we will look at the state of u.s. intelligence gathering with former deputy cia director john mclaughlin. we'll be joined by tom scully, the former head of the center of medicaid and medicare to discuss their future. "washington journal" is next. . . over at the white house, president obama meets with david

cameron at 11:00, followed by a working lunch, and then the two men will hold a jet -- a joint press conference. another fight is brewing and capitol hill about whether or not elizabeth warren should run the new consumer protection agency. created by the financial regulation bill that president obama is slated to sign into law this wednesday. we want to get your reaction this morning. what do you think? effigy run that agency? "the wall street journal" has the headline, "democrats agonized monday over whether or not president obama should take the lives of more and to be the first finance regulator, an indication of the intense fight to come. she is one of at least three finalists for the post created by overhauling financial

regulation. many bankers and republicans claim that she would be an activist regulator, pushing for policies that would crimp of bank profits and consumers access to credit. she would need some republican support to survive senate confirmation. liberals have pushed hard for her nomination. a liberal activist group said they had collected close to 140,000 signatures for a petition urging the white house to nominate ms. warren on monday. carolyn maloney, democrat of new york, circulated letters a month lawmakers seeking broader support for the nomination. what do you think this morning? should elizabeth warren, frequent guest on this program, run the consumer protection agency bellow we want to get your thoughts. the article goes on to say that the chief executive of the

bankers' association has lobbied ben nelson to oppose mr. moran. last week he created a stir within democratic ranks when he told reporters that he had concerns over the new agency and would run at. the story also says that the bureau's director of this new agency would be appointed to wait five term year, controlling the budget of about $500 million with a wide latitude to lead the writing and enforcing the rules related to mortgages, credit cards, and other financial products. given the structure of the agency, it would be difficult for other regulators to overrule the restrictions. virginia, thomas, democratic line. what do you think this morning? caller: i think that elizabeth warren should be in charge of the financial regulation plan. host: why is that? caller: every time she is on

television she seems to care about the people. she has no business interests in mind, very rare for someone in charge of government regulation. host: what about the concerns from the banking industry that say exactly what you just said, that she is more of an activist for consumers and that she will not take into mind what businesses need in order to grow and create jobs. host: the business and banking industry are always worried, always complain, but they always wind up on top. they always get more money than the regular person, and that is what they need to do to survive. elizabeth warren is looking out for you and me. if president obama does not occur, it will be easy to say that he does not care much either. i am far left of obama, he needs to do the right thing.

host: have you signed on to this petition? caller: i did. host: how closely are you following this debate? caller: pretty closely. i have followed c-span since i was 14. i watch c-span every night. i got a petition in my e-mail. i think it is absolutely necessary. she is a brilliant person and will make our lives better. i totally believe that. host: the web site called the liberal change committee, we can find that website for you and put it up on the screen in a minute. first, edward yingling who represents bankers, quoted in the story as saying that statements from elizabeth

warren have raised tremendous concern in the industry. he says "from what i hear in the senate, that nomination would be tremendously controversial." lancaster, john, good morning. caller: if all of those geniuses in the senate are opposed to it and chris dodd said she might have a rough confirmation, it means he is probably opposed to it as well. but she has got common sense, she is interested in the everyday person, and everything she has said so far would make consumers want to have her involved. i have signed a couple of different petitions on the internet from other groups. host: what are some of the other groups? caller: i cannot remember offhand. i get them every day.

i stay on top of the stuff regularly. if obama does not occur, he is done. -- does not pick her, he is done. those people on the fence will know that he is for corporations. host: asheville, north carolina. republican line. caller: absolutely elizabeth warren should run this commission. i think that the bankers would like have someone else the they could have in their pocket. just about everyone in the country has realize that this point that the only thing these guys on wall street will not steal is a red hot stove.

we need some more people who are concerned. host: critics say that he has antagonized members of congress and treasury officials alike and that they are crusading in the banking industry. would you think? caller: i think that is not true. that is just a lot of hype. personally, look, if everyone in the senate is so bitterly against this, where do most of these guys get their money? they get it from wall street, from the banking industry, from the food industry in particular. i think that she would be the

no. 1 candidate. anyone that thinks otherwise is not looking very carefully at this. host: there are actually three people on the short list for this job. the others are featured here in "the new york times." eugene kemelman and michael barr are both on the short list. about michael barr, "t is the treasury department assistant secretary -- "tzipi is the treasury department assistant secretary. the harvard professor has longstanding ties to top white house officials here " about mr. -- officials." about mr. kemmelman, "he has

battled frequently with the banks over the last year-and-a- half, and lobbyist for the consumers union." all three declined to comment for this story. joe, democratic line. caller: i would recommend elizabeth warren highly. she demonstrates a good command of the situation issues. she would be a good independent person that would not worry about the politics of the issue. i think she would represent the american people well. host: have you signed any of those petitions? caller: i have, i have been actively involved in watching the banking situation over the last year-and-a-half.

when i see her present herself, she never wavers and if she does not know the answer, she admits it. she directs her answers at the issue, avoiding just glossing over it. host: as i said at the top, she has been on this program and answered questions from all of you. if you would like a better idea of over ideology, go to our website, c-span.org, go into the video library, a new feature that we have in the archivist. you can get an idea of where she is coming from in her own words. los angeles, good morning. caller: i love your show. i think that they should give her a chance. it is a hot stove and they need

to refresh. they need to change it up. they really do. i know how it feels to be ripped off. i have family members doing the same thing, trying to control me. the interest when you open up an account at the bank is too high. they find a way with these credit cards to screw your around. maybe she can bring it down. give her a chance. um host: a little bit about how this agency will work from "the new york times." "hundreds of agencies will be transferred into the new bureau, including the federal reserve, whose oversight of bank holding companies will be broadened to include all systematically important financial companies.

the regulation of state- chartered banks not overseen by the fed, as well as the comptroller for security. the bureau will be nominally part of the fed, required under law to turn over 10% to 12% of its operating expenses to finance the work of the bureau. the fed has no power to name, supervise, or remove employees, or interfere with the work. in essence, the central banks will just get the bill. the new headquarters will be separate from the fed, operating with two headquarters near washington. mr. obama himself made it clear on thursday, after the senate approved legislation last week, that he expected the new consumer watchdog to take on an activist role. wisconsin, help me with the name of yorktown. caller: [unintelligible]

host: go ahead. caller: i think that she should be that of this. timothy geithner, ben bernanke, they are afraid of her. wall street is afraid of her, the bankers are afraid of her. if she is not nominated, i will be very upset. a lot of things are going on. i saw her on a year ago and this will and really has it down. i really believe that she should be there. i do not like ben bernanke, or timothy geithner, because they did this. as far as the paperwork you are talking about, these online petitions, this is the first time i have heard of it, i will

definitely get on line to find one because i think that she should be hired to the consumer protection agency. she is looking out for america. host: the web site was just on the screen. i want to ask you, do you think that if he were to not nominate her, or someone who shares that ideology towards consumers, do you think -- what does it say about the obama administration to you about wall street against main street? caller: again, they have ben bernanke, timothy geithner. hello, these people are part of wall street. they were in on the downfall. they set us up. they are not even fixing what

should be fixed. they are all bought and paid for. the president is listening to two people instead of listening to himself. host: charles, independent line, florida. sorry, charles. i think that i lost you. hope that you call back in in a minute. my fault. the l.a. times that the end of june ran a piece about how the financial reform bill will impact view, saying what is the major consumer provision? "the creation of this new agency, the consumer protection bureau, would have broad oversight and far reaching powers. the agency would oversee banks and mortgage lenders and credit card companies. the basic idea is an agency whose only job is to look out

for consumers, replacing the current system, with those customers spread across -- across a hodgepodge of seven government entities. if you want to use a credit card to purchase a pack of gum, you might be out of luck, but over time it could become less costly. the new rules clear the way for retailers to require minimum purchases on credit cards. they want to avoid forking over fees to card issuers. consumers could be inconvenienced about my ultimately save money because retailers to mark up prices to save on fees. " also, toledo, ohio. rick, republican line. your next. should elizabeth warren run the consumer protection agency? caller: i believe that she should be nominated to head the organization.

we will see what happens after the nomination goes through. by said, we will see what happens. so far it sounds pretty good, but we will see what happens. host: all right, thank you for the call. this morning we talked about the senate action on extending unemployment benefits. they could be doing that vote today, after the swearing in of the new west virginia senator, carter goodwin. joining us on the phone is a staff writer from "the charleston gazette." what happens today for carter goodwin? what is the schedule? caller: as early as this afternoon there could be a vote

on unemployment. host: he has said that he will vote for this legislation caller: that has been his previous indication. host: have they said that he will vote today? or could his first vote beyond different legislation? caller: it could be anything, i was unclear as to what his first vote would be. host: what else is on his schedule today? caller: he will be sworn in and sitting in the senate this afternoon to vote on any issue. host: what has he set about the big legislative items that are being talked about? has he indicated yes or no on issues like energy legislation?

we have talked about unemployment benefits and immigration reform, has he talked about any of these? caller: he has not indicated on many of these issues, other than to say that he has been supportive in the state of west virginia. host: mr. goodwin was appointed to fill this seat by the late senator robert byrd last friday by joe mansion. he is expected to remain in the seat until november, when a special election is expected to fill the seat. what is the update on this special election? caller: late last evening the legislature came to a final legislation about what would happen, that there would be a full primary for both parties on august 28 to choose who would

run for senate in the primary election on november 2. the full election will be on november 2. this is an interesting thing, saying that there is a distinct from the general law election in west virginia, and this would be odd, selling more capital for congressman from the state could run through both the senate and house. i do not know of that will happen, but someone else could win the nomination. host: what about on the democratic side? caller: the governor is the only person really being mentioned on the democratic side. no one else has indicated any intent for running. host: thank you for your time this morning, paul.

caller: thank you very much. host: an update on the new senator from west virginia, carter goodwin, who will be sworn in later today. possibly his first vote on extending unemployment benefits this morning, the senate is to extend jobless benefits. akron, ohio, democratic line. should elizabeth warren run the democratic -- run the consumer protection agency? caller: my vote is definitely for her. she represents the american people. she speaks plain english, complex as the economy is. she informs the people as to exactly what is going on. the banks do not want her because she is not in their pockets, plain and simple.

timothy geithner does not want her because she will make great decisions if they occur. host: all right, franklin county, democratic line. caller: i wanted to ask you, how old is your daughter and what his surname? host: i am not going to talk about my daughter on this program. caller: i am for elizabeth warren. she would be another frances perkins. you could not ask for anything better than that. host: dallas, texas, go ahead. caller: i have strong right leanings but i still love elizabeth warren. number one, her background is in bankruptcy law. she is very familiar with that. for any of the viewers that have not seen it, she gave a lecture

in 2007 at berkeley, the thomas jefferson serious, about the coming collapse of the middle class. it is available in your library, you cover debt, and it is one of the most prescient and amazing lectures that she gave as far as what she saw coming, the independent research that she did in to this, it is something that a lot of people should watch if they have not seen it. i love the lady, even though she is a liberal and i am libertarian. host: all right. we are talking about whether or not elizabeth warren should run the consumer protection agency. the president is expected to sign this bill tomorrow. we want to get your thoughts on this. the phone numbers, democrats, for democrats, 202-737-0002.

for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. kansas city, patrick, democratic line. you are next. caller: basically what i wanted to say, i am just wondering -- i have seen elizabeth warren boys her opinion on what is transpiring in the economy, but this is information that we can read in books. the reality is that we need a fresh, new ideas on this financial situation and i do not think she implies that at this juncture. host: robert, democratic line, what do you think this morning? caller: good morning. first-time caller. all that i have to say is that she is against the chinese imports coming over, he chinese straw vote -- chinese drywall and poison pet food, she is right for the job. if she will not stand up

against the chinese, what is the point? host: all right. an editorial this morning about elena kagan in "the new york times," "republicans and the constitution. that is what worries the right. the most urgent task of government power is slowly making its way through the legal system. articulate the provision requiring health insurance. , this insurance mandate significantly affects interstate commerce and the fundamental power to tax. hard to see how the current court will disagree, but not stopping senate republicans for raising an ideological fuss. it is why senator tom coburn asked her a seemingly silly

hypothetical about the constitutionality of a law that requires americans to eat vegetables and fruits. all seven republicans on the committee sent her a letter last week demanding to know what she knew about the construction of the health care a lot as solicitor general and when she knew it. they're looking for any excuse to get her to recuse herself if there is a close vote in the court, more importantly coming up with excuses to vote against her." that vote will be today, we are covering it live on c-span 3. we want to direct you to c- span.org. we have a link for this confirmation process, you can see the senators who have indicated how they plan to vote. you can see statements from the senators as well as speech is that she has given. that is the hub for the

nomination for the supreme court on elena kagan. the editorial today in "usa today," the paper says that she deserves bipartisan backing but that she will not get it. the opposing view is written by jeff sessions, who says that a big government vision is what she has and lays out why he will be opposing her. patrick, republican line, good morning. caller: i believe that she is the best person for this job, she should be nominated. she should be confirmed for the senate. thank you. host: wisconsin, independent line, good morning. go ahead, gaiil.

host: i find it unusual that this topic has come up. i have admired this woman from afar. i think that she is a true breath of fresh air. she strikes me as being very independent, very logical, very understandable, and a fair minded person. i am glad to hear that she is getting such broad support. i was unaware of all the people trying to garner this support, but i would throw my hat in the ring for her. host: on the front page of "the wall street journal," "democrats are fighting this entire debate over immigration reform has a chance to cement -- support for latinos and votes for their party." that is the front page of "the washington post" this morning.

front page of "the washington times" this morning as a story about sarah palin, saying that she is "testing her political clout by picking a long shot in alaska." "george mcgovern marks his 82nd birthday by skydiving on monday." we are talking about the consumer protection agency and of elizabeth warren should run the agency, jim. caller: i think that she would be a perfect candidate for it. i have not heard such bipartisan support for any person on any issue for quite some time. if president obama was truly going to keep his promise of trying to do things in a bipartisan way, this would be one great step in that

direction, picking someone that republicans, democrats, and independence all support. a great candidate actually enforce the regulations that we saw during the hearings. people at the top of the regulatory body were the ones who were stonewalling the regulators from doing their job. which is a part of what led to the crisis. thank you. host: albany, ga., democratic line. caller: there are other candidates who have thrown their name in the hat. for c-span to be pushing this question and pushing this person out front is unfair. host: let me disagree with you. the papers this morning are putting it out there that the fight is about elizabeth warren. you are right, there are two other candidates on the short list. there is a picture of them right there. but the papers this morning are about how republicans and

democrats are fighting over this leading candidate. go ahead. caller: they should not be fighting, the president does not have the right to make this appointment. i did not see them fighting over president bush's appointment and i think that this is not fair. host: republican line, south carolina, good morning. caller: i think that she would be wonderful for the job. she cares about the common person, those that are unemployed, all of the interest on our credit cards. i honestly think that she would be the best person for the job. we need someone like her that will really stand up for us, for the american people and not for corporations and wall street, but for main street. look at all of our people out of work with too much unemployment.

we need someone to fight for us. there could not be a better person than her for the job. and i am a republican. host: mary, independent line. caller: i used to be a democrat, but i feel that there has been too many shenanigans going on between congress and corporations. i think that the country has lost trust, you know, if you could be such a strong democrat and not trust the democrats, and i trust that wallenda. she just has not been corrupted by washington. she seems to care for the people. as long as she stays away from the rest of washington. i am not too crazy about barr. he has worked with timothy geithner before, meaning that he is involved with wall street as well.

he may favor them. thank you very much for taking my call. host: "the washington times" reports that 80 party caucus has been granted permission to reform on capitol hill, even as top organizers face an internal fight about how to deal with charges of racism against fringe elements in the movement. members of the movement's noted -- members of the movement had had their request for proof -- approved." on the backside of the front page, "finance before franchot in the relationship between president obama and david cameron. secretary of state hillary clinton, visiting pakistan,

encountered a hostile reception compared to her visit last year, but less caustic on monday perhaps because she showed up with more than $500 million in economic aid. part of her campaign to win over skeptical pakistani public. denver, democratic line. caller: in a younger voter. i have only heard from elizabeth morgan from "the daily show." i was really impressed with her. i think that she would be much better than timothy geithner or anyone else. i support her. host: ok. brad, republican line, massachusetts. caller: yes, i am very impressed with elizabeth warren. i have been watching c-span for 10 to 15 years.

i think that she is a very good independent voice with a lot of common sense. i am in agreement with a majority of the people out there. she is highly qualified to make some independent decisions. with common sense. host: richard, independent line. caller: i am very much a supporter of elizabeth warren. she has integrity, is knowledgeable, knows what she is doing, and it is obvious to me that people on the senate finance committee would like to get rid of hurt because they are threatened. if she is blocked, i think apple obama would really have something to worry about from an

independent candidate. democrats and republicans cost a bit too much for me in terms of their corporate ties. there is no reason i should trust a person like that. host: florida, democratic line. caller: i think that elizabeth warren is an excellent choice. she knows the banking industry, knows what it should be, am i going? host: sorry, mildred, yes. caller: she knows what it is. the bankers do not like her. she can understand a scam when she sees it, which will make a big difference for them. as far as consumer protection, she is excellent. host: fred, independent line, good morning. caller: elizabeth warren should

be chosen. i am amazed that the entire country seems to agree about it. host: why do you say that? why are you amazed? caller: republicans, democrats, and independence never agree on anything. that is my experience. i think that we need about 50 of her. i saw her performance in congress. she may be the only one looking out for the american people, it seems to me. host: seattle, washington, john, republican line. we are talking about whether or not elizabeth warren should head the consumer protection agency. caller: i think that she would be good for the american people and she has a nice rack. host: we will go to newport

beach, florida. steve, you have voted for democrats and republicans in the past? caller: yes. host: what are you making of some republicans saying that they do not want her heading this agency because they feel she would be more of an activist? caller: i think that that is good. she speaks truth the power. i will also like to suggest that they should also throw brooksly bourne in there. host: why her? caller: she stood out and was hit down by larry summers and the rest of the treasury. host: ok. north carolina, richard, independent line, good morning. caller: what authority and power is this agency really going that have? is she going to have more power than timothy geithner?

caller: i am not sure. -- host: i am not sure. caller: so, she has no power and this is just another show. the constitution gives the ability to regulate finances to the congress. they refuse to do it and they turned it over to the federal reserve, who had a heyday of creating bubbles, scanning and coaxing the american people for the last 100 years. do you think that if she comes up with anything contrary to the secretary of the treasury or the federal reserve, that anyone will back her up in this administration? host: it says in one of the papers this morning that she would have broad authority on rulemaking and regulations that affect consumers, be it your credit card, your mortgage, or

other financial industry. caller: she will have more authority than barney frank or chris dodd? who just about destroyed our economy with the housing industry and their policies? i giving loans to people they could not pay them back? i do not see it. she might be a good person, but this is just going to be another agency, there are 1000 different agencies right now that the federal government has, most of them are redundant, they do not communicate with each other and do not know what they do. this is just another part. we need to get back to the constitution and do away with all of this mumbo jumbo from this administration. especially this administration. host: bob, republican line. caller: i think that she would make an excellent choice and it is refreshing this morning to see that so many of callers are

in agreement on this on both sides of the fence. host: you are a republican who has voted for republicans, you are hearing from republicans in papers this morning saying that they do not want someone who is an activist, a zealot. caller: i do not agree with them. i am taking a long, hard look. i have been a republican my entire life. raised in west virginia, i am really an oddball. i am getting tired of this political back and for, and i think it is time for more people to stand up and be americans, rather than saying that i am a republican or a democrat. good for her, i hope that this goes through. host: new orleans, catherine. caller: i did not hear the initial question. if she has anything to do with

getting rid of fraud or whenever, i am for her. i am a consultants in medicine and have traveled all over the country. i have never walked into one hospital that was not committing fraud intentionally. host: elizabeth warren would not be looking out for fraud, if she got this post it would be for consumer protection agency, which would be overseeing the rules that impact consumers on credit cards. host: i know that you are young -- caller: i know that you are young, but that is fraud. you need to get down off your globalittle deficit in educatio. that is fraud. i have been all over the country, there is fraud everywhere.

host: all right, which should talk, kansas, republican line. caller: good morning. i support this war and for the consumer protection agency. in a republican and tired of hearing republicans try to hold everything up. we need someone out there that has common sense and is looking out for us. host: cincinnati, ohio. caller: in down for innovation. i have sent congress a lot of letters regarding gun control. any party trying to run innovation, i have been trying to find 1434 years. i want to know which party is going to do that for these people. host: we were talking about elizabeth warren and whether or

not she should run the consumer protection agency. next we are going to turn our attention to the intelligence community. first we want to bring your attention to the front page of "the washington post." the second in a series of three looking at top-secret america. a project work done by daniel priest and william parkin, a piece that first appeared yesterday in monday's "the washington post." looking at america's top secret communities, joining us on the phone is william to talk about the project. overall, what is the take away from this project? caller: it took us two years to do this investigation. one, the growth and size of the intelligence establishment in the homeland security apparatus that has grown up since 9/11 is

huge. two, the mainstream journalism and the investigative world plays an incredibly important role, i cannot imagine resources like this being put into a project of this size, scope, and time by anything other than a newspaper controlled by a family trust. host: why did you decide to do this project? caller: dana and i, a veteran national security reporters were looking at something that had grown since 9/11. we were seeing something in these new organizations and activity that puzzle was. literally two years ago we were discussing it and said that we would like to spend some time delving into what, exactly, had

grown up since 9/11. we thought it would produce it in and out six months or so. two years later, here we are. host: let me put some statistics on the screen for our viewers. 263 organizations have been created or organized since 9/11. working on programs related to counter terrorism, homeland security and intelligence, up 10,000 locations across the united states with an estimated 864,000 people holding top- secret security clearances. how did you go about sourcing this type of work? caller: we had a massive backup team database cartography and web wizard working with us. this is an original data base that we put together a not very

small pieces of information. slowly rebuild the most comprehensive picture that we could using investigative methods and journalistic invention, which is that we had to double source everything. i remember in the summer 2008 thinking that there were 200 companies doing top-secret work for the u.s. government and here we are, two years later and the final number in this database is 190031. -- 1931. this is the longest thing i have ever worked on for the paper. the longest in the dana has ever worked on for the paper. there was a team of 30 people and a lot of resources in it. host: if our viewers go to your web site at the washington post

has created for this series, they can find the database. what else can they find? caller: a fancy graphical representation of the entire database. you can look up any government agency or function, like counterintelligence, and actually see a representation of how many entities are involved in that activity. there is also a mapping application so that you can type in your home town or any place and it will at least center the map in a space that will show you what is in that area in terms of corporate and government locations. it is able to zoom to a one/100,000 scale, which is fairly large. but the reason that we made that decision was both that there was

so much information and also that we did not ourselves feel like we needed to give a more granular a picture than that scale for people to get a sense of the scope of the size of this. so, there is mapping, link analysis, the article themselves, the backup materials that you can yourself flom. a video that explains the project, we are working with front line on a documentary coming out in october. host: what is the difference between top-secret and classified? caller: these are government designations, we should be clear that these are not things that a company can make up. there is an executive order signed by the president's that defines what classified information is. it is basically handled through three separate levels, confident -- confidential and top-secret.

in theory it is supposed to be information that, if it was divulged, would do exceptionally grave harm to the national security vote. what we found in our investigation into what the evidence seems to show is that the use of the top-secret label has become so promiscuous, it is the problem oversight and duplication in understanding the functions of government. although it sounds as if we are writing about top-secret, thereby damaging national security, the truth of the matter is that what we're really doing here is describing the entities that do top-secret work. when you look at the totality of that, you have to ask yourself

whether or not it is the most efficient use of our tax dollars and whether or not it is ineffective system that has been created. yesterday we got a letter from someone at the federal air marshal service saying yes, federal air marshals have to have top-secret clearances and it is a gross waste of funds and resources in here are the 20 reasons why it became standard but is not necessary, because these people do not use those clearances. by the way, for the background investigation to be done for someone to get a top-secret clearance, it costs about twice as much as it does for someone to get a secret clearance. host: did the obama administration step in when they heard about what you are planning to run? ask you to not run certain aspects of this?

caller: there is a long editor's note in the newspaper that explains our various considerations and discussions with the government. i would not say the the obama administration played a role in this story in any way. i would say that we spoke with people within national security establishment at the agency itself, as well as the secretary of defense and director of the cia directly. they are quoted in our stories. yes, we did have monthlong discussions with them at a very formal level. we presented them with the materials that we were planning to put up on the web, as well as the database. we grappled with the question of how much information could be and should be put out there to achieve journalistic goals and at the same time preserve national security.

we are americans to. we did respond to specific government requests to withhold certain information. when they gave us a compelling reason, wheat, -- the editors, not me -- made the decisions. host: who is in charge of our intelligence operation? caller: [chuckles] no one is in charge. that is the point of the series. after 9/11 it was revealed that the director of the intelligence agency did not have the authority to reach across the entire government in order to be the director of central intelligence. congress passed a law in 2004 to create a director of national intelligence to would sit above the cia director and above the secretary of defense in

creating that lot. at the same time it made so many political compromises, creating so many loopholes, we now have a director of national intelligence that is not really the director of national intelligence because the defense director still controls many of the programs. many of them are outside of the intelligence community in the law enforcement world or civil agencies. we have created a director of national intelligence and now we have both. as is the nature of washington and the nature of bureaucracy, the directorate has grown to some 1500 people. as we reveal, over 100 contractors doing top-secret work for them. everyone accepts and admits that it does not achieve the goals we

set out to do. host: the senate intelligence committee will have a meeting on the new national security intelligence director. finally, the day's second posting on this series is about contractors, which you just talked about. of those 800,000 americans with top-secret clearance, 31% of them are contractors, as you a list right here on the front page. what does this say? caller: first of all, that this is not what the framers of the constitution meant when they wrote about the commander-in- chief and armed forces. these are private sector individuals. i do not question their patriotism or commitment to national security, but they are not government employees and

they are not public servants, they work for companies whose interest is to make a profit for those companies. they will never step forward and say that they do not need to be doing what they are doing and that they need to do less. this is a fundamental issue for america to grapple with. the reality is that today we have basically placed a function of one-third of our government in the hands of private companies. i am not just talking about security guards and people that work in cafeterias and maintain buildings. these are contractors that are fundamentally involved in matters of national security, from intelligence analysis to manning watched and command centers to actually being out there in the field pulling the trigger. host: what is the role of congress in the buildup of this u.s. intelligence community?

host: -- caller: the role of congress is to oversee the executive branch of our government. but if they are denied information by virtue of classification or if they do not have the resources to do its job, or there is so much political interest in spending money and where the money is spent, i am afraid that congress has dropped the ball in its fundamental role. host: all right, william. if you want to read or see more, go to topsecretamerica.com. caller: thank you for having me on. host: coming up, we will be talking to john mclaughlin, acting as the cia director in 2004. we will talk to him about the intelligence community, coming up. we will be right back.

♪ >> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, bringing you a direct link to public history, nonfiction books, all as a public service. >> the senate judiciary committee will vote today on elena kagan's nomination as a supreme court justice. learn more about the nation's highest court in c-span's latest book, "the supreme court."

candid conversations with the justices, providing unique insight on the court. >> "washington journal" continues. host: john mclaughlin was the former deputy cia director from 2002 to 2004, here to take a closer look at the state of u.s. intelligence. we were speaking briefly about this series that has been running in "the washington post." this morning's installment looks at contractors. "the george bush administration and congress made it much easier for the cia and other agencies involved in counter- terrorism to hire more contractors than civil servants. .

very labor-intensive. second, history is important here. in the 1990's, the intelligence , after the fall of the soviet

union, was cut pre dramatically. the work force h, many people retired. at the time of 9/11, we were beginning to rebuild. one of the factors here is that you have people without much experience. 50% of the people in the intelligence community had been there just before since 9/11. that encourages you to reach out to the contracting community for things you do not head. [laughter] do you -- host: the you agree with the bill to deal with contractors? [applause] -- guest: secretary gates says he is looking closely at the contracts with a view to rationalizing it somewhat.

my point is, it is an understandable development. for someone involved in intelligence, it is not shocking, an alarming, that the level that one has heard over the commercial networks over the past couple of days where this is being described as a blockbuster. host: you do not think it is surprising? guest: know, for someone in the business, you read something like this and you say, this is tough it -- difficult business. it requires skills that are not always available to you. if you went back to the 1950's, it was possible for the government, intelligent, defense, to give a couple

hundred million dollars to the contractor and asked for an airplane. that is how we did technological development. everyone knows we are living in the middle of a technological revolution. so when you are looking for technology, in particular come in the intelligence business, you are driven to look into the private sector because so much technological the element is occurring there at a rapid pace, in ways that are dramatically different from the way that we've developed technology three years ago. host: "the washington post" writes about these contractors, saying that these companies are beholden to their shareholders and they do not put national interest first-come unnecessarily.

guest: i would disagree with the first part of the sentence. of course, that is logical, of course they are concerned with their bubottom line. i would not say that makes them any less patriotic or committed. i was in afghanistan. one man who died there was a contractor. he died with ca members with him. that is pretty patriotic. yes, his company had a bottom line, but this is a business. you cannot produce things to one sound bite or headline. and i am not trying to dismiss the concern there, but if they are quoting secretary drapegater

panetta, it may be time to take another look at this, particularly the contractor base. but one of the things we have to be careful of here is the very pronounced american tendency to develop intelligence policy, pendulum swings. a few years ago, if you talked to people, they would say, you never reach up to the private sector. then what are we doing? you are bringing in too many people, too many ideas. it is as if we cut intelligence in the 1990's and then rent it up after 9/11. delaware law that established

the director of national intelligence forbade that person from establishing the office on the premise of an existing agency. had that provision not been there, perhaps the dni would have set up at the cia headquarters, would have had a whole staff they're prepared to serve them. instead, they had to get a separate building, a separate staff. so there are bigger forces at play here. also, without minimizing the legitimacy that article raises -- legitimacy concerns the article raises, i think it skips over the fact that we have not had an attack in the country since 9/11. a couple of close calls, but on the whole, the record of attacks on the united states is pretty

good. host: 800,000 americans have top-secret clearance. there are 10 down and locations around the united states doing top-secret work -- 10,000 locations around the united states to doing talks paperwork. nsa work has doubled since 9/11, yet there are still close calls. if there are all these people working on this, how come we cannot catch the christmas bomber, as he was dubbed? guest: the director of national intelligence actually called me in one day with other individuals who had experience with the business to take a look at the case. we produced a 90-page study. it was myself, and fbi former

official, a senior scientist from google who looked at the information technology, and a civil liberties of journey. you have not heard about this because it is still classified. we took a cold-eyed look and we made recommendations that i cannot go into in detail, but which were generally accepted and are being implemented, as we speak, in four different areas. the post touches on a couple of days, but the context, the recommendations we made were in the areas of information technology. it needs to be smarter than it is. host: are you talking about eavesdropping? guest: know, the government's use of computers, databases. you see, one of the problems

today is the volume of the material is such that the human brain need help. you cannot expect an analyst to have seen some fragmentary reports without any name or a date attached to it but has some part menton six months ago, and then connecting it to something that they see today or tomorrow. so information technology needs to be better. they are working on this. they have made great strides. there are other areas that are recommended. host: if you could touch on those four areas. i think the viewers will find interesting that you were called in to give your insight. guest: the intelligence community is a learning organization. when it falls short on something, it says, what can we do to improve this? this is -- this is tough

business. yes, they have had close calls, but they have occurred in the midst of great success. we did catch zazi, david deadly. plot here, in the u.k. the u.k.ots here, in in many ways, the intelligence community is a victim of its own success. the sheer volume of the information it has to deal with. it poses problems, but if you went back to 1952, when the national security agency was created, there were only 5000 computers in the world. today, there are 530 billion

instant messages every day. so the target and struggled to separate out from all of that noise, the signals the need to understand and delegates from, that challenge has grown. the other thing that can be involved in cases like this, the fact that u.s. people are increasingly involved. the christmas bomber case, the person principally responsible for radicalizing the nigerian was an american citizen, and cleric who is now a resident in yemen. in the case of the times square bomber, the perpetrator was an american citizen. i will tell you, when intelligence agencies approached data involving american

citizens, there are numerous hurdles they have to go through before they can collect that information appropriately as we try to strike a balance between celebrities, privacy, security. one of our findings was we need to make sure everyone understands in the community the proper interpretation of these laws, and while expecting everybody's privacy, we do not allow them to inhibit in some fundamental way our ability to deter terrorists. my main thought about these two articles we have seen so far is they make some useful points but that leaves out a lot of context that leave readers with the feeling that somehow, this is a business that has grown too big, but in fact, is growing and

is doing well. host: eddy on the independent line. you are speaking to john mclaughlin. caller: as a former civil service employee, i used to visit courthouses. i want to know how many of those 834,000 people are clerical people, i.t. people, that there are 10 of them standing around talking about their boyfriends and girlfriends while maybe one or two are actually doing anything. guest: i cannot give you a number on that. the assurance i can give you is, based on my experience, based on

my recent look inside the intelligence community, you do not find that much going on in the intelligence business. he may find that in some other aspect of the federal government, but in the intelligence business, typically, people are working long hours every day, particularly if they are working on country terrorism. there is not much wasted effort here. host: pat on the republican line. caller: i just want to make a comment that a lot of this is terribly wasteful because the money comes too easy. this is why big government does not work very well. when you have a huge corporation -- i remember when i was coming up in white, ford motors had 14

layers of management. it was inefficient and then they streamlined. most americans would accept any kind of the budgetary obligation for our national security if it is legitimate. i would question you, sir, even though you are an outstanding service to our country, i bet you could not draw a map and connect the dots of who these people report to, as to the transparency, it is too big. guest: you say in secretary gates' comments that we need to take a look at it. at the same time, i would urge caution in pruning this

apparatus. perhaps it needs to be pruned, but when it comes to intelligence, we have a kind of schizophrenic attitude in our country. when we feel threatened, we cannot get enough of it. when we feel more relaxed about things in the world, we are shocked to find out how much we have to. part of this is this is relatively new to the country. we can find chinese writings in the sixth century describing intelligence in specific, sophisticated ways. the russians have been doing it. this is all pretty new to us. we need to take a look at it. we need to be careful not to prune something that turned up

later to the -- turns out later to be the missing piece in a puzzle that is required to prevent a terrorist attack. host: this twitter fall or wants to know what you are doing, where you work now. guest: i am a teacher in washington teaching national security, and to bring intelligence in to their studies as a foreign-policy tool kit. host: confusion about who is doing what, in your role as deputy cia director, did you ever come across that? guest: absolutely, but that is life. if you work for the microsoft corp., -- that is a very distributed company in the private sector. chances are, you do not know what is coming on in your

employer at every hour overnight. if you run the cia, you'd never go to bed at night thinking we have operations going around the world, something is happening right now that i should be concerned about. but you cannot humanly know everything going on at the same time. in the intelligence business, new people have an extraordinary amount of the responsibility. despite what the post says about its size, when you get down to the core mission, -- host: shouldn't one person know? guest: yes, one person does know, it could be the central director, but at what level of laritylarities -- granu

-- you have to be able to trust your people. with this business, you are on 24 hours a day. it is so big and complicated and important you are up -- important. you are up at 5:30 in the morning, your day is full of important meetings, you go to dinner at night, you get phone calls, take home a stack of materials at night, get six hours of sleep, and then do it all over again. the problems we are dealing with today are enormous, complex, technologically and used, and all -- enfused, and all i can tell you is everyone i know in

the counterintelligence business is working very hard. host: livingston, minnesota. in is montana. i like to watch c-span early in the morning. what happened to all of those missiles? guest: that is a complicated question. and i am not sure i can enter it. if you are saying iraq had an anthrax prior to the war, then that is different. it sounds like you are saying we never located i do not think we know the into that other than the fact that the caa designated two people to -- cia designated two people to iraq to search for things like that.

they did not come back have been finding -- haven't found any. we then concluded that the weapons stockpile did not exist, and that is all published in the report. host: bloomington, indiana. andy. caller: one thing that keeps striking me, he calls it the intelligence business. it is the word "business." i am a taxpayer. i thought this was a public service. this seems like a way of bilking the public tax dollars. is there a major conflicts of interest?

how are they able to make up intelligence about yellowcake to that they can get contracts for iraq? massive complex of interest. where is the accountability? guest: i take your point. i probably used the term " business" because i work in intelligence salam. it is probably not the right way to describe it. it should be described as a community, public service, because that is what it is. i do not see a massive conflict of interest here. many of these people could be making more money in the private sector. in terms of the quality of the work, on the worst day, we are better than anyone else on the world -- in the world. on our best day, we are probably not good enough. that is the balance you have to

strike. when you look at intelligence, you have to ask yourself what is you were looking for you strive for perfection but there is really no achieving it where you cannot and your adversary is always looking to deceive you. host: fredericksburg, virginia. louise. caller: thank you for doing what you do. i would like to know a little bit about the history of the start of homeland security. i do believe president bush did not want homeland to charity. he thought you could build up the cia, fbi and have a perfectly good security, but congress insisted on creating this bureaucracy. they also insisted on federalizing the tsa. i always wondered about where is

the port authority in boston? and did they not have the ability to secure the airport? these are taxing authorities. they have the ability to tax us. i never heard anything about the port authority and their responsibilities, and how they have let us down. guest: homeland security was created as a department in 2003. it was a controversial decision. there were a lot of politics. the administration was ambivalent but the decision was made to create it. i think today it continues to struggle burning in many disparate elements. it is a working progress.

one can make the case, though, that unless you draw these eighties together at a time when the country felt threatened, we would not be able to gain access to the data in those places that might help us to stop terrorists, particularly in areas like customs and border control. it is a conglomeration of agencies that do not easily fit together, it is still a work in progress. i am sorry i cannot help you on the logan airport to tuition. i do not know what exactly you are referring to and i do not know how i would characterize my answer. host: ron on the democratic line. caller: i want to think c-span. i have been listening for over eight years. -- think c-span. a couple of suggestions.

i would like to see c-span televising the supreme court when there are in session, if possible. host: we tried. the supreme court has decided not to allow cameras into the court. caller: mr. mclaughlin, just the general suggestion. it is so easy to criticize everybody. you have a tough job. i have two suggestions. in world war ii, they used the indians, talking about how horrible they can be when they get your intelligence, maybe we should make it not so easy for them to do it. also, across america, from the president's office to private companies, they always seem to

be able to get into e-mails. if they had two separate systems, one for e-mails, and where you could not get into the other system, and they might eliminate some of the dangers. guest: in the intelligence area, you tend to have two computer systems. on your desk, you have an open the internet terminal, just like the one at home, which is not to care, but you also have a to computer which gathers information from a network of classified information with multiple firewalls and other protections which we think is secure. of course, this is a constant battle, given the technological evolution, so you keep having to double check, but there is a lot of emphasis put into a computer

security. host: if you are interested in what agencies do have technological evolution, on our website we have a list of the 17 agencies that comprise the intelligence of the agency. what role did you have come if any, in the buildup of the cia after 9/11? guest: we were stripped back pretty severely in the 1990's. i can remember, in the department of was in georgia, there were 20 people. , at oneid 1990's point, the claim is there were more fbi officers in new york

city then there were officers around the world. we argued that we needed more people. it was evident to us the problems had not stopped. we had problems with nuclear weapons, the balkans. it became clear to us that usama bin laden would become a problem. so we pressed hard at the end of the clinton administration for an increase. we got some. in the time of 9/11, we had about 300 people spread across the department tried to hold back that phenomenon. after 9/11, a lot of resources flow to us. of course, our objective is a multi-fold. one thing we wanted to do was build up our capacity for human

agents. while technology helps you see things in here things, it does not help you with intentions, the inner workings with some of your adversaries. i would say is still a work in progress but is dramatically better than it was. the other thing we are trying to do and is still an ongoing project is to integrate this in no way that is seen was across all disciplines. the task was to increase the material, and find a way to integrate it across mediums. host: james clapper will be

before the senate intelligence committee. he is being nominated to be the new director of the national intelligence agency. long island, new york. randall, a republican line. caller: good morning. the intelligence community is multifaceted and the spirit. i want to know what you think, if homeland security clearing has improved ever security in any way? guest: the way i would put it is heavy emphasis on homeland security has improved with intelligence gathering. and i am not just talking about the intelligence department. i'm talking about the reality that, increasingly, the threat we face on terrorism crosses the

traditional domestic-foreign line. we see plot to involving u.s. citizens radicalized at some level, so we need to bring together the agencies that have the authority legally to operate in the united states, and those that offered overseas, and that need has become more urgent. i would say this is the principal task given to the new director of national intelligence and organization by the national intelligence center. one clarification between what the national intelligence does, what other counter entered into apartments to, it is only the national intelligence counter- terrorism center that has information on the domestic

threats and integrating the we have made progress on this, but there is a long way to go. the domestic peace of this is not as fully developed as it needs to be. frankly, it is difficult to get that. host: new new james clapper, the nominee? -- do you know james clapper, the nominee? guest: yes, i do. he has run the intelligence community, the national du space intelligence agency. pfft he has that worked in a civilian capacity at the defense department. so he is a very skilled, highly experienced intelligence professional. i think he brings to the job most of the knowledge you need

to get around it. host: last phone call. syracuse, new york. ron, independent line. caller: i wanted to point out a couple of things about the history of the cia. the cia is not simply intelligence gathering information. that is a misnomer. the cia has overthrown democratic government, starting in iran, then in guatemala. they helped to overthrow the government of chile. in indonesia, it resulted in about 1 million people being killed. they run secret prisons around the world. they run military operations. and they do domestic work even though there turner says they are not allowed to. john kennedy said he wanted to take the cia and break them into

1000 pieces and scatter them into the wind. a number of high officials have come out for the abolition of the agency. i think history is absolutely reprehensible. guest: you are talking about in the area of activity called covert action. every president since harry truman has wanted to have the capacity to carry out covert actions, the ability to carry out actions that influence overseas arguably without the hand of the united states shall win. although it is frequently revealed after. and the other operation that you referred to did occur. there is a lot of history to all of them. in any case, the cia carried out

acts like that, only when there is a binding document that the president has to sign while one can cite all kinds of history like that, it is also possible to argue about the pros and cons, consequences of operations like that. you would also have to list some of the other ones which are more recent, less storied, to include the covert operations that the cia carried out in afghanistan when the soviets invaded, which clearly helped to defeat the soviets. it was this the way, only 15 days after 9/11, through

essentially a covert operation, had people on the ground in afghanistan taking on people on the ground. the first casualty in afghanistan was a cia officer. so when you talk about history about the cia, it is a multifaceted history. there are things you can object to, but there are things that deserve praise and gratitude from the american public. host: at the top of the interview, you talked about the administration asking you and a few other civilians to give their inside, the christmas day bomber, the times square incident. do you still have your top secret clearance? guest: yes, i do. you need it to do this kind of work.

i cannot go into the details of the findings, but they were clear-eyed, independent, appropriately critical, and also positive in their recommendations. what strikes me about all that is, when the intelligence community believes it has fallen short, it tries to take corrective actions. host: who at the white house asked you to do this, why? guest: it was the then-director of national intelligence dennis blair. host: did they tell you why they wanted you, outside of the administration, to look at this? guest: and they did this on their own simultaneously. if you look at what number and, the white house counterterrorism

adviser said, they were directed by the white house and director of national intelligence to take a closer look. i think he wanted an independent, outside the u.s. court of a double track. the mission he gave to our panel was to find out three things, what are the facts come in independently ascertained, what should be done in the way of corrective action, and third, what are we thinking inside the government that maybe we are missing? in the course of carrying that out, i solicit the views of outside scholars who have nothing to do with intelligence. the pendulum swings here. my judgment is if you are in the government, you can get tunnel vision. you need the help of outside experts who are coming at the problem from a different perspective and can give you

insights that you will not get from looking and classified information all day. host: are you still privy to classified information? guest: no, i do not go looking for it. but if someone asked me to offer an opinion based on it, i would be prepared to do so. host: thank you for being with us, john mclaughlin. we will turn our attention to the future of medicaid. tom scully is the former administrator for medicare and medicaid services. >> the government says the oil seeping into the gulf of mexico is insignificant. officials are moving ahead with the plan to finally sealed off the well. bp will be one of the topics at the white house today as british prime minister david cameron meet with president obama for

the first time. the two leaders hold a news conference at 2:00 p.m. secretary of state clinton has the the women of afghanistan not return to taliban rule. secretary clinton and european policy chief catherine ashton spoke to afghanistan women leaders in kabul today. tomorrow, she joins robert gates to the korean demilitarized zones. the two will also meet with u.s. and south korean troops protecting one of the world's most heavily fortified borders, as korean tensions continue over the sinking of a south korean worship. --war ship. >> c-span is now available in over 100 million homes, give you

a direct link to history, politics. the senate judiciary committee will vote today on the nomination of elena kagan s supreme court justice. live coverage on c-span. and at c-span.org. learn more about the nation's highest court in "the supreme court." providing unique insight. available in hardcover and as an e-book. [laughter] -- host: we are talking about the future of medicaid with a man who used to run that organization in 2004 tom scully. what is medicare? guest: it is a wonderfully structured comments times

planned for the government. spending is probably up to the $420 billion level this year. it is really the true safety net program. it covers 60 million americans. that is 16% of u.s. health care spending coming from medicaid spending. that will being expended under the reform program. 40% of births in the country are covered by medicaid. it covers 29 million children. about 9 million elderly and disabled. one of the confusing things is, it is actually 56 different programs. the five territories in the district of columbia. every one is run independently and different. in some cases, that is a

problem. on average, just to get to the stimulus, the wealthiest states, california, connecticut, have a 50/50 match. the poorer states have a 25/75 to match. we are considering congress -- in congress to rid the considerably. it would be about equal to $5 million bond temporarily for the recession. the new reform bill would add about 16 million people starting in 2014. all of that new spending is initially funded by the government and even stretched out for the next few years. so spending in the reform bill is about $435 billion in federal spending. here is a massive program. it is about the size of the

defense apartment. it is a wonderful program. on the other hand, anybody that tells you that it completely works, that it is a rational, is completely nuts. i spent a lot of time on this in the 1980's, 1990's, and it is a wonderful program, but it is a mishmash of a lot of things. guest: -- host: what is it about the structure, how does it work? guest: in 1965, we had coverage, and on covering the vast majority of americans. obviously, that is an honorable. the fact is, it is different in every state.

california has the lowest per- capita spending. california covers 10 million people, they spend 3100 alert per capita. host: we talked about a braeak down. do you have to apply? guest: about 25% of the money goes to the elderly, which is largely nursing-home. essentially, 75% of the nursing homes in the country are paid for by medicaid. 42% goes to the disabled. a town that is disabled, wheelchair-bound, they're almost

always qualify for disability, hopefully. all lot of kids and adults are on there. that can help physician coverage, hospital coverage. that is only about 10% of spending. the average amount for some of getting health care is about three dozen dollars a year. for an older person in a nursing home, it can be up to $12,000. the older, more disabled, they spend more money. host: the debt commission is looking at ways to cut back on spending. are there areas of the case that could be on the chopping block to help save money? guest: there is a lot going on in medicaid. for example, i love the state, they do what they can, but it is supposed to be a matching program. with the enhanced message from the stimulus, it is about $320

billion federal, $120 billion state. it will be confusing, but about $30 billion of it is simply air. states have come up with these incredibly complicated ways of coming up with their matches without spending any money. there could be $40 million in the system, and every state does this, that basically phantom matches. they are not spending the money. so we are looking at getting the state's 24 over their share -- states to fork over their share. about one-third of the money california is spending -- maybe not spending, because it is not really the same.

the president, whether you like it or not, reform and the commercial insurance system pretty radically. at some point, it needs significant reform. you cannot cut providers. for the most part, it comes from the state. and does underpay physicians significantly, so cutting medicaid spending, as far as how much you pay a hospital or doctor is impossible. it is at the lowest they already. as to making it work, making states put their own cash in, that is different. host: some have probably seen the headlines in the past few weeks that a lot of state budgets were asking, lobbying the federal government to give them some aid for their medicare expenses, why? guest: states want money every year, no matter what.

if i were estate, i would, too. states have problems, high unemployment, other issues. do they need an enhanced match? i think it is about $25 billion this year outside of programs that will be picked up. they should probably have done that, that enhanced in eight runs up in december, but the federal government also has huge structural problems. at some point, and will have to stop lending money. on the other hand, virginia, where i live, just declared a budget surplus. a lot of states have to balance their budget. michigan, california, those are the sorts of things that you have to look at. but the federal government is picking up the vast amount of the shares and is broken, and that is why we are having a huge debt issue.

that is a tough ballots. i love virginia, but should the state kicked in to pay extra money for v.a. when there is a surplus? host: richard in tennessee. we're talking about the future of medicaid. caller: i have a question and a comment. as a physician who knows something about the medicaid program, i was also involved in the oxycontin suit and prevailed with a new form of addiction. i was part of a million dollars settlement which was illegally diverted. half a billion dollars was supposed to be set up to pay for the victims foundation. as a physician, i know the cost of repeated tests for people who are essentially chemically dependent, as well as disability

costs, probably equal 25% of the budget. how much do you congress have gone ahead and instituted some sort of addiction program, physician training, what percentage of the cost of medicaid -- and the medicare -- from disability can be reduced? i am involved in a special investigation with the department of justice. so much of this money was illegally diverted to politicians' campaigns. [applause] that is -- guest: that is a complicated question. drug use and pain management are complicated questions. could congress have done more? i think they are struggling with doing less.

pain management, that is one issue. the economy is another. to be honest, i am not specific with that lawsuit, so i cannot comment. host: jonathan on the republican line. miami, florida. we are going to go back to him in a minute east springs, carolina. debbie on the independent line. guest: thank you -- caller: thank you for having us on. me and my husband want to know how we can have disability benefits. we have been denied. for two years, we have not been able to get his diabetic medicine or medicine for his urology. he has neuropathy.

how can me tell these people that we need this coverage? guest: is a state-by-state issue. in south carolina, if you are disabled, medicaid-eligible -- and in north carolina, south carolina looks at the program -- but in the interim, at some point, if you are terminally disabled, you become eligible for medicare. if your husband is a senior, he is on for medicare. i assume he signed up for medicare part d. if you are dual eligible, you get a pretty comprehensive health benefits without much of a coakley or deductible. you should check with the state of south carolina, but i assume that you are almost medicare

qualified, so i would get in touch with your local cms. host: we have a special one set aside for medicaid recipients. next phone call. sun valley, nevada. susan. independent line. caller: i have a comment and question. i am not personally interested in this health care bill. if i refuse to sign up for it, will i go to jail, will i be charged a fee? host: the people on our twitter page are having a conversation about this.

guest: if you are low income and eligible for medicaid, it is a great benefit. if he do not, you are making a mistake. it would the hon was not to sign up. if you are not low income and you do not sign up eventually -- eventually, there are small penalties for not having health insurance one of the complaint is that the penalty would be so small that people would not want to buy private insurance. $9,000 of year for an individual policy but only a few hundred dollars for the penalty. not enough to drive people into having universal insurance. that is debatable. some people may be among them. if your goal is to make the

insurance system work right, everybody has to be in, and those that offer out, everybody else is paying for. host: by 2014, nearly everyone under the age of 65 with income up to 130% of the party level will be eligible. guest: they will be adding another 15 million people. the vast bulk of those people -- so about $30 million to the health reform package -- about half of the welcome to the exchange's. people going to cincinnati to buy private insurance, sometimes subsidized through an exchange. the rest comes to medicare. state-by-state, in our example, if you are not a child, a pregnant woman, if you are a single parent, you basically get medicaid if you have 70% of the party level.

as of 2014, there is a mandate that everybody up to 133% of the poverty level gets medicaid. so the attention is on the floor in come individuals who are not covered. -- lower income individuals who are not covered. it is all covered by the federal government. you can debate whether that is good or not, but mainly this is for hospital services. this is not a big disability for nursing homes. most of the spending is covering the uninsured people for traditional coverage as, people, low-income people with families. host: jonathan on the independent line. caller: i have two questions. how do you see the eventual mandates on attacking the issue

of illegal aliens, undocumented aliens? the other problem we constantly suffer from it is the drop-off from the amount of payments we see for physician services. thank you for the program. .

>> i have concerns about this bill from a spending point of view. we can afford this right now, but i would not have spent as much as fast probably. this is a move in the right direction to start covering the vast number of uninsured said that we have. host: that elderly patients are. a lot of them are heading into

medicaid. where do you find your clams? guest: the bigger states in particular, texas and arizona, they have medicaid hmo's. and the networks of doctors and hospitals to gather working to gether. 75% of the people in the medicaid are in a very structured medicaid hmo. it is pretty well run. it is a different business than the traditional medicaid plan. a lot of bluegrass -- blue cross companies do it. united healthcare has a product. i think most states, after many years of trial and error, have pretty good plans. they have worked out contracts

to dig those fairly big numbers. host: would you make of the arguments that if you do not look at their reimbursement rates that they will stop seeing medicaid and medicare patients? guest: on an 52-years old and i have started hearing that -- i am 65-years old and i have heard that since i was 52. a lot of these doctors are struggling economically in many cases. on the other hand, the medical community is not very organized to take over this problem. i was in the government for 16 years. fault.not the ama's think have been ineffective in making policy arguments. we are all in this together.

they need to come in and say this is a long-term, structural problem. i bet i would get a few calls about this. host: that is a comment from one of our viewers treating. has he admitted that the fact that both programs are doomed yet? guest: i happen to think that medicaid and medicare are wonderful programs for social equity. they are both in a management disaster. if you figure out how to cover all of the people in an efficient way, there are a lot of things to cover a lot of people, 42 million seniors and disabled with medicare and another 60 million people on medicaid. there is probably a better way to do this if we started from scratch, but i do not think that will happen. you do the best you can. i did my best to patch together and make it a little better when i was there. my successors, i am sure, will

do the same. they are very complicated problems. i think they are very were the problems. i would never sit down and sign this form -- designed us from scratch. host: next caller on our line for democrats. caller: i'm calling with a suggestion. i have a low income. if you do not waste your money, the people on social security, disability, could pave may be a fee for their -- could maybe pay a fee for their medicaid to pay the doctors and we to pay for the medications and services they want to discontinue. host: mr. scully? guest: there are very small co- payments in medicaid. these are the low-income people who cannot afford to pay.

in most cases, the co-payments for medications are generally waived or there are very small. could you save some money by instituting some of those? yes. they are very small. generally, the disability groups oppose that. it -- that has happened over the years. i will not bore you with that, but you could probably save a little bit of money by having the disability people and others have more modest payments. i pick on my favorite drug, nexium. it is $80 a month. prilosec is $8 a month. it is the drugs driving the prices up.

i think the savings are fairly modest. it is a big system. there are a lot of things going on. host: we are talking about the future of medicaid with tom scully. the bright blue stage are the ones -- those bright blue states are the ones with 50% or more covered by medicaid. there are about 12 states total. william in florida. go ahead. caller: thank you for taking my call. i am on medicaid. the payment costs of monthly. i had a problem with medicaid. if you -- a friend of mine got cancer. she applied for medicaid and had a difficult time getting on int. she passed away. then she got a notice that she

needed to start training for work. i think that is inhumane. that is my reflection. i know a lot of people in florida had a difficult time getting on it. question that no people make a bureaucratic mistakes in a program that covers 100 million people. they are big programs. you are in florida which is the dual eligible program. you are on medicare and you have no copayments, no deductibles, no drug offense which means you are relatively lower income. medicaid is a pain of your medical work -- medicare deductibles. that is a great program. it is a spectacular safety net. it is difficult to show that you have a limited assets and income. your friend had cancer, and that is horrible obviously, but they have the biggest spending in florida by far. the have to show they have less

than two dozen dollars of assets in the bank. frequently you apply and you'll be denied care. it is traditionally a welfare based program. they send out periodically to say, here is some talk -- job training administration -- job training. it was a giant bureaucracy during the best they can. they have worked incredibly hard and done a great job trying to help low-income and disabled people. when you run a ship this big, it is not easy. host: what is the biggest expense in medicare? guest: it is the jewel eligible programs. your map shows states that have

medicaid. the lowest state is in new hampshire and with about 7% or 8%. the highest is the district of columbia right here. it is not 22%. state-by-state, it varies massively. per-capita, i think new york is the most expensive state. host: what if you break down the services? guest: the lowest costs are children. a woman is having a child, or a relatively healthy person because the state $3,000 or $4,000. the most expensive are nursing homes. they cost $30,000 a year minimum and that is under paying them. then there are the people who are chronically disabled. the full-time staff and help are paid for by medicare. the costs are seniors in nursing

homes and the high the disabled. host: we have a tweed who asks if you would cover inflation in the area of equipment needed? guest: that is a complicated question. my pet peeve about medicare and medicaid, and i think they are great, but the government fixes prices. having the government fix prices and decide what you will pay for an oxygen tank or wheelchair, government has never fixed prices well. when you get -- then you get inflation and explosions. it is a philosophical difference, but i think you should do this in the market and help create the medicare part d program. that was my primary job. i think that is the model of a private sector, well regulated, well run program that would come

in below cost. the government is trying to sit around and fix the right price for a wheelchair, oxygen tank, hospital bed. it generally does not work. if you put -- and this is a big if, in a well regulated private sector in there. host: our next caller is on the democratic line from illinois. caller: i live in a nursing home. i am 86. i have been trying to find someone who knows someone -- knows something about medicaid. i have two programs. you can smile all you like. i am not insane. the first one has to do with strictly a volunteer program of instead of paying the nursing home $6,000 on month, why do you

pay -- have an agreement to what you can pay a family? i am not on medicaid. most of the people here are. they all would like to go home. their friends, their children would like to have them home. their kids do not have jobs. you could cut medicaid by a bunch if you could have a strictly voluntary program where people could take their family members home and give them a stipend like to thousand dollars a month. they would be happy. guest: i agree with you. i was laughing that i was the expert to solve your problem.

that happens in most of the country. it is called a waiver program. a texas, for example, which is a very frugal medicaid state. they have a home health program. the number of nursing-home patients is very low. it is cheaper. many states have this. it is the medicaid home health waiver where they were -- where they will pay nurses and family members to save we will pay the full time aided to live in your home. in many cases it is a family member. almost every state has some type of waiver. i think the two big states are arkansas and texas. that is the goal. it is expensive and seniors are not very happy. we would much rather have them at home. they will pay them to do that. you are totally right. a lot of states experiment with it. washington state was the first to do it about 20 years ago.

some states are worried about a woodwork effect. you are totally right. it is inappropriate program and many states do it. it is no question that seniors and their families would much rather than the home. host: glenn bernie, maryland. on our line for republicans. caller: i'm a 62-year-old diabetic that has been out of work for 18 months. my unemployment is gone. i am considering applying for social security but i could not live on that. what qualifies you for medicaid? guest: it varies by state. i am not too familiar with maryland. maryland tends to be one of the, i think, one of the higher- income states. if you are a single woman with no children it depends on the income level. i think it is 100% of poverty. if you are unemployed, that

counts as income, but if you are below 100% of the poverty level and you apply, there is an asset test. if you have an expensive house, a lot of money in the bank, that might not work. every state has different qualifications, different thresholds. call the state of maryland resource office and apply. if you have been unemployed in your assets have diminished, you probably have a reasonably good chance. to be honest, you have a much better chance if you have children. host: does every state have the same party line figure? guest: yes. it is said federally. it is optional if you are a single woman or man, it varies last the by state. it will change in 2014. it was designed to be a welfare program to support women with

children. host: this the poverty line change? guest: yes, it changes every year. 100% of poverty is what $23,000. host: tampa, florida. caller: my question is not related directly to medicare- medicaid, but you may be able to answer it. we hear about illegal immigrants being treated in our emergency rooms which drives up costs. if these people can be identified at the time of treatment that they are illegal immigrants, why are these people not reported at the time of treatment and we not notify immigration or our local police? if we could get that under control, a lot of these illegal immigrants who would not necessarily go to the emergency room if they know they're going to be possibly deported at that

time. guest: that is what you call political dynamite. if you read the newspapers from arizona, that is what is going on. if there is evidence that you identify some as a likely to illegal immigrants that you should go arrest and deport them. that is very, very controversial. i will not take a decision on that one. when the big costs for hospitals in border states, even if you have universal coverage, it does not cover illegal immigrants. if you are in brownsville or arizona, a significant number of the people walking in are not covered. there are subsidies for that. it is about $40 billion or $50 billion per year. they take care of the indigent care. there are not as many subsidies for doctors. and is a massive social problem.

it is a political issue that, thank god, i am not able to deal with. host: silver springs, maryland. are you with us? caller: yes, i am sorry. i have two questions. i have been on social security since 1991. i have never been able to get anyone to identify over the 20 year. -- 20 year period when i am under. is that medicaid or medicare? i have united healthcare called americhoice. the concept is i have a terribly bad teeth. it has taken me 10-15 years to

finally get them to say if you do this, if you do that, we can get your teeth fixed. i will probably end up with plates and stuff. i would rather have plastics. here recently last october, i was told if i provided this and that that they would get my teeth fixed with the now implications. host: can get your question? we are running out of time. caller: i do not know what the necessity and coverages for getting teach repaired a. guest: it sounds like you are a senior. if you are on sub-level social security income, americhoice is a medicare hmo.

dental care is optional in most states. i'm sure you are having a hard time. essentially states are not required to cover it. it is optional. if the state thinks that your dental coverage problems are sufficient enough that they will cause physical problems, which is what it sounds like here, they will help you get your teeth fixed. it is a very big, expensive problem with the states when they tried to make absolutely sure if they spend a lot of money that it is on the right people. it sounds like you think they have been passing you over. i can tell you there is a lot of pressure with people saying you better be paying for the right people, for the right stuff, when you need it. i hope you get it covered. i think have gotten there. it is probably not americhoice's problem. they have a probably a very limited dental program. dental coverage is one of these things that is hit or miss depending on the state.

host: west virginia, janet on our republican line. caller: yes, i think one of the things that would help is if the government would not be taking such a big cut out of the money that goes in there. i did not get medicaid or medicare. i am 66. i have not gone to the doctor in 30 years. i no longer take medicine because i cannot afford it. if the government would take a lower cut in the money that goes in there, senior citizens would not be cutting their pills. i have a question. medicaid and medicare, once this health-care thing goes in, why keep medicaid and medicare alae there? why not just put everything in one pot? guest: that would make a way to much sense. that is a longer debate. that is a big health care issue.

physical you have four or five different dance. if you are low-income and disabled it is medicaid. there are 50 or 60 different problems. if you are over 65, 18% of the population, 40% of the spending in medicare. if you are not on medicaid or medicare, you are in the commercial system which is theoretically being reformed. the system is a mishmash of the bad incentives. you are right. when it makes sense to put it all in one pot? -- would it make sense? it covers everyone whether your poor, a senior, relatively wealthy, we decide what your subsidy level is. if you are poor, you get subsidized. if you are a senior, you get subsidized. my favorite plan is senator white to is a liberal democrat. it is very controversial, very

capitalist. it is one thing he got pounded for in his senate race. if you were going to start from scratch, that is probably the right thing to do. he spent years working on it. can it be done politically? not a chance. too many people out there with that -- with a vested interest. it is a giant set of scrambled eggs. if you want to more efficiently run the system, go to the senator. i have some problems, but generally it is going in the right direction. the system, by the way, medicare is run on 1.5% administrative cost. these are very tightly run, highly efficient -- highly inefficient programs. these are wonderful programs. they are doing the best they can to run them. you know what?

most of the incentives have been greeted by a lot of legislation over the years that have gone lawyers and lawyers with a jump on top of each other. they would say, "holy cow. how do we get there"? the dollar during the best they can. thank god we had these programs. i would not run them the way they are being run, but you have to deal with them the way you can. host: dug in medina, new york. go ahead. -- doug in medina. you are on the air. caller: i am on medicaid. i had pain pills because i was in a car accident. i used to work and now i am on hard times. i work for social services, by the way. i had no problems with that. that is fair go they changed my

medication from being a generic brand over to a name brand. the generic brand for 60 pills was $18. the actual name brand was a $206. i asked the pharmacist about this. the pharmacist said there was a kickback going on and in the private sector it would be illegal. the state can do this. host: mr. scully? guest: we can spend hours on this question. long story. it is possible that drug is cheaper for the state. when you spend $200 and the state is not, they might be getting some kind of rebate. they might be spending $39 when the generic is $41. they negotiate the rates that different drugs and it is possible the state is steering

into a drug that will save them. if the state goes out and says, we have a great deal for lipitor, they may get a better price. i would trust that the state of new york since they are spending $42 million are hopefully making the right call. they are trying to drive people to generics in medicaid. my guess is that you're a drug has some kind of deal. -- look at the pharmacia list price. -- pharmacia list price. they spend a lot of time trying to find the most appropriate and cheapest medication for you. they are called rebates. the kick back is a back door discount. they charge less price at the end of the year than they get more. host: tom scully used to run the

medicare and medicaid services company. he is now focusing on health care regulation matters. thank you for being here. we appreciated. we will take a quick break, when we come back we focus on the senate vote today to extend unemployment benefits. we will talk with a reporter about when the vote might happen and what the legislation says. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> it is at 9:28 a.m. new home and apartment construction fell 5% in june, the lowest level since october last year. building permit applications did rise. toyota in the news again. they say they have been subpoenaed by a federal grand jury in new york to submit documents from the latest problems with the steering systems. in january, they were subpoenaed by a federal grand jury seeking documents about unintended acceleration and the parking

brake system on the eve prius. president obama wants government workers to reduce the use of cars for commuting to cut business travel in an effort to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. an announcement is planned for the day. they aim to cut emissions by 13% by 2020 compared with the 2008 levels. the federal government is the largest energy consumer in the u.s. economy. the u.s. and south korean defense chiefs say they will hold the military exercises starting this sunday. secretary of defense robert gates made the announcement with south korea after holding talks in seattle earlier today. -- in seoul. they want to send a clear message to north korea. those are some of the latest headlines from c-span radio. >> c-span is now available in

over 100 million homes. a direct link to a public affairs, politics, history, and nonfiction books all as a public service greeted by america's kit companies. -- cable companies. the senate judiciary committee will vote today on the nomination of elena kagan on c- span3. you can learn more about the supreme court on -- in c-span's new book, "the supreme court." it is available in hardcover and as an e-book. host: the senate today is expected to extend jobless benefits. it is the headline in many newspapers this morning. we want to hear from you in the last 30 minutes of today's washington journal whether or not they should be extending the jobless benefits. joining us on the phone is ryan

avent, an on-line economics editor for "the economist." when can viewers expect to see this vote? guest: it should take place this afternoon around 2:15 p.m. or so. they will take a business to swear in the replacement center for robert byrd from west virginia who recently passed away. as soon as goodwin has been sworn in, they will move to extend unemployment benefits. host: there is some talk that republicans may demand 30 hours of debate. where does that stand? guest: i do not think that is likely to happen at this point based on the latest information i have seen. democrats are anxious to push this through. host: what does the legislation say exactly? who would get these benefits? guest: the benefits will be for

people who have been out of work for an extended period of time. basically the way this works, there are normal on and limit benefits then extended unemployment benefits. -- normal unemployment benefits and then extended. there are these tiers of and extend -- of emergency benefits which extend the to one year and beyond. people have been out of work anywhere from one year to two years are eligible for these benefits. most people in this program have seen their benefits expire since june 2 which is when the previous extension lasted. that is the group of people who we are talking about who are looking forward to this package. host: are the benefits retroactive to june 3? guest: in nearly all cases, they will be retroactive. when and if the senate has this taken care of, they can move along and get these payments

back up their to their citizens. there will be a lump-sum payment, and maybe something different. in most cases, this will be retroactive. host: how many people are we talking about to receive these benefits? guest: since the measure lapsed in june, this is a few hundred thousand people a week that have been rolling out of the system and are seeing their benefits expire. six weeks on, it is between two and 3 million people who are now looking to get back into the system. and is quite a significant number of people. host: "the new york times" had a story on a woman who has been watching this unfold. it is on there website. it shows a woman there who has $44 left in her purse. she is watching this debate. ryan, when can you expect a vote? for those who have been watching this closely, who are the

republicans that are slated to support this? host: -- guest: it looks like they will have support from the republican senators from the main, susan collins and olympia snowe. ben nelson has a very low unemployment rate in nebraska is not supported -- not expected to support the bill. host: some republicans have been rejecting this legislation arguing that it needs to be offset. we need to pay for these. is that included in the legislation? guest: this would add to the deficit. it is a rather small number. given the savings to the economy, to include that as an extra stimulus, i think it is one of the complaints republicans have made. host: democrats are arguing it

is an ok amount to add to the deficit, why? what is their economic argument? guest: if you talk about your bang for the but, on employment benefits are near the top of the list. they need these kinds of payments simply to make their gas bills, buy groceries. the money gets cycled back into the economy very quickly. what that does is provide an immediate boost. you are getting a lot of boost for the money. host: you can tune in to c-span2 around 2:30 p.m. eastern. what happens next? guest: once they have taken of the bill and passed it, they will take the senate version as is and push it through. beyond that, they may sign the bill as early as wednesday

evening or maybe thursday. this is an extension to the end of november. we heard robert gibbs, the press secretary, say the unemployment rates in november will probably still be very high and we might have to do this all over again. host: democrats are expecting to put back -- put forward another extension in november? guest: that is my guess. host: ryan avert, thank you for your time. should they be a mixed -- extended unemployment benefits? you have heard what republicans are arguing and what democrats are arguing as far as their arguments for extending unemployment benefits. president obama spoke about this yesterday in the rose garden. he talks about his argument and why he believes that republicans should stop opposing this and to support the extension of unemployment benefits. i will show you a little bit of

that and get your reaction. first, a call from cleveland, ohio. a line on the republican line. good morning. -- elaine, good morning. should be extended benefits? caller: i do believe in helping the people. they have been unemployed for almost two years. it is sad the democrats are using this as a campaign slogan. saying the republicans do not care about the poor people, they want people to starve. republicans, all they ask for is to have this paid for and offset with the stimulus money. they said they would vote for it if it was paid for. they are only saying what the president said last december. he said he would not sign a benefit extensions if there was

no way of paying for it. they do not want to pass anything unless it is paid for. republicans are kind of throwing his own words back at him. i think the stimulus, $34 billion, politicians say that is a little bit of money. $34 billion is only a little bit of money, only in their world. the stimulus is supposed to help for jobs and things like that. what is more job-related than unemployment benefits? i believe we should get the help. they need to be about to get on their feet. host: we will leave it there. "usa today," obama blasts senate republican. it quotes the congressional budget office.

let's take a listen to what president obama had to say yesterday on this issue. >> i have to say after years of championing policy, the same people who did not have any problems spending hundreds of billions of dollars on tax breaks for the wealthiest americans are now saying we should not offer relief to middle-class americans like juim -- jim really need help. the senators have tried not once, not twice, but three times to extend emergency relief on a temporary basis. each time a partisan minority in the senate has used parliamentary maneuvers to block a vote the nine millions of people who are out of work and have needs. these leaders in the senate you are advancing the misguided notion that emergency relief

somehow discourages people from looking for a job should talk to these people. host: davenport, iowa. larry on the line for democrats. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. thank you for c-span. i think there should be a referendum against the republicans. they clearly show they do not care. they did not care about the middle-class or the working poor i would say. these people make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year yet they cannot extend benefits of $300 a week. that comes up to 14 doubt -- $40,000 a year. host: what about the argument mitch mcconnell made said they are not opposed, they just want to pay for them. the two month extension paid for with the stimulus. caller: i think that is kind of

a lame argument. they are not paying for the tax cuts for the rich, you know? they want to say that we now have to finally pay for it. these people make -- the senate average is what? on the planet, you have to live off of $14,000.400 -- $14,400 a year. every republican since reagan has ran at the deficit. where is the concern about paying for things and balancing the budget and bring about the deficit? host: stimulating on employment. they argue that if you cannot create any jobs, pay people not to work. the one possibility the president and congressional democrats will not entertain is that their own spending, taxing, and labor union

favoritism has become a hindrance to job creation. that is in "the wall street journal" editorial this morning. independent line. caller: i agree with the last caller. when you give the unemployment benefits who are now working, they will help the economy in the long run by paying their bills, going to the supermarkets, shopping. my personal opinion as far as paying for the unemployment benefits, the tax cuts that were pet -- passed for the rich, let them expire. once that expires, that amount

will offset whenever unemployment benefits to unemployed workers received. the argument that this will only push or urge people not to work is a lame argument. the majority of the people that are unemployed, like myself, want to work. i look for work. if you cannot find a job that is not out there, there is nothing you can do. host: pennsylvania on our republican line. good morning. caller: think you for taking my call. i am very against passing the unemployment extension. i feel we all need to sit back, take a deep breath, and not politicize this issue. it really is an issue of whether we have the money to do this or not. i would also like to make a comment to several of the callers ahead of me. i am really rather surprised that these references that the

republicans are interested in extending the tax cuts for the wealthy. everyone needs to do some research and understand that the tax cuts due to expire will affect everyone including those at the lowest income level. host: what about the argument that you let the tax cuts for the wealthy expire but you keep in place the tax cuts for the lower and middle income and you use that money to pay for unemployment benefits? caller: as long as the unemployment benefits are being paid for. we do not have the luxury in this economy, nor in our own private economies, going forward with situations that we cannot pay for. it is a matter of dollars and cents, not politics. host: and it is not just republicans who have opposed this. conservative democrats in the senate and the house are opposed

to extending unemployment benefits and adding to the deficit. here is a piece in "the washington post" economy and business section. the headline there is, "conservative democrats versus spending." nashville, tennessee. good morning. caller: just about everything has been covered on this wonderful forum. i would simply add that despite arguments to the contrary that these republicans position on unemployment benefits is indicative of where they stand. always for the privilege, always for the elite or the wealthy. they did in got -- they did not get apoplexy about tax cuts for the rich because that is who they are. and money trying to the diet. -- no point trying to deny it.

this just shows their philosophy. it does not work. take care of the fat cats. that is what it has been. their unemployment stance shows the senate is to fall of multimillionaires who have no sensitivity towards with the working class is going for. host: the vote is expected around 2:30 p.m. eastern. if you tune in to c-span2, you will likely hear arguments from democrats and republicans why they are either supporting or not supporting this. obama urges congress to end the stalemate on benefits. they said unemployment americans -- unemployed americans started your companies that -- than in any time in the past 24 years.

indianapolis on our line for republicans. good morning. caller: good morning, laura. i have been a registered republican voters. i have been unemployed for one year. i have lost my extended benefits. i am getting ready to lose my apartment. i am a very hard worker. i have been working for over 25 years. we rightfully deserve to get these benefits extended. i have been researching, laura. if you look at the website for the national unemployment project, you will see all of the senators in congress that voted against this. it is my whole republican party including senator brown in massachusetts. shame on you. host: can i ask you about your

situation? you said you are going online. are you spending time every day? how much are you spending looking for a job? caller: from indianapolis, i am on the computer daily. when you are registered with work one, you have to apply with jobs. as i am looking online, i go to them to see if work is available. no one has called. there are so many of us looking for work. the doctors that ago to meet here in indianapolis are not jobs shares. they do not even let you fill out applications. you cannot hand out resonates. they just hand out literature. host: had you been offered a job and turned it down? caller: no, i have not. the problem is no one is calling.

i do not have extended benefits. i cannot keep my computer on. if i did not have benefits, i do not have gas in my car to get a job. there are a lot of reasons for those of us who need these extended benefits besides putting food on our table. i have borrowed over $9,000 from my mother. it's humiliating. i do not know how i will pay her back. alliance was to be taking care of my mother, and now might 77- year-old mother is taking care of me. -- i was supposed to be taking care of my mother. when i heard of, talking on television yesterday, i will change my vote in november to democrat. my republican party has let me down. my on senator lugar, has been calling his office twice a week and i have spoken to his assistants. he tells me liver is against this. i have gone to his website.

-- he tells me that senator lugar is against this. they are all republicans. it amazes me. host: in your eyes, you are eager for this or against it? caller: we want to work. this is hard for us. this is nothing. i am still in bed. host: you borrowed $9,000 from your mother. what did you borrow it for? caller: my bills, my credit card, my rent. i lost my car. i had a leased vehicle. i lost it because it could not afford $500 a month in the car payments. there is no work here. we need our extended benefits. i hope that everyone steps aside the politics and just vote for this. get it passed.

that as hard-working people get back on the streets to get a job. host: houston, texas. on our line for independent voters. if you are unemployed, we have a special line you can dial in 202-628-0184. caller: i would like to point out to people that when i was at he university of texas' mba program, there is a multiplier effect. if you pay someone $1 in unemployment benefits, the spend the money somewhere. the person who sees this money, let's say if you spend it at the grocery store, they pay an employee. that employee takes that money and spend that on something, say clothing. the retailer takes that money and spends at -- spend it on their employees. their employees spend on

something. the last time i looked, the multiplier effect for federal money spent in the unemployment and entitlement programs, because yes people on welfare have to buy stuff, too. it is better than $1 spent in defense. host: let me point to two "the wall street journal" editorial. they're putting in a different study. "the wall street journal" editorial points to a different studies arguing that the longer you extend benefits the longer people stay on them and do not look for work. our next call on the democratic line in illinois.

good morning. caller: hello. how're you doing? host: doing well. what do you think this morning? caller: i was wondering if you think the republicans are blocking this to make the president look bad. host: what do you think? caller: >> i think so. i think they are trying to make him look bad and get him out of office. they want to make him look bad before the midterm elections. also, too, as far as republicans taking over the house, who will vote for the republicans when they are so heartless they will not let unemployment go through? host: two editorials this morning and the senate judiciary committee voting on the nomination of atlantic taken to the supreme court. "usa today -- the nomination of the ely neck taken.

this is written by senator sessions who says that kagan's big a government mission is causing him to oppose her. the -- "the new york times" argues that the senate should confirm her to the supreme court. the republicans and the constitution argued they are looking for a reason to oppose her and have her have to recuse yourself from any case that may come on the new health-care law, asking her and wanted to know from her when she knew about the construction of the health-care law and when she knew it. senate republicans have asked for that information about her. if you want to find out more on

who will oppose and support her vote, log on to our web site, c- span.org, and we have a hub for her confirmation and a breakdown of those who have indicated which way they will vote. the senate judiciary committee, 10:00 a.m. eastern time in a few minutes, we'll be taking up her nomination and a voting hurt likely out of the committee. you can follow that coverage on c-span3. we will have the live coverage of the kagan vote. next phone call in chicago on the unemployment line. go ahead. caller: good morning. my benefits ran out in march. i have been looking for work. i have been unemployed since july 2008. back in the beginning of the year, the unemployment rate had a decrease the. there was no decrease in the

unemployment rate. i have gotten no calls. i agree with the caller that there is working on there, but the competitive fields -- you are out there competing with those with degrees. when viard agreed in the progress to accompany -- when you are degreed, and the progress, the opportunities are not there. and is not that we are turning down jobs, they just are not out there. we are not competitive enough when you do not have the education to compete with where you were with your previous employers. it is really difficult when you're unemployed in benefits run out, you have no gas to get around, no motive transportation, bills are backing up. my question would be within

illinois, it seems like -- would i be eligible for the extension if they approve this? host: i am not sure. yesterday on this program, jane oates, the obama administration that the labor department talked about unemployment benefits and how the system works. log on to our website, c- span.org, and check out the video library. there is a link at the top of the page. enter in her name to watch that entire program. norman, okla., on the republican line. caller: think you for being there. i have been listening to the callers this morning. -- thank you for being there. the one lady that said all the republicans care about are rich people. i am almost 60 years old. i worked two jobs.

i wish i made a $300 a week like that one person who gets to sit at home and do nothing. i worked. that is what america is supposed to be about. everyone pull your money together. that is what republicans believe in. taking care of yourself, do not depend on the government. the name of the game is driving can offer the tax payers. it is killing our schools. these people have kids in school, rigid, sometimes three or four kids in school and they are not putting any tax money back in and they wonder why the schools are going down? when i was younger and had the mental and physical capacity to be a manager, they look for a job, but the jobs they wanted were to be a manager. if they could not be a manager,

they did not want the job. host: michigan, beverly on the independent line. caller: i have been out of work for over one year. we have been looking for work. she made save $800 per month. she cannot tell me she does not have her rent subsidized or anything. you cannot live on $800 per month. host: what kind of job are you looking for? caller: right now, anything that pays money. you know why? it is not my fault i have no job. it is the politicians. host: what did you do before you lost your job? caller: i worked in factories, retail, food service. i have a great range of experience. i am an older worker and t