health-care law looks at how it will affect medicare recipients. our guest is joseph baker, president of the medicare rights center. "washington journal" is next. host: the senate today is slated to send the states another $26 billion in aid for medicaid payments and avoid future layoffs. around 11:00 a.m. on the senate will begin a round of voting. it turned into c-span2 for coverage. the house next week will return on tuesday and they will make an unexpected return to washington to vote on this bill before it gets to the president's desk. yesterday, two republican senators joined democrats in approving the ending of the debate to go forward on this bill, indicating that they will

vote for final passage later this morning. we want to get to your thoughts this morning. do you agree with $26 billion in aid for states? we will get to your phone calls in just a minute. first, joining us on the phone with "the hill" newspaper is jordan fabian to talk about this legislation. how were they able to get the necessary votes to go forward? guest: susan collins and olympia snowe, they were able to adjust the provisions in the bill back. had been amenable to pass in legislation like state aid package. this is something right up their alley.

host: how are they paying for this legislation? guest: they are paying for it with several tax increases. that house republicans railed against in their statement. that will be a contentious issue when it comes before the house next week, especially whether and not to extend the bush tax cuts. it host: how will this work? they are providing aid to the states for medicaid payments to fill some budget gaps, so the states can then take the money they had for medicaid and put it other places. what is the formula like for states? guest: the reason why the coming back next week is the $10 billion education fund that is included. if this was not passed before the end of august, democrats said it would deprive thousands of teachers in local

jurisdictions. that is why they are coming back that is the urgent part of it. basically a lot of the school systems around the country are facing large budget deficits, meaning teachers will get laid off. host: $16 billion for medicaid budget holes and $10 billion for teachers. as every state get the same amount? guest: know, obviously it is based on need, -- noc -- no, obviously it is based on need. guest: what do you host: what happens next? guest: they were not able to get work done on the legislation when they were in washington, said that is why they have the emergency session. host: house speaker nancy pelosi

tweeted yesterday she is calling the house back. will every member be able to make it back or do some have different plans? -- that remains to be seen. democrats having multiple town hall events throughout their district. there are lawmakers who are having these events and have to rearrange their schedule. there are some that might be overseas. it remains to be seen whether a not they will all be able to get back in time. talking about 435 members. leaders will do whatever they can to get them back by tuesday. host: jordan fabian with "the hill" newspaper, thank you for your time. the house has been called back into session during the august break a few times. back in 2005, for the katrina

supplemental bill. 1999 -- and under the same scenario in 1980. michael on independent line. what do you think? should congress be sending states more aid? caller: yes, i am a little bit biased. i am a professor. but how i think giving aid to teacher is, because the children are the future are up -- of this country and we are in a technological age. you see apple and so on and the chinese, so i think it is a great investment for the country. host: would you personally benefit? caller: no, no, i am in a private university. but i would like to bring out one thing that they could pay for it. host: ok. caller: trump was on larry king,

which i later checked out. his quote was, he said, this oil shortage is a lie. there are tankers and the and all of the oceans worldwide. i checked it out, and it is true. the oil tanker rates are down. how you can save $100 billion to $200 billion is, this reporting on the oil inventory weekly based on what trump said and my research is just crazy because it shows 1 million-2 million barrels a day. host: how would you use this to pay for medicaid payments? caller: if you put the right number out, gasoline would drop from $3 a gallon to $1.50, and

that would put into the consumer's pocket another $100 billion to $200 billion. trump is right. it is a false number. host: later on in the program, 8:30 a.m., we will talk to admiral thad allen, getting an update from him on what is next tapping the oil line. new jersey. frank, republican line. state aid. $16 billion for medicaid payments and $10 billion for teachers. what do you think? caller: i am not against helping people out, but constantly giving the states all of these crutches to work with -- the problem is, we are in a bad time and people need to face the fact that people need to be laid off, they need to take furloughs, because people are simply taxed to death. you can't even afford to live in

your houses anywhere hardly because of the taxes. when this money it runs out, what happens next? where will leggett the next $26 billion from? this is all on the taxpayers' backs and we need to face the reality that these are the facts and people get laid off all the time and the problem is with the school teachers -- and i have not heard it much. even local police are taking layoffs now because they realize that the money is not there anymore and the teachers think the american people have and less money in their pockets, and it is just not that way and they need to face the fact, too, that they are vulnerable. they used to think they were never vulnerable and now they are because there is no more money for them to get. host: senate majority leader harry reid said this bill would save 140,000 teacher jobs and

also save jobs for firefighters, policeman, and other civil employees. "the washington post" says the aid package will not type -- close budgets in states. independence, missouri. you are the next phone call. you are on the air. caller: they should being -- i don't think they should be allocating that money, not until the start bringing home some of the troops from the bases overseas. start saving millions in the -- billions yearly for wars we

can't afford. and then maybe we will be able to support teachers and police. but we can't do it all. i think we are trying to do more than what we are capable of, and i think that until we start drawing down these troops, stationed in germany, japan, and in a career, and bringing home troops from afghanistan and iraq, we can't do anything else. host: dave on the republican line, salisbury, maryland. caller: it is interesting that they are talking about another bail out. the stimulus package under obama has yet to produce any results. my wife is a teacher here in maryland and she says they still

have not used some of the things that were given to their school district, some computers, things like that. another $26 billion -- host: whose fault is it, according to your wife, but the stimulus has not been used? local officials, state government, federal government? guest: for example, some of the things that are using for only certain types of students, less than average students, whereas the hire students that are excelling are not allowed to use some of the products, so they get -- are in the back room and don't do what they are supposed to do. bailey more teachers out is basically adding more blocks in place. the better way to go about it,

like last couple of callers said, may be cut back on some of the teachers, we about the wisdom of teachers and those having failing classes, getting it -- we evaluate some of the teachers and those having failing classes, getting them out. it's a moving onto the political story on how this is being paid for. congressional budget office released tuesday night shows the revised bill would more than pay for itself, even reducing deficits by $1.37 billion the next decade. it added revenues of $9.7 billion chiefly from foreign tax credit reform, but chief of offset -- offsets coming from the spending side.

going back to the phone lines. eunice from the democratic line in the charlotte, north carolina. caller: thank you for taking my call. a two comments. with regard to medicaid, when the governors met in massachusetts one of the main concerns was the cost of medicaid breaking the state's backs. just one other reason to visit the 14th amendment and anchor

babies in regards to the cost of welfare and what it is going to our system. on the teacher's side, when we implemented the lottery in north carolina, it was for the children, it was for the teachers. i don't understand what the states are doing with the money. teachers, if they would, when they come back, are hired or rehired, if they would tell the children of what it is going to cost them 10 or 20 years from now, because that is what they need to be teaching. the deficit is not sustainable and it is not fair to the children. host: caller, pay attention here for a second. i will show you some of the debate from the senate floor yesterday, democratic was injured -- washington senator patty murray, addressing whether it is for teachers or the children. >> on this and and and where we have been trying to make sure that 130,000 teachers are not lost -- and this is not about the teachers union, this is about kids in the classroom, the future of the united states of

america. are we going to punish these is the event and give them less of an education because of the economic times? that does not make sense to me as a mom or a former teacher or united states centered repaired this is about making sure our kids are not hurt in this tough economic recession. it is at a time when the states are struggling with budget. it is a time we have told the we are trying to help them with a gap they have in medicaid spending. we went to our colleagues. they block the bill. we made them smaller. they said they were not paid for. we went back and worked hard and it is paid for now. yes, with all of this compromise, our republican colleagues of come to the floor to say, now have a new idea why they are opposing it -- we have not allowed states to have flexibility within their funding. host: republican in hampshire senator judd gregg also on the floor talking about why republicans are opposed to the idea.

>> why should the federal government be saying to the states, we are going to give you some money, but we are going to attach to this money a whole lot of strings, and a basic strings are these, unless you spend a heck of a lot more money, you are not going to get this money. and it does appear that it is focused on a special interest group, does it not, the teachers' unions. it appears that this is more or less a commitment to take care of this constituency out there at the expense, ironically, a lot of people who are employed in those states. we used the term multinational corporation around here like that is some sort of evil empire. i've got a few multinational corporations in new hampshire. i suspect you do in tennessee. and they employ people. and if you raise their taxes by $10 billion, they are going to

employ a lot less and the ongoing to send them overseas. we used to hear around here constantly about outsourcing jobs. this is a job outsource sir, this bill. host: part of the debate yesterday. the senate today takes up the legislation. a $26 billion in aid to the states. to been to c-span2 for our coverage. three votes. final vote expected as well. texas, jim on the republican line. your thoughts this morning. caller: of thank you. i did not believe we should be sending any more money to the states. i think the states ought to be able to take care of their own revenue generation. some of the other callers mentioned it is used -- issues, perhaps like medicaid, and the fact that illegal immigrants might consume a lot of that revenue. i think that is a little overblown.

but the other reasons to secure our border probably security. i think it is easier for anybody to make decisions for voting for or against some of these bills -- standalone bills, rather than loaded it with amendment after amendment to have everybody's special projects. i know a lot of people say, that is the way it works in washington. but i truly believe it is one of the problems and why things don't work well in washington. host: "the wall street journal" writes this morning about how the democrats were able to win over the two main senators.

democratic line, ellen no way. good morning. -- illinois. caller: good morning. i want to say that the problem is this deficit and everything that is going on is because poor and middle-class people in this country has gotten less. the problem is, poor and middle- class people are the ones who actually spend the money in all of the stores, the malls, and all of these things that all of these corporations hold. so, you get more money to the

poor and middle class, they will spend it. they will not go up to the stock market like the wealthy people. they put their money in the stock market to save wealth. you give more money to the poor and middle class and that will fuel the economy, which will create jobs. host: san diego, jeff on the republican line. caller: good morning. i would say the biggest problem is the people need to wake up and say how are we going to pay for all of this money. host: this legislation was paid fall -- paid for, they found offsets. caller: you know, i listen to this. i was a fannie mae investor and the government said they were adequately capitalized and it turned out they spent $200 billion. the credibility is missing. and the bottom line is, we are spending may want -- weigh more. we need to correct the situation and realize that all politics is

local and start taking control of the system. i am 80 -- tea party person, and i think all are representing the facts. it giving money to the states without a way to pay it back is wrong. host: would you consider yourself a republican? caller: yes, i used to bait a republican until the republicans became as big spenders as democrats with an accountability. look at the wars overseas. hundreds of billions of dollars and yet we pay for it because we can get away with it. if it was a real war, we would have to ask the taxpayers to pay for it out of real money. host: should republicans gave back control of the house and senate in november? caller: the republicans are just as bad as the democrats have been. under bush they spent money that they didn't have an under obama it is getting worse. and i just want to say one other thing to all of the listeners out there. this thing has been growing for

20 years. you can look at the reversal of the glass-steagall act, power and expansion of the two big to fail banks, using lobbying power in washington to get what they want while individuals gets run over in the states. host: jeff, some might say that this bill that they are going to vote on in the senate, $26 billion in aid to the states, is the reverse of helping out big banks, that they are trying to help out teachers and firemen and police officers, people who don't make a lot of money. are you still there? as we lost him. we will want to louisville, ky. democratic line. good morning. caller: the state's need the money. i lived in atlanta for a while in a house. and they had been mandated to

fix the water system, and they really didn't have the money so the water bills went up. now here in louisville, the work of bills have gone up because they will not fix the water system. the reason the states are in trouble because all of this stuff was mandated by the federal government, but for eight years they were building schools in iraq and not in the u.s.. they did not fund no child left behind, so don't blame it on the democrats. you better put the democrats back in. of the 14th amendment. the republicans of trying to destroy this country. host: an example of one state but will get some aid is pennsylvania. here in "the philadelphia inquirer" --

oakland, california. jane on the democratic line get your thoughts this morning but caller: please hear me out. i have so much to say. i have been listening to -- for months.

i appreciate what the democratic party is trying to do right now. it is long overdue. a lot of the main economists said from the very beginning that the stimulus should have been larger because of what we were involved in a when president obama actually took office. let me just say, as far as tax breaks go, republicans saying the same tired song that we need to cut taxes for the corporations or they are going to go overseas. we cut their taxes for the last eight years and before that and they still took our jobs overseas. we don't have jobs now because they are overseas, they are outsourced, but they are singing the same tired song that we've got to cut corporation taxes. they get more tax breaks than anybody in this country and they are sitting on money, not hiring people, but continued to give

them tax breaks so they can continue to go overseas? there was a lot in this country where companies were not able to go overseas, then they made it so global that, yes, they took away those incentives for them to stay here. why did they stay here when they could go overseas and get stuff and yet get tax breaks along with a? host: we will leave it there. "the boston globe" reports massachusetts will get about $655 million from this bill for their state. orlando, florida. james on the republican line. good morning. caller: first i would like to say this bill is unconstitutional. the power to regulate an appropriate education and health care is not a power granted to the federal government. but getting beyond that issue, i know in my state of florida, they are basically playing games in washington. they have been raising taxes --

property-tax, sales tax, new cigarette tax, a lottery for education, they have assessments they are sending up to homeowners for fire, and yet when they can't meet their budget airways cream we are going to cut firemen, police officers, teachers, but they will not cut these other projects, like the $480 million arena for a basketball team, multimillion-dollar road that goes nowhere in a very underpopulated areas. when you go to them and tried to propose areas to cut, like consolidating schools that have small number of students enrolled into bigger schools, they don't listen and then they start screaming to washington to give us money, and then washington does it instead of holding the state's accountable. host: the note we will vote for? caller: i am a tea partier, so i

have no idea. in the senate race, i am not happy but anybody. i know they say marco rubio is a tea partier, but i do not think so. charlie crist is obviously out for himself. i am one of those, i know you hear it all the time on c-span, off one of the people who is disillusions. host: will you vote? caller: i will because it is my responsibility. but i can tell you i am not enthusiastic about it. host: mark, independent line. caller: how are you? i think since the mid-1970s, the amount of money we have been spending on student education has quadrupled or quintupled. not sure exactly what the number is. but i know it is disproportionately outpaced what the kids are learning.

throwing more money, more teachers at the educational system does not seem to be producing or getting the results that everyone wishes it would. whenever you hear the issue of more money, more money, i think we have to be looking at the quality of the teachers and teachers have to be held accountable for what the children are learning. also -- i have heard the reference to the 14th amendment's due 14th amendment. if you look at the writing that went public the 14th amendment, it was written by jacob howard. the intent was that never a child that is born here in the united states, it was never intended to just apply to illegal aliens.

host: i will jump in there and return to our discussion about congress getting set to spend about $26 billion in aid to states. in other news come after the senate votes on this lead this nation they are expected to return to debate on nomination of elena kagan. c-span confirm that there are 60 votes to confirm her to the supreme court. if you go to our website, c- span.org/kagan, you can find a running tally of two plans to vote yes and who plans to vote no on our website, as well as beach is that she has made and the senators have made in support and opposition to nomination. also, the front page of "the washington post" this morning, static tell it leaves gulf oil well lifeless. it is a topic that we will discuss this morning with the incident commander on the grounds, thad allen.

he was here washington at the white house for the daily press briefing. you might have watched that. you can call and what comments or questions starting run 8:30 a.m. eastern time. california, lucy on the republican line. state aid, what do you think? caller: just a remark about pouring more money down that hole that we call schools and teachers. our teachers here in california make more in their pension than they make not teaching -- i say not teaching because our children are not taught anything. they are just indoctrinated now. i will not even go to the one in oakland, because if you lived in california you know what oakland is about, but i get so tired of hearing obama of inheriting the problem. he was a senator and everything he voted for, everything he did while he was a senator -- and he took almost a billion dollars in earmarks -- everything that he fostered while he was there is one of the biggest reasons why we have so many problems now in

america. host: what do you think about this headline -- are you with us? we lost our. let me show you this in "the wall street journal" this morning. the state of california, officials ordering disclosure as the backlash continues on bell. carol of the democratic line. good morning. your comments on the $26 billion for state aid. caller: my comment is, they are talking about these taxes, getting these big -- corporations being taxed and they will take the jobs overseas. what they are also trying to do, they will cut the jobs from

going overseas said these companies will have to end up hiring people from the states. in order for it to be made in the u.s.a. it will have to be here in the usa. these companies are going overseas, they will not be able to go overseas like that anymore. host: nancy and concord, new hampshire, the independent line. it did you see senator judd gregg's comments? caller: senator judd gregg used to be governor of new hampshire. i find it interesting because it is unfortunate for us regular workers that so many wealthy people get elected because the sense of reality is different. the government used to send state money back until ron reagan because under reagan, he decided states should start raising money to cover the services that they wanted to provide. but the judd gregg, he put $40 million of medicaid money a year into the general fund. he did not use it for the proper person -- purposes when he was governor. this time around we also hear

everybody, politicians and i would not have voted for those bailouts or the tarp, judd gregg was the author of the tarp bell, so did not mean -- tarp bill, so did that mean republicans are running away from that? host: you think it is a good idea that this money comes with strings attached, that the states have to use it for specific purposes? caller: unfortunately they end up using it for what they want and not what it is targeted for. but i think we have to look at our structure. recently on c-span i heard somebody comment that there is still a lot on the books -- i think it happened back in the 1970's -- the government allows tax incentives and breaks for american corporations to go overseas and exploit people in third world countries. we are turning our country into a third world country. and i am a small business owner. trust me, i know what taxes are about and my tax rate is much less today on a business level

than it is on my personal level. i can write off everything on my business taxes. health insurance, reses, utilities, credit card debt, all tax-deductible as a business. host: is that a good thing? caller: i tell you, on the one hand it is. but i hear these businesses wining. i tell you, my health care costs for my business far -- far exceeds my taxes. i think there is a real phony is going on out there. while we do pay taxes -- my understanding is the u.s. ranks about 17th in the world on corporate taxes. we are not the highest in the world and i think it is just a misnomer. i think it is unfortunate. host: what is your small business? caller: i own an insurance agency. i started it by scratched back in 1991 because no one those days would give a woman a loan. -- back in 1981. i barger my office skills to use

somebody's office to start a business. i am in my 30th year. we make well over $250,000 a year but i write off just about everything so my taxes are nothing. it, people you employ? caller: 3. caller: -- host: are you following the tax credits for businesses now put into place because of the new health-care law? caller: basically you have to pay somebody under $50,000 a year, and then you will be able to write off a good part of the health care. personally, i cover 100% of the health care costs. i grew up -- my father was a factory worker and he was provided health care. as i kid, i was able to go to the hospital and have my tonsils out, broken leg fixed. my dad worked for a factory and he had health insurance. we turn our back on the american worker. i think it is time we really examine that. i would love to see c-span do a show on what is actually the law on companies moving their

work outside the country. because innovation is going to move us forward in did i know you have a young family. my doctor is 34. she is doing fine for herself in california. but i see our future -- somebody is going to develop a solar adapter we will put on street lights. we will not need electricity to run street lights in the future. but some young man -- mine will come up with a way to produce it in our country. host: next week will do a series on energy and one thing we will look at is solar power. but it wanted to get your reaction real quick, "the wall street journal" reports there is a small business measure pending in the senate, $42 billion measure to aid small businesses, genuinely popular cause for lawmakers but has an uncertain future. have you been tracking this legislation and would it help you? caller: that what i am not too familiar with. i am not sure how it will help me. i just know when you are a woman-owned business and you have not had access to the loans and grants that the well-

connected men are -- i grew up in a time in the 1970's when you went to the private catholic schools and they were meant only so they bond with a job and they do business as -- do business with each other and later on. they get elected as mayor, state representatives, and they know each other. they do business with each other. those of us -- women who did not go to those, we are not part of that group, so we had to do things differently in order to succeed on our own right. it is a difficult road to hoe, sometimes, but it is possible to be a small business owner. but i can tell you the paperwork is overwhelming. but our tax burden is not nearly as typical as our health care burden. years ago, if you were a person with a credit card, you could write off the interest on your credit card of your taxes. host: let me jump in and let you know about the health care is. we were doing this whole week. on monday we talked about the impact of the health care law on businesses. go to our website, c-span.org,

we have monday's segment it right there on the front page and you can click on that and watch that. we are going to continue that discussion today at 9:15 a.m. eastern time. we are looking at medicare part d, the part of medicare that covers prescription drugs. we will look at the changes that impact medicare part d, 9:15 a.m. eastern time. john, democratic line, arkansas. you are up. go ahead. caller: i am kind of day -- i think states need the money. let us start with that. my big problem is with both parties, the right and left. heard it down a path to not think for ourselves. we are only supposed to think in terms of left and right. that, to me -- and i have been raised a democrat all my life, but i was taught to think for myself.

so, when i listen to the talking points -- this election cycle, the issue is death and immigration. these are classic -- debt and immigration. these are way issues where you need to go left or right and you are being herded down a path that is chart for you. raising a culture of people who are already relating to talking points and not thinking about all of america and the debt and all the problems that we have. it is a constant battle each election cycle of left and right. i submit to america, stop thinking left and right. let us start thinking third- party and break the monopoly of the two-party system. host: when it comes to the debt, a lot of people are talking about social the jury and medicare. a member of the social security

board of trustees, including treasury secretary timothy geithner and how and human services secretary kathleen sebelius and the labor secretary will be briefing supporters on the fiscal condition of the two entitlement programs. live coverage on c-span 3 starting at noon eastern today. columbus, georgia, dennis on the republican might get your thoughts this morning on aid to the states. caller: i am against it. a couple of quick comments. commenting on the woman earlier mentioned atlanta, the had the inability to fund their water system. i personally originally at them from jefferson county, alabama, which is in the middle right now of the nation's largest bankruptcy in history because of an unfunded source system. that is not because of an unfunded federal mandate a local mismanagement. for years and years its went on.

i just think that although i am certainly against more federal mandates in the state government, i don't think for a second that is the primary reason there are financial the book is at the state and local level. if i think the primary reason, print -- difficulties at the federal level, financial mismanagement. i think that is the issue that needs to be focused on. the reason i am against the more money for the states is that they have already gotten too much of our tax money, just like the pro-government has, and they have not been good stewards of it. i think anybody, if they take the time to look at the average amount of money spent on the students and the vast amount of school districts in our country, they will say that the quality of education has not gone up at the rate because of the money has gone up, and that should speak volumes to people. money is not the answer. host: thank you and everybody else who called in to weigh in on whether not converse should

be set -- sending $26 billion of aid to states. that vote is a around 11:00 a.m. eastern time. in other headlines this morning, ban on gay marriage overturned in california. joining us on the phone from san francisco is joe garofoli, staff writer from "the san francisco chronicle." what happens next? guest: this case is definitely on the way to the supreme court. the ruling has been stayed, so right now you cannot wash out and get married, gay folks cannot rush out and get married right now. it will go to the ninth circuit court of appeals, a three-panel judge will hear it. that could happen sometime in the next several months. from there it goes to the supreme court. host: the ninth circuit court, it is liberal or conservative? guest: it is considered one of the most liberal in the nation but it will be heard by a three-

judge panel that is randomly selected. and though it is generally liberal, but there is a large ideological spectrum so you could get some conservative folks on there, too. host: you write about this that the ruling from yesterday provides guidance. what do you mean? guest: it provides guidance that in four other states, other folks who would like to challenge same-sex bands in their states, some legal scholars are saying that judge walker's ruling provides a road map for them to accomplish the same thing in other states. host: household? -- how so. guest: same marriage is a fundamental right and gays have been denied their rights under that. host: judge walker, who is he? guest: u.s. district court judge, chief judge. he is a reagan appointee.

he comes from a republican background. he is the person who wrote the ruling today. host: beuse said that this goes to a panel on the ninth -- you said this goes to a panel on the ninth circuit court, in a few weeks. guest: probably be several months. host: when and how does it get to the supreme court? guest: likely, however loses when it gets to that level will appeal it to the supreme court. there, it seems like ian anthony kennedy will provide the swing vote on that. that is what some legal scholars are expecting. host: when do you expect it could get to the supreme court? guest: looks like it is headed their right smack in the middle of the 2012 presidential election season. that will be one for all the candidates to chew on. host: before then, we have the elections this november. does the judge's ruling yesterday impact the governor's race there and the senate race? g, california voters have a

clear choice on that one. in the governor's race, democrat jerry brown support same-sex marriage. his opponent, republican meg whitman, opposes same-sex marriage, although she is forcible unions. -- for several unions. -- civil unions. host: does this impact other states? guest: what it does is it provides a template if other gay marriage supporters and other states would like to follow the same legal road maps. it is a risky road map because of this does go to the supreme court, some folks who support a marriage are worried that if the supreme court rules against that it becomes the law of the land and it could send the game marriage move a back several years. host: joe garofoli from "the san francisco chronicle." thank you for getting a very early. we will take a short break. when we come back, we will turn

to the conservative agenda with rich lowry. >> this week, the senate is expected to confirm elena kagan as the next supreme court justice. watched the debate and vote live on c-span2. you can also see how your senators are planning to vote and follow the entire process at c-span's cake and confirmation of online at c-span.org/kagan.

>> we are not ruling any options in, but we are not ruling any options out. >> this month marks the 20 anniversary of the beginning of the first gulf war. look back at the key players and the event that became desert storm. online at the c-span video library, all free, but every programs since 1987. watch what he wants, when you want. >> book tv has been finding out about the new books coming out this fall. >> jimmy carter, for every day of his presidency, he wrote in his journal. this is a very interesting look at his white house years. >> this is super, super top- secret, and it is bob woodward and almost anything he does is meaningful. >> this, for sure, is going to be one of the biggest fall titles around. this is not a sweeping memoir by george bush. this is talking about specific points in his administration where he had to make major decisions. >> learn more about these and

other books coming out in our 2010 fall book review this weekend. for the latest in nonfiction authors and books, watched book tv every weekend. get the whole schedule at booktv.org. >> "washington journal" continues. host: rich lowry, editor of "national review" to talk about the conservative agenda. the midterm elections, some saying it is highly competitive. republicans may take back control of the house and maybe the senate. and it is going to be one of the most expensive. how deep the republicans are bearing right now. guest: i think if it were held today it would be a massive, historic blow out. we will see if that holds. the key indicators, perhaps the most important is the president's approval rating. "usa today" gallup poll, really scraping bottom for him. if you just take averages, a better indicator, he is still

upper to mid 40's, very much in the red zone, and you look at the economy with unemployment above 9%, you look of the status of washington and congress in particular, 11% approve of congress. they are down to relatives, paid staff and trial lawyers, i think at that point. and did things as a blowout is growing. whether the environment changes to radically or something happened to change it before november is an unknown, but if it were held today i think it would be 1994 probably plus some. host: what issues do you think could turn it around for democrats? guest: i do not think there is really any issue. that is the problem. it is really a reaction against the agenda that they pushed, which i don't think president obama was particularly forthright about on the campaign trail and it has come as a shock to people, what they have gotten from this administration and from this congress.

he ran as a sort of a winsome, moderate-sounding guy and instead, every way possible, has pushed the growth of the federal government as much as he can. you have some of left saying we did not give the public option, things of that nature, but the health care bill, for instance, it was as left most as plausible. the reason why they did not get the public option, it was not possible to push through congress to give a push the the system -- unless something changes, i am thinking some external event or some unimaginable republican meltdown, a joe barton comment apologizing to bp times 10 is going to be hard to see how the democrats could turn it round. it's got a lot of the passion on the right is coming from the tea party movement -- host: a lot of the passion on the right is coming from the tea party movement. but we heard one member calling this morning saying he is not crazy about republicans, either.

he plans to vote because it thinks it is is his responsibility but not crazy about voting for republicans and putting them back in power. how do republicans tried to harness that passion and get them to vote for them? you saw that in the missouri race, the primary race on tuesday. roy blunt, not a favorite of the tea party movement but yet was able to win. guest: a couple of things going on. one -- a part of the great usefulness of the tea party movement is it is another vehicle for limited government conservatism that is separate from the republican brand, which is a very helpful thing because the republican brand has not yet recovered. the democrats covered themselves, looking at these polls when the republican party standing is still quite low. i remember doing the same thing in 2006. i would look at the terrible members of the republicans in congress and look at the numbers of the democrats and say, they are not doing so well, either.

and this is not just a referendum, it is a choice, etcetera, etcetera. but at the end of the day when people are sick of the status quo in washington, it is the party that is in control that is going to pay the price. host: let us go back to the first part of the statement. you said the tea party movement helps republicans. guest: it helps limited government conservatism. it is a vehicle for that conservatism that is not the republican party, that is different from the republican party, at the time the republican party's standing is still quite low. host: there is a pew research poll part of "the national journal" cover story about the tea party. the headline is tea party paradox. what helps republicans now could hurt them later in two -- heard them later. inside, it goes to this pupil -- over the last decade the public has grown more conservative but less republican.

guest: that would parallel what i was saying but i was not thinking of the longer-term trend, which is interesting. the other broader trend, opinion that has been remarked over the past 18 months is just on every single measure -- a lot of them having to do with the economy and spending, understandably, given what we have seen in washington -- but on everything else -- a gun rights, abortion -- there has been this surge of conservative opinion. whereas in some of the questions you get some of the most conservative answers you got never. -- you have gotten ever. we are a center-right country, a cliche, but as our respects, true, but a lot of the center- right sentiment was depressed at the end of the bush administration because he was so unpopular and proceed to be so incompetent and once he was gone and began to be forgotten a bit, you have seen the sentiment bouncing back and you have a huge mismatch. you have that sense of a bouncing back, at the same time you have these historic democrat

majorities in congress that partly product -- this is how elections go, so i am not whining -- partly a product of just the timing of the financial crisis where everything was exactly right to inflate those democratic majorities to have subsequently gone on an ideological bent of that run exactly counter to the way public opinion is running. host: "the national journal" says this -- the very forces leading to the republican surge in 2010 may be a painful dilemma for the gop thereafter. the tea party movement just a leading indicator -- the rise of the de-branded republican. what is the brand of the republicans, or what should it be? guest: i think it should be the sober limited government party. the party of responsibility. not just in government, but in reporting responsibility at a personal level -- promoting

responsibility at a personal level of people out there, promoting the virtues of self- reliance and orderliness. i would like to see a limited- government conservatism that has an added mixture of league isn't in the 19th century -- abraham lincoln, the great whig before he was a republican. it is hard to go back to the 19th century and match up the whigs and democrats today -- but aspect of them that i like is middle-class values and the real emphasis on economic aspirations. and to the extent that you are going to have government action, if you want it to the government action that promotes individual initiative and makes it easier for people to rise economically within our society. host: one of your recent pieces dubbed the attack of the adults, you pointed to two republicans that you think represents the future of the party. guest: mitch daniels and chris

christie. chris christie has just been extraordinary. to go into new jersey, the state outside of perhaps california or illinois, that has been the most mis-governor did recent years and has the most powerful public sector political complex, and to go in and balance the budget when he has and has been able to bring trenton to heal and the teachers' union, extremely powerful, to heal, in six months, is just an extraordinary accomplishment. mitch daniels, also extremely impressive. circumstances much less dire. he did not take office in the midst of a budgetary crisis, but also, like christie, have build a constituency for a limited government conservative than -- conservatism. has slimmed down the budget. and daniels tells his people all the time, we have one goal -- we want to increase the net the

pole -- disposable income of the hoosiers in here in indiana. i would get some complaints now. i did see the movie. that is going to be the goal of government. i think that is a very good -- i think republicans nationally can take that admonition to heart. host: karl rove rights in today's "wall street journal." echo in the comments about change being seen on the gubernatorial level. tallahassee, florida. it dawned on independent line. caller: thank you four mccall and good morning -- thank you for taking my call, and good morning. i have a financial issue that has been on my mind as of late regarding both parties. i am an independent. i have no party affiliation. as of late, it seems that republicans and conservatives both have been drumming against the spending that has been going on by the obama administration.

but basically saying none of this stuff has been paid for. i just don't understand how they could say that went under the bush administration, mainly the iraq war, that was not paid for and was run up on the credit. i want to get your guest opinions on how you can't reconcile the spending that went -- how you can reconcile the spending that went on during a republican administration while drumming against the spending going on under the obama administration. thank you. guest: entirely fair question obviously. the thing about hypocrisy is it works both ways. if the bush administration deficit spending was bad, there is no reason the democrats would want to do it on a different order of magnitude, which they have. we are not a fan at the national

review of bush's fiscal management. but if you look at the deficit, i believe, in 2007 -- don't take this to the bank -- but something on the order of a couple hundred billion dollars. it was nothing on the order of what we are seeing now. it's supposedly is not working and practiced. no one feels it working and practiced. and i think it's time to admit it was a failure and to begin to adopt it, a prudent program of as you taret. host: under that tenure, though, some of the republican leader who are in power now were in power then when they controlled the house and senate and they approved president bush's fiscal plans. and so does it concern you at all that when voters are going

to the polls and they look to see who might be back in charge, are they going to see the same faces, that might be minority leader john boehner and mitch mcconnell? guest: great. to cut spending and they forgot that part of the mission and that's one of the reasons they destroyed themselves and their majority. there are a lot of others, the unpopularity of the iraq war, the sense of corruption, the sense of incompetence in the bush administration. but that they got away from that core part of their brand. host: well, then, are you calling for new leadership? guest: well, i think in you attitudes certainly. and i think, i hope that some of these guys have gotten the message. i think they realize how significant the tea party is and that they need to get the

message from the tea party. i think initially there was a lot of fearfulness and misunderstanding not knowing what it was about. the tea party is an extraordinary thing. it's a grassroots movement that is -- represents a great burst of constitutionalism in this country that just would have been unimaginable two years ago. i think the republican party needs to listen to what the tea party's saying. host: let's go to the republican line. john in boston, you're on the air. caller: hey, rich, the massachusetts people are moving up this way. anyhow, let me ask you about why are we giving these zillions of dollars to the states, just to give the unions money? guest: it's part of it. again, it's a knee jerk theory

that spending creates growth and if you don't do the spending there will be massive layoffs of teachers and this will depress the economy. and i think instead states should take a co-2 from indiana, from -- could you from indiana, from -- cue from indiana, from new jersey. they said we need to move to a private sector driffer economy. we need to stop the spending, let the states that have been prove will he gait, take their medicine, tighten up their belts. host: with the economy on certain grounds as federal reserve ben bernanke has said that right now is not the time to cut back? guest: well, i think the fed -- i kind of agree with christina romer. she stated back then, if you need stimulus to deal with the investigation, it's much better to do it with monetary policy than fiscal policy.

i think a lot of those reasons have been born out. one, it's slow to get through the pipeline. two, it's likely to be inefficient. is it really the fact that state-level education departments are the prime driver of the american economy? and if they have to cut back at all we will have to teeter back on the edge of depression? i just don't believe it. as the caller mentions, there is a lot of democratic constituencies in play here. what they want to do in any circumstance is shower money on them and this is just a good excuse to do it. host: veronica on the democratic line from california. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. you know, i truly listen to my friend there, my brother there. when he's saying we need an attitude change, that's a real-life thing. we people in america we have

been allowed to be blinded, i mean, totally blinded. we will go through our republican sisters and brothers. all of the ethnic wars towards one another, hatred toward one another, greed, greed, greed. it's all i, i, i. the republicans say i have a business. you have a business because you have to have good health, strength and get -- is it worth it? think if you didn't have that health. you would be out here just like everybody else. what we're supposed to be doing, sir, take care of the poor, take care of the children. host: let's get a response. guest: well, i would say in response to my sister that obviously we need some minimal safety net for people who can't take care of themselves or who are in truly dire circumstances. i don't think anyone argues that. what we're dealing with in washington lately is -- or for a long time is just massive

government activism that goes well beyond that. and what you want to do is create and environment that is condusive to entrepreneurs taking risks. you know, these are people that might start a business on their own. credit cards who are putting it on the line because they might have an idea that might work. you want to do everything you can to encourage them rather than to scare them and make them worry about what other unforeseen expenses might be coming down on their heads in the future very soon, whether it's taxes or new regulations. so i think that's the key constituency. obama should have always been thinking about in everything he did with regard to the economy. instead, all those entrepreneurs have been the forgotten end, to use a phrase from the depression. host: we are talking to rich lowry from "national review." you can go to twitter at

twitter.com/cspanwj. here is a tweet. the republicans don't dare revert to their big spending ways with the tea party breathing down their next. jim on the republican line. caller: can you hear me? host: go ahead, jim. caller: i am still a registered republican. however, i don't intend at this time to support the republican party any more unless -- again, this is bage unless -- you talked about it. i heard a couple of people calling this morning talking about it already. we are waiting for the so-called leadership of the republican party to put together another contract with america-style program that they can put out here that people can get their hands on, they can read, they can discuss it

among themselves, they can look at it. for instance, start with the economy, one. jobs. ok. the government doesn't create jobs, right? ok. well, then what are you going to do to ensure that we have a flourishing free market in our society? we are waiting for concrete things. i listened to so-called leader boehner -- i'm starting to get emotional. i have to calm down. i listened to him on one of the sunday shows sunday and he basically -- oh, i got so upset. he sat there and went through all of the republican talking points. the same old crap that millions of americans out here are sick of hearing. host: jim. caller: we want something concrete. host: jim, if republicans take over, should john boehner be the house speaker? jim, are you with me? i lost him.

all right. guest: the reaction is probably no, i'm guessing. jim's right. they are trying to come up with a contract document. there is pressure from within the republican caucus and especially from republican consultants on the outside not to do anything. not to put forward any sort of agenda because you're only -- the theory is the only target to shoot at at the same time they're sinking very much of their own. we think that would be a mistake. it's important to put a substantive agenda out there. i don't think this is what they would endorse but something on the order of focusing in on spending which the republicans have complained about so much. you know, commitment to get back to -- and i don't think this would strike people as radical -- fiscal year 2008 levels of spending. i would roll back the obamacare, which is $1 trillion in spending which is supposedly

paid for, although very -- everyone is very dubious about that. and then theres about $500 billion of medicare cuts. i would use that kitty of money to explore some real reforms of medicare. not to do the kind of -- they have meat axe style kind of providers in that health care bill. instead, trying to stoke some competition within medicare. but you do all that and to me that's a serious step towards a more responsible fiscal policy. host: all right. let's go to paul in kitty hawk, north carolina. independent line. good morning, paul. caller: yes, good morning. thank you for taking my call. the caller said before me stole a little bit of my thunder, i guess my main question to your guest is -- what specific programs would he cut? would he cut spending for the war? would he cut national security,

social security? i hear a lot of republicans -- and i understand their frustration. i understand they're the party out of power, but i hear a lot of talking in generalizations about cutting this and cutting that and responsibility. i guess my question is -- when and what are the republicans' specific answer to saving this money? what programs are they going to cut? you know, it's easy to talk in generalization. i guess what i'm asking is -- host: all right, paul, we'll get some specific recommendations there. guest: i am not prepared to go to the budget line by line. if you go to fiscal year 2008 levels that would be a quite sizeable percentage cut that i would be perfectly comfortable applying to most every domestic program. and if you repeal the obamacare and captured those medicare

reductions i think that would be another big chunk. host: erie, pennsylvania, harold, republican line. caller: how is everybody at c-span and mr. lowry? how are you doing? guest: how you doing? caller: i am doing fine. i am the republican party. the democratic party is the yes, yes, yes, yes, yes party. if i can remember right, i think it was the first couple weeks when obama took charge when they had the first republican-democrat meeting one of the republicans brought up something and president obama -- i respect the president's sitting, he said, i'm in charge now. and that's exactly what happened. he's in charge. the democrats are in charge. the democrats have been in charge for four years, not 10 years. i mean, not -- the republicans

for six years. the democrats have been in charge for four years now. they haven't done anything they said they were going to do. they had the majority then and they have the majority now. and as far as i'm concerned, the subject that was covered earlier today, the teachers and the unions and that, the unions are the ones that are benefiting from this. the children aren't benefiting because the educational system has been a failure for the last 30, 40 years. and it's getting worse and worse every day. some of that money will go to the educational center in washington, d.c. some of the states will get up maybe a third of that income. host: all right, harold, we'll go on to marry -- mary on the

democratic line from michigan. caller: unfortunately i think i'm wasting my call. the prior answer by mr. lowry was so ridiculous. i just find it amazing that he could answer that the budget cuts should be according to the 2008 situation. i read columns and they actually, republican economists actually criticized their own economic policies over the last 30 years. and admit that they have been totally wrong, that they have only practiced tax cutting. so that as they kept cutting services and programs to the people they've created a

situation where we are destroying -- and, also, they're admitting that the deregulation has caused such an imbalance that it's created the wages of working people to be at the purchasing power at the middle 1970's whereas the rich got richer by 300 times as much as the 1970's. host: rich lowry. guest: ok. so there is a lot to take on there. i didn't find that op-ed she referred to particularly persuasive. i think the main thing that happened that created the housing bubble and the financial crisis when it burst was that the fed was too loose for too long and it pumped a bunch of excess liquidity into the system, and when you have that happen you will see malinvestment.

on top of that you have every single instrument that the federal government had as disposal used to pump up homeownership as well. and to kind of lower underwriting standards and to get as many people mortgages, whether they're able, really, able to afford them or not and it created a catastrophic bubble that we're still paying the price for. and i don't think that was republican fiscal policy. and in fact the fact that you had the bush administration, republicans, arguing that at least one aspect of this problem, fannie and freddie, had to be better regulated. and you had "the wall street journal" editorial page constantly banging the drum on fannie and freddie warning they were a potential disaster to come and we faced that dast -- disaster. and i think barack obama was producing a reaganite policy we would be in a better way.

and he had a recession. and we knew that taxes were going to go down, regulation was going to go down, inflation was going to go down, interest rates were going to go down. we know one of those things now. in fact, the opposite. so we are storing up trouble for the future. and a lot of obama policy, cash for clunkers is the signature initiative, are based on stealing demands from the future to try to get it into the present for a band-aid on present demand. and that's obviously just by definition a short-sighted policy. host: the "financial times" is saying that president george w. bush saying his fourth coming memoirs decision points that the self-dubbed decider took in office be put back until after the midterm elections. do you think that's a good decision for republicans?

guest: that's interesting. well, i wasn't aware of this. first of -- i heard of it. anything that reminds george w. bush at the moment is not helpful to americans. they're probably glad of that. i think history will vindicate him in certain important respects. with regard to iraq, assuming that it turns out and they actually form a government. but the -- his decision to undertake the surge was extremely important one, teamly brave one. excuse me. host: let me get you a drink of water and we'll go to phone calls. oklahoma city, scott, republican line. go ahead. caller: yes, gretta, i appreciate your shown and i appreciate mr. lowry to come on saying what he's saying. i agree with a lot of what he's saying. as a -- a guy i was working for, "the national review," he's a neo-conservative, as is william f. buckley, the founder

of it. and i just heard something that i had to comment on because it shows how so-called conservatives have drifted and become something other than constitutional when he was talking about safety nets in that we need to have safety nets. well, that's something that was -- that's been advocated only recently by those who call themselves conservatives. as a john burke society member i am aware that article 1, section 8 of the constitution that gives all 17 powers to congress that they have doesn't mention anything about safety nets. and here we are even justifying giving money away to foreign regimes, you know, governments, that we didn't used to talk about. and republicans are just much doing that as anybody else. my own congressman, tom cole, is very much responsible for handing out free money to foreign regimes.

and it's totally unconstitutional, which we had a change of heart in which those that call themselves conservative call themselves constitutional. that's why the tea party is as strong as it is. host: your thought. guest: a lot in that thought. i am not a neo-conservative. you can look at the various definition of neo-conservative and they don't match bill buckley in the least. he wasn't a convert to conservatism in the 1970's in the way that a lot of neo-conserve tists were. he wasn't part of democracy abroad. in fact, he was famously skeptic on the iraq war. something that was -- we parted ways on. so wasn't a neo-conservative. that's wrong.

i think if you get back to the vision of the constitution where we have no foreign aid, i think that's quite a radical proposition. we've always had to have as a country a robust foreign policy abroad. and look no further than thomas jefferson whose constitutional scrupeles, i don't think anyone can question, he waged war on the barbary pirates and took the louisiana purchase. both of things he thought in the context of the day couldn't be strictly justified under the constitution in the most radcally strict construction -- radically strict construction but he realized was necessary to the national interest and the growth of the country. so even jefferson came to have a more flexible interpretation of the constitution than that absolute straitjacket that the caller's invoking. host: "the hill" newspaper this

morning had this headline is chairman waxman sees a bright side to november losses. the november elections will likely weed out some of the most difficult democrats that leadership lawmakers have dealt with this congress. in an interview with "the hill," the ners committee chairman expressed -- energy and commerce committee chairman expressed confidence that democrats will control the house and expressed some that won't be here next year. chad on the independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, rich. guest: hi, there. caller: i'm an independent here in michigan. and there's a lot of talk about independents and what that means. i kind of wanted to talk about this idea that -- of the narrative. i think what mr. lowry is perpetuating and what the republicans, the conservative, the new label, has certainly benefited from for quite a

number of years is the power of the narrative. and early on in the program mr. lowry talked about what he conceived the typical conservative. austere and sober individual. you know, laying out just the cold, hard facts as they are. however, you know, the facts of history have never born this conception of republicanism or conservatism out. when you look at some of the charts through the years you'll see that actually -- you talked about the reagan conservatism. the deficit has actually grown. and i think this kind of speaks to this concept that has been talked about, starving the beast and this notion that during republican times they raised spending on defense which is hard to argue against.

it really against. and they talk about cutting taxes. again, very difficult to argue again. then that puts then the following democratic administration's kind of in a jam where they're put in position rhetorically and sometimes financially to have to cut the very things that speak to their identity as democrats. it's very clever but i think this narrative, this idea of a narrative is so powerful that the narrative that the conservatives, the republicans perpetrate overwhelm the facts. we see the effects of that. i'm rather dubious as to whether it will work this year. i guess i'd like to hear mr. lowry speak to this, the idea that the narrative is powerful but the idea that you actually have to have democrats around so you can live like republicans. host: chad is an independent caller from michigan. go ahead. guest: well, those are very interesting points. one, i think the caller is right in what he's saying

impolice italy, starving the beast does not work. it's failed as a theory. the beast is of tooth and claw and is eating everything in sight. i will say a couple of things. one, republicans have not been great fiscal stewards, certainly during the bush administration, but the obama administration is taking spending up to an entirely different level. you know, 25% of g.d.p., you know, up to the highest levels it's been since world war ii. even if you didn't like the way republicans handled the budget in the last decade or so, that doesn't mean you have to sit back and take spending at that amazing rate. two, let's not forget that newt gingrich and dick army and those elected in 1994 -- armey and those elected in 1994, and

i say it, extremely hard on the deficit. they basically went on a suicide march to balance the budget. bill clinton resisted them, beat the heck out of them politically and the fight over the government shut down and eventually there was a settlement subsequently. and if you look at that period, federal spending did grow at a very slow rate and it helped balance the budget. of course, the ultimate thing that balanced the budget was robust economic growth, and this is where reagan had that -- there's that great line that people like to quote. he said the deficit is big enough to take care of itself. if you actually sue pro-growth policies and keep the spending basically under control and the economy grows, you will get more revenue and you will over time be able to balance the budget. and that's exactly what happened in the 1990's. unfortunately, now we have a

massive geyser of red ink coming. we have policies in my mind might as well be consciously designed to suppress growth. that's certainly going to be their effect over time and a combination of those two is disastrous. host: here is e.j. young's column this morning. is the g.o.p. shedding a birthright? he said, rather than shout, i'll ask the question in a civil way. dear republicans, do you really want to endanger your party's greatest political legacy by turning the 14th amendment to our constitution into an excuse for election-year ugly? and he quotes lindsey graham in here which he calls the nation's most reasonable conservative. putting forth the idea that you amend the 14th amendment. he says, drop a child snow can a strong believer in the right to life use such a phrase? guest: i've read that column. one of the things i thought was notable about it, e.j. does not engage at all on the legal merits of the question.

i think folks who argue the 14th amendment was never intended to have this effect where the children of people who are here illyly who really aren't under the jurisdiction the phrase in the 14th amendment of the united states become citizens. so on the legal merits i think folks like lindsey graham are absolutely right. the question becomes a political one. is this really a fight you want to wage? how important it will be on the effect of legal immigration i think will be negligentable. i think people that come here to emergency rooms to have children is just ridiculous. it probably happens but it's a very few number of people. the main thing is the jobs magnet. and, two, you know, how is it going to play politically given that negliable effect. you know, the initial polls -- host: republicans? guest: yes.

the initial polls show that people oppose illegal immigrants having children who are citizens here. but i just think the effect on the latino community, the effect over time, the monkey with the 14th amendment will not play well. and it's just not the main issue. the main issue is enforcement. i support any reasonable measure towards a real enforcement regime. i think what arizona is doing is absolutely correct and unasailable and john bolton's decision on putting on hold that law was absolutely ridiculous. but i don't think, and i haven't thought about this a great deal so i reserve the right to change my mind, i don't think going this 14th amendment route would make sense. host: one last phone call. richard on the republican line from crarls bad. make it quick. caller: do you believe that social security, the retirement age would have to be increased and the benefits reduced in

order to extend full equality to same-sex couples? guest: i don't think i get that connection. do you? host: no. sorry. do you want to weigh in on raising -- guest: every c-span experience you have to be flummed by one call. host: do you think they should raise the social security age to tackle the deficit? guest: absolutely. host: what do you think about medicare? guest: it will have to be scaled back as well. my colleague, james capretta, wrote extensively of how the payment structure system in medicare not only drives up costs in medicare it drives up costs across the health care system because it's so -- medicare is so influential within that system. and this is what i was frying to talk about a little earlier. taking the savings that democrats have endorsed in medicare and use it to try to

reform the system. can i address the henry waxman thing? host: really quick. guest: that is really insane. what he's saying, the troublesome members, i'm assuming he's talking more moderate members of the democratic caucus. these are what nancy pelosi talked about as majority makers. here you have a very liberal guy and a very safe seat saying see you later, guys. don't let the door hit you on the way out. if that happens henry waxman will be back in the minority. host: rich lowry, thank you for being here. guest: appreciate it. host: we'll turn our attention to this headline in "the times-picayune," 26% oil in the gulf. our guest, thad allen, he'll be coming up next after this update from c-span radio. >> it's 8:31 eastern time. early reports from retailers show modest revenue gains in july. some chain stores had solid increases. those include costco and limited brands. but sales at teen merchants,

the buckle and the wet seal, showed declines. more on another oil spill. this one in michigan. congressman says the company at the center of that accident, end bridge, waited to report the pipeline break violating federal rules. the environmental protection agency says the leak spewed more than one million gallons into the cal mazue river and its -- kalamazoo river and its tributary. officials say a suicide car bomber has struck a convoy of nato troops and afghan police in the north killing seven police officers. a spokesman says there was no nato troops killed in the bombing, but some were wounded. and in japan hiroshima is wrapping up preparations for a memorial tomorrow that will for the first time have representatives from the united states and other major nuclear powers. united nations secretary general moon is calling on a nuclear weapons ban as he becomes the first u.n. chief to visit nagasaki.

atomic bombs were dropped on the country august 6, 1945, 65 years ago tomorrow. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> a couple live events to tell but this morning. here on c-span, a senate banking subcommittee looks at u.s. manufacturing. witnesses include representatives of the department of commerce and the federal reserve. that's at 10:30 eastern. on c-span3 at 11:00 eastern, it's a treasury department news conference on the latest report from the social security and medicare trustees. participants include treasury secretary tim geithner, health and human services committee kathleen sebelius and labor secretary hilda solis. >> "washington journal" continues. host: admiral thad allen, the commander on the ground here on the gulf coast here to talk about the latest in the oil spill. and we've seen reports that the

plugging of the hole with cement is starting as we speak. what's happening? guest: well, yesterday as you know we filled the hole with mud. one final step now was to actually fill the hole with cement. we took a day to get the pressure readings from the mud kill just to understand what the condition of the well was before we started putting cement in. the technical issue is, where is the drill pipe? and nobody is really sure of that. we think there is a consensus between our science team and b.p. engineers that it's suspended from that blowout preventer. you need to know where the drill pipe is before you start cements. that is cleared and ready to go. host: what is it? guest: the drill pipe down in the well. when the blowout preventer closed it held the drill pipe in place, we believe. if you put cement in it you need to know where the drill pipe is. host: then what? guest: that's the final step. we filled it with mud and cement.

we pretty much removed any chance we could ever release into the environment. but ultimately we have to finish the relief well. that's drilling in from the bottom and then filling the area what is called the annual that sets between the casing and the well bore. host: how long will it take to do the work you're doing this morning, filling it with cement and then flood the relief well? guest: well, the cement will take a day and then we'll go and finish the relief well. i say seven days to finish the relief well. host: then at that point when you finish the relief well? guest:le well will be killed. host: and then what? guest: well, we have a lot of other things to do. there's a lot of oil in the mashes of louisiana and mississippi and alabama. natural resource damage assessment, a lot of work to do. host: how many weeks, months, do you suspect you and others will be down there? guest: well, we'll have some kind of response capacity for a long time. i think we'll see oil come to the shore. in the spring we'll see it

surface again. we need some mechanism. they could be grooming the beaches in the panhandle of florida next spring. and with a front-end loader find some buried oil, we need to have a plan. host: how long do you plan to stay in this position, do you think? guest: good question. we have a position where the well will be killed. i think we need to talk about next how to get a response, framework set up, to allow us to be responsible in some of the wetlands and marsh lands down there. sometime in the future we'll have a conversation. right now i want to make sure that number one the people in the gulf and the united states understand that we're committed for long-term recovery, that we'll make sure all the oil is cleaned up and hold b.p. accountable. that's on the near term. host: it sounds like if there's a transition made to what you're talking about you wouldn't be in charge of that? guest: will of it will have to be the report that will go to the president. it goes way beyond the current

spill, ecological issues. there will be a transition to a new long-term recovery organization. those discussions are going on right now in the administration. host: you say when you go on vacation that's when the oil has stopped spilling. do you have a vacation planned? guest: i had one planned but that's been put off. host: do you know when you'll take it? guest: i think the american people want me to focus on the task at hand. host: what's your biggest concern going forward today? guest: well, we want to kill the well. we want to make sure 100% -- make it 100% sure that no oil leaks into the gulf. we don't want that to happen. we'll have to continue to do seismic testing to monitor the well. i think there will be a high degree of probability that the well won't be a problem in the future. for the local fishermen, local oystermen, it does have an impact on them down there. we need to get the fishery areas reopened. doing a lot of work with noaa

in that regard. we need to start moving forward and get them back. host: and health concerns, are you concerned about the use of dispersents? people close association to this oil and the impact that could have on people's health. guest: i'm not sure the dispersents are a direct threat to public health because they were used offshore. i think we can have a question about dispersents and how it is used and the impact on the environment. we've done air and water monitoring. actually the e.p.a. and noaa have. use of dispersents offshore is something we need to talk about in conjunction with skimming. and how we might want to handle a big spill in the future. host: ok. this is front page of "the times-picayune." 26% of the oil still in the gulf but white house report is met with skepticism. why should the american people believe noaa when they were wrong on the initial amounts of oil that was spilling out of this oil well? guest: well, i was talking to a

guy in new orleans this morning. if you don't have a problem it's a problem? if you don't have a problem it's a problem. we've been trying to zero in on the flow rate and what are the implications of the oil. and every time we get better information we are going to put that out. noaa has been working very closely with the u.s. geological survey. and marsha mcnut, we take the best numbers we have. we continue to refine them. when we have them we should put them out there and subject to transparency and public debate. it's good. host: is it early to come out and say only 20% -- 26% of oil remains when you don't know how much has been broken up, where this oil is, that more could come to shore? guest: those are fair question. maybe i can take you through a process. the question is how much oil is coming out. there is some very low estimates. they're really challenging everybody's credibility moving forward. then we got some folks together on the government side, scientists. we came up with two ranges.

one was 19,000 to 20,000 barrels a day. when we cut the riser pipe we adjusted that to 60,000. we're stpwhrouring in around 53,000 on average over the life of the spill. when you get that close you can extrapolate that to the total of oil. when you get the total of oil you say where to go? we know we captured some, we know we burned some and skimmed some. what's left is the 26%. guest: this is the -- host: this is the chart shown yesterday. how much oil has been evaporated or dissolved and burned off, skimmed off, etc. we take a look at this. dan on the democratic line in waterbury, connecticut. you're up first for admiral thad allen. caller: yes, good morning. i have two questions. the first question is on the media blackout and the $40,000 fine for journalists. how does that impead on the first amendment right for free

press to free journalism? as a scientist he has been stuzzying the must ain bubble under the drill pipe. thank you. -- studying the main bubble under the drill pipe. thank you. guest: there was not a media blackout. we had things being vandlized or stolen. we needed a way to enforce law against people who are doing that. it's not like you have a no parking zone unless you call it a no parking zone. we say if you come within a certain area of the boom you're not supposed to be there. we will declare a zone around that. if you're around that we can enforce criminal penalties. we came up with the press where allowed them to go where they needed to. there was never a blackout. and regarding the bubble, there is no report that a methane bubble is below.

host: let me let everybody know in the gulf coast we have a special line set aside for folks. that's 202-628-0184. go ahead, oscar. caller: good morning. this is hilarious. this is funny, ok. i mean, real funny. i filed for unemployment. now i'm on radio, right? this is not why i called. i was put on hold. host: you are on dustin. democratic line. caller: good morning, mr. allen. i called to say i've been observing the way you performed in your duties with regards to this spill. i want to say that i think you're a great american and you always answer the questions.

that's a great quality. just want to say that i've appreciated your service to this country and in this great moment where we needed great leadership. i hope that you the -- the person who takes control to have the same qualities i know will be hard to fine. i want to say thank you and keep up the good work and make us whole again. host: can you tell us what it's been like for you? guest: i appreciate the comment. my goal throughout this entire response has been to create unit of effort. when people talk to me about what we're doing and what we're not doing, i have to tell them i am the national incident commander. i'm not the republican, democrat or b.p. national incident commander. my board of directors are the american people. what i'm trying to do is bring

everybody together and create solutions because everybody has to be at the table and there are a lot of passions. a lot of people are frustrated and a lot of people are angry. i think my job is to kind of work through that and get us to someplace where we can make progress. host: so if you could talk about your day-to-back activities. how many times are you getting phone calls from senators or officials at the white house or governors? guest: i think it's all of the above. i spent a lot of time talking with b.p. officials. i spent a lot of time talking to our engineers in houston working with the b.p. engineers. i spend a lot of people from the gulf coast. one third is spent in the gulf coast. the other time is meeting with officials, briefing cabinet secretaries. almost every part of government is being touched by this. i'll be meeting with the secretary of agriculture on issues they have related to the spill. host: and what are you talking about? guest: mediation and maybe we can use some agricultural product to help combat oil up in the marshes. you will be surprised where the

tentacles of this spill go in government. host: next phone call. tim from new sweden, maine, on the independent line. go ahead, tim. caller: my question is, i would like to know how much oil is being pumped out of the gulf of mexico from all the oil companies? and this week it was 50,000 barrels a day. if you took just 2,000 wells out of the 40 that equals 100 million barrels a day capacity and nobody, no politicians or nobody in the news media has asked that question, how much oil is oil companies, not just b.p., but all the oil companies pumping out of the gulf of mexico? host: admiral, do you know the answer to that? guest: no. it's not down my line of expertise. obviously there are a lot of wells out there. i will make a comment, though. i get asked a lot about the moratorium and things like that. i try to keep the policy issues associated with them, and there are significant issues, i try

to keep them separate from the response. there will be a much larger discussion about all these issues. but i think the american public probably expect me to focus on the operational task at hand and that's what i tried to do. host: have you tried to keep tabs on the other wells around the one that's been spilling oil? guest: we have had for a couple of reasons. one of them is a personal safety reason. when we had a lot of oil on the surface, not only around the site where we were working, but rigs that were closer by, we have the -- we have the chance that we could have organic compounds. those are the fuels that basically come up from the oil that actually create a risk to human health. it's required us to actually suppress some of the vapors around. they actually stopped -- early on they stopped work on surrounding rigs. that's the threat. host: mobile, alabama. david. you're on the air. caller: yes. admiral, i'd like to know how much money did you take from b.p. to sell your soul to them because they used you to manipulate and lie and minor

dispersents that you used, that's where the oil is? i've seen it with my own eyes. why don't you sit there and tell the american people the truth instead of trying to manipulate the fact? host: david, where are you seeing the dispersents used? caller: when we were on the opportunity used we saw it sprayed firsthand. they'd quit burning it and go out there and dispersent and spray the hell out of it. they even sprayed some of my friends on shrimp boats when the plane moved over. the admiral knows about it but he won't tell the american people. guest: the first question is zero regarding the compensation. the answer to the second question, let's talk about dispersents because i know it's an emotional issue with a lot of folks. following the exxon valdez, there was a law passed called the oil pollution act of 1990. in there there was a provision for what they call alternative technologies. this was very novel back in

1990. and the law directed that we look at two things. dispersents as a way to attack oil spills early on. those were situations during the exxon valdez. they were pretty slow to act and lost a window in order to act. during the 1990's, protocols were negotiated completely around the country. i did that when i was captain for port of long island sound. i had to say if you use the burning or dispersents, when and how are you going to use them, where, what kind of things do we need to take in regards to wildlife, etc.? what can we do without any further consultation because of the speed of the response? when we got into this response, those protocols were in effect and we started using dispersents and burning and skimming. but what happened was we never had a spill this big and we've

never been in position to require so much dispersent to be used. on the 25th of may the coast guard sat down with e.p.a. and said this thing is starting to really get large and the amount that's being applied. there needs to be some different protocalls. working with lisa jackson with e.p.a., we reduced it by 75%. host: that's a lot. guest: when the cap was put on we achieved 72%. now, granting exceptions. when there's large quantity of oil there and we weren't able to skim it or burn it and we knew it would be in the marshes or someplace, then we went out and used dispersents on it. when this is over we have to look at burning, skimming and dispersents and have a very dispassionate argument about this of when will we use these things. dess percentents are legal, -- dispersents are legal, they're allowed by e.p.a. we need to address it. host: does it concern you since

you reduced it by that much, 72%, there could be some long-term effects by using as much dispersent as you did? guest: well, we don't know. we've never used dispersents in this quantity before. that was the issue. i probably talk almost daily about this with lisa jackson from e.p.a. it's a leadership issue. it's an issue with the public. i believe -- host: what do you mean it's a leadership issue? guest: well, she runs e.p.a. on. -- and i'm the national incident commander. if we're going to deviate from the protocalls that on the national contingency plan she and i need to talk about that. what we've done is put e.p.a. folks down into the region so we're not using dispersents now because the well is being capped. starting on the 22nd of june, a decision was made about the dispersents. e.p.a. was with us. host: thanks for waiting, kevin. caller: thank you. good morning, admiral. guest: good morning. caller: thank you for your service, by the way. i wonder if you could briefly

just relay your personal experience. i ask that because this has come at an interesting time in your life. and just tell folks briefly about how you feel about what has happened, katrina and i'm really thinking this has been a very interesting time of your life. thank you. guest: you're right, it has been. i was set to be relieved as the commandant of the coast guard in may and retire after the first of july. my wife and i were going to take a vacation. this happened when all the leadership changes were happening in the coast guard. i never anticipated that an event like this would come up in my life. but frankly i didn't anticipate that hurricane hurricane would happen and the last -- hurricane katrina would happen and the last administration would ask me to go down and help there. i had a long conversation with my wife. obviously this is a significant impact. i always told me throughout my life that leadership is the able to reconcile competency. and there is certain times when

you ask to do something even when it's very difficult it's hard to say no. my wife and i sat down and talked about it and we thought this was a fitting thing for me to do and i should do this for the country. host: next call, robert on the independent line from hartsville, indiana. caller: yes, hello. thank you very much for your service from c-span. y'all do a wonderful job. commander allen, i also want to thank you for your dedicated service to your country. i just have a few questions concerning, one, the dispersents. i hear all the time on the media, some say there's going to be tremendous damage by the -- not only the oil but the dispersents and then you hear others say, no, it doesn't show there's going to be any long-term effects. excuse me. i don't understand how they think that anytime a chemical introduced into the food chain that we will consume if the dess percentents -- dess

percentents call a -- dispersents causes a fish to get cancer and it passes on to the human, then that's just total debacle and catastrophe. second of all, i think it could be agreed upon by all parties that if someone has not got the capability onhand at the present time to deal with the worst-case scenario then they don't need to be doing whatever activity that they planned on doing. host: admiral. guest: those are both very good questions. and in fact just this week e.p.a. released some results of a study where they intermixed oil from the mccondo well with dispersents and saw an increase of toxicity and found out there was none. dispersents, where there is some toxicity level is less toxic in the oil. we know that oil biodegrades

over time as does dispersents. what we don't know what are the long-term implications. i think there will be studies done for a long time. we are looking at the implications of dispersents in seafood. as one said in a press briefing with me yesterday, fish, large fish, have the opportunity to me tab lies and pass through. -- metabolize and pass through the system. it's not the case with small lamba and juvenile cree -- larvae and juvenile creatures out there. there are some other types of seafood, oysters and crabs and so forth there is a different impact because of their metabolic rate. that's the reason we thought at this point it was better to take a measured approach with the use of dispersents. they are legal, there's no ban to using them by regulation or statute, but lisa jackson and i thought it was prudent to take the course of action we did.

host: tampa, florida, jeff. go ahead. jeff, you're on the air. go ahead with your commept or question. all right. jeff, i'm going to put you on hold. guest: i didn't answer the second question. he asked about the response. host: go ahead. guest: he raised a very good question. a lot of people are going to be talking for a long, long time about whether or not the right response system was in place. the response system we have in this country right now is largely created through the oil pollution act of 1990 which created something called the national contingency plan. and that somebody that lived through that period of time and actually worked out on the field to complement -- implement it, it was tanker event. from the late 1980's to mid 1990's we saw a movement of oil offshore in the gulf of mexico. we saw a movement away from fixed drilling rigs to floating drilling rigs where all the controls of the rig were moved to the bottom of the ocean.

we had a technology march offshore. all of our regulatory issues related to oil spill, response and control, we're looking at tanker type events. as we take a look at the response system moving forward we are going to have to adjust this because i think the technology got ahead of the regulatory framework. host: the previous caller brought up the whole seafood and whether or not the impact in that area, is there a long-term impact that the government's not quite sure what it's going to be yet and as you said they have to continue to study it. there are restaurants across the country that are canceling their orders for gulf coast seafood because their customers don't want to eat that. right now would you say that the seafood coming out of there is safe? would you eat it? guest: yes. the seafood coming out of the gulf right now is probably the most tested seafood in the history of this nation. combination of partnership between noaa and the f.d.a. noaa's responsible for what

happens in the water. f.d.a. is responsible for the safety of the food chain outside the water. there's a rigorous, rigorous testing protocol that's in place right now. that's in conjunction with local states and consorting with labs across the country. and they are trying to continually test the areas that are closed right now. as soon as they can open them to open them. but i can assure the american public, and i'm speaking on behalf of noaa, the administer of the f.d.a. and the administration if it's been certified and checked. if it's from the gulf it's probably been checked nor rigorously than any other seafood in the country. host: jeff from tampa. caller: thank you, both. admiral, thank you very much. you've been a great voice and it's been a wonder to have somebody with us with so much knowledge. it's been outstanding. i watched a lot of the press conferences. thank you, again. out of curiousity, i heard a lot of verbal assurances from b.p. have you seen any evidence in writing that proves that b.p.

is going to be here for the long haul should things pop up, like you said, next spring or god forbid a year or two or so on down the road? obviously i have to commend b.p. because i don't think that we had the same level of response from exxon 20 years ago, but at the same time it would still be nice to have something beyond than, yes, we'll be here in the future. guest: i guess the phrase would be trust but verify. i can tell you early on the administration sent letter to b.p. saying they expected them to meet all the requirements even if we exceeded the legal limits of liability. b.p. responded and said that they would. they paid over $300 million in personal claims so far and they're continuing to work on the claims process as we even set up the independent claims process and will be run by mr.

feinburg. ideal -- almost daily with bob dudley, the c.e.o. before that, tony hayward. they know what's expected of them. they by law don't have to acknowledge anything. they are the responsible party. they've been designated that in writing by the coast guard, and that means that they are responsible for all costs associated with this. so i think the combination of the legal framework around the designation of a responsible party, the intense scrutiny they're under right now, i think we're in a place where they understand their commitment. but we have to understand, too, the federal government has a role here and we have to make sure they comply with the directions that are provided and they meet their responsibilities as well. it's not really well understood but under the oil pollution act of 1990, responsible parties actually a legal designation and both b.p. and transocean have been designated responsible parties in that. failure to comply can result in either civil or criminal penalties.

host: margaret in new york on the democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning. thank you. admiral, i am just going to say what everyone else seems to say which is i am very appreciative of how you are taking these questions and i'm always filled with admiration whenever i hear one of our servicemen. that makes me all but sadder to have to ask you this question because first of all, it seems to me that the dispersent will only make things worse. i'm mott the scientist. i know this question was asked before -- i'm not a scientist. i know the question was asked before. essentially, what's being done is the dispersent is hiding the oil by dispersing it. it's just being added as another tocksant to the gulf. secondly, -- toxant to the gulf. secondly, this may have happened earlier than when you were in the job, i never heard this addressed. b.p. was forbidding the workers to wear masks to protect

themselves from the fumes and other effects, and i heard some of them refused and kept wearing the masks. how is it that our government would not protect our citizens and tell bp, or whoever is responsible, to get out the way, at least, or at best, help them and attacked them? guest: both good questions. let me go to the dispersant issue one more time. both oil and dispersants will biodegrade overtime. the question is how long it takes to degrade. what happens is that the oil is broken out into various fine particles by the dispersant that allows it to degrade more quickly. one of the things we're going to be doing and are doing right now is testing the water column to make sure we know what the implications are.

i think what is going to happen as a result of this incident is that there is going to be closer scrutiny, more research done, and obviously, a number of questions have been raised by the public moving forward. you have to understand the longer term implications of the dispersants. we have a huge example here of dispersants being used and we need to capture all the data we can and we have to adjust the policy moving forward. we can certainly do that. regarding occupational health and safety, let me assure you that we're concerned about the health of the folks working out there. after i became the national incident commander and we knew that we had -- at one point we had over 40,000 people working down there at any particular day. we went to the department of labor and negotiated a memorandum of understanding with the occupational safety and health administration and brought in the national incident command and established standards for exposure, chemicals or whatever, that

exceed current regulatory requirements and made personal protective equipment mandatory in the areas where the thresholds were being exceeded. in fact, i have a meeting later this week with the secretary of labor myself to understand how this is moving forward. we have investigators and inspectors down there to follow up on any event or report on safety. host: democratic line, oklahoma city. caller: good morning. greta, you do a great job. to the admirable, i have a question, as far as the oil, is it still on the surface or is it beneath the surface? if there is oil beneath the surface, what are the ramifications of that? another comment that i have is that i'm surprised where you talk about the tea party. where were they protesting bp?

their favorite line is, what about our children and grandchildren? heretofore a committee came to america and might have destroyed the coasts -- here we have a foreign company that came to america and might have destroyed the coast or with the teabaggeers in louisiana and florida? when the president tries to do something, all of these teabaggers come out. but when we point to the evidence for their children and grandchildren, not a key back -- not a teabagger a round. host: we will move on to the republican line, dallas. caller: i would like to change the subject of it, if i may. there is 15 minutes of explanation or follow up on that i would like to know, if you will, exactly, a deepwater rigs are being transferred overseas,

exactly how many, because it is not easy to transfer a rig at all of its people and all of its supplies in that kind of stuff. host: is not part of your -- guest: let me explain the context. i think what he means is that under the current moratorium, there is not work to do for the rigs and the question is how many of those have moved out of the gulf. i do not know, but under the moratorium they could potentially reach the area. host: are usually seeing that? guest: -- are you visually seeing that? guest: i have not seen that myself. host: next call. caller: thank you, admiral allen, for your service. i actually worked on the oil spill. i saw the damage done. i sought the fishkill.

i was curious, how are you -- i saw the fish killed but i was curious, how are you going to deal with the companies that brought in the locals in, and basically, a lot of them have not been paid. there are issues involved. i was wondering how the government is going to deal with this. i'm concerned for my own health right now. i did not get paid. host: what did you do? caller: i was on a boat near the oil spill. host: are you feeling any health effects? he said you were worried about your health. caller: i have to get my arms checked i felt that if i said i needed the money, i was going to

be sent home. guest: thanks for your call. if you are working for a contractor or subcontractor, or working on a vessel opportunity -- i will caller: working for a contractor. -- caller: i was working for a contractor. guest: there is a way to follow on line. if somebody can do that. we are happy to follow up, sir. host: we will have a producer talk to you, bob. john in san diego. caller: i would like to congratulate the admiral for his competence and the c-span and all of the callers. host: john, did you have a question? caller: not really. i and listening and calling, and there has been a lot of good questions already. they have entered what i was

calling about recently. host: admiral, we had a lot of people call up and thank you for your service. assuming you are getting compensated for the work you are doing, can you speak to how you are getting compensated? guest: sure. i am retired from the coast guard and was hired as the civilian. i worked in secretary napolitano's front office. host: was that a pay decrease, increase? guest: it was an increase. host: obviously, that was not a factor in your decision making. you decided to take part in this wh? y -- why? guest: there were certain competencies' that i could bring to the is. i had certain attachments from the work with hurricane katrina.

i knew many of the people down there. it was a pretty compelling picture not to be drawn into. host: new jersey, the key on the republican line. caller: hi, thad allen, how are you? guest: fine. caller: they had some photographers out there taking pictures of the gulf, that all they had of the oil were the beaks. it was the saddest thing. the use this for photography issues, how bad it was. what about the wells and the fish and all of that? the ocean in these areas are going to be polluted for a very long time. host: marine life. guest: we are very concerned about marine life. it goes beyond that. we have at days and marshes where we have breeding grounds.

the brown pelican breeding grounds, southwest louisiana, and other species out there. this is a great avian highway as well. we have marine mammals, turtles that have been impacted. noaa as part of their responsibility for the national fisheries service the the wildlife, and the rest of it is under the fisheries and wildlife service and the department of interior. we get several organizations involved in this and we have a wildlife recovery station in louisiana. we are doing everything we can to assist these animals when they are located obviously, the oil is diminished now and we are having fewer incidents of wildlife impacted. when they are, we're treating them, and especially the pelicans, taking them to texas and florida and into a habitat that is oil-3. we are keeping track of every single wildlife that is impacted by this.

we had statistics so we will be able to understand the long-term impact of this. it is devastating to watch the pictures of the birds with oil on them to i don't think anybody can look at that and not be touched. host: "usa today's" cover story is about the gulf, and they look at the number of wildlife impacted, as well as the economic costs paid by their figures, the gulf coast region has lost about $1.2 billion in economic output and about 70,000 jobs. you have a comment on that? guest: no, it is obvious when you go down that that the shrimp, the marine years, beachfront operations, the secondary and tertiary affects of this, suppliers and caterers -- it is not only devastating incrementally, but there is a significant socio-economic impact -- not only devastating environmentally, but there is a significant socio-economic impact.

host: a couple more calls for you, sir. democratic line. caller: good morning, admiral. i called c-span and tom martin's show one day before you came out with the cure for the leak of attaching to the flange. now, i worked on refinery, and it is a very basic thing. it is not rocket science. a flange is a way of attaching a piped to a pike it why, with all the expertise you had your disposal, did no one come up with caulking to the flange, which is what you ended up doing -- hooking the flange, which is what you ended up doing -- i consider this criminal. it is so basic that it is actual criminal not to have somebody sitting there and looking at the same flange i wasn't saying,

hey, we can attach the flange. guest: that is a completely legitimate question. i have had a lot of folks ask me that same question. the area on the top of the pipe that allows you to bolt -- those are called flanges. use all the pipes that had been over the leak. we used remotely operated vehicles to unbolt the right to pipe from the flange and insert this grueling tool -- the spooling tool. he was absolutely correct, it is simple to install a flange, but it is difficult to do it at 5000 feet. the only way to do is to or of the cameras -- rov -- through rov cameras.

we know now that summer i 53,000 -- where about 53,000 barrels a day was coming out of that. you have to have a good idea of what happens when it comes off. the capping stack itself had been designed and built and tested and brought to the sea -- had to be design and build a test and brought to the secret is an absolutely legitimate question. host: last phone call. caller: good morning, commander allen, and lady. the coast guard did a really fabulous job. i've got to admit, those people did a great job and they don't need no stinking permission for us to go anywhere. it is great how you guys react. my question is, we are pretty close to the sea in new england, so you have to feel for those people in the coast. it is quite a mess.

my question to you, commander, what are you going to do if well number 26 blows out tomorrow? guest: well, you raise a great question. first of all, thank you for the culprit from 1993 to 1996, i was -- thank you for the call. fo 1996 -- from 1993 to 1996, i was a captain at a port in new england. we have got together and put together a response technologies we would use in such an event. the framework in this country was largely created after the exxon valdez when it was a preoccupation with tankers. certificates of the financial responsibility would allow companies to have the wherewithal to do these responses. in the meantime, the technology moving offshore basically

outstripped the response community. technology has been brought to the sea to deal with the control of this well and is probably a precursor to what we will see in the future. the oil production in the gulf is done by wells that are on the bottom and the oil is transferred to ships, discover enterprise, or piped to shore for piping systems. the containment systems were used out there were brought from the north sea and off of angola, where they have a much different production structure that has to do with things that are more flexible and mobile and can be disconnected and put back together again. i think the responses you will see in the future, where ec drilling and oil containment, will contain the basic elements of what you have seen it designed and built bp the partners as they try to control this well. host: the potential risk of another blow out -- the front

page of "the new york times" shows that the rig owner at safety issues with three other wells. guest: i would like to focus on the response itself. the investigation is being done by the department of interior and homeland security and our other investigations going on to what i am trying to focus on is if you have and that is, what are the response capabilities unique, what did we have that we had to bring to bear to stop this problem, and how to that in for us in the future? host: what did you not have? guest: we did not have access to the wellhead, and it was an assumption that the plot to enter -- the blowout preventers or fail-safe. we have to do with an uncontrolled well that it deep in the ocean, and the technology finally brought to bear to solve the problem had been constructed and engineered and brought to the scene. host: admiral thad allen, thank

you so much for talking to our viewers. guest: thank you. host: we will continue our health-care series, and today we look at medicare party. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> the labor department says that first-time claims for unemployment benefits rose last week to their highest level since april. nearly 480,000. jobless claims have risen twice in the past three weeks. new york fire department is temporarily barred from hiring more than 300 rookie firefighters. this is following the judge's ruling that the department used an entry exam that discriminates against blacks and hispanics. the justice department sued the city in 2007, alleging the department was using exams that failed to really measure an applicant's ability to fight fires. after six days of deliberations, and jurors hearing the corruption case against former illinois gov. rod blagojevich have not reached a verdict.

mr. blagojevich has pleaded not guilty to charges that include trying to sell an appointment to president obama's former senate seat. and the president is currently in illinois. he will visit a ford assembly plant in chicago today to talk about his decision to help the big three auto makers, then he will spend the rest of his time raising money for democrats ahead of the fall midterm elections. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> c-span programming, politics, books, history, is available anytime on c-span radio in washington-baltimore area on a 90.1 fm, nationwide on sirius xm allied radio, on your iphone and ipad, with our radio app, on- line around the world at c- span.org, and now you can listen to it on your phone. c-span radio is available anytime. it is free, but check with your

phone service provider for any additional charges. c-span radio, even more available on your phone. "washington journal" continues. host: this week the "washington journal" began a summer series looking at issues and the news, and we start with health care, the implication an impact it has on consumers. monday we look at the law's impact on employers. tuesday was discussion on the changes to health insurance and what changes you will see it now and in the future. wednesday was on the individual mandate and the rules and it is for individual consumers. today up for discussion, we will take a look at medicare part d, the prescription drug coverage of medicare. tomorrow we will wrap up our discussion with the impact of this law on estates. two attorneys general on the show on both sides of the issue. if you are interested in our past interviews on this health care law, go to the c-span.org.

you can see them right at the front page, a look at what we have done this week. joining us from new york now is joseph baker, the president of the medicare rights center, here to talk about medicare part d. if i could just begin with the definition of medicare part d, it is prescription drug coverage, available to everyone with medicare, and to get medicare drug coverage, you must join a medicare drug a plan or an advantage plan. guest: that is correct. host: what is the impact of that? guest: i think the impact of the part d drug plan has been a very good one for medicare. it was enacted in 2003 and came into effect in 2006. there were many people in the medicare program that did not have access to any prescription drug coverage. what that meant was that they were either not taking prescription than ending up in the hospital, prescriptions that could improve their quality of

life and keep them out of that more expensive level of care. to the extent that they were getting prescriptions, a lot of them were sharing prescriptions, and not taking full dosages. part d has really been a big success in giving folks access to medicare, access to prescription drug care. of course, there have been gaps in it. the infamous don't hold. but that is what health reform hole. infamous donut but that is what health reform is starting to" overall in has been a great boon to senior citizens with medicare. host: what is the donut hole? guest: i should mention that not everyone with medicare is in the part d plan. many have coverage through a former or current employer. but many folks are on part d.

they face this donut hole. it is part of the structure of the coverage. you are in a part d, did you have a $310 deductible, and you have to pay $310 for drugs out of your pocket. once you hit that, you get coverage. generally speaking, the plan pace 75% of your drug costs and you pay 25%. then you get to a figure of $2,830 in coverage, total drug costs. at that moment, you cease to have coverage. he paid 100% out of pocket for your dog, and a plastic keeps track of what you are spending, until -- you pay 1% out of pocket for drug, and the plan keeps track of what you're spending, and then the plan and the government to get a pay about 95% of your drug costs and you pay 5%. but it is that period in

between, to $600, or that you pay out of pocket -- 36 outer dollars, at where you pay out of pocket -- $3600, where you pay out-of-pocket. that is where we see people who couldn't afford it anymore. what the health reform bill buzzes over the next 10 years -- dies is over the next 10 years get rid of that donut hole and you will pay 25%, basically come up to and when catastrophic coverage starts. that limits consumers' costs and hopefully increases access to drugs in that period. host: we will talk about what the law does in the immediate future and and how it intends to close that over time to a first of all, how big is the donut hole?

guest: it is a growing number, as folks age, and, as well, the cost of drugs go up. this year there are about 4 million people in the donut hol comee and a sizable number of those do not make it to catastrophic coverage. it is at it because the drug costs are not that high, or they just give up. they stop getting the drugs and they don't reach that next level of coverage, because they are not spending out of pocket. to add to your question directly, about 4 million people this year will enter the donut hole. host: we had a special line set up for medicare recipients. let's take a look at the health- care law and what it does for medicare part d affecting the donut hole. a $250 rebate right now to beneficiaries to reach part d coverage gaps, the so-called

donut hole, in 2010. what is the impact of $250? guest: well, you have to talk to particular medicare recipients about that. it is certainly not a significant coverage in that donut hole. you are spending about $3,600 there. $250 is not a significant portion of that. but it is something, it is a start. many people are happy to get those checks in the mail, as you can imagine. they start to go out and they go to anyone who hits the donut hole, whether they hit it at a dollar or $100 or by spending $2,000. they get a check for $250. the checks come automatically. you should receive, if you hit the , donut hole you should receive a check automatically within 45 days. they go out in june and they are

rolling out over the year. we have had calls on our hot line from folks who say, do i need to fill out any paperwork? what would do if i did not get my check? the short answer is that there is no application problem, no paper work that needs to be filled out. people are calling you and asking for your personal financial information or asking you to tell someone out, you should not do that. you should call 1-800-medicare and talk to them about that. there is a fear that some folks will commit fraud and tried to get financial information. the checks arrive automatically, hopefully within 45 days of hole and ifougnut not, call 1-800-medicare. host: also, the law expands coverage for part d to those suffering environmental health hazards. why was this included in the law? guest: once again, we want to

make sure that the benefits are reaching everybody it possibly can. there are a number of small extensions of the benefits throughout the next few years. in 2012, there is a decrease in the copayment amounts that are going to be required by folks in medicaid and medicare. particularly low-income folks in the medicare program. they will not have to pay as much out of pocket for their drugs. there is a real small expansion. many folks wanted more expansion to the program, but the price tag was just too high. there was a decision made to focus on groups that were particularly hard hit by drug costs and really try to get them expanded coverage. host: let's look at what happens in 2011, quite a few provisions when it comes to prescription drugs but it requires the

pharmaceutical manufacturers to provide a 50% discount on in prescriptions filled in the coverage gap. guest: this is a big deal. what happens and 2011 -- we talked about the $250 rebate, which is something but not really what is needed ultimately to close this donut hole. in 2011 we really do start to close the donut hole through this 50% discount for brand-name drugs and discount for generic drugs. you gradually see the donut hole contract so that folks have coverage within it. for folks taking crandon drugs, the 50% discount is really good -- for folks taking brand-name drugs, the 50% discount is going to be a really good discount for them. they will still be racking up -- it will get that to the catastrophic coverage portion of

the medicare part d benefit, where they are paying 5%. it should begin to really provide them with coverage in the donut hole. the percentage of discounts and coverage increase every year 20, where, if20 t you are paying 20% of your costs and then you are paying 5% and then basically the donut hole is gone. host: the premium subsidy will be reduced for individuals and couples call is -- individuals and couples. the first call is on the democratic line in new jersey. caller: if you have a coverage and you are retired. -- if you of coverage and you are retired, and you are covered during your retirement, and i

missed my chance to sign up for part d, due i missed my chance to sign up for it forever, if they canceled their coverage? guest: a very good question, and one that we get a lot of calls about on our consumer hot line. the rules are straightforward. if you have what is called creditable coverage, you do not need to get a part d plan when you are first eligible. you can wait. most retiree coverage is generous enough or equal enough to what is available in part d. the first thing that you should do is check with your employer or insurer and they should give you a certificate of creditable coverage or some other information that shows that the coverage you have to your former employer or current employer is credible. basically, the way it works is this -- when you become eligible for medicare, you have three months before that eligibility,

the money you are eligible and can enroll, and three months after -- the month you are eligible and can enroll, and three months after to enroll in part d. if you enroll later, their penalties involved. basically, when% -- 1% of the national average premium every month you should of been enrolled or not enrolled. that can rack up, as you can imagine. you definitely want to enroll when you are first eligible if you do not have the creditable coverage. if you do have it, you do not need part d, and you can wait to enroll one that coverage ends, and you go right into part d with no penalties at that time to read some folks decided to enroll in part d as an additional benefit, but that might not be financially the smart thing to do, because you are paying two premiums and you not getting a lot of those

plans. you want to take a look at that if you want to double up your coverage to sometimes, as well, if you enroll in part d, it affects the level of your retiree coverage. you want to talk to your team and resources folks or others that know about your -- your human resources folks or others that know about your coverage to make sure you are not making a misstep there. generally speaking, you should enroll when you are first --gible, and then you c unless you have creditable coverage, were you can wait until the coverage ends. host: delaware, laura on the independents' line, you the next call. caller: i want to ask, following up on the next caller, how likely is it bad companies will stop providing retiree prescription drug coverage since

the new elite eliminates the monetary tax incentives -- the new law eliminates the monetary tax incentives for the companies that provide them. guest: a couple of things. one is that there actually are subsidies in the accountable care act for certain retiree coverage. there is the tax subsidies, tax credits, etc., for employers. there is an effort to keep what is available now available in the future. unfortunately, the trend has been over the last few years, and this book for health reform happened, for companies to scale -- and this is before health reform happen, for companies to scale back retiree benefits. that is just part of the landscape of corporate america right now. you will continue to see companies that scaled that back because that has been the trend. i think that trend will

continue. whether or not it accelerates, my crystal ball is cloudy. i will have to see how that plays out and how some of the other incentives might change behavior for corporate retiree plans. but, you know, the bottom line is that i think we will continue to see movement here, and we will continue to see folks coming in to -- into the part d government program that might have been in retiree programs before, or they may still be retiree programs but they're not as generous and so are coming into part d. financial obligations will depend on what those groups of people look like -- the financial implications will depend on what those groups of people look like. if they are generally higher income, better health individuals, many other folks in the medicare program -- it might not have a completely negative

impact on the program. they are going to be paying premiums into the system, etc. i don't think it is any kind of problem for the program over the long term. certainly, the more folks in the program, to a certain degree, the healthier the program, because it is a broader risk a broader base. be that as it may, i don't see a huge change coming there. host: let's go to a medicare recipient, cindy in louisville, kentucky. caller: good morning. mr. baker, we all know that medicare was not paid for under republicans. my policy, which i think i am paying are around $139 per month for come under medicare d, has gone up every single year. i've been on it five years.

also, by drug costs have gone up 10% each and every year. it seems to me that this did nothing but bad that the drug companies and penalize us -- this did nothing but a benefit the drug companies and penalize us. guest: certainly that is the trend. in national average premium is $35. but as the caller said, many people are paying much more than that and that number has gone up quite a bit since 2006, not only the average, but as well, you can pay more for enhanced plans. some people paying up to $2 a month for this coverage -- some people are paying up to $200 a month for this coverage. there are a variety of ways that the plans themselves have tried to tamp down the costs. investment of about $4,300 in health reform to close the donut hole should bring down some out- of-pocket costs for folks who hit the donut hole.

but the trend will be for increasing premiums. there was a movement afoot in the context of health reform to have the government purchase -- create a public plan within the part d program, and purchase drugs, have the government purchased drugs directly from drug companies, the way the veterans administration does. the veterans administration gets significant discounts on the cost of drugs from the drug companies, and the thinking was that medicare should be able to use this buying power to get the same deals for medicare beneficiaries. those proposals were not ultimately in health reform again, we are using the private marketplace, which has not decreased costs the way the veterans administration does, and those costs are borne by the federal government and by the participants in the program like you with premiums and copayment

amounts. there is nothing in health reform that significantly changes the structure of that subsidy, absent the donut hole closure we're talking about. we need to continue to look at part d and the costs passed through the people to medicare to make sure that it is a robust benefit that really does meet the needs of folks. it one thing that i think is important to note is about nearly half of medicare and fissures are below 200% of the federal poverty level, which is about $21,000 in income for a single person. we're not talking about, you know, are rich group of people here. -- a rich but people here. these kinds of costs need to be monitored and we need to make sure that the coverage is valuable and can be used by folks. host: michigan, democratic line.

if you could give a quick question and we can get a quick response, because we have a lot people lining up to ask questions about this. caller: thank you for letting me be on. my mother is 85 years old and she did not sign up for medicare part d. her madison was only $5. her insurance -- she is a retired schoolteacher from chicago, so she gets medicare and across blue shield. i go in december to pick up her medication, up $5. the next month, the next thing i know, or medicine is $20. -- how medicine is $20. i had to call chicago and our interests and they explained to me that everybody 65 and older automatically is put on medicare part d even if they don't sign up for it. if the government gets involved, is bad. guest: a couple of things.

one, i cannot comment on the particular mechanics of that and whether that is the right process there. i don't have enough information. certainly, what some retiree plans are doing are shifting retirees to the part d program. as an earlier caller said, that is the trend to move folks out retiree coverage and into the government program. in some instances, the government program is better, in other instances, it is not. once again, these are private plans, and there is a choice about 50 -- a choice of about 50 plans and each state. some better than others. the plan for your mother might not be the best plan for her. she might want be looking at other plans available to her outside of the retiree coverage that might be more generous or have better co payment

structure, understanding that if she is still paying a subsidy from the teachers benefit fund, that may go away a sheet moves out of the plan. there is some shopping you need to do for comparison, but once you leave the retiree plan in the teachers' union or the band at plan, you will lose that forever, probably -- or the benefit plans to cut you will lose that forever, probably. i will keep my answers short, too, given the number of calls. host: kentucky, you are next. you ought to turn the television down. i will move to medicare recipient line in brunswick, ohio. caller: i am on medicare and medicare part d. i was severely injured years ago, pretty well disabled, and i fell into that donut hole because my prescriptions are

close to $1,000 a month. the generic form of it is six other top dollars a month. -- $612 a month. the only income i have is a little over $12,000 a year. to wait another 10 years to get some kind of relief, 2020, when you say a tyrant's out -- when you say eight irons out, i do not know if there's anything in between i can do for myself. guest: yes, there is. you should be on this program called the vote income subsidy or extra help program, run by the social security administration. basically it is a program for low-income or not-so-low-income folks on medicare to get further subsidization, sometimes almost free, part d prescription drug

coverage. i advise you and others out there. there is anot -- there is a number of other income guidelines. generally, if you have under $1,200 a month in income, if you are single, under $1,800 a month, if you are a couple and you have assets under $12,000 or $25,000, you are eligible for expert help subsidy, which had almost erased your drug costs both before and after you hit the donut hole. the important thing to remember is that if you say, oh, it does not sound like i'm eligible, many things are not counted in your income and assets. i really do advise folks out there that might be close to these numbers to call or go to ssa.gov or call 1-800-medicare

and ask for extra help. it can significantly decrease your costs and increase access to drugs you need. host: let's go back to mary on the republican line in kentucky. caller: good morning. i'm wondering why the elderly have to pay some much for part d if they are in the donut hole after they've been paying for years on the social security when illegals come over here and they get everything for free pre medical, drugs. the elderly have a fallen to the whole their bre. host: how much do you pay for prescription drugs? are you still there? at think we lost her. joseph baker, can you lie in? in?eigh guest: sure.

i do not think anybody who was a health insurance designer would have designed the plan with this donut hole. the primary reason it was designed this way was to keep the spending down. oftentimes we see that when programs are first enacted, they are not perfect. what we are seeing is exactly what we thought would happen, is that even with the donut hole, we are improving the program. we are improving the program to make sure that people have the right level of drug coverage to with regards to illegal, folks or aare here illegally document that they are not eligible for health care -- or are undocumented they are not eligible for health care. many of them cannot access care except through free clinics and charity care. while they may be getting access

to some care in emergency rooms and free clinics, they are not getting it through the government programs that are designed to provide glthe level of access that citizens are getting. certainly, health reform does not include at does not provide coverage through exchanges for people under 64 or 65 to those that are here that are un documented. that is the debate we can have, but it is not really affecting the level of coverage we are providing to our citizens, or folks that are here legally. there are other issues that play there, fiscal issues and what not, that provide better coverage from occurring tri . host: another medicare recipient. caller: good morning. you just the man i wanted to talk to. i tried to get to my pharmacy

for medicare and medicare part d providers. i'm a vietnam vet, and when i came back, i had a lot of psychological problems with depression and anxiety, and had therapy and medication, and i got well. ,'m a little over 71 years old and recently i started having panic attacks in my back, my sides. host: carroll? caller: this is my question -- host: great. we need to get your question. caller: how come part d does not cover any of these diazepam? guest: they are excluded from coverage. you are right, as a veteran, you should see to get those through

the va system. many veterans are not in part d because they get coverage through the va system. it sounds like you are trying to get coverage through part d. the problem with those drugs is that the barbiturates have been excluded from coverage in part d, but that is set to change. in 2014 and they will start to be covered by the part d, one of the reforms of health reform, to add that class of drugs, which are often used by those over 65, to the part d program. i have a few ideas. one is to check out the va system to two, your state -- i think it use that it was tennessee -- i do not know what

your state does, but it may have an additional program for those over 65. they do, sometimes those programs cover things that part d does not cover. state has a state pharmacy assistance program -- if your state has a state pharmacy assistance program, that may be another place where you can get a prescription drug coverage that you are not getting through part d, or it may be able to help with the costs of prescription drug coverage. host: mississippi, democratic line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. i fell into the donut hole many years and i have regarded to not -- i have resorted to not taking my medication as i should to keep from getting into the donut hole. when you get into the donut

hole, they count the amount of money they pay any amount that you paid to get you into that donut hole, and when you are in a, you still have to pay premiums. host: joseph baker, is that true? guest: that is the way it works, that is right. that is why it is so important to get rid of the donut hole. unfortunately, it happens over 10 years, not overnight. we pushed at the medicare rights center to get it done more quickly. we may be going in future years to congress to speed this up, given what you are experiencing and many people on medicare are experiencing. once again, the strategies -- it sounds like you are using the right strategies here -- if you can prevent yourself getting into the donut hole by using generics -- certainly we cannot

recommend you not take drugs or split pills unsafely or what not -- there is pil splitl in that can occur -- there is pill splitting that can occur. many keep out through other means. once they are in the donut hole, they cannot pay out of pocket. that is why it is such a bad place to be in. if you are in the donut hole, there is a variety of things that may help you the state pharmacy programs that i was talking about. once again, doctors provide free samples at times. other prescription drug companies -- sorry, pharmaceutical manufacturers -- have compassionate use program is for drugs that are particularly expensive. the problem is that some of those things don't count towards getting out of the donut hole.

it's a complicated and very tricky place to be in. that is why it is good that it is going away. but it sounds like you are using some of the strategies, but the reality is that you are paying a premium and you have no benefit. that will start to change next year, when you have a 50% discount for brand names and a 7% discount for generics. it will not get you through the donut hole completely, but it is the beginning of that. host: maryland. diane on the independent line. caller: good morning. i have a question about the penalty, why was enacted and if it will ever be phased out. my pharmacy program -- i did not realize i was on the aarp discount program and was not eligible, and when i switched over, i am paying the penalty

now, and drugs are not covered, so i am basically paying and not getting the benefit. guest: a couple of things there. the best piece of advice i can give to everybody dealing with the last part of that question is to shop around for your plans. every year you have the ability to move a plans breed a lot of people say, i pick my plan, i am done. every year, the plans change, the formularies, they change the copayment levels, you have to pay a higher code paper certain drugs, and usually brand names and specialty drugs. your drug may be covered when you're really well and not so well the next year -- york drug may be covered one year really well and not so well the next year. you have to look at this every year and be on top of it. regarding the penalty -- i really do suggest you shop around as we approach this your's enrollment period, which

starts november 15. the other piece of the penalty is that, yes, the penalty does not go away. the reason for the penalty is to make sure that people do not enroll in coverage when they are sick and need a lot of care. for example, the same thing with homeowners insurance. you would not want people signing up as they are having the fire, as it were. you want them to be paying into the system, and when there is a problem, they share in the pool. drug insurance works and the same way. unfortunately, the premium penalties do continue. that was not creditable coverage, the aarp discount program. one way you can get rid of the penalties, and have them waived and basically have the premiums paid an subsidized as well is the expert held subsidy that i was talking about. you may want to once again go to or call your social

security office or 1-800- medicare and find out if you are eligible for extra help. it reaches up to the higher income levels. once again, don't assume that just because you have this income, it is all counted. take a look at. it can be the solution to getting rid of the premium penalties. host: edwin, democratic line, boston. caller: my question was the pharmaceutical companies -- which is what is happening to me. i'm 87 years old and my wife is 85. we paid into health insurance all my life. but now these drugs -- the drug companies increasing the price, like every time you turn around.

she has won that is $253 a month, and it has gone up, $273, $273.99. host: 10 i asked you how often it goes up? caller: well, we never know. this would happen a couple months ago. -- this one happened a couple of months ago. guest: is there anything in the law to prevent the increase of the price of these drugs? guest: no, there is no price control in the law. one idea was to have the government purchased these drugs and tamp down the increase in the cost. that was shelved. many of the private plans, whether they be places like

wellcare other insurers, or what are called pharmacy benefit management that run these programs, are negotiating with pharmaceutical manufacturers all the time to keep prices low and pass them along. they don't have the buying power that the federal government has, for example, in the va program. there is nothing in the reform law that will keep prices down to it that said, the secretary of health and human services, kathleen sebelius, has said she will be watching very closely, and the federal government is, to see where drug prices go as the donut hole closes. as well, there will be watching insurance premiums, which many folks are afraid will start to increase because of health reform, or under the guise of health reform. i think there is an added scrutiny to this. i think that we see price gouging by pharmaceutical

manufacturers, and that will need to be addressed and people will be monitoring. but right now, there is nothing except the power of the marketplace and the negotiating power of a particular plan to keep prices down and not pass them along to consumers. host: republican line, california, and you are the last call. caller: i am retired from the department of defense, and i also worked in private enterprise for 27 years. i have full medicare, and i also have my insurance with the federal government. i have a very interesting question, because i have tried to get a hold of your inspector general's and everything. what is happening is that there are hmos and stuff out there that are, especially on the major