they have a lot of intelligent people but no wisdom. wisdom comes from god we live in a godless society right now. it is a shame because when you let god guide your life, usually you end up in the right direction. our country is sinking in quicksand.

especially congress. that is a dog was community up there. -- that as a godless community up there. these people are completely ignorant of any facts. what is going on in health care right now, 58%, and still able to run this down our throats. people, wake up. host: we will leave it there. the caller mentioned health care. emily pierce from roll call, their senior staff writer joins us to give us the latest on the website. you had a story about 10 senators sent a letter to capitol hill, is that right? guest: they sent a letter to senate majority leader harry reid saying that they would like him to reconsider expanding

medicare to ages 55-64 unless he deals with some of the reimbursement issues that they feel are playing their states. -- playing their states. host: what were some of their arguments? guest: they have what they call a very efficient states in terms of medical care and are states that actually have better outcomes. this is their argument. states that have better outcomes order of your test but have better medical outcomes do not get paid as much as state to order a bunch of tests. currently, this is part of the reason why they are going through this entire debate on capitol hill on health care, is that you get more money as a doctor or hospital the more procedures you perform, not based on whether you have made the patient healthy.

they were saying that until medicare deals with not paying the state enough money, maybe you should not expanded. granted, this medicare by in, these individuals 55-64, would be allowed to buy in. it is unclear how many people would do that. this proposal is also a tentative idea. it is not yet in the bill and it is unclear whether it will be. these senators were trying to draw a line in the sand. host: on top of that, talk a little bit about the new report that came up from health and human services regarding the cost. has there been any ripple effect on capitol hill? guest: republicans are saying it proved the bill is not sustainable. democrats are saying it proved the need to do health care. there is a little bit for everyone.

host: can you encapsulated force? guest: going back to this letter,cms has evaluated the bill. one thing they said which is important and goes back to what this letter from these 10 senators said is that some of the cuts to medicare may affect payments to hospitals and providers and continue the current problem that many states have. host: the senate has been talking about health care but there is no care -- talk about health care in the senate? guest: they were just going to spend 10-hour days debating health care it turns out that also haveçó to pass a lot of the funding bills for the federal government. the winchester deadline which

was october 1 for passing new spending bills --çó they went pt their deadline which was october 1 for passing new spending bills. there was funding for the commerce department, health and human services, the state department. this bill does not fund the defense department, basically. what happened is that senator reid trie) to get an agreement to vote yesterday or thursday about this but the republicans said they have serious concerns about decreasing spending. they want to talk about and how republicans have been making this argument that democratic spending has run amok. host: what is the likelihood we will see some type of a final package come together in health care? guest: i think we will have something eventually. i still think there's a halfway

decent chance we will see something before christmas. right now, it depends on the congressional budget office. this plan we were just talking with medicare as well as other major compromises that could make it possible for the democrats to come together and provide the 60 votes necessary to beat back a republican filibuster, it has to have a score from cbo. if they can get that by wednesday of next week, they will be in good shape to finish by christmas. if they cannot get it, i am not exactly sure. there has been some talk about them coming back in that week between christmas and new year's. host: 94 informing us in keeping us up to date. you can go to roll call and leg up through our website, c- span.org. on the topic of health care, if you were to take in the latest "reason" magazine, it talks

about health care. there is a piece which says why i prefer french health care. guest: i have experienced this as a consumer on like many people to comment about health care in this country, talking about socialized health care. my wife is from so i go to france every year and use their health care system. my point is that on a consumer level, on blood level of going in and trying to get my back looked at, the french system is much, much more rewarding than is the american system. i think people on the free market side of the aisle who have opposed a lot of democratic welfare proposals, i think that over the years, they have made a strategic error when they have said things like we have the best health-care system in the world.

they say we are on the march to socialism. what they have missed is to understand how much health care insecurity in america is a fundamental problem. it is a problem that is clearing and needs to be fixed rate in america, was not able to get health insurance for more than three years. i may help the guy. this is such -- i am a healthy got. uy. they have missed the opportunity to push for market reforms and be part of that conversation instead of now playing defense and arguing that we are going to cut medicare. part of what i am trying to do is to say we might have missed an opportunity. :ñalso, i think the best role f journalism is not to take the best -- the worst opinions of

your opponents, take the best part ofñixd their opinion. host: as far as your back is concerned, what would be the ease of getting a doctor? guest: in france, you choose your own doctor. you always do. it is easier to get an appointment, there is notxd t0i third and fourth party complicated system. you choose your doctor, you go there, you pay on the spot. i have had minor oral surgery at a cost me only 300 bureaus. and they apologized for it. they do a lot of health care through pharmacies. you could go to your local pharmacist and they will engage in a bunch of opinions. this is a level you cannot imagine that a cvs.

there are licensing systems in the u.s. and lawsuits that people people on their toes. they don't have that in france. there is a direct consumer experience. that said, the reason why you only pay 300 euros is you are paying through the nose for taxes and other things which abnegate affects in france. as one of the reasons why my wife does not live there. host: a much of the tax structure is going into health care? guest: a significant amounts of they are trying to cut costs. every time they do, they create a huge political incentive of french people who raise that as problems. their tax structure is much more onerous than ours. there's a mentality in france which is very un-dynamic where people look to the government to

solve all problems. the health care system works better than any other part of the french state. unfortunately, they send the french state to places where it does not belong and recruits -- encourage it creates frigidity. host: we will take your calls are from the numbers on the screen. what about more serious cases like cantor of long-term illness? our they handled? guest: what france does better is the fundamental advantage is that there is no insecurity. you wake up, you are born, you have health care. at american at any given time, scores of millions of people do not tell health care. we underestimate how much of an

important deal that is. it does not bankrupt you and you move on. in america, the quality of the highest care is better. when i am 30 years old and i do not have many medical6ú issues d all i was catastrophic insurance, i would rather be in france. talk to me when i am 65 or 72 and i need an angioplasty or whatever, i would prefer to be in america for the procedure. the quality of the procedure is better than -- in america, not a huge amount better, but definitely better. in france it will not bankrupt you. another difference is that in america because we have this clause i-free market -- quasi- free market, it is individual- you ask your doctor for an opinion you get a second opinion. in france, they tell you how things are with one opinion. host: you said your wife went to

a doctor and some lumps were detected in a breast? guest: they tested in america and said no problem and she went back to france to one of the best doctors in france for these things and they said it is something that should be removed. a lot of care in america goes to what ever dr. you go to maybe in the network of they do not specialize in what you need and it is complicated. that was the case there in france. you go to a person that specializes in it right away and they might deliver a better first diagnosis. host: guest is here from it -- until 8:00. our democrats line is next. caller: i make retiree from the federal government -- i am a retiree from the federal government and i have the same health program that the senators

and the congressman had. this year, i am not allowed to have anything but the high- deductible health insurance. i do not have a choice. i am only allowed to have procedures listed in the manual. i think that is very poor and it is a lie and that that is what they're signing up the rest of america for, it is wrong. i don't think the states should have the power to say what federal employees can select. i don't know about france but i am telling you it is getting worse and worse in america. it is all about the dollars, not about health care, at all. guest: i appreciate those, a big difference in america is that we have a natural kind of american allergy to bureaucrats getting involved in the intimate decisions in a way that france does not. you see this with the health care bill now.

it is being held up periodically over questions of abortion. should federal dollars go to supporting abortion? that would not be an issue in france. they don't think that way. when you have bureaucrats deciding if we should have a natural reaction against it, it slows everything down host: our republican line is next. caller: a few years ago, there was a heat wave in france, very dramatic, in august i believe. some 10,000 elderly people died. they talked about the problems with air conditioning in france. they also said something to the effect that doctors were handicapped by law'& seeing

patients. can you shed light on that? guest: what i remember from that and it is terrible every time there is a big heap way. -- heat wave. in france it is worse than america. it was more[yu that people naturally depended or supposed that the government would take care of their grandparents. it was the mentality of the state takes care of everything so we don't need to call grandma and make sure she is doing okay. air-conditioning and central heating are not quite as developed as they are here. i would be interested to hear more about the specific doctors being handicapped complaint. host: our emergency rooms in france? guest: i have not experienced it but it seems like it would be about the sameñi.

the french are really good at stake-sector productivity. the british are bad at state- sector productivity. this article was as a consumer. i don't think it would work in america and i don't think we would be very good at it. they are good that part of it but there are plenty of nightmare scenarios of socialized health care schemes where emergency rooms are bad and they're waiting lines and all kinds of shortages. host: does the french health care pay for the full cost of medical care? guest: not for the holocaust but for a whole bunch of it. the most money i paid at a pharmacy was about $20. there is a delton subsidy there. you pay on the spot which gives

you the illusion that you are having an adult -- and a direct accounting for great america, you pay copiague, you wait for your insurance, and you get bills, and wait for insurance again. i'm going through cobra nightmare bills from 2006 and i have no idea who is paying what and what is covered. in france, you pay on the spot. there is also reimbursement, too. it is not free, you pay out-of- pocket. it is a limited amount and that is because of the mass of taxes. host: the prices are determined by the parties involved? guest: that i don't know. host: are there enough doctors to meet the needs of those in france? guest: so far, it seems so. there is an artificial cap on their salary. they don't make a lot of money.

if you watch michael morris "sicko," a portrait france as a paradise. that is too much of a gloss over what happens there. french doctors don't generally get compensated on a super high level but they seem happy when i interact with them. part of the reason is that they don't really have malpractice there. there's not a big civil lawsuit kind of system as we have in america. i would not a advocate for that for us. host: so they don't have to pay a lot for insurance protection. guest: this is why they can keep costs down. that cost is reflected in the cost of care and the salaries of doctors. we cannot exactly have that system. host: connected, new york, with

matt welch, on our democrats line. caller: i live in tents -- i live in schenectady and work as a teacher. my health care cost many thousands of dollars. in france, you paid for the nose for taxes for coverage. how is it that you are married to a french woman, you can get that coverage and what does she play and by what mechanism? guest: most of her salary comes from france. she is a journalist. she works for a european publication. that money is taxed on the front end to a pretty high degree. this is about the only way in which we benefit from paying french taxes every year is that we get some medical care when we go home for christmas. she pays for all kinds of state benefits.

and solidarity. there is no way that we can enjoy this. even as a freelancer, there is a large tax deduction that comes from the money you make on the front end. also you are taxed again on an annual basis. host: no matter what in, you make in france, you're covered by health care? guest: yes. host: regardless if you are in poverty or anything else? yeah guest: s, you can also get supplemental health care. you are covered when you are born. host: atlanta, on our republican line. caller: this guy sounds like the worst kind of socialist to made. he is afraid to live in a socialist country. host: i live in a socialist country -- guest: i tried to

live in cuba and it did not really work out because it is a communist country and not socialist. i live in central europe for eight years. i have actually seen the wreckage of communism can cause, on like people like the caller. it has an influence on my thinking. i'm not saying we should do the french health care system. what i am saying is that you are going to oppose obamacare, which i oppose because i think our fundamental problems. if you do not break the link between employment and insurance in this country, when you have these onerous state by state regulations that we have in this country, you are officially choke off what should be a free or freer marketçó in health car. therefore, you do not have the provision of toys and competitive pressures on prices i am not saying we should become like cuba and moved to cuba or france or anywhere else. i am saying to recognize what

works and does not work in this country and other countries. host: what to the french doctors think about our health care? guest: they shake their head and askbhy we can live in such a savage system? we mention that we create great drugs. host: in the last paragraph of your piece, you look at the health care issue. are we better off today in terms of health policy than 15 years ago? would we focus more on waiting times abroad or in the usa? guest: when i see french people here, they say americans complain that if we pass obamacare that you can choose

your own doctor and there will be waiting times. the fact is, that is have already is in america. when i go back to france every year, i engaged with doctors to talk about comparative things. the comparison is not all apple pie and ice cream here and males and rocks. there are many parts about that do not work well in france and weigdoctors sometimes which it s better birdlike the competitive nature of america and where that leaves you in new medicines and these kind of things. they do not understand a system in which at any given time 40 million people are uninsured. host: brighton, mich. is next on our independent line. caller: this is more an observation that a question. you say there are 40 million people that we are trying to insure.

and it will cost trillions of dollars. why don't they just buy these people the best insurance policy even if the cost $1 million per person because that would only cost $40 million. guest: there is something profound in your question. that is the best and boat realistic reason for this series of reforms is that there is this health care insecurity and americans do not have health care. the thing is, there's a sizable portion of those people who choose not to have it. it might be because they are illegal immigrants and they don't want to interact with the system because they will get kicked out or they might be healthy young people who are not thinking about insurance right now. if our concern is those people, there is something true about your system. we could give them $250 per month and they could go out and

purchase a plan. whenever you have a huge government bureaucracy, what will happen when you try to reform it is that you will take the existing system, the existing players and extended. that is the biggest argument against obamacare is that a double down on the system that we have. they want to make more regulations on insurers instead of making a fresh breaking coming up with real reform. for the people of long-term problems, let directive that in a way that would unleash market competition host:"reason magazine walk us through the

rest of the issue. guest: there was an eight point plan for health care that is outlined. it makes it more of an individual thing andçó not employer-based. we have a great piece talking about the congressional budget office and have that became got in this debate. it is interesting to watch. it is a good primer as to what politicians gauge the cbo. the look of the scourge of individual bill. our science correspondent talks about how in an ideal world we would be talking about markets and not mandate on health care and how we can create markets and enable them so we can on least the good things about those to help solve these problems. host: the print version has the

cover and you confided online at reason.com. you can check it out for yourself. we'll take our next call from new york city, on our democrat line. caller: i want to comment on the previous guy. his ideas about the 40 million was interesting. i also want to say that i had an opportunity to live in france and a couple of years. i was a teacher in normandy. i had an opportunity to experience the french health care system, as well. it was very inexpensive. i had a major procedure done on my teeth due to gingivitis issues in the u.s.. prior to moving to france. there was another procedure that needed to be done but it would cost thousands of dollars.

when i moved to france that fall, it cost about $70 or 70 bureaus. -- 70 euros. there is eastern medicine that is recognized in the french health care system that is covered by their system that is not covered in america. acupuncture 0 homeopathic is independent and is not covered by health care. i benefited from what ever i could over there. i felt that i had choices. it is not that i don't have less respect for the american health- care system but a person between the ages of 20 -- at the time i

lived in france, i was 22, 23, and i am looking back at the age of 30, there are many things that a young person, if your not being paid well -- i was only being paid two hundred euros per month. my rent was low and i paid 200 euros -- one of the 75 euros a month to lease my car. if you think about all the bills and what i am being paid for my salary, although i was not being paid a lot like america, i still do not have -- i was not stressed out or overly concerned about my lifestyle because i was still able to travel and go on vacations and live a decent life on the amount of money i was being paid host: thank you for your input. guest: personal testimony in

these cases is better than abstract. t noodling. salaries for teachers are low vapor the french have a bargain that they say they will accept the low salaries across the board, especially in the civil government functions in exchange for job security, 35-hour work weeks, a six-week vacations, a pretty decent health care, and many other things provided by the state. in many ways, that can be a pleasant experience especially if your young person and you have things you'd like to do. in other ways, it can be stifling. in france, there are only a few ways to do it if you want to become a teacher or a journalist or a doctor, you have to go to a certain school and take a certain test and get that score.

in america, it is much more wide open. if you talk to french expatriate, that is the thing they like about america. people love as which is court and a particular taste, they want to know what you are doing now and how you got there there are. millions of different ways. it is always interesting to tease out those relationships. part of the relate -- reason why france is sporadic socially is there is always a huge unemployment for young people. everyone scrambles for the 1200- euro teaching jobs because they need to have something. at the same time, there are not a lot of other jobs available to is a system of trade-offs. myself and my wife have voted with their feet because we live in this country and not france prin.

there is a big backlash of taxes. it is around 50%. host: asheville, n.c., on our republican line. caller: we can improve health care by eating less french fries. [laughter] it is laughable but you're wife wants health care budget does not want to pay for it because of the taxes. you have to understand that the republicans here do not respect our government's ability to manage systems from experience. they may be good at managing government over there with 70 million people in france vs 300 million here with a wider demographic area. it is harter centralize that. -- it is harder to centralize that.

the republicans did not jump on munch in health care but lawsuits are a problem and the democrats have the trial lawyers as a major constituent. you have a group of people in power who never put caps on lawsuits. that is a major problem in this country. guest: we don't disagree on anything. my wife does not complain about the taxes she pays as a ghost or eighth thing she likes which is health care. i don't want to imitate the french system or have washington run it. i think you are totally right that in america specifically washington does not run things very well. part of the reason why there is a big health care reform debate right now is because we are talking about medicare growing to this huge and unsustainable thing and it is costing more and

more money as -- and is delivering less and less return. my idea about health care has more to do with empower individuals and of decentralizing power from washington. . ñr

couple of ways to become whatever profession you want to be. in america, you're right. there's sort of the licensing and the requirements on the propegsal -- professional health care is appalling in california where my sister in law is a nurse touf go through these hoops to be an american

graduate and quality of life yourself for a nursing profession. and they say to hell of it let's get a fill piano over here. so they're importing nurses because they have these state mandated nursing ratios to patients and it's a per verse system in which we need more health care workers but because they have such a regimented licensing thing we can't develop them domestically. >> the latest issue is january 2010 issue and you can pick it up. matt is the editor in chief. thanks for your time. up next, arrest in iran on several fronts. the guest, coming up. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] @

>> a look at climate change, on reducing the effects of greenhouse gases. and lawrence sullivan. on afternoons. -- afterwords.

>> political congressmen tator also teaches civil rights commentary. most recently he published, republicans and the black vote which looks at the historical relationship. he is our guest sunday night on c-span's q and a. >> washington journal continues. >> our guest, with the national iranian american council serves as their president. defense secretary gates talked about possible sanctions on iran and the attitude that's been taken on its nuclear program. do those work? guest: it seems we're going that direction. but when you look at the track record of sampingses in the last 20 years it doesn't bring about a lot of hope about this

being a measured action to find a solution to this issue. sanctions can transform this conflict into a different type of a conflict but bringing about a solution, i'm very doufl. for the last 15 years what we have had very stringent sanctions we have seen their nuclear program advance further, we have seen their influence in the region increase. we have seen the government become more radical like we saw this past summer, the tremendous human rights abuses. so it doesn't seem like it's something that can resolve it. but my feeling of how diplomacy has gone so far in this short period we've pursued it because of the fact that the iranians have not responded positively, it seems that's the direction we'll be heading for at least the short term. host: and even secretary clinton saying there's no real traction been made. guest: but at the same time it's been a couple of weeks that this has been tried. i don't think that in any way can be characterized as an

exhaustion of the diplomacy. another fact that needs to be taken into conversation is precisely because of what the iranian people have been doing in the last six months, standing up, tremendous courage that they've shown, fighting for their rights to be respected, fighting for their votes to be counted, we have to really think hard about how we go forward with sanctions. because secretary gates himself said in regards to the sanctions that he was referring to that they would be comb pose extreme hardship on the iranian people. perhaps we want to pursue sanctions that don't impose hardship on the iranian people. >> host: what type are those? guest: for instance, with some targeted sanctions that target the actors within the government. that are responsible for the human rights abuses, that are responsible for the nuclear propsy. perhaps that would be a better way than according to secretary gates himself would impose extreme hardships on the very same people that right now are

trying to fight for democracy. host: you talk about those people particularly what we've been seeing those from the students. why is this happening now and what's their voice? guest: what we're seeing of course is that the opposition movement, the green movement has not died down in the slightest. on the contrary, they're continuing to go out there to protest, to show their dislike, their disapproval of what the government is doing, and essentially depriving the government of a sense of normalsy. he probably thought that by now everything would calm down and he would be able to go forward and be president. even though he is of course taking on that position, the opposition is not giving up. and they seem to be pursuing a strategy that is essentially a marathon. in the long run, slowly but surely, they are wearing out the government down. host: this is only towards the

government or the notion of the supreme leader? guest: what we've seen is there seems to be a potential divergeance between some of the top leaders of the green movement who are still talking about pursuing their opposition within the framework of the constitution. and then we see some of the students on the ground level that are becoming a little more radicalized in the sense they're demanding more and they're starting to question not just the elections but the system, the leader. thing that is just a couple of months ago in iran very few people dared to question. and that's an indication that the very radical response by the government, with the violence it has used, the torture and the rapes and the killings and the jails have ellisitied a response that is a radicalized response from the people on the ground. it has not intim dated people. it has only caused them to ask for even more than they were before. host: here is how you can talk to our guest.

as far as the sanctions are concerned, talk about the importance of russia and china and do you see real efforts as far as going along with the other world community? guest: for quite some time we have seen when it comes to sanctions there's a lot of skepticism in russia and china about that approach. one of course is they have significant economic dealings with iran, so do the europeans but they seem to have moved much closer to the american position. but i think even amongsted the proponents there is a recognition that it's not going to solve the issue. it's just that when diplomacy is not going in the direction that we want it to, we feel a need to be able to impose some

pressure on the iranians to be able to change their calculations. nevertheless, that approach has not worked in the past. and those calling for crippling sanctions, their challenge is that it's very difficult to have crippling sanctions on a country like iran that exports so much gas and oil when two of the permanent members of the security council seem to be vehemently opposed to anything that would target iran's energy sector, the oil sector. so the difficulty of getting russia and china on board is something that is essentially going to make it next to impossible to get those type of comp hence yiffer sanctions. host: do you envision somehow the united states and other countries cutting off the ability to export those supplies? guest: i think what we may move towards, what i think may be unhelpful is to go for a coalition of the willing, that type of approach. which then increasingly would make obama's strategy on iran

somewhat similar to the bush strategy, in which we would target some of our allies with sanctions, not work with them but rather try to put pressure on them rather than putting pressure on the iranians. and the midst of all of this, the suffering of the iranian people seems to have been forgotten. host: our first call from california. ruby on our democrat's line. you're on with our guest. go ahead. caller: thank you. and good morning, gentlemen. going back to your dear leader killed, i just feel so sad about that still. and being he was man of the year in time magazine. that's just such a shame that had to happen back in 53. but getting back dofplt you feel that, because iran is the third larger oil deposit in the world, he is an inevitable

target for our covert armed force here? and will he be tried to be overdeloun like everybody else on their docket? and i pray for peace. but i think your leader made a mistake when he said he wanted to wipe out israel. that's going against him. thank you. guest: thank you so much. first, just a correction that i represent the national iranian american council. so the rulers in iran are not considered our leaders. as to the question, i think you raise add very important question by talking about 1953, because in the mindset of us here in america the u.s.-iran tensions used to begin from 1979 with the revolution and then offings with the hostage taking. in the mindset of the iranians it started back in 1906 during the constitutional revolution in which americans actually played an important role

helping the iranian people in their movements towards democracy. and the view of america was positive. then, however, in 1953, the c.i.a. participates actually master minds a coup against the prime minister of iran and that's -- reinstates the shah. and is a key backer of the shah during his rule. and that is a key reason why you saw this outbursting of anti american sentiments. and in the iranian mindset that's when the history begins. the bottom line, though, of course is one just only looks back and tries to settle the score, we won't get anywhere. for the two countries to be able to find a solution moving forward, avoid the type of a military conflict that the caller seemed to be concerned about we need to look forward and see what can be done. and the reality is that there are a lot of common interesting between the two countries in which they could collaborate

on. such as afghanistan. and perhaps, most importantly, the people in iran today tend to have very positive views of the united states. they tend to be very respectful of american culture, highly value of american people, american values, et cetera. and this is a reservoir of american good will towards america that exists in iran right now that doesn't exist in a lot of places in the middle east. and going forward we need to think about how we can nurture that to not lose that. if we go for military action, that will wipe it out. and even with crippling sanctions, even admittedly by the obama administration would put a lot of hardship, we may risk creating significant changes in the way that the people view america. host: the caller talked about statements about israel. does that factor? guest: of course. absolutely. the rhetoric coming from the government has a significant impact.

it has a significant impact in the ability of the obama administration to be able to show some flexibility. and, most importantly, what we have between the united states and iran is a significant deficit of trust. that trust is not built by that type of inflamry reckric coming from iran. of course the iranian government, the reason why they're using this type of rhetoric is for a completely different reason. in my book, treacherous alliance, i go zeeply into the issue of how israeli iran relations have developed. and you can see that the iranian government oftentimes has been using very, very strong rhetoric against israel in order to be able to strengthen their position within the region. it's not even for domestic consumption as much as it is for regional consumption. so they're not having the american audience even in mind. similarly, when we make some statements every once in a while or when we go for options

such as crippling sanctions we may not have the iranian people audience in mind. host: sam on our line go ahead. caller: what is the feeling in iran of when they were having the demonstrations the complete lack of support of the american government? guest: thank you. when the demonstrations started inside of iran, right after the elections in june, there was some sentiments in washington that the united states needed to strongly back that movement and essentially say that we're siding with them. the obama administration's approach, however, was different. essentially saying that because this is an internal struggle and because of the history of the u.s. relationship in which having the united states support explicitly at least is not necessarily a positive for you, the reality was that there

was no cause from the opposition asking for the united states to side with it. as a result, the obama administration went forward with a policy in which they did not take sides in that conflict but made it clear that they stand on the side of the aspirations of the iranian people. what happened perhaps a little bit too late was strong condemnations of the human rights violations. it did come about but i think until this day there is a sense increasingly amongst people on the ground in iran that the united states needs to be a little bit more vocal when it comes to the horrific human rights violations that are taking place. speaking out against human rights violations is not to take sides. nor is it even to interfere because iran has treaty obligations when it comes to human rights. it has signed the human rights declaration at the u.n. so it needs to live up to those rights. and the united states has always been a country that has been able to pursue engagements, talk with countries but still stand very principled and firmly on the

side of human rights. and i think a lot of people are looking forward to seeing a stronger position from the united states when it comes to the condemnation of human rights. i'm not hearing, however, from the top leaders or other people that are of major importance in iran that they want american's explicit backing or support funding or things of that nature, because that in iran's past history has oftentimes ended up back firing on the resip ynlts on that type of surt. host: did the president sed a deloin of december 31? guest: yes, as the diplomacy track was started there was a lot of pressure and it seems like the obama administration is more or less reluctantly agreed to this deadline. then, of course, because of the way that the iranian elections went ahead, and with the fraud, aftermath with the violence, diplomacy was essentially postponed for a couple of months. but by the time e it began on

october 1, the deadline was said to be december 31. until this day, unless there is any movement, it seems that this phase of diplomacy will come to an end and the united states and its allies will be pursuing various forms of sanctions. if those sanctions are u.n. security council sanctions which means that they will be sanctions that the entire international community through the security council will be obligated to pursue, the impact can be that it will target the specific actors in iran, it could put some pressure on them. it won't, however, close the window for diplomacy. a couple of months later on another attempt can be made. if on the other hand the united states goes for unilateral sanctions outside of the u.n. frakework, they would also target our own allies because we are targeting the companies of u.s. allies who are dealing with iran. then we can see a potentially breakdown of the international unity. no country is going to be happy

about having their company sanctions by the united states. secondly, it can be viewed as such a big escalation that the iranian retaliation will become equally big and the entire thing could get out of control and be in a negative dynamic which potentially could close the window for diplomacy. if the window for diplomacy is closed and sanctions don't work, which even the proponents of sanctions don't believe they'll work, then we may be facing a very, very negative scenario. host: on twitter, monty asked guest: well, some people in iran certainly have a view they're being punished. they believe that some of the rights that the entity states should enjoy are not being given to iran right now. and, for instance, when it comes to to research free arkt in tehran in which the interim

deal is about, the iranian perspective seems to be that they believe that they are entitled to get collaboration from the international community because they're part of the entity. it's not a deal they ask to have to make the international community has a responsibility to support iran's program because of article 4. so there are some frustration in iran about this. and one of the problems is that if the iranians conclude that they don't have anything in it for them to remain, they may either start targeting the iaea and reducing their collaboration with them. that's something they have done in the past whenever they feel they're getting unjustified pressure, they start targeting their collaboration. and that's bad because it's through the iaea that we know a lot about what's going on in iran. then, in the worst case scenario they may walk out and that would be a very negative scenario.

i don't see that being realistic. but if this process gets out of control because we're pursuing sanctions more than diplomacy, that may become a reality. host: good morning. caller: good morning. i have a question along the lines of what you were just talking about, the nuclear power stations. what comes to my mind is if the iranian government for one reason or another were to become unstable, i think back to the former soviet countries and how we can guarantee that any nuclear material that they have stays safe and doesn't fall into the hands of people who we would rather have and not fall into the hands of. thank you. guest: that's one of the big concerns of nonproliferation community, that when we see the spread of this technology not only can it in and of itself lead to a nuclear arms race,

that if iran does get this technology other countries will feel they also need to get it, but also the scenario that the caller talks about in which what if one of these countries actually enters a period of significant instability, perhaps entire deterioration of the state. what happens to that material? we may be looking at that scenario when it comes to pakistan, a country that not only has enrichment capabilities but also has nuclear weapons and is in a very difficult position right now. and instability seems to be just around the corner. how would the international community react particularly mindful of the flirtations that have existed between pakistan secret service with some very radical muslim movements including the taliban. host: there's a story in the front page of the financial times about iraq. they're starting to funnel off parcels of oil. iraq poised to surpass iran in

the global oil leak. if that should happen, does that change as far as the politics of iran are concerned? guest: it could. at the end of the day, if the iraqi oil comes back into the market as it was before, the more oil splires you have, the less important each and every one becomes. but i don't think we're there yet. and even if that were to happen, we're faced with a situation in which some very, very important countries are in a phase of growth in which they were in dire need of this type of energy. china and india in particular. so as long as they are in that phase and need this energy, whether it's gas or oil, in order to bring their people out of poverty, then it's going to be very, very difficult to get them to agree to lock out significant energy suppliers such as iran and iraq. and we've seen that in the past. that significant frustration in these countries that what happened with iraq could

actually have had a very negative impact on their ability to grow at the pace they need to to bring their people out of poverty. host: bmont, california. john is on. caller: hi. how you going, guys? i wonder talking about the 60 i was to tell him how proud of his people. host: go ahead, sir. guest: i just wanted to say that when i've been coming out of the 60 i was very proud of his people and the demonstrations because they had a look of determination, look of power, of maybe we'll get there some day. and but i was to ask a question. do you think the thinking of the people is still on the top of how people in this country really believe there's no holocaust? and have they been brain washed or what do they call that thing to think that way?

and maybe the head work might be -- host: we'll leave it there. guest: i think first of all the fact that the presidents of iran who many people question whether he is actually the legitimate president mindful of the election fraud that took place this past summer, his comments about the holocaust i don't think in any way shape or form are reflective of the views of the iranian people. in fact, the relations between the jewish people and the iranian people stretch back more than 2,500 years and have overall been very, very positive. when it comes to the holocaust, they were actually iranian diplomats in france during the second world war who provided iranian pass ports to french jews and enabled them to flee the nazis. and some of them are actually still living in iran. so there's actually been a long history there of collaboration. and that's diplomat incidently

became the subject of a major tv series in iran last year about the holocaust that actually showed very clearly what happened during the holocaust and the suffering of the jewish people. and it was very interesting because it was produced by the iranian state tv, the very same state tv that supposedly is under the control of his government. so two very, very different perspectives on this issue. and i think we have to be very, very careful when it comes to the rhetoric of the iranian government and not to conclude that that is necessarily reflective of the views of the iranian people. host: one more call. rick on our republican line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i would just like to clarify, you know, the american media does a lot of deception, a lot of half truth. i watched his interview. he didn't call the holocaust a myth. what he denied was the rationale for the right for the creation of the israel in 1947.

israel claims the holocaust gives them a right to go in and brutely remove a half a million palestinians on to a reservation into a ghetto we call the gaza strip, west bank. but he -- the holocaust didn't give them the right to do that to the palestinians. maybe in germany. and that was discussed, that carve out a piece of germany that might have been fair. but they had no right. the holocaust had no right to do that to the palestinian. and the other thing is that god gave them the promised land. and that's where he says their right to exist is based on mythology and he denies the holocaust -- he doesn't deny the holocaust happened. he knows 4 million jews were killed. he know's 60 million innocent people were killed. if you watch the interview, i

cannot believe how poorly the american media reports. they do their job very bad. i say c-span probably does it well. thank you for being there. host: final thoughts. guest: the caller points to something that is important. at times the president of iran actually had during the previous mandate period called the holocaust a myth. at other times in interviews he has gone into the reasoning saying where did it happened? if it happened in germany why should the palestinians being b the sufferers of it? the purpose of bringing that conversation is to bring israel on the defensive and have them address issues that it had thought it settled. and it goes back to the strategic rivalry that exists in which they are viewing each other as rivals in the region and any advancement of iran is seen negatively in israel and vice versa. and in the midst of all of this

the united states is an actor and is in many ways stuck. and one of the critical things we have to think about that unless we actually address the israeli-iranian rivalry and ways to resolve it, because it's a strategic conflict, not an ideologically driven conflict. unless that is addressed, i think we're going to have a difficult time being able to bring peace and stability to the region. host: trita sps parsi. if you want to check out the organization. it's again nia council.org. thank you so much. we will take on another look at the papers and talk to you about a specific subject in our nesk half hour. before that, we look at the week's political news through the pen and the ink of political cartoonists.

>> our next half hour we wanted to get your thoughts on a thought made by peggy noonen in today's "wall street journal." she writes, the headline. obama moves toward center stage. and we are taking that to kind of ask you if you think president obama is moving to the middle on certain topics.

thursday

it goes on a little bit more. but like i said, peggy's thrust this morning, her thought is that when it comes to these two issues, one on the economy, one on the speech in ozzlo that it shows a move towards the center by the president. we want to get your thoughts on if you agree or not. the numbers are on the bottom of your screen. so as you call and get your thoughts on if the president is moving towards the center in these issues particularly on the economy and what he said about afghanistan. here's a little bit more.

here's the president. we'll let the president speak for himself. this is from the speech about afghanistan. >> i do not bring with me today a deventive solution to the problems of war. what i do know is that meeting these challenges will require the same vision, hard work, and persistance of those men and women who acted so boldly decades ago. and it will require us to think in new ways about the notions of just war and the imperatives of a just peace. we must begin by acknowledging a hard truth. we will not eradicate violent conflict in our lifetimes. there will be times when nations acting individually or in concert will find the use of force not only necessary but

morally justified. i make this statement mindful of what martin luther king, junior, said in this same ceremony years ago. violence never brings permanent peace. it solves no social problem. it merely creates new and more complicated ones. host: again, the piece this morning in the "wall street journal," obama moves towards center stage. and with that thought in mind we're asking you if you think or maybe not that the president is moving towards the middle. we start off with someone who is identified on twitter. john or our democrat's line. caller: i think obama has made an important statement because

-- host: you're on, sir. and he's gone. caller: good morning. it's been a couple of years since i've had the pleasure of being on. i got in quickly this morning. and as much as i love peggy noonen, i don't think it's obama that's moving toward the center. i think in her article she displays that she in fact is moving to the left. host: how do you make that jump? caller: she has been such a proponent of everything reagannistic over the years that to pick one speech on a subject of war and then broad brush a comment that in fact mr. obama has moved to the center i don't think is enough

to really give basis to her view. host: twitter.com. c-span wj if you follow us. houston, texas. you're up next on our independent line. snow, are you there? -- joe, are you there? caller: i'm here. first-time caller and long-time watcher. i don't know what to say. i'm really disappointed not in the president but also in american. we're not doing anything. i don't blame anybody but i think we should just blame ourselves. like f.d.r. and obama said, i agree with you. i like what you have to say. now make us do it. i don't think he's moving to

the left, center, or right. i just think he's waiting for americans to push him to do something. and we need to push him to do single payer universal health care just like canada. and until we do that we're going to have problems with our deficit, and problems with afghanistan. and we need to push him not to send 30,000 troops to afghanistan because that's just a waste of money. thank you. host: a couple related stories. this on the health care front. the medicare cuts that could hurt hospitals. about a senate plan to cut medicare to pay for an overhaul of the health system would threaten the profitability of roughly one in five hospitals and nursing homes.

is president moving to the middle? a thought chimed in this morning in her piece and that's available on the opinion pages of the "wall street journal." peggy on our democrat's line. caller: i'm a democrat but i do believe he's moving to the left. if you listen to his speech that he gave before i believe west point he did say that he was going to wits draw in july of 2010 which is a signal to the base, which is the progressives of our party theas going to basically leave. he did say upon conditions of

the ground. but he released these talking points to numses several days before he gave the speech. if you look at his policies on the whole including health care, they're all very progressive. they are to the left. and as a whole, if you look at his whole body of legislative pieces, they are to the left. now, he did speak at the noble prize meeting but i believe it was to kind of molfi them and give them a reason why war was just, which didn't go over well with them. but i believe if you look at his body of work as a whole it's going to the left. host: before you go there's a story, a lot of the stories talk about this financial regulation bill. i know this was done by house members but does that reflect the president's goals overall, especially your assertion that he is moving to the left? caller: he also is a political

realist and there has been a back lash against bank bailouts as you know. the toxic assets have not been bought up yet. they have not been sold. so i believe this is what the public is calling for, a lashback against the banks. this is political expeedyensy in this case. host: washington, d.c. is next. richard on our republican line. caller: i believe that president obama in his rhetoric particularly at the oslo in that wonderfully crafted and moving speech did move to the middle. but we need to see if his actions really match his words. he spoke movingly about our floor, the protestors on the streets of iran, hundreds of thousands and rapes in the congo and yet his administration and his state department has been noticeably

silent. the protestors in iran with a play on words on obama said first that he is with us and then they said are you with us? really questioning whether he was with the protesters in iran, for example, and they've done nothing much about darfur and he said we need to defend ourselves and yet we have troops in iran and in afghanistan who are plagued by ieds that come from iran and in the case of iraq they come from syria. and in addition, iran has threatened genocide against israel and yet the president's whole obsession seems to be in ending even modest improvements to homes in what he considers the occupied territories including much of jerusalem. so i think we need to see if his actions really are moderated from the extreme left positions on which he first

based his foreign policy. host: the caller mentioned rhetoric. james off of twitter mentions rhetoric, too. baltimore, maryland. you are up next. caller: hi. this would be my first time ever calling in to c-span. host: congratulations. caller: obama is facing a very, very difficult presidency unlike any president has. not to say anything less on jfk or any of them, but he is dealing with so much controversy in every direction. and for him to be a democrat to stand and sit there and show and appear that he is in the middle as people are neglecting to acknowledge the fact theas really trying to connect

republicans, democrats, and inents alike. and there's not just one voice or one thought on any of these issues. we need to come together as a country to be the united states again, not to be left united states and right united states and i don't care any more united states. we need to all care. and obama is taking a lot into conversation to do the best thing that is for everyone. he wants to help the country. that's what i perceive. i don't agree with everything that obama does but i certainly feel that he is trying to do what the best he can perceive is for the american voice. host: stories coming out of copenhagen in regard to the climate change talks there. this is from the times on line. their website version shows some of the protesters as far as some of what they're saying about copenhagen. the headlines.

you can find that more on times on line. the next call from south carolina. laura on our democrats line. caller: good morning.

i don't agree with peggy's editorial that obama is moving to the middle. i was an early supporter of candidate obama and tried to read everything that i could get my hands on about him. i think that he has always been sort of maybe centered left at best. because i consider myself pretty heavy to the left and i don't think we'll ever elect a president that's really progressive. i just don't think that's where the country seems to be. i was a strong proponent of single payer health care. i do consider myself pretty much of a pass vist and i just don't think that people people

understand -- you know, i think it reflects a misunderstanding maybe purposefully in a lot of cases that obama is lurching the country to the left. i just don't agree with that. i don't think there's evidence of that. host: a little more food for thought. if you wanted to chime in on this as well for the remaining time we have. she says that in her last paragraph. so knoxville, tn is up next.

are you there? caller: yes, i am. host: go ahead. caller: i think that obama is -- i don't know what he is doing. he's continuing to spend money on unneeded things. he is putting more people in the war and he continues to pursue the lk bill when really he should be spending on stuff that could be productive to america. you know what i'm saying? like you -- host: from twitter. ken on our independent line. go ahead. caller: how are you? host: fine, thank you. caller: obama to me is center right as it is. and he's continuing pro-military and pro-corporate policies. and the republicans who keep

chiming in about obama's spending, let's go back to the bush years and look at all the money they spent and they blew a surplus that clinton left them. and they spent over and over what they had and they -- the awful medicare prescription bill they put through without having any money to back it up. and all the war money they had spent and tax cuts to boot. so obama is continuing to torture policies and everything else that the bush and cheney -- so people need to get into some reality here. and stop making bogus claims that obama is some kind of leftist. host: another story from the times on line, the british newspaper. this is an upcoming interview that will be seen with tony blair, the former prime minister.

north white plains, new york. jerry on our democrat's line. caller: good morning. i think barack obama and rahm emanuel and others behind the scenes are politically astute and barack is in the way he has been articulating is very politically smart. but what he had captured to his ability to articulate his ideals before, what made him win in the election now at this point maybe do more harm than good. i think it will be very difficult perhaps for him to capture such a constituency again that only leads to lowered expectations in the sense that people did have perhaps unreal expectations. but some of it was reasonable. and to see what the limits of that particular person in the executive office is quite

discouraging. now, president obama did mention martin luther king talking about violence. and in many ways, martin luther king was aware of economic violence and abuse and exploitation. and in line with that, barack spoke about revealing many of the important energy and health care meetings through c-span cameras and although he is limited and it seems like he is not able to do that, could he not at least explain to us in some ways why he is not or chooses not to do that and perhaps that he not able to do that is again somewhat discouraging and he may find it very difficult or any president who has such ideals to capture the imagination of people. once again that's discouraging. but it is only one year he's in. so we'll have to wait a few more years. host: the papers this morning has the photos of the five muslim students from northern virginia who were taken into custody in pakistan being

questioned by the f.b.i. about a possible conconspiracyy against the united states. here's the photoses of them. there's an analysis piece this morning if you go to the pages of the "new york times." this is scott shane writing.

there's a longer piece you can find in the "new york times." up next on our republican line. caller: good morning. thank you. i have quite a few things on my mind i would like to say. i'm not an internet person. i'm disabled. but i don't know where he is moving to. i can't believe, you know, the things that are going on now. and i'm not a tea party follower but i understand why these people are doing what they are because they're looking at the tv and they cannot believe the way the government is taking over

everything. you know, just like the bailout for automobile dealers. well, i happen to know personally that it was the republicans put out of business and his business was doing fine. i don't understand that. i think they're doing things like that on purpose. and i'd also like to know why all these people that are in congress, why don't they pay their taxes. and answer for thing that is they're doing wrong instead of preaching to us about what we should do. and another thing on the health care, they do not want to really do tort reform and be able to buy across the state lines. and the insurance companies are to blame but also lawyers. host: mack cuss who writes in

on twitter. college park, maryland, you're next on our independent line. caller: thanks for taking my call. i think this is a rather tough one. you can be on the left or right as a candidate when you become a president you are the president. and it's no longer politics. and i think we should be slightly more thoughtful. you know, and slightly more thoughtful in our assessments. when he became president, i remember last year we were paying $6 for gas. he went to saudi arabia and there was all that hoop la about him bowing, and after that gas was $2 or $3. we didn't have the horrendous summer. and then he went to china and they're saying he bowed before the king of china. well, you know, if china had called in its debts we would be

really messed up. i think obama the president is totally different and i wouldn't want to box him and there was a gentleman who called and said we should go to war and fight iran and be more hawkish. look, i work for a company that has the transferred me to different countries in the world. i was out of america for four years. and i was in europe. when i came back home and then i went back to london and london was -- had developed. we have been fighting wars for the europeans for the last eight years and they're busy building their own countries. it's time for us to focus on what we have in america and rebuild our infrastructure and honestly have free health care so we can compete with canada. i mean, our companies here cannot compete. i've worked in six countries. i work for an american company and i've worked in six countries and our company cannot compete because of the cost of doing business in america. you don't see companies

complaining about free health care. i want a single payer health care so we can compete with the likes of canada. >> host: we have to leave it there. the senate continues their work. if you're interested, we started broadcasting that on c-span 2 and you can see their debates this weekend. as you look at that, we will tell you that in our next hour we're going to take up two topics for the first half hour, you may have heard that story about t.s.a. releasing some sensitive information over the internet. we're going to talk about that and the overall work of t.s.a. with stewart baker, the former assistant homeland security secretary. and then in the last half hour, a setment by the united states, 3.4 billion against indian land claims settlement. that involves indian land. we're going to talk about that in our final half hour. before that we'll wrap up with a few phone calls.

columbus, ohio. . . host: dale on the republican line? caller: there is an economic recovery bill before congress right now, the emergency economic tax system, and what this is is a perpetual stimulus for the people and the

government. this is bipartisan, and this is basically, this is not hurting anybody. this is supplementing any existing program, and also, this is mixed with paying taxes, and this is a lottery game where there are seven categories. one of them may be for the disaster aid or the oil. host: can i start your right there, and get your thoughts on what we are talking about, with your perceptions as the president is moving to the metal on some issues? caller: i am proud of the president. i am republican but he is working in a bipartisan way. we need something like this very badly right now. we need to have bipartisanship. people do not know this but they

need to know this. host: we will talk about this in the next statement with -- in the next segment with stewart baker. i want to talk about the guest of "newsmakers"tomorrow. he will talk to me about issues with global warming. he will talk about what he believes is the cause of global warming. >> i believe that this is god. this is a natural cycle. i do not believe that mankind is the dominant influence, at least on the overall climate. i do admit that the co2 increase is the result of the industrial revolution. there is no question that this has gone up in this time, but once you get beyond that, the

theory that somehow this is causing the world to become warmer, the information that is actually beyond dispute does not show this. that is one of the problems that people who believe in global warming are having. they cannot get the models to prove their theory. they are getting more and more in opposition to those of us who say that we are open-minded, but you have to show us the facts. we are in a natural cycle, and it appears that the earth is in a cooling period and because of that is that the atlantic ocean and the pacific ocean are cooling. but the concentration of co2 is going up. this does not seem to be doing what the models say that they should be doing in terms of the temperature.

host: al gore said that this analogy is unreal, and he was asking the question, why is the polar ice cap disappearing, and where is this coming from? >> i am not impressed with his credentials as a scientist. i am impressed with his credentials as a maker of policy, and as a politician, and his skills at making money off of climate change. but i am not impressed with his academic credibility. much of what is in his movie has turned out to be untrue. in terms of the polar situation. there are more glaciers that are growing that are shrinking. host: you can hear the whole

interview tomorrow at 10:00 on "newsmakers." joining us is stewart baker, who was the assistant homeland security secretary from 2005 until 2009. the information that was put out, what do you think the damage was? guest: this is not very good. the information that was exposed is going to tell people about how tsa runs their operations and the changes they make to security procedures. they will have to change a lot of those. it is very hard to change everything. that means that this is a road map for terrorists who want to get around the system. callehost: what made this crucil with the sensitivity? guest: this is operational and

some of this was very routine. one of them said, this is the wire that we are looking for and these are the kinds of footwear that we will not put through the explosives detector, and this is what we will do when we want to start cutting back on travel with the kinds of emergency steps that they are taking. these are the people we will let through without inspection. those are all things that can help terrorists. host: as far as getting that information back, this is still there on the internet? guest: there are people who think that this is cool to put that on the internet. host: as far as the explanation of how the internet -- guest: it is very obvious what happened. there was a place for people wanting to make an offer for

contracts to show people what the procedures were, in the employees wanted to put these procedures up without the material. they used an electronic blackout, which did not remove the material that was underneath. if you copied everything, and then you took this someplace else, you were given everything that was blacked out. this is an error that many people have made, like the "the new york times" and the justice department. you never make the same mistake twice. this is a mistake that somebody made at a low level in the department. host: if you want to talk what this incident and airport security, you can call --

the email is cspanwj. napolitano was asked about this. we will paly her r-- play her response. >> the security has never been put at risk, and the document that was posted was out of date. but the posting did not meet the standards of what should be available on the internet, and not available on the internet. we have already initiated personnel actions against the individuals involved in this. we have instituted the internal review to see what else will need to be done so that this never happens again. and not just the gsa -- tsa, but

all of the components. we have one of the largest department to make certain that we are being rigorous, and very disciplined on what is posted. guest: the most important thing that she said there, i thought, was that this was out of date. there have been some changes that have been made. this is in the ordinary course and i believe that there will be more. precisely because this makes it more difficult for people to be able to count on policies in the old manual. obviously, this did not meet the standards for publication. he did not publish things containing sensitive information. i am confident that there will be a careful training of anyone who is against the material about the problems with the electronic blackout.

she is in a difficult spot. nobody can blame her or the management, or the obama nistration, for this mistake. this is the kind of mistake that anybody can make. and so, i have some sympathy for her situation, and she is probably taking about all the action that you can to make certain that this does not happen again. host: if the information is out there, how do you make certain that this is not used for bad purposes? guest: if you have completely predictable procedures, then the people who want to defeat them can carefully construct their entry onto the airplane to stay within your parameter. remember, they used to allow box

cutters on board. the terrorists had box cutters. if you tell people, we will never checked orthopedic shoes then they will put explosives in there. they will have to change their procedures and make this uncertain whether anything that is in the manual can still be counted on by terrorists. and they can do that. this is not the end of the world, but it is very difficult to change everything. host: the first phone call is robert, from dallas, texas. he is a democrat. caller: this is a shelter- skelter operation -- a helter- skelter operation. we have had this in the system from the very beginning. there is no way to sit back and feel relaxed when we have people sleeping on the job, not showing up or even doing their job.

there is something like, that organization from washington that was going to come to help the people during the flood and they did not do anything? we are looking at the government' and the attempts to cast blame has -- we do not even look out. let me ended with this. we say that the home-grown terrorists and the brutality of the armed forces against the middle east. we are making more enemies than we are supposed to be feeding the world, and be the leader of the world. we are not a leader. guest: i am not certain i can respond to the question about

the overseas activities. i do not think that you can be so nice as a government that nobody is angry. but i think that this is unfair to say that tsa is full of people who are sleeping on the job. that is a difficult job. they are in a very bad spot because everything that they do, they do in the full glare of publicity, and anything that happens to the americans is immediately publicized and naturally, there is a lot of resentment, as they get on the airplane and any surprises are very unwelcome. they have improved dramatically since 9/11. and they continue to do a better and better job of keeping people off who should not be on the

airplanes, and trying to move the rest of us through. host: the "the washington post" talks about this, with the federal agency that everybody loves to hate. >> this has replaced the post office. this is delivering a service that we all know that we need, but we all feel as though we should be treated differently because we know that we are not dangerous. and i occasionally write about homeland security issues and the only time i get angry comments is when i defend the tsa. host: you say that you have seen them improve, but how many airports, is this all the airports and the people involved? guest: this is all the airports and 45,000 employees, which is where they have been. they have been using them more

efficiently. the kinds of things that they are doing right now, is if you have gone to the airport, you know that they are now looking at your id and they might use a black light, or a magnifying glass, and that is something that was never done when the airlines were running this. tsa took this over with the existing work force to actually check identification much more carefully than they were being checked before. they have begun looking forces it -- suspicious behavior. we all wonder why they are doing this to babies and old people. why are they looking for terrorists? they have begun to look for people in line, very carefully, in plain clothes. they observe people look nervous, suspicious, so that they can give them a little bit extra attention.

host: you said you were talking about the number of employees, and how they were at this number. do you believe that they should have more of them? guest: they have managed over the years to use the employees that they have more efficiently. i am not suggesting that they need to have more people. it is worth noticing that they have not increased the level even though they have taken on more responsibility. >> what is the level of training will have to go through? guest: depending on the position, some of them do not require a lot of trading, but they're all tested on a regular basis by the people who are looking for the backs that have to be stopped, because they have dangerous material in them. and so, unlike all of us, there is an actual objective measure

and you are tested on a regular basis. host: michael on the republican line. caller: mary christmas and happy new year. in this country, we are so afraid of terrorist that the only thing that goes against this is fearlessness. if anyone out there reads psalms 91, as he will call on me i will deliver him. if we are not afraid of people, and this country that was founded on christian beliefs. we are not afraid of evil. we can overcome them. >> of course. we absolutely should not be showing fear. there is a difference between showing fear and being dumb about terrorism. we should not make easy, but they will attack us again.

we will suffer losses. it is important at that time not to overreact or give them the satisfaction of seeing us respond in a fearful way. host: we are talking with laurie on the independent line. guest: my feeling -- caller: my feeling is this. every time that myself one of my girlfriends, and we are senior citizens. one of us is singled out. and we are taken to the side, and whenever they will do. that job is a government job. and if i was someone who was screening people, i would

choose the most vulnerable, he's the person, to question because i would be afraid that if i question somebody who seemed dangerous, that person just might blow me up. there is something wrong with the picture and i think that those people are wonderful. they are wonderful people but they should be trained. they need to be a little bit more aggressive with people who are actually dangerous. guest: i am sari that you or your friends are being stopped for the screening. some of that has to be random. you cannot let anyone who is thinking about attacking the airplane believe that he knows

exactly what he will have to do to avoid being screened. i really do not think that it is fair to say that these employees will not look for people who are suspicious. that is exactly what we are trying to train them to do. it is true that for a long time, there was a focus on treating everybody the same unless you had a good reason to do this differently. that produces a certain amount of laxity in the system. but no one is checking people who are crossing that barrier because they are afraid that they will blow themselves up, and injured the employees. this is a government job, but this was not a government job before 9/11, and there were a lot of problems that happened there. one solution that was adopted is saying that this will be a

government job, so that the government can pay for the cost of doing the screening. host: as far as the technology, how was this changing? guest: we have magnetometers that are better, and explosives systems that are coming on line. we may be able to eliminate or modify the liquid, because of a specific sophistication of the equipment. there is a dna development that may make it much less likely that you have to go through being packed down. we are deploying systems that are doing a much more aggressive job of looking at the human body, and are much more likely to find weapons. there is some controversy about that, but i have not been

through it. i would much rather use the machine. host: california, we have keith on the democratic line. caller: i have a couple of things to say. i think that the manual procedures that are being posted online is a double-edged sword. this is good because this is like testing software. now that you know what is out there, you know what to do about that. you may be complacent with the existing procedures in the first place. and i want to talk about, you have intervention with the screening. it does not matter if you are a government employee. you have people with a personal idea of who made seem to be a terrorist or trying to do something. you have to remember that they

are just human beings. they may be biased in looking at different individuals that may appear suspicious. thirdly, during some of the tasks for the public, as for what to look out for when getting on the airplane, i have been on an airplane and they have broken off part of my fingernail clipper. you do not put those questions out to the public. that is what you should do. i have not come across as just yet. guest: in agree with much of what you have said. on the question of the public being involved, that is something that i could not agree more on. at the end of the day, that is the best protection against

another 9/11. the past -- the passengers are not simply going to walk to the back of the airplane if there is a hijacking. and we have seen since 9/11, passengers such as with the shoe bomber, he was taken down by many passengers and the flight attendant. they had him covered in tape that they had to cut him out of their win they got him -- they had to cut them out of there when they got him on the ground. if you see something that you are not comfortable with, you have to tell the captain and raise the issue. this is absolutely essential for securing these rights. the profiling question is what you were getting at. if people are looking for suspicious behavior, will we see them acting in a way that this discriminatory or profiling? that is a problem that frankly,

we cannot completely escape. but even if there is no profiling, everybody who has fallen into some minority group, people from the middle east war people who are african- american, there is going to be the inflammation to say -- inclination to say that this is because of my beliefs. i would ask that everyone who is traveling, should give them some slack about this. at the end of the day they will have to choose somebody. maybe this was random. we cannot be setting the discriminatory concerns on a hair-trigger to really work, or we will end up with a workplace that is afraid to save anybody. how do -- host: how do i know if

i am on the no-fly list? guest: there is a program that is worth writing to. what happens in many cases on the no-flight lists, is that the no-fly list is actually very small for people in the united states. a tiny number of americans. but this includes people from outside the united states, and then you take every alias that they have used, and every different spelling of that person's name. and by the time you are finished, there are 1 million names. much of this is taken away like the birthday. but many airlines never bother to update their software so that they can use this birthday. one thing i used to tell people when i was in government was one

way to avoid many of these problems is to fly on southwest. they have a good computer system and they have managed to get down the number of people that they will stop. other airlines may have done this as well. they are taking this over and for the last few years, they have proposed, we should do this, and we will get the birthday and the name, and we will have the airline fix the problem. they will not have to rely on the old computer system. for those of you who think that privacy is not sufficiently protected, i would say that anybody who has been stopped to was not on the list, but has a name similar to a terrorist, you have been a victim of privacy for several years. during that time, the government has been prepared to take over the list and eliminate all of those problems, and because

people in congress or private groups said, you cannot trust the government with sensitive information, they have been insisting on many hurdles for the government before they can start the program. the government is about to start that, and they will bring this in and it may be that this problem will disappear over the next year. this will disappear without any special action. host: we have one more phone call. this is from illinois on the republican line. caller: i would like to ask a few questions. the first question i have task is, what does this mean when you hear a public official say that they take full responsibility? i never hear about anything that ever happens. the other thing, i will never be

on a jet liner that is commercial. i have the right to protect myself. and if somebody had the ability to protect themselves, the terrorism may not have happened. on flight 93, they did not have the ability to have force. when people have the right to protect themselves -- host: thank you very much. full responsibility means that you accept the blame for what happened. this does not mean that he will quit because of the absence. at some level, i suppose, the management of the department of homeland security is responsible, but there is no one who could identify something that they should have done differently.

they want to prevent this from happening at the top level. this is the top level and the leadership department will suffer. i agree with you about not being the sheep. we have to get over that period we are up there on the airplane. i would not say that you should give the passengers weapons. it is now possible for the airline captains to carry weapons. it is dangerous to use the weapon inside a pressurized cabin. i am not certain i would like to see that. host: stewart baker, assistant homeland security secretary from 2005 until 2009. in the last half hour, we will look at the settlement for $3.4

billion. we will be right back. >> keep up with the latest on the health care bill. watch live coverage on c-span3, -- c-span2, the only network with the full debate. all the debate with the new application on the iphone. and you can listen to this on c- span radio. find out more at the health care hub. >> michael teaches at -- and is

the author of "republicans and the black vote." this weekend, a look at climate change with al gore. and laurence solomon, on scientists questioning global warming. we have the biographer of scalia. and ken oletta on how google became a media giant. "book tv" on c-span 2. host: keith harper is the guest. he is the lawyer on the indian trust case. for those who have not heard about this, can you talk about what was going on? guest: we brought the case in 14 years ago about the

mismanagement of the trust fund that was held for the united states for about 500,000 individual indians across the united states. and after 14 years of litigation, we have agreed to a settlement with the united states, worth $3.4 billion. host: why are you selling right now? guest: we have been positioned to settle this case for a very long time. we thought it would be good to get this behind the parties and be able to set up a foundation for a productive future. what happened is we have a new administration, and they have generated some leadership. the president, during the campaign, said he would try to resolve these cases. they made it clear that this would be a priority.

we were able to sit down together. i was not the most optimistic person in the beginning, but after many months of negotiation, we were able to find a resolution. host: can you tell me where this land is? guest: this is the land held in trust for individual indians. this is for the individual indians. there are about 10 million acres all across the western united states, like south dakota and north dakota, montana and new mexico. in the pacific northwest. you have many natural resources, oil and gas, timber, eccentric. -- etcetera. this is supposed to be paid to the individual indians. this has been broken for the

last hundred years. much of these funds have been taken from that system. this lawsuit was about accounting. we want to make certain that the systems are in place to manage these assets. host: the accounting process was done by computer? how was this done? guest: part of the problem is that there was never any single way of doing this. much of this is still on paper. even today, in some places. they want to improve the system dramatically, and utilizing the tools that are the best practices and the banking system's that have not necessarily made it to hear. and even where they have a computer system, they can be so lacking in security that you would expect anywhere else. this is a real systematic problem, that will keep the funding safe and sound.

host: how many individuals are involved? >> 500,000. host: when you factor in the $3.4 billion, how does this work? guest: we have a system that is simple and complicated. the majority of people will get about $1,600. there are some exceptions, but very few exceptions. most people will get something beyond this. $100 beyond that. sometimes $1 million beyond that. it depends on the production that has occurred on the land. those with greater production, we would suspect that there would be more issues because they have greater dollars. host: if you would like to talk to the guest --

host: if you are in american and you want to talk about this -- 284. guecaller: people are supposed o be on guard, where they have their own land. they were killed and their land was taken away from them. this is what happens with hugo chavez in bolivia. the indians are in the forefront of poverty. they want to have better control of their lives. what we want to do is give them back their land. guest: my view of this is that, we take these things as they come in litigation.

this is one case, and in some ways, this is a very important and significant case because this is affecting so many people. they want to resolve by -- standing problem. there are many other issues. this is not to say that that they have taken everything in the past to resolve everything. i am happy we have made a priority to reach out to ind. countries through the president, to build the bridges and repair the relationship between the federal government and the native american people. from my vantage, we are on an upward trajectory and i hope that more people -- more presence and less invisibility here in washington. this will be critical to meeting some of the needs.

host: we have a republican from south dakota. caller: i will go from another angle and i want you to talk about this. nobody is talking about this side of the situation. we live in the south dakota where the poverty is there. money and ministries are given to that reservation. there was a $400,000 house that was sold to a native american with no credit and no house. this is on foreclosure. i have worked with women in prison. i have watched the women have to stay there, and i was trying to connect them with their children. when they go to the reservation, the children are taken away and they are thrown to a treatment center. giving money does not fix the problem. we do not pay people that we win

-- the best thing to do is give people opportunities to change their lives. not by throwing more money at them, because the money has been thrown. it is amazing how much money is given to the native americans. this is not fixing anything. the situation is worse. guest: you are wrong and the statistics show that you are wrong. in places like south dakota, there is a lot of animosity towards native americans. the fact of the matter is in every program, the funding and spend less on native americans than for other americans. when we signed a treaty with the united states, promises were made for health care and education. you see the living embodiment of

those promises. they have not been carried out sufficiently. let me say this. what we are talking about is that this is not about programs, were things that are otherwise vital to native americans as they are two other americans. what this is about is that the united states took the land that belonged to the indians, promised to manage the land, and manage the funding, and ultimately failed to do this. they agree that they failed to do this. the only question is, what was lost by the individual native americans. and now we have the resolution based on the agreement from the political party. many people would say that the moral code, some people would say that they do not know as much money. you find litigation and the way to compromiseñr this for a foundation.

host: and there is a congressional aspect? guest: this is a very narrow piece of legislation. there are a couple of issues that will need to be corrected. and then, the use of the judgment fund for these purposes. there is a question as to whether or not this is permissible. this would basically be the consummation of this, after the legislation goes through. this will have to go through a legal process where a person who is benefiting can object to a settlement that is not sufficient. and then there is a fairness hearing to finally signed off and finalize the settlement. host: what is convincing you that the land will be better managed from here on out? guest: what is simultaneous with the settlement, the secretary

who has been showing extraordinary leadership in bringing the parties together was involved in the settlement. he has also been signing an executive order that will set forth a commission that will study the trust management system and it will try to give more recommendations to fix this further, until the problems are identified. we believe that there are still problems, and the people at the department of the interior do not disagree. this is about assessment and figuring out how to improve the system. at the end of the day, the motivator to resolve the system, to fix the system and make certain that they are managing these assets, is that somebody else may bring a lawsuit down the road. host: we have an independent from wisconsin.

karen, go ahead. caller: is there a chance of a native american administering these trusts themselves? when are they given a chance? they seem very capable of managing their gaming, and certainly, these attributes could be transferred to trust management, rather than the u.s. government or the department of the interior. guest: this is an excellent question, and now that we are resolving the past, i think that this is opening up possibilities for how the future is looking. the commission should study how these trusts should be managed in another way. one aspect of the settlement is that there is a large amount of money to buy back this with interest. sometimes you have 100 different

owners. that makes it very difficult to manage this with all of those individuals. to get that resolved, there is a system with more personal involvement by the individuals. i think that the intense settlement is setting the foundation, and we can set the ideals. we're just not at that place, where this will be implemented. say that you are one of those 100 owners. just because you want to manage your land one way, it is difficult to get everybody else on the same page. that is why the trusty makes sense in this circumstance. we can explore other ways of doing this. host: oklahoma, on the line for native americans. caller: i have been listening to this settlement for several years.

whenever i first saw the announcement going across the bottom of the screen, they were talking about the same time that this was going across the screen, that people have spent $9.8 billion going to the movies. they think $3.4 billion is too much to pay the indians for the mismanagement of their land. there are stories of stolen land, not just from the trust cases, but the allotment of land in oklahoma and throughout the united states. 3.4 million, -- $3.4 billion may sound like a lot of money, but in perspective, people spent 9.6 $8 billion going to the movies. this is really not.

guest: the caller is raising an important question. is this fair? is this enough? the argument can be made that this is not. but let me tell you what elouise cobell has said about this. if we litigate this longer, could we have done something more? >> potentially -- potentially. we have older people may not see any benefit if we do not taken action right now. it is important to get this to be -- to get this to be as fair of the settlements as we can see. the people who are affected along this can get some resolution, and at the end of the day, there is a time for war and peace. with the administration that we believe can work with us in

building a foundation for an improved trust-management system, it is time to see if we can get a resolution. host: windy expect a full settlement? -- when do you expect a full settlement? guest: we believe this will be in short order. ken salazar said that this may be by the end of 2009. we believe that this is the case. we should probably have a fairness hearing, sometime in the april timeframe. and then, there is the potential appeal. if there is no appeal, this may be as early as this summer, that we can start making distributions. host: the democratic line, go ahead. caller: we have not been fair with the american indians. we were told that we were keeping their money for them.

and we were doing accounting for them. we have not done any of that. we give the japanese $25,000 for each person who was put in jail. i think that this small amount, for the indians, this is just not fair to me. guest: i think that the issue of whether or not there should be more is legitimate, but at the end of the day, you have to assess the case as this stands. there was a decision, that was referred to that demonstrates how many decisions were involved in this matter. what was clear from this decision was that to get the resolution, this would have been several more years of litigation because of the nature of the determination that said that the government must have a full accounting, and the arguments about what this

means, and what this entails, they have been litigated and will be litigated for years to come. i think we made a decision, and we support the decision to resolve the case and get the beneficiary find that they deserve. should this have been more? we all agreed that there was a greater problem than what is reflected in the amount that is here. but this is what settlements are about. you think about the delay and you think about what this will mean to the plaintiff or the clients, and then you make your recommendations. host: we have a few more minutes. seth on the republican line. caller: it sounds like you are trying to get a job at the obama administration. you have given them too much credit and i think that you have done a disservice.

the previous democrats have this right. you have to do something for the foundation of their problem. a couple of phone calls ago, there were a couple of examples of where the problem is. i was living on a reservation during a field trip. after i got on the reservation, there was a dead horse on the ground. and then there is a cow drinking in a pond in front of the house. then there is a person. i would go knock on the doors, they would give us three courts of alcohol. they have fundamental problems and this will not solve anything. we will be back with more problems with the people of the reservation. you should have taken the $3.4 billion. you should fix the fundamental

problems and not give this to the people. fix the problems and the people will benefit later. guest: i will not argue that there are some problems in indian country. many of them are grounded in a very problematic relationship with the united states government. but understand what this is about. this is not about all those difficulties and challenges. this is about the money belonging to those individuals. it would not be right to have litigation representing 500,000 individuals, and then take the money that you obtained for that and uses for services. i completely agree that we have other challenges and that it is my hope that the administration will take advantage of these opportunities. and that they will meet those challenges. as far as the obama

administration, we have to compare these administrations. for eight years, we had an administration that was completely ignoring native issues. we now have an administration that is trying to work with the native community and i like to call this the way that i see this. antel i see this right now is that the administration is doing more than what we have experienced in the past. host: what are the legal costs? guest: this is in the tens of millions host:. did this show how much they would get from the settlement? guest: this will be determined by the court. during the fairness hearing process, there will be a request for the fees, and the legal costs will come out of the judgment.

host: oklahoma city, oklahoma. caller: i was calling about the five tribes in oklahoma. the friedmans, the cherokee and creek nations. they were eliminated from the tribes, and they will not be included with this. guest: this depends. the simple question is not whether or not you are an indian or anything of that nature, or a member of the tribe. the critical question is whether or not you have an interest that is held in trust by the united states. if you do, and you generate money, then you have an individual indian account, or you have an allotment. those are the individuals that

will be members of the class. whether they are friedman or not, this does not matter. it is about if they have trust land. host: we have time for one more phone call. grand rapids, michigan. this is from the democratic line. caller: thank you for c-span and the hard work that mr. harper has devoted his time to. i would just like to know how you determine eligibility for what you have just explained to that last caller. i am from muskogee, oklahoma. we have some land in that area. and also, there is some grazing that is going on. and there is a minimal amount of money that is coming in from

that. and what about the mineral rights? alice is working? eligibility and -- how is this working? eligibility -- how do we know that we are part of the settlement? >> we have a web site, cobell settlement.com. there are a number of these web sites. the website to go to is that one. we will send out a notice as part of the process, for all the individuals that we have an address for. there is a lot of information that the department of the interior has. but there are others that they do not have the information for. we will make a public notice in the newspapers to do a show like this so we can get the word out. the website is the best place to go to get all the information

that you need. if we have not identified you, there is a process to be identified. as far as the event -- the mineral rights, people who have mineral rights, produced in and come with the trust of the united states, they are also included. host: keith harper, thank you very much. if she turned over to c-span2 you would see this. mitch mcconnell is planning a speech on health care. we will carry this on c-span at 10:30. this is what you are seeing as we continue the senate coverage. tomorrow, we will talk about the federal debt.

we will talk about those issues ahead of the committee for responsible law. maya will talk about the debt that the united states has. we will talk politics with norman solomon and mark tapscott. and then maria freese will join us, on "washington journal" that begins at 7:00. we will see you then. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> keep up with the latest on the senate healt