after that, british nato ambassador will talk with the changing role of nato.  maryland senator ben cardin. "washington journal" starts now. . .

we are also on e-mail, journal@c-span.org, and on twitter, and on facebook. we are looking at lending. let us check out this "the wall street journal" article. that is according to a quarterly report of the federal deposit insurance corp., fdic.

we are asking you, have you tried to get a loan recently, any type of loan, and have you had success going to a large bank or perhaps it -- a small or local bank. one of the gramm milestones, the number of u.s. banks at risk of failing hit a 16-year high. that is from "the wall street journal." looking at some other financial stories. troubled lenders at the highest level since 1993.

let's go to jack who is calling from the democrats lined from manhattan. have you tried to get a loan recently? caller: i got a credit card loan recently. i have stellar credit. no issues for may. i'm just going to comment that it is really a disgrace that we bailed out the banks to the tune of billions of billions of dollars, and they are so tight with their lending practices. and the fact that when the money was loaned at the end of the bush administration and the beginning of the obama administration, that there were no stipulations put on these banks, strict spigot -- stipulations that required them to make the loans to keep the economy going, is really outrageous.

you know, this banking system is such a failure. the fact that we cannot get the deregulation back into place to regulate these banks so that the catastrophe does not reoccur, it is first and foremost -- and everybody should complain to their elected representatives to get the regulation back into place. host: clinton, maryland. ted is on the democrats' line. caller: we need to look at community banks and bypassed the big banks. they need to set up a program where people who did not meet the stringent criteria for loans that the major banks are requiring, because there are a lot of people in trouble financially and they don't meet the criteria the banks have for loans. host: have you tried to get a

loan recently? caller: no, i haven't. i was thinking about what the possibility would be for someone whose credit is not too good and does not make the kind of money they were making in the past. host: maria is on our independent line from washington, d.c. caller: i have friends -- yes, i am sorry. i have people who have been trying to get a loan and also credit cards, and they pay more money now. i have two comments on the whole bank bailout. the problem with the bailout is that blast the goal -- glass- steagall, that they took out in 1999, it had regulations. the government is giving all of this money -- they have no

regulation, no plans. they said they were going to come up with something similar but it is still not in place. to me it is outrageous. the middle-class and the lower class -- and i'm talking about medicare, to. -- medicare, too. i worked for obama, i support my president, however, we need to start negotiating with people and c-span needs to go on there to see what is going on with all of the bills. host: let us take a look at a graphic in "the washington post." the number of banks at risk of failure. it gives you a visual sense of the change over time bearded

article starts out saying lending by but banking industry fell by 7.5% last year, the largest annual decline since the 1940's. let's go to our next caller, kevin on the democrats' line. caller: i had a loan taken away from me. i had a home equity line of credit on my house, a first lien on my property, and what happened is the bank indiscriminately came to me and said we are taking the loan away from you, and the value of your home has come down and we are taking the line of credit away. they did not ask me whether any

financial things have changed. i'm a strong bar work. -- borrower. they just came through and said you are done, the loan is over with and they did not give me the money back that i paid to get a loan. host: were you able to find an alternate lender? caller: not with that institution. they should have come in and said we will lower the amount and check the credit report, financial history, you know, look at your finances. but they just said, we are doing this to everybody and they did not do it case by case basis. they did not check the tax return, they did not check anything. this is the charter one financial institution, i think out of ohio. host: let us go to our next

caller, valerie from tennessee. caller: i have one of the major credit cards with chase, and they did raise my interest rate. i made the payments on time. but at the same time they were very generous with the line of credit, but at the same time i am unemployed so i thought that was kind of risky on their part. as far as the mess that got us into it -- risky behavior, and why we had to bail them out. host: a look at "the wall street journal" --

jackson, michigan, frank on the democrats' line. have you tried to get a loan recently? caller: just a little over a year ago. we went through an awful lot of red tape, it was tough but we got it through chase bank. host: 8 business loan? caller: it was residential. host: was the red tape to much to go through or was it due diligence? caller: it was tough. it was an fha loan, the first time and the rest of the ring appeared we are glad we got it because the economy is really bad. we are pretty much the worse in the country. we just received a letter from our governor that our unemployment will be cut if the government does not get off their but and sign this bill. host: looking at "the financial

times," it its rights -- it writes -- looking at some other financial news. " the washington post" says home prices up for seventh straight month. massachusetts, richard on the independent line. go ahead. caller: i had no trouble getting

loans. almost two years ago, i got a loan and my son got a loan and we bought cars. we had no problem at all. we have good credit, we always pay our bills on time. and i work two jobs. people have to realize that when they are loaning money, they want to assure you can pay it back. a lot of people just take the loans -- they say i got this, i got that. people have to live up to their commitment and start paying their loans, then we would not have no problems. that is the problem with this country. they want everything but they can't afford it. if you can't afford it, don't buy it. host: kenny on the democrats' line. caller: how are you doing? i tried to get one, but, you

know, the bank was saying that if i was not close to a 700 credit score they really didn't want to deal with me. but i take my hat off to the other caller who get their credit good and the other guy who got a loan, thank god for those guys, but me, i am having problems trying to get a loan. i can tell you one thing that can help, right? if harry reid can keep all of the senators there and not let them go home and make them work on stuff that needs to get done for this country, we might have a better chance of getting loans to help out middle-class people. thank you very much. host: our next caller is from sarasota, florida. bernard is on the independent line. go right ahead. caller: i haven't tried to get a

personal loan lately, outside of a loan modification on my home that fell through. but my wife is in the industry. and she and her associates have at least eight deals they can't get through the long process. one of those deals had a liquid assets of $2 million, and the banks changed the terms and conditions so many times on that loan that person actually lost $64,000 that she had put in on the deal. these are major banks that they are dealing with. so, the state of the industry leaves a great deal to be desired. host: other financial news. in "the financial times" --

dorothy, democrats line, rochester, minnesota. good morning, dorothy. caller: i tried to get a loan last summer. i am a low income 70-year-old, and i wanted to buy a car, just a cheap car. i owe about $35,000 on my house , and the bank said -- and i've got a 5% interest rate on that loan, plus i have a minnesota

rehab loan that is non interest- bearing until i sell the house. the bank offered -- or they thought they might be able to give me a loan for my car if i ruled that non interest-bearing loan into my mortgage loan and they would raise my interest rate to 9%. host: did you take them off -- up on the offer? caller: no way. host: why did that concern you? caller: that is outrageous. i am already at low income, and to raise interest rates 9% -- wow. host: what did you do instead? caller: my kids bought me a car, but i did not like for them to do that. it was a credit union. host: jim, independent line,

wisconsin. good morning. you are on the show. caller: about a year and a half ago, i needed to get a loan. been banking with the place for 20 years. they were one of those who got a part of the money from the government. they did not work with me at all. i went to another bank that did not receive money, they rolled my first, second, third mortgage into one, freed up some money for my monthly budget, and it was just surprising that somebody who received money would not lend it out to a customer that they have had for years and then somebody else did not know me gave me a loan and help me out, and as a result

helped the economy because i actually had money that i could go out and spend and help the local economy and stuff. that was just my experience. host: let us take a moment and look at what is going on at the hill today. we have from "congress daily,", dan friedman. thanks for joining us. we wanted to check in and find out the details of what is expected to take place regarding the jobs vote. guest: the senate is probably going to pass the bill today, almost surely. probably the house will act on the bill in coming days, next week or so. and then send it on to the president. that is above $15 billion jobs package, the biggest component of which is tax cuts for businesses who hire people who

have been unemployed for more than 60 days. it is a relatively modest jobs package. host: how is it different from the much bigger house bill that passed later last year? guest: the house the bill because i believe more than $150 billion, and this is a more modest measure there are all kinds of job creation provisions in the house bill. the senate bill deliberately is targeted with provisions that have bipartisan support, war we thought would have bipartisan support. it is intended to be very clearly focused on job creation. so the house is probably going to pass the senate bill, but many house members want to do a lot more. they want to get all of their bill is essentially free. host: we saw most of the vote on

party lines on monday, five republicans voted for it and one democrat crossed over to vote against it. guest: probably more republicans will vote for the bill on final passage. some republicans voted against, including lisa murkowski from alaska, they voted against the bill on the cloture vote on monday but they will vote on final passage. they were concerned that harry reid did not allow amendments on the bill, and that caused their vote on cloture, but they will not make that an issue to vote against it on final passage. host: senator brown from massachusetts was the first come out and say he would vote to get through cloture on monday. how has the shakeout been in the last couple of days? guest: he got criticism from conservative bloggers and people outside the beltway --

activists. i don't think in the senate is causing any problems at all. mitch mcconnell, republican leader, went out of his way to praise brown beard and his reception certainly from democrats -- went out of his way to praise brown. and his reception certainly from democrats, seeing him as a new england republican, and they see him as a republican who can help them get the majority done. host: what did this mean for senator harry reid? guest: this is a victory. he got a lot of criticism for discarding some of the package. if the smaller bill had not passed he would have been heavily criticized. he is up for reelection. he was in nevada recently

campaigning with the president, and he was talking almost exclusively about employment and ways to bring jobs to nevada. it is part of a jobs agenda -- he said frequently that it is part of one of many jobs bill. not just passing new bills that will create jobs, but rick branding bills democrats already had out there -- re-branding bills. he is trying to pass a travel promotion bill, and he describes it not only to help nevada for tourism in the state, but also for jobs. the description is different from last year, much more on the emphasis on the employment it will create. host: thanks for joining us. taking a look at some of the political news, this is a story code-written by dan friedman --

co-written by dan friedman. it talks about how the recent election of senator brown changed the landscape but others, they say -- let's take a look at the story that is running in politico right now. white house privately plots 2010

campaign run. president barack obama's top advisers are quietly laying the groundwork for the 2012 reelection campaign, likely to be run out ofç chicago. that is from politico. looking at other things -- two generals wary about repealing a policy. army and air force chiefs expressed concern about the change as two wars rage. the supreme court testing the terror law.

let's get back to our question -- have you tried to get a loan recently and do you have a sense of what it might mean for the banking system in your community? perhaps you tried to get a business loan from a community bank or a national chain. flora on the democrat's line in cambridge. caller: me and my husband have not had the problem getting a loan in the last six months, çbecause we always looked at or score. a lot of people realize it, when they are going to move the small stores or whatever and the open up an account, that lowers their score. you have to always check your score so you can get a loan. we have never had a problem with credit, thank the lord. host: atlanta.

good morning. have you tried to get a loan recently? caller: yes. host: how did it go? caller: i'm retired military. i have always been blessed to be employed and i have retirement checks. i sent my daughter to college debate al(t(ççómyçxdç pharme paying those lawns -- loans off -- i sent my daughter to college to be a pharmacist, and we are paying those loans off. my credit score was above 700 and they said they could not approve it at this time. that i could write in and try to find out why they did not approve it. during the stimulus program, i help my wife finance the car to help boost the economy and was successful with that. and within minutes, i got a notice from the bank -- i called

a company that really supports the military, and i will not name it but you probably know what it is, they approved a $20,000 increase for may over the phone within minutes and then i went ahead and do what i had to do. the banks are not really lending to people. if i can't get credit, nobody can. host: take a look at this "the wall street journal -- "wall street journal" article. let's go to jimmyç on independt line calling us from dallas. çcaller: good morning.

the problem with the loan process, i recently applied for a loan and they turn me down. the first thing they say is, for a small business like mine, what is your profit for the next two years -- who will be profitable until the economy starts up again? no one will be profitable in the next two years of a small business. the second excuse is you don't have enough revenue. no one has revenue in this economy but they still give loans to the big corporations. they do get loans and they are losing money. why shouldn't average citizens, who take some years to build up -- that is my problem. i have 700 plus score.

i played by the rules but they will not alone a business like me money. who will prop up the economy? it is a dead newt under norah -- the new entrepreneur o. there are thousands who could be the next bill gates. host: let us go to jim on independent line from oxford, maine. caller: i haven't tried to get a loan lately because i'm debt three -- debt free. i think part of the problem is that when everybody was encouraging that they should give loans for everyone to buy houses and cars and vehicles they could not afford, that is what got us in this mess and the first place.

and i think trying to force all of the small banks and things to loan more money now is just going to accelerate the problem we are already in. host: looking in "the wall street journal" -- the next call is from alabama, curtis, democrats line. caller:ç good morning. i applied for a loan in november of last year. host: how did it go for you? caller: i was turned down. i came back home and called another loan department, another

loan office, and i was told within 20 minutes, yes, your loan is approved. host: what is the -- was the difference? caller: percentage rate. the loan i was turned down on was 7% in the loan and was given was 9 percent, which was not that much difference in the total of the loan. i think the big difference will be about $200 or two runs and $50 and the length of the time for the loan to be paid off -- $200 or $250 and the length of the time for the loan to be paid off. caller: i was going to say we can blame the banks or anyone we want to, but we, the people of the united states of america are to blame. for years, like dave ramsey says on the fox news business network, we have bought things that we couldn't afford with money we didn't have to impress people we don't even like.

to me, that is the bottom line. amen. host: audrey is calling on the democrats' line from illinois. caller:xd hi, thank you for takg my call. i have been watching you guys for so long and this is the first time i have never -- anyway, all this time i have been trying to get a modification from wells fargo and everytime i would call in i they do not know what is going on. çi keep calling in did they tel me,çw3 ok, we will call you bak and never call you back and when they do they call you on a holiday. anyway, i went on the web site to find out what are their real qualifications for a modification through the servicers and i got through to

freddie mac. they have this on line stating that any of the servicers, if they tried to go to the process of modification they will get $1,000. any of those who actually complete the modification, they get -- what goes on it is they will turn down and then they send a letter saying, i'm working through the modification, and i go through all of that and i continue to call and i get a different person. in december they told me that i had one and they were working on it, and this is the final modification. and then all of a sudden i didn't get the letter or anything stating that this is confirmed. pardon me? host: are you still in limbo?

caller: yes, and i complained to the better business bureau and ms. brown from wells fargo -- host: we don't need to share names, but thank you for your story. what is your story, andrew? caller: i want to weigh in on the situation. probably into the foreseeable future -- unless harry reid or nancy pelosi possibly could do something to free up something for the common man. but i think all of this stems from something larger. all of 2008, the system of capitalism that we enjoyed throughout the rest of the world began to collapse. what used to be the trilateral

commission were calling for less toxic assets on the part of everyone. we tend to look for a quick fix and hope that what has goneçt(n since 1988 is going to come roaring back. in reality, it isn't. we do live in a different world and we are not sovereign with regard to our economic policies. we are still a sovereign nation but it is a global banking situation. i believe americans, and probably britain's as well, cannot look for money to be freed up and return to business as usual. i doubt it will ever come back but certainly not for the next five years. host: 1 issue complicating -- one issue complicating the ability to lend is the looming issue of res

david is calling on the democrats lined -- conway, massachusetts. caller: good morning. i tried several times to get loans recently and i found that i am not eligible for any of them. and i looked at my credit report and found multiple mistakes that are on their -- on there, and people just won't fix them. they refuse to fix what is on the credit report. that's a big problem. host: another bit of financial news.

the fed to get a $200 billion boost, money from treasury. "the wall street journal" reports -- indiana, george, democrats line. caller: i could not even get a nano loan, as i would put it. as i put the application out -- because i have a credit card that keep sending me information that i have a superior credit rating, that if i needed a small loan up to $15,000 i would be approved. last week i called to check on the status of the loan because i wanted to do a lit -- a little

bit of consolidation, like the armed services gentleman wanted to do, and the first thing the lady noticed on the application is i was a construction worker. she inquired about how was were going. i said, it is getting there. there is enough time in there that i can pick up some jobs in between. and then she inquired about mike unemployment. i said, yes, i do receive unemployment when i did get laid off. she wanted to know information about my wife, where i had to send a copy of her paycheck stub and both of us had to spend -- send the last three months of all the pages of our checking activity, as she stated, to see where our money goes. host: it sounds like it didn't work out. caller: no, because i thought

the information she was requesting -- this was a personal loan for me. it was just consolidation and maybe do some home improvements. i know work will come back. the wife is fully employed. but they were seeking so much information that i had to thaksin within 72 hours, my pay check stub year to date, my wife's paycheck stub year to date and the last three months of our checking account. host: let us go to " the washington post" -- -- let us go to "the washington post" -- will sit on this deficit commission of the comes to pass.

another story -- paying 17% more in bonuses. scott, a republican line, woodbridge, virginia. caller: good morning. i will try to run through this as fast as i can. host: give us the highlights. caller: my wife and i had a loan from 2006, we got a small house in woodbridge, 1400 square feet for $325,000. in 2009, though market value is $156,000. we lost more than half of our value appeared in the meantime, the loan was picked up by bank of america who received a ton of our tax dollars.

when i called to inquire about getting a loan modification, as we had heard, i was told repeatedly by them that they don't do that. all they do it is possibly a temporary interest rate adjustment. i said, what about the principle? everyone has lost value. you guys took our money to cover your losses, what's up? and my wife has lost about 15%, to 20% of her income over the years and i was not sure what would happen in my division. they said, i'm sorry, we don't do that. i did not qualify for any of the programs the administration put out. i said, what are my options? you can borrow money from family, or you can make the payment or foreclosed. that's it. what about a short sale? you can put an offer. we put on the market, and in a week i had an offer of $170. i submitted the office and they said we are processing.

my agent called weekly and every time she called they said they are still processing. host: happens in the end with the house? caller: it turned out the week of thanksgiving, which was a thursday, my agent called before the holiday and they said it was being processed. friday morning, the day after thanksgiving it was finally put on one of their account manager's desk and she open the file and said, this is two months old, this has expired, closed, canceled it and slated a foreclosure for monday morning and sold at auction monday morning for $146,000. host: john from massachusetts. caller: same way all around. i have been trying to get some loans and it is not happening. it seems like there is a scam between the government and private corporations.

by attrition, get the rest of the people who are middle-class to pretty much make them poor. it is just a scam. host: tony on the independent line from houston. caller: i was calling -- one of the callers earlier from massachusetts was talking about people understanding their credit reports and i wanted to say that is one of the key points. people don't understand that they have options to do things to help make their credit better. me, coming from maybe not doing the right things in the past, and now you understand so much more. i think some of a smaller loan companies, they help people -- and sometimes we are the only option that they have. if they understood their credit or budgeting or something like that, it would -- people would

not get overextended. and you have to have accountability on your own part appeared host: the you think people -- if they are accountable, there are loans out there? caller: there are some many second chances. a lot of times we base it on their history or how far back it was -- and more recent good history. a lot of people would take a look and say, you don't have enough. how you decide -- host: do you work for a lender? caller: yes, ma'am. host: are finding you are sending people out the door with loans? caller: we have to take everything in two -- into account from now, not 20 years ago. even though that is on the credit report, you have to have

your own accountability to get it cleared off. host: atlanta, georgia on the democrats' line. did you try to get a loan recently? caller: yes, but most of the banks are not lending. i want to the credit union, and they said they will give you a loan but most of the banks are not loaning. i get all of these things in the mail about this finance companies will give you all you want but at these astronomical rates. host: let's go to lee on the independent line from cincinnati, ohio. caller: i just wanted to agree with the caller who said there is a scam. it seems like the only people who can get loans right now is if you already have money -- that's all i got to say. thank you appeared host: --

that's all i got to say. thank you. host: jerry on the independent line. caller: good morning to you. basically two little stories. actually my wife and i bought our house through a credit union, and back in september -- you know, it is one of the arm loans and it was going to go up 2%. i called the loan officer who gave us the loan and asked her what we could do and she said to do a loan mod. i said, how? she said, well, give me your phone number, and she faxed me a one-page form with her information on it. we signed it, faxed back to them

and about three days later it was done. so, the loan mod was unbelievably simple for us, but it was through a credit union. the same thing back in october. we actually bought a new car and it was basically -- we called the credit union over the phone and they said, i guess, no problem. of course, the car dealer wanted us to go with their own financing through honda. there was no problem either way. i just couldn't believe how easy it was because everybody has been talking about how tight things are, but at the same time it seems like we had no problem. host: let's go to market on independent line. caller: heart goes out to people who are struggling to get loans

and such, and i agree with the caller earlier -- i think the institution needs to check your finances out, but we purchased a house with a very large bank that we had for 20 years and we had no debt, and our credit score was 839, and 819 between us. we shopped around and went back to the original bank and they said, ok. they said we might not meet appraisal, it was $200,000 over what we needed of the attorney said we have to keep on it because they dragged their feet, phone calls all the time. the processor has this, so and so has this. towards the end, the attorney called me and said, give no, i have been told not to the title search because they don't like some of the things in the house. i am going, what?

he said, you better call the bank and make sure. they said, no problem. in the end, they drag it out to the very last day and we finally did get it because they ran out of excuses. what else can you say to people like us? i said -- i felt so sorry -- actually we offered the loan modifications listen and my husband had never been in a better situation money wise. i said, something is really funny and i feel sorry for people trying to get the modifications because if they were struggling with us, we could not believe it. thank you very much for listening. host: thank you for your calls. we will be back in a moment when we have a discussion on the toyota hearings with "new york times" reporter micheline maynard. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> this morning, another house hearing on to rio to's recent vehicle recall. we will hear from toyota motor corp. president and ceo of akio toyoda. live coverage on c-span3 begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern. >> thursday, day luck -- daylong coverage of the white house health care summit. president obama will meet with congressional leaders and other key members in the health-care debate. live from blair house. we will also include your reaction, thursday on c-span3, c-span radio and c-span.org. >> he is best known for "animal

form" and "1984." discussion about george orwell was an author who compiled two volumes of his essays. the new c-span video library is a digital archive of c-span programming, from barack obama and ronald reagan and everyone in between. over 150,000 hours of c-span video now available to you. it is fast and free. try it out at c-spanvideo.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: micheline maynard is sr. business correspondent for "the new york times." you are covering the hearings going on right now. tell us about the most compelling moments of the testimony. guest: there were two things that stood out. first is the testimony of ron smith, the owner of a lexus vehicle and four years ago she

was involved in one of the incidents -- rhonda smith. she was going down the highway merging into traffic and hurt car suddenly accelerated to 100 miles an hour. she called her husband. eventually the car slowed itself down but during her testimony she cried, and it was a very emotional moment in the the hearing room. the second thing that stood out was told all along had said the repairs they prescribed for these recalls were proper, that this is going to work. jim lentz, president of toyota motors usa was asked if he was absolutely confident he saw the issue of sudden acceleration and his answer was, not totally. it is one of the moments -- people have been hearing about a phrase that rings in the room and everyone looks at each other and says, what do you mean by not totally. a he's -- heat means -- he the

bigger issue of sudden acceleration where a car surges out of control, he says no car maker has an answer to that. host: you said in the story he responded, i don't know, many times. when he was asked about data on consumer complaints. was it a surprise? guest: it was a surprise in a sense. he is a marketing executive. in a way he is probably the wrong person to send. he was asked, why are you here, and he said because you invited me. the proper person would be someone who understands toyota's operations. but that reside in japan -- but that resides in japan. and they have authority over many of the safety issues. host: for some years there was

so much emphasis on the american branding for toyota. guest: i covered toyota for about its growth in the united states. i have been to all of their plants in the united states. what they always emphasize is it we are as american as any other car company. clearly yesterday what mr. lentz was saying, no, we don't have the final say and we have to kick the can over to japan. host: tell us what we may hear today. you already read the testimony that is expected. guest: akio toyoda, the grandson of the founder of the toyota company is coming. he actually really did not want to come to washington. he said he would but it was not necessary for him. last week the government oversight committee invited him to come, and that is sort of an invitation you cannot refuse. host: what is the message he will be here to deliver? guest: he had apologized in

japan, and now he will apologize in the united states. it he will talk about how to wield the's culture changed when it decided to be the world's biggest carmaker and it got this connected -- he will talk about how to wheel,'s culture change when it decided to be the world's biggest carmaker and got disconnected. host: what do expect will come out of the hearings? guest: i would like to hear more answers from toyota. we heard a lot of, i don't know. we heard admissions that maybe we should be looking at the computers on the cars. cars are very technical systems. things that used to be done mechanically are done by these drive-by wire systems. we don't know if tuille to really knew about this issue in other countries. -- if toyota cut really know about this issue in other countries. they might have known in europe much before the complaints in

the united states -- they actually fixed it in the factories in europe and were rolling out the repair before the even said they had reports in the united states. if that is true, then why didn't the information from europe that to the united states? it turns out the information seems to have resided in japan, was not shared in the united states apparently because it you don't have a problem, you don't need to know the solution. but that raises the question, don't people inside toyota talk to each other? host: our guest is micheline maynard, sr. business correspondent in "the new york times." let us talk about but governmental aspects. secretary ray lahood, secretary of transportation. guest: that has been an interesting aspect. in the beginning it seemed like everyone was jumping on top of 20 0 tons because of the recalls but in the last few weeks the spotlight has been shared by

nasa -- everyone was jumping on top of toyota because of the recalls but in the last few weeks it has been shared by nhtsa. ray lahood said he would not criticize many of the people came before me -- he said i would just go forward and try to have an agency that works harder on regulation. essentially it sounds like it did not have the kinds of engineers to investigate these problems because everybody is looking at the computers, and they only have a handful of electrical engineers. the issue is if they made too many deals with the big automakers -- not just toyota, but too willing to forgive on some of these big defect situations. host: how willing will congress be to allow the secretary ray lahood to look forward instead of backward? guest: i think there has to be some kind of analysis of what happened in the toyota

situation and an assurance that when an investigation opens it is not just subject to negotiation between the car company and the federal agency, because clearly this was known about. there was a recall in 2007 involving the toyota camry and lexus and the toyota was only having to recall the floor mats. earlier a document showed they save the $100 million. they seemed to count that as a win for the company. i think any automaker would but not necessarily a win for the consumer. host: bob is on the independent line calling from west virginia. caller: good morning. i'm just wanting to make a point that about the fact that it seems like the government is so anxious to give corporations and individual rights and all of that -- can a corporation be sued or prosecuted for murder by

knowingly letting something go by like that? i know if i was held to a standard, if i caused problems to someone or grievous injury, i could be prosecuted as an individual. is it possible for a corporation? guest: absolutely. there are 11 class action suits against we'll tell at this time and toyota has faced class action suits in the past, all the car companies have. i think you can rest assured that lawyers across the country will suit toyota appeared host, what will it achieve? guest: i think what happens is you find out about the inner workings of the company. it certainly happened with ford motor co. when it had the exploding firestone tires on the ford explorer, the last big scandal, and we found out about how car companies work, how they get reports and how decisions are made in a company on how much to say and how much to admit.

host: barbara, republicans line, palm harbour, florida. caller: i do have a 2009 corolla, and i would -- and i on the air? ok. i have a 2009 car roll and i guess my point of is there are many sides to it. i am planning on taking a trip, and i'm very nervous about driving my 2009 toyota corolla. and i think toyota, when i purchased it, did get too big to care. i think they took advantage of a single woman. but i also just would like someone to ask mr. akio toyoda if i could have my money back and go buy something else because i don't feel safe. .

for some many years, toyota has been seen as a model in the industry. guest: they were late to realize

how big a problem this was. i think it has hurt the company internally. they have hired a crisis management firm to help them through this. they have been more responsive than they had been. i do not get the sense that this problem has sunk in what it is doing to their image. this is the slowest time of the year for car sales. we have had the worst market in the past 25 years. they have a little bit of breathing room where they can address these problems. they need to get their act together. host: independent line, north carolina. caller: i bought a 2010 corolla. a week before the recall came -- it is the only car i have.

i live an hour from the dealership. i had a gas pedal sticking issue. i had to drive it for an hour to do anything about it to the dealership. there seems to be an issue with the power steering. i do not want this car. i think toyota going before congress is a wonderful thing for them, but it is not doing a thing for me and people that own these cars. i am afraid to drive it. the steering is extremely sensitive. it is the only vehicle i have. there is no public transportation where i live. i do not want this car. guest: if you bought the car within the last month, your state may have a lemon law. you may be able to use that to get a new car or get your money

back. i've not hesitate to call the consumer hot line for tonya interdealer -- for toyota and to your dealer. they may be more sensitive to your desire than weeks ago. if you have an issue that makes you feel unsafe, i'd go every route i could. i am sure that all iota will -- toyota will tell you that you have to get used to driving the car and that is what the power steering seems sensitive. be aggressive if you do not feel comfortable in the car. host: well toyota pickup the cars and drivers are afraid of driving them? guest: it depends on who your

dealer is and where you live and whether your model is involved in any of these recalls. i have gotten nothing else from them. i got an offer for a good deal on a matrix. i have heard about dealers going to the house of people. host: pittsburgh, pa. on the democrats' line. caller: this comes out in a timely fashion right after a nationalistic president's or political leader takes office in japan. i think what we are encountering is a political blow back from a japan that will not power down to the united states.

it will act independently of the united states with relation to its relationship with china. there is not mass of disclosure from the government. i have a toyota camry. i adore it. i have never had a problem with it. i think this is grotesque overkill on behalf of the united states government and media. you are destroying jobs and american jobs. this is an american corporation. guest: he made a number of points. let me talk about a couple of them. we have heard suggestions that because the government of the state colder and general motors and chrysler have had the -- stakeholder and general motors

and chrysler have had the bailout, there have been speculation about political aspects of this. 38,000 people in their plants would say they have an issue that affects americans' in the job market. host: what are we hearing from toyota dealers? there are photographs showing one of them that came to washington to be here during the hearing. what are we hearing from them this week? guest: there are a lot of car dealers here in washington. they are very anxious about this. the spring selling season is coming up. they have great hopes for toyota to. they're hoping that the

financial crisis was over. you can make excuses for any car company for political reasons. when it comes to safety, no one makes excuses. it puts the dealership in a difficult spot. host: our next caller is from indianapolis. caller: i am not somebody that wants to bash. the. we bought a new -- my wife and i bought a new ranger truck. we were getting ready to get on the interstate. i put my foot to the floor. it locks it in super grouper high. -- super duper high.

it was frozen for 30 seconds. there are a lot of cars that have the same problem as toyota. you cannot mask this -- mashed these throttles -- mash these throttles all the way down to the floor and not have the stick. guest: these are issues that all car makers have been dealing with for years, not just toyota. throttles are now electronic. if it were mechanical, you would put the pedal to the metal and it would come off the metal. but things -- i would take your car in and ask them to look at the electronic controls on them. thank you for mentioning that it is not just a toyota issue.

host: we have a comment from twitter. do you know anything about this? guest: there was an internal document that showed the atmosphere would be less friendly not necessarily because of the bankruptcy or the states that the government holds. the obama administration has been more active with speculation on pursuing companies then we have seen in a long time. it is true for the airlines as well. host: u.s. to profile for today's new york times about mr. toyoda -- you wrote a profile for today's new york times about mr. toyota. how has he been prepared for this role?

>> people might have seen him who went to school with him in college or works with him in california. he lived in new york for a few years after his image be am.b.a. the grandson is the equivalent of henry ford and the second. when you go to japan, their home base, there is no office building where the papers were signed. you can visit his great- grandfather's house which is stunning on the grounds of toyota city where they build their cars. he is walking history. i do not think toyota has used

him in the best possible way. they have kept him isolated. i interviewed him a couple of years ago. he has not done in a sit-down interviews since he talked to me. i encourage executives to get out and get familiar with the press and the public. that is how you will sell your products. he speaks english very well. i interviewed him for an hour in english which is unusual for an american reporter. i expect that he will give his opening statement in english. his translator will be with him to help him understand the more difficult and technical questions. host: a call on the independent wine from naples florida. caller: a cholera touched -- a

caller made a comment about the media. might one person have a dog in this race from michigan? if your car is doing something you do not want it to do, throw it in neutral. guest: i think he meant a congressman from michigan. he is from michigan and it tends to be a defender of detroit car companies. one person asked pointed questions during a rapid fire its session yesterday. he got a lot of "i don't know 's." the time has thrown -- the times

has thrown toyota under a bus. we tried to be fair in our coverage. we have been able to give it a thorough coverage. host: when you talk about these hearings, you mention what industry is in their home district. is it important to pay attention to and think about the questions that are being asked? guest: toyota spent 20 years getting to know members of congress and supporting them. they put their plants in different districts and states. some governors wrote to mr. lahood on their behalf. i am not sure if it is paying off in this situation, because

when it is safety, it is hard for someone to deep in the year. when it is protectionism, it is a little bit easier. host: tell us about how this idea influencing the american dream. guest: one thing that has happened since the 1980's is companies have decided that the american market is important to them. they will not be considered american companies if they do not employ americans. i looked at toyota because it is great for the game. the are the second-largest company in the united states and the world's biggest carmaker. they would not have gotten there without the united states. they have offered options to workers.

a toyota worker that is female was at the hearing yesterday. one of the things to be attentive is it it did not lay anyone off when sales dropped. it kept them working, taking classes. they are getting criticism because they are closing one plan in california with general motors. they said the general motors decided to pull the plug first. host: st. louis, missouri on average democrats won. -- on average democrat linour d. >> i brought my first new van for me and my family. i purchased a toyota a premium

platinum warranty along with it which extended it to 100,000 miles. after 60,000 miles, my engine blew up. i ticket to the dealership, and i was sure it was covered under the warranty. the dealers said it was because i did not change my oil. they found out they for having problems with that particular motor in that a van. i refused to pay for it. the repossessed it and found that three months later that it was an engine oil problem they were having with that engine. they repaired everybody's car that was smoking or the engine had blown up. i was left out in the cold and got nothing out of it. i had not purchased italy of the sense. -- i have not purchased a toyota since.

guest: >> i am sorry about that. i remember that case. to orient the initially said it was because people were not -- toyota initially said it was because people were not properly maintaining their cars. there was a class action suit into areas said they would take care of the problem. i am sorry you got left out in the cold. caller: in october i please my third toyota. -- i least my third toyota. in october, i decided i wanted a 2010. the minute i signed the papers,

i came home and saw the publicity on the television. i do not know anything about cars or electrical engineering. i thought the business about the format and cattle were insanely stupid. i thought it -- floor mat and pedals were insanely stupid. i did not want to bring my car in. we have wonderful state roads with wide shoulders of here. i thought these idiots were telling me that the five get a surge: 100 miles an hour, fro it in neutral. i forgot about it. i said i am doing a voluntary recall. i went into my on-line banking

in canceled my car payment in million times. they kept putting it back in. i got on the computer and did research. i decided that these incidences are so old. maybe it is political. maybe they want people to buy american cars. yesterday there were testimonies. i listened to rhonda smith and her husband and the experts until the republican senator started laying into them. the experts were saying everything i thought. when i saw how they ignored her and her husband and the stupid letter she got from toyota. then i went down immediately, i bought a chevy in palla.

-- impalla. i lost about $8,000, but it is worth it. there are always recalls. anybody can make a mistake. that was a very terrible mistake. guest: it is a situation that toyota has to be afraid of. people bought toyota is because they were reliable. people left detroit car companies and had to defend them to their neighbors. if they have to worry now that they cannot put their grandchildren in the vehicle, that is the biggest worry that a car company has. i would not cancel your car payments because you do not want to get into other kinds of legal trouble.

many other people will make these types of decisions. host: what is the mood like over there? guest: anybody that had a grievance against toyota was probably kept quiet over the years. now they feel it is safe to come forward. as journalists, we have to be careful to see if it is personal or legitimate. we are finding that 20 it was successful because of the quality of its cars and having a sterling image in this country. now all things are coming out of the closet as trouble ensues. host: independent line. caller: i owned a 1996 honda. i had a couple of incidences' where there was acceleration.

the only way i could stop the car was to turn it off. my only comment is perhaps these carmakers in not be in pewter rising everything on the car, because if something goes wrong, it's the only way you can eliminate it is to turn the car off. guest: the car makers moved the computers for a couple of reasons. things are more accurate with the computers. for years, they had problems with the missions with the dirty tailpipes. electronic engines have been important to transforming that. many things are controlled by computers. as long as the computer is working and the controls are

working, your car is probably in the best quality it has ever been. the problems are more difficult to diagnose. host: many have mentioned fro in the gears into neutral. -- throwing the gears in to neutral. guest: it was interesting to see everything she tried and her husband tried. the car seemed to reset itself. it sound as specifically that something in the computer reset itself for her. the issue here is that -- my dad used to spend every saturday afternoon underneath the chevy. he could fix them himself. we cannot do that.

the technicians have to be trained specially to fix these cars. it adds to the complexity. host: leslie, democrats lined, marilyn -- one, marylanline, ma. caller: my family has bought toyota's since the 1970's. i have always felt comfortable in hondas and toyotas. my parents bought for this. that was the only american car company that be trusted. where were the electronic circuits for the accelerator? i have seen the quality of hondas and toyotas go down since

they started building in america. has the quality standard gone down? they used to have zero tolerance defects. guest: i have been to the factory that your car was built at. they like to build them in the united states, but they have to wait for the market to pick up. one of the things that all carmakers have done is that is an enormous amount of extra manufacturing done in the world. it is a huge cost pressure on all countries. a whole new market has developed with different labor costs. car companies are usually using less expensive components than before.

the-board does not look as robust for the seed quality -- the dash board the stolid as robust as they used to. it is not just honda or toyota. many are trying to cut costs but still create the same quality. callerhost: is there going backn time in looking at accidents that have happened in reevaluating them? guest: absolutely. yesterday, committee members were making -- making a point they seem to be dismissing a number of these complaints as a driver error. they are telling drivers it is not the car but the way you

drove it. automotive engineers are very proud of the work they do. driver's training may nothing but it could be in the united states and elsewhere. the first tendency is to defend your work and say it is not the car, it is you. that offends people. what will be done is a lot of accident reports that may have been set aside because it was assumed it is driver error will be looked at again. host: is there a real difference between the republican reaction and the democratic reaction? guest: we heard about the to realtor republican -- republican factors.

one of the republicans took apart the experts guest today. he pointed out that some are funded by plaintiff attorneys which were funding the studies that showed what was wrong with toyota. i think full disclosure is important in any situation. this is an issue that touches the voter. it is a very personal issue. host: our guest is the senior business correspondent at the "new york times." thanks for being with us. guest: my pleasure. host: we will talk with the british ambassador to nato. here is an update from c-span radio. >> more on today's hearing of

the safety of 20 of the vehicles. and oversight committee member spoke earlier saying he wants to see if the ceo of toyota is ready to live up to the promise of reform his company is selling in late as commercial. a california republican says he believes the u.s. government must share responsibility for the problem, accusing the ntsb of being too cozy with the industry. you can hear it live on c-span radio at 11:00 a.m. president obama is expected to talk about hiring incentives to boost the economy. the war against the taliban continues. earlier in pakistan, some missiles killed quassia people in a taliban stronghold located in the northwest according to intelligence officials. there is greater cooperation between islamabad and our

nation. another prisoner is a living get aeaving gitmo. the prisoner is a palestinian and will be able to work in spain. those of some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> and another house hearing on toyota's recent vehicle recall this morning. we will hear from the present and ceo akio toyoda at 11:00 a.m. eastern. >> starting at 10 eastern, president obama will speak with key members in the health-care debate. i]is will include your reaction.

>> he is best known for his novel "animal farm.' -- ." we will speak with several regarding it. it is part of the book tv weekend on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: tell us about what has been going on in washington the past couple of days. guest: it has to do with the concept.ion of nato's strategicj ñiwhen the government met in strasbourg, they decided to take another look at it to see if it

was current. they asked secretary albrecht to have a big group of experts who were responsible for writing a report to the general in may. there were seminars discussing variousw3çó aspects. this is the last of them. it is designed to brainstorm. it is been quite good. they are focusing on nato's capabilities, the structures and the things that need to be done. the experts will go away and think about what they want to say to the inspector general. they will discuss that with government. hosthost: tell us about

counterinsurgency operations in afghanistan that were discussed. guest: [unintelligible] the change in nato is a reflection of the realities of the 21st century. we got over the cold war. everybody in the alliance is adamant about the core purpose which has to remain. there are things that must be done to take on threats from outside of the area. it is more likely that these things will come from failed states, terrorist. we all know what happened on 9/11. afghanistan was uncovered territory at the time. we wanted to help the afghan government gain control of its

territory, so that we will never again face what happened on 9/11. host: robert gates made some comments. he has called european contributions to nato and adequate. guest: it is true that the defense expenditure in europe has declined in the last five years. that has to do with the perception of the threat. there have been concerns about burden sharing. the response has been fantastic with europeans.

it is something that people tend to forget. 40% of the soldiers fighting in afghanistan are from european allies. >> secretary gates softened his message a bit. guest: it is extraordinary when you look at the numbers involved. it is built around safeguarding the afghan people. that requires an extraordinary amount of skills. i never fail to be impressedñi y the job that our young men and women are doing. host: one of the big concerns in europe is shortfalls of money. guest: budgets are under

pressure. many of us have to think carefully about the way money is spent. there is a need to reform structures. host: we are talking with the ambassador to nato. we are taking your calls. talk to us about afghanistan. you go there frequently. how is night of dealing with some of the changes in

operation? guest: what we are engaged in is counter insurgency. we are engaged in supporting the afghan government. ñrit is a people centric operation. if you are going to win hearts and minds, you have to support that. the military threat is one small piece of a very broad picture which involves the rule of law and a host of several of activity designed to bolster the afghan government. they set out a parallel civil track. that is really important. it is the only way we will have success. host: there have been apologies about civilian deaths.

guest: everyone is a matter of severe regret. sadly, these things happen. when they happen, nato and as the kids quickly. we want to get to the bottom of this. we make every effort we can to make sure it does not happen. host: in calling on our democrats line from iowa. caller: i would like to ask the ambassador if the united states base in europe, what would nato's response be to that action that an host: can you

repeat the question? caller: if the united states had bases in europe and spend extra u.s. dollars, what would the reaction of nato bee? guest: it is important that there should be a transatlantic preference in europe. it makes military sense. and prevent a real embodiments that binds us together on both sides of the atlantic. we want to make sure we are spending resources in the best way. you want to adapt and change the posture in europe as things move on. caller: the war in iraq has been

taking so long. they were told the the oil revenues would pay for the reconstruction effort. many made fun of roosevelt -- rums fellefeld when he said this would be over quickly. why don't they have to pay for it with their oil revenue and tax guest: after military intervention, it is what it comes after words the takes the time and effort. some of the news shows the planning for the post war time

frame is really important. that is the first point. it is a mistake to assume that if military action is used that it will win the peace very quickly. the second thing is the iraqi a beginning to fund their own reconstruction. one element is getting everything back on street. for a long time as they prepared, they were damaged again. i think it is on an upward track. people are clear about what happened. host: talk about the '96 our role. there is concern that -- 96 rule. what are some of the concerns?

guest: if nato forces detained afghans they have 96 hours to hand them over. some people in this position can provide quite valuable information. the key is to make sure the afghans are taking care of these people themselves. we want them to respect human rights law. host: is there a danger of releasing people that may be part of the taliban deat? guest:

guest: many of our innocent, but some are not. we want to make sure we act in accordance with the law. host: next caller. caller: i am an air force veteran. i love c-span. çói am a political and news junkie. i want to thank the ambassador for being on the program. i have a question about afghanistan. i heard on the news that the previous policemen were quite corrupt, and the people were scared of them. do you have a comment about that? also is there the possibility poppy crop could be bought and

used for drugs? guest: you are correct that the afghan police had a number of deficiencies. we have to train the army and the police. it is always difficult. the international system does not easily provide peace trainers. -- police trainers. we are working hard on this. how were targets for training the afghan police -- there is for district development where the police majority comes out of the redistrict, they are retrained and put back. it will take some time to go

through the country. the of looked at the opium crops quite carefully. -- we have looked at the opium crops quite carefully. if you buy it, you can burn it. if you take things off the market, it increases the price of the rest and they will grow more. that solution i do not think is viable. the key to eradicating opium production is to provide alternative livelihood's. but most people that grow poppy are employed by drug traffickers. they do not want to be there. think of the pressure that is

put on ordinary people to grow more. they would like to be out of it. the trick is to create conditions where they can do something else. there are lots of examples in afghanistan. there is a german aid project. a significant proportion have resources coming from northern afghanistan. host: about europe putting their forces towards nato efforts. decisions about whether or not to keep troops in afghanistan and some are likely to pull out their troops from the region. guest: i do not want to get into the details of dutch policies.

these are decisions for the dutch. host: how does it affect the broader coalition? is there a danger of being a trickle-down effect? guest: the dutch political situation is unique. it is unlikely to spread over into other countries. this is an issue for the dutch and not for the rest of us to touch it. it said remarkable phenomenon there is support for action in afghanistan increasing. the dutch are doing an absolutely fantastic job.

they have taken casualties. i think the dutch people understand why we are there. that is part of the reason why they support their young men and women in afghanistan. host: this article points out about how they are reacting to what is going on in afghanistan. it sounds like they are willing to send their troops of for their and deal with high death numbers of soldiers compared to other countries. guest: that is absolutely right. we have similar death rates. they have to do a difficult job. the important thing is that the public understands why people are there and why we are sending our soldiers there. in the u.k., when you look at the popular support for our

armed forces and what they are doing, it is extraordinarily high. host: democrats line from california. caller: it morning. -- good morning. this fellow here seems like he is dancing in hedging in not putting the truth in there. how can nato take care of my country if they are not doing anything about their area? why don't you stand up and say something and get more troops and move out? guest: we were talking earlier about european alleys -- allies have come up with 10,000 more troops to go to afghanistan or the last few months.

i think that is a pretty firm statement. this is an alliance of 28 countries. opinions will vary within them. that can obscure the unity of the purpose. on this, i can tell you that we are united. host: what is our relationship with russia? guest: nato wants to have a proper search -- a partnership with russia. -- proper partnership with russia. it is in the interest of both of us to have a sensible strategic partnership. the russians have a voice in number of suspicions which we trial to -- , which we try to deal with. i hope the russians will work

with us. there are things we disagree upon. i think there has to be a dialogue with russia. i really hope that we can have them engaged constructively. host: driven up can line in tennessee. -- republican line in tennessee. caller: how many brave soldiers are out there regarding copper mines in kabul. i would being hypocritical -- are we being hypocritical? i can see by tom jefferson did what they did after listening to you for a few minutes. guest: that is a compliment if ever there was one. [laughter]

if you saw detective purchase smoker has to pay on cigarettes, you get the message that our government does not encourage smoking. i do not know about the copper mines in kabul. bridges stricter not stationed around their by and large. -- there by and large. we are stationed in an area that is difficult because it was having a lot of insurgency. they are being pushed back. we are in the thick of it. u.s. marines are there with us now. it is tough. we are very proud of what of our troops are doing.

which is led by the afghans. the operation has been quite successful. ultimately, the afghans have to take responsible for their own security. it is planned and led by the afghans. the focus is people-centric. host: steven, independent line, connecticut. caller: europe is not for the

war. they are for the troops, but not the war. my question is on spending. even though the u.k. has made its military backing of europe, but the continent does not want to spend a dime on anything when it comes to military spending. that is basically my question. guest: it is true thatñr europen spending has fallen. a small number of allies meet 2% of gdp indicative targets. it will get the worst to be honest. itçóñr affects -- the effect ofe global economic crisis makes it even more difficult. i hope we are looking at the new mission statement which will provide clarity about the

commission. then it will be easier to get the resources to undertake it. host: the secretary-general of nato turned to an unlikely source, russia, to request afghanistan. say this will help reduce the tariff threat in reduce the drug trade. guest: we only got halfway through the discussion on russia. there are a number of areas where it is in the interest of both sides to cooperate. in a stand is one of those. -- afghanistan is one of those. a number of new allies have quite a number of soviet helicopters in their areas. we are trying to get them upgraded so that they are suitable for work in afghanistan. we've been talking to the russians about this.

they have released statements of good intent recently. we'll to mobilize their support and make that happen. we want more to be deployed. there is an alternative transit route through russia. it is beginning to come on the stream. it should believe some of the pressure through pakistan. that is another area where it is a clear advantage in working together. there are others such as search and rescue, i would hope missile defense. that is one area that seems to be in absolute common interest. host: how is that going? guest: there are challenges to this.

there is a new missile defense shield approach. the u.s. is working on nato to figure out how it can contribute to that program. the u.s. interceptors would form part of the nato alliance. i do not think we will see a definitive outcome until later. the united states has made it clear that it is the russians that wish to participate in the system to build up in a joint endeavor. so far, they have not responded. host: thanks for being with us. guest: it has been a great pleasure. host: the british ambassador to nato. we will talk about healthcare with senator ben cardin. up next is an update with c-span radio. >> more on efforts to train afghan.

nato says they will have 600 more instructors to train the expanding afghan security forces. that is key in defeating taliban insurgents. the new trainers along with 1000 pledged in december make up half of the number needed for the training effort. ben bernanke, the chairman for the federal reserve goes to capitol hill this morning. lawmakers will question him on what he can or will the to ease the jobs crisis and make sure the economic crisis -- economic recovery lasts. you can hear the first hour on c-span radio. there is a new study showing hispanics at high-level staff positions in capitol hill are almost nonexistent. this is in spite of the fact that they make up nearly 1/6 of the u.s. population. a of a hundred senate chief of staff, only one is hispanic. there is no hispanic legislative directives -- directors and only one hispanic staff director.

hispanics only hold 12 of the roughly for a 40 chief of staff jobs and only nine legislative director slots. -- 140 chief of staff jobs and only nine legislative director slots. some say that is an outrage. the european union wants to halt all executions by 2015 as a step towards abolishing the death penalty. the prime minister did not know how the eu would persuade countries like the united states, china, and i went to change their laws. he was to set up an international commission against the death penalty. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. .

host: senator ben cardin, thank you for being with us. what do you hope to see come out of the health care summit? guest: i hope we do see engagement by it -- by republicans and democrats. it would be nice to see broader support.

as long as the legislative or is are committed to bringing down the cost -- legislators are committed to bringing down the cost i hope we can come to a broader consensus. host: the gop responded in a press conference, that they expect little from obama's health reform. but that throw up a roadblock? guest: if you look in the past, republicans have been opposed to comprehensive health care reform. they have not really brought up any suggestion that would bring down cost and by affordable health care for all americans. i think we are very close to getting this done. the house and senate have both passed bills. the senate has come in -- the president has come out with his proposal that bridges the differences. we will be the last industrial nation in the world that will finally say at last that

healthcare is a right. host: you are for reconciliation for the public option? guest: i think it is the way we will ultimately get the bill done. i think it is difficult to get 60 votes in the u.s. senate and reconciliation allows us to have the majority make the decision. host: you are for reconciliation, period, and you did not foresee it public option? guest: i think the public option would help bring down costs. i should point out that the senate bill that passed, although it is not as strong on the public option than the house, it does provide for qualified plans to be available and guaranteed to be available. host: be you think reconciliation would be a blow to bipartisanship? guest: it has been used many times over the years by both democrats and republicans. it is a way to move forward in a way in which the majority gets

to make the final decisions. reforming our health care system will bring down health-care costs, it will help us balance the budget in the future, so it is an important policy and that is what reconciliation was designed to the. host: there is a letter in circulation that some democrats signed onto, that would support the use of reconciliation with a public option. you have not yet signed on to the letter. you have any intention? guest: i am for the public option, i'm for the issue of reconciliation. i cannot make it clear. when the president said he supports the senate bill, that is the most likely result to move forward. host: let us the right to our callers. republican line from stafford, virginia. caller: my comment is, as everyone knows, dick cheney was in the hospital with another heart attack and many people did not realize that once you are elected to washington or

appointed, those officials, even if they have one term, have lifelong life insurance at the taxpayers' expense. what the harvard medical report indicating 122 americans are dying every day in this country because they do not have access to health care, what would you say that urgency is on the democrats' part knowing they will have to overcome the republican roadblocks in making sure that people who don't have çaccess to taxpayer health care get the care that they need -- a 122 a day is outrageous. guest: members of congress like federal employees is under the federal employee health benefit plan and when they retire they are entitled to retirement benefits like any other federal employees. it is a good plan and we want to make sure all americans have access to the type of coverage federal employees have and members of congress have.

our objective is to provide that kind of option, the choice to every american, that they have access to affordable and quality health and -- health insurance and health care. host:, laura, democratic collar -- caller. caller: it is a pleasure i can actually speak to you. i grew up in maryland, a recent transplant to south carolina and i miss it so much i think i want to come home. guest: but not missing the snow, i tell you that. caller: i don't miss that. i am glad to hear you speak so much in favor of the public option. it is something that i have signed petitions for, talked to people about. when you look at all of the polling, the majority of the american public i think is really in support, with the

exception of a few states. i worry so much that the democrats are going to make a mistake if they pass this health care bill without some even scalpriform of a public option because -- skeletal form of a public option because of the and there of not simply insurance companies -- because of the gang their act not simply insurance companies but anyone who has been taken advantage. the middle-class, working poor. this would be one little thing. guest: medicare is a public option. it is a very popular program. i agree that a strong public option would help provide not only access to affordable care to all americans but help bring down the overall health care costs in this country. the bills we are working on will have major private health insurance reform, to prevent

insurance companies from discriminating based on pre- existing conditions, automatic renewal ability. we will have exchanges so there would be options available, multiple options available to everyone, whether an individual trying to find insurance or a small business owner. i think you will find that many of the concerns of why we have been so strongly in favor of the public insurance option is being taken care of either in the senate or house bill or what the president is suggesting as a compromise. i agree, i am disappointed we could not have a stronger option but i think at the end of the day if we get the bill but you will be pleased. host: what do democratic congressman and white house need to be willing to negotiate on? guest: the president laid out a marker and i think it has been well received by both the players in the house and senate. as far as the democrats and republicans, you really need to

ask the republicans that question. what are they going to bring to the table? we are not exactly sure what they will bring. but if they bring forward a good faith a recommendation that brings down the cost of health care and provide an affordable quality health insurance -- health insurance option to everyone in america, does it within the budget, then we have something to negotiate. they don't do that, i think we will be with the president's marker and that will be the game to get it passed. a host of baltimore, maryland -- host:, baltimore, maryland on the democratic line. caller: i am a constituent. i need you to comment on the ever-increasing rates on the health-care issue. we look to california and we see 39%, that is outrageous. that is absolutely ridiculous. will you deal with that -- when you have the meeting tomorrow or your counsel, can you address

the outrageous hits we are getting what increases as well as denial of services? the other point i had out you -- for you. acorn issue. if you could please comment briefly on that because the guy who called themselves exposing a court has been exposed. if you got a second to comment on that. guest: let me just say again, one of the three major points that must be included in health care reform is bringing down the cost of health care, the growth rate, making sure that is an affordable option for every person, and taking on the abusive practices of private insurance companies. that rate increase in california was outrageous and certainly can't justify that with the type of profits that company was making, and i think you confined at the end of the day if we can get health care done, we will have major reform in the private insurance market place of those types of practices cannot take place. the acorn issue is -- of course,

baltimore had a role to play in all of that. the bottom line is that the person who did the video recordings broke laws and i think that person will be held accountable. host: your colleague orrin hatch has an op ed saying we should start from scratch, that really the process on healthcare should be started from the beginning. republican senator from utah, what do you think? guest: we have a been talking about for decades, taking small steps or finding something everybody can agree on even though it is small or minor. the bottom line is, it is time america takes on the cost issue and take on access to care so every american has access to affordable care. we are the only industrial nation in the world that does not have a plan where everyone is guaranteed access to affordable care. we spent much more than any other nation. it is making our economy not as competitive. it is time to take on this issue. we are very close to the finish line host: glenn, a republican

line, wichita, kansas. caller: good morning. i have a couple of points -- a question mostly. the point i want to make is, with the economy being what it is and expenses going up all the time, this is a real complex issue -- talking about the health care, talking about the pharmaceutical companies, talking about -- each state has its own health care system set up now. i would like to say -- see them put this on the back burner for a while. don't take it off the table. put it on the back burner and let the economy get rolling it did before we bring it back again. guest: of we are convinced that by getting health care cost under control it will help the

economy, save jobs. right now many companies have to choose between playing insurance premiums and keeping people employed. small-business owners can't afford to hire new employees because they have to pay these ever increasing health care costs. we have to deal with the realities of our health-care system. i agree with you, it is not easy. i want to make sure we get it right. that is why we have taken time. all of 2009 and in 2010. this has been an active debate =ujt last year and it has been under debate now for the last 40 years how to get all americans covered by health insurance. this issue has been around for a long time. i think we have the right plan. is it perfect? nope. but i think we got to believe -- move forward, deal with cost issues, and i think we have the best proposal moving forward. host: democratic caller, dennis, in new york state.

caller: nice to speak to you. i like c-span, because i did not i would have to leave a message for you instead. i have a way to get a single payer public option. on the website,www.democ ratz.org -- democrats with a z. nobód6 -- people need to take their political fight to some of the companies that give money to conservatives. for example, for the single payer public option, although what page -- host: adjusted to the point of your content. caller: people are going to boycott write it corp., a conservative contributor, inveterate one, and they are going to e-mail from that position -- people are going to boycott rite-aid.

either you will give us a single payer public optionç or we refe to buy from you. the weakness for the conservative movement is the cash registers of those a give them money. guest: i agree with the caller, i am for a strong public option. fcess as compromising but not the principles. if you take a look at the provisions of the senate bill you will find many of the goals of the public option are incorporated in that legislation. much more competition, many more restrictions on what private insurance companies can do, subsidies to help low-wage workers to be able to afford health insurance, more opportunities for small companies and individuals entering the marketplace, guaranteed products available for everyone so you will have choice. so those who have been advocating for the public option, they have had a major t(impact on the bill being considered in congress and if we can get the senate bill with the

modification the president talked about enacted into law, i think you will be pleased with a framework in bringing down health-care cost of making sure there is a plan available for every person in this country. host: let's go to maine, where ben as on the independent line. caller: senator cardin, thank you, and i want to let you know as a person who seems to have no voice, i want to let you know i feel you are doing the right thing. again, thank you. guest: thank you for the comments. this is certainly an issue that has been around for awhile, time to get it done right. pete host: howard, a republican line from california. caller: good morning, senator. can you give me a quick explanation of what you mean as the public option, and then i have a follow-up question.

guest: the public option as originally proposed means there would be a plan that would be sponsored by the government -- it would not be subsidized by the government. it would be a plan where the premiums would pay the full cost. but it would not depend upon private profit motive. it would have a guaranteed benefit. it would be here forever. you don't have to worry about a private insurance company leaving the market. it would be here and be a reliable plan, and affordable plan, and would be a comparison between what is available to the public sector versus private competition. it gives you a guaranteed product. much of that has been incorporated into the bills moving forward. in the senate bill, there are certain benefits every private insurance company will have to offer. there are exchanges either sponsored by the state or region that will give you different there are provisions in the public option that have been

incorporated into the senate bill. the one that the president's -- president has indicated the way he would like to proceed. but a true public option is similar to medicare, where it is sponsored by the government, the premiums -- have a -- how to pay for it is in for private insurance. caller: is medicare doing fine financially? we go back to the great society and the war on povertyç in -- d these social issues that the democrats seem to ask for, and my only question as a conservative is basically how are you going to pay for it? excuse me -- we all understand we want the best for every american. we don't want poor people going

into emergency rooms and bringing up the bill for everyone else. pulling the wagon instead of in the wagon. host: i will go to the senator -- guest: i wanted to make the point on medicare which is a public insurance option, and we have private insurance. same doctors and hospitals, private doctors and hospitals. the same quality. the question is how you pay for it. medicare has been successful in helping to keep down the cost of health care for our seniors. you can't bring down the cost of medicare until you bring the cost of health care in this country. that is why the president is right to focus on health care reform by saying, the principal objective is to bring down the growth of -- cost of health care. if you do that, medicare will be on a sounder financial footing and part of the bill reduces some of the growth of a cost of medicare as we bring down health-care costs. host: democratic senator ben cardin of maryland, thank you

for being with us. guest: good to be with you. host: i know you have a hearing to be at. we will keep talking about health care. our guest willç be with the grp progresscongress.org, and we will talk about grass roots efforts. >> this morning, another house hearing on toyota's recent wrinkle -- vehicle recall. we will hear from toyota president and ceo akio toyoda. live coverage on c-span3 begins at 11:00 a.m. eastern. >> live thursday, day long coverage of the white house health care summit. starting at 10:00 a.m. eastern, president obama will meet with congressional leaders and other key members. live from blair house. we will also include your reaction, thursday on c-span3,

c-span radio and c-span.org. >> he is best for his novels "animal farm" and "1984." and discussion about george orwell with an author who compiled two volumes of orwell's essays. part of c-span2's "book tv." >> which presidents live past 90 -- john adams, herbert hoover, ronald reagan, gerald ford. these and other facts in c- span's newly updated book, "who is buried in grant's tomb?" >> it is kind of a many history, a biography of each of these presidents. and let's face it, you can tell a lot about people at the end of their lives. >> a resource guide to every presidential gravesite, the story of their final moments and insights. ç"who is buried in grant's tomb

?"is available at your favorite bookseller. >> "washington journal" continues. host: our gas, d'arcy burner is with progresscongress.org. what do you hope to come out of the summit tomorrow? guest: i hope a path forward. i think the americanç people ae tired for waiting around for our elected officials here in d.c. to finally make progress on fixing the health care problems and that the obstructionist tactics and the delays have gotten really old. i think everyone is hoping we have a road map forward. host: what would be successful you? are there key elements you want to see coming out of this, that without the health care bill would not be to your standards? guest: making sure the health care bill that gets passed is helpful to the american people and not just the insurance companies, which i think is one

of the concerns people have had. certainly that outlined the president put out on monday looked somewhat promising. it included the things -- for example, people would be about to buy into the same set of plans members of congress have. that is terrific because in a lot of markets that would dramatically expand options available. the elimination of pre-existing conditions is a big deal. setting up an exchange that is easier for people to find the plans that they need. i hope is we will see a bill ultimately that includes a national exchange so you can get as wide set of choices -- i would love to see a public option so people would have the option to buy and something other than medicare. host: tell us about your group, progresscongress.org, and you are involved with the

progressive action funds. guest: progresscongress.org and the progress of congress' action fund are non-profit, focused on figuring out how to connect progress of -- we educate people on what is going on in washington, d.c., so they can pay attention and find out the process works. we have a question page where people concerned questions from members of congress and members will take questions and answer them on the floor of the house and on c-span during special orders. figuring out how we build stronger connections between progressives inside and outside congress. host: you mentioned you would like to see a public option coming out of the summit. but of course republicans are not interested in that. "the hill" reported the public option is essentially dead. it guest: the media has been reporting it was dead for a year, for a year, and for a year it is the people of the united states who have kept it alive.

i think if you'd have asked people on the first of january is the public option alive or dead, the overwhelming response would be that it is dead. but what we have seen, particularly since the loss in massachusetts, when it became clear the democrats have to use reconciliation to finish the bill, which means they could do it with a simple majority rather than requiring a supermajority, that that meant the public option was once again possible. çthe excuse for not having a public option is it needed 60 votes -- now we need just 51. we know there are more than 218 and house that want to see it because there were 220 votes first time around. host: critics say the recent election of senator brown, a republican taking over what is long a democrat -- democratically held seats, shows the american public, as represented by the voters in

massachusetts do not want to see the public option and did not want to see that. guest: the polling has shown the public option is spectacularly popular, including among voters in massachusetts, including the people who voted for scott brown. that the issue, if you look at what people were actually saying, if you look at the polls after the election, the message we were trying to send is we are tired of the same old same point in washington. the senate bill as it existed was viewed as a sell out. they wanted the democrats to be more aggressive in fighting for the american people, not less. the public option is one more choice -- giving them a real alternative to private health insurance companies is something that an overwhelming supermajority of american voters want. host: phil is on the republican line from lubbock, texas. caller: how are you doing?

a quick question for your guest. in all, we are going to have this big show boat event where everybody is going to sit around and ask all cool and everything is fine and let's shake hands and call everybody friends. but would that not have been a better thing during the initial phase of president obama preventing the health-care plan that he wanted to congress to put together -- presenting the health care plan? wouldn't it have been better to have the meeting a year ago instead of behind closed doors? thank you government. if you could answer that question for me, i would really appreciate it. guest: i think it is a good question. one of the problems we have had through this entire process is that unfortunately the republicans and house and senate seemed to have overwhelmingly decided to be obstructionist and bringing to a halt all progress on the issues facing the american people is more important for them than actually getting anything done. the summit is one last attempt by the president to bring -- to

bring their ideas to the table about what could be done differently and what could be done better with respect to how we reform health care. it is not that these ideas have not alreadyç been incorporatedn some aspect of the bill. the national exchange i talked about was originally a republican idea. the idea to have insurance companies been able to sell across state lines as long is it meantç criteria. that is fundamentally a republican idea cannot was in the house bill and it is being pushed for. there is a bill likely to be considered in a -- in the house, bobby jindal, had been a champion of, that remove the anti-trust exemption so they have to stop price fixing and colluding -- that was fundamentally a republican idea and it is being moved through the congress now.

i think it is great the president is bringing both sides in to sit down and talk with the merits of the ideas on the table. i hope is that the republicans will take it seriously instead of just obstructing. host: the gop leadership said they do not expect a lot out of this. "the new york times" reports that mr. john boehner, a top republican in the house, saying it is a charade. he went on to say the democrats want them to boycotts of a consent republicans walked away and have no choice but to plow ahead with their healthcare takeover. the want us to boycott -- boycott so we will be a thorn in their side and this is like jobs and abortion. we should let the white house have a six-hour taxpayer funded infomercial on obama care. guest: with all due respect is i think the american people want republicans to come to the table. the fact that the republicans have refused to do that for an entire year i think will come back to bite them. they don't fail --

host: they are seeing -- sang obama already chosen a path to go down. guest: the level of hypocrisy it actually is interesting. the bill i was talking about likely to go through the house today, which is about moving the and the trust exemption for health insurance companies -- so they actually have to compete and not about to conclude. it is only insurance companies and major league baseball that do not have to adhere to antitrust laws right now. it was something that was çw3originally a republican ided yet as far as i can tell no republican co-sponsors and we are notç think it isç likely o get republican votes. they claim they are for free market competition but when things come up for a vote they decide to obstruct rather than votexd on a printable the claim they are for. we have seen in the senate as well when they want a bipartisan commission for entitlements and then voted against, even the people who brought it up or originally, because they think

obstructing is more important than doing the business of the american people. i happen to disagree, and i think ultimately the american people. host: mark from hope, new jersey. caller: how are you doing this morning? when you are talking but doing this for the american public and everything else, and cutting cost and me being a failed small-business person because of illegal aliens, how can you sit there and tell us -- how did you sit here and tell us this is about american people went illegal aliens have been valued wages, made it harder for employers to provide health care and everything else. there is no accountability for the illegals. they will get a free walk. but he would tell us this is about the american people. guest: we clearly need comprehensive immigration reform. our immigration system is absolutely broken right now.

and figuring out on how we make that happen in the kind of divided environment we have and i will be a challenge. but we do need to have a set of laws that we are willing to enforce. we need to say to people here that they have to get legal, and they have to pay a fine, potentially learn english, obey the laws, and that they must get legal so that they can be part of the system that governs all of us. we need to fix our immigration system, absolutely, and it is high time we did that. unfortunately even though there were discussions, suggest -- expect the republic -- republican obstructionism will prevent that. host: man is calling from tennessee. caller: i would like to see this segment on how much especially the republican senators and representatives have taken from

the insurance and the drug companies. çi know there are a handful of democrats that have done it also. and i think this would clear up most of how the health care thing has gone so far. çguest: agreed. i think looking at who is funding campaigns is an incredibly important thing. there is a nonprofit here in washington called opensecrets.org, a nonpartisan non-profit, that makes a lot of information about who is taking money from home, how members are voting. it is available to the public on their website. in the interest of complete transparency -- the work that they do it and the work for the center of responsive politics, another nonprofit designed to shed some light on what is going on in d.c. is fantastic. host: let us take a look at what is going to happen tomorrow. president obama convened a group of house members, senate

members, republicans and democrats. they will meet at 10:00 a.m. this morning. c-span3 plans to air it live. invitation to chairman and ranking member of each committee dealing with health care. that is the game plan for the senate president obama has called. what realistically do you see -- give us one example of something that you think republicans could come to the plate on and unified with democrats over? guest: i think there are a lot of examples. restoring real competition through the repeal of the antitrust provisions. allowing for real competition across state lines by the creation of a national exchange, i think is something both sides could agree on. a set of standards -- might

recollect -- recollection is the bill the republicans introduced even included some effort to save that they wanted people not to be kicked off of insurance because they have pre-existing conditions or because they got sick, which is an enormous problem in the current system. my record collect -- recollection is that the republican version did not have enforcement, but the fundamental idea is something there is widespread bipartisan agreement on. interestingly, the idea of a public option, if you talk to voters, it has a fair amount of bipartisan support on the left and right of the republicans in d.c. seems somewhat less enamored at the idea of make an insurance companies and to compete in the interest of the american people. host: "the new york times" reports the republicans' proposals would have a small businesses band together, if federal money for states to run high risk pools for people who cannot obtain private insurance

and limit damages in medical ymmalpractice lawsuits. çthe congressional budget offie estimates it, $61 billion over 10 years, far less than the $950 billion cost president obama's plan has been estimated our guest is darcy burner, executive director of progresscongress.org. new york, -- is a republican. caller: instead of the government trying to get into our health care, why don't they take out the monsanto genetically modified food, msg, proven to make people fat, asper tame that they remain to trick the people and take the floor right out of the water and that will makeñr people healthier. i don't hear anything about -- doctors in this bill. i don't go to doctors. i go to a wholemeal path --

homeopath. guest: it is correct a lot of things we eat impacts the health of the american people. there was a study that looked at the average consumption of soda and the average rate of type two diabetes and there is almost perfect interactions. the more so that people consume, the more likely it is at least geographically that they will have tied two diabetes, one of the most expensive medical conditions this country faces. there are absolutely things about what we are eating or what we are drinking, what is in our water and food, that can be affixed to help make the american people healthier. and i think it is completely valid to look at how we do that. host: daniel, independent line, englewood, california. are you with us? one last time. daniel? we are moving onto carl on the democrats' line in georgia.

caller: i was asking if we could find out how much these big çexecutives at the insurance companies are getting paid, just like they went after the big bankers. guest: a lot of the insurance companies are publicly traded, so the information about executive compensation it is available. they are getting tens of millions of dollars a year, which is profit that is taken out easily off the backs of people -- people like the folks in california, where blue cross is attempting to raise the rates by 39% this year, despite the fact that the underlying health care costs were only going up by about 4%. the amount of money they are making is truly staggering, and particularly in an economy like this, it is somewhat unconscionable host: ted, republican from san diego. caller: you mentioned a couple of things about obstruction.

i guess that was ok when the democrats were obstructing supreme court nominees -- that was unprecedented, reconciliation is used to reconcile budgetary issues using 51 votes. it has never been used to pass legislation. my other point is -- there is nothing in the bill about tort reform, and i think if we had that in the bill, that would do it and not allowing health care costs. guest: so, in terms of reconciliation as a process and -- it has been used for interesting things, more by the republicans and democrats. the bush tax cuts were passed through reconciliation and so was medicare partd, us -- so that is precedence and that took

place under president bush and republican congress. the things they are talking about passing through reconciliation are all things that have a direct impact on the federal budget and it has to be under the current senate rules. so, for example, the fact that antitrust appeal doesn't have a direct impact on the federal budget means it cannot be done through reconciliation. it has to go through normal channels. that is why we see that as a separate bill. but there is precedent for using this particular process and health-care costs, you have an enormous percentage of the federal budget. we will have to address them if we want to have this country began healthy financial footing. host: please explain this effort your group is doing to bring a million messages to congress. guest: we are working with a number of other groups like moveson.org -- moveon.org, to

get people to call washington, d.c., today to ask their members to finish the job of fixing health care. there are things -- each group has provided information about the priority people might ask for. but the important thing here is to send a message to washington that the american people actually do want them to finish to the health care reform bill. we think they will be able to get a million messages on to capitol hill today, which is a fairly unprecedented number. as far as i know, it is the largest such campaign we have ever had. our organization has a site that people can go to -- but all of those places will have it. host: patrick from toledo, ohio. caller: a few points. i think the democrats kind of blew it when they did not include the republicans right

off the bat, and now it is a year or whatever later, and now they want to include them. that frustrates a lot of americans. to me, i don't understand why the republicans cannot embrace the public option more. they seem to be for small business and saying how the current system and how some of the current ways the health care reform will really impact small business, but if it were a public option it would take the burden of the small business and, in a, it would create more jobs and make everything a little bit more flexible. even the larger companies, they are going across our borders and out of the country because they go to countries where they take care of the insurance. so, they don't have to incorporate that into the overhead of the old to the business. -- of the ultimate business. i'm all for a public option. i did not have insurance until a year ago until my wife became

full time. i'm just a part-time college instructor. i have been without insurance for almost ever. guest: i agree completely for the need to fix the system so our businesses can compete internationally. the non-profit i run is the look of a small and we have an enormously difficult time getting health insurance because there is not something like the public option. a grand total of two choices and if you cannot like one of them, and, by the way, the two companies colluded to help sate -- set the rates. it is a problem that really needs to be fixed. i think it is interesting that people think the republicans were not invited to the table before this given we spent months and months last year, while susan collins and olympia snowe and max baucus and kent conrad and that of the people sat around in the senate dramatically delaying the bill while they tried to find things to get republican support.

it ultimately the republicans in the senate and every republican in the house except one decided under no circumstances would they support anything the democrats proposed. if the republicans have been at the table, they have been repeatedly been invited but they repeatedly slapped back the invitations. host: to many invitations extended? should a move have happened earlier? guest: i think doing this for the american people is far more and pour in than soothing egos in washington, d.c. i would not have done what they did, allowing the entire process to be delayed and jeopardize for those not acting in good faith. i think getting done what the american people need to get done is a whole lot more important than being buddy buddy with someone in the senate dining hall. host: connie on the line from

baltimore, maryland. the democratic caller. please turn down your tv if you got it on. you are on the air -- caller: ok. my question is -- host: ok, connie, yet to turn off your tv. let us put on to jim, republican line. caller: i just wanted to make two points. i keep hearing that people say from time to time that scott brown's election in massachusetts was a referendum on people wanting national health care, a public option, and that is flat out false. he ran on a platform and his number one thing would be the 41st vote against national health care, that is one. i keep hearing the talking points on the democrats that the republicans somehow word the moscow to all of this when everybody knows following this

stuff that the democrats had a super majority in the senate and a massive majority in the house -- it was the democrats themselves that were not able to get this stuff passed. they did not need one single republican. it was the democrats who obstructed themselves and the reason they did that, i would suspect, as they realized the mood of the country. they saw through the lies, they saw through the stands and they don't want anybody in government running anything in their lives, period, other than the military and protecting the rights under the constitution. guest: so, i think that -- " -- not quite sure what the question was. there is a really interesting question about why the democrats took so long. and everything i have seen, it is because they were repeatedly trying on both the house and senate side to bring republicans on the table because they wanted

best ideas from both sides to be part of the process. it is unfortunate the republicans have chosen not to participate. it would be, i think, a good thing if they did. my father, who is a registered republican, and i have great conversations about politics, and while i often did not agree on a -- some of the ideas are similar. restoring competition by repealing the antitrust exemption is a fantastic idea. -- he says it sounds like a republican bill to me. well, we don't agree on some things politically obviously. but my guess is we will not see any significant number of republicans voting for something that is a fundamentally pro-free market economically conservative idea today when that bill comes in front of the house. i do wish to the democrats have been more assertive about using their majority. when the american people voted for real change a year ago in

november, november of 2008, it would have been good to see the democrats be more aggressive about delivering it. i think they have a little bit more time left before november to show they are up to that. in terms of scott brown and 41 votes, if the question is, do we reform health care or not reform health care, and we got 59 senators say reform and 41 who say no, it is not clear to me why the 41 should have a bigger say than the 59? a simple majority of to be the way we get it done. host: "usa today close code has a piece called "bombay road to health care legislation." -- "usa today" has a piece called "bumpy road to health care legislation." showing senator arlen specter being heckled or yelled out -- yelled at the throw one of his constituents, someone from pennsylvania, really upset. where do you think that anchor

has come from? guest: i think there is a legitimate anger frankly on both the left and right about the differences between what we are seeing here in washington, d.c., and what it's good for the people of this country. i attended some of the town hall meetings in august and i wanted to hear what is being said. there were a few on reasonable people -- but for the most part in these are people who were actually generally concerned about congress doing the right thing and who wanted to find a way to participate. that is constructive. that is a really good thing. and with the economy in the tank, with basically everyone in the country knowing somebody who is unemployed and in some cases for a long time, feeling incredibly gridlock, of course they will feel angry and frustrated.

host: michigan. caller: good morning. i wanted to make a couple of points and then a question regarding it. i agree with caller who stated that i think the mood of the american people is basically that they are kind of tired of all of the federal meddling. history shows that when government gets involved and all of these social experiments and programs, they drive up costs and things like health care. i think if we have a real solid reforms, which neither side has yet to offer, in my opinion, it is going to involve deregulating the health-care industry. what would you say to that? guest: i think the problem at the moment is the health-care industry already overly be regulated. they are allowed to collude and set prices and raise them on you. they are insufficiently

unregulated because of its civic and take you off the planned -- because if you get sick and they take you off the planned. they are so on regulated the concerned people down for arbitrary reasons and they do -- they are so on regulated. there are tens of millions of americans who cannot get health insurance right now because the insurance companies are so unregulated and even if they could, they are not sure they can keep it. that is an enormous problem. the health insurance industry needs to be held accountable for delivering on what it is they promised the american people they are going to deliver on. they need to be held accountable for actually competing instead of price fixing and price gouging. that is going to require that we have some referee saying, that is not fair play. you are not allowed to do these anti-competitive things.

you are not allowed to kick people off who paid their premiums and have done everything right because they will be expensive to you. host: this person says on twitter -- guest: i completely agree, 100%. host: conservative democrats also did some negotiating and brought up concerns. there are a lot of different opinions among that group. guest: of the bill that was passed with 220 votes in the house with a pretty good bill. it was not a perfect bill. i would have liked a stronger public option, and i probably would have liked single payer but i understand that is not where the american public is. the problem on the senate side, we had probably 54 votes on the senate side for a pretty good bill, maybe more. there were a couple of senators, including egregiously senator joe lieberman who represents

aetna, we can consider him the senator from aetna who was much more concerned about protecting their profits than doing the job of the american people. he stripped out of the senate bill most of the provisions that would have protected americans, which i view as an enormous problem. many of those are being fixed. the outline the president released monday fixed some of the egregious problems with the senate bill. i think when it comes to negotiations between house and senate we will see additional improvements. but we've got a majority in both the house and senate for a good, solid bill that will actually fix health care for the american public. host: louisville, ky. danny is a democratic collar -- caller. caller: i am a registered democrat but generally what i do for the issues is i research of them myself -- research them

myself to find out who is telling the truth. my wife is and health care, my son was interested, so i started looking around at it and i saw a couple of things -- of course, the first thing is where the money is coming from. why are these republicans blocking this? let's see what the health-care industry give republicans -- they do give them more money. it is not crazy, not 99%, to 1%, but they do get the majority of the number parrot -- money. i thought, maybe they do believe -- then i went and started looking at the astro turf organizations that are supposed to be grass roots, the american people but they are really backed by insurance industries and they are getting huge amounts of money to the gop pac and that sort of thing and i ran across the thing that said,

there is right now, there are more health care lobbyists in washington, d.c., then there has been of any lobbyist of any time ever. it is a record amount. it said these senators, there are getting 10, 12, 14 appointments a day where these guys are coming in and trying to spin their little wet. -- web. guest: there is certainly a problem with the amount of money being spent trying to bend the congress to special interest. there is a very interesting thing that happened yesterday. i mentioned a couple of times this bill that will be in the house to repeal the anti-trust exemption. unbelievably simple, two pages. not very complicated. again -- it originated with republicans, bobby jindal praised it when he was in the house. the u.s. chamber of commerce,

which in theory is supposed to represent all of these businesses will have to pay these price-fixed health insurance costs, you would think it would be for this but the effect of laundered tens of millions of dollars for help in charge companies recently when they gave the chamber of commerce money that the chamber went and spent on ads and districts about this health care bill. the chamber came out yesterday against competition for health insurance industry. they actually came out against the bill to repeal the anti- trust exemption for health insurers. the number of ways in which health insurance money is being laundered and used to corrupt the process in washington, d.c., is truly staggering. host: republican caller, pat from north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am frustrated. facts are so distorted. insurance companies had a profit

margin of 3.5%, and you need to check that out. they are not getting wealthy. in california, it went up 39% because so many people are out of work and had to drop out of the pool. you can grant about that, but that is the truth and you are not telling that. i have been to several tea parties, i am a stay at home mom, i'm not wealthy and my husband is presently on unemployment but i did not want the government shutting think down my throat. i have stayed up half the night watching debates and one thing that is very interesting, a republican asked that all members of congress go on the same bill -- and i watched this one night, it was like midnight. not one democrats voted for it and every republican did -- if it is so great for me, why did democrats not want to be under

the same program? ma'am, you are so partisan and just -- i am just really frustrated because this is what is coming out of washington. host: -- like guest: first, i am really heartened to hear about the level of participation you are engaged in. i think it would be a much better and stronger country who had more people were paying attention to what is going on in washington, d.c., who have participated and talking to neighbors. regardless of whether you agree with what i think or don't. it is a democracy and more participation, the better. in terms of the 39% increase in california, the parent company of that insurance company posted the largest profit they have ever had in the fourth quarter of the last year at the same time that talking about raising rates by 39%. it is fairly outrageous. and i think unconscionable. and frankly, a demonstration they did not have real competition because if there

were more competition people would have choices on where to get some other form of health insurance. in terms of the bill you are talking about -- or the portions you are talking about where the members of congress would go on the same thing as the american public, there was an amendment introduced in the senate that would require a public option or part of the bill every member of congress would go in the public option. it actually passed in committee. but it was a great idea. it was introduced in the house and there were a number of democrats there who supported it. i think it is a terrific idea. i think the more we can make members of congress put their money where their mouth is, the more we can make them deal with exactly the same things they ask the american people to deal with and a better job ought to represent people. host: north carolina. david on the independent line. caller: darcy