he is deputy chairman of the nrcc, which oversees house election efforts for republicans. later, a look at the u.s. foster care system. daniel heimpel joins us. this is "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: good morning, and welcome to "washington journal" for wednesday, september 27, 2010. president obama travels to new york for the u.n. general assembly. he will talk health care reform at a back yard reception in virginia s and meet with insurance commissioners and this evening, a democratic fund- raiser. the house returns to washington for a few days of business and the senate continues work.

yesterday it did not move for the defense authorization bill and overturning "don't ask, don't tell." a ban on gays openly serving in the military. top story today, a new book by bob woodward about inside the white house. but with the president and his top military advisers and recounts a tough decision on whether to build up true spirit that is our topic this morning. you can give us a call and way and -- we are also on line. and you can find us on twitter. the top story and "the washington post," book details internal struggle over afghan plan. obama frustrated by the military.

according to his notes, the president avoided talk of victory when he describe objectives.

we are talking about a new book " coming outs monday. news outlets were able to get preview copies and discuss it. let us continue to look at "the washington post" breakdown. it says that most of the book centers on a strategy review and the dissension and mistrust and infighting. some of the details are

released. obama told woodward in july he did not think of the afghan war in the classic terms of the united states winning or losing. d a on our republicans lined. i know you have not gotten to read the book since no one has but a few in the newspaper business. what do you think about what is being revealed? caller: i am very pessimistic about our prospects, long-term and short-term in afghanistan and pakistan i see karzai, our partner, as corrupt and a crook, a coke -- kook. the enemy is not even in

afghanistan, according to petreaus, according to -- gee, i forget, but other biggie's administration. al qaeda is in pakistan did you know that. host: look -- let us look at "the washington post." let us go to alan on our independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. libertarian wanted a smaller government at home and a foreign policy that is not the policeman of the world, if you will. this change we voted for with president obama gets the worst on both ends. i am not liking it. he should have stood up for what he believed in. but this military-industrial complex never seems to be able to be shut down.

thank you. host: ok. looking back at the piece in "the washington post." let's go to our next caller. soviet in oklahoma. caller: how are you? host: thanks, good morning. what do you think of this? caller: i have two questions. host: go ahead, sylvia, and turned down --

caller: the first question that i have, is i think this is a great book that everyone should read. host: keep going. caller: ok. the second question is, is that, i know there will be a lot of elections going on and it seems like there is a good runoff of two women going head to have and i think there is a big change. i have not had the chance to pick up the book. i will pick up the book and read it. but i am all for pulling out our troops. my son has been in the military over 18 calendar years and i am a military mom and i feel that -- like the other military moms and dads out there, bring all of our troops home. host: ok. thank you for your call.

we would get back to more of bob woodward's book. but we want to take a moment and check in with "washington times" reporter who is following what is happening in the white house. good morning. guest: good morning, how are you. host: thank you for joining us. the story and "the washington times" summers resigning. tell us about the news. guest: the white house confirmed what had been reported earlier today by bloomberg, is that mr. summers is going to be returning to harvard. on the one hand, this is not too much of a surprise. his family had not even moved. they stayed in massachusetts. it is not too uncommon to have this kind of turnover at this point in the president's first term, but as you mentioned, this is the third member of the president's economic team to leave in recent weeks. even though it is certainly not playing this way, it will be

reviewed to some observers as a house cleaning. host: how integral was he in creating the economic policy? guest: he was definitely brought on as a guide. we have a real washington veteran -- he served as tourism secretary under former president clinton. he was brought on to tap into the expertise. he is the one who actually started this daily economic briefing to go along with the president's daily intelligence briefing. it really was the architect in many ways of some of these really expansive economic priorities the president has seen just in his first term thus far with the stimulus bill, the financial regulatory overhaul, and even now, i think played a key role in the president's position on the bush tax cuts. host: you reported liberal activists applauded the news. tell us why. guest: it is funny. he was viewed, the liberal base of the president's party, they were not even happy when he was

named i think it is reflected in the reactions. one progressive group said we sail for -- said we feel sorry for harbour it because they have to deal with him again. there was a perception that larry summers was close to wall street and a lot of the progressive groups accused him of watering down some of the president's reforms, certainly in the wall street bill. it is interesting given speculation the white house is now looking to tap as a replacement someone with corporate experience, it will be interesting to see how the groups react to. host: who might step in? guest: several names being tossed around. a lot of people saying they may look for a female given so many of these top economic positions -- christina romer are a side -- are being held by men. but current and former ceo's of the xerox, both females, are

being looked at. we have to wait and see. host: talk to us about the president's trip to new york today, to meet u.n., and what can we expect? guest: he will be addressing the millennium developments conference. going back to the u.n. initiative. we have five years left to drastically reduce global poverty. more clearly perhaps than before, the u.s. strategy on foreign aid. i know there are a lot of high expectations. of course the big challenge is just ended the risk -- recession, and we heard the secretary general say earlier this week, just explaining to people why we should still be giving foreign aid and why we can still afford it. i think you will see him try to tie this to both our national security and our economic success. he is also going to address the full u.n. assembly tomorrow, which is when the leaders will

give their big speeches. this will be his second address. i am not sure we will hear too much new in terms of approach but we will see him highlights the successes that we have had under his policy of engagement. host: iranian president mahmoud ahmadinejad spoke. what is the white house reaction? news reports is he really stayed the course, kept the tone as before with defiance. how is the white house reacting? guest: i think what they are trying to do is what a lot of advisers and foreign-policy experts are saying, which is not to overplay and kind of elevate ahmadinejad. certainly he is viewed as someone who is very provocative and trying to get attention. i think the white house has been very careful not to give him undue attention and focusing more on iran, the country itself, and the people that ahmadinejad himself. i think that is certainly the strategy at least experts i've talked to on both sides of the

aisle yesterday have been calling for. i don't think we will see anything new item ahmadinejad. he will speak tomorrow. traditionally, much of the room steps out. but he certainly always has something attention grabbing to say, for sure. host: the news from capitol hill this week as the senate did not move to advance the defense authorization bill, potential repeal of "don't ask don't tell" heading down the path. does the white house can see this is a defeat or do they think there is hope in the lame- duck session? guest: democrats in general and the white house and saying this is certainly something they are going to revisit. in the past, the president has been in a tough spot. he has got a lot of criticism certainly from gay rights groups and a more progressive wing of the party for not repeat -- revealing this policy. but they have been trying to forge a middle ground, and the president has said ones we've

complete this regrouped jeter review, let's let the military at least look at this first. i do not think it will say it publicly, but if anything, this would avoid kind of a tricky fight for them. i think some of the leading senators, joe lieberman, who is an instrumental, has vowed to revisit. easier said than done particularly depending on the outcome in november. host: talking this morning about bob woodward's new book, "obama's war." we are getting previews. it is the white house talking yet about their reaction? do you have a sense how this thing reflects on the obama administration? guest: of course i have not seen a copy of the book but i have been looking after reports. i think the most interesting tidbits, we will have a lot of palace intrigue here and the background, the back and forth over president obama's decision making one afghanistan. i think if anything, the

embarrassing stuff, at least to the eyes of some, will be just the dissension and the disagreement. little tidbits that are kind of interesting in that regard. but at the same time, i think the white house is going to come as they did last summer, portray this as a strength that, yes, especially something this important, he wants to take time and deliberate and he wants the views on both sides and to consider dish -- different viewpoints. i think that is certainly how they will portray it. i would not be surprised if he is just on the whole portrayed in a positive way. remember, they made a calculation here that it is better to give him that access, bob woodward, that is, and cooperate with him rather than shut him out. i have to think they expect the got something out of that. host: white house reporter for about the -- "the washington times." thank you. continuing with our topic, as

you were just hearing, this new book out, "obama's wars" will be coming out next week. "the washington post" has and written about it. so, we are looking for your impressions of this. roger, let's hear from you. jacksonville, wyoming. republicans line. caller: i have a couple of tidbits of my own. i think politically speaking the country is numb -- between the newspaper wars regarding the black panthers, who is printing it and who did not read it, and basically you have a right and

left and it is so far separated. the democrats are politically correct. they do things that are popular but not correct you look at carter, to clinton, to obama. these are presidents who have really had their policies. host: what do you think the president should do in afghanistan? caller: regarding afghanistan, we have to stay. we have to not pull out like bush, sr., and have to finish the job. these are human beings. host: north dakota and president obama designed his own strategy for the 30,000 troops which some have considered a compromise.

let's head to california. johnny on our democrats line. caller: hello. host: good morning, johnny. caller: how are you? host: fine, thanks. go right ahead. caller: i think the war in afghanistan was a good choice. what i would suggest, more troops. the more troops you have you can take away the pockets they are hiding in. when you can take away the pockets they are hiding in, that means that we win. host: ok. the question we are talking about today is the new bob what would -- bob woodward book, that details of the internal discussions at the white house.

"the washington post" reports that after obama informed the military of the decision -- looking at the back and forth between the top of visors. -- advisors. a comment by general petraeus, according to author bob

woodward. let's go to tony on independent line in houston. good morning. caller: with reference to some of the remarks bob woodward is making. it seems like he has a somewhat stilted history, stilted perspective of history. because there was a war in 1971 between india and pakistan that began on sunday and finished on a thursday. the soviet union backed india, we backed pakistan. that war, after it finished about two weeks later, it was found that we have sold weapons to both india and pakistan. so, for one word to say the pakistanis are double dealing, it seems like they learn very well from loss. host: ok. "the new york times," also talking about the bob woodward

book, it says -- then looking at the president and how he is portrayed -- lydia on our independent's line in maryland. caller: i don't believe a word bob woodward says. is he at the meeting of the pentagon and national security council? he gets his information from snitches and people who scarf around on named sources. if the people who are in this

administration want to put out a press release and tell the american people every details of the wars in afghanistan to ending july isobar soldiers, they would do that. i think bob woodward should get a job. why don't he write a real book? is asking theo question about who is the source is. it says inside the white house, according to administration officials -- cia director panetta, admiral mike mullen, richard holbrooke and a long roster of top officials. the president's interview was on the record and lasted about an hour. let's go to richmond, virginia.

german -- jeremy on the democrats' line. caller: the book is probably an excellent account. but sadly, i wish the president had followed through on his initial thoughts in the campaign that both iraq was a mistake. i know he had been after osama bin laden. but what we are locked into is, we are in occupations. we were in iraq and we are now in afghanistan. a civil war between one group of people will have an idea of how they want to run the country and another group of people who are different. the taliban, we have backed unfortunately in american policies, is it dictators. in afghanistan we back the war lords. when the taliban were in charge

i remember suppress the heroin trade, the warlords were no longer able to have private armies. today we back the corrupt area. during world war ii when we went to italy, mussolini for all of his impossible way of doing things, had suppressed the mafia. when we went to sicily, week reignited the mafia, worked with lucky luciano. host: we will leave it there, jeremy. looking at reporting in politico, they say bob woodward's 16th book -- 16 books have all been best sellers.

politico speculating on what the white house hopes this book reveals or how it comes across. goes on to say if there bet turns out wrong, white house aides will have little grounds for complaining he was out of the loop. at times during the reporting, according to administration officials and other sources, woodward surprised top defense and intelligence officials for coming in to interviews armed with classified nappes, in some cases labeled with code names for clandestine operations. ryland, daylong the republicans line. caller: calling about what you stated in the new book by bob

woodward, about what petreaus was saying we will be there for the duration of our children. i think that is a good signal. even john mccain said when he was running for president, we will march to the gates of for this war. this is a bad precedent. if we would really wanted to stop the war we would be eradicating the open fields -- opium fields. basically what that money, instead of giving them trillions of dollars, we should try to help rebuild, get rid of the opium and stop the war, sending troops over. host: do you think there needs to be some military action before that sort of more humanitarian effort could work? caller: how much military action do we need? we tried it before and it did not work that successful in iraq, sorry to say. i really don't think it is going to work over there at all. enough is enough. troops are being killed every

day. let's be realistic. there is never going to be an of troops in that country. host: comment from trader -- twitter. let's go to louisiana. bo all are democrats line. good morning. go right ahead. caller: i just wanted to make a comment about afghanistan. straight out of high school, in voluntary transferred from engineering unit to infantry unit. now that i get back to the states i see a lot of folks supporting the war. but they delano back to the what is going on. i am not trying to stay on the line forever. all the ones who want the war to continue in afghanistan, they need to try out for the military

itself and try to do something about it. you can only do so much, but if you are such a strong advocate, join the military and see what it is about and you may not be so quick saying we need to be in afghanistan, we need to stay. because it is bigger than what we actually can deal with. but i am definitely against the war. there are things that can be done in the states. about this book, about bob woodward, what ever, it is going to always be folks that do that. the only thing we can do is make our statement of the election polls. all the ones who advocate for the war, they need to join -- military, infantry, always taking applications. host: thank you for your service and thank you for your call. looking at some news out of

afghanistan, nine u.s. troops killed and a helicopter crash. killed tuesday when a black hawk crashed in southern afghanistan, making 2010 the deadliest year for nato forces there. the united states passed the grim milestone in mid august when the fatalities exceeded last year's total with more than four months to go. that is from "the washington post." the next caller is from oregon on independent's line. caller: i hope you give me time. we left korea. if we didn't leave career, do you thinks -- do you think we would have the dictator in the north that we have and still coming after us? we left vietnam after we won tet -- we took out more enemy in then we'dion of tet

lost and the entire war. you can talk to the vietnamese that are here now, 3 million dead. that is a light number, madam. and it included children because they could read. the you think if we left in vietnam -- do you think of we left vietnam, we had any chance try to eradicate what was happening? we went into iraq because it was the belly of the beast. it borders every middle east country. host: let us go to jennifer. democrats line. atlanta, georgia. caller: good morning. my issue is that i believe that both this war and afghanistan is going to continue until we have a draft. host: are you still with us? caller: unless we get other kids

over there besides low income and middle income family kids, we are just going to be over there indefinitely. host: ok. looking at some of the other stories that are in the news right now. from "the philadelphia inquirer" talking about a special event that happened yesterday. tribute to aaron and slain -- airmen slain. a photograph of him in service and we see the president giving it to mr. etchenberger on behalf of his late father. russell is on our independent's

line. caller: good morning. these wars of occupation, america, we have to stop. you don't win a war of occupation. you either leave and go home and you stay and people slowly die. host: what do you think should happen? caller: we need to wrap up there as quickly as possible, with a losing as few people as possible. and double the diplomatic pressure and send them help -- build some schools, build roads. i fought against the vietnam war and i feel that we stopped the vietnam war with the coalition of unions and churches and the students. that is what we need to do. there are a lot of people working on that again.

we need to get out of the wars of occupation there vietnam was much better off with us out. we diplomatically deal with them. host: let us go to alan, democrat in dearborn, michigan. caller: the other caller from virginia was on the right track. obama as a candidate have the right idea -- had the right idea. the taliban were looking forward to obama becoming president, and it looked like we were going to have a resolution to the conflict. and they were ready to have a resolution. and i think we could of been resolved. the problem in afghanistan could have been resolved quickly. unfortunately mcchrystal did

obama a disservice when they recommended the surge to obama and obama fell for it. host: ok. let's look at some other news coming out of washington. this from "usa today." help consumers to start feeling effects. six months later, the law phases in.

"usa today" looks at key provisions of the health care lot and details what is changing. she goes through things like keeping young adults covered, but -- free of preventive care, greater consumer rights and restrictions on the annual coverage limits. going through what some of the basics are but also some things to be aware of, some complications you might need to know about. let us hear from tom on our democrats line from florida. good morning. caller: hello. nice to meet you. well, not nice to meet you. but you know. i just wanted to call and say thank you for your service and

all of the other troops, the caller from louisiana. and god bless our fallen. but it is horrible what these insurance companies are doing. they are still trying to refuse coverage. this is sick. this bill is supposed to help out and republicans refused to work. host: another piece in the news. obama tax credit looks in danger. from "the wall street journal."

we are talking about this morning "obama's wars," a new book by bob woodward that talks about the internal debate surrounding the afghanistan war. gerald on the democrats' line. caller: how are you doing? it looks like we spent i think $3 trillion to murder about 2 million or 3 million people. and we have no clue about this war was about. do you know what it was about? host: what do you think it was about? caller: i think it is all based on lies. george bush and his whole administration should be hanged from a lamp post. mass murderers. host: you can call with your opinions.

other news today from "the washington post." obama seeks to boost promising economies. pledging to target u.s. assistance at a select group of countries to transform them into the next generation of emerging economies. the next caller, kathleen on our

democrats landed caller: good morning. my 38 year old son is deployed in iraq. he is part of the louisiana national guard, washington artillery. basically he is doing mp work. he was in basically the army. he was a criminal sheriff's deputy. i am basically what used to be called a dixiecrat, a very conservative democrat, which is a moderate by nature. the best possible outcome that could happen in afghanistan would be the korean war model.

where you basically have a line drawn in the sand, where you can push this far, but no farther. during the war in vietnam, which is a war that my age group was drafted for, basically, we hope it would have that outcome. it cannot ask you. use a draw a line in the sand, to go no farther. but is it a different playing field with domestic terrorism? caller: in other words, terrorism is contained. that's what i mean. host: ok. let's go to miami, florida. howard, independent caller. caller: this question about whether or not this war in afghanistan was a really justify

the war, it's really set to rest by none other than pat buchanan that in an op-ed piece in "the miami herald" yesterday really address this. if i could quote what he said. are not the same people -- referring to republican establishment -- george w. bush stampeding the nation in unnecessarily -- unnecessary war, stripped saddam hussein of weapons he did not have, are these not the same people who misled or deceived us about iraq's role in 9/11? i think when pat buchanan who is certainly not a liberal, comes out and fled out says what has been bandied about for a long time but refused to be acknowledged, said that, i think it pretty much set to rest.

host: and comment from twitter. and we are talking about a new book about to come out, "obama's wars) that looks at the discussions that took place inside the white house as the new president tries to decide his strategy in the war in afghanistan. it says the tension often turned personal -- this is from "the washington post." let's hear from terry in virginia on our democrats line. actually, let us go to arlington, telos. mike, democrat pretty caller: i just want to say about two callers ago, i think we should bring the troops all. i think it was a false pretense.

and i think there is all this rhetoric on this subject but it is simple. it is amoral and legal question. did we have the moral or legal authority to have our troops occupied a foreign nation. did declare war. that is the constitutional requirement before our troops entered a sovereign nation. and the history of the united states is it should be provoked, they should be a provocation. frankly, i think this is just an imperialistic measure to gain in expense of the labor and cheap raw materials for a bunch of large corporations and i don't think it is in the best interest of the tax payers. certainly not in the tax payers best interests. a lot of people have suffered. it has been a huge loss of life. i think it has just been a giant mess. host: let us hear from omar, republican from los angeles.

caller: good morning. can you hear me? host: we can, go right ahead. caller: i just wanted to say that we have more than two friends going on -- fronts. terrorism is not something you can be, it is an idea. no more we can get terrorism to sign a peace treaty. we have been waging war on our citizens for four years on this issue. host: thank you for all of your calls during this segment. coming up, we will be talking to congressman peter welch, a democrat from vermont. that is up next. we will be right back. contentn's local vehicles are travelling the country this summer and fall, visiting communities and congressional districts, as we look at some of the most hotly contested house races leading up to this november's midterm elections.

>> i think va 11 is a sign of what is going in the country, not just virginia. i think va was -- 2009, some of the anchor that was building up in the rest of the country. i think va 11 will move in the direction of what ever way the country is going. the sign of whether a wave is building for republicans will definitely be seen if a republican can win this race in november. >> how are you doing? you don't have a -- shirt on? >> keith fimian, a local businessman running for congress. never thought i would do that but we need people unbalanced budgets. >> who is running? >> obviously congressman gerry connolly, elected in 2008. and keith fimian who ran against him in 2008 and lost 55% to 43%.

recently the district has been shifting toward democrat. president obama won it with 57%, a pretty high number in 2008. president bush in 2004 took it by a very slim 50% or 51% margin. he won even bigger in 2000. as you can see down the line it was moving toward democrat. however, in 2009, the last governor's race, bob mcdonnell, who ran as a republican, took 55%. the question is, is this district moving back toward republican or was 2009 just an aberration? >> they are running against each other again, what is the difference? >> the environment is different. in 2008 president obama, 57% in the district. this is fairfax county in northern virginia, and prince

william county in northern virginia. two areas that have been moving toward democrats -- have been very popular for democrats in recent cycles. we see that as of those districts have been shifting toward democrats, what has changed now is the suburban districts in philadelphia and new york and chicago appear to be moving back toward republicans, or at least moving in their direction this cycle. i think that is what is different this time. the candidates obviously have not changed. but what also has changed is keith fimian. he was attacked in 2008 by gerry connolly as being too social conservative for the district that may be more moderate on abortion and guns. but this time keith fimian is also running as a tea party candidate. well this suburban district elect a tea party type? that will be a test of the tea

party strength. if he can indeed when this cycle when he did not before, i think it would be a very, very telling indicator for republicans across the country as a tea party social secured -- social conservative could win in a district like this, things would look pretty good for republicans in november. >> any thoughts about gerry connolly's popularity? >> gerry connolly, you would think starts out with a high name identification because prior to his election he was fairfax county board of supervisors chair. he was very instrumental with working with local transportation issues, probably one of the number one issues in his term. he has high name identification from that. however, starting with his election, he now has a record in congress, which is different from being popular on the local side. he has voted with the democratic leadership on a cap and trade,

the stimulus, and on the health care bill. it sort of voted across the board with the democratic leadership. republicans are sure to exploit that in and area in northern virginia that appears to be moving back toward republicans. those may not have been the best votes he could have taken. he will have a tough time defending those in the environment we are currently in. virginia is also one of the first states to close on election night at 7:00, and if fimain pulls this out, at this would be one of the first bellwether races, not necessarily a toss up a book on the fringes that if this race goes, there will be a lot of dominoes left to call that night and republicans will have a very good chance of capturing.

>> "washington journal" continues. host: congressman peter welch, at large representing virginia. thank you for joining us. guest: vermont. host: did i say virginia? excuse me. huge difference. you are having a meeting with senator dick durbin and the fed chairman ben bernanke to talk about the implementation. tell me about your meeting. guest: the rulemaking process by which we are going to implement the credit card provisions that were in the wall street reform act. the chairman has met with a visa and master card, the fed has met with the big banks. and senator dick durbin and i, the principal authors of the credit card reform provisions in the wall street though, want to

meet on behalf of consumers and merchants. basically what the wall street reform bill did with credit cards is try to help our merchants, who were getting hammered with the highest credit card transaction fees in the world. they pay about $50 billion a year. a lot of folks don't know this, but if you go and use your credit card -- of course, they are important and good for the economy. a secure transaction for the merchant. good for the consumer. but the charges that the monopolies impose are the highest in the world and it is becoming a huge cost to our merchants and really strangling a lot of their viability and profitability. the legislation does a couple of things. one, let the merchant has a $10 minimum. if someone buys a couple coffin, it will have to cause the merchant more. they can say, look, $10 minimum. secondly, all debit transactions, it would allow the fed to establish rates that are

reasonable and proportion. keep in mind for the viewers who are not that familiar -- debit transaction is just like writing a check. if i write a check to you or you write a check to me for $100, there is no fee. debit transactions come right out of your checking account. is -- it is just no paper has also it is an easier thing to process. the fees on those have been escalating, adding to the $50 billion cost. and the regulations are about giving definition to what is reasonable and proportionate. senator dick durbin and i have the opportunity to meet with chairman bernanke and we are advocating this has to be set to the real cost of these transactions. host: this was something you or work in one as the wall street reform act was being discussed and debated and when it's mature it got in there. guest: that's right. when i was doing these congress

in your communities which i do of the local country scores -- stores, the merchants came out and they started shelling of the credit card statements where they would pay 2%, 3%, fear% -- 4% for each transaction. they could not negotiate terms and conditions. the united states is the only country in the world where the credit card transactions have been told lee unregulated -- totally unregulated, we have the monopoly, which be set and mastercard are. they act like a monopoly do, they said prices. host: tell us about how these costs have been passed on to consumers. you mention how they affect businesses. a lot of the businesses, especially small businesses, said ultimately it hurts people buying goods at my establishment. guest: if every time you switch

a fee you will pay -- you pay $10 and the merchant has to pay 30 cents for the transaction, it added up to $50 billion, incidently, and the costs are ultimately borne by the consumer. if we establish reasonable and proportionate rates, it is going to drive down the price. the merchants face competition. when the banks were lobbying against this, they spent $70 million lobbying against this in the first six months of the year. one of their arguments was if the merchants get a break in the price, then they will start price gelding -- gouging. as if the merchants to not have to compete with the gas station across the street. competition is pretty brutal in the retail industry. so the retail competition is keeping prices down for the consumer. but for the monopoly, they are not subject to lot of competition so they have to have some regulation to provide a

fairness to the merchant and ultimately to the consumer. host: you are also working on capping credit card rates for consumers at 18%. guest: it is pretty astonishing. since the credit card interest rates have become be regulated states have no authority to impose what they regard as a reasonable cap -- deregulated. some credit-card have gone up to 40%. that would make tony soprano blush. it would cap interest rates at 18% but give the fed some latitude in the event we had an economy where interest rates were rising above that. let's hope that doesn't happen. but we could have some flexibility. host: the at large congressman for vermont, peter welch, a democrat who sits on energy and commerce committee. also standards of official conduct. talk about the regulations in

the wall street reform act and other issues you are involved in, trying to get the credit card rate cap. what is this issue show -- so important for you? guest: what is important is there really are two business models. you have the local stores, retailers, main street shops under pressure. the way they cope and survive is hard work, good service, quality product from a fair price. the credit card companies, banks that had a monopoly -- keep in mind, a real distinction. they take a piece of every transaction as the money is crossing the table. and they are able -- their business model is basically to use the power of their monopoly or duopoly position to extract more and more revenue from folks who are dependent on this service that is essential for the transaction -- the sale of gas, the sale of grocery -- to occur. and that business model that i think we have to reward is the hard work and good service and

high quality and a fair price. and our merchants, individual merchants, have no capacity to protect themselves on the cost of each transaction. and when you have electronic transactions, they are pretty simple to do. there is an expense involved. the price as charged has to be fair. and unless you have a cop on the beat -- in this case, the federal reserve writing regulations to make certain the banks don't overreach so the charges are reasonable and proportionate -- you will see merchants getting hammered with because they can't control. it eats into their profits and their viability. this i think is overdue. other countries have a much lower cost per transaction, and their economies do fine. host: beverly joins us from phoenix on the democrats' line. caller: hello. i have a comment for c-span and then i have a question. for the congressman. you seem to let republicans go

on and on and you cut off democrats immediately, so i wish you would change your quick hand on the button there. host: that is certainly not my intention. caller: the congressmen on the credit cards. they are a monopoly. no matter what roles you pass, you are going to see this come back again with the republicans when they get in with their big business aptitude -- attitude. the rules will all change when they are back in power. it is just a hopeless situation. guest: beverly, two things. number one, libby has been letting me talk, so i want to defend her a little bit. but number two, congressman bill

shuster of pennsylvania, of the public for the republican, was a co-sponsor. i am hopeful we will have a lot of republicans who want to protect the fairness of their main street businesses, have them on board and see that the big banks are really overreaching. so i and not ready to give up. i really think congressman shuster, who was a big part of this, and also when senator durbin proposed this in the senate, he got i think 69 votes in favor of this. so you have a break where several republicans appreciated this point which i think is at the heart of what senator durbin and i are trying to do, which is to get fairness for the main street merchants. h., a question from twitter. guest: rulemaking is an ongoing process. the point beverly made and sasha is implying is things can

change. if there's a change in leadership in congress and political point of view, everything is up for grabs but that is the decision of the american people, who do you want representing you in what direction you want to go in and their implications for an election, and if there host: richard in connecticut, good morning. caller: good morning, when i purchase something from the merchant, i continue to ask, any discount for cash? if they gave me half a percent, they would be ahead and i would be. business likes the fact that the credit card company does the accounting for them immediately. guest: i forgot to mention this, merchants can now give the cash discount. under the old rules, credit-card companies prohibited them from

giving a cash discount. if a merchant tried to put a limit -- a $10 minimum on putting a credit card -- then the company said that they would take away their ability to use credit at all. this week, i was in a coffee shop in vermont. the husband and wife owner was telling me how they were inspected by one of the credit card companies. they had a $6 minimum and they were threatened to have their transaction ability taken away. host: peter welch is our guest, democrat representing the state of vermont. let's go to our next caller. let me on the democrat's line.

brooklyn. -- lenny on the democrat's line. caller: somebody bought a home in my name 25 years ago. he lives at the house, but unfortunately, he died. the house is in my name. the leaned is in my name, i am on this ability -- lien is in my name, i am on disability. i asked the bank to lend me $3,000 to pay off the lien. they refused.

they were helped in the recovery and now they are refusing to lend me $33,000 to pay off a lien that they have on the very home which i own a mortgage on. guest: banks need to be lending more money. obviously, banks need to do underwriting, figure out what kind of love they are going to give, whether -- loan they are going to give, whether or not the person they're giving it to can pay it back. but i think you are right. this bank that got a bailout are now refusing to be a bank, distributing loans and helping to get our economy back. host: roxanne calling from colchester, vermont. caller: since the legislation

has passed -- i am an artist. i sell seasonally some clothes, and in other months, the tour season, i am selling my artwork and other things. however, since the legislation has passed, you quoted rates around 2%, 3%, but they are closer to 5%. not only that, since the legislation has passed, they now charge $5 for paper statements, $10 for services. they have added on all these charges that did not previously exist. so instead of alleviating the situation, with the legislation,

the credit cards got ahead of everything and padded their wallets. now the consumer, the shopkeeper, is at their mercy. things have actually gotten worse. guest: two things. first of all, i am not surprised to hear you say that. as we are trying to crack down on overcharges, passed the legislation is about to be implemented, they do exactly what you said, finding ways to pad their fees, praised rates, all the things -- raise rates, all the things that they do to charge you more money. when you use a credit card, it

can be for debit, which is just like writing a check, or credit, where you pay your statement at the end of the month. that part of the legislation is not in the wall street reform act but we need to push ahead. as far as padding the bills, that is something we will discuss with chairman bernanke. the rules have not yet been written. they are being considered now. the kind of information you provided is exactly what we will be talking to chairman bernanke about. these banks are just tried to get ahead of the safeguards we are trying to put in place. host: the energy how oversight committee will be talking -- energy oversight committee will be talking about salmonella.

guest: this all started with the egg recall in iowa. close to 1500 cases. incredibly serious. it turned out, this particular farm had had hundreds of violations and salmonella warnings, with no follow- through. obviously, one of the most important public responsibilities of the government is to make sure that the food we are buying is of -- is safe and healthy. what we found out his we have a very on coordinated approach to protecting food safety. the major responsibility is between the fda and department of agriculture. but we had a situation where the eggs were laid and were monitored by one governmental

agency, and in the building right next door, where they were packaged, it would be regulated by another entity, and they would never talk to each other. the point of this legislation is essentially to make certain we have better inspections, better coordination among the inspectors, stronger recall provisions, so in the event that there is an outbreak of anything, there can be a compulsory recall immediately to protect the public. this is overdue legislation that will be beneficial to provide peace of mind to american consumers that their food of -- is safe. host: you voted last year against the food safety enhancement act, which is

different from a lot of democrats, why? guest: there was a bill in there that would hammer small farms. we have a lot of small farms in vermont. under the original provision, every single food producer would pay a flat fee of 1/2 thousand dollars. -- $1,000. conagra, which has $43,000 -- $43 billion in sales would only be paying $1,000. i did not think that was fair. we were able to get it lowered to $500 for the small farms, but that is still not fair. it should be fair and proportionate. assuming we are successful in having that senate approach, then i will be able to fully

support the bill. what i was doing was making a protest on behalf of this strange situation where this big company pays the same amount as a small farm. host: norma in syracuse, new york. democrat line. caller: hello. i am 82 years old. please, please do not cut me off. i remember dick durbin speaking about this issue on the floor until he was blue in the face. he said, how can you issue credit cards to college students who have no means of paying the debt they would incur? republicans voted to give credit card companies carte blanche.

consequently, these companies set up shop on college campuses across the country and they also issued multiple credit cards to millions and millions of americans who used them to get into mountains of debt. guest: i am going to see senator durbin tomorrow, and i will tell him that norma was a real close student of his speech. you are right, credit-card companies were peddling fees to everybody and anybody. i have a credit card, they are good things, but you have to have the ability to pay back your charges. there has to be a connection between the use of credit and the ability to pay it back. credit card companies did not

particularly care as long as you paid it back. as long as they could keep on raising their prices and fees, they could pass the cost of defaults on to you and me. the interest charges, fees, were all insulated, because of the card issuers did not act responsibly when it came to who issued the card. senator durbin has been a champion on this. host: arkansas. charles, republican line. caller: you can tell mr. durbin for me, as far as students ago, they are too stupid to get credit card if they cannot pay them back. if you and shuster and did durbin want to start your own credit card company, you can do

it. you can compete with the other credit cards. you said it retailers have no choice. they do. they do not have to use credit cards. guest: that is not a realistic option to retailers that i speak to. more and more people are using plastic. that is the way the economy is functioning. there is nothing wrong with that, it is a convenience for the individual consumer, and it is a benefit for the merchant, getting a secure transaction. the question is whether or not there should be price gouging allowed. the price you charge should be reasonable and fair. retail merchants are governed by the loss of competition. a gas station is a classic case. they have a competitor on another corner. they will be checking their competitor's prices all the

time. you and i decide that we are going to get gas where it is a penny less. you tell me i can start a credit card company, but as a practical matter, that is impossible. these and mastercard control credit. -- visa and mastercard control credit. they have the highest charges, right here in the u.s. that is some place where we need some antitrust activity. host: a comment on twitter about elizabeth warren -- guest: that is not my understanding. host: talk about her role.

guest: general of the consumer protection agency, which she would be in charge of, is to make sure the various financial products that are being offered are in plain english so we understand what we are buying, that we have rules that are fair and square. basically, a cop on the beach looking to protect the consumer. we saw with this subprime crisis, subprime issuers started developing these very complicated roles. yes, it is true the individual has a responsibility to know what they are doing, but the government can make certain that they are not setting up these debt instruments that are

impossible for people to either understand or repaid. i think it is important to have on thehe beat --co cop beat. at the end of the day, if you have clear rules that are fair to the consumer and financial company, we will all be better off. host: what do you think of the announcement that barry summers will be leaving the president's economic team -- larry summers will be leaving the president's economic team? >> it is pretty common for this to happen -- guest: it is pretty common for this to happen. mr. summers says that he is going to go back to harvard to continue his tenure. to the president will have an

opportunity to basically do a reset here, as he is replacing some of his top advisers. honda out in riverside, california out. caller: i just wanted to say, your guest yesterday, bernie sanders, is a real dance. check some of them to check the voting machines. did you forget 2000, 2004? guest: thank you for that. if he just want to pay off your credit card -- you can stop the fees but if you have an

outstanding balance, you will continue to have interest assessed to the outstanding balance. that does not change. if you have an outstanding balance, and obviously, you and me needs to pay the interest charges on the balance -- bernie sanders is of course the senator from vermont. i will let him know that you were defending him. host: in "the washington post" -- he took questions from the audience and there were a lot of people who said they were worried about the economy, did not feel like the president got the message. guest: i do not think it is a wake-up call, this is well known. there was a report yesterday that said we were out of the

recession since june of last year, but since then, we have lost jobs. if you do not have a job, or you are hanging on by the fingernails to the job that you have, you have a kid that is graduating and going into a very unwelcoming job market, your apprehension about the economy is real. it is tough for the white house. on the one hand, let's be fair to president obama, he inherited a mess in the financial sector, loss of jobs, all of that happened in the bush administration. the obama administration is responsible for cleaning up. but if you are one of those folks who spoke at the town hall meeting, that middle-class woman wondering if she can stay in the middle class, they are not

looking to place blame. they are looking at the commander in chief. i think it is important for the president to be able to do two things at once. take concrete steps to grow the economy on the one hand, talk about the progress we are making. consumer confidence is important. on the other hand, to identify the real world anxieties that middle-class americans are having about their economic security and their future. i do not think it is a wake-up call because we know it. it is important for the president and all of us to convey our appreciation for the dire circumstances that a lot of americans find themselves in. host: don on the republican line. caller: my thoughts are, the

biggest problem we have in america, we have a reactive government rather than a proactive government. it seems like politicians in this country cannot see any further ahead than their nose. something has to happen before they do anything. guest: it has been said by others that congress does two things, nothing or overreacts. in the best of both worlds, he would be looking down the road, anticipating and setting in place policies that get you from where you are to where you need to be. one thing i would say is, i find in congress there are a lot of thoughtful people who are trying to do that on both sides. there is a big debate about how best to proceed. one of the biggest challenges that i see facing the congress

-- and this is important for america -- there is an inability of democrats and republicans to work together. we have gotten into a partisan situation where it is winner- take-all. many pieces of legislation have been passed by one party vote. that does not work for america, by and large. if we have big problems in energy, the deficit, health care, -- what is important is that we start moving in the right direction. when it is just a partisan battle and it is all democrat or all republican, it robs the americans of all the confidence that they have. i see the political impediments here, namely the inability of republicans and democrats to come together, to make progress by looking down the road.

it is a serious situation that needs to be resolved. host: a comment on twitter -- guest: yes, it is the u.s. senate that is in the way right now. i think we should eliminate don't ask, don't tell. i have been a strong component of that. it has been blocked by senator mccain and others in the senate. i am disappointed, but we are responsible here. senator mccain is of using the filibuster rule from even taking of the armed services bill. host: next phone call. raymond, co-head. caller: good morning, mr. welch. i am a baby boomer and i have five credit cards. my brother bought me a t-shirt

that said if you miss the good old days, try missing a few credit card statement. recently, in june, july, august, just in time for the third quarter, credit rates have been increased $500, $1,500. of the credit cards that i had, only four came down to their original terms and conditions. five of them have shown no mercy on their policy. this is our policy, i cannot help you. guest: first of all, you have a

lot of credit cards. i will not ask you what you're doing with all of those cards. you say they but don't change their policy -- they do not change their policy. it is essentially their way or the highway. as i mentioned, i think they are useful, and we have a responsibility to make sure that we use it wisely and we do not take up more credit than we are able to repay, but on the other hand, the terms and conditions, we have no ability to negotiate. those need to be fair and square. especially when visa and mastercard are basically a monopoly. that is the point of us seeing chairman bernanke. this is the first time in wall

street legislation that there has been any step on behalf of the consumers and merchants with respect to credit cards. the banks lobbied against this ferociously. they spent over $70 million in six months trying to crush the durban-welch amendment. it is understandable why. they had a pretty sweet deal that would be the envy of banks and other credit cards of the world. host: manhattan, mark. republican. caller: i remember watching on c-span when these new rules and regulations were being written, and one of the republican senators tried to add an amendment where the maximum interest rate per month they could charge was 18%. under extraordinary circumstances, 21%.

but this was voted down 100% by the democrat senate, who is on this rules committee. if you are really for the consumer and the individual, why would you not pass an amendment, that was a stand-alone amendment, that would cap these rates? guest: i am with you. i have legislation that would cap rates at 18%. i am not familiar with the vote you mentioned, but i would have voted in favor of that amendment, regardless of who offered it. capping rates at 18%, that is pretty high. what do you get on your savings account, .1%? the cost of money to banks is almost nonexistent.

then they turn around and charge you 30%? and that is a rip-off. host: carl, democratic caller. atlanta, georgia. caller: hello, mr. welch. my cousin and i were having this conversation of few months ago. you were talking about these at the point of service -- fees at the point of service. if wheat pay cash, why should we pay -- if we pay cash, why should we pay these fees? guest: that is what we were talking about. using cash would give you a discount. i know merchants are being

approached by people who say, if i pay you cash, will you give me a bit of a discount? rules imposed by credit-card companies say that they are not allowed to offer a discount. under the legislation, they will be able to offer a discount. host: michael in vermont. caller: a good morning. it is a beautiful fall morning in the river valley. at one point, you were talking about the failure of the regulation. failure of the credit card industry. failure of regulators in the oil industry. failure of regulators in the sec. we pay all this money to regulators, democrat or republican.

if we keep making more and more laws, and we have the failure to regulate, what is the point of making more lawless? point. that is a good bo what you saw in the bush administration was hostility toward any regulation. we had the sec, the madoff scandal went unexamined. we started to cut the heart out of many regulatory agencies. you are correct, if you do not enforce the laws you have in regulation, what is the point? but you had a point of view that was prevailing in washington through the bush administration that it was better to let the big banks to what they wanted, drug companies do more or less,

what they wanted. that has to change. we saw the consequences of that, and it was the biggest financial meltdown in the history of this country since the great depression, and it was avoidable, and it was foreseeable. it did not have to happen. in order to stop it, we need a cop on the beat asking questions. when you are giving mortgages of $750,000 to immigrants who had an income under the table of $12,000, something is wrong, but regulatory agencies were asleep at the switch. the point i am making is we have to revive legitimate regulations, not over regulation, but legitimate regulations.

it is ridiculous that bernie madoff was able to rip off people's retirement. host: peter welch, a democrat at large for vermont. as he mentioned, he will be meeting with dick durbin had and ben bernanke to crack down on credit card fees. we will also see you on the hearing on salmonella. coming up, republican congressman of oregon greg walden. >> republicans and democrats are raising millions this year for the midterm elections. here to help us talk about the numbers is a staff writer for "roll call." that begin with president obama's efforts. he will be raising more money today, traveling to new york for house and senate candidates.

>> he has two events to date for democratic -- today for democratic candidates. this is in addition to things that he has been doing across the country. august was a good month for the democrats, if you want to get into those numbers. >> yes, house and senate democrats have raised more money than their counterparts. house democratic candidates at the end of august, $8.3 million raised, $6.3 million for the republicans. spent, $5.1 million for the democrats, $3.1 million for the republicans. cash on hand, $31 million for the democrats, $26 million for the republicans. what does this mean for the democrats' chances in the house of holding onto that chamber? >> despite a lot of the gloom and doom predictions that were

going on, these are august numbers. democrats actually beat republicans in fund raising. they talk about the enthusiasm gap between democrats and republicans. republicans -- democrats are raising the money, so the enthusiasm is there. you also look at the cash on hand number. that is money that will be spent in the next few weeks on mostly tv ads, in the battleground districts across the country. democrats are relying on this advantage being their firewall for a lot of these campaigns. they have already laid down a lot of markers of where they will be spending money. they can shift that money around, but they are in a good position. >> let's take a look at the latest tv ads.

>> halverson voted for one of the most irresponsible budgets in history. she even voted for a national energy tax that could cost family $1,700 for a year and could kill over 1000 illinois jobs. halvorson, wasting our money and costing us jobs. >> there are limits and then there are used car millionaires like jim renee. renacci is trying to raise your taxes on almost everything you buy. food, gas, even medicine. jim renacci, out for himself, not us. >> a couple of ads put out there

by house democrats and republicans. let's go to the senate side to look at the fund-raising numbers. democrats have raised $7.4 million compared to $6.4 million. they have spent $7 million compared to $2.6 million. cash on hand, democrats, $22.9 million, republicans, $24.5 million. but will that mean? >> it will be a battle until the end. the democrats are deploying more of their money earlier. an interesting thing about those fundraising numbers, there were two big donations to the democratic senatorial campaign. i believe it was a million dollars from former chairman schumer. he gave his former committee a million dollars. the dnc also gave about $1.6

million over to the dscc. i think you are a lot -- going to see a lot more of those two teams, as you saw in those ads, republicans tried to nationalize the race, associating them with nancy pelosi, obama. >> this is cash on hand in august. six weeks to go. you just talked about the millions of dollars being moved from here to there. do you think these numbers will be even larger, that there was even more money pumped into the system in these last few weeks? >> yes, there will be more money put in, but more importantly, in september, october numbers, the spent money, when they are deploying their resources.

we see the national republican congressional committee putting a lot of money up front, throwing ads up there to see what sticks. >> thank you so much. for more information about campaigned 2010, go to our website, c-span.org. host: greg walden, a republican from oregon, and joins us this month. the chairman of the national congressional campaign committee. the good news and bad news is, people are hurting, they are

angry, frustrated that the bipartisanship that they thought had been lost has not happened. you hear that when you talk to people around the country. part of my role is to help our candidates, help with pete sessions. he has had a new vision for the rncc. we have really broaden our playing field. we have terrific candidates. the atmospherics are really playing our way. the polling data will show that. host: you are not sitting on any committees because you are dedicated to this role? to win her leader bay near --when leader boehner

asked me to take the roll, i agreed. you would have time to read these massive bills that would be thousands of pages time before you vote on them. changing how congress operates. this process and with a broken right now. host: we have some polling information from gallup that shows in a generic ballot, it is about tied. but they also looked at registered voter's enthusiasm about voters. republicans are far more enthusiastic compared to democrats. talk to us about how used that going into this time. the gap may be never win a bit. guest: guest: and the energy is clearly

on the republican side. this is a mirror image of 2006. you see people that are really upset. the middle class. they are pitching one group against another and there is no bipartisanship. it is a train wreck. as a conservative republican, when you see the giant government takeover bailouts, deficits, everything continues to get worse, it is no wonder that people are motivated. i was a small business owner for 20 years and you see these decisions being taken, and you think, what are they thinking? when you look at likely voters in most surveys, it is actually a higher intensity for republicans, generically as well. host: a story reporting that

even as house republicans appear to unveil the agenda, gop members are worried about appearing overly confident and have tried to tone down talk that they will win. guest: it is funny, there is always this confidence came in this city. it is all and in the voters' hands. -- game in this city. we need the help of the people that want to make a difference. that is what you see in a great democracy like ours. people get motivated. i have had it. i had a fellow come up to me in my district who said, i am to blame -- fortunately, he was pointing at himself. he said, i am one of those

people that did not vote, i never participated, and i let this happen on my watch. i think that was summed up in the data that you showed. there is a group of americans who are saying, enough is enough, i am getting involved now. host: are you saying that the republicans will take back the house, what if he does not? guest: people that i speak to say that the republicans are poised to take back the house. i also know that there is a lot that can happen on any given day, so we have our work to do.

the chairman of the rules committee, they said they defeated every republican amendment on the healthcare bill so that none of them would come up on the floor. that is not the kind of bipartisanship that americans are looking for. host: we expect to hear more about the republican agenda in virginia today. can you give us a preview of what you hope to hear? you also gave the gop radio address over the weekend. guest: you will see, in part, a restatement of our basic values and principles. we heard the message from our party and from independents. they want us to go back to our principles, which include getting spending back to 2008 levels. this is a horrible thing we are leaving to the next generation

with the deficit and debt. there will be a lot of talk about the economy and jobs, and tax policy. there is even a growing chorus of conservative democrats that are saying that this is the wrong time to raise taxes on any american. at least let us get some certainty in the market. let's get the economy moving again. all this uncertainty, the threat of trillions of dollars of increased taxes hitting everybody is causing shock waves out there. people are sitting on their money, not investing. i used to be a small business person. they are saying, i am not sure what the rules will be, so i am not spending the money that i was planning. i just do not know what the costs, rules will be. host: richard in texas. good morning.

caller: good morning. i wanted to ask your opinion about the senate race between ron widen and jim hoffman. i understand the polls show a double-digit lead but i keep getting the sense that some people may feel like jim huffman may be more oregonian. i wonder what your thoughts are on that race? guest: i appreciate your phone call from the lone star state. it is able to election -- a volatile election.

ron is in the state, has maintained close ties. jim is a terrific person, teaches law, and has run a very thoughtful, it is underfunded, campaign. we have seen these types of cycles developed at the end of the cycle. if you start to see a wave breaks over, these are the types of surprise races that easy popup. host: greg walden serving his sixth term in congress, representing horgan. -- oregon. host: din in knoxville, tennessee.

good morning. caller: -- janet in knoxville, tennessee. caller: i was reading a story about an illegal immigrant getting social security, retirement. how can that happen? guest: it should not. when you are borrowing $0.43 on every dollar that is spent at the federal level, we have to scrutinize every program that is out there to make sure only those eligible are receiving the benefits and that we are receiving our money. i have asked for all kinds of accountability audits, like the housing program. there was billions of wasted dollars because people were getting their benefits illegally, but did not need them. there was a woman in illinois

who said she had no income when she was actually making $80,000 a year. this was people lining up to get free money. i asked my state to look into our program. we had up to 100,000 oregonians waiting for money when the program ran out of money. i want to make sure that the money is going to people who are legitimately, legally here, and are not ripping off the taxpayers. we need more oversight. that is something that the congress has not done a good job on. people want accountability, especially now in the obama administration. they want to know that their money is being spent appropriately. we need to do more oversight over these types of programs.

postcode jason, republican. salt lake city. -- host: jason, republican. caller: how are you doing? i and 30 years old. i have not been involved in the political process much but i have been started to pay attention in the last year. -- i am 30 years old. i am watching these races, and as the election comes up, i do not see the republicans reaching out to many people outside of their party. there is a factor in nearby where there is a union, i am not a union member, but a lot of these guys do not even know what is happening in the government, country. the they are very patriotic, i

start to tell them what is going on, their union is donating money to the democrats -- they are in shock. do you guys have any plans to reach out to these union members who may not know what is going on, maybe get people from the other side? host: are you planning to vote this year? caller: absolutely. guest: thank you for the call. there is quite a bit of the average being done to any democrat voter who wants to come across and adhere to our principles of less government spending, lower taxes for everybody in america so we can create jobs and have an economy that is sustainable in the future. not some government bailout that

actually ends up hurting later because you put your purchases forward. while we may not have gotten to your workplace yet, if you look at the polling data, independent voters are figuring out, on a two-one margin, depending on the poll, that they prefer what we are talking about compared to what is happening under harry reid, nancy pelosi, and president obama. when you are in the minority, however, it is tough to get your message out. we are fighting with all the new media out there. i think in terms of technology, we are out in front.

we are going to go full throttle all the way until november 2 and after that. host: "the christian science monitor" has a story about the tea party. guest: absolutely. this is a grass-roots movement. these are people who do not trust either party, but they may be party activists. the last thing they want is a group of people in washington telling them what to do, how they should think, all of that. this is spontaneous, grass roots, and it is, frankly, an important part of american democracy. and it happens on both sides. i think it gets more attention when it happens on the republican side.

you remember moveon, codepink. however, people really focus on the conservative side. frankly, it is unusual for conservatives to protest. we have had some protests at my congressional office. i remember at the start of last year, when the tea party was getting going, this tea party gathering showed up and there were more of them than the people who had come to protest. they were guilty and what they did. it is that self empowerment that really caught on. speaker pelosi and everyone else who is cramming these bills through, americans are getting frustrated with them because

nobody is getting a chance to read them. this is a huge takeover of our health care, and system of this did not work as promised. these are -- the stimulus did not work as promised. these are things that are really a motivator for not just to parties, but for all americans. butnot just tea partiers, for all americans. host: next phone call. caller: i am a democrat. every time i listen to you guys, every time we create jobs, somebody complains about why we are sending them overseas. i wonder why people do not see that the corporations are controlling the country. one more thing, the unions. union, there would

be no labor day. i think we are going to get a whole lot worse. i would be happy to see you there. obama should have been a republican. guest: up i appreciate your conviction. -- guest: i appreciate your conviction. it is interesting, when you look at corporations, our radio company, we were not unionized, nobody mandated us to provide health insurance but we paid 100% of the premium. we tried everything we could to create a new radio station and turn things around. we worked seven days a week, day and night, and we grew a

company. nobody bailed us out. those are the people, that i am familiar with, the mainstream businesses who are hiring the bulk of americans. they are struggling to make ends nervousnd they are strugglin about the future. how can i afford to hire anybody when these costs are proceeding anything that i can make? you have to take care of your people first. you have a different appreciation of putting your own money at risk. by the way, it is that risk and reward that has allowed america to be one of the most progress -- prosperous countries in the world. if they are successful, they get the benefit.

if not, they take the loss. we are muddying those waters right now. we are causing people with investment capital today -- and there is trillions on the sidelines -- they are so uncertain. they do not know what the rules will be. we need to bring certainty back to the process and stop this reckless, wasteful washington spending. host: a gallup poll. the most important problems facing the country. this is have a question that the researcher opposed to people. the economy in general, jobs and unemployment. guest: americans have been telling us that for two years. this started one year before

obama came into office. the people who do the statistical gathering say that it started back then, but now they tell us that we are out of recession. well, they have not been to my state to see the people who are still in the unemployment line. i spoke to a woman in the grocery store the day before yesterday. she said that her daughter was the breadwinner, person stays home with the kids. she is trying to feed two families now. there is a lot of hurting out there. people do not understand how you give pay raises to federal employees in a time like this. we tried to cut that back. this is not to punish federal employees, it is just that we are borrowing $0.43 on the dollar. what kind of future are we leaving for our kids if we wrap

up double the that the set -- the deficit that we have had in the past 10 years? and to do it passing legislation that nobody has read? you would be fired on a corporate board. . .

that is the troubling part. this week we might vote on a continuing resolution from the government. if there was one hearing on that, you were better off now than you were two years ago. you can go through an entire matrix, lectures about how important it was. now you have a completely broken appropriations process. the senate has not taken up any and now someone is just going to put the government on autopilot for the next year. in the next lame-duck session, after they have spoken after the election, they will be hunted from november 3 through january 3, they will be upset and rightfully so.

>> barbara, hello. -- host: barbara, california, good morning. are you with us? we are moving on to oxford, alabama. republican line, to mara -- fifth camera -- tamara. caller: what do you think about term limits in the pay that you are receiving over the common people that are struggling. we are struggling. guest: a really good question. first of all, i never voted for a raise. i knew what the salary was when i ran for election. you are right, the people are hurting.

we have essentially frozen in our pay, as we should. we are well compensated, we have to maintain residents in two places, but the long and short is that there is breathing room in the capital. you have seen that time and again. the speaker of the house has said that there will be reductions in the cost of how we operate congress itself. we should be setting the example and i think you will see that occur. there was a point when i supported term limits and let me tell you why i changed that view. in the state funds later i thought it was a good idea and they test them in oregon. i watched what happened, the place shifted dramatically. the most empowered were the lobbyists and the bureaucrats. the people working in the bureaucracy knew that the elected people would be gone in six years.

so, they could kind of wait you out. we were a citizen legislature and we only met for six months out of every two years. it struck me at the time as i watched that play out was the voters are the ones at a disadvantage. they can make the choice and the people that they can kick out or put in are the people that they can vote for. the others stay on in perpetuity. that is what i began to look at term limits differently. i go up for election every two years and the voters have the power to get you out. this year is going to show that there will be a huge turnover in congress. if republicans can take control this time, if half of our congress has never served in the majority of the congress, meaning that they are new, half

of them, you did a pretty good turnover. host: gop priorities -- this e- mail -- guest: that is a democratic talking point from somewhere outside of reality. our program is to get people back to work. if the government is not paying, we need to get america back to were. every program deserves to be scrutinized. some programs are good, but the money does not deserve to go to the people in them. people in oregon that are low- income, their money has run out. the issue is that -- how do we squeeze these programs?

i did that as a small-business owner every day. you have to look at all of your spending all of the time. one of the things i have here in congress that i do not believe, is how we do not do that. we do not come in to look at accountability. is anyone watching the store? i wish that the senate could figure out how to act, it was bipartisan work. what we found when we did the oversight was that we had an fda that was not modernized today with -- to deal with these possibilities. every administration needs to reassert the role of congress to look at waste, fraud, abuse, programs so that the goals are

known. 40 cents on the dollar charge your grandchildren, something is missing. host: john, democratic line, brooklyn. caller: i am john from brooklyn. i do not think that people are giving the president credit for the things that he did. he stabilize the government's to bring things back and then wall street got their stuff out of the whole. i wish that the democrats have looked at this in the terms of where they had spent the stimulus money. i would like to ask you, when

bush was borrowing money to run his war, you had development contracts for the military into no one said nothing. guest: yes, they did. there were a number of hearings conducted. but to appoint is a good one. whoever is spending the money, there should be oversight by congress. i said this at the head of the show, there was not enough oversight over the prior administration. there is clearly nothing being done with this administration and at the end of the day they do not have time to look at every agency, although people are supposed to be. taxpayer money is being spent or wasted. and our job should be watching out for the taxpayers.

they promised that the stimulus was passed, unemployment would not hit over 8 percent -- over 8%. that did not happen. even find chronic unemployment and there are many reasons i do not want to get into here. if you voted for this spending spree you turn the economy around, and 9.6% and it has not come down. we have had 16 months of 9% unemployment. it has not worked as promised and i think they getting stability in the marketplace is a good thing. look at the regulations for the environmental protection agency right now. maximum achievable control technology affects nearly every

boiler and every factory in america. as i meet with people who are looking at these rules and saying that this could cost tens of thousands of jobs in the paper industry, they go on and on with independent studies about what these rules mean. and then you have the administration that is troubling -- they recently did it with coke industry, about how they did this or that with a tax issue, they employ 50,000 people in this country. i do not know how someone in treasury would know about their tax status and talk about it. those records are supposed to be private. to demonize people and single people out like that for political gain seems to be a way that they're dealing with people that they disagree with.

i think that that is bad for the country and we should encourage people putting their jobs online. host: is there anything you can credit the president with? guest: he brought a new sense to washington. paving the way for how congress is run in the agenda he has faced. there are things that i think he could have worked out, he could have had a bipartisan bill. health-care clearly could have been bipartisan and it was shut out. frankly, it has been frustrating dealing with that the administration. host: jimmy, republican, san antonio, texas. caller: i wanted to talk to you, those numbers on c-span that they vote on, we found out they had these earmarks. taking one step forward, three

steps back. makes me so angry, you know? in san antonio, texas, they were just taking over the city. we just caught security borders. i have been looking for a job for a year and it is real hard. guest: on the issue of your marks, republicans in the house said that earlier this year, we are not deet -- we are not doing them and we have not done them. there needs to be spending reform. but i would rename the appropriations committee something more like the committee on government reduction and spending. the constitution still puts the purse strings in the power of the house. we have a duty to oversee spending, but clearly earmarked

-- earmarks have been abused. a country that does not have control of its borders does not have control of its security. job security, ethical security, control security. i spent five years in a small town community hospital and i have seen what happens when people come in the door with a federal law that guarantees access for their healthcare needs and are not here legally. we are a proud country of immigrants. most of us have ancestors that came here from somewhere else. we probably admit more legal immigrants into this country than all other countries combined. we have a robust and legal immigration process that does not work when you have orders not allow anyone to sneak

through. and it is not just people coming here for a better way of life. there are people bringing drugs and destruction into our towns, drug cartels waging a growing on federal forest lands. there was recently a killing in my district, a gain drug dealer confronted law enforcement officers and he was shot and killed. it is awful what is going on out there and the people here a legally -- people that are here illegally are using our federal forests to grow their drugs. we do not have control over our borders yet, we are doing more, but we have a long ways to go.

caller: good morning. and you were talking about the republican party. they are not a party, it is a racist organization. yes, sir. also, the two-party. the reason that you and will not work with president obama is because he is black. guest: that is not true. caller: yes, sir. guest: no, sir. host: we are hearing that, how can you bring more unity to the republican party? guest: first of all, the republican party is not the party of racism and i completely and totally reject that. in this country regardless of your skin tone you should have the ability to debate issues and

this has nothing to do with that. i offered to work with the administration on health care reform when they first started. i had a conversation with the chief of staff. i have worked with the administration and other issues. i have a meeting with the secretary of the interior later this week on issues in the northwest. forest policies. we are working with the obama administration that i find it offensive, frankly, when someone makes that false allegation. host: as a member of the team trying to give more republicans elected to congress, how do you get that message across? guest: i think we have and i think the polling data reflects that. when you look at the polling data we are either tied or up 5% to 6%, telling me that we have

got through with the independent voters, who are breaking away. seven out of nine of the top issues on the minds of americans involved republicans doing a better job, checking and balancing this extremely liberal administration. even a big group within the democratic party is rejecting nancy pelosi. if you look at what occurred in the house, republicans and conservative democrats have said no on cap and trade. we have got to break through the tone in washington and get to where we can work together to solve problems. that is what americans are after. i have always seen myself as a problem solver willing to work

across the aisle. these problems are so big that neither party has all of the answers. host: rep greg walden, thank you so much for being with us. guest: i enjoyed being here. host: next we will talk about foster care in the united states with our guest. first let's take a look at comments that al franken made on the senate floor reflecting on the experiences that he had performing at a uso tours. >> every year one thing i do not get is the do not ask, do not tell policy. it is about 28 degrees where i am talking and maybe a couple of thousand people. this is three hours into the

show and they are loving it. i said i do not understand don't ask, don't tell. i said that we all know that brave, gay women have served -- gay men and women have served in this country's uniform. yet we have this policy. for example -- i pointed to the commander of the base -- i said now here is one of the bravest men ever in the history of our country to don the uniform of our nation and battle, yet he is one of the guest -- gayest men i have ever met. they all started laughing and cheering. i asked him to stand up and waved. everyone cheered. in the bleachers there was a group of women soldiers who

cheered extra loud and waved at me, jumping up and down. at the end of the show we send american soldier and it is a beautiful song. seeing soldiers singing with their arms around each other and crying, i will never forget that. i have bills that i cannot pay in at the end of the show the general came up and gave this beautiful clothes with a american flag flying over the

base. he said to me to keep telling those don't ask, don't tell jokes. you might have some fans out there. later, those women came up to me and told me that they were gay. >> i underestimated how big the job was. my job from minority whip to speaker overnight in a party that no one felt would be in power, getting all of the additional votes in 1994. >> new gingrich on his tenure as house speaker -- new to gingrich -- newt gingrich on his tenure as house speaker,

today on c-span. >> when the opportunity comes your way, all the to bid to do is choose what to do with yourself. >> nick flight defends his decision to form a coalition government with the conservative party. sunday night at 9:00 on c-span. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we have the project director and founding member of foster media. why did you get involved in this? you were a journalist and now you have a new role working with foster families. guest: i met a boy when i was coaching a soccer team, he had in your issues much like my own in high school. i was a mentor to him and it was

my window into the system. i started writing stories as much as i could. i realize that there were a lot of amazing stories, seeing his path and watching the path of another young man, john, seeing them as they aged out of care and the divergent paths that that went on. knowing those two stories compelled me to become more involved an understanding that on the federal and state level there has been as dramatic change in that the real narrative of foster care was not the one that we had heard about that was a part of the story, the real story was the improvement. my belief was that those

improvements, with people like you and like me, like everyone else, coming around the kids. if that were happen i would think that we could hit on the way to having a beautiful country. host: do you consider your group to be an advocacy group? what is your role? guest: too heavily informed journalists. i want to remind journalists that their job is to enlighten and empower their readers and viewers, like when you are doing right now. remind them that they have the opportunity to make society better. my primary objective is to create an army of journalists who are dedicated to focusing on solutions when it comes to foster care.

until we get to the point where we can say that the primary objective is to get to the public. host: a recent story in "news reports" according to new federal figures -- is that the analysis that you see? guest: yes, it is time of

incredible. yesterday i went to a meeting for the administration of children and families and they said that there was a new narrative in foster care, which on my website we talk about, the changing narrative. the facts are that in 1998 you have a reduction of 136,000 kids. that is a gain of about 20,000 per year. overall you had a series of policies on the federal level that trickle down into the states that have completely changed where the system is that right now. host: we have a special phone line for foster families, 202-

618-0184. other lines, for republicans, 202-737-0001. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for independents, 202-628-0205. we already have calls coming in. marge, a democrat in riverside, california. good morning. caller: i would like to know -- what is the percentage of black kids versus white kids in the foster system? i work with foster care kids every day and i need to know this for myself. guest: thank you for that question. i do not have the exact number in front of me, but i can tell you that it is part of the changing narrative. 1998, that was 240,000 black children in child protective services. 2009 there were 127,000 african-

american kids. the story of this proportionality is not the same story that we have now. in terms of the exact numbers of white kids, overall what is very encouraging is the market decline in the numbers of african-american children entering the system these days. host: this is from the associated press. "63% were boys, 20% were hispanic, 30% were black, more than 114,000 were available for adoption." baltimore, md., independent line. caller: i wanted to ask you a question, how did the fox

network takeovers c-span? host: they have not. do you have a question about the topic? caller: all of these republicans -- host: let's move on. richard, good morning. caller: i travel often overseas. we use the word orphanage, but in america we do not use that word that any longer. are we masking the problem by calling in foster care? guest: semantics are an interesting question to talk about. that is something that i know that with john, this young man that i met, we recreate the sense of family in foster care, those kinds of things, but in terms of these events in the media markets, we had been his mentor for four years in he was

talking to my mother and she said that we were like brothers. i realize that we were and for the first time the semantic question of orphanages and foster care, mother and father, all of those things, no matter how you label it, if you get to the point where you can call the family, it is possible, it happens, and i think that is important, semantics are not as important as getting the kids that place where they feel comfortable calling you when their girlfriend is pregnant with their second baby. that is the kind of thing that happens. host: current economic times to make it difficult for families to consider this. what kind of programs are there

to help? guest: it is an incredible time right now. you have the extension of care to age 21 as prescribed by the federal adoption act of 2008, it has been rolling out across the country band right now the governor in california will sign or veto of a bill with foster bills -- foster care in california been releasing a wave across the country. you have a situation where a hit -- where they have extended for years with a college tuition waiver. in those situations you see the dramatic possibility along the cost of potentially really

changing the story out there. host: there was an award given out this week, $39 million for increasing the number children adopted from foster care to improve the child welfare program. that comes from a press release. talk to us about what that money would go towards. for the state's to increase the number of children adopted from foster care to improve child welfare programs. $4,000 for every child adopted over the total of $8,000 so that every special needs child is adopted. guest: i do not know about that in particular, i am not an expert in the subject, only an expert in the kids that i mean

traveling around the country. but it is a critical part of making sure that the numbers are going down. adoption incentives have been crucial for. host: are the states being able to make changes? are they getting what they need? guest: there was a program in california where family members could draw down on the funds to care for their family. the federal law was passed fostering the connection to success offering to subsidize guardianship program. in this case, california was able to draw down funds.

so, yes, states can and do pull them that money. host: jerry, tennessee. good morning. caller: i did not go through the foster care but i did get legal custody of a kid and i adopted him after a little while. foster care, they ought to go through to see how many of them get abused and all of that. women they keep on having kids that should not be having kids and the money to take care of those foster kids, i believe. guest: you mentioned the issue

of young mothers coming out of the system with babies of their own. this is something that we definitely need to be talking about. baltimore, md., seeing how casing family services can handle young teen mothers and a wraparound services that they give to these mothers to make sure that they will go to school and take advantage of those tuition waivers. one thing that maryland offers is also, to take care of that child, this foster-child-parent program, they will be able to break that cycle. they're very clear in saying that if you have one child at 17, you are likely to have another at 18. if he were to have three by 23, the instances of abuse jumped up

astronomically in which case the people re-enter the system. what you are seeing here is an intervention to break that cycle. we need to focus more on young mothers in what they're doing as they transition out of care, they do not have this situation with neglect and abuse. host: we have a special phone line set up for foster families this morning. choose your to-628-0184. --gary, good morning. can you hear me? caller: we are licensed foster parents and what i want to focus on is going on through foster care with these children, we had a relationship with the parents

and knew their activities. going to the courts, we have seen the transition back to the biological mother or father as paramount over what is best for the child. they are allowing the judges to have too much discretion in that system. they go back to the home where drugs are still being used. guardianship for each child, tony was 14, joshua is almost 12. we have had her since she was five weeks, jade in, and she is almost four. it cost us almost $100,000, but

once we got the cases through it all came back onto us having to take care of their needs and what they could do legislatively to really apply some pressure to these judges. host: -- guest: thank you for the call and i am sorry you had to go through that experience. i do not know about your case or others across the country, but i can say that my case has been knowing the young people that have come through the system, they wind up going home even a home was not that great place. the draw to the biological family is very strong. and it should be the first choice.

if that requires the government in schuring services to help biological families, i have seen it work differently in different places. that is where your first priority should be. if that is not going and have been -- going to happen, you have to put people on a track. it is a complicated question. the courts will help to make that work. homelessness -- call -- host: homelessness and unemployment being some of the main contributing factors, experts believe that -- how you combat some of the route issues.

guest: we have one caller that was talking about this a bit. talking about what you can do to stop the cycle from continuing. there are so many examples of when you have support we're getting a college education -- when you have support and getting a college education, creating employment opportunities in that transition, dealing with poverty is a big challenge. i think that what is important for everyone to understand is manageable. kids that is a population where we can start to fight all of the social injustices on this small group of young people.

host: seattle, washington, good morning. caller: we have so many american children that need a home, yet we adopt so many children from other nationalities -- that is my question. i do not know that you have the answer, which is fine, i just wanted to make my point. we know we have got some smart kids here. host: we have wonderful kids in this country but statistics show that in 1998 -- guest: we have wonderful kids in this country. statistics show that 57,000 have

been completed. there are still more adoptions coming out of the foster system. host: what happens to children as they age out of the system? these kids dream about going to school? do they feel they have the support so that that can happen? guest: it depends on the expectations. host: do they feel that it is an expectation within their reach? guest: there are programs in california for college, so yes, if the dream is to go it is a matter of making it a reality.

the outcomes are still not where we want them to be, but i think that that is clearly the dream. host: unlike a middle-class family that might have a fund for college or is helping the children to fill out the application for financial aid. guest: right, in california -- i will go with that example because we have a bill coming through that could extend the age. going back to john, he did not have that option. there is a chance to change that. for him it was not the option. for him it was having kids and trying to be a man with. there was no room for mom to

help with college. it is a great variants but there are programs out there where kids that are age that can have a place to stay, putting money into a bank account, saving money. the federal law talks about being in school. as the rollout happens, more and more kids will be able to operate successfully. host: we have shepard calling on the foster family line from florida. caller: i wanted to comment, i am 49 years old. 35 years ago i was in the foster care system. my mother was a drug abuser and extremely verbally abusive. i even managed to get her on tape saying some of these terrible and awful things to me. they kept taking me away from her, then putting me back,

taking away, but in back. when i asked them about the tape, they said that we could not use it because it was taped without her knowledge. to answer the question of your previous caller, my rabbi and his wife just adopted a baby girl from vietnam and the reason many people adopt from overseas are the same situation i was in. you get a child and a few years later the mother comes back and says they are clean, wants their child back. if you adopt from overseas there is very ill chance of that. my question is, what is being done to make sure that these children do not go back to that abusive situation? i do not want to be a gestapo here and taking children away randomly, but clearly i needed to be removed because of my

mother's abuse. guest: i am sorry to hear that you went through that. on the front end, i think that there is a lot more -- here is an example from los angeles county, a strategic decision making bottles that are computer programs -- i know this sounds alien or strange, but it will give you a framework to make these determinations. case workers and social workers are big heroes, dealing with huge caseloads and traumatic situations. that determination can be hard to make with alignment across the board in terms of where you remove a child. i think that more work needs to be done on that.

host: we have a special phone line set up for foster families to call. a comment coming from or out on twitter, she writes that foster parents deal with the daily reality that these children may be reunified with their parents each day. is it hard for people that think about fostering the child because of a potential for the children to be a hit -- plays back with their families? guest: frankly, i know a foster mother who had to deal with the department quite a bit. but they need to determine what is the best for the child. to the degree that the family can be involved in that process, it is helpful. yes, there are challenges, but

there have been policy changes to make sure that concurrent planning occurs and there has been an increase in the number of adoptions. regardless of the barriers. it might not be as easy as we wanted to be, but this is really complicated, intense moments. much thought needs to be given and that can take some time. host: carlos, los angeles. caller: i could not agree more with the gentleman a few callers ago, you are leaning towards republicans and the fox network. host: thank you for your opinions, we tried to allow all vantage points. let's get a call from daniel.

guest: what was that question? los angeles county, they have pushed a letter from mineworkers to do the investigation. there is a response that is not warranted and many of the workers that do permanent placements are moved to the front lines to take these calls. of course, the big priority, i think that they have something like 4 million calls nationwide each year of abuse and neglect. you have got to figure out, unless the country wants to give child welfare, and i am all for that, the capacity to investigate every single

complaint, until the public is willing to do that, we need to determine the best system with the resources available. and that is what is going on, it is incredible was able to be done with these resources. host: this story comes to us from the great falls tribune, questions that many young people have about foster kids, really willing to go to college -- "nearly half of the nation's foster youth graduate from high school and only 7% of them in role in higher education. only 3% maintain a bachelor's degree." what can change that? guest: the story of john was of a boy that entered care at 18 months until he emancipated.

that story of a child languishing in care does not happen to the same extent. that, and the fact that the children are going to permanent solutions faster, is what is going to be really important in changing that. as the system gets better you are making sure that it is a temporary solution and i am finding currency it will coincide with the extension of care and other things going on educational stability and well- being in place because of capacity and because the numbers have gone down. host: kevin, naples, new york. hello. caller: i would like to ask about same-sex couples being able to foster children. i have been with my partner for 18 years. he is a professor at a college.

we have a lot to offer and i am curious about whether or not is even legal for same-sex couples to foster. host: thank you -- guest: thank you for the question. i do none no across the board, all i know is that there is a national adoption day every year. down in the fourth house, in los angeles, i think that there are a number of young children adopt. -- there are in the -- number of young children adopted. host: off there has been a discussion this morning about adopting from other countries. this e-mail came in about the subjects --

host: these other comments of one of our viewers who wrote in. how do you encourage them to get involved in foster children? guest: to get involved? you have to look at the end have potential within these young people. coming up in the car, we were just talking and i do not doubt that he will be a congressman. he will make it and what does it take is what we should be trying to figure out with a strong advocate corps of research contributing to the situation.

what do we need to make sure that other people are getting this going? the public. knowing that there is a momentum behind it, knowing that the numbers are going down in that there is a clear focus on making sure that it is taken care of will get people off of this notion of a kid from america, china, or anywhere else. they all need homes and they'll need help. host: salt lake city, foster family line, good morning. caller: i was in foster care for my older teenage years. are you talking about foster care or giving these children the opportunities until they

are 21 and able to learn of their financial futures? after dealing with the trauma of being in state custody, how does it work? guest: if you were a foster child, the family couldn't continue to receive payments after the age of 18 if you stayed with that family. new would have your own relative level of independence. the setting the two are living in to get payments directly. promoting a level of independence. as they say, as the head of the department says, they want those

kids to have a rental score, bank history, all of these different things. because they are independent they are able to get these things in the working and living world of adults. host: has states been able to implement the foster care act of 1998? guest: right now they are taken care of through the federal laws. which is pretty insane if you consider the budget mess they are in. for them, the thing was that they were able to draw down on the federal funds for guardianship. there is implementation in the mandate without moving him around too much, something we will be talking about a lot tomorrow.

there are a lot of pieces to this federal law that have to be done and what is encouraging is, even in sacramento in terms of educational stability, there was one man making sure that the kids were connected. they were able to completely change the regulation. it has happened in the pockets and it is a coordinated effort. the fed should be happy that the states are responding even if they do not receive the money as fast as they wanted to. host: -iraq, california. go ahead. -- eric, california. go ahead. caller: motivation be money -- i have worked with special education for 11 years and i

have seen a lot of foster children. it seems that people with less education are working directly with the children. these kids are our future, you know? i would like to see people with more education really stepping into a place where they are more needed. host: i completely agree with your sentiment. volunteering -- guest: volunteering their time to make sure that their data is up-to- date. we need a higher level of involvement from all levels of society. someone who is highly educated,

not better educated, everyone needs to get involved. it is an apt thing to point out, that many of these workers are not paid as much as others, which is a reflection of where we put our values. if you are going for a professional degree in social work, business or the law, you would not want to get paid just one-third of what a lawyer does. host: pa., welcome. caller: thank you. i would like to make a comment