harridge joins us. we'll talk about health care legislation and what is the head of congress. "washington journal" starts now. . homeland security secretary said

collaboration on many levels must occur in counter terrorist threats to the united states. democratic homeland security committee member jane harman from california says president obama's approach -- sophisticated tradecraft. " the new york post" says it is time, prez, for you to get serious. in our first minutes together, your thoughts on the president's handling of the terrorist threat. host: you can call us what that information, if you want. you can also send an e-mail. or if you follow us on twitter, don't forget, you can make your response is there.

this is the op ed this morning in "usa today" from homeland security secretary general napolitano. the headline says the u.s. will "find and fix" system vulnerabilities. she goes on to write that this really makes a more critical we work at all levels. host: there are several responses this morning on the president's handling of the last couple of days since the threat on christmas day. this is from dailybreeze.com -- writing about jane harman, democrat of california. she was briefed on the attack

saturday and she applauded "sophisticated tradecraft" in the investigation and president barack obama's response to the incident. they are not terrifying the public, she said. she goes on to say -- the homeland security secretary was right to correct statement on the attack and note the administration is acting appropriately by reviewing screening protocols. that is from jane harman. at the top, " the daily news." the lead editorial -- it is time,prez, for you to get serious. it says --

host: a lot of varying thoughts on the president's handling of the situation. now we're interested in yours. again, the lines on the screen f

jeremiah on the republican line. are you there? let's go next to eastern shore, maryland, steve on our democrats line. caller: i believe the president is handling this problem swiftly and efficiently. i think the newspaper -- news media have not been as efficient. the only thing i saw in cnn. other than that i think the news was sleeping at the handle. host: when you say he is handling it swiftly and efficiently. give some examples of what you have seen. caller: he addressed it, as the constitution would require. in the state myself today on the news where he is probably going to make some people lose their jobs over not doing their jobs.

he is sensitive to the situation from the terrorists as far as their constitutional rights and a thing that is what we have to go by, based on our constitution. host: james from charlotte, north carolina they're talking about the president's handling of this event. he is on our independent line. caller: i don't think he has done a good job. mr. gibbs talking about there are over 500,000 people on this watch list -- it is pretty hard to manage because of the large number of people on the list. i would like to know how they will handle health care with these electronic records when we have 600 million people on there. that is my thought. host: wyoming, on our republican line, tim, the morning -- caller: this is ken. that's ok. i think the president needs help. i used to work before the dsa

and was trained by them and i was also in the military in special forces. i tried to send letters and e- mails to the president giving him my services, and that is just part of the problem. communication doesn't get through. host: when you say needs help. where specifically is the help needed? caller: in understanding how to communicate. the government right now has no lines of communication when it comes to information going in and follow up of that information and things that will help stop terrorist. i'm serious about this and i hope the president is serious about it because i am inviting him to come to my ranch in wyoming and discuss these things that i know will help the united states. i'm a veteran, and i took an oath to observe the constitution of the united states and to uphold and defend it.

and i hope the president is serious. and i have given clues to who i am and where i'm and if he could follow those clues and find me, then he will know that i am serious and that will be the one step closer to them understand how to stop terrorism coming into this country. host: hudson county, new york, on our democrats lined their here is sam. caller: 48 years we listened to bush talk about -- for eight years we listen to bush talk about the reason why we have not found weapons of mass destruction in iraq was intelligence and yet he fired no one, gave george tenet the medal of freedom. the president to distinguish himself by firing napolitano. that is what the he should do. and that would show he is taking a different approach. host: this is because of the specific incident or how she

responded so far? caller: both. because of the specificç incidt and how she handled so far. this is obviously a failure on the part of the department of homeland security. and when things like this happen, someone should get fired. host: what do you think it sets about the intelligence gathering and information sharing that was a concern even stemming out of the 9/11 attacks? caller: it shows there is incompetents somewhere along the line. i think the administrator at the top of which ever department is misspoke -- is supposed to be responsible fat -- for that should be fired when anything like this happens. host: the president made a brief statement over innovation received. >> i want to speak to the american people again today because some of the preliminary information that surfaced in the last 24 hours raises serious concerns.

it has been widely reported that the father of the suspect and and some of warned u.s. officials in africa about his son's extremist views. it now appears that weeks ago this information was passed to a component of our intelligent -- intelligence community but was not effectively distributed so to get the suspect's name oó3 a no-fly this. there appears to be other deficiencies as well. even without this one report, there were bits of informational available within the intelligence community that could have and should have been pieced together. we achieved much since 9/11 and terms of collecting of the mission that relates to terrorists and potential terrorist attacks. it is becoming clear that the system that has been in place for years now is not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we collect and the knowledge we have. had this critical information been shared it could have been compiled with other intelligence and a fuller, clearer picture of

the suspect could have emerged. the warning signs would have triggered red flags and the suspect would have never been allowed to board that plane for america. host: "the washington post" as a follow-up on its story about the president's speech, specifically talking about the bids of inflammation portion.

host: with your thoughts this morning on the terror attack in the president's handling of that, again, several stories in the papers again include some talking about the incident, some showing the picture of umar farouk abdulmutallab. you can see on the screen now. lagrange, texas. mike on the independent mind. caller: what it shows is, after 9/11 all we heard was we need to tear down the walls between one division of intelligence to the other. we spend $100 billion creating a homeland security department and who shared what? no one. it is the same old story. we spend $1 trillion or $2

trillion over the last eight years and we gained absolutely nothing for it. have a nice day. host: will watson on twitter add to this -- this is over concerns about allowing unions -- workers at tsa to join unions. shreveport, louisiana, trevor on our republican line. caller: how were you? host: fine, thank you. go ahead, you are on. caller: i am one republican who actually thinks president obama is doing a decent job on this issue. i just really think he is showing a certain amount of strength, and standing tall on this issue and i think this is something we should be proud of.

committed to what he called a war of necessity in afghanistan. i think it was very important -- he committed more troops in the area and he is doing his best to protect us in this dangerous world. host: all the christmas day and said specifically, how do you thing he had shown strength? caller: he got all of the information in the first couple of days and process it, like it likes to do, and after all the facts were presented the came and gave his speech. which, i hate to say, a few days sooner president bush broke on the issue bomber when he tried to do the same thing. president obama action made a statement sooner than president bush did. i think it is kind of hypocritical for some of my republican friends to make those kinds of statements that he made

us week and what he is doing. host: the caller mentioned to president bush. the politico writes about robert reid and a reaction from the bush administration.

host: grosse pointe, michigan, rob on the independent line. caller: i don't see how anybody can say we are doing a good job. the president, mostly just concerned about his ratings and political aspirations and all about i, he is busy putting through a deeply flawed health care system that nobody wants. i mean, the only reason that 287 people did not drop dead into lake erie is because the detonator was flawed. no passport, bought it cash, one way ticket. his own father, a prominent nigerians bank officials says my son is a jihad is, gigi hottest,

and we don't catch this guy? hello, america. we have an egomaniacal man job as president. we need someone who can handle the job. dick of the people surrounding him? napolitano says this is a success story. help. host: what about the intelligence system that was already in place within the present took office, what needs to be done? caller: you are always working on improving your system, whatever it is because this is a no flawed deal. one mistake and a bunch of people died. you know what? the whole country is at fault because when the ask them what the most important thing is, they say, they list all of these other things -- health care, getting a job -- and i realize that is important, of course -- but let's face it, if we are dead how much do all of these other things matter? national security is paramount. so, when you put a guy as president who is a community

organizer -- my god. what were we thinking? host: pennsylvania. charles on the democratic line. caller: how are you doing. i kind of agree with the previous callern my situation, i'm a desert storm veteran and i know a lot of times when we went in to certain areas we got information. you get the best and the nation you can but you are not going to be perfect. the situation where you are getting a president who does not know what is going on -- you have to give the man a chance. we looked out on the situation, because this a situation we cannot have mistakes because it would have mistakes we are going to lose lives. in my book, let's quit arguing like a bunch of children and get this thing together and work on it because we are not on to be perfect because the only thing that was perfect was jesus christ, as human beings we are not going to be perfect but we have to do the best we can and

forget the democrat, republican, independent, all that, we are united states citizens. host: when you say work on it, what do you mean? caller: get the intelligence together. quit fighting like everybody fighting over health care. if you put it together -- republicans got a good idea about it, the democrats have a good idea, independent -- if you put all three together you will be a lot more successful than you would if you bite each other in the but. -- in the butt. this is not about politicalness, it is about saving lives. i don't think argue with amongst us will help us. we are in a war that will last forever. my grand kids are going to be involved. quit arguing and let us get together and do the thing and if we do it right we will be the strongest country in the world, believe me, because i'm a united states marine and i am proud but i did for my country -- but we have to quit fighting with each other.

host: the system failed, that is the "the new york times" editorial. host: union, missouri, gregg, republican line. caller: president obama,

napolitano, eric holder -- they are a systemic failure for the united states. they don't understand what is going on. i think as time goes on in the next six months to a year, we will find out what is really all about when it faces the american people. i think he's got a lot to work on. i think he is a systemic failure and napolitano -- what is she talking about? what is she talking about? it was a failure and she is trying to rub it the other way. so, i am waiting to see what happens when eric holder takes those people to manhattan and tries them in federal courts. i am just looking forward to see what happens to all of that because we know what is going to happen. host: on twitter this morning

saying -- gross pointe, michigan, robert honor and upended nine -- robert on our independent line. caller: i think it is rather shameful what the republicans are trying to do. we had an incident at see where the pirates captured an american ship captain, you know, and a coordinated effort and rescued him. i think in these -- this incident, holding up a man that could have been in charge of the entire situation months ago, playing politics with our country's security, i think it is wrong. the president's appointment

happened to be an african american and i think jim demand, he should be ashamed of himself where politics and racism against the security of this country. and to have michael, whether his name is, black chairman of the republican party making $20,000 making speeches against the president, all of this is wrong and should be taken in its proper context. it is politics and racism. and jim dement -- demint and republicans working so hard to make it ministration a failure should be ashamed. host: the senator reference and a piece in "the financial times." quotes him --

host: over on the house side, peter hall struck, ranking republican in the house republican many say the suspect should have had a red flag of >> was named -- peter hoekstra. host: louisiana, mark on our democrats line. caller: i believe the president was actually doing a good job. prior to this christmas eve -- not massacre, but trying to bomb

a plane, the president already had strikes against game and so it tells you the white house has a grip on it. not to throw the shiites completely under the bus -- joe scarborough made an interesting comment this morning, -- not to throw the cia completely under the bus, just scarborough made an interesting, this money, how much have they stopped. and sewing up as underwear, that shows you al qaeda has to come up with types of, how can i say, technology to try to get through our airports because their ways of doing it before is not working because of the great security in the country. playing politics with this is very outlandish. republicans, this should be a bipartisan issue and not a

partisan issue. janet napolitano, i think what happened with her was, i did misunderstand what she was saying. she was speaking about what happened after this went wrong. host: again, homeland security secretary has an op ed if you want to read it in "usa today" this morning. you can read it online or in the print version. she goes on to say during part of it that we have instituted enhance security procedures for both domestic and international flights, including enhanced inspections at security checkpoints, increased pat downs, bag searches, expos of detection, canine teams, air marshal's car, the year-old detective officers and other measures both seen and unseen. we are grateful for the traveling public patience with these new measures. the public remains one of the most valuable layers of defense against acts of terrorism. last week's attempt failed due in no small part to passengers

and crew members to act quickly and correctly to subdue the attacker and gain control of the situation. panama city, florida on a republican line. it go ahead. caller: my understanding of the reason that senator jim demint was t was the tsa nominee is the nominee wants to have the workers unionized. think about it, unions are known to protecting the workers so much that it is darn near impossible to get rid of bad workers. you have seen many cases of that -- teachers unions, can you get rid of a bad teacher? hardly. the auto workers. there are many stories of workers who have come in drunk and you just can't get rid of these people if they are in a union. think about it, if they are a tsa worker at the airport -- bad worker? can give it of them? they will let the terrorist

threat. i think it is as simple as that and it has says -- it says nothing to racism. i think people ought to think about that. let's face reality. host: mary anne hansen jr. -- santa rosa, california, on our democrats line. caller: i can't help think about dick cheney and how he has been talking about how barack obama has not been on the watch and stuff. he has had eight years to have taken care of this problem and it didn't get fixed on his watch it so they should be blaming barack for anything going on now. they are really small things in some ways. they should have been taken care of.

dick cheney -- he had such a big mouth before. so, ok, that's it. host: lewiston, michigan, next on our independent line. caller: first off, have the new year. a couple of things that are wrong. first off, it is not a political issue, not a partisan issue, but a people issue. there were people on board the airplane. the problem did not start in america, it started over in amsterdam. sorry it interrupted the president's golf game but two things he did not say -- did not say he made a call to the leaders of yemen, did not say he made a call to anyone in amsterdam to find out what was going on. he should have at least said, we are investigating and made calls to the leaders to find out why this guy was led out of the plane -- on the plane in the first place. the second thing, the faa just spent $5 million on some lavish party. how much of that $5 million

could of gone to more dogs, more security in the united states? it seems like we are wasting money in one place where we should be spending it on another place. i used to be a screener and metro airport. this was before the tsa, well before 9/11. we have maybe a two-day seminar on how to learn to screen and find bombs on people's luggage and stuff. we had people who were falling asleep, coming to work drunk, just like the past lady said. but hopefully that issue will be taken care of. the problem is, this happened over in amsterdam and nigeria. the problem is not the united states right now other than we are not getting all of the information from our cia and it is not being passed on. the problem started overseas. these people should not be allowed to come to the united states unless they are fairly vetted, before they even get on the airplanes. that is the problem.

thank you, pedro, and i hope you do have a happy new year. host: two perspectives on imaging machines. it says full body imaging machines can show potential weapons underneath but it is also -- concerns over privacy over renewed debate over airport security. one quote comes from stored baker who says we need to begin looking more carefully and more nuanced, not just weapons. it means we are going to that and getting used to the idea that people doing the screening will know more about you. but also quotes a representative, republican from utah who sponsored a bill to limit the use of imaging machines. he writes, the big question to our country is how to balance the need for personal privacy with a safety and security needs of our country. i don't think anybody needs to see my eight year-old make it in order to secure the airplane. back to calls, little river, south carolina -- mark on the republican line.

caller: good morning, pedro. i think this is your good job, brown the, moment. -- good job, brownie moment. she was governor of the state before -- nothing to do with homeland security. jim demint -- it is not true. he could bring up the tsa nominee when everyone's but he wanted a voice vote -- jim demint just once at an open debate about the man's qualifications. i believe the way we pass things is, get people where they want to go, you have to buddy, buddy up with obama and what obama wants. it is amazing that no one wants hearings on these people. we just put it and like all of our czars.

33. not a hearing or anything. just put it in. they are the best people for the job. unbelievable. the people fall for this. look at the people he is surrounded by. i just don't know -- people need to watch c-span the rest of the day. host: the netherlands, the hague, associate press saying the dutch government says failed christmas day airline attack was "professional but executed poorly." we do have this e-mail from nancy in tucson. host: again, if you want to send us an e-mail, journal@c-

span.org. marinette, new york, karen on our democrats line. caller: i'm calling because i'm getting really frustrated and angry with the republicans on practically every issue, including this one. i think that obama did the right thing. immediately the republican peter king, you know, they start ratcheting up the fear in people. i think you gather -- he gathered intelligence to make the statements. no, it is not easy. in the bush administration, everyone seems to forget that prior to 9/11, cheyney and bush were aware -- cheney and bush were aware of the events that happened and did absolutely nothing.

i don't believe obama did. new know, the republicans are coming up with every piece of crap that they can find in there about to put him down and the administration down. i am not saying that they should investigate more fairly napolitano. i don't think her response was appropriate. and she may not be the right person for the job, but most definitely the republicans have to look at themselves to see what has brought all of these events including 9/11. host: of peter king mentioned " the new post." -- peter king was mentioned in "the new york post."

host: alta vista, california, jan chad on the independent line. are you there? i am sorry, i said california. your and alta vista, virginia. caller: good morning. happy holidays. host: happy holidays. go right ahead, sir. caller: i want to say first of what i think you guys are doing a wonderful job on the coverage. my comment is, i was watching another channel, another news channel, and anchors -- it just appeared to me that they were glorifying this bomber.

how can they sit there and say, you know, he had no friends, he was depressed. what kind of excuse is there? is that -- what kind of excuse is that? come on, this can be of some of the most depressing times for a lot of people especially grieving a loved one. they are very lonely. they are making it sound like this is his excuse. they need to get rid of him, annihilate these terrorists. i think security is really dropping the ball here. if people can sneak into a banquet at the white house, what the to tell you? host: some other news, apart from what we are talking about right now from the obama administration. this is from the digest section

of "the washington post" this morning. host: back to our question. someone who calls himself ai on twittered --

host: the next call from sterling, the illinois, indiana and our republican line. -- andy on the republican line. caller: president bush is no longer the president anymore. a lot of people talk about the bush administration and blaming him. president obama has been in office for almost a year and had plenty of opportunities to make some changes. i think we should get away from living in the past and focus on the now. having the obama administration is not handling this well. we seem to be going back to the clinton administration, which the focus on terrorism is primarily a civil law issue instead of a national security issue. i just fear that is part of what led to 9/11 itself, that whole focus on this not being a national security issue as much as it is more of a crime issue.

that concerns me. we also seem to be apologizing, too, to the world for america. i think the whole posture of the united states right now shows we are weak on defense and i think it encourages our energy -- enemies to want to attack us more. i think it is ironic this is the first attack attempt on american soil since bush did leave office, it terrorism related. i don't think this is any accident. host: lauderdale, florida. democrats line. caller: the last judgment and other callers, since i used to work in this particular field, the police department. -- the last gentleman and the other callers. if it were not for the civil side -- the military had nothing to do with gathering information. the problem is -- one problem

is, if they had these 500,000 people that have on the list, those should be the people basically they are tracking when they come in to the country, even if they have no specific information with respect to exactly who they are. these of the people they should automatically target when they come in, screen them. such as me when i go and trips sometimes -- check their packages. these are the individuals they should be using as a guinea pig in this particular situation to find how good the information they are getting from these other countries are about these people and they will be able to find out and checking and giving these identical checks, how they would react. that will make them feel the need to pull out people that they don't have an idea, when they set out people to monitor them with respect to checking activities online, they would have more information to go by.

the whole process is you have to continually test the system. when we were there, we always had all law enforcement agencies, other people working -- fbi, secret service -- we always have people come up with scenarios and come in to test each other to see how the people work. obama is doing the only thing he can do. he can not get -- go and revise and go in and declare everything and start over from the beginning. you have to work from your existing people, the people you have, your mainstays -- anything dealing with any type of business, civil service, law enforcement, or anything else in nature. host: "the wall street journal" takes another look at yemen as far as the united states this bonds to it. -- the united states's response to it.

host: youngstown, ohio. independent line. alex. caller: jim demint and republicans just want a fair and open debate debate. everyone wants to rush everything through like the health care bill when everything needs to take time and get it done right. what do you think? host: one more call. virginia, sandy on our republican line. caller: good morning. i just agree with the man who

just called in on the independent line as well. instead of blasting jim demint, he has been trying to do a very good job. he seems to be a very honest man, a very good patriot. i do blame the obama of the station for this lack of touch with this control. they were given more control with the homeland security and i think janet napolitano needs to be held responsible for this lack of control over terrorist of -- terrorism. host: that is the last call we will take. we will continue on these issues, specifically looking at the intelligence community and other elements with catherine herridge from fox news, the national correspondent who covers homeland security, the part of justice -- department of justice. she joins us in just a minute.

>> the director of strategy for john mccain possible presidential campaign talks about absentee and early voting this morning. he is at the campaign management institute at american university. our live coverage begins at 10:30 a.m. eastern. this afternoon a session on campaign finance planning and major donors. the group will hear from vice- president of development for the gay and lesbian victory fund. you can follow both sessions live online at c-span.org and c- span radio. >> all this week, get a rare glimpse into america's highest court, through unprecedented on the record conversations with 10 supreme court justices. >> so, anyway, once we hear the

oral argument we go to the conference room and we sit around the table and we talk about it. no one else in the room. and then we vote. >> tonight, our interviews with associate justices stephen breyer and clarence thomas. interviews with supreme court justices, it o'clock p.m. eastern on c-span. and get your own copy of the original documentary on the supreme court on dvd, part of c- span's american icons collection, 3-this. one of the many items c-span.org available. /store. -- >> "washington journal" continues. host: the president's statement yesterday, what does it say to you about intelligence? guest: the president essentially said eight years after 9/11 there was a systemic breakdown,

people were not sharing intelligence and the one not connecting the dots. what we know now is the 23- year-olds suspect's father went to the embassy in nigeria and it specifically with a cia officer. after that meeting, the cia had the suspect's name and that information was passed to washington and then he got on this very broad base of about 500,000 people. people i am speaking to on the intelligence side of the house said that there was not one single piece of information sitting on one computer in langley, virginia, that would take this 23-year-old name and magically kick upstairs so he was on the no-fly list. certainly there is a difference of opinion as to what the quality of in for mission was and whether it truly could have been connected to sort of prevent him from getting on the flight. host: with the reviews he is calling for, what is he looking for and what specifically from the intelligence community? guest: there are three sets of lists. the 500,000-name database, a

very broad database. the way you get on the database is, for example, if a terrorist is picked up overseas and have his address book or his own or calendar and let's say your name happens to be on the list, for some mysterious reason, your name would end up on the broad database. someone who at least have had some type of contact with a known terrorist. it could be as simple as, you delivered and a pizza -- i don't know. but it could be a very loose connection. then there is another this, the select list. there are certain hurdles you have to cross from an intelligence point of view which people are not at liberty to discuss for a variety of reasons. that takes you to the secondary list of 14,000. you have to have -- he was not on that list. and the no-fly list is the higher threshold that would prevent you from traveling into the united states. when it issues to review is how was the information handled and where the thresholds appropriate. are they too high? do they need to be no war?

if information has been better fish -- were better shared, what we have known, -- nigerian the al qaeda people were talking about was the same abdulmutallab. host: as far as janet napolitano's handling of the, are there concerns your hearing? guest: privately what i am hearing is there was certainly a disconnect between their initial statements the system work, which people say was misinterpreted, which she said she met once we knew there was an incident certain steps were taken and they were followed. then there was a backtracking. that is tough for any secretary in this position to be seen to take one position and take another. i found it interesting last night president obama has in effect backed up for second position, that it was some type of systemic failure. but again i would emphasize people i am speaking to privately on the intelligence side of the house just don't think there was one single piece of the commission that would have magically kicked him

upstairs. host: was the point of the 9/11 commission to get better communication between these agencies as far as intelligence? guest: i think there is certainly better information that was eight years ago. as one said to me yesterday, they knew there was trouble with a nigerian but there are a lot of nigerians out there. until you have that name, how can you put all of that in permission together -- and we had the name in november. the other point i would make is if you have a population that is sufficiently radicalized that they are going to get on a airplane and kill themselves for their cause, this is really the type of attack that could be virtually impossible to prevent. as a part of the balancing act has to be, what kind of measures are we willing to have here in the united states -- a country that really prides itself on its liberty -- versus trying to come back and any, individuals -- individuals willing to sacrifice

their lives and all circumstances. host: catherine herridge is with us until host: talk a little bit about the current status of the head of tsa and customs and border patrol. a lot of calls about senator jim demint's role. guest: those positions have been hung up. one could certainly argue that without real leadership at the tsa is hard to make any type of systematic changes in terms of how that is run. what i heard from people privately is, if you will, the leadership vacuum has been very difficult for morale. i think we all understand is within these intelligence community's or even within the airline screening community, morale is a very important part.

host: by extension, talk a little bit about what this whole incident does about the future of guantanamo? guest: early this week before even we have the specific connection between the suspect and al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, the al qaeda branch in yemen, an official familiar with the process said it was a disconnection -- maybe the final nail in the coffin on clothes in guantanamo bay, and if not, it would at least lead to some strategic pause to stop and take a breath and look at the review. for context, when half of the detainees left at guantanamo bay are yemeni and it is documented that some of those from guantanamo bay, two in particular, were transferred under president bush into doubt in seven to the saudi rehab program. they were considered low risk. to they went through the rehab

program and return to the battlefield and not only returned to the battlefield, but part of the score leadership of al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, not only claiming responsibility on the attempt on flight 253 but recently claimed irresponsibility for an attempted assassination of a saudi prince. the reason i mention that attack is that sources are telling me that investigators are looking very hard at the similarities between flight to give the three and also this attended assassination in saudi arabia. for example, they both used petn. they had bombers who acted like mules -- either concealed on the body, like flight 253, and in the saudi incident, concealed in a body cavity. host: a lot of republicans -- peter king, frank wolf -- others have said we should not turn over any more guantanamo detainees to yemen.

any talk from the democrats' side? guest: it is interesting because the chairman of the house homeland security committee thompson said -- i am paraphrasing -- take a breather here. we will have hearings and look specifically at events that led up to flight 253 but we also have to look at the many questions. and the other side of the garden, the obama administration said despite this week's events is still plan to continue these transfers to yemen because until they can solve the yemeni question, military officials call it the long pole in the tent, you cannot effectively solve the guantanamo question. host: the first call is from miami on our republican line. robert, go ahead. caller: good morning. i just want to state that i believe the reason why he was able to slip through is because he had a visa. the reason why i say that is that foreigners to travel into the united states have to go

through a rigorous application process. they have to send documents, they have to be fingerprinted, the half to send pictures weeks before the departed flights. i know this for a fact and your guest probably can confirm this. however, if you have a visa, it could very well be a possibility that these rigorous guidelines are overlooked because of your visa, you may be placed in a different category. i think that somewhere they need to look at. people with visas are probably slipping through the cracks easier than the foreigners to travel here who don't have pieces. guest: an excellent pundit. what we know about this particular case with umar farouk abdulmutallab is he already had a visa to enter the united states. if my memory is correct, he obtained last summer, about six months ago. if you look of the time line, he

already had a visa. at this point of his father had gone to the embassy in november. as you point out, he was already clear to come into the united states. the question is, once the father went to the embassy, was that really sufficient for the state department to take another look at that be set and decide whether it is still going to be good or ought to be canceled. host: new iberia, louisiana. daniel on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. this whole conversation -- the fortress america attitude. hello? guest: yes, go ahead. caller: no one has asked the question why people are willing to die and are so dedicated, what have we done to them? now, with this guantanamo situation it is basically to keep it so they could never testify in court as to why they did it. and the republican party mainly

represents corporate america. corporate america and our military industrial complex has been so egregious to these people and i am all-american, a decorated vietnam veteran, i have my ancestors actually signed the declaration of independence and fought in the american revolution, both sides, i am american through a through, but before i hunker down and start giving up rights and spending my money and send children to war i want to know why and the fact that they want -- the livestock, it is not accessible. we are rather down and losing rights. i want to see one of them testify and why do they hate us so much just as a thinking man. guest: an excellent point. well, one of the issues may be finally flushed out if the 9/11 conspirators' come to a federal court in new york is why they were motivated to attack the united states and why they hate this country so much. i would say that there is not

really an easy answer to that question because when you talk to intelligence officials and analysts who study this question, it is really a complex mix of characteristics and experiences that made -- these people to this place. it is not so much about the united states it is more about these particular individuals. for example, this 23-year-old nigerian, this is someone who it would appear was on facebook, on the web, was talking about his deep sense of loneliness, isolation. these are the type of people are tied once to recruit. ripe for the picking, if you will, because they are looking for a sense of community, looking for family, looking for and the -- a religious identification and once they are pulled in the effectively become brainwashed and are willing to carry out these missions. your other point is excellent which is, we want to combat this enemy but we don't want to in the process lose all of the rights and that are so special

to this country. it is interesting that you point this out because one of osama bin laden's primary goal is to create an ideology, one that would destroy the very rights this country is founded upon. that is kind of the conflict, trying to preserve our rights but also try to preserve our security at this time. host: peter king talked about the taliban -- about the suspect. expand on how this works? guest: in the case of the 9/11 conspirators, for example, once they were picked up i am told there was a decision we wanted to get intelligence from these people. weink when it, in effect, at least in the short and medium- term forgo criminal prosecution. we would try to get as much intimation as possible because the thought another attack was in the pipeline. the argument i believe congressman king is making is this young man has real time

contemporaneous information about the structure we believe of all tied in yemen, also their mode of operation, the recruitment, training, bomb materials. he is saying, let's make him a prisoner of war because this is a war we are fighting. let's try to get as much information as possible from him so we can thwart future attacks, so we can find out if in fact there are other people like him in the pipeline. but what the administration has done in this particular case is to say, we are going to have a criminal prosecution. we will put him into federal court and as a result one of my sources told me that he is not talking anymore. it is not incumbent upon him. in fact, he has the right to say nothing now. he has an attorney and will be treated in our system just like you or i would be treated in the system. .

guest: there have been a series of air strikes in yemen. these were strikes targeting the al qaeda leadership in yemen and also on american citizen, you probably remember this name from the fort hood shooting, anwar al-awlaki. he lived in the united states. he fled the united states. he was a prisoner in yemen. he's now free. he's a spiritual guider. some call him the dear abby of the radical islam world. what it tells me is that the united states is trying to back up the yemeni government trying to take out these al qaeda cells and taking them out of its root is a cancer, trying to address new screening and

procedures, all of these things. while they may have merit they take a long time and they're symptoms of the problem, they're not the cancer. what we're seeing is the support of the u.s. to the yemeni government through various elements, military, intelligence, to try and help them put the nail in the coffin of this group. host: is the president in its own right? guest: what i do understand about the situation is that -- well, they're between a rock and a hard place. they have two insurgencieses of their own. it's been very difficult for them to not take these detainees back because they are their own citizens and it's a matter of their own pride. but it's clear that as the saudis have been very aggressive pushing al qaeda out of their country these individuals have gone into yemen which has become a collecting pot of groups because of its geographical

location, its proximity to africa, somalia. these are where the jihadists are going. senator lieberman said something so on point. he said afghanistan and pakistan is the war of today, but the war of tomorrow will be yemen unless we get it under control. host: how would you rate homeland security aside from the situation? guest: well, i never usually am in position that i am giving grades to things but -- host: well, how would others rate it since it's a sensitive subject? guest: well, i first started covering homeland security when tom ridge was the white housed a vazor to homeland security and had this small office in the white house. so i saw the evolution from a white house advisor to full advisor and then secretary chertoff and then secretary napolitano. from where we started to where

we are today is really dramatic. as you know the government moves slowly and you can't turn things on a dime. i think this episode shows that there can still be better intelligence sharing but i wonder whether we're trying to set a standard where you can prevent all risks and what you hear repeatedly from homeland security is you can't mitigate all the risk. you can't preor the. it's the risk management. and as your earlier caller pointed out, you want to do it in a framework of who we are as americans. do we want to become a defensive state all the time where a lot of our rights are lost. host: and the idea of turf, of

protecting the individual turf. do you find that sense of turf for homeland security still? guest: not as much as in the early days when all these agencies were brought together, one individual said to me, you know, this is a type of person who is working for the f.b.i., not the same type of person who joins customs and border protection. it's not the same are type of person who goes into covert intelligence. when you bring them all together there is a culture clash, so to speak. we did some reporting earlier this month on the f.b.i. director and the homeland security director over some intelligence on the case in new york where the apparent target was the 9/11 anniversary. it was described to us as just

a healthy and lively debate about how much intelligence should be shared. do you remember there were a number of leaks related to the case and the f.b.i. was concerned that these leaks were going to jeopardize the criminal investigation because we had the new york component and the denver component. remember, he was the airport shuttle bus driver from denver. host: right. guest: it was to preserve as much intelligence as possible. the homeland security posture is we need to get out the information. there is an inherent conflict of where the intelligence is. host: doris on our republican line. go ahead. caller: good morning pedro and catherine. guest: good morning. caller: they threatened them with lawsuits and they now have to be politically correct instead of working to save america from terrorism.

just like they deal with that jihadist terrorist over at fort hood for two years, they weren't able to stop him, but they promoted him. those murders could have been prevented if the f.b.i. was able to fulfill their job. and this stupidly law of miranda rights on the battlefield, thank goodness we didn't have to do that world war i, world war ii, korean war, vietnam war, how would they have ended up. i think congress needs to look into this c.i.a. bit. they've been saving america. they saved us for eight years and we also heard they pulled a lot of them back from overseas. maybe could have checked this guy that just got on the plane. thank you. i'll hang up. guest: well, thank you very much. you raise a point that was really at the center of a debate earlier this year. you'll remember in the august-september time frame this long awaited c.i.a.

inspector general report of what was called the enhanced interrogation program. this was the secret prisons overseas that held the 9/11 suspects. also, these tactics that included waterboarding. this was finally released after a multiyear lawsuit under the freedom of information act. after that document was released, the attorney general did announce that he would do a review to see if some of the individuals in that program had crossed a threshold and may have engaged in criminal behavior. now, at that time former agency officials told me that there had already been a review under the previous administration and that only one individual was prosecuted. and that effectively to launch a second review of people who had already been reviewed by career prosecutors would have a chilling effect on people who work at that agency. i don't want to use some of the

language that was shared with me but certainly the feeling was that people would be running for their lawyer more than they would be running for the mission because they had been given legal advice under the bush administration that they were able to carry out these tactics. as one person said to me, no one went into a waterboarding session smiling and looking forward to it. it wasn't that kind of situation. the counterpoint is the department of justice feels they have to understand the extent of the advice that was given to these people, whether they followed it, and whether they willingly disregarded it and stepped over the line. but your question is an excellent one -- how do we create an environment whether the intelligence community is very forward leaning you need in order to prevent these types of attacks? caller: yes, my question is whether or not the director of the group of this over the

airport security, is it called the t.s.a.? guest: yes, t.s.a. caller: i was watching the program, i think it was "the edge" show, maybe, and they were talking about the fact that it's been 11 or so months and they still don't have a permanent director. with that impact, would we be in better shape as far as detecting? and just like "the edge" said on the show last night, why can't the law-abiding citizens, the people that fly on a frequent basis, why can't they have some sort of identification so they won't have to go through all that hassell? -- all that hassell? -- all that hastle? guest: well, we're discussing this earlier that anytime -- and this is just common sense -- anytime that you have a job

that is empty, you have an effect, a leadership backing even if you have a very confident person. and there is a competent person at t.s.a. who is trying to effectively do the organization. but any may scombror changes you want to make, just like a major corporation, is hard to make until you have a person at the helm. the reason that the appointee has been held up, some republicans feel he wants to unionize some of the workers, particularly some of the t.s.a. screeners, and this is something that they are against. they believe they want to have people in face who are effective and they don't want to have the constraints that can come with union membership. did i -- i think i answered both points. the second point? host: the associated press reports that the government says it's going to start using full-body scanners on flights to the united states to try to prevent what happened last week. tell us what's going forward?

guest: there has been a real industry that's grown up around the technological end around airport screening. for instance, in this case the bomb was made of pten. it's an explosive if you concealed it on your body you won't find. you will only pick that up in the -- you see the claws on the sticks. the body scanner has been controversial because it's very revealing, i guess. you can see everything in privacy. advocates have been against it and there have been others who said, i don't have a price tag for it, but it is the most expensive piece of equipment. so it is, can you justify the expense to equip airports, not only in the united states but we also have to ask foreign airports to do the same, can you make this expenditure to put these in place? now, there's real cooperation between these airport authorities because they want

to be good partners with the united states and they want to keep people flying. and in order to keep people flying is constant change. host: ask the on our independent line. scott, go ahead. caller: good morning, pedro. good morning, catherine. guest: good morning. caller: when i look at the situation with the guy who got in there, he seems to just -- we don't have the right system put in place. and being that i'm an independent, when you see the president going around and kind of downplaying terrorism and then you have a white house walking, someone just walks right into the white house, a week later i heard iran jump on the newspapers and say, you know what, we're going to decide to build 10 more nuclear facilities. they see how easy it is. when i go through airport security, catherine, and i look at t.s.a. workers, they look tired, they look angry, they look unmotivated. and they can't see under your

clothing. so we need to implement things such as a dog. even though people, i don't want a dog smelling me. too bad. either a dog or air chute where you pick up any drugs or any bomb-making material. and the no-fly list. first you have a no-witch list and then a no-fly list. if they are watching them how do they get to fly? this doesn't make any sense. no pointing fingers. both presidents make mistakes. but we need to get tougher as a country. and to not play around because these countries see when they can walk right into the white house, what kind of security do we have when we see the motivation of the t.s.a. workers, what kind of motivation do they have? guest: well, the t.s.a. workers, they have a very tough job. you can imagine yourself spending several hours doing something very repetitive and i'm sure some of them will say a thankless job because -- at

least my experience, people seem annoyed when they get extra screening or have to take their computers out. you're right, it is a tough job. and perhaps more needs to be done to, you know, incentivize them and improve their morale. you make a good point about the symbolism. and interested to hear him bring up the salah he affair -- salahi affair at the white house. what kind of message this sends to other countries. now, that's an extreme interpretation of it but i think he makes an excellent point. host: from the president asking how the review works, do people at the homeland security committee thinks there needs to be a review? guest: i think there will be a revisiting of how this intelligence was shared, when they got it, how they got it, where it went, how he got onto the list, how he didn't jump on the list. we'll find out whether these

claims from people on the intelligence side are true that there wasn't some sort of magic piece of information that was out there. will we see a review as exhaustive as 9/11, i doubt it. host: has anybody on the commission chimed in on it? guest: i could have missed it because i've had a lot of stuff going on. host: fort myers, florida, republican line, chris. caller: hope y'all had a great christmas and a very happy new year. guest: thank you. host: go ahead. caller: they are talking about obama making this a police action, everything has to go through the federal courts and everything. well, isn't that -- isn't that defensive? i mean, if i walk into a bank and i don't rob a bank or if osama walks into a bank and doesn't rob it they can't do nothing to you. if he goes in there and robs it then we can come and find you. isn't that the same thing

that's going on here? isn't that what obama wants? if you have to read a miranda rights to terrorists, isn't that the same thing? you have to do a crime before you can do the time? i mean, they let this guy on the plane, he didn't do nothing before he got on the plane. he didn't do nothing until he got out in the middle of the ocean and when that happened everybody jumped on him, isn't that what obama wants is to bring everything to a federal court? guest: well, i think you have two points there. the first is i think what you want to see is -- and i want to -- don't want to put words in your mouth but we want a strategy that's preemptive. we want to identify people or extremist groups before they act so that we don't even get into a situation where they're getting on airplanes with bombs in their underwear. that's a very simple explanation but getting to that point is very complicated.

it's not an easy thing to do. and often in these situations when you speak to people within homeland security or the intelligence community they'll say, well, let's think of how many times we probably stopped things and we never hear anything about. when something doesn't quite go right everyone comes down on us like a ton of bricks. the other issue you're raising is this issue of military courts which are for those who will not go to federal court and the supporters of military courts are people who see this as a war against extremists versus the criminal court or the federal court. you'll remember in november the attorney general announced that the 9/11 conspirators will be going to a federal court in new york. that means that they will have the same rights as american citizens. they will have lawyers. they will have access to information in those cases. they can see the change of venue, for example, arguing

that new york would be impossible to get an impartial jury. all those things. there are those at the time who look at cases that was sent to military courts and said, why is it that, mr. attorney general, you are sending these to the federal court and not military court? because they were military targets. here's the message we just sent. if you hit soldiers overseas we'll put you into a military commission. but if you actually come to the united states and hit americans you get the full rights of american citizens. now, that's obviously a very political interpretation of the decision, but you can see it's a really thorny mess when you get into the issues of prosecution. military commission versus federal court. and giving people who there are allegations but who allegedly hate this country the full rights of citizens is very controversial. host: the message on twitter, somebody asked, how much do t.s.a. people get paid, minimum

wage? guest: wow. i don't want even guess how much it's paid. maybe in the neighborhood of $40,000 to $60,000. i don't know exactly how much they're paid. but these are not -- these are not high-paying jobs. and i think what we can see is that these are very demanding jobs in the sense they're physically demanding, they're mentally demanding because they're highly repetitive. it's not easy work. and i think when we're often in these lines we know that people can be very aggravated, very difficult. not always cooperative in the lines. so i think we have to really sort of give them a pat on the back for doing what they're doing because it's not easy work and it's not work that everyone wants to do. host: we have about 10 more minutes with our guest. nick on our democrats' line. caller: good morning, c-span. good morning, america. guest: good morning. caller: c-span, it's kind of

tough. since 2000 i've been listening to you guys. and lately you guys are -- your republican blood is showing. we had a heritage foundation girl on. and then what i call fox fascist, all they do is tear down the president and the united states and you have her on. host: sir, we invited her as our guest so why don't you ask the question? caller: why does she hate america? i guess that's the sean hasity line, why does she hate america and every democrat? guest: i don't think i've been accused of that before. i take a critical approach to things i discuss. host: linda on our republican line. caller: hello. hello. guest: good morning. caller: i wanted to ask your guest how it was possible that

when the politician is giving a speech they manage to find the person who died because they didn't get a letter or the person who -- because their feet was turned off and they're mentioned prominently? when in this case there was a father who was extremely credible and also somewhat of a prominent person in nigeria who went to two embassies and got no reaction whatsoever, i just find that incredible. and i'd like to hear the comments -- her comments on all of that. guest: sure. it's definitely worth noting that within the last month alone we've had two cases where family members have come

forward. in the case of the nigerian suspect to an embassy overseas. you'll remember a case recently of washington, d.c., of five young men who disappeared into the tribal areas of pakistan and it was their family members who alerted the f.b.i. because a suicide tape was left and this was clearly a red flag to them. so on the positive side we are at least seeing people come forward. they're going to the authorities. they're saying, we got a problem with someone within our family, we need your help tracking them down or finding them. and these people take tremendous risks doing that because of the potential fallout of the member of their family but they feel it's the right thing to do. the second part of your question is, why was it when this very prominent nigerian, he's a banker, former government person, when they went to that embassy, was the response appropriate? did we do what we needed to do given that he was credible and he was a person of significant

standing? well, what i know about that particular case is that he did meet with the c.i.a. officer. that's when they got the name. though at that time he didn't say, i think my son is going to seek to blow up the united states, but he did say that he had extremist views and he was in yemen. the fact that theñr father felt his son was at risk and in a country that is known for harboring terrorist groups, was that enough to kick it upsares? we know the information came back to washington, it got the boy's name on this very broad database. but should more have happened after that? and in this review, what we will find, at least that's the administration's goal is, what happened to all of that information? and was there enough there that should have been kicked upstairs faster? host: long island, new york. independent line. caller: yes, good morning. what is secretary of state hillary clinton doing, is she waiting for an opinion poll to come out?

thank you very much. guest: oh, wow. i certainly can't speak for hillary clinton but it's true. i don't think we have seen her publicly since this has unfolded. can you recall? no, i don't believe so. we certainly had briefings at the state department, but you are correct. the two people who have been at the forefront of that, this public face, wasñi initially th secretary of homeland security and then president obama. i can't speak as to why hillary clinton has not been more visible. there may be a very legitimate reason for that. host: oklahoma city, oklahoma. democrats' line. caller: we have caucasians in america that join the ku klux klan and join these military militias because their mindsets is against the government. we have people from inside america, americans that want to destroy the government from within. and most of those are republicans. now, another thing. if the terrorist or with the

shoe bomber or the guy came from the mexican border and blew something up, then the republicans would try to blame him coming through the borders even though the borders have been opened up for eight years under the bush administration, would they still try to blame that on the obama administration? all right. in eight years the only thing that george bush has been able to do with the airplanes is to lock the cockpit doors. and you republicans want to blame the -- you republicans want to blame the democrats on something like that. eight years and the only thing that george bush can do is lock the doors, but now -- now this is the obamaed a -- you know, the obama administration's fault? please, every democrat addressed president obama as president obama. these republicans will disrespect him and call him obama but we know he's the president. there's nothing they can do about it. they hate it when we do it. let's address president obama as president obama.

host: the point of t.s.a., i'd like to quote from twitter, nigerian and dutch security's fault wasn't ours. if he was in our airports the t.s.a. would have gotten him. guest: that's the other side of the argument. it raises theñi point, we have partnerships with other countries and we have to rely on them as well. these countries work with us, as i said. they have a vested interest in maintaining the confidence of the flying public. but they are their own bosses, so to speak. they do what they feel is appropriate and what they can financially afford. just a point that your caller raised. the radical islam gets a lot of attention in the news. there's no question about that. he makes the point and it's certainly true earlier this year the government hadxd assessments about left-wing extremism and also right-wing extremism. these are very controversial but these are two areas

considered by the intelligence community. host: what's the next angle in this story? guest: my prediction is that yemen, which is sometimes referred to as the poor man's afghanistan, is really going to come to the floor how for a number of reasons. this group al qaeda in the arabian peninsula, or al qaeda in yemen, has clearly gained confidence. it was seen largely as a regional player. if it is true they were behind flight 253 they have now branched out to attacks in the west and the united states. secondly, this american cleric in yemen, anwar al-awlaki, i was told yesterday by u.s. officials that they believe he has gone operational. in other words, he's crossed a threshold from propaganda to operations which makes him extremely dangerous. and he's a very crizz mat hick individual. he's american. he understands the west. and some people see him as the rising star within the global jihad, sort of the bin laden of

afghanistan. host: catherine herridge, thank you very much. guest: thank you. host: and coming up next is jewell jewell. here are some other news from c-span radio. >> an update on the attempted airliner attack. the dutch government has released a preliminary report and says it will immediately begin using full-body scanners on flights to the united states to prevent future terrorist attacks, like the one attempted christmas day. and speaking at a news christmas, the interior minister says the nigerian suspect assembled the explosive device, including 80 grams of pten in the toilet. went on to say it's not exaggerating to say that the world has escaped a disaster. meanwhile, officials in nairobi says a somali national tried to board an airliner last month with powdered chemicals, liquid

and syringe that could have caused an explosion. the suspect was arrested before the november 13 airline flight took off. u.s. officials are aware of the incident and are investigating any possible links with the detroit attack. more on leadership at the transportation security agency. republican senator jim demint of south carolina speaking earlier on cbs' "the early show" says that democrats are trying to rush a vote on the nomination of former f.b.i. agent earl suthers to be the head of t.s.a. without adequate debate. senator demint has placed a hold on the nomination saying he's concerned that mr. suthers would let t.s.a. screeners join a labor union. meanwhile, senate majority leader mary reid has accused republicans of jeopardizing security politics. and those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> a look attributes paid to world leaders including the dawley llama, ted kennedy,

ronald reagan, walter cronkite, colin poul. and presidential advisor austin gulsby on the economy. the co-founder of guitar hero on innovation and entrepreneurship. plus, the art of political cartooning. >> "washington journal" continues. host: julie rovner of n.p.r., we keep hearing when congress meets again to talk about the health care bill, abortion is going to be tackled. what will have to be meated out when these two bills meet together? guest: well, a lot of people think is how these bills will be financed. remember the president said he will not sign a bill that is not paid for. they are in fact paid for. the senate bill would reduce the deficit over 10 years by something in the neighborhood of over $130 billion.

they are paid for very differently. both of them, of course, has thee reductions in medicare spending to -- these reductions in medicare spending. the other half of the money comes from very different places. the house bill would basically tax wealthy. they have a surtax. they call it the millionaire surtax. it's half millionaires for individual people. the senate bill goes basically taxes health care providers. makers of medical devices, pharmaceutical makers, the insurance industry. then, they also have separate from a tax on insurance plans, they have this cadillac insurance plan tax. these are plans with very generous benefits. of course, there's a policy reason for that. they want to -- they want people to be cognizant if they have these very generous generous tax because they believe it leads to the overuse

of health care services. it's not to get the money from the tax but to get employers who offer generous benefits to stop offering such generous benefits. that's the deal behind that tax. that's the debate if that cadillac tax will be there. and basically whether they will go for sort of taxing the health care provider, taxing the wealthy. that's going to be a big, big fight. host: so, if you have those different philosophies on how to pay for it issue, who are the ones to watch as discussions about how those things -- and who gives in this case as far as who gives to whom on how it gets paid for? guest: i talked to the president last week and he said he thinks it will be a little bit of both. when dealing with compromise there could be a smaller surtax on the wealthy and a provider

tax. you split it. you do some of both. that's a distinct possibility. i mentioned in the senate bill there is an increase in the medicare tax for the wealthy. and that's another possibility. that's sort of a theme that you have, sort of a different way to tax the rich, have them pay a little bit more in their medicare tax. so that's another possibility that could be thrown out there. i think that is -- the conferees have not been named but you expect them to be the key leaders of the major committees would be the finance committee and the ways and means committee and the ners committee. and the education -- the energy and commerce committee and the education and labor committee. and i think the leadership, obviously, will play a key role in the house and senate, harry reid and nancy pelosi. host: are there conversations between the two? guest: certainly. the staff is not off this week even though the members have gone home, the staff is putting

together the paperwork that needs to be done. there's an enormous amount of paper that needs to be prepared for a conference like this. i think people understatement how much work it takes just to -- underestimate how much work it takes just to put a bill together. we talk about the big issues, abortion and the public option and financing. but there are smaller issues that are different that are going to have to be worked out. and those two take some time even though some of these things may never rise to the member levels to actually members but staff is going to have to work out differences. in the end it has to be one bill. these are 2,000 pages. it takes a lot of work. host: is there confidence from democrats on both sides that a package will come together? guest: there really is. the structures of these bills are very similar. there are these -- you know,ñi the idea of these exchanges where people would go to get their insurance although that's

another point of contention because the exchanges are state-based in the senate bill and they're sort of more nationally based in the house bill. that's something that will probably rise to the member level that the members will have to talk about. again, there are these thresholds. there's a lot of insurance regulation. again, it's fairly similar in both the house and senate bill. there would be -- medicare changes and these are sort of important changes in medicare. a lot of trying out different ways of trying to save money in medicare that they hope would then run to the private sector. ways like budget director peter orszag, slow the growth of health care spending. those are our in both bills. they are not exactly the same. it would be work outable type of things. those are things that can be put together relatively easily. it can be tedious and time consuming to actually write the bill. that's what took so long.

that's why it's taken 11 months to get to where we are today. host: we have our guest until 9:30 today. your question about the details of both of those if you want to talk about it. 202-737-0001 for republicans. 202-737-0002 for democrats. and 202-628-0205 for independents. again, you can also contact us two other ways. if you email us at journal@c-span.org or if, webs web address there. and then if you follow us on twitter. it's cspanwj. did you speak to the president? guest: well, one of the interesting things that jim weir says he expects people down to the white house to actually be in the middle of this conference process which i thought was interesting because he's taken a very hands off -- personally a hands off approach

to this. there have been white house officials in -- you know, every time you walk around the capitol you run into one. you can't turn around without running into somebody from the white house. they have definitely been involved. but they have really wanted to leave this -- it's been very difficult for both the house and senate to work this out. obviously, both bills passed with not a vote to spare, you know, in the house even know there's a large democratic majority. you had three dozen democrats who did not vote for the bill. in the senate, obviously, they needed every single member of the democratic caucus and got it but it was not easy. clearly there was a lot of arm twisting and deal making and that happened. but i think now in the conference process the president, jim, expects to have the negotiators down from the white house. theñr -- there was not -- there was one republican in both houses, a total of one republican who voted for this bill. so i think when you see the conference process there will

be republicans appointed to the conference. now, in 2003 when they did the medicare prescription drug bill, the democrats were basically shut out of the room in the conference process. i don't know what's going to happen in terms of whether republicans will be invited to be at the negotiating table or not. that will be something that will be interested in seeing. host: were you asked why the president would take a more direct role? guest: it was not a question we were able to get to. it was something i was interested in. i think i was deprived -- the president was so active leading up to his speech in the fall on this issue and then when congress -- when the house and the senate were actually doing these bills in the fall the president had really personally sort of moved on to other issues, to afghanistan. i was kind of surprised the

president wasn't more out there talking about health care. i mean, yes, his staff was up on capitol hill but it was more a behind the scenes role and i was a little bit surprised that the president wasn't more pushing it and leading a vacuum from all of the republican complaints about the bill. while the republicans were out there complaining about the bill the polls were really going south on this issue. host: julie rovner our guest. let's start with the phones. bloomington, illinois. karen on our republican line. caller: good morning. i want to be respectful because i am a respectful person. i feel like my heart is in my mouth. let me step back just a minute. this issue is extremely controversial. and i would appreciate it -- c-span, if and when you have a guest who is speaking on the issue that you would now and

would have in the past had those that represent the full spectrum of ideas and concerns. one myth i want to dispel is that republicans are not for health care reform or don't care. that is an absolute untruth. and they have been very -- i just lost my -- i want to say full of void. i watch c-spans in the evenings, many, many evenings when the doctors who are in the house spoke about all of their ideas and plans. and i doubt that a lot of people were watching. they were effectively shut out and have been shut out. and they have presented many, many amendments that have just been dismissed. the truth of the matter is a lot harsher than what i'm speaking. this president wants this. it's more about control than it

is about health. and he has used, abused and manipulated many people to bring it to this point. host: we'll leave it there, caller. just in case, we have a lot of different perspectives on this issue. if you want to check out our c-span siteñi for our health ca hub, as we call it, legislators and other viewpoints on this issue and find it all in one place at c-span.org. ms. rovner. guest: i don't want to say that the republicans don't care about health care. what i've learned from my own reporting, there are a lot of republicans that is upset about the strategy that the republican leadership has taken on this which is to basically say no to this bill. there are a lot of republicans, particularly in the senate, who really wanted to find a bipartisan bill, to come up with a deal. and basically their leadership was saying, you know, no, our position is going to be that we're simply going to oppose

this bill and, you know, and we're not going to really try to make it better, to improve, to come up with something that we can support. and i think that was really a decision that was made by the republican leadership. now, i think the house members -- house republicans have -- do have legitimate arguments. i think both the house and the senate, there were a number of republican amendments that were adopted in committee in both the house and the senate that were later basically dropped out of the bills that came to the floor. i should point out. this happened -- this is sort of the problem being in the minority, this happened to the democrats when they were the minority. i was listening to c-span yesterday talking about the plight of the minority. i'm not saying that two wrongs make a right but i was thinking having covered congress long enough to have seen both parties now in the minority and switching back that neither party treats the minority very well when they're in the

majority. it's really too bad. i think when i first started covering congress in the 1980's the parties got along considerably better than they do today. host: minority leader boehner on the bill on health care. >> now speaker pelosi is pressing ahead with her $1.3 trillion government takeover of health care. we believe that her health care bill will destroy 5 1/2 million jobs in our country. according to a methodology developed by the president's senior economic advisor. the congressional budget office has estimated that our plan will lower health care and make it more affordable and create jobs in america. in contrast, the speaker's bill includes job-killing taxes and mandates that will hurt small businesses. and for the sake of our families and small businesses,

this job-killing bill needs to be defeated. host: and that was from november. we have someone on twitter who asks this question about medicare, specifically. identifies himself as old sarg, how can the medicare savings pay for for new programs, e.g., reduce deficit and extend medicare trust fund at the same time? guest: you can't double count that. one of the things about the medicare savings is that those medicare savings are not being used to cut benefits to seniors. those are medicare savings that sprosedly if they work right being used to make the program more efficient. the idea, particularly in the long term, is that they will change the way that medicine is practiced. this is the great hope. this is the new -- we've had great hope over the past 20 years of how to change the

trajectory of health care spending. the idea is to change the incentives. there are a number -- now, most of the cuts, i should say, certainly in the first 10 years, is the same old reducing payments to health care providers. and in most of the cases they are -- we have made bigger cuts before without great harm to patients. although every time you make cuts like this to people's income are being cut says patients will be hurt. that's proof not to be the case. in more general, more experiment hahl things in this bill are things that bivingly all the health economist experts say are things that need to be tried, things like accountable care organizations. this is making groups of doctors and other health care professionals basically giving them the responsibility for keeping people healthy rather than simply paying them to do more things to people. the hope there is that perhaps you would get better care and

you would get cheaper care rather than paying -- right now doctors and hospitals and basically every health care provider gets the more you do the more you get paid and that's inherently inflationary. the incentive would be to keep people healthy instead so you would get better health at less cost. medicare being the biggest payer of care in the health care system. if you tried out medicare and it works and it works to the private sector, there are a number of experiments like this built into the bill. every health economist says that everything that everyone has thought of that you could conceivably do to hold down costs is in this bill. and that it ought to be tried and there are ways in the bill to perhaps, you know, spread that quickly. there's also in the senate bill, i should have mentioned this, this is one of the differences, not in the house bill, is in medicare commission. right now it is highly political how health care providers get paid. it comes to congress. providers come to congress. they lobby. this is one of the things that people say is wrong with

congress, is wrong with health care. they would give a lot of this responsibility to this independent commission. again, that's something that the president wanted very much. it's in the senate bill. it's not in the mouse bill. there will be a big fight over it. host: there is another fern on twitter that says in 2010 the social security benefits will not get a pay increase. will the medicare premium stay the same? guest: this passed the house with six no votes and tom coburn put a hold on the senate so it did not pass. i am pretty sure it never passed. most people have their medicare premiums taken out of their social security checks. there is a law that says if you don't get -- that your medicare premium -- your social security check cannot go down as a result of your medicare increase. so, therefore, if there's no social security cola, the medicare increase cannot make that check go down. for everybody who gets their

medicare premium withheld from their social security check you will not see any increase. now, there's about -- i don't remember the number of people -- new beneficiaries and number of the few people. it's only a few million people who don't have their medicare premiums withheld from their social security check. they will be affected. as i said, congress was trying to hold them harmless as well. but i believe that bill didn't pass. so just for a few million beneficiaries they will see that increase. host: our independents line. caller: happy new year to all of you. i'm a cuban -- americanized cuban. i'd like to say something about the medicare deal. we've going on -- 68 years old, been in america 48 years and i've been through hard times like most of us have been through. we have to stop these politicians.

they are working with us because we are the majority. the poor, the retirees, we are the majority, ok. and that is the intention of medicare, to help us out without insurance coverage. and that's all we have to do. we talking so much nonsense, saying this, political group or this other political group, and work for what we really should work. the insurance coverage for the american people. and at the same time i want to say this, as long as we keep this a.m.a. running the business and this big -- that is building the h.m.o.'s -- i mean, one of the h.m.o.'s in miami, the money is -- more have been given to them. host: we'll leave it there. ms. rovner.

guest: again, the caller talks about the medical industrial complex, as most people likes to talk about on capitol hill. that's one of the things that this independent medicare commission would take some of the -- you know, give something of a buffer. it would be the base closing commission. now, there are arguments against it. they would say that the lobbying would go to the commission instead of to the congress and that you would get a different kind of commission. there's already a medicare payment advisory commission. and it makes recommendations and congress routinely ignores them is basically what happens because the commission's recommendations have no teeth. and obviously now the commission would be much beefed up. its recommendations would have teeth, but there are arguments from people who have served on that commission, who serve on that commission now that that commission, the makeup of that commission would change. obviously, there would be a lot of politicking to get on that commission. it would go to the commission instead. that's a distinct possibility. certainly at some point you are

going to have to make that's decisions. you cannot continue to have this kind of medical inflation going forever. as want president said, as controversial as this is, i think everyone, republicans and democrats agree, that at its current trajectory, health care costs will consume the rest of the economy and that's where it has to stop. host: where has aarp done? guest: they have endorsed the senate bill. i believe you will be talking to one of their lobbyists. they endorsed the house bill. and the a.m.a. in fact endorsed both bills which was a big deal i think for the democrats because, of course, the a.m.a., which used to have a lot more power than it does now, but still a force to be reckoned with, they basically killed almost every effort in health reform going back to the 1930's. doctors were the only porgd medicine for years and years.

basically called medicare, you know, socialism. stopped it in its fracks from the late 1940's until it finally passed in 1965 and stopped every effort at every kind of national health insurance for years and years and years. so getting the a.m.a.'s endorsement was also a pretty big deal. host: david sloane is their senior vice president. mr. slonee, what are you watching specifically as the conference committee will be collected on this issue? >> well, we have two co-horts within our membership. those that are in the medicare program today, and those that are either, you know, have insurance through an employer or don't. and obviously the ones that don't and are left to defend for themselves, so we want to make sure that the affordability is there in the program at the end of the day. if you have shushes you can't

afford, no matter how wonderful that insurance is, it doesn't really help. that's a critical piece for the medicare population, obviously, we are supportive of eliminating the co-pays for any of the preventive services. we are concerned about closing the doughnut hole that notorious doughnut hole that almost four million seniors every year fall into and which is growing at the rate of medical drug inflation which means by 2016 if it's not closed it will double in size. so those are some of the big issues that we will be watching. host: so as far as affordability is concerned, what needs to be done? guest: well, the house bill is probably more generous on the lower income side of things. the senate more middle income. we'd obviously like to see the

house bill literally provide more in the way of subsidies. it's a more generous plan. the other thing is the house bill -- and we did come out preferring the house bill over the senate bill. the house bill closed the doughnut hole for one thing, which the senate bill did not, although we have pledges that they would work to close the doughnut hole in conference. the president pledged to close the doughnut hole by 2019. and then in addition, we will be looking at age rating. age rating is a very critical piece of affordability. the senate bill would allow an insurer to charge three times what you would charge a younger person for insurance today. the house bill two times. so age rating is a key issue. so between the -- it's really several moving parts that affect affordability. certainly you have to have adequate subsidies and we have to get an age rating proposition and scheme that is

as limited in its discrimination as possible. host: julie rovner, do you have a question for him? guest: what's the single most important thing that you are looking for? if you could only pick one of these things in a final bill, what's your absolute most important thing? >> closing the doughnut hole. if you look at the polls, and i hate to say that people look at polls to make determinations about their policy, but get used to it, world, they do. and what you find is that it's a 65-plus ovulation that has the most skepticism about health reform and what it will mean for them. we believe that closing the doughnut hole will be an important ingredient in improving their health  security. host: david sloane of aarp, thanks for your time this morning. >> thank you for having me. host: the concept of this doughnut hole, we heard this before, what's the likelihood that somehow this will be

closed by the date he mentioned? guest: i think it's fairly likely. congress looks at polls and they know particularly in mid term elections, which is coming up, seniors vote in disproportionate numbers. they are more likely to vote than any other age groups. seniors have health insurance already. when you go out and say that 30 million more people will get health insurance under this bill, what does that mean for me? i have health insurance. when they hear that half of this bill is being financed by reductions in medicare, they're going to want to see something in it for them. so the main thing that's going to be in it for them is the closing of the doughnut hole. i think it's entirely likely that will be included in the final bill. host: miami, florida, bob on the republican line. caller: goorm, ma'am. merry christmas and happy new year if you can afford the taxes. hello. host: go ahead. caller: when the bill comes out

of conference and goes back to the senate, will it will be debated and take 60 votes to get out of debate or go directly to a 51 vote? and my second question is, you made a big speech about the leadership of the republicans not stopping them from working with democrats. in september a senator, which escapes my name, he came out with a bill with senator biden, they came out with a bill and had an amendment which was shot down, how can you say that the leadership doesn't want to work to get a good bill? guest: i think you're talking about the wyden-biden bill, and it's been around for several years now. and that is -- i think that's being acknowledged by leaders on both sides as being a really big change to the system. it would basically get rid of the employer-based insurance

system and say that everyone would have -- would go out and get their own insurance. it's a very popular bipartisan bill. i think it's gotten about 20 co-sponsors. 10 democrats and 10 republicans, and there are a lot of people who are -- a lot of academics who hailed it as a really very far-reaching idea on the congressional bodget office said it would pay for itself. it's still a popular concept but i think it's not been given such a chance because it would be such a big change to the system and i think there's been an acknowledgment, really, on leadership on both sides it would be a big change for people to swallow. .

host: this diverts from our purpose for just a second, but someone on twitter asked about your pin. guest: yes, it is a jumping horse. host: connecticut, if you are next. caller: good morning. i have a comment on this health care bellpull. -- health care bill. we keep hearing to put things, but how many of us know what is in there? my opinion is if everybody is in ñrqmedicare, and it starts gettg

caut, it means less payment for the doctor, and it gets cut each year, or whenever is, slowly, like the last one, there will be less applications for the medical profession. that is what happened last time. now we have fewer doctors, where you have what you call physicians' aides. reimbursements, as they go down, that will be less and less health care. that is my opinion. thank you. guest: actually, there are no cuts to doctors' pay in this bill, and in both bills, there are large sections that would increase the number of not just doctors, but dentists and what

we called it local professionals, physicians' assistants, nurses, because the idea is that if there is going to be 30 million more people with insurance, there will be much larger demand for medical care, particularly primary care. there is already a shortage of primary-care practitioners, doctors, and as i mentioned, the ushers and assistance. there are programs in the bill to increase the primary care workforce. the point about medicare pay for doctors is a point ofç contention, and that has to do with a separate issue, this formula passed in 1997 that has been automatically cutting pay for doctors since 2001. the problem is the way they have made the cuts go away, they have stopped them into future years. doctors are looking at a cut of 21% starting to agree first. they delayed that i two months in the spending bill, all bills

-- cut of 21% starting january 1 could be delayed that by two months in the spending bill, all bills. congress knows it will have to deal with it, but it will cost another $200 billion. they know they have to deal with it, they know they have to deal with it separately, but there is not any anticipation that they are going to cut. they know they have to fix it and pay for it. it is just a matter of when and how they are going to do it but there is not any thought that they are going to cut doctors' pay. host: also from twitter -- guest: maybe, maybe not chris still public option in the house bill, -- maybe, maybe not. there is still a public option and the house bill, but anyone who saw that senate debate, as nasty as it got, and those cars

probably not room in the senate -- knows that there is probably not remind the senate. you will have to sit down ben nelson and joe lieberman in a room and see what you get for that issue. there are countries that have universal coverage that don't have a public option, including the netherlands. the massachusetts plan has a mandate and close to universal coverage, does not have a public option. there are ways, if you regulate the insurance industry, to an extent that does not let them go out and charge whatever they want, which is built -- which this bill basically does come you don't necessarily need a public option this is one thing we asked the president last week, and how you can keep the insurance industry from counting the public it if you require people to buy insurance, how do you keep the insurance industry from gouging of them? host: 4 democrats and the house,

is this a wind-in-the-sand issue? -- line-in-the-sand issue? guest: for some of them. we heard from some members of the house saying, " we hate the senate bill because --" but i don't think they have worked this hard and gotten this far to let this bill go even howard dean, who came out right away when the public option got dropped to say let's till the bill and start over, has already backed off. host: conservatives for patients' rights -- we speak with their policy director, kerri toloczko. as for this house and senate bills being reconciled, what is your role in this? guest: our role is the same role

we have had since we started in march -- january of last year. we want to make sure reforms that are passed -- we are pro- reform -- but we want to make sure that they benefit consumers and the medical community. we don't see this in the bill, either the house or senate bill, and we will continue to advocate for senate -- patient reform, and educate the public about these arcane and confusing terms really mean. host: you have run an advertising campaign about this issue. what kind of results can be seen from that? guest: it is amazing to me. i have gone out and got a lot of radio and television and tea party events and health care reform and defense, and what amazes me most is how much the american people really do know about this stuff. folks who do not live inside the beltway bubble like the rest of us and not spend time all day

studying health care reform really understand that is going to raise the cost of their premiums, and of their taxes are going to go up, and they may be facing taxes on their insurance plans, and they know, as your last guest mentioned very articulately, that i of the house for the senate vote, no matter what you want to call it, and exchange or public option, is a move towards a government takeover of medical care. that is one thing we want to make sure we do not see happen in the united states. host: aside from the advertisements, how are you kidding those who have questions about it? -- how are you educating those who have questions about it? guest: we have blogs, a daily digest that informs people about health care, creeps across the country sharing information and facts -- and facts groups across the country sharing information -- groups across the country

sharing information and facts. every time we run a new set of advertisements, our website is flooded with inquiries from people, questions, and "thanks for getting this out there," because for a long time, conservatives for patients' rights was pretty much the only group out there running advertisements about what was coming down the path. we were very grateful to take that will prepa-- role. guest: there is a push already about going for appeal. is that something you would support if this gets passed into law? is there a particular provision that you really oppose the most that you would like to see not enacted? guest: it is really too early to say what we would do if this thing passes. our position all along has been at the public option or exchange, the one asking -- in massachusetts, which has really heard the health care consumers in massachusetts, bankrupting

the state, people getting knocked out of coverage already -- we don't want to see any of that in there. but we want to see our reforms the will of the 50% or so -- 15% or so and the country who are uninsured to -- be it a government subsidy irs mechanism or whatever -- we will never support anything that has to date we try to single payer, which both the house and senate will have. -- that has the gateway drug to single pair, which both the house and senate bill have. i think we will wait for it to follow before we make a decision, but there is no question at all that anything past or not past that has a public option or any kind of government controlled health care there, we will oppose, today, tomorrow, next.

host: kerri toloczko, thank you. guest: thank you, anytime. host: the tea party rallies -- how influential with a cut in this process? -- how influential or they in this process? guest: they were among the first running advertisements. it was at first hard to tell how much was genuine, and how much was been ginned up by the insurance industry, other things. but august was not a good month if you are supporting this bill. this debate has gotten very, very polarized, for better or worse. you have basically got people who really want this and really don't want this, and without

any deep understanding, if i can say so, of what is in this bill, and i know that to be the case, because if you go back and look at polls, saying "do you want this bill," and they say no, and then you go over what is in the bill, and they say yes -- people who clearly don't understand what is in the bill, i just know what they are here in. host: republican line, robert. caller: good morning. i've been holding a long time. my comment really is somewhat of a criticism upoof ms. rovner's reporting this morning. urofsky pin word -- you have used the word basically 40 or 50 times this morning, and the words "sort of." could you explain to the seas and audience what you mean when you say -- to the c-span

audience what you mean when you say "basically" or "sort of"? guest: these bills are extremely complicated, and not having the bill in front of me at the moment, it is hard for me to say what it would you word for word. having spent more than 20 years on this issue, i am trying to break it down into partly understandable anguish and to -- understandable english and to answer what i can remember. i apologize for being vague in some cases. host: next caller reportr. honçcaller: i am a retired i support universal system, not necessarily single payer. but i realize we have lost. what i really -- let me make one

statement about universal, government-run system, which is that the evidence is okoverwhelming that it is just more efficient hall other industrialized countries have one. xdthey get better health care. all the outcomes, and they do it at half the cost. that is a fact. what i really want to talk about is the quality of the debate we have. it seems to me that the basic facts like this never got out in the debate. for years and years and years and years, nobody would discuss it. ezra klein has written eloquently on the fact that people would attend the meetings and there would be ignored by the media. he wrote this story on the death panels controversy, which was covered 24/7. and win health care was being discussed, a single pair was off the table, he would be arrested if you tried to talk about --

you would be arrested if you try çto talk about i understand tht npr has had a program on this kind of stuff, but any reasonable person has to admit that this was never debated the pixies and, of whichç is part s pictured -- c-span, which is about as fair as you can -- i wrotexd to them for years, and they know i sent them dozens and dozens of emails a day -- they had karen ignani, and finally they had someone w hen it was way, way too late. one of the special interests that finally won. it is a failure of our system. guest: i have been hearing this for as long as there's been a single payer on the table, and i

will defend npr, because we have done a number of stories -- i and others -- on single payer. but i feel for all the single payer supporters, and it is not just single payer. there are those on the right to say there has not been enough coverage of some of their issues. this was the problem when i was talking about feet wyden- bennett bill, also. there is a place in the media, it is towards things that are most -- if there is a bias in the media, it is towards things that are most likely to happen. the more purely consumer-driven ideas -- things like wyden-bennett that have a lot of changes are nonstarters, because part some -- did they have so many changes to the system. for most people, this would not

be much of a change at all. at is starting to be of some concern to people. for a lot of people who would like some change and there is not very much change. there has been under-coverage of a lot of issues like that, because they are considered political nonstarters and that is my -- and that is why they don't get covered. people like ron wyden, whose bill is more of a middle ground wilbill, but it would be a huge upheaval in the system. in some ways, i sort of share the frustration of all those people whose interesting ideas don't get covered as much as perhaps they should, because they are not taken seriously by the people who are doing the legislating and -- this is what

max baucus said, and i was there when all those people got upset and disrupted during, and max baucus apologized and said, "we should have had a hearing on this and talk about it at." these are things that are not likely to happen and they tend to focus on the things that are more likely to happen. >> for 200 years, we have styled ourself the world's greatest deliberative body. it requires discussion of issues and to take it today, which gathered to -- discussion of issues and to pay. today, we gather to discuss whether the nation will finally guarantee its people the right to live free from a list and death, which can be provided with a decent health care for all but in the coming weeks, we

will put people, not insurance companies, in charge of their lives. host: from twitter -- guest: no. not really. first of all, there is no filibuster in the house. çthe conference is basically a committee. in the end, if they do go to a formal conference, there will be a conference report. you need a certain number of signatures on that report to get it out of conference. you can block a bill from coming out of committee, and not one individual to a unique a majority opinion -- not an individual. you need a majority of conferees. host: next caller. caller: good morning, pedro, how are you? julie, during the campaign, barack obama quoted the 21-30

-- motivated the 21-to-the-year- olds in our country, and he said he was against any kind of mandate. all that has changed. i am wondering about the polling. have you seen the polling for the group of people? are they for it or against it? guest: that is a good question. he did say he was originally campaign he kind of shifted on that. that was sort of at the beginning. by the general election, he was coming around to seeing that a man it was probably necessaryço getting to recover -- a mandate was probably necessary to getting everyone covered. i cannot look at polls specifically about what young people think about the mandate -- i have not looked at pollsters agree about what young people think about the mandate. plus you charge older people,

the more you will and charge -- the less you charge all the people, the more you end up charging young people to people just starting out may not have a very high incomes, and they will be healthy and have low health care expenses. if you charge them more, people resented all the market on the other hand, the less you charge them, -- people resent it all the more. on the other hand, at the less you charge them, the more you have to charge older people in some states, you have enormous variations between the young people and the old. there is a lot of people who think that is really unfair. but it is a very delicate balance about how you charged to young people compared to the older people. caller: pedro, sometime ago i called in complaining -- this is

a call-in show, and sometimes i call in complaint about the twitter -- american hero -- these people are getting done two or three times a day. i made a suggestion of the 30- day rule, and let us to just have added. has there been any serious discussion about that? it is just not fair. if you could tell me what is going on behind the scenes about it. host: we are talking about the issue, and that is all i can say about it. we appreciate the call and the comment. we are talking about the issue. montana, jeff on the republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. the politicians received their health care as a perk for their service. their campaigns are paid for by lobbyists of the health-care conglomerate, the pharmaceutical

companies, and wall street bankers. but i would like to know is where is the impetus for change? all we are is fodder for the system. it's really too bad. thank you fort( taking my call. host: ms. rovner? anything to add? guest: not too much. the congressman received the same health care that every federal employee receives. host: cleveland, ohio, read on our democrats' line. -- marie on our democrats' line. caller: i think most of the people don't even understand, as far as the government insurance -- i think they have the same argument when they were trying to get medicare in. today know that -- i'm 74 years

old. if i did not have medicare, i cannot even afford to go to the doctor, because medicare pays for most of my medical bills. with the secondary insurance, they to pay a very, very small amount -- kate just pay a very, very small amount. -- they just pay a very, very small amount they are scared from the rhetoric that has been going on from these tea parties and everything else. the need to sit down and read it themselves exactly what this medical bill is all about. the president is just trying to get everyone uninsured and the ones who do not have any insurance -- to they know the ones of us who do have insurance are paying for the ones who is going into emergency for the

doctors and everything else? guest: as to the callers last point, i think a lot of people don't understand that people who do have insurance are in effect paying for people who don't have it now, through higher premiums and taxes to support public hospitals and community health centers for people who do not have insurance. people who don't have it just had later at a later point of çóillness. it is not very efficient a group agrees that it would be aw3 more efficient systems -- everybody agrees that it would be more efficient system if people could get health care when they need it rather than later on prepa. host: somebody who identified themselves as -- ç guest: the deal is if everybody

is -- this mandates on, if everybody was required to get insurance, it would have helped people to pick for that sick people. -- healthy people to help pay for the sick people. there is an argument from the insurance industry, concern from politicians, and particularly in the senate bill, that they are worried about the backlash from a penalty. they have low or penalties, and the penalties are soç low, in e first yearç only $75, help the people will simply pay the penalty and you will not get enough people see people getting insurance, and will not have enough people premiums -- enough healthy people getting insurance, and they will not havet( enough premiums -- they

want the entrance to be affordable enough. they have this veryç complicatd scheme in here and they need to make sure that the entrance is a portable, there is enough subsidies for people with low incomesq and so that they can afford it. it is a very complex sort of matrix toç make this work. but you need people to not pick forced into buying something that they cannot afford and for the federal government to go broke providing subsidies and an insurance policy that is not so expensive. but yes, the insurance industry has agreed that it will not have exclusions and will not charge more for pre-existing conditions, as long as everybody agrees to be covered. host: how to both bills street exchanges? i]-- both bills trb-á exchanges? guest: they are quite different, and it is complicated. but in general, the senate is on

a state-by-state basis, and the house is on a more national basis but that needs to be worked out in conference, and it will be complicated. host: richard on our independence line. caller:ç yes, i am here. ms.ç rovner. a and 79, a veteran of the korean war, and i refuse to go out to the veterans administration hospital in philadelphia. i've had nothing but negative treatment from them. what you get is a medical student, perhaps a resident learning to look at you, scratched their heads, saying, "take a little of this and go on home." the resident expert awful lot of the urology department -- there has been a big kerfuffle about

the urology department, things like that. that is what scares me the most about the government involvement. they are certainly involved in the va. as i drive around new jersey, i notice that about half the people are obese. god help us if they started charging extra premiums for people who are obese. i smoke. i am almost 80 years old, so it is not -- it does not worry me too much greed va-type -- medicine to a -- and not worry me to -- doesç not worry me too much. va-type medicine -- forget it. w3>> the vmt is a different type of system from what most peoble are -- guest: the va is a different type of system from

what most people are talking about. whenç people talk about single payer, they're talkingu! about medicare, which is government- funded, but there are private doctors and hospitals that simply get paid by the government. the va is more government involvement. no one is talking about a system that is like the va. there are problems in places with the va, but the va also was one of the countries best systems of electronic medical records, which other countries are trying to emulate, they have pioneered systems about medical errors, a lot of medical advances that other places have not done. the va has done a lot of good and exciting things, too. also, as i mentioned, there have been a lot of complaints appear government bureaucracy -- complaints about government bureaucracy. i will not say that they are to be all and end-all of medical care report.

there are bad things about the va, but there are good things, too. but nobody is suggesting having a national system based on the model of the via. host: tennessee, republican line, will pre caller::l. caller: thank you for c-span2 it is the only open -- thank you for c-span. it is the only open and honest window to call all three branches of the american government. i have important facts and since regarding health reform. -- and statements regarding health reform. the reason of the defeat but the legislation because of congress khme' lack of respect and laws.

on c-span, people have been shown that american people have not gotten a fair return from either the democrats are the republicans -- or the republicans come in either the house or the senate. even president obama has failed t(in this regard. the only winners are the hospitals, drug companies, insurance lobbyists, and some special congressional leaders who are getting some kind to act as a result of the indulgence -- kind of kickback as a result of the indulgence. american citizens have seen the rich and powerful take over america. auto companies, health insurance companies, all of these have just destroyed citizens jobs, homes, health care. it is a terrible mess.

american leaders -- it is a terrible mess american leaders have gotten us into. guest: i hope they are hoping to -- i think they are hoping to wrap this up in the coming weeks. but it won't be easy. they are big and bills, the house and senate bills, and there is a lot of work left to put them together. some of these details, as i mentioned, were very carefully negotiated, particularly in the senate. it is going to be delicate. host: in our next half hour, we will ask folks about the cadillac plans, we talked about the beginning. as a refresher course for us, and the lead-in to theç question, can you tell us how both sides -- first of all, what

is a cadillac plan? guest: i believe the way it ended -- this does not start until 2013 or 2014 -- i guess 2014, when everything else starts -- a plan whose value is, worth more than $23,000. the way medical inflation goes up, that is not it usually generous plan -- not a hugely generous plan. but that would be a substantially generous plan. the people who are against this are union workers who have given up wage increases to get better çbenefits. many of the unions are strongly against this. this not in the house bill, only in the senate bill. union plans negotiated in exchange -- they have given a quick increases to get these better and more generous help -- given up wage increases to

get these better and more generous health plans medical care can be very expensive in parts of the country. for example, alaska, a medical care is expensive because everything is expensive and that part of the world. the value of the insurance might be very expensive. pitt is going to be quite a controversial issue about -- it is going to be quite a controversial issue about whether or not those should be taxed. but help economists pretty much across the board agreed that that would be a good way to start to make people more cognizant of how much they are spending on health care as a way to push down from the very top. host: according to "the washington post," "an assessment on plans of $23,000 for families. the house plan calls for a surtax." guest: but that is an insuranc-c

that is a surtax on people. it would not be forced, there would be encouraged. host: this would kick in in 2014? guest: that is right. host: julie rovner, thank you for your time with us and educating us on these issues. guest: sure. host: when it comes to taxing high-end insurance plans, if you support the concept -- go ahead and make those calls. as our guest talked about, unions have weighed in heavily on this issue.

>> we have got to pass the health care bill. >> we have to do it. >> it is not optional. >> but taxing health care benefits? >> that is just wrong. >> fix health care? absolutely. >> tax health care benefits? don't do it. >> call your senators and tell on to fix health care, don't tax are benefits. host: again, the numbers, if you support or oppose -- a little bit, saas far as an op- ed, "a less than honest policy," by bob herbert in "the new

york times." "in the first year, it would affect relatively few people on the middle class, but because the rising cost of health care, more people will reach the texas and threshold of each year. according to the congressional budget office, copperwood reached one -- pit would reach 20% of all workers. within the sixth year, the tax would reach a fifth of all households and in between $50,000 : 7 $5,000 annually, who can hardly -- between $50,000 and $75,000 annually, who can hardly be considered wealthy. the secret behind this onerous tax is that people expect too. -- the secret behind this onerous tax is that few people expect to pay it. çit would ratchet down qualityf health care plans."

your thoughts. on the opposing line, and james, a good one. -- james, could one incom -- good morning. caller: creek to be on, good show. i opposed the plan. it is going to cost report thousand dollars right off the top as basically a fine for having the plan. anne dicker she did my time with my union overtime -- i negotiated my plan with my union over time, and now i will be fined for it. i don't think is right. i really don't. is congress going to be fine with the plan they have? if i have a cadillac plan, they have a rolls-royce plan. i feel like this is a bailout

for the insurance companies. you are going to hand 30 million to 50 million people to the insurance companies. host: on the support line, michigan, steve. caller: i support taxing all health-care benefits reporti]. it is÷%i to put a mandate of people to be white insurance out of pocket with their money, -- to buy insurance out of pocket with their money, but everybody who has a job gets it for free. this is going to be a true free market, we need to tax everybody's health care. host: in "the washington times," "the consumer confidence index rose in december for the second month in, 52.9%, up fr50 slighty

higher than the 52 --ç 52.9%, slightly higher than the 52 prediction of economists surveyed by reuters, but still short of 90 that would signal a solid recovery cau of." dallas, go ahead. caller:ç i'm a social worker, d i've been following this issue. with taxing the regular folks, is there any way they can tax the health insurance or the hospitals themselves? the people of and benefiting, making money for many, many years. host: okay. little river, south carolina, next on our question of taxing high-end insurance plans. and true on the support line -- andrew on the support line. caller: yes, i support the bill.

host: why do you support the bill? caller: because congress has worked hard on it and i think we should pass it. it has been difficult listening to all the frustration that goes on. host: okay, we will leave it there. this is from the u.s. census bureau talking about population in the united states, january 1. the object of population on that date will be a 308,400,408. the increase in population over january 1 come to us and i, 2.6 billion -- january 2009, 2.6 billion. that is information from the census bureau. illinois on the opposing line. caller: i oppose the senate plan.

i'm all for the house plan to tax millionaires, people making moreç than $500,000 and to ordr to to thousand dollars for individuals. -- and $250,000 for individuals. they are the people who should be taxed, not union people prepa. they can more afford it than union workers, who gave up wages in order to get the kind of plan that they have. it is only fair. millionaires can well afford it, and people making over five under thousand dollars can well afforded -- over $500,000 can well afford it, and individuals making over $250,000 can well afford it. not an ordinary working person. they cannot. host: kevin on the support line. caller: i fully support the

program. i believe that people with more are bound to help less fortunate. it is in the bible, people. check it out. thank you very much. host: this is from "the wall street journal" this morning -- "prime minister vladimir putin says that russia will build new weapons to offset the u.s. missile defense system and urged washington to share detailed data about its missile shield under a new arms control deal. moscow and washington had hoped to strike a deal before the end of the year." that is from the associated press. california. this is our coastline. jeff is on it.

-- oppose line. jeff is on it. caller: i do oppose it, and i would like to bring up a single payer. that is where we should be going. we have negotiated our way out of that. there are a lot of people who watch may be the fox network who don't think the way i do. i guess it is because they watch people like glenbrçmnn beck. i am similar tao glenn beck in that i'm a visual guide. he sees socialism in every part architecture prepa. our ic in -- i see in fox -- aetna. and a big zero in the contents

of his mind. why do they get their health care information from these folks? host: about the network -- what you think of the values of the single payer system? gcaller: a single payer system would make it all effici.. if we will leave people in the tracks who the dreg -- in the dregs to suffer and die, that is also in the bible. we should not be doing that to people. host: here is a little bit more. "a lower value plans would have higher out-of-pocket costs. higher and higher co-payments, and deductibles, and so forth some of the benefits of the

policies -- the vision care and expensive and mental health coverage. opponents say that as a terrific way to hold down cost bit people will be more reluctant to access services. may have -- people may have fire out-of-pocket costs -- higher out-of-pocket costs." and it goes on. victor on the support line. caller: somebody has to pay for it. my situation is that i'm 69, four years into medicare. i've been paying medicare all my adult life, 35 years. same with my employer, which, in my case, happens to be me. i was basically self-employed.

i've been paying for this all my life. now i'm into the medicare advantage plan, and that is what they are talking about taking away in this. something that worked really well for me, an hmo, can they do vulnerable -- and they do all the preventative kinds of things, and a copia -- a co- pay, and i happily pay that, but within seven years, it is going absolutely bankrupt and broke and we cannot afford it. anything that will extend that to the rest of the population has to be paid for somehow. i don't really care how they pay for it -- cadillac plans. i think the people who benefit on to pay for it to a tax similar to what i and paying all my life. the cost of this just went

through -- but what i heard is that for the medicare and managed plants, just -- medicare advantage plan, just about $700 a month that the company gets, and i paid $9 to to 6 cents a month. -- $9.66 a month. host: "each state must set up guidelines for the $300 million incentive program. is being funded by the economic stimulus and that being rolled of gradually state-by-state. cash for caulkers was national, so the money became available the same day -- cash for clunkers was national, so the money became available the same day. oregon will begin issuing

vouchers worth up to $2,000 in january. delaware, which began issuing its federal mail in rebates for $25 to $200 on december 1, allows anyone to participate caucus more details of the program are listed in the "usa today" story today. next caller. caller: hello, pedro. you had a good guess on your show and you are always fair in your -- your -- good guests on your show and you are always there in your topics. i oppose it. people in the construction work -- even if they are employees at the airport, they are risking the life and they need proper health care, affordable health care to take care of themselves. unfortunately, for my job, it

was mentally and physically stressful. i could not get any type of union or anything like that. i thank god that president obama had put the package, because my health went bad, and when they found uppethat out, im not working. my insurance was close to $2,000 for me and my son's prepare i hope that at least -- for me and my sons. i hope that at least i will be able to get my older son health care. he is 26, and he cannot even get medicaid. he had to go through a lot of problems to get that. the public? if you put the risk and -- if the public would take the risk and a paper on their bodies, it would not see pat >> -- they

would not see it that way. host: from emma -- new orleans, on our support line. caller: i support it, because i think everyone has forgotten the promise is that president obama -- the promises that president obama made everyone would $250,000 should be taxed. çói support it based on the fat that they should tax people who want that high-end insurance. the laborers, union workers, whatever, they should be excluded from that, and at the same time have an equivalent planned to that. why shouldn't they? these are the people that runs the nation -- the policemen, firemen, postmen, the everyday

lippe c-sp-- every day labor. no, they should not be taxed but the $250,000 people, they should be taxed. they can afford it. host: are representative from california, republican, announced yesterday that he will not seek reelection, bringing to 13 the number of house republicans who are retiring or seeking other office. he said he was stepping down to spend more time with his family. his wife has been fighting ovarian cancer. right above that, the future of nasa, discussions about president obama's administration. "in determining massive's policy, -- massive's policy, missions like sending astronauts

to mars or the moon could be decades away. the next opposition will release of the path of an asset for the next 10 or 20 years said the chairman of the house committee parks plus next caller. -- chairman of the house committee to." next caller. caller: i oppose the democrats and republicans in this country doing anything. our government is a corrupt government. these people will send you to your death while they are looking at you in the face and shaking your hand. the american people lost 300 million of fusspot -- has 300 million of us marching towards washington with pitchforks in our hands to do a complete cleaning up the house, said, supreme court, the white house,

and put in somebody that cares more about us than somethe next dollar that is going in their pockets. you can talk about the programs and what you support and what you do not. this government has proven itself to be criminals, dangerous, corrupt, not only to the people of this country, but to the people of the world. wake up, america. host: florida. caller: listening to people in support of it, i have changed my opinion. i support taxing the cadillac plans. the first point is that those cadillac plans are driving the price of health care costs up. that is one of the drivers for increased health care costs, and the idea is that it will lower the cost of health care because of the smaller costs for the procedures.

the second point is that it is going to benefit the economy overall. the reason is that people are going to have more money, have more take-home money pay, because they are not paying these high-priced premiums. that is going to expand the economy and allow people to become consumers and the will of larger take-home page. two solid points for taxing these plans. it is not to tell people they cannot have better health care. it is to encourage them to do something else, similar to taxing cigarettes and candy. you want to dissuade the behavior. if they want to smoke, smoke, but you want to dissuade the behavior. host: israel's supreme court on tuesday ordered the military to

allow palestinians to travel on the part of a major highway, handing palestinians a bid to victory against israel past practice of reserving some roads for jews -- is a real's practice of reserving some roads for jews. it is a huge victory, according to spokeswoman for the association of civil rights in israel, which represents the palestinians in the case of." oppose line, go ahead. caller: thank you for c-span. we would like to trust our government, we would like to know that what they are doing is telling us the truth, and when we talk about taxing, when we talk about the cadillac plant or whatever, what we're opposed to is that we are not getting the

facts. we have been told that obama was going to increase transparency -- upset encourage transparency through this process and we are not even able to see the bill. they are working on the thing and we cannot see what is going on. i think these guys are out and out lying to us. if you look at what obama said to start with in january and he give us more money in our paychecks, you take a look at your withholding, and you will see where your money is coming from. when your tax returns are done this year, you will find out about that money and he will be paying it back. that is but a tax preparer said -- what my tax preparer said. these people being dishonest.

host: albert on the support line. caller: if health care is so good, but a way of taxes. -- why don't we have taxes pay for, and take the money from our military? white we nationalize the drug companies and profit from the proper -- why approach we nationalize the drug companies and profit from the drug companies to pay for our health care? host: one more call, opposing line pre. caller: i'm opposed to it in general principle, against the government taxing everything. i hear people talking about nationalizing the energy