talking about it doesn't mean they are not doing it. public officials make better decisions when there is an informed public debate. they will make them by virtue of a public debate. >> that is a great place to end this. thank you for being with us and good night. [applause] while [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] caller[captions copyright natil cable satellite corp. 2010]

. .

@@

dale and summoning members of

the committee. rob andrews. rubin shared the committee. he has been relentless on this that is why so many young people are here today, their lives are effected by this legislation. they are able to afford their education and eliminating a pre- existing condition. it is important to note that every step of the way in the education peace, this will save

$10 billion for the taxpayer. we saved over 1.3 trillion dollars for the taxpayer. this is about improving affordability and access. more affordability in terms of health care and education but to do so in a way that saves the taxpayer money. when it comes to our have seen years, we protect medicare and we close the doughnut hole. if you're young, middle age, middle-class, this situation will defect you very directly. if there is only one reason to do the bill, fiscal responsibility, this fits that built into the president has --

this fits in what it -- into what the president has said and this is entitlement reform. we hope that everyone will be able to reach their aspirations and liberated from the health care costs so they can honor of the vowels of our founders -- life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. i am honored to send this over to the president of the united states. we will make a difference in the lives of the american people.

have i mentioned all of our leadership to they are well known to you and you see them frequently at these stations. this day would not be president without the leadership of the president of the united states. all the difference in the world and the families' was made by our newest member is bringing thinking income of their tireless energy and their deep

commitment to the american people. we have many members with us. all of these young people who helped. all we want to do it is to maneuver and win votes in the congress and this is not possible out the outside motivation and they understand the impact of this. nothing is more eloquent to a member of congress and the voice of his or her own constituents.

many of our colleagues of gone to talk to their editorial boards and to meet with their constituents. we would like to thank our numerous members who in a vigorous a congress. [applause] a couple of days ago i signed the big bill. this is a much smaller bill. none of these bills matched the number of pages of the letters we have received come from constituents.

>> all right. [applause] the president of the united states, thank you. for our country. we make history here, progress there.

>> ♪ happy birthday to you happy birthday to you ♪ [applause] >> thank you. a more important birthday privilege, signing health care

for all. [applause] >> this is our gift to the american people. thank you all very much. [applause] [laughter] >> we have all the time.

>> so we have it now. [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible]

[inaudible]

>> we have been joined by ms. butterfield from north carolina. they were an important part along with the leadership of jim clyburn, the democratic whip, and there were black serving institutions as with as latin serving institutions. it is now the leadership. ok, that's it. [laughter] >> now we are going to have to stay.

>> here, take it down. [inaudible] >> guys, let's go. let's go. come on, come on, come on. [inaudible] >> let's hear it for the staff. [applause]

[inaudible] [inaudible]

[captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] >> coming up next on c-span, a speech in new hampshire by the minnesota governor. after that, an update on the u.s. census count with robert gross. that will be followed by house speaker nancy pelosi signing the health care reconciliation bill. >> arizona senator john mccane

is running for his fifth time holds a rally in mesa, arizona. with him is former alaska governor sarah palin. you can see that event tomorrow at 8:05 p.m. here here on c-span. >> minnesota governor tim pawlenty was in new hampshire thursday to give a speech to members of the manchester public party. he talked about the national debt and his record in minnesota. this is about 45 minutes. >> i will make this as brief as i can but i think everybody has heard enough from me this evening. i was asked to introduce our guest speaker, government tim pawlenty, and i was honored. two months ago i was present with his wife, mary. we probably spent 45 minutes

ago. you can tell that the political season has officially started because we have a governor from another state coming to new hampshire at least twice now. so i think he has heard the rumor that unless people in new hampshire meet you three times, they haven't decided about you. so he has made two wick trips -- quick trims. the governor very quickly puts people at ease when you meet him. you get into a regular conversation, nothing heavy, and he makes you feel very comfortable. he is not the tough, difficult, straight jacket conversation that you sometimes have with politicians. governor pawlenty makes no secrets about it. he is testing the presidential waters.

during our conversation it was clear that he was thinking about this because he loves his country. he believes in a blueprint that our founding fathers laid out. that is very refreshing. governor pawlenty, thank you for being here this evening. and without further day, i am pleased to introduce our very special guest, from minnesota, governor tim pawlenty. [applause] >> thanks a lot. i sure appreciate that. thank you. thank you very much. mayor, thank you for that kind introduction. i enjoyed our meeting as well, and i can tell this you city is in great and capable hand. in just the few months you have

been in office, you have shared with me the great reforms and advances you are making. let's give the mayor a great round of applause for his leadership. >> so my friend cliff. he had a chance to go to his living room and visit with him. i know we have a leader here for the manchester republican whose heart and head is connected. cliff has great values. he has a strong set of beliefs, and he has a gentle and thoughtful way to present them. you are a role model in the way you present yourself. thanks thanks for being such a beacon. it is a lot of work to be the head of a city republican committee and not a lot of glamour involved. let's give cliff a round of applause at well. [applause] >> i have a very special guest

with me tonight, the first lady of minnesota, mary pawlenty, and i am delighted she is with me. [applause] >> i didn't tell her that she was coming up, but maybe she wants to say hello. >> actually i will say a quick thank you to everyone. to a person, everyone we have met in our two visits to new hampshire has been warm, kind and welcoming, and we appreciate it so much. i recognize that many of you do this because it brings you joy, it is fun and with friends. more importantly what you are doing not just for new hampshire but for this country in important times. thank you for being here tonight. i appreciate it. [applause] >> now i am sure with your spouse or significant other, they play a role in keeping you on track and within the guard

rails of life. mary does that for me. i was in the minnesota legislature for 10 years, the last four of year i was the majority leader. i came home after one day, giving thought running for governor. i had decided i was not going to run. i came into the house, and i said honory i have been doing this for 10 years, and i have taken it as far as i can for our state. i think it is time to turn the page now and move on to the next thing in our lives. minnesota is going to have to be ready for the next set of leaders. she came towards me, and with a determined look on her face, and she literally grabbed me by the lapels on my jacket, and she looked into my eyes and said, "you can't quit now. we have taken it this far. the state need you. they need conservative in the state. we are making progress.

you cannot quit now." i am thought i am rocky balboa. this is aid ran. i am sylvester stallone. i was inspired by her comments, and it was a turning point in my decision-making. i said all right, i am going to stay in the for fight, and i am going to run, and we are going to continue to make a difference. i had an up hill battle, and jesse ventura looked like he was going to run again, and he had momentum. minnesota is a very liberal state, and running as a conservative it is a challenge. against all odds i won in 2002. about six months into it, my schedule became an issue at home and there was tension in our family about schedule and dedication to things on the home front, and we had a little argument. i said but honey, don't you

remember that inspiring speech thaw gave me in the entry way? you told me to do this, and it was kind of your encouragement. this was there awkward pause in the discussion, and then she looked up at me and she said, yeah, but i never thought you would win. true story. so there is a lot of people as we look back at the results of 2006 and 2008 elections who had kind of written off republicans and conservative in places like minnesota, the northeast and other parts across the country. they said look, the conservatives' time has past. the sun was setting on the movement. there were commentators saying things like conservatives were bewildered, aimless, that they were confused. they were like barack obama without a teleprompter.

[laughter] more seriously, it has been about 17 months since the infamous wall street bailout. it has been about 12 months since the ridiculous bloated stimulus package. it has been about nine months since the house passed a very miss guided cap and trade proposals. it has been about four days since the congress passed one of the worst pieces of legislation in the modern of -- history of the country in the form of this health care bill they passed four days or so ago. but the good news is this. help is on the way. in about eight months, conservatives all over this country, republicans all over this country are going to get elected, take back the cock and correct the mistakes that this administration and congress have been making. [applause]

>> i want to talk to you tonight about a little different perspective. i want to talk to you tonight about america. not america the piece of geography, this beautiful place that is our country from coast-to-coast and sea to sea. but i want to talk to you about america the set of ideals. america, the place that was founded upon certain principles that our founding fathers thought was important, not as a matter of pop psychology, not emotion or impulse of the moment, but on time-tested principles, based on the history and wisdom of the human experience and the faith and common sense they had in our curator. so they put these glorious thoughts into these document that became the founding document of our nation. they addressed the principles of limited government, and free

market, right to life, service to others, chairity, kindness, and the entrepreneurial spirit and the innovation that comes with freedom when people can think, create, design, innovate, invent and have an economy that provide the jobs and the private sector activity that we need to have a quality of life in new hampshire, minnesota and aacross this country. so i talked to people about the challenge we face now in the united states economically and otherwise, there are a lot of componenting that go into it. belive in the freest and most prosperous nation in the history of the world. it has been a beacon of hope for our citizens for our time and for people across the globe. but our current leadership of this country, the so-call progressives -- now they use that term as if they are forward leaning. they imply that they are progressive, looking into the future. but what they are really doing

is trying to address the 21st century challenges of america from solutions from eastern europe from a century ago, and they don't work. [applause] >> now listen to this. our federal government as we are gathered here tonight in manchester, new hampshire, our federal government owns or controls two car companies, two large car companies, two of the largest in the world. they own or control the nation's largest insurance company. they own or control two of the entities that right now over 80% of all the mortgages in the united states of america. they own or control the entire student loan industry in our country. they own or control wide swaths of the entire banking industry. four days ago they have now

seized a substantial portion and have taken control of the entire health care delivery system in our nation. if they have their way, they are soon going to be taking control or more control over the energy sector with a misguided cap and trade bill. i hope they don't pass it, but they are trying to do that. they are trying to get their fingers furt into control even into k-12 education and take away more of the local control than we appreciate. and of course the list goes on and on. so what could they possibly do for an encore to that is this so the other day i went to look at their platform for the democratic party for our nation. i couldn't understand any of it. i don't speak any french. it didn't dawn on me. you have a country now where the attitude of the governing leadership of this nation is a

federal government over reach to the point they are taking over every day another bit of our freed, of our purenl spirit, responsibility, our faith and values. for people in this room and patriots across this country, it is time to send the same message they sent in the special elections in new jersey last year, the same messages they sent in the leaks in virginia last year, the same message that was sent in the recent massachusetts senate race. and the mental is this. knock it off, stop what you're doing and stop having this government overreach. we have had enough. it is time for those of us in this room and across the nation to push back and take this country back. [applause]

so after all the talk of the 2008 election about hope and change, what we have now are state sponsored companies that are too big to fail. we have a federal government that is too big to succeed. we have a government debt that is too big to pay off. and we have leaders at the federal level who are too small to do anything about it. this cannot stand. now we have a situation where wall street gets walts, the poor get a hand out, and all of you in this room get your wallet out. i think the american people have figured out that formula where big business, big unions and big government are now working in ways that are not in the best interests of the average american and families.

that is why you see this acker, this passion, this call for accountability coming not just from the established parties, but from every day average citizens on the internet, at the town hall, saying we have had enough. so i am delighted to be here with you tonight and send the message that hope is on the way. there is a better way. a lot of attention gets paid to the fact that massachusetts is a very liberal state, and it is. but remember now, i come from minnesota. massachusetts went for ronald reagan. minnesota never went for ronald reagan. i'm not proud of that, but there was one election where ronald reagan won 49 out of 50 states. there was one state he did not win. guess which one it was? minnesota. though some of you may be old

enough to remember eugene mccarthy. from minnesota. hubert humphrey is from minnesota. some of you may remember walter mondale. minnesota. some of you may remember the late mo williams. minnesota. some of you will remember now the current united states senator from minnesota, al franken. so when people talk about the challenges in the northeast, or they talk about the challenges in massachusetts, or they talk about the challenges of the conservative opportunity in the great lakes, the upper midwest or places like that, i know a little bit about that. i ran as a conservative two teams in the state. in 2002, it was pretty touch, and again in 2006. here is what we have done in minnesota.

we have taken the spending curve. from 1960 until i was governor, minnesota's budget either went up on average 21% every two years. we have brought that down now to just about zero, approaching zero. and for the first time in state history, actually cut spending. [applause] now this next one may not seem like a big deal to those in the granite state, but for 30 years governors of both parties in minnesota have said can we threat get this state out of the top 10 in state taxes. 30 years worth of governors. nobody ever did it. we were also first, second or third in taxes. three years ago the federal government has certified we have

moved. we are down to 11 or 12. we are headed in the right direction. we have big reforms in education. we have moved from seniority pay for teachers to performance pay for teachers, demanding accountability for results, not just input. [applause] we are fixing what is for sure a broken health care system, but we are doing that by using market forces and putting individual and their families in charge of health care, not the government. and we are making sure that when the word goes out across the state and country that there needs to be change, we can point to minnesota and say, as frank snaut sang about new york, if we can do it here, we can do it anywhere. i want to leave you with a few principles that i am grounded in. some say i am a tea party conservative, or a reagan conservative or a common sense

conservative. those are all really good words. but i hope we start the discussion with this frame of reference. we should be constitutional conservatives first. [applause] >> i was talking to somebody here earlier at one of the tables who spent a good deal of their time teaching young people about the constitution and have the constitution teach the lessons of today's debates from the eyes, ears and words of the founders as reflected in the documents. it is a powerful experience. and these principles are all just one generation away from being discounted or diminished or forgotten. and those of you who appreciate, respect and defend those principles needs to make sure they are taught, they are role modeled and passed on to the next generation. from that, the common sense

flows, and from my standpoint, a lot of that comes from our family. we learned earlier about shirley. what a great story. i grew up in a meat packing down. her and her parents worked in a rendering plant. in my home town we had the world's largest meat packing plant. my mom was a home maker. she died when i was 15. i was the only one who was able to go to college. my brothers and sisters worked in oil refineries, worked for 40 years in a grocery store. one worked in a public school, another worked as an administrative assistant for 40 years or so. i share that with you because we are all good with the experience, upbringing and the values that we are taught in our

family of origin in our neighbors, communities and schools, and you learn some things along the way. here are a few that i have learned that apply well to the debate going on in our nation. the first one is this. we can't spend more than we have. i remember my mom sitting at the kitchen table. for some people this is a metaphor for me. this was my family. this was my memory. we didn't have a lot of memory. my mom would sit at the kitchen table with the checkbook and fret almost to the point of tears, wondering how we were going to manage cash flow to get the bills paid on time. she would get together everybody and say this is what we can afford. there are some things we can do, and there were some things we can't do. one thing they weren't going to do was go into debt. now we have a federal government

that is so far in debt, that it has put this nation so at risk, at such peril, that they not only endanger our economic security and prosperity, but it has gotten so bad they are now putting at risk our national security. let me give you a couple of numbers. the united states federal government takes in $2.2 trillion in funds in ref flew. last year they spent $2.7 trillion. so they overshot it by $1.6 trillion. you might say wow, that is bad, and it is. some will give them a pass to say it was a historically bad year. if you add up all the years they would need a pass, not just the $1.7 they spent last year. now the national debt is going to be $14 trillion. that is all the annual deficits added up to the debt.

here is the real number. if you look at all of the unfunded liability of the united states federal government, the united states with entitlements, pension and everything they own. and if you caught autopsy the stuff they keep off the books, the unfunded liabilities of the federal government are at least $70 trillion. now if they were a bank and they were aplaying their own rules about excess leverage and reckless finances, they would have to shut themselves down. there is no way you can make those numbers work. this is no longer a matter about being conservative, or liberal, or independent, or green or something else or neither. the trajectory we are now on is a matter of junior high mathematics. a junior high student can look at these numbers and tell you they don't work. so our nation, our beloved united states of america goes

around the world with a continue -- tin cup in its hand and asks places like communist china and middle east sovereign wealth fund to buy our debt. because it is if they don't, we can't pay our bills. the united states is not a beggar nation. we had the secretary of state hillary clinton in china pleading with the chinese to help us pay our debt. there was a concern expressed that there was a report that vladimir putin went from russia to china tried to coordinate an effort for them to pull down their position in the freddie and fannie to destabilize the

american economy. that is the point we have sunk to where we have individual and organizations who do not have our best interests at heart using our addiction to dealt to destabilize this country. that has to change. we need to rise up and say enough. the other principle i want to share with you quickly is this. people spend money differently when some of it is their money. when we talk about the solution, whether it is education, health care or any of these other issues, we have to be about the business of making sure that people have financial incentives to use the system wisely. let me give you one example of many. the health care system is broken. it needs to be reformed, but it needs to be reformed with consumers in the driver's seat. find to you tonight on your way home from this dinner, please start at a minnesota company,

best buy or target and buy any television set you want. don't worry about the price, any quality features that you want, and you send the bill to mary and me at the governor's residence, have it sent directly to the governor's door. how many of you would show up at your door with a 12-inch black and white? not many would. we need to give people the good information about the decisions that they are going to make in health care, and to the extent we can provide it, provide them the health. then we have to let them make the decision and give them the incentive for making the right decision. mississippi state has the highest conlstration of health savings account in the country at nearly 10%, and they work. we said to our state employees recently, look, this system is out of control on price, but who

is going to do this. you can go anywhere you want. but if you go somewhere that is really high in quality, and efficient, you will pay less. if you go somewhere that is not high in quality and is inefficient, you're going to pay more. guess where they go? 90% of them have migrated to higher quality and lower cost programs. it works. [applause] one last thing. i learned this playing a little hockey when i was young. i learned it, and i'm sure you learned it along the way as well. when you're dealing with bullies, whether it is on the hockey rink -- i understand u.m.a. has a big game tomorrow. but bullies respect strength. if you look at the history of

when countries, or organizations try to exploit others, it is always always in the context of exploiting weakness. so as a country we need to project strength in our dealings around the world. we need to make no confusion about the fact about who our enemies and friends are. for example, president bush, george w. bush, went to two of our best alleys in the world, the czech republic and poland. you and i are polish brothers. they asked poland and the czech pep rick to host this. they did it at great peril to themselves. the former prime minister of the czech republic would say he lost his job because he extended his

neck politically when he signed up to host the radar systems. plopped was going to host the missiles. president obama comes into office and says never mind. we are changing our plans and pulling the rug out from underneither you. the lek was quoted in the paper saying you can't trust the united states any more. president obama needs to be less concerned about how popular he is in europe and the meast and focus on whether we are respected around the world and whether the united states of america is secure. [applause] i will close with a quote from the reverend martin luther king, jr.. he said the measure of a person

is not where they stand in times of comfort and privilege, but where they stand in times of challenge and controversy. the question comes to us as the country faces great challenges, where do we stand, and what do we stand for? where do we stand? and what do we stand for? so we live in challenging and controversial times. we have a constitution that is the framing glorious document for this nation that is under assault. our freedoms are under assault. our common sense is under assault. our financial responsibilities to our children and our grandchildren is under assault. and so the question comes. are you ready? are you ready to fight back? are you ready to take this country back? by your presence here tonight you have answered that question. your presence here tonight is enough is enough. we are going to take this

country back. we are going to restore american common sense. we are going to give our children and grandchildren the right to the american dream. we are going to rise up, fight back. we are going to electricity republicans in new hampshire and minnesota and across this country. we are going to get control of the united states congress and once again set this nation on a promising positive course that features a secure, free and prosperous united states of america. got bless you, thank you very much, and have a great rest of the evening. [applause] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> coming up next, an update on the u.s. census count with the census bureau director.

and then house speaker nancy pelosi signs the health care reconciliation bill. after that james reuben, and brandon calvin discuss u.s. foreign policy. >> this weekend on c-span 's book tv. former education secretary bill bennett examines america at the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 212st, he is speaker viewed by the former managing editor of "time" magazine. and throughout the weekend, look for highlights from the virginia festival. find the entire schedule on line at book tv.org. >> and now the latest on the u.s. census count. from "washington journal," this is about 45 minutes. " continues. host: robert groves is the

director of the u.s. census bureau. here is the form that everybody in the united states, every household in the united states, received this -- has everybody in the united states received this form? guest: the vast majority have. many received a bilingual form. because of the two languages, it is a little longer, because it is double in the questions. the vast majority of households should have received these by now. they're a little pockets here and there. there are some roads that are still closed because of snow. there are pockets here and there. and there are little glitches here and there. but the vast majority of people should have this by now. host: is this the only form that has been sent out? guest: there is only a short form. this, indeed, is good news to

the vast majority of people. we have gotten some e-mail's saying, "it was so short. shouldn't you be asking more questions?" but that is the minority, i think. there are only 10 questions here. if you live by yourself. you have seven for each person. a friend of mine called, who lives with his wife, and he said, "you guys are lying. you said it was 10 questions in 10 minutes. it only took us three minutes." so it is pretty short. host: is it required by law to fill this out? guest: it is, and it is not a new idea. the way, way back march 1, 1790, the very first congress, and if you remember your history, a lot of the founding fathers were members of the first congress -- they passed the census act, said we are going to count everybody, counted them where they usually live, that is how

we're going to do it, and we have to make this mandatory. if we are going to be apportioned the house of representatives based on this count, we have to make sure everybody participate spree in 1790, they levied a $20 fine -- make sure everybody participates. in 1790, they levy a $20 fine. in 79 he that was a lot of money. they wanted to -- in 1790 that was a lot of money. they wanted everybody to be part of this. host: what happens if you do not fill out the form? guest: there is a fine. we have learned that emphasizing prosecution does not make for a successful senses. " we try to do is emphasize the benefits of participation. that is your rightful share of political influence, your

representative, and the financial benefits that derive to your community based on proper accounts. host: what is the fine? guest: it depends on whether you refuse to give misleading information. it can be as much as $5,000. -- it depends on whether you refuse or give misleading information. it can be as much as $5,000. host: 10 years ago, did you know if anybody was fine? guest: no. host: if you were a betting man, do you think anybody will we find this year -- be fined this year? guest: if i were a betting man, and know. here is this form. a prepaid envelope. if you fill out this for a drop in the envelope, it is costing the taxpayers 42 cents, roughly.

all of us will pay 42 cents for you to send it back. if you don't do that, by law, since we have to count everyone, we are obliged to hire someone to go to your house at interview you in person. compared to the 42 cents, that is going to cost us taxpayers roughly $60 per household. $60 versus 42 cents. if you bring that up to the aggregate, for every one person in the household that returns it, we saved $85 million nationally. the neat thing about the census is if we don't need the money because people return the forms, we are obliged, and i would be overjoyed to return that money to the treasury, and that would be a great thing. host: what is the budget for the senses this year? guest: roughly $7.2 billion.

host: with a b. guest: in a lot of that is spent for follow-up. we have contingency plans for follow-up if everyone returns the form, we would save $1.5 billion, with a b, dollars that would go back to the treasury. all of us are worried about federal deficits and federal spending. this is one thing we can do individually to attack the deficit. host: 10 i had it to you and save 42 cents -- can and 80 and save 42 cents -- guest: no, i would advise you to put it in the mail, because the postal service is more reliable than i am. host: democrat in san diego, you are on at the line. caller: high. i guess what to say i did receive my for in the mail, i have completed it, and returned it.

we acted the same day we received it. i just want to say thank you for making the forms so easy to complete. it did not take 10 minutes. it took maybe five minutes. or less. but i have only two people in the household. it was very easy. it is not complex. i encourage everyone to please complete the senses. i want to thank you so much for being so thorough in your explanation. all these fiscal conservatives out there, i encourage you to complete it. you just heard the gentleman say how many billion dollars will be safe for the government. host: why do you care so much about the senses? -- census? caller: because of the federal dollars being spent and how it encourages us to be participants in politics. a lot of money goes to help us as individual citizens.

guest: well, first of all, thank you for sending it back. it is great. and if you are sending it back early, it is probably worth talking about. i have gotten a few e-mail's from people who say, "you have asked us to report who lived in my household on april 1, and in the same breath you are saying fill it out immediately. isn't that kind of out of sync? what is this about?" it is a good thing to say why we do that. the vast majority of households will stay with the same membership between now and april 1, and for those people, it makes a lot of sense to fill it in early or like me, and you put things aside, on the desk with a table, you forget to do it entirely. for the household who are anticipating a new baby to be born, and the baby has not come yet, or on the other side of life, there is somebody who may not be with us on april 1, or if

you are planning to move, don't fill it out. but the vast majority of the people to do exactly as you did, filling out early and mail it back and we appreciate it. host: why is it necessary to know ethnicity? guest: good question. we have two questions that are linked. ethnicity, at no. 8, and race, number 9. we think of those as combined. as you know, we have a set of laws, voting rights act, civil rights legislation, that are pertinent to the redistricting process. after we finished our nonpartisan accounting, we give it to the country, a variety of groups, for political uses. you're not a partisan organization -- we are not a partisan organization.

we are not partisan statistical agency. but after we determine how many representatives each state has, states are given the responsibility for drawing the new congressional district boundaries. as you know, those districts are reviewed to make sure that they do not -- that they have not been formed in a way to be unfairly treating certain minority groups. we need those measures to implement those. host: randy in oklahoma, republican. good one. caller: i'm just wondering what they made the census bureau for any way. you have the irs. they know where you are at. guest: great question. as it turns out, the irs has their own -- first of all, we need to note that not everyone files and income tax return. we need to count everyone. for that reason, if we rely only

on tax returns, we underestimate how many people are in the country. ever since 1790, at every 10 years, we have counted everybody in the country, and that in the years when we are not doing this s census, we have other responsibilities. we do thousands of surveys. we provide the kind treat estimates of retail sales every month, housing starts -- we provide the country estimates of retail sales of the month, housing starts, the consumer base information that is important for economic planning in the country. although i must admit i have a conflict of interest, we need a census bureau to produce a lot of other statistical information that the country needs to see how well we are doing. host: next call for dr. robert groves is from south dakota, lowry on the independents' line. caller: good morning. i have a question based on my wife and myself's lifestyle.

we are full time rvers, and vehicles are registered in sioux falls, s.d. and we've got out of south dakota in the presidential elections. currently we are in florida, and my wife picked up the census form, but we noted that they are marketed. we want to make sure that we are counted as two people in sioux falls, s.d. how would you answer my question? guest: great question, first of all. thanks for calling in. it is a great way to educate us all, the efforts we go to to do this. starting on march 19 and going to about april 12, we are actually visiting rv parkes- brier hopefully you have gotten a visitor, if you stay at -- we're actually visiting rv parks. hopefully you of that and a visitor.

you are counted in that park. although in your mind your eight sioux falls resident, following the guidance of the founding fathers, we can people where they usually live -- townspeople with the usually live, or where they are around the april 1 period. those living this life style, and are a lot of them -- i have visited several frv parks over the last few months -- the fact that your wife went out and got a for his great. but have you counted in sioux falls is problematic. host: i never thought of rv as a lifestyle. guest: 0, it is. it is amazing. i went to the texas-mexico border, looking at complicated situations. if you look at google earth on a certain area on the border, you

see a lot of empty places. when i went out there, the were filled with rv's and license plates -- host: those folks get counted down there because they happened to be there on april 1? guest: ideally -- here is the rule we use. we want to catch you were usually live -- how you where you usually live, and that means, for a college student, where you usually live, in the dormitory. there are people who are truly living in multiple places all the time. for them, we say around the april 1 period, we will count you where you are there. in a simple world, if you have someone who has two houses, exactly six months of the year they live in one, and six months of the year in the other, then the notion of the usual residence does not work.

count yourself or you are on april 1. host: what about overseas americans? guest: great question. we do not attempt to measure american citizens who have gone abroad to retire, for example. a lot of people retire in italy. we have -- they have no intention to come back to the united states. they think of themselves as living there, they are expatriates. we do not measure them at all. if you think about this for a minute, attempting to measure all american citizens worldwide is probably done only through a world census, which is an awesome thing to even get your mind around. we do measure some americans abroad. military personnel stationed abroad are counted through a wonderful partnership we have with the department of defense. they use the personnel records to enumerate them, and then assigned those people to a state

based on their home of record. we also do that for the state department and a couple of other federal agencies. host: michigan, republican, thanks for holding. guest: my fraás@ @ @ @

make sure that, basically, at the moment your census form is revealed, you'll probably passed on to another state -- you have probably passed on to another state. it would not surprise me, although as a genealogist i have mixed emotions about this, but it would not surprise me if over the years we will change that to a bigger number, because all of us thankfully are living longer. this form that he mailed in will indeed be captured electronically, an image of this form, it digital images of this form are being captured. your descendants will be able to look at your handwriting on it

is formed. it will not be just a bunch of numbers. they will be able to see your riding, and if you are like me, it is getting that personal insight about your ancestors that is so rewarding as of genealogists. we will do that for them. host: why is it necessary to know somebody's phone number, especially when a lot of people are getting away from land mines? -- landlines? guest: great question. i will give you an example of why we do this. let's say, question one, how many people live in your household, you write three, and then you fill out the form describing characteristics of only two people. an innocent mistake. an e-mail in the form. in our process, we catch that, and we say that it looks like a discrepancy.

there are only two people there, or someone forgot. we will call and say, just did a quality purposes, can we tell you what we're finding, and is this right? after the process, we literally destroy these phone numbers. we are only using them for that kind of follow-up purpose. on question 10, it's as, "does this person sometimes live somewhere else?" we discovered in the 2000 census that we had a double counted a lot of people. that discovery made us very concerned about following a people we might have ended up double counting. host: josh, atlanta, a democrat. caller: good morning. i was going to ask the colleges to in question, like whether i count my family -- the college student question, like whether

i, i, address or college address -- host: did you get one in your door? -- dorm? caller: no, my mother got it back in her house. i am on leave of absence from college anyway. i suppose to be back in the fall. but my college and home or in two different states. i will ask a question about u.s. house redistricting. are there any indications of which states are going to gain house seats and which ones are going to lose house seats? i could you go over the process of that in general -- and could you go over the process of that in general? once the census forms, in the government, it is up to the state legislature to actually write the boundaries? guest: great, great questions. let me say at about college,

though. i cannot resist. i have two college sons. this is a big source of confusion. anything all of us can do to remind college students that the first time they have to step up to the plate and take care of themselves -- if you lived in a dorm, this will start next week. we will pass out individual census reports to students in dorms. this is a great opportunity for the younger generation for the first time to enumerate themselves. parents need to know, don't count the kid in the dorm at home, even though you are paying tuition and doing all the other stuff for the kid. your question on redistricting -- let me tell you something i feel quite passionate about. the census bureau is a non- partisan, independent statistical agency, independent of regulation and independent of

enforcement. there is one thing that i sort of deliberately don't follow as the census bureau director, and that is speculation on what states are going to gain representatives and what don't rea. my job is to count everyone, and to do the counting in a way that is completely non-partisan. we will deliver to the president and to the full society in late december the counts by state, and that will reveal at that moment the gainers and losers of representatives. at the end of march 2011, we will deliver to the states counts way down at the block level to allow them to exercise their legal responsibilities, which is a redistricting. we are not involved in that at all. we provide the information, they do the work. host: a viewer tweets in --

guest: great. great question. i'm surprised she received four, but let me tell you what was done. we sent to almost all households and advance letter. we then sent the package with the questionnaire, just like the one you have today. and then just this week, we sent a little reminder postcard. why do we do this? we do this because research has shown that that advance letter kind of jogs the mind of all of us. we anticipate the receipt of this questionnaire package. the tests that were run over the

decade showed that about five percentage points of a hostile population returned the form -- five percentage points of the household population return the form above the rate. it is a 5 percentage point gain. let's translate that into money. we did indeed, as the tweeter notes, spend money on those mailings, but week shows that they increase the percentage of people who responded of every one percentage point of folks who respond, we save $85 million. five percentage points is about $500 million, and it is even more than that. we did not spend anywhere near $500 million to send out those little advance notice is. for those who are annoyed by it, i apologize, but we save taxpayer money by spending. -- by spending that amount of

money for the mailings. host: if you'd think you of heard of robert groves, it is probably because you have read one of his seven books. chicago, republican, you are on the air. caller: good morning, and i thank you for all the information. my question has been partially answered. t"r 4ñbs1btf residence. i did receive a form at each place, fill it out at the main city because we enjoy chicago. if we fill out both of them, how would you check that problem? guest: what we recommend for people for the second house, a house they do not usually live but sometimes live, is to market zero on the number of people and sent it back. we will follow up a sample of houses for these kinds of

checks. we will do checks for duplicates in various ways. we are concerned about the duplication problem, because, as i said earlier, it was one of the findings of 2000 that we can do better on. we will try to check on those three innocent mistakes can be made. we do checks -- we will try to check on those. innocent mistakes can be made. we will do checks on those. hopefully, on question 10, when you fill out the form in your usual residents, you noted that sometimes you live elsewhere, in the other house, and that will be a flag for us to make sure we check. great question. host: south carolina, good morning. caller: can you hear me ok? host: please go ahead. caller: if you do your history, like this is indicating, the only right you have is to know how many people live in a home.

you'd have no legal right to ask the phone numbers or anything else. when you come to my door, i will invoke my miranda rights, which is legal to do -- host: why would you do that? what is your hesitation about sharing information? caller: i get all my infowars -- i know what i get all my news -- i get all my news from infowars.com and i know what the government is up to. guest: we should all go back to article 1, section 2 of the constitution. there is indeed a line that says there will be an actual enumeration of the population every 10 years, and then there is a comma, and then there is at very important clause, which says, "in a matter that congress shall by law so direct." the constitutional rights of the senses -- census, the

responsibility of the census, is given to the congress to direct. let's go back to the very roots of the country, when there were rus4?r]$sd2 -- justice, state, treasury, and ;ya2sú;vq the smallest federal government we ever had. congress said, but what we will specify in the constitution out the census will be done. "we will collect name, age, race, and sex." it is crystal clear that the intent of the founding fathers, since many of them were members of the first congress, if you read your history -- it is clear

that they viewed this as more than just a count of people in the household, because they did have other attributes, and if you examine the 2010 census form, it is the closest to the 17 at 90 census form in our lifetime. we go way back to the constitution for this. host: which missing piece of information will trigger a visit? name, phone number, ethnicity? guest: it is a complicated algorithm, but i can say, to the last caller, you only report the number of people in the household, that we must under eligible to go to your household and visit you and collect the in -- for my under law go to your household and visit you and collect the information. under current regulations, the topics included in the 2010 census -- in 2008, we delivered

the exact wording of the question. we are following in the footsteps of the constitution, how congress has directed us to do that, and we will go back on this just answering number of people. host: what is the situation in kentucky with the census worker? guest: this was a man who was working on one of our sample surveys at the time. an absolute tragedy, a human tragedy, and thereby a tragedy for our institution. the final judgment of the state police, working along with the fbi, is the man, as you know, found hanging in the forest -- host: a census worker. guest: it is pretty clear that that day he was working on census activities. the judgment of state police was

that this was a suicide, and that, indeed, at the appearance that this was an act of hostility towards the federal government part of an act of deception on his part. their interpretation was that this was actually his final act

this information? guest: we don't ask your social security number. we don't have your social security number. more fundamentally, we don't know if anyone lives and your address. we don't know anything about you except your address. if you check, one e-mail you something, we may lead to a -- the address went week -- what we mail you something, we mailed to the address. if you notice what we ask, we ask for each person's name, age, sex, race, ethnicity, and whether they live somewhere else. we don't ask social security numbers, we don't ask income, we don't ask citizenship or documentation status. all of the things that may make some people uncomfortable or gone from this form. host: you talk about citizenship. joe tweets in --

guest: let me speak to that. as i said, i think, already, the job the census bureau is to execute the laws specified by congresses over past years on how the census is to be done. we must follow the law. what is the law with regard to this? well, it was clear the way back in '79 be that everyone was counted, citizens -- in 1790 that everyone is counted, citizens are not. the 14th amendment makes absolutely explicit, -- citizens or not. the 14th amendment makes this absolutely explicit. since 79 become everyone in the country -- uncounted since

1790, everyone in that country has been counted. i view this as a healthy discussion. the fact that we have different viewpoints on this is a good thing to talk about. the law is absolutely crystal clear on what we as the census bureau must do, and it turns out that there is nothing new here. we have done it this way -- this is the 23rd census that we've come together to do. host: anna, you are on with robert groves of the census bureau. caller: this is the first time in my 72 and a half years on earth where and i said in a card with the census bureau being that large. i am black. i did not appreciate the black, afro-american, and negro.

that goes back to when i was living in tennessee. i do not like that. that is out of character. it hurt my feelings. that to me is a racist. guest: first of all, let me apologize to you on behalf of all my colleagues. i need to tell you why that word is there. it takes a couple of minutes. before the 2000 census, there was a lot of research done on how to ask grace, and some of the research was set up to -- ask race, and some of the research was set up to not give categories at all. we would say to tell us what word they would call themselves in racial terms. the result of the research was that there was an older cohort of african-americans who come in that research, for release said,

"i would think of myself as a negro." the results of the research produced the wording of the questionnaire, which is exactly what you see here. there is one other thing we need to know. about 56,000 people in the 2000 census, in addition to checking the box, one to blow -- went below and wrote the word "negro ." when you analyze the characteristics of those people, about half of them were less than 45 years of age. this was a big surprise. those were the results of the 2000 census. now, i have noted this already. i think in retrospect we should have done some of the same research this decade. it was not done. there was focus on other attributes of this. the intent of every word on at

the race and ethnicity question is to be as inclusive as possible, so that all of us can see a word here that rings a bell for us, that is how i think of myself. it was not to be offensive, and again, i apologize on that. my speculation is that in 2020, that will disappear, and there will be other words that will change. our language about race and ethnicity is under constant flux. it's a challenge for us to keep in tune with that dynamic nature, but we need to do it. host: why this question eight specifically about hispanic origin -- guest: great question. we have questions on ethnicity and race. we discovered any research -- in research, and people around the country have been doing this research -- if you embed hispanic as a racial category, one way of doing that in past

years, there are hispanics to say -- who say "i have a problem in answering that question," because there are white hispanic and black hispanic the separation of ethnicity and race was to get a better measurement of that. both white hispanics and black hispanics sought places for themselves. host: robert, hi cal. caller: i am a conservative republican, and the only question i answered on the question is how many people live in the household. the rest of the questions are unconstitutional. host: we just heard from him on that one. if that is all you answer, you will get a visit to your house. caller: i will exercise my moran rights as well, as the previous caller got -- my miranda rights

as well, as the previous caller have claimed, because these questions on race and ethnicity are clearly a move on the current congress, and the census is a lap dog to continue to show how many people are here illegally, so that they can redistrict in that manner. it is just not right. guest: for everyone who feels that, i urge you -- a lot of my friends, we have had discussions about this. i urge you to take a minute to go back to the constitutional rights. read the first census act, read the discussions of the clause in the constitution. and then you have to somehow deal with the fact that the very first congress said, "we are going to measure h common name

-- the very first congress said we are going to measure h, name, and sex. that was the will of the congress the very moment this wonderful mission was founded. you have to think about what that implies about your behavior on at this questionnaire. host: west milford, connecticut, in the end line. -- independent line. caller: my question concerns basically the grendell guarantee that you have -- , forthe gran ularity you have, for agents in particular. the different -- for asians in particular. the different categories you have, and compare that to the selections for whites. whites have a far greater granularity, even among

religion, where a jewish people who are considered as white would consider among themselves as a different group. why are you not going for that kind of granularity? guest: great question. let me comment on a series of questions. this discussion has gone on in the country about race and ethnicity measurement on the census for decades. this uniquely american. -- it is uniquely american but we are constantly and dynamically changing racial and ethnic compositions. the process by which these questions are constructed is one that is renewed every decade. indeed, there is a process by which we oppose this census -- we post this census that will

pay attention to distributions. we pay attention to what people write in for race and ethnicity that is not part of the check box category. there is an attempt to have as jack boxes those -- as check bo xes those that are most prevalent in the country. there is a premium onin this -- premium on space in this form. this is an attempt to make a compromise. race, as you think about it, we separate conceptually from country of origin. there are other measurements were we ask, where are you bored, what are your ancestors, and that is as -- a little bit where are you -- where are you

born, who are your ancestors, and that is a little bit different from grace. -- race. host: one or two more calls. michigan, please go ahead. it helps if i push the button, right? please go ahead. caller: i live in traverse city, the guests home state. the question i have for you is this -- the office they chose to do their census from was a prime piece of property. it used to belong to a member of the new york stock exchange. they came to the building and a ripped out all the old furniture and carpeting and doors and windows. in fact, i was one of the few people going down by the doctor every day to try to get carpeting. it was brand new -- stuff down by h -- down by the dumpster

every day to get carpeting. it was brand new stuff. host: okay, we got that point. caller: well, the the question i have is that he is talking about how he will save us money with a 45-cent stamp, and then they are taking a short-term leap in doing all this work to satisfy the government. guest: i think i get the point. i must admit, i don't know the particular case, so let me act on what you have been saying. i can tell you how we do this. we, as most federal agencies do, acquire space, especially rental space, through the services of ananother federal agency, nationally clued into the markets. they act as our agents in

seeking bids for space and having -- i don't know this case. i visit a lot of offices around the country, and i can tell you that they are not plush affairs. in my personal opinion, we have to have chairs to sit on while people work, and computer systems, but most of these spaces are fairly modest. host: robert groves is the director of the u.s. census bureau. delaware, we may have time for this call. caller: a lot of people viewed the census data with suspicion. why are there some questions about hispanics? thank you. -- so many questions about hispanics? thank you. guest: americans are a feisty lot, and there are

controversies about the census that go back forever. i have old newspaper stories from the 1800's were people were worried about this. i think it is just part of our nature to be a little bit suspicious of government. to those people suspicious, i remind them that this is a constitutional thing. i have forgotten the second question. i'm sorry. host: the hispanic -- guest:

>> "washington journal" continues. host: on your screen is judy feder from the center of american progress. we will continue to talk about health care reform and health care costs. this morning in "the new york times" the top republican in that house budget committee, paul ryan, writes, fix health reform and repeal it, but in his op-ed he writes --

does the health care bill that passed, in your view, have cost containment efforts in a? guest: it does. the health reform bill that is now law is looking at guaranteeing health insurance coverage for all americans, so securing good, strong protections, getting rid of insurance abuses so that we really can count on health insurance and health care when we needed, and slowed the growth in health-care costs. the law is replete with measures to move in that direction. host:? guest: such as? they look at what they are paying for health insurance and health care. we want to recognize that small businesses and individuals will get help paying for health care, as expensive as it is today. to bring the cost down for

everybody, there are a couple of different places to look in the legislation. one is the creation of insurance exchanges, which are going to be places outside of the work place for americans don't get coverage through their jobs, where insurers -- excuse me, people will be able to choose among private insurance plans in a much more efficient way than they do now. so, dramatically lowering what our administrative costs that are tied to the selling of insurance policies to small businesses -- each -- host: can you explain how that lowers cost? guest: anyone who runs a small business and has to shop for coverage outside of the workplace know how expensive the policies are and individual companies are marketing to specific individuals having to sell -- or selling to you. that is an expensive way to sell a product. so this is a central place where

people can shop. host: would be able to sell over state lines also reduce costs? guest: i think the real issue is not so much that as a setting up new rules or marking -- marketplaces or shopping places. there are provisions in the bill, despite what critics say, that do allow selling across state lines, but far more important is the changing of the marketing, making it a more convenient come easier place. businesses and small businesses for years say they want to be able to get health insurance without the administrative -- and this does that for small businesses and individuals. the third piece of getting costs under control is changing the way we pay for and deliver medical care. i think all of us have the experience of being bounced around from doctor to doctor, with lots of repeats of

unnecessary tests, with our dr. not knowing who can help us what we are managing a chronic homeless that requires multiple doctors, that our doctors are more willing to send us for tests than spend time with us. what we need to get the change back is to stop doing as much paying as we do for the medical services on a piecemeal basis, a fee-for-service, which really rewards providers for more services they provide. and instead, moved to rewarding them for providing us quality care that promotes health. that is fancy language. and moving to those arrangements requires different kinds of payment mechanisms. and what is being talked about and put in motion is what is called bundling services. so when you go to the hospital for a heart condition, you will be paid -- excuse me, the people who take care of you will be

paid for taking care of heart conditions of the payment will be made to the hospital, the physicians and post hospital care providers. host: in one lump sum, and a sense. guest: that's right. or targets will be set and they will get a share of savings when they do it more efficiently than in the past. host: so this is a case for, -- where, for example, the heart doctor will have to contract with the hospital? guest: the specific arrangements will vary, whether they will be contracts of the pair will handle -- let -- that is yet to be defined. it a lot will begin with medicare. it is medicare that is required to change the way they do payments. as well as to experiment with new arrangements of this kind. what we know from past experience over the last couple of decades is when medicare leads on payment reform, the

private sector follows, and we have tremendous -- we know inefficiency in the health-care system, through the use of in the region technology so that we can make sure the dollars are being used the way we want them to be used in patient care and in getting better care. that needs to be there. along with the research on what works and what doesn't, so that our practitioners are best and forms and can decide with us, with the patients, that nobody is between the patients and the doctor in this legislation, and this bill, in this law. host: we have the numbers up on the screen if you want to talk to judy feder about health care costs. if you want to send a tweet --

c-spanwj is the address. one of the issues we have seen headlines about, there have been headlines that say medicare cuts. is medicare being cut? guest: what is being cut is excessive growth in payments. host: who defines excessive? guest: what we look at is a reasonable amount to be paid to make sure we are getting access to care. what we know in medicare is although there are pockets where, in some places, people have had some difficulty getting an appointment with the doctor -- although no more difficult that we find in private insurance -- we know from budget -- from but government accounting office and congressional budget office, medicare generally gets us access to care as we needed, it is a good, strong program.

we don't want to pay more than we have to to get the access. what has happened is to slow the increases -- future increases in payments to hospitals, nursing homes, to home health providers. this has not affected doctors. primary-care doctors and the titular will get more under the medicare bill. -- particularly will get more under the medicare bill. the other is growth reductions and actually changes in payments have been made in what is called medicare advantage plan. those are the private plans that medicare beneficiaries can choose to enroll in and get not only the guaranteed benefits in medicare but sometimes some extra benefits. when you ask what is defined as over payment, the medicare payments advisory committee has found that those plans are overpaid by at least -- i should say on average, 14%, paying 14% more for an individual in and

medicare advantage plan that an individual with similar characteristics in traditional medicare. everybody pays extra when that happens because the low premiums go up for everybody. that is not acceptable. so there are changes in payments and there will be reductions in payments for those plans. host: but this strength in the medicare payment advisor committee? guest: what it does is create a new body, an independent payment review board, that is actually authorized to not only examine the medicare program, but when it makes recommendations for changes to make it more efficient, to have them go through the congress on an expedited basis. that is strong support for being able to move, as i said, to change the payment system to overcome the resistance that sometimes members of congress

succumbed to when there are some stakeholders who don't want to make change. so that will strengthen the system. and it also has the authority not to make binding recommendations but to look also at private health care costs because the truth is, everybody is buying in the same health care market and we don't squeeze medicare while costs go up every place else. that will not work and it hurts medicare beneficiaries. we need to make the whole system more efficient. host: finally, before we go to calls, during the clinton administration efforts to reform the -- health care system, you were principal deputy assistant secretary for health and human services. looking back at your experience there and seeing what happened here, what is the difference? is the difference is now we have a law that will ensure coverage for everyone. host: why did it happen now? guest: uighur and see from this time that it is tough.

we tried 15 years ago and we did not do as good a job of getting what we need to do to get this to work for american people and making sure that everybody was on board. and i think what happened in the last 15 years is that things have only gotten worse. that people have come to recognize that it is the status quo we cannot afford and that we need to have the changes that we just enacted. last time the stakeholders were able to scare people into believing that change was worse than reform and with this we finally have the changes that we need. host: judy feder is our guest, center for american progress, senior fellow. besides serving as health and human services department, she was the dean of the georgetown public policy institute for about nine years. clifton park, new york, on our democrats line, mark, go ahead with your question about health care costs.

caller: i am very concerned about the costs of health care. what i see as a big issue is the administrative cost. health care, we spend about $4 trillion and 33% is administrative costs compared to other countries to manage 6% to 8%. host: where did you get the 33% figure? from caller: just listening to c-span and watching the news. that is the figure that i have heard often. now, to me, that is why i supported the single payer system. i thought that would be the most efficient way to reduce those administrative costs. guest: i appreciate your concerns and you are correct that we spend more than other countries on administrative costs and health care costs. not getting value for the dollar. let me tell you what the new law will do for administrative costs. as i said earlier, it is going

to enable small businesses and individuals to pay administrative costs on a level on par with big businesses. the biggest costs, when you are talking about 30%, that is happening for small businesses and individuals. we are going to bring those way down. there are also provisions in the law that set limits on administrative cost essentially in private health insurance plans. they do that by establishing what are called medical loss ratios, which is funny language, but it is a technical term for what insurance pays out in health care benefits. and these requirements are to be essentially minimize what insurers can keep in administrative costs and profits. so we are moving in precisely the direction. perhaps not all the way as fast as you would like us to but that is exactly where this lot is taking us.

. v the defense of practice

medicine, are the primary drivers of health care costs. what i believe it is, while i recognize dr.'s concerns in many areas that we have. in many places, doctors are unable to practice because they are concerned about liability, so we need protections for them. i believe the evidence tells us the most important element to bring down health-care costs has to do with changing the plan that we pay and deliver health care, and changing those incentives, holding our providers accountable for quality care. that is the fundamental protection for people.

caps on damages do not do that. host:, from tennessee. you our next -- tom from tennessee. you are next. caller: i read in the newspaper that people will be losing their prescription coverage. i am a gm retiree. i have been losing one thing after another. my retirement checks are getting smaller and smaller. what about dulles on prescription drugs? guest: i saw that charge, but i cannot answer that definitively for you today. when i can tell you is what is happening in this legislation is the medicare drug prescription

coverage is being strengthened. we know there is a gap known as the double -- donut hole, but after a certain amount of spending, the funding is appears. only after you pay a certain amount, does it come back. right now there is a rebate for those people who are in the doughnut hole, but that will be closed in the coming years. as for the coverage you get from your employer, that has not been eliminated. i have seen the charge. i believe the prescription drug coverage is secure, but all i am sorry, i cannot clear that up for you now. you have my information, and i've been happy to look into it. keep in touch.

host: the website is aei.org. clinton township, michigan. dave. caller: regarding tort reform, that is one of the biggest pieces of misinformation that has been coming out. all the evidence tells us that tort reform is one of the minor factors for the rise in health care. the senate did a study in 2006, i think, and they concluded that there were 12 regions, and tort reform was near the bottom. quite surprisingly, it is being

talked about so much. the real problem is insurance company is charging too much by doctors. what is important here is the power and influence of insurance companies. they take 30 cents from every dollar. guest: i appreciate your comments on toward reform, malpractice. you are right, those claims are gross exaggerated. although i do understand many dr.'s concerns about the cost of insurance, fear of liability. you are right, that is not what is driving health care costs. what is driving up costs is the payment and delivery system in

place right now without bringing us positive benefits. what we need to do is provide information and order for treating affectively. to the process of private insurance, i think you may have an exaggerated just a bit. in this law, we are holding insurance companies accountable for spending the money that we give them on health care, not in administrative costs, not in profits. we are making rules to end the discrimination that insurance companies now operate with which discriminates against us based on our health status or condition. now the rules are you cannot pull back benefits just when we

need them. you cannot put lifetime limits on me which means that we run of coverage. and we are going to end, as this law goes into effect, we are going to make it so that everyone gets coverage, regardless of your status. we need health insurance to be there for all of us. host: josh crawford tweets in -- guest: high-risk pools are an interim measure that is creating a place where people who are denied coverage, cannot get coverage because they have a pre-existing condition, that is a place they can go to get

coverage with greater protections. it is meant to be an interim stop gap measure as the new rules go into effect. by 2014, there monday and end to discrimination. one of the reasons we are requiring people to buy insurance is because a market cannot work unless people -- if people are waiting to get insurance until they are sick. we need everyone contributing. at that point, everyone can have insurance without worries of premium skyrocketing. host: jeff in parkersburg, north carolina. caller: i am with champis.

i have been there since i retired from the military. i have seen how the payments are made -- from looking at my bills. host: what is your question? caller: i have three questions. host: make them quick. caller: the cost of insurance, yes, it needs to be handled. but when you go to the hospital and you were charged $2,500 for 15 minutes worked before you have an operation. also, seniors with vision care, it has been said that division will not be cut.

you say that it is not. the american people would be more behind this if everything was in the open before they decided to do things on capitol hill. the people understand what is going on. i watch this show every morning. guest: i think you reflect some misinformation about what this law will do. as well, a famous statement about the way that the process is developed. you can go to website, like ours -- the kaiser family foundation also has an excellent description. committees in and congress have in on their website. there are clear descriptions. health insurance is complicated.

we all know that. that is one of the reasons we need this law, to make it more transparent. i think you got misinformation and i encourage you to go to the website to clear that up. host: specifically, vision? guest: medicare is not a guaranteed benefit -- vision is not a guaranteed benefit currently in medicare. most of those plans were overpaid in the past. some of that does go to a new benefits. payment will be brought into line, but what happens with the benefits is still uncertain. the key is that medicare itself

is being strengthened. host: so those on the medicare advantage could be losing their plan? guest: every year, the plans decide what they will offer. that is always an uncertainty for those recipients. we are requiring those plans to minimize what they spend on administration, and maximize what they spend on benefits. host: next phone call for an judy feder from minnesota. caller: c-span is the best money out of my cable bill.

i am a healthy 72-year-old female. i have medicare blue ppo. every time i go to the doctor, i have to pay $25 or something. hawaii have been happy with it. i do not mind paying, probably because i am happy. it is a combination of health insurance and prescription drug. i have heard that i will be switched to medicaid because my income is so low. it is less than $19,000 a year. host: is that social security? call, yes. i do have an ira that i can draw

down from, if i absolutely need to. i heard from the news that if you make $19,000 or less or something like that, that you will be switched to medicaid. is that true? guest: no, you will remain in medicaid beneficiary, and it will get stronger with this law. you may have heard on the news, which is happening for people under the age of 65 who are not eligible for medicare, medicaid is being extended to many people move were previously not eligible to it, not to everyone with an income 133% below poverty.

this is a new benefit, looking at people under the age of 65. do not let someone tell you that someone is taking away your medicare. paying a somewhat higher health

insurance tax, paying it on full income, not just on wages. host: next phone call from new hampshire. can -- kenneth. caller: my question, children over 18 years old are allowed to stay on their parents' health care. i wonder about the circumstances of that. if the child has already left that health care policy, are they able to return? if they are 19 and they have been off for one year, are they able to be reinstated? guest: as i understand it, that is part of what this law is aiming to correct.

my understanding -- i would urge you to permidouble check -- butf that child could stay on, they would be able to stay on until the age of 26. host: next phone call. caller: i want to be respectful, and did not take it personal, but i do not believe a word that you are saying, especially coming from a democrat from aei. host: we got your point. can you give one specific that would support what you are saying? caller: if my wife had brought in money for 10 years, we would still be married. we are going to pay for things for four years before we see benefits?

host: when it comes to this legislation, does it pay for itself over years, or do new funding mechanisms need to come in place over the coming years? guest: not only was he calling me a liar, but he was calling the cbo this contest. they are the independent farmer -- arbitor. actually, it reduces the deficit over the first few years and even more so in the second decade. a key piece is in the point that the spending -- the bulk of the spending does not occur for the first four years. spending begins primarily in

2014 when affordability subsidies kick into play. host: as someone who has been around public health care debates, do you foresee changes in the legislation, such as the change made to medicare part b to close the doughnut hole? guest: this is a big piece of legislation with lots of moving parts. i have been working on this for 35 years, hence my enthusiasm to have been moving forward. it is complicated. there is no government takeover but we are making new rules that affect the overall health care system. i believe it is our job to learn as we work. in that sense, we will see changes. you alluded to improvements,

where benefits are perhaps less than me when led them to the in termof what we will like them to the. we will make improvements as we need to as well over time. host: you got your bachelors at brandeis, your a graduate from harvard. how did you get involved in public or? guest: doing my dissertation in political science, i got involved in medicare law. i started my dissertation in 1972. i was interested to see where that money was going. i was interested to see how the rules were being made on payment in medicare. i was concerned we were not

doing a good enough job controlling costs, making sure the money was going to our benefits. i started that in 1972. i am still a professor at georgetown university. host: dr. feder, two questions. how many changes have been made to the 1969 medicare program by then? guest: my recollection is not much had changed by 1972. it was shortly after the end -- 71973, 1974 -- when seniors with disabilities started to become eligible. some medicare provisions were

also enacted at the same time. there was a concern from the beginning about controlling health-care costs. if anything, medicare has been more effective in controlling costs compared to the private sector. host: second question, what kind of media attention was given to health care passage in 1965? guest: the debate was comparable in that the charges were that socialized medicine would destroy life as we knew it. in return the u.s. into russia, which was a communist country back then. of course, we know how incredibly successful medicare has been granting access to seniors and disabled beneficiaries. the same kinds of nonsense, and-

of-the world claims were also made. we need this just as badly now. medicare was meant to be the next step beyond social security, getting seniors coverage. proponents wanted to get everyone covered. it has taken a hell of a long time, but this week, we are on the path to doing that. host: next phone call. caller: you and mr. podesta are doing a fine job. guest: thank you. i will tell him. caller: a question on the $100 million paid out by insurance companies? guest: i don't recall the exact magnitude, but the insurance

association did contribute to essentially kill the bill. caller: that comes from the reserves from insurance companies to pay out of their claims, is that correct? guest: you think insurance companies should be using their money to deliver health care and not to lobby against efforts to move us in that direction. i am with you on that. host: madison, ohio. republican line. caller: i have a few mena -- humana. will that be taken away from me? i also hear that medicare payments will be raised.

guest: let me be clear. the law is not making those changes to the medicare benefit that i think you are concerned about. i do not know your particular circumstances. that will be a function of what the insurance lobby. there will be some changes to medicare advantage plans because currently, they are being overpaid. all medicare beneficiaries are paying more because of that. there may be some changes, but nobody is taking anything away. host: a tweet from sandra -- guest: what we have seen -- the

dramatic evidence of thof meetig thineeding this -- just look atw i rate increase in california. what we are going to have to do is to watch insurance companies like hawks. we do not have all the authorities in place for a while to make changes. i think we will see claims that this law will be raising premiums, but that is nonsense. we will not have made all the changes that we need to to get the health insurance costs under control. host: a little rock, arkansas.

catherine. go ahead. caller: i had so much respect for you. guest: thank you. caller: i am a registered nurse in arkansas. i am also of disabled and on medicare, under the age of 65. i have been in the doughnut hole. what about dentistry? i have lupus. what about dental care for someone like me whose condition can be terribly affected without proper dental care? guest: i have respect for you and what you do, and thank you for the question. dental care is not to debate covered by a lot of health insurance plans, i think in employer-sponsored plans, you will continue to see that.

specific benefits that are guaranteed in the exchange, those will be determined by the department of health and human services based on advice from an independent body. i will be honest with you. although this is incredibly in valuable insurance with a range of benefit to be protected, i am not sure if the dental coverage will be considered what is in the essential package. whether we will see improvements over time, my hope is as we make health care more efficient and affordable, we will be able to get more comprehensive protection. i wish i could tell you that we could make everything perfect, but i think we are going to find some limitations as we go forward.

host: what is the process for not including dental and vision in medicare coverage? guest: i think the benefit package -- perhaps a speciaespey in medicare -- dental was never covered. thinking back to past administrations, they put four pieces of legislation that would only cover hospital care. so there have been improvements in benefits over years, as we see in preventive services. but the package has not been completed. some of the thinking is we

should be covering some of the more expensive things. however, we know that dental services can become as expensive as medical services. there was the idea that you cannot we do not need to cover everything. i think now we are seeing that, ideally, it is part of the full range of services that we need. host: competition as a means to contain costs. what does that mean? guest: markets where people will be able to go, as federal employees are able to do. we have it the choice of plans that are transparent and understandable as to what is available at what price. it helps consumers choose a package that works best for

them and helps keep costs under control. although the primary problem here is the way that we are paying for and delivering care. our costs are going up just like everyone else, but under these new arrangements, it is part off an arsenal of tools @@@@@@@@@a@@@@@@@@@

.

and has covered major international events ranging from watergate to september 11th. he currently serves as the anchor of "wide angle," and is the walter cronkite professor of journalism at arizona university pl.

please join me in welcoming aaron brown. >> it is great to be here. i wish the weather had been better. i think in a time when public discourse is about the loudest voices not necessarily the most intelligent. the work of the institute is putting that notion on its head. thank you for allowing us to be here and also for your participation.

looking out 10 years, who will lead the world? it seems to me that governments operate in their own self- interest. the chinese work with sudan and are for. the israelis do. they build settlements and announce it in the vice president is there. is this whole notion of leading the world is a bit like herding cats? >> [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute] . it is time to look to our own infrastructure and economy and our own problems and put aside a little bit of the extreme focus on the rest of the world that occurs and as evidenced by the

wars in iraq and afghanistan. there are some who believe that the u.s. has the largest military power and they can make decisions by itself and force them on others. and i tend to be in the middle. i think that there is an international system. i think that we build our own economy and our own infrastructure. when things need to be done in the world and making sure that afghanistan will never again be a home for a terrorist organizations. there is the slaughter of bosnians in sarajevo. there is only one country which is indispensable and that is the united states. we don't need to ram things

down other's throats but as the only truly global power, we have an interest in an international system functioning. the hard part is enforcing those rules and the difficult cases. in those cases, countries like china, brazil, others step aside and let other people take care of it and worry about their narrow interests. we have a global interests. we have helped to create global institutions. we were smart enough to know that if they work well, they will help the world to function. that means international agreements on human rights. those are good things for the united states. that is why we are unique. that is why we have an interest in the system.

as strong as china may become economically, i don't think that they will have a global role militarily to. >> what does that mean to lead the world? >> he said that we are indispensable. it is important that we not believe our own press in that sense. >> if we act in a way that we believe that we are indispensable, we don't put forth the critical work. i learned everything that i needed to know about it, see in the third grade.

do you remember the overlapping circles? every country acts in its own self interest. i was asked to go to saudi arabia in a very difficult time in our relationship on counter- terrorism. there had been a bombing on a compound on saudi arabian soil. you can imagine i was a little reticent being a sign with this important task. what you realize that i was not going to ask them to take this issue seriously. the trick was to understand how to convince them it was important to them and to convince them to act in their own self interest. i used to tell young diplomats that you need to put your elbows on each side and pushed out.

the whole point of diplomacy and partnership is finding that space where your self interests aligned and then growing that. >> i don't want to spend much time looking backwards. how successful what do you think the administration you left was in the defining leadership in the way, of explaining to people that it is in your self-interest. were you successful? >> there were a number of instances where we work. saudi arabia was one of them. yemen has been an inconsistent partner. there was times we were able to convince the government. afghanistan might be the best example. look at all the nations

represented, whether they are supported by military assets or economic assistance. that really is an international effort. we need an international partnership and that was the government. >> you talked about afghanistan briefly. someone has to make sure that al qaeda is taken care of. don't you think we would -- do you think that we would be there if it was not for the attack on 911? >> absolutely not. there was a time that the muslim which had been that we supported and they threw the russians out. we ignored afghanistan. that was a mistake. that turned out to be a bigger mistake than anyone imagined. most if not all of the major

terrorist acts we have seen in the western world over the past several years, some way or another can be brought back to that area where afghanistan and pakistan meet. there have been attacks in bali and in east africa. there have been attacks in madrid and london it is not any longer a question of the united states. she did not mention iraq. there's a good reason she did not mention iraq. when i listed the three groups, i was talking politely but i guess i don't have to do that anymore. when the united states declared its right to attack other countries preemptively and when the united states removed itself

from participation of any number of treaties and refused to engage on climate change around the world. then they alienated a number of countries in europe have to the point where our closest allies. the prime minister of spain said that if we are going to get support around the world, we need more power and last rumsfeld. is it is very unusual for our friends to start picking and choosing officials. they came into the office at a time where the u.s. finding partnerships was at an all-time low. we can be partners, we have to return to partnership. let's not get to the point where we don't remember that the u.s.

is unique and have in global interest economically and politically in asia, in the middle east. yes, we will be partnered. at the end of the day, there is one partner, whatever you want to call it, whatever it is, it comes back to us. i hope that we don't forget that as we switch from ramming everything down everyone's throats to becoming partners. >> what is the best we can hope for in iraq? it 10 years out, where will we be? what is the best that we can

hope for? >> a government that can help its people. remember where we started in terms of women's rights under the taliban. it has to be a government that can deliver services, competent, not corrupt, transparent. it has to be a functioning government internally and externally. that is a tall order. the president articulated our first and most important objective in terms of our interest in afghanistan is to insure that that territory is not used to launch attacks of the united states. when you say tang years out, what should be the goal in terms of what we leave of mind?

a country that can govern its own people. >> the country has been at war since 911. do you think that the country will sustain the kind of cost that the afghanistan that uc would lead to? >> this is a tall order. the current governor of afghanistan -- government of afghanistan, it andy card to look beyond general mccrystal has put the emphasis on the counter insurgency.

and did i think it is possible. this takes an investment. we have to become basrah have to be careful not to become the victims of our own success. is easy to match and thus losing the will to complete what we have begun. the importance of it cannot be lost. when you think about losing 3000 americans, the cost is so devastating that we lose our well that the balance of the american people will lose their will. >> it seems to me that you're talking about two different solutions. there is a near-term solution which is to take out al qaeda as best you can, take out the taliban or draw them into the

government so they aren't killing people. then there is the functioning of the terrific government that is not corrupt, not dealing drugs and seems almost too serious. hey, crazier things have happened in the world. what is the best that you think we can expect for afghanistan? >> we can have expectations in the realm of hope or we can have what we would predict. i think that they are different things. having invested thousands of soldiers and hundreds of billions of dollars and the time that a few more years takes place in afghanistan. . .

they were fighting others themselves, and they have been engaged in this for roughly 30 or 40 years. but i do think we should set high standards, high expeck takeses. i think it is important if we're going to participate and get nato countries to participate to say that we don't want to see

the government that's left abusing the human rights of its citizens or half its population wearing a burkia and never going to school. i think that is right to aspire to. but at the same time government, actual decision making from the president on down, has to be mirroring these principles with pragmatism and howl -- how long will the american people tolerate american forces in afghanistan? i don't think either of us know but i think both of us would like it to be longer than the polling data indicates. i think that will be a point of reminding the american people and the world why we're there, it will require some big-time leadership from our president, our congress, to remember. we have short memories in this society, the 24-hour news media.

we have already forgot yep about the earthquake in haiti. it is going to require a major, persist yept, determined educational task to remind people of what fran was talking about. otherwise, i think we'll probably leave quicker than we should and perhaps leave just a few short months or years before we might have provided something that we could be more proud of. could more proud of. >> i am not sure that i did agree that it is fair to put the attack of 9/11 in the same sentence. haiti is a tragedy. 9/11 is an act of war. are you really concerned that

people have forgotten what happened that day, the loss of life that day, everything that has led to that day? or is that just fear speaking? >> no, i do not believe that people have forgotten that day. but here's my concern. to the can -- stick to the extent that we have our -- to the extent that we have convinced ourselves that the threat is no longer present, that it is not a real threat to our homeland security and our national security, that is not the case. we have had this conversation of. that is a day that i think lives in memory. i believe -- i think my children were sitting in front of the tv. it happened to the people in that building and it happened to

all of us as a nation. we also -- we all suffer in that wound. but to the extent that they think that the threat is less because of the passage of time, that does concern me. that is not what our intelligence and national security officials say. we know from the successful destruction we have seen in this country in the last year. all those, in one way or another, you will find have ties back to this region between afghanistan and pakistan. it was true in the disruptions we saw in the bush's mission when i was there. the seriousness that this region poses -- >> the director of the cia, mr. panetta, where have i heard that name before? >> i have heard of him. [laughter]

>> last year, he said, "we have al qaeda on the run." at the risk of sounding both and grateful for my presence here and unduly cynical, ici thoughtf a president who still on an aircraft carrier with a banner behind them. [laughter] as there been a gagne change in that region, anin pakistan? >> absolutely. that is different than saying that you can denigrate the central leadership and have pockets themselves of affiliate's who are inspired by them to pose a threat. a lot of what you see is that the drone attacks have been incredibly effective integrating

their central core leadership. >> is there a downside that we are not considering to these drone attacks? is there a downside to this? >> the upside has been clearly stated. let me share the upside. but i think the downside is the ease, the lack of sacrifice associated with what is essentially a war-fighting tool. a drone is a war-fighting tool. a congressman tended to take what i regarded of the years as the uses position on every issue. >> will you whisper his name? >> no. [laughter] >> we were talking during the afghanistan debate. he was thinking that maybe we could solve afghanistan with

drones and we would not need to have the large increase of forces that general mcchrystal wanted to see and that somehow the drones could do it in afghanistan itself. but the rest from drowns is kind of -- but the risk from jones -- but the risk from drones has the assumption that it is easy to do. it is just a tool. you have to know who the target is. you do not usually find the target from the air. you have people on the ground. i worry when people make policy when they are choosing the easy to fool. it makes me a little nervous. that is what the downside of the drones are. >> what about the effective the "no american dies?"

>> would you feel better if we were losing blood? of course not. >> i hope that is not what people heard. i am talking about when we were in a debate on afghanistan. there was discussion that we could solve the problem in afghanistan with the drones. george will suggested that all of our troops should be of short and we should use drones to attack the taliban in afghanistan. i suggested that that would not be sufficient. obviously, i am not saying that it is a good thing when americans died. to even do about it is not very funny. what i am saying is that, if we are going to choose to make war in the world and we're going to choose this decision, it should be a solemn decision. it should be a decision where we

all understand the consequences. sometimes, when people talk about brown's, they talk about it has -- about brodrones, they talk about it as though they can just use automated machinery and all of the realities go away on the ground, where people are, where decisions are made, were the targets are selected. drones are a very real thing. >> he is very right. by the way, having been there, it is by no means an easy tool to use when you have to make a decision on when to take the shot. >> it is not an easy decision because it does not kill just one person. civilians will die. >> that is right.

yes. they are burdensome and difficult decisions. we are asking very senior government officials to make life-and-death decisions that are not always clear and are not always easy because intelligence is imperfect. >> washington being washington, there will be criticism of that. pakistan is central to the work you did. it is confounding, in many ways, diplomatically. the government of pakistan, depending on the day of the week, it is reliable or not. there is the intelligence service, which makes me really nervous. but they are kind of with us this week.

are we making progress? we cannot win this thing without pakistan, correct? >> i do not think so. we were talking about let's look at the movie rather than the snapshot. if we go back 18 months or two years and think about what was going on in that part of the world, there was a major offensive generated by islamic extremists, pakistani taliban inside pakistan. there were enormous numbers of attacks inside pakistan. the pakistani military was attacked. if for no other reason, that seems to have gotten their attention. in the last 18 months, in general, the direction has been positive. the civilian government was elected on the premise -- benazir bhutto's husband ran on

the idea that they needed to lead against terrorism. that gave political power to the pakistani military that had not existed under musharraf. then the pakistani military had been under attack and they responded. as far as the intelligence service is concerned, i do not think there is anyone view in that intelligence service because it is a complex organization with different people from different time periods. let's call it two and a third out of three are moving in the right direction. we can see the direction and the progress in the last 18 months if you have pakistan on side. the ministration made the point of saying that, -- the administration made the point of saying that, if we are going to commit these trips, we have to get pakistan as part of the

equation. that way, the region is thought of as a whole. when we do leave, it will not just fall back into the old patterns. so things are definitely better than they were. >> let me move to war no. 2. that is iraq. i was talking today with an old friend who is a reporter who was covering iraq since the days of saigon. -- the days of sosaddam. a lot of blood has been shed. a lot of money has been spent. a lot of the people has been created. i trust her journalism.

is that a view you could share? >> iraq has gone through periods of extraordinary violence and brief respites, followed by more extraordinary violence. one of the cornerstones of democracy is a peaceful transfer of power. they're going through their second election. we do not understand the results of that. part of us want to be there in terms of our frustration in terms of their civilian governance. it has been a proxy battle field for their regional neighbors. there is a shia-cine struggle of the neighbors that vote on inside -- the she-hia-sunni

struggle of the neighbors inside iraq. again, i really think the test is can an iraqi government that is democratically elected both competently provide services and protect its people as well as protect its borders from its neighbors? we should not under the estimate the size of the challenge given to the neighbors are and the proxy struggle that goes on within the neighbors inside iraq. >> take the afghanistan concern you expressed, which is that we will get out before the job is done, and overlay that now on iraq. we have a sense of a plan. we are pulling people out. there is very little willingness to expand much more capital will bear.

are we -- capital of thethre. -- capital there. in this room, iraq was more divisive in our own country. @@@@@@@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @$ politics has come into way in a way that in a pure perfect world it wouldn't. in a pure perfect situation the president would make a judgment as to the costs and benefits of staying and act accordingly. the truth is that he will have pressure from leaders of the democratic party who supported him and helped him get elected who went along with him on

afghanistan despite perhaps some reservations and sue respected -- and supported a large increase in forces in afghanistan. it's going to be tougher if a judgment is made that a few more months or six to nine months longer with 10,000 more troops would make a difference in the transfer of power. the transfer of power. it will be a tougher decision. but, again, in complex situations, you can always look at the glass from both sides. we have to be honest with ourselves. three years ago, we're talking about iraq as another institute. we would be thrilled if things were as good as they are today. it was in the midst of a civil war. hundreds of thousands of people were dying every day.

in the past, beirut was a microcosm of the middle east, where all the different players of the middle east came into play. in iraq, there is some of that there today. iran, the persian threat, saudi arabia perhaps supporting sunni arabs, those who would use terrorism to achieve their directive -- all of this is the unfolding. so far, we can be amused that the guy in leading the elections said that the motion stand and the guy behind in said that there should be a recant. this week, they switched. [laughter] let's hope that, over time, through these different elections and these transfers of power, that it is not an all or

nothing gain in that part of the world, where, if you give up power, you lose your livelihood of your lives. i think president obama may well face a difficult decision six months to nine months from now where some problem emergence in iraq that was unexpected. i think he has been careful to say that he will act responsibly leaving then we were responsible going in. i hope he does not have to make that decision. but he very milk -- but he very well might. >> if that decision is made and the withdrawal is too soon and iraq deteriorates to a degree that it is uncomfortable where people are dying in greater numbers than they are now, that is a bad thing.

fundamentally, we need to go back to your portfolio, really, which is what do we need to do to defend, in an appropriately, the homeland? i am not an isolationist in this. my primary concern is that the world much of lives in is safe. so does a deteriorating iraq make you and me and your children let's say it? >> al qaeda in the arabian peninsula has been believed to have only regional aspirations. what we saw in the attempted

christmas bombing is that that, over time, had changed. we had warning signs of it that we missed as a country. that group that had regional aspirations actually launched themselves and were behind the attempted attack. i use that example to say to you that what you have to look back is to was operating this. what is the ability for terrorist groups to use that territory to plan or launched an attack into the united states? as u.s. and that question, is there a central -- as you look at that question, is there a central government capable of taking care of that territory? if the answer is no, then yes, you have to be worried. that means that it is fertile

ground for an attack into the u.s.. >> i want to get to our audience's questions. hold on a second. i was thinking about this the of the day. none of the things that we have been talking about we would have talked about 10 years ago. but 9/11 had not happened. the iraq war had not happened. we had not gone into afghanistan. we're not talking about the iranians building a nuclear weapon. we were worried about the north koreans. i will give you that. but 10 years seems to be a really long time in days when you talk about the state of the world. 10 years from now, what will we be talking about that we are not even thinking about now? >> there are some people thinking about it, but probably

not enough. i know the administration is working on this problem i started out my professional career working on nuclear arms control. the time was the height of the cold war. we have improved the situation massively. we are down to 5000 or 6000 apiece. what we will face some time, five years or 10 years, i do not know of that is some use of a nuclear weapon somewhere. i do not know where. i am not saying that it is going to necessarily be any major city or cause a complete catastrophe. but the technology is improved. the number of loose nuclear weapons charged -- is still out there. it does not give high priority,

despite speeches made by presidents in both administrations. it is done by lower officials and some outsiders. this is a small fein, but has such massive consequences -- this is a small thing, but has such massive consequences. something is going to happen catastrophically in the area of nuclear weapons. it is not necessarily going to be a terrorist organization. it may be something we have not even thought of. it may be a crazy person. it may be a crazy general in the former soviet states. but something's got to happen in the area of tens of thousands of nuclear weapons and materials that have yet to be accounted for, controlled, and dismantled, and put in the maximum protective lockdown situation.

>> when we gathered 10 years from now -- >> hopefully, i will be wrong. >> hopefully, yes. unlike other -- when we get there 10 years from now, what will we be talking about? >> this is a different version of what jamie said. i absolutely think that we have a tremendous public debate about iran's very clear intentions to acquire nuclear weapons. it may not be a terrorist organization. when we talk about iran's nuclear ambitions, it is the single state sponsor of hezbollah. it is military capable and highly organized, more so than al qaeda has been. it is worldwide.

the notion of iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon, coupled with it being a state sponsor of terror, should scare everybody. secretary clinton made a speech today to aipac and said that, if iran obtain a nuclear weapon, we are likely to seek a nuclear arms race in the middle east. i took issue with it. make no mistake about it. in the press, you know that that nuclear arms race is on to date and we are not talking about it. we need to be talking about it. there is a nuclear arms race in progress in the middle east and we need to be honest and we need to talk about it. if we do not talk about it, it will not just be iran with nuclear weapons. you have a potentially unstable

region with lots of nuclear weapons which makes jamie's. all the more likely. look at what we know. -- jamie's point all the more likely. look at what we know. we know about iran's facility at koontz. we need to be concerned about the nuclear arms race that is currently going on. >> let me see where our audience takes us. let me introduce the interview team who has helped us select the questions we will talk about. i would appreciate 8 if you would hold your applause -- if you're going to applaud. [laughter] until we hear them all.

these are both question veteran -- veteran question vetter's. don miller is editor in chief of the "santa cruz sentinel." they are standing. [applause] >> how quickly i figured out they were standing. [laughter] >> they did a good job. >> i have not lost a step, have i? [laughter] >> we had a wonderful event this afternoon. a bunch of students are in town. a handful or so of them are here. how like to ask them to stand. i do not know where they are. please stand up and be recognized.

[applause] >> thank you. they are from carmel high, marion ojai, monterey home charter school, -- marina high, monterey home charter school. the lecture series of the institute's work and all of us are grateful for the sponsorship that allows students from high schools and universities from this part of california to participate. we think the sponsors and we ask you to thank them, too. [applause] >> this is all new to me. here we go. how does the partisanship and

the turmoil within the country affect our foreign policy? >> this is a subject that i have been thinking a lot about. i am working on a long-term project on it. i have studied and been a participant going back 15 years or so in watching how the other party behaves when is out of power and watching it switch positions when it is in power. oppositions have the duty to oppose. they raise questions and ask the hard questions to make sure that policies are thoughtfully thought through. i think, too often, in the current era -- partially due to your old position, cable media, radio, for better or for worse -- people's motivations are

attacked. n r@ @ that does president mean you can't find times when on the floor of the congress they were beating each other up. all that is true. the cuban missile crisis occurred two or three weeks before a mid-term election. it involved not a small problem, but the fate of the entire planet, elentionly. it occurred a couple weeks before the first mid-term election president kennedy faced after the closest election in list tri up to that point in time, kennedy-nixon.

the country had bb divided. now was the chance for the election. imagine today if we had a global crisis where the parties had slightly different views and it was three weeks before a -- you think kennedy and olberman -- >> i don't know what they would do. but it is frightening to think about the next time we face a world-threatening condition in the current environment. after 9/11, the country did come together. >i think all of us have watched americans play out at some level and you go, "shut up." i heard someone the other day criticizing the administration for killing too many terrorists in afghanistan.

if we had enough detention policies, we would not kill so many. we could water board them and [unintelligible] [laughter] and i thought, whoa, you are too stupid to be on television. [laughter] [applause] that is a standard that had never been reached before. >> if the stakes are high enough, people come together. >> i do not know. 9/11 is a good example. it has been since 9/11 when the competition between the three cable networks and the rise of the blogosphere have occurred. vicki for me is very simple. it is for -- the key for me is very simple. it is for people to recognize

the legitimacy of the other person's argument, that they are just as interested in protecting the security of our country and promoting america and having us be strong, but they just might have a different way of going about it. it predicated agree on that, starting on the house floor, on the senate, and on cable tv -- witobviously, there would not -- but that is where we have to start. it is a simple thing. but it would be profound. >> did you ever worry or cringe when you were in government not only about the things that were said about your side, but other things your side said about the of a guy? did you ever think, "man, this is dangerous?" >> in the lead to the 2004

election, jamie was working for senator kerry and i was in the white house. it was clear enemy, for the first time post/9/11, just how political the terrorism -- post- 9/11, just how political the terrorism issue had become. leading up to the 2004 election, bin laden and an american al qaeda member were releasing video tapes. the threats were very real. we were very concerned about it. of course, there were internal debates about what should be done about it. at one point, there was a decision taken about having tom ridge, the secretary of homeland security, raise the threat alert level. in such a high-powered political averment and a run-up to an election, i worried that it

would be misunderstood as to why we were doing that. i also thought that it was incredibly important and the president agreed that, to the extent that wthe teeth on this with a political, that we would not carry it that way. senator kerrey was going to a stop just as tom ridge was raising the alert. we knew that candidate kerrey was went to p.s. what he thought about it. what we did not want something to be blindsided, but, in a very partisan political environment, in the run-up to an election, have you pulled up through? -- how do you pull that through? but the answer to that is that, two people who work in the clinton administration, i knew that i could get into the phone. even if he did not want to hear

what i had to say, he would listen. we laughed about it. senator kerrey was not surprised by it. he may not have agreed. in terms of the good of the nation and the security of the country, we were able, by virtue of a personal relationship, to get past the politics. that did not stop howard dean from casting aspersions and the rnc pushing back. by chris about that. but what gets you through is that there -- i cringe about that. but what gets you through it is that there are people for that. too often, these important issues get reduced to these silly sound bites that to really do not tell you anything and do not really advance the public debate. i think that is dangerous.

it happens on both sides of the aisle. both are equally wrong. i think there has to be a free zone where we can really debate substantive issues and divorce them from some of the top. >> both senate -- both president bush and senator kerry made a very smart comments about what a reasonable expectation of terror over the long term is. senator kerrey said we need to reduce it to an almost nuisance level. they were both creamed. cable cream to them. -- cable cream died them. and i thought, whow, we cannot

have a conversation about the most serious issue. the decisions they take, at some level, they do get influenced by that. the financial independence -- the financial dependence we have on china and our foreign policy, do we exaggerated? >> i think we do exaggerate it. there's too much and assumptions that, because china owns so much of the american dead -- there's too much an assumption that because china on so much of the american debt, that' that is a problem when you owe a big debt nor a small that, when you owe a

big bank, you're in trouble. you do not pay it, they take your house. but if you are a corporation and you owe billions of dollars, they give you more money to make you succeed so that they can get their money back. in a sense, the chinese want america's economy to succeed. they want the dollar to succeed. otherwise this $1 trillion worth of treasury bills that they have spent so much money on will not be worth as much. where i think they own yard that has an impact is that we want to get them to do things to be a responsible mannemember of the l community, such as supporting the appropriate sanction on iran for violating its restrictions.

our talking points get screwed up when they get to this day to less than you are not behaving like a responsible country because you are in debt. that hurts our ability to influence china like that. but in terms of sitting back and having some control over what we do in iraq or afghanistan or our relationship with israel or our partnership an alliance with south korea and japan or equally with any of the nato countries, no, i do not think that china can deploy that leverage. if we ever want china to be a responsible member of the international community, we will need to develop a better financial footing so that we can harangue them with full force. we need to be able to harangue them. one of the things that people do not talk about is that china is

not a responsible member of the international community. they do not actually spend a lot of time caring about anything that is not related with anything within china or their ability to get resources for china. when it comes to the world's operations, things that western countries but dissipate in, in peacekeeping operations, human rights abuses around the world, they abstain from those issues or go along with the majority after it a decision has been taken. they do not have an affirmative form policy. >> what about the freedom of the internet? [laughter] >> they should just back off on their own folks for a bit. [laughter] >> can diplomacy work with countries that the u.s. considers a terrorist countries? can we diplomatically work our

way out of this mess with iran? >> there has been no indication, based on iranian behavior, that that is possible. i was saying this to someone earlier. i traveled with secretary jim baker makes the point. you cannot resolve anything if you do not talk to the people you disagree with. the problem right now is that iran has not done anything to events a willingness to a evince -- to evince a willingness to deal with us in a reasonable way. the military options are not

good. i do not think that the current administration is inclined in that direction and. but let me hasten to add that the primary mission was not inclined in that direction either. israel mayor may not choose to go in that direction. people will ask you what you can expect from that, given what you know and what your understanding is. that is a delay tactic. you're not going to destroy iran's capability. you will delay their acquisition of a nuclear capability. we do not have much choice other than to critical mission that will continue to put pressure on iran. >> is there one thing that is missing there? what are two things that, if we could only convince the czechs

-- [laughter] >> it would change? >> china could be much stronger. they are acting in their own self-interest as opposed to the interest of the international community. to the extent that engagement and diplomacy sanctions are not working, our allies in china and russia bear some responsibility. >> should the doctrine of preemptive military action remain on the table when it comes to iran?