latest data on u.s. drinking water with olga naidenko of the environment working group. then, national farmers union government relations vice- president chandler goule. this is "washington journal." [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] host: good morning. with obama in hawaii and congress in recess this week, we want to focus today on the u.s. economy. some of the headlines this morning. "the wall street journal," and pat quinn was to borrow $15 billion as the state's unpaid bills continue to mount. "the baltimore sun," home values

in that state cut by 22%. "the new york times," in michigan town just outside detroit pleading the state for permission to declare bankruptcy. our focus and the -- as we move into 2011 -- are you optimistic or pessimistic and what impact has it had when you with unemployment still at 97% or 9.8% across the country and higher in states like michigan and nevada. from "the new york daily news," jolly holiday sales. 5.5% increase over last year. from "the wall street journal," -- retailers merry, but were

resumed. -- worries loom. is from "the chicago debut in," which encapsulates what a lot of states are facing. gov. pat quinn trying to borrow $15 billion. the has been meeting with several a lawyer lawmakers. the governor is floating the idea of borrowing roughly $15 billion. below the fold, a focus on homelessness in america. in this case, the twins in the chicago area dealing with their own homelessness. finally, the story below the fold in "the new york times," a

michigan town pleading for bankruptcy. a michigan town outside of detroit made famous by the dodge auto maker which since left the town. we will talk about that story. we want to focus on that, with a number of headlines, including this --

robert taxes will likely stay the same across much of maryland. robert, joining us on the republican line. north carolina. caller: my question is, why did the social security administration -- they are running out of money. if they would quit loading it out. you try to live on $672 a month. there is no way in the world you could live on that. host: the cost of living increase in the next year. caller: they are not giving us one. host: yes, what i was saying. there is no cost of living increase because inflation is a essentially flat. caller: that is what i've done understand. -- what i don't understand.

here we are trying to live on $671 a month. no way you could live on net. host: the budget is the next big battle with the 112 congress convenes next week. this headline from "the wall street journal." the administration scrambling to assemble what could be pivotal bachmann following a six-week delay in confirmation of the new budget director. budget outline also coming with the state of the union address next year. michigan, our focus is the u.s. economy. prediction for 2011. caller: good morning. calling back some of the workers

to the automobile factories, second shift and that. so, that is up. basically our towns are just cut to the bone. having to cut the police out, crime has been up, and the fire department and all of that. so, even though the bailout did help the car industry, there is still a long, long way to go before michigan is going to be backed up on its feet. host: how far from judy caller:. is about 20 miles east of lansing. host: from the jump page of the "the new york times" article.

the michigan town left pleading for bankruptcy as the city manager and city officials tried to find a way to pay the bills. although the 75 current police officers and firefighters make up to two runs and 40 workers in the city, the average pay for police officer is about $75,000 a year. contract negotiations under way. some union officials claim this effort is a way to try to influence the negotiations for any possible pay increase for firefighters and police officers. the town, by the way, just outside of detroit. 2.1 square miles. it describes as a gritty michigan city. bill is joining us from detroit. good morning to you. caller: these open -- wall street guys that get the billion dollar bonuses and these republicans and democrats playing the bait and switch game. the time to talk is over.

i was out of work for three years, went back to school and still could not find a decent job. working temporary things but now i am back on unemployment. i get $100 a week -- last the what i did before. so, i did not qualify for food stamps. we get tired of the top. we need to take these politicians and start killing them and burning down buildings. host: i think killing them is probably a little over the top, do you think, bill? he hung up. that call from detroit. from "the washington post" this morning, inflation concerns spurred beijing to raise interest rates again. a lot of articles on this tuesday morning focusing on the u.s. economy.

knoxville, tennessee. caller: longtime listeners, first-time caller. i am not quite as radical as bill from detroit -- host: he was a little over the top. caller: but i don't see recovery as long as we have all the money in big business and greed. i did not see grieve letting good jobs coming back to the country. i am 61 years old. i worked construction all of my life. i am semi retired and i am okay because i live with it might mean spirit -- within my means. i am scared for my grandchildren. i think we are going to turn it into a third world country and i am sad about it. but thank you for letting me talk. host: if -- the other story, the weather in the northeast. "the post" has iced burg. jet travel impacted by all of

this. jenny joining us from louisville, ky. your outlook for 2011, the u.s. economy. caller: i don't know. i don't know. i just don't feel like there will be a lot of changes. i don't know, it depends on what they are cutting. i don't know how much more they can cut. the guy was right about what he said. i worry more about our children and our grandchildren. it is not their fault. but i have a question. i am not sure about it. i saw where you read about -- i think it was a state, if they file bankruptcy. i never heard of a place filing bankruptcy. who would pay for that? usually when somebody files bankruptcy really the taxpayers and up paying for it. host: it is not the state.

it is a town in michigan asking the state to declare bankruptcy. it is an "the new york times." just outside of detroit. some details, for example, in the article. it points out that this month authorities in rhode island says a city in central falls could face bankruptcy if the immediate drastic changes -- so, these are different municipalities asking their states to declare bankruptcy to try to clear the books and of the financial situation. caller: that is what scares me because i think that with all of

this going on, it is going to take america forever -- it is not going to take one or two years, it is going to take a very long time for us to get out of this predicament that we are in. and i do not think we should borrow any more money from anybody regardless of what. host: read the story about china raising interest rates. we owe billions to china right now. thank you for the call. back to the earlier point about bankruptcy and impact on municipalities. because "the new york times" points out that it is meet -- it remains a rare for municipalities.

the story, again, on the jump page of the a section of the new york times, as hammtrack, michigan, once the state to declare bankruptcy. -- wants the state to declare bankruptcy. scott is joining us from sparta, new jersey, a republican line. good morning. caller: well, i think the economy is slowly coming back to someone normal but i do not think it will ever be what it was. i think the middle class will -- for very long time. jobs are gone, they are not coming back. in our state, my governor is doing a lot of the dirty work that has to be done. people are not too happy about it, but if we don't start cutting corners and cutting spending and really trying to do

some hard, difficult things, this country is going to be in bad shape for a very long time. host: the storm in new york is impacting a little bit of the economy. this is from "the new york post." macy's at herald square, only about half of the staffers could make it into work. chris is joining us from new york city. good morning. our line for democrats. caller: how are you? that's good. i think the outlook would be grim it specifically for 99ers. i have been without unemployment benefits since march, by the way, so my hope that there would be legislation not only introduced but past -- doubt any

republicans will want to do that, to provide extensions for the 5 million unemployed, not just the 2 million that got extensions. host: a lot of interest in the open the new york times" story and related stories about bankruptcy. chris saying -- you can join the conversation online at twitter.com. caller: here in northwest ohio and seven michigan and northeast indiana, it will be probably tenor 20 years before the economy gets better. right now williams county in ohio, out of 88 counties, has the highest unemployment in the state and we are very heavily automotive industry. as jobs keep leaving the country, people are forced to

take pay cuts, cannot buy new cars, so that has a big effect on the economy in northwest ohio and southern michigan and northeast indiana. host: thank you for the culprit from our twiiter page -- there is no money left to bail any one out. arnold, governor of california, will have to figure something out. indiana, good morning. caller: you have a caller three or four that -- income was six under and $72 a month? host: social security. caller: he is a republican? if people would vote their interests instead of their fears, we would get out of this data on a recession we are in. host: thank you for the call. companies sitting on cash, not

spending it because of concerns about the economy. the story in the business section of "the washington post." companies more willing to make a deal. volume on global mergers rising 19%.

scott joining us from fort worth, texas. good morning, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call but i went to respond to a lot of the pessimism from the callers, one say we needed to start knocking off politicians and another guy saying he was very concerned about his grandchildren. if you all keep voting for republicans -- democrats or commonness, this will continue. if we went with ron paul for 2012 i will assure you, return to constitutional government will lead to amazing wealth and prosperity very soon. host: thank you for the call. on our twitter page a lot of people waiting in. it is going to take some serious cuts to start getting this debt mess under control. ross was right again.

he told the nation in 1992. referring to ross perot. an e-mail from us. constantly amused people are worried about the future of the children and grandchildren but finding no one step to the plate saying raise my taxes to pay off the nation's credit cards so my children and grandchildren to not have to pay for our excesses'. trash is joining us from lubbock, texas. -- trish is joining us from texas. good morning. caller: i do not see it will change anytime soon. i don't think the states should be bailing out municipalities. i don't know what the answer is there, except that we need to create jobs. the only thing i have been able to come up with personally, and we are doing it in my area, is alternative energy. if we would spend, spend, spend,

spend on alternative energy in, and in this area, wind farms, it would create jobs. number two, it would completely get us away from foreign oil, if, if no one remembers, it is part of what started this. when the middle lease went up on the oil for two or three summers ago, that is when this whole economic thing started. like dominoes. so, we are going to have to spend. people are going to have to get used to that. we are just going to have to spend in a more fiscally responsible way and we are going to after quit listening to republicans because this is the deficit started under reagan and every republican that is supposed to be -- they are the ones that are supposed to be fiscally conservative, they are the ones who have spent us into

this mess. and people don't seem to remember that. we are spending on two wars billions every day. i don't know what the answer to that is. but what we are doing is not working, so we need to stop. host: thank you for the call. from "politico." below that, writing that the president is eyeing chicago as his campaign headquarters as the white house begins to gear up for the 2012 race. this e-mail from paul -- there is a map of the city,

which is outside of detroit. 2.1 square miles. not far from lake michigan. part of the greater detroit metropolitan area. the story in "the new york times," the michigan city asking the state for bankruptcy. police and firefighters question whether the bankruptcy talk is just a scare tactic for negotiations. debra joining us from clarksburg, tennessee. we are using all of these stories on the economy to get your take on the economic outlook for 2011. good morning. go ahead, please. caller: good morning. i have a question. if any country has any kind of disaster, our government seems to send money to them immediately. and i feel like with our economy falling of the way that it has, we are in a disastrous situation. host: thank you for the call.

from john, saying -- let us go back to "the baltimore sun" and maryland property rates. jamie hopkins right thing maryland homeowners will see property values plunged 22% on average in the latest round of state assessments, a record drop that would not necessarily translate into lower taxes. carolyn, republican from louisiana pity caller: how are you today?

yes, on the foreign oil business, we have not build new refineries in this country in the 30 or 40 feet -- 40 years. we have all the reserves we need in gas and oil. we have too many regulations. i found out i was a libertarian and thought i was a republican. social security was a ponzi scheme. wall street is liberal. the green is mean -- ethanol each spot -- eats up. corn is food and they found out -- using corn to make gas, it is more toxic. now they are lobbying against it, the environmentalist. i think we need to do away with all the regulations and quick -- quit paying ex-president's for anything they have done. they need to go write a book and make a million dollars. i am sick of paying from worn out presidents. and we should quit paying all

the senators and congressmen and all these people who have been in office for years for the rest of their lives and keeping them. and i think all the congress and senate should take a cut in their pay, along with -- unions were good in the 50's and the 1960's, but they self- destructive and destroyed themselves and they need to take a cut in their pay and i don't mind if my social security does not going -- does not go up until 169. that would be great. i do not want anybody from the government telling me every year -- advisor my doctor that -- to do away with my medicines i will go ahead and die. i think it is inappropriate for the government to do. host: i think we got all in, carolyn. this story from "the washington post." 22 new films listed in the national film registry, including "all the president's

men" and "the exorcist." movies filmed in the washington, d.c., area. part of a collection of war -- more than 500 films by the library of congress has put on this list. you can read the story on line or in the style section of "the washington post." back to your calls and back to the u.s. economy. marlene from jefferson township, new jersey. caller: i was a bookkeeper. i retired. but a couple of things. about social security -- people better understand from the day they start working, they are paying 6.2% of their income into that, plus, your employer matches that, almost 12.5% of your working life in, going into a system. i watched c-span since 1982.

1983, social security was bankrupt. if you paid a couple hundred dollars a year into the system. in 1983 they went from 300, to $4,000 is what you could actually pay out of your pay into social security. think about it, people. if you were paying 2000 and your employer -- that is $4,000 a year for 40 or 50 years. where is the money? the government has taken up trillions of dollars out of social security. meanwhile, who is paying for all of the employees that worked for the government? i have a cousin that makes $60,000 a year pension after 30 years. i have another cousin who is a retired police officer in new jersey that makes $45,000 a year, started collecting his pension at 46 years old. people better understand -- and as far as republican and democrats, i became an independent, and i tell you why.

under a democratic president nafta was signed. this democratic president a few months ago took a trip to asia, he took corporate people with him, general electric was one of those companies. general electric while they were in asia announced a $2 billion investment into china. meanwhile, general electric pays zero corporate taxes in the united states of america. so, when you hear all of these big corporations complaining about corporate taxes, they don't pay them. host: thank you for the call. chris has this point -- a story in the associated press -- and number of papers this morning. south carolina gov., no plan, just driving laws. he admitted in june of last year

that he had an extramarital affair with an argentine woman. things looking up as he prepares to leave office more than a year after the international affairs derailed his once promising career. he would be replaced by his chosen successor and friends say his midlife crisis is over, also he intends to stay active in public life although no plans for seeking elected office. back to your calls. leticia from maryland. republican minded caller: i am from hagerstown, maryland. i am actually a black republican and i would like to say this country is in dire straits and what we need to do is really forget about political parties right now and get back to the constitution of this country. i agree with so many callers that it is time to stop all of the big corporate bailouts and corporate things they are doing, because they are not paying

corporate taxes and congress should definitely take a pay cut. and our former president should definitely take a pay cut as well. those of goes out of office -- everyone should be taken a pay cut at this time. when speaker banner said he would start to try to cut the budget, people said, that is not much -- we got used to spending so much money that cutting $25 billion and got -- does not make a difference. if you add it up in a regular household budget versus $10 a week on transportation, and you used to spend $50 a week, well, it cuts down money every week, it adds up at the end of the month. we need to stop spending all of this money and get back to physical conservative. thank you very much. host: steve from kentucky.

independence, missouri, on the line for democrats. your outlook for the economy? caller: thank you for to give my call. probably all of the money we are spending on unnecessarily -- unnecessary wars -- war in afghanistan, war in iraq. we have billions of dollars spent on independent contractors out there. just think, russia was in the war with afghanistan. they went broke. that is the reason why they stopped fighting over there. we need to bring the troops

home and stop spending all of that money over wars of choice rather than necessity, and we need to start working on our own economy because we are going broke. host: speaking about the war in iraq, the front page of "the wall street journal."

there is a related story on iraq in an interview conducted just before the holidays with vice-president joe biden. the headline -- by negroes optimistic about iraq. -- biden grows optimistic about iraq.

this morning from "the wall street journal." also available online at their website. that's your calls on the economy and your outlook for 2011 -- back to your calls on the economy. oregon. caller: a pleasure to speak to you. i think the thing that we could do to make things better is actually extend the house credit and maybe have a higher -- the government would help with more tax relief on that issue. and temporarily for small business, get rid of the payroll tax of people would be willing to hire. that would help. host: it will be reduced by 2%.

you said to eliminate it completely? caller: first of all, in terms of the small business and the medium business, and the big guys, they would not to get one. but for small business, which is the driver of our economy, temporarily just to eliminate that so there would be an influx of people being hired. i think that will help. may i speak to the gentleman -- to talk about the war? just and brief. i am a dissenter -- it is good that we are there but i know we have to get out. i understand people's frustration. but i do not think we should get out too quickly because we could get another 9/11. host: afghanistan or iraq? caller: both, actually.

i am talking about. i need -- think we need to be in both places but i think when we get out of iraq we should shift more resources to afghanistan. that would be my thought. and i thank you for the time, sir. host: thank you. this comment on our twitter page -- a look at president obama's mid point in the first term from an editorial and "usa today." a professor of political science at rutgers, university.

reference to what roosevelt did in 1938. also from tony blankley, a former speech writer for newt gingrich. don't believe all of the washington talks that president obama had a great lame-duck session. that's your calls. samuel from the bronx, new york.

the economy, 2011. what -- what do you think? caller: i think we are doomed. i think the economy is doomed, period, until people start to realize the democrats and republicans are nothing more than two sides of the same coin. kind of nervous. if you take a look at it, they always seem to work out things for the rich. there is no common sense left when i watched the news. we are fighting two wars -- or at least one war that had nothing to do with 9/11 and yet we are spending billions of dollars getting people killed, spending money, in iraq, and not one hijacker or one piece of evidence came from there. yet all of our tax money is going over there to fight. then you have these tax cuts going on for eight years under bush. obama just extended them. but if you take a look at them and they created all jobs. they are all overseas. there is no truth any more in terms of the news telling us

what is really going on and none of the politicians' work force because whether you take a republican or democrat, at the end of the day, the only people that will be satisfied or get something are the rich. what can we do? host: thank you for your call. just how safe is the drinking water? a new study indicating a number of cities have potential cancer causing agents in the drinking water. we will focus on that later in the program. also we will take a look at the future of family farms. part of a week-long series on food matters and the u.s.. and coming up next a look at south korea and north korea and the latest in that situation. back to your calls. this headline from "the new york times." in michigan town last pleading for bankruptcy. m the town is asking the state to allow it to declare bankruptcy.

it once had 50,000 people. now about half that number in 2010. floyd is joining us from butler, tennessee. republican minority -- republican line. caller: good morning. i am an old man. i have been in the wars, i have been in all of that stuff, and nobody mentions in this country, nobody mentions the fact that we have gone -- we have been brainwashed most of my life, i can see that -- and nobody mentions the $43 trillion that was stolen out of this economy since 1994. you keep talking about the poor man. they stole $43 trillion of the top -- host: who is gay? caller: the rich in this country. you check it out.

a $43 trillion has disappeared since 1994. and you are talking about cutting a poor man's medicare or his health care. the poor people are the stupidest people in this world. this country is nothing but trying to take over other people's oil. host: thank you for the call. linda has this comment. usa today and gallup poll out with most admired men and women in the u.s. and the world. leading among most admire in the world, barack obama, followed by george w. bush, bill clinton, nelson mandela, bill gates. among the most admired women, hillary clinton followed by sarah palin -- sarah palin,

oprah winfrey, michelle obama, condoleezza rice. his party may have suffered a shellacking by president obama remains the unchallenged champion -- for the third year in a row by far the most of mired man in america. -- most admired man in america. your outlook for 2011? what do you think? caller: i think it is a very pessimistic. i really do think with social security not going up, it is difficult for a long time people. a homeless list -- homelessness has increased. that is all i have to say. host: "the l.a. times" also looking at bell, california, another town that has hit bottom in part due to scandal.

boston, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. the only way to get this economy going is to create new jobs and you need new products and ideas, new inventions to kickstart this economy. i am an inventor and for the past almost 20 years i have been forced to give away my ideas. corporate america, american companies -- you have to either give away your rights or invest 20 granted to a patent to protect your ideas and then submit it to them. i hear mr. obama saying we have to help inventors and researchers. that is what you have to do. you have to help us. you have to have corporate america work with us. if i am giving away multibillion-dollar ideas and not getting anything in return it is going to make me stop.

a lot of people have great ideas and they did not want to do it. they are afraid of getting ripped off. sad to say, but we are getting ripped off. giving them the great ideas and getting nothing in return except we can say, i came up with this idea. a sense of pride or something. we have to research, at new technologies, create new manufacturing jobs, good paying jobs with benefits. we are great innovators. from what i understand we of the biggest exporters in the world of high-tech and we have to invest in good jobs like high- tech that pay well. once again, good benefits and mr. obama and his administration has to do something to help inventors like myself. i studied hard in school. studied electronics, electrical engineer. i worked my tail off in school to get somewhere and i have not gotten anywhere. host: thank you for calling. good luck in your ventures.

a number of callers focusing on poverty in america and so-called soup lines. two twins in chicago -- homeless and inseparable. one offered a way off the streets but refuses to leave without the other. the story also available online at "the chicago tribune" web site. duke joins us from oregon. good morning. caller: pardon me? host: good morning. caller: i find it ironic is everyone is worried about creating jobs when nobody wants to admit why we don't have them. if you don't know why we don't have jobs how do you expect to correct that problem? the problem is, we have -- utopian myth of free-trade,

everybody drink kool-aid and they are buying it. what we have going right now is aristocracy against the rest of us and they are winning by a long shot. taxing the rich -- they are the ones who benefited from the crash. host: thank you. this twitter is saying -- a view from one of our regular listeners and viewers. from "the washington post," --

the business section of today's open the washington post." michael auslin has been an outspoken critic of efforts by diplomats to bring peace between north and south korea, calling for tougher action. he will join us next as we turn our attention to what is happening along the korean peninsula. this is c-span's "washington journal." this tuesday morning, the week between christmas and new year's. we will be back in a moment. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> watch book tv all this week in prime time. tonight, pulitzer prize winner isabel wilkerson on her latest book. laura ingram argues against the obama administration and her policies. and markedhalperin on the -- to thousand eight presidential campaign. wednesday night in the back of the year in books. book tv in prime time, all this week on c-span2. >> every weekend on c-span 3, experience american history tv. starting saturday at 8:00 a.m. eastern, 48 hours of people and events telling the american story. here historic speeches and i

witness accounts of events that shaped our nations. a visit museums, historical sites, and college can't pick -- campuses as top professors and leading historians delve into america's past. all weekend, every weekend on c- span 3. >> closing speech has an inevitable aspect of -- an extraordinary experience for me is coming to an end. but my dominant feeling is pride in the great privilege to be a part of this very unique body. >> search for farewell speeches and hear from retiring senators on the c-span video library. with every c-span program since 1987. more than 160,000 hours, all on line, all free. washington your way. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we want to welcome michael

auslin from the american enterprise institute, his focus is foreign and defense policy and our focus is what is happening along the korean peninsula. tensions continue to rise in the attacks earlier this year by north korea. assess the situation. guest: i think what we are seeing is a combination of normal north korean actions but also the possibility we are entering into a very turbulent period because of the potential regime change in north korea. what we usually see in north korea is that there are out reaches on the part of north korea to try to get negotiating partners in the united states and japan and south korea back to the six-party talks, trying to get concessions. when that doesn't happen, usually there is a provocation on the north's part or sometimes the provocation comes first, it in which case they expect washington, seoul, tokyo would try -- some concession to get back to the six-party talks. that is what we have been seeing

happening again. the change, i think, is the level of aggression that happened this year. that is what i think is what everyone is worried about. in march, the sinking -- the attack of the south korean nasal basso killed 46 sailors and shelling of the island that killed four civilians. this is something we have not seen for years, very aggressive actions directed against south korea. so, the question is, are they doing it simply to get back to the negotiation table, get more concessions or aid or whatever they want, or is there a real struggle going on inside p'yongyang. we know kim jong-il has been set. he has named his third son -- of whom we have no nothing about -- as the successor. 2012 is the 100th anniversary of the birth of who founded the regime. is this an attempt within the

regime by different artists positioned themselves, jockeyed for influence? is it a tactic on the part of kim to retain his control and so the world he is in charge? as usual, we did not know. it's good geographic perspective. we have american troops in south korea, troops in japan. you have been writing that the f-22's will of career respond to but north korea has to know with u.s. military action along with japan and others, that could spell the end in your words of north korea. host: f-22's are not the only thing they listen to -- it is an important symbol of the message we are sending about the behavior that we will and will not accept. host: you are saying the naval presence enough will not do it? guest: what i was trying to write in that particular piece is that if it turns out that we

wind up going to some type of conflict, that the naval presence alone will not -- might not do. we have very capable naval forces. we just conducted exercises. but in terms of the air defenses, specifically with the military turns north korea has, i think you are most credible and you send the strongest message would you have your most effective weapons out there, and that includes f-22's. but the broader picture you are raising i think is an important one, that north korea, through its history, always appears to account for living very correctly the level to which it can go, the line up to which it will not cross the border to not promote that kind of response which, would spell the end of the regime. we have plans with the south koreans and we talk to other allies about what we would do in the case of an attack, in which soul felt it had to respond.

the north has always walked right up to that line and has been able to adjust the balance on it without tipping over. again, what i think worries people today in washington is that the south must respond to any further attacks. i mean, they repeated it over and over as recently as a bit -- as this morning, stating they will retaliate, they will bomb the north into submission. the use of overwhelming force. when i say worry and washington -- not that anyone thinks that would be a wrong response if there is another attack that resulted in the loss of south korean life, but that we are in a different dynamic and cycle. previously everyone saw to limit the effects of what ever north korea did. if north korea has miscalculated, if they crossed the line in which case the south

must respond or the democratic government could fall, then we are in a different stage of planning and we have to be very clear, both will we are willing to do, we are capable of doing -- that means bringing in our most effective deterrent assets -- and talking very clearly with our allies. the idea that we are simply going to go back to cake -- to the table as the north wants is another attack and kill more south korean civilians, i did we are past that stage so we are in what is potentially a turbulent period both in the south and ended north as the no. figures out how it will respond to the south's threats. host: let me bring up two points. writing in "the new york times," -- south korea vowing a retaliation against north korea. while the japanese foreign minister saying his nation's military ties with south korea

would slowly increase in response to the north. a radio address president lee conducted yesterday. the south has held a series of military drills apparently intended to show the north that it is ready to strike back forcefully if provoked again. guest: this is a change. i think that would ever political calculations -- and some were correct and some were not necessarily as strong as the could have been -- the south has always tried to diffuse situations in which the north aggressively attacked. but in 2010, the north has killed, murdered 50 south korean civilians, unprovoked attacks. i don't think a democratic government can survive not responding in some way. what we have seen first is there has been a very strong chains and the rhetoric on the part of president lee and south korea. very little talk of going back

to the six-party talks anytime soon. very little talk, except from china, about diffusing the situation and showing restraint on both sides. 180-degree turnaround. if you have two different parties involved in this within the region that are opposed to the north. south koreans are obviously who feel the most keen threat. you also have the japanese, however, at direct risk from the ballistic missile program the north has been developing and conducting over the past years. the japanese have worked very closely with the united states in building up ballistic missile defenses. they have been a core party of the six-party talks but they, too, have watched a repeated cycle of attending to engage north korea, going back to the table, offering more concessions, it has not solved the problem. it has neither denuclearized 03

or resolve the issue of the ballistic missile test that north korea conducts. on the part of washington, seoul, in tokyo, fundamental reconsideration about how to deal with north korea. blandishments, in basement, the thames to offer concessions, some believe -- engagement, and at times to offer concessions, what we have seen is an attempt -- blackmail is a little too strong of the award, but get the united states and other partners to commit to getting other aid and concessions to the north. the north would then break the promises and then the three partners will come back to the table with more concessions. i think those days are over. the question is, where you go from here? do you go back to the u.n.? we have resolutions that have not been effective.

partly because china has not supported them. you have the u.s. envoy going to the region several times in the past year to attempt to find common ground for returning to the six-party talks. that has not worked. and most dramatically you have these north korean attacks. the truth is, if this were an easily solvable problem we would have solved it. right now we don't seem to have figured out the levers to either contain the north or get it to legitimately and honestly agree to a set of conditions that would need to be denuclearization of peninsula. host: our guest is michael auslin with the american enterprise institute. he put together this document and has written for "the wall street journal" and "washington examiner." he his -- the author of a number

of books -- "negotiating with imperialism" and "the culture of japanese diplomacy." we will get to your phone calls in just a moment. you can also join the conversation on line -- . .

leverage against pyongyang that could be used to get it to agree to a clearly defined set of denuclearization, road maps and then concessions, including aid and then normalization. the assumption was that if china wanted to help in this process it would tighten the screws on north korea, it would move it along. that hasn't happened. and i think there is a growing, not only frustration, in washington that china has not played that role and you heard a little bit of harsh rhetoric coming out of the administration in recent weeks.

but also that we just have to simply think about other approaches, that we can't assume that china will sweep in at the end of the day and vave everyone by forcing -- and forcing kim jong il. south korea has become the prop to become -- about a billion and a half dollars goes to north korea. they have poured billions of dollars into industrial projects, maintaining trade. it runs a trade surplus with north korea exporting more than it imports. it has really been the one regime since the fall of the soviet union to keep them alive, to be quite frank. the thing is china doesn't have

a relationship with the korean peninsula. it is -- it wants to maintain its influence in the peninsula. it wants to maintain its influence in the region. i think we can conclude that for korea the decision has been that a divided peninsula and a north korea which it is at least able to influence to some degree is better than a non-kim regime in north korea. one thing i point out historically is that we are seeing overturn in a way to a very, very century's long traditional set of geopolitical set of influence on the korean peninsula. they have been a pivotal point between china and japan and more broadly between china, russia and japan. this was truly literally a millennium and half ago. it was true through the 1800's. the russo-japanese war in 1904.

japan colonized the peninsula from 1910 through the independent of world war ii. the idea of korea, if i can put it this way, coming back into play i think would immediately bring back all of these great power concerns on the part of china, japan, russia and now the united states. and that's one of the reasons that beijing today is attempting to maintain its influence and you see tokyo reaching out to seoul attempting to better its relations to talk about improved military and political relations with seoul because in this part of the world seoul has been and i think always been the key pivot point. host: so as we saw a united germany you are skeptical we can see that in the short term for north and south korea? guest: yes. the process of reunification in germany both politically and more importantly economically in getting east germany

integrated into a broader german commonwealth into a federal system and rebuilding its economy would seem like nothing what we have to do in north korea. this is a country that has about 22 million people. the state about the size of mississippi, or a country about the size of mississippi that lives in bad levels. people have gone there, report the absolute rudimentry level of any type of social services. people there are utterly cut off from the modern world except for what underground information can get through. it is a country that is a true totalitarian owe site where people have been brainwashed for generations. the psychological and i think economic shocks of sudden reunification would be something that i don't think any of the states are really prepared to deal with and i actually think it is extremely

disappointing that as far as we know neither washington nor south nor tokyo have had serious and extensive discussions about how they would move to start rebuilding north korea and reintegrating these people into the world. so i think a reunified peninsula would be an extraordinarily complex and difficult affair. you'd have competition with china. you may have competition with russia seeking to assert some type of influence. most importantly, if we don't know what we're doing, if we don't have a plan i think it would be something that would tax the ingenuity and the systems of all of the major countries in the region. host: with that background, let's get to phone calls. michael auslin is part of the american enterprise institute. the tensions along the peninsula and its impact on the u.s., japan, china and other partners in the region. keith is joining us from palm beach, florida. republican line.

good morning. caller: good morning, gentlemen and i hope we have a happy new year. appreciate all the conversation you just had. my father fought in the korean war, and, you know, this has been going on for years. it was a cease-fire. the war never end. i think this is one of the downfalls to america was at the beginning of this war and on, we haven't finished a war sense except for bosnia which took a little longer. this guy keeps crossing the line, crossing the line and now they sunk a ship and killed people and these bombings and stuff. does anybody ever -- do they still teach song tsu, "the art of war" in our military leadership positions and stuff anymore? it seems like it's only taught in business. i don't understand why we don't take the two bombers and take out this regime. and most of the military that

they have, the military installations and stuff and reunify it and i guess through the u.n. and let south korea help them rebuild and become a real country. host: thank you, keith. guest: it's a good question. but a lot more difficult to do than it sounds. i think the frustration that everyone feels and the threat which is true, a real and palpable threat, that the south feels, that japan feels that we should probably feel from north korea is something that makes us want to try and resolve this. and i think, again, it's a good example of what happens when you let problems and long-term issues fester so that you're boxed into a corner. until north korea got a nuclear capability or at least the ability to conduct nuclear tests, if not have weapons, we felt we had a lot more -- we had a lot more options on the table and today we don't. there's a couple of problems.

number one, even in a conventional war, the south -- the north has tens of thousands of artillery tubes pointed at seoul which is only about 30 miles or so from the border. and any type of war would be just devastating. there is no way that you could take out all of those artillery tubes, though you could do a lot of things to try and disrupt their command and control, to attack -- to attack them and the like, but neither the south nor quite frankly the u.s. would be able to spare seoul which is a major metropolitan city of tens of millions of people from what would likely be rather dramatic destruction. it's not something we think about doing lightly and we don't want to get into it. host: something, too, your sentiment is embodied in this twitter comment, china owns north korea. we keep china going by buying their junk and hiring their workers, and north korea rattles the u.s. guest: well, it's one of the problems of having to deal with a broad array of issues with a

great power like china. our relations with china are actually much broader than north korea. as much as we buy their junk they buy our bombs. they float our economy in many ways as do the japanese. we have an increasingly combined set of interests, though we don't always see things on the same page. obviously with china related to a host of issues, i think the belief in washington is that we're getting far less out of beijing than we had hoped for a long time, and i think the harder line is emerging in town. but i don't think we can reduce our relations with china to north korea. you know, the other problem is in terms of really affecting this regime. president clinton in 1994 almost attacked north korea. the bombers, as far as we know, were in the air to take out their suspected sites of the nuclear program which was at a fairly rudimentry stage at that

point in time. that's when former president carter was in the country and negotiated what became known or had an agreement that ultimately became known as the agreed framework that set up negotiations and the attempts to buy off the north koreans, which failed. that was probably really the last time that if we had wanted to take military action with fairly limited results in terms of what the north would respond we could have done it then. so today to do it would be a -- just a -- probably an extraordinarily bloody and damaging war. though, i have no doubt that the united states and the south korean ally would triumph. the question is -- do you do that in anything short of the type of attacks that the south has said they would respond to? and we have to be very, very clear on what would both cause us to go to war but also how

far we would be willing to go. anything i think that was short of regime change would leave the peninsula in a worse situation than it is today. the problem with that, of course, is we have no idea exactly how the chinese would react. we don't, again, have any plans for a post-kim north korea. we have no country in the region to reach out to to set up a regime. though there is a regime in exile. it's not as simple as removing the kim regime. the problem is we're boxed into a corner. there are certain actions we are not willing to take except in extreme which i think is correct. but that results in what both your online and phone-in viewer mentioned which this is a situation that just lingers on now for half a century. host: steven is joining us from port huron, michigan. steven calling on the democrats' line.

good morning. welcome to the conversation. caller: good morning and thank god for c-span. i think it's time that we tell china, get a leash on your pitbull there or we're just going to come in and take over, because i'm sick and tired of hearing all this crap from north korea. they don't want to do no business. they don't want to do change. they just want to threaten people. i say it's time that we just start going in, take out their military completely. if china doesn't like it, fine. we owe them money, let them try and collect after we blow the crap out of north korea. host: all right. we'll stop you at that point. guest: i think we have tried that. we have said to china to rein in north korea. we have done that repeatedly and china itself has played, i think, a very calculated game as to how far it would push

north korea which does not seem to be very far. though there were reports that it squeezed energy supplies and the like a few years ago. but obviously that failed. you know, beijing has its own interests and they're not simply going to listen to what the united states wants. obviously they haven't done it so far, and i don't think they're going to -- i don't think they're going to do it again. other point very quickly on taking out the military completely. north korea has about an army of about a million men. it, again, has an extraordinary amount of military. it has anti-aircraft guns. it's got a lot of things that would make it a very difficult to just simply take out its military though i have no doubt we would and you would see parts of the military to rise up and revolt. but it's something that until the shelling of this island i think south korea was not prepared to do. now the government has changed its tune and its credibility is on the line so that as your

caller rind indicated, if we do -- indicated, if we do go in the south has to go in fully. it would have to use the overwhelming force that it mentioned or the government would not survive. host: is a divided korea is the best thing for us economically? the south alone is competitive -- we would not want a unified foe. guest: well, that presumes that south korea would become a foe. you know, no one knows how it would play out. i think it would be very likely that you would see south korea or a unified korea attempt to maintain some independence. it would probably maintain relations with china and the united states. i don't think it would resume to go into one camp or the other. the idea of the divided, you know, is it better to have it divided economically? there is no doubt that it would be exorbitantly expensive to try and get the north korean

economy up to any level of production that could compete at the world level, that could work with the -- integrate with south korea. it would take a generation. east germany still lags west germany and that's a generation back in 1989 with billions of dollars, hundreds of billions of deutsche marks poured in. it would take years for north korea to develop. and the other problem you would have would be a flood of refugees out this is one of the reasons that china always says that it can't push north korea too hard because if the regime implodse they're worried about a million or more north koreans crossing their border. the south border are worried about millions crossing into the south. i think the truth is we don't know exactly what would happen. i have no doubt that the

chinese could seal the border if they wish. a million north koreans is a lot to deal with but i don't think it's a legitimate case that china is making. but the question of how you deal with the people, how you raise the standard of living, how you give them adequate medical care, all of that is something that no one again has discussed. so a unified peninsula would present a whole host of problems, many of which are not military and maybe in some ways the military would be the quickest and easiest thing we deal with. it's everything afterwards that would be so difficult. host: we'll go to ed next from kalamazoo, michigan, with michael auslin of the american enterprise institute. our focus, the korean peninsula. go ahead, please. caller: good morning. merry christmas, and wish for a happy new year. i'd have to say that very rarely do i ever agree with a democratic caller on your line, but i did with the last one. this opportunity here we have, and i call it an opportunity,

is the north koreans keep on pushing. they don't know the line. they keep on redrawing the line and push it. until we learn that we need to be able to take a tougher stand with them we can motivate china by basically saying any cost we have of trying to rectify and solve this problem we'll take out of your debt. so until we start acting a little bit more aggressively to the aggression they have shown we will not solve the problem. you look at the clint ons and they -- clintons and they poured over a billion dollars into north korea out of a treaty that carter signed or negotiated and they have continued building their nuclear facilities, and the press blamed it on bush when he got in and saw the writing on the wall and cut off the money to north korea. north korea is a dictatorial

communist country and they will never have prosperity for the north korean people until you change the regime. guest: well, i think the truth is we have allowed the line to be redrawn. every time we drew a red line with north korea we essentially erased it when it crossed the line. one of the lines was the nuclear program. another of those lines was nuclear proliferation which we now know that the north has been proliferating extensively. it proliferated with syria. it worked closely with iran. it may have proliferated to burma. all of those red lines which we stated would cause us and act more strongly against the regime, we're the ones who backed down from that. again, part of the reason we backed down is because we simply were not willing to do what had to be done and cross the line of punishing north korea because of all the things we've been talking about. but i do think you are seeing a tougher stance now. the obama administration has done the right thing in a

couple of cases here. first, they have not rushed back to the six-party talks. that's the right thing. secretary of defense gates has repeated a couple of times that we won't buy the same horse twice meaning we won't go back and offer new concessions with new agreements that the north has made. that's the right thing to do. so we haven't had the six-party talks which have achieved nothing over the last several years in the first instance. and the second thing we did in response to the shelling of yeonpyeong with the south, with the allies in the yellow sea, we did send in u.s.s. washington, our carrier out of japan. we sent in several guided missile destroyers and we did hold exercises. i think that the exercises should have been larger. i think they should have included air exercises. i think that it was the right thing to do to send that type

of message to north korea and i expect that you will see more of it. the problem, as your caller indicates, is that the north doesn't know exactly perhaps when it is crossing the line with the south and i think that you have seen one line crossed. an interesting question is whether or not the north cannot respond to the south's threats right now. if you have a totalitarian regime, a regime that gets legitimacy in the eyes of its people and to some degree maneuvering room with other states by acting provocatively, by pushing them and by forcing them to respond to the north and what it does, how does the north survive in a way, at least in its current form, if it doesn't do any of that? how credible will the north be among its people if it seems to be backing down in the face of south korean threats? how credible will the

government be among different elements within the regime or within the country if it's not building provocative and being aggressive? i know it sounds a little bit like "alice in wonderland" but that's the way that north korea is and that's the world we have grown up with with north korea. it's actually quite interesting, i think, and we should be watching now what happens as the south repeatedly ratchets up the rhetoric, as you read earlier on the type of punishment it would inflict on the north, and the north doesn't respond. does that put further pressure on the regime? does it begin to lose its maneuvering room and does it begin to lose its credibility? if so what does it do? does it strike back? does it attempt to push the line farther? or does it continue in this defense of crouch? we don't know. we'll see over the coming weeks and months. host: and that headline you referred to, south korean leader sending a message to the north and japan saying it has aligned closely to south korea in making its own internal

moves diplomatically with the situation. our guest is michael auslin. his resume includes the director of the project on japan-u.s. relations at yale university. among his books "japan's society." he's currently at the american enterprise institute. as we focus on the korean fence la, mark is joining us from ocala, florida. good morning. caller: good morning, steve, good morning, michael. i'm a marine corps veteran. my father is a veteran of the war in korea. in 1977 i was a squad leader in okinawa and got a chance to go part of the world. in the early 1980's i was part of the first marine expeditionary brigade and got to visit that part of the world. was on operation team spirit in the early -- excuse me -- the mid 1980's. 16987, 1986 i was there.

in any case i am no expert on the area. i appreciate the way you've been explaining that part of the world with some caution. i would caution the callers. we live in such a rambo language country that our country kind of translates into foreign policy. i know that south koreans and north koreans would both if they have a chance to be listening to our conversation, so i would let them know even though i am not an educated person i would be the person that a person like yourself would send to war. this is when a call screener asks what my subject was, my subject was a question i was going to ask you, michael, are you a veteran? guest: no, i'm not. caller: i would caution all americans and all koreans to know that the group that you associate yourself with is -- has a neo conservative agenda, the american enterprise institute is really part of the problem, a part of the solution. host: want to respond to that

point? guest: well, i think the views on how to deal with both north korea and other regimes around the world, which obviously wish, you know, liberal states ill, is a problem attic one. it's not one -- problematic one. it's not one that we know for sure that we're taking the path that's most effective or most, you know, most efficient. i think when you deal with asia , i think most people understand pretty clearly the lines between, for example, liberal states like south korea and totalitarian states like north korea. i think people are beginning to reassess their views of china and just how much our interests can align with china's interests. and we've had periods where we thought that we'd have more cooperation and periods where i think as we're in now where we see less cooperation. i don't think anyone wants to go to war ever.

i think that this is a country that undertakes military activities only when it feels that it has no other course of action and it tries to do so in multilateral gatherings through the u.n. or nato or the like. it's the problem that we're in with north korea. we have been hesitant to use military force. this is a regime that, you know, captured a u.s. navy ship back nf 1968 and held the -- back in 1968 and held the crew. it's a military that captured japanese citizens and did not account for their whereabouts. for all we know they're still alive and still being held. the regime this year has chosen to attack its neighbor twice. and yet with all of that you have seen extraordinary restraint on the part not only of the united states but on the part of its allies and partners. so i don't think anyone wants

to go to war. i think as a historian, which is what, you know, my formal training is, i think history shows very clearly that the best way to avoid war is to negotiate from a position of strength. and the best way to avoid war is to show that you're credible and that you are willing to act even though you hope you don't want to act. i think that, for example, if we want to take the case that one reason the north has been quiet over the past couple of weeks is because the united states and south korea had a large naval exercise and show of military force whereas we had hesitated to do that. we did not do that after the ship was sunk. we did not do it after the ballistic missile launches and north korea continued ballistic missile launches. these are the issues that the state can undertake. host: this is a basic question from ann on our twitter page.

do they manufacture arms? guest: they get them from china and they manufacture light arms themselves. in terms of the ballistic missile program, they have been developing it indigenously for years. some of the early missiles have been based on scuds and other weapons that he had purchased from the chinese and from other regimes. they did work to some degree with the nuclear network of a.k. kahn in pakistan. they have been in constant contact with different types of customers around the world including iran, including syria and the like, which feeds back into their program giving them funds and giving them different levels of expertise. so it's a mixed bag. and one of the things that the u.s. has tried to do with its allies is the proliferation security initiative which started in the bush administration which is to interdict weapon shipments and

shipments of weapons of mass destruction as a way to try and restrict the north's maneuvering room along with the other financial sanctions that the u.s. put on north korea strongly at a period during the bush administration and then backed off and the obama administration has gone back to that somewhat. that i think is something we haven't talked about this morning. what ways do you get the north koreans potentially to change their behavior? diplomacy, again, doesn't seem to be working, and that is not an argument not to conduct diplomacy. that's not what i'm saying. again, it is not to say we don't do diplomacy, we do war instead, but there are lots of levers we can use and financial sanctions seem to be the one that are most effective. they hit directly at the regime. this regime is a family-run regime. me are involved in all of the black market activities. they're involved in the smuggling. they're involved in the counterfeiting. when we put pressure on the regime through freezing its

assets in banko delta asia about a decade ago under the bush administration that we know caused extreme pain and they went back to the drawing table. as part of the negotiating tactic, the bush administration chose to lift those restrictions and the north went right back to its obstructionist activities. but i think we could be far more effective by drawing up the sources of the regime's money, of the family's money, of squeezing them and doing one of two things. forcing them to the table to negotiate, or perhaps crimping them and causing some type of kaput lakes on their part which -- capitulation on their part. host: jerry. caller: korea back in the 1950's -- personally, i see no

reason for us to be over there, but being that we are, the ship washington is over there right now that took place of the carrier kitty hawk which i was on. they got a lot of food for that million man thing over there. it takes a lot of food to feed those people. they're starving to death pre sumpingsly. if you see that class battle ship that brought them to the table back in the 1950's. it's china and korea. you might get some response out of that. it's a pretty good deterrent when you fire those shells about 20 miles and hit a tennis court or something. but just a couple things i'd like maybe to get a response on. thank you. host: thank you, jerry. guest: well, i think the question is based at this broader question of deterrent and, again, the idea of a deterrent is you don't want to

go to war. you know, if you show you have credibility and capability that you can use hopefully that changes the behavior, the perceptions and the calculations of your actor across the table. we have hesitated to do that i think at certain times when we should have done it and we did do it last month, as the caller mentioned, with the u.s.s. george washington, and i think that has sent a message to pyongyang. they have been quiet for a few weeks, but we do see this cycle where we will do something with our allies, take some type of action, usually at a relatively limited level, and then the north is quiet for several weeks or several months and then comes back. i think, you know, if they're true to form, what can we expect? we can probably expect another nuclear test in the coming months. if they're true to form we may expect some ballistic missile launches. they seem to do that during the

summers and the likes. so certainly the question of what type of deterrent is most credible is something people here are thinking about. as i wrote i think it should include air elements as well as. i think the distances involved when we talk about really being able to influence the situation, or being drawn in because the south considers that it must now act, the air assets and the power of the u.s. air force is going to be extremely important in taking out certain sites, command and control sites and the like, that would allow us to be much more effective in limiting the war and hopefully ending any type of conflict early. host: our topic, tensions between north and south korea. democrats line. good morning. caller: yeah. i'm from mississippi. what i'm curious about. how come north korea -- how come they dislike south korea

so much? they are so close together. a neighbor. they practically -- practically neighboring countries. and where did this start from and what would they have to do to make relations work between north and south korea? i know they're so close together, why would they want to fight their own brothers and sisters and what would have to be done to help them get along? guest: of course they are neighboring countries. they share a common border. we'll get a look at the map. we should have probably put it into con-- historical context. this started at the end of world war ii to the period when the peninsula was being freed from japanese colonial control and there was a struggle, obviously, what type of government would take place there and would be established. kim il sung, which fought

against the japanese, was given aid by russia during the immediate postwar period. he established the north korean state in its infancy. the borderline between kim il-sung's and the map where it drawn today, the 38th parallel. and then with chinese and russian aid, of course, in 1950, kim il-sung attacked the south. the entire existence of the north korean regime has been formulated around this idea of self-reliance. it is a philosophy where the north would be completely separated from the rest of the world where it would be developed on its own course. it would create its own type of communism for basically formulated around the kim family. and the villification of the

south as well as the rest of the liberal nations in the region that was required for that has become indemic over half a century. so the idea of overcoming that is something i think is extraordinarily difficult it goes to the question of, how can you have a unified peninsula where people have been taught about the evilness of the south, the evilness of japan, the evilness of the united states that north korea is a unique society that has achieved a level of strength none like any other in the region. that would take a massive re-education campaign in order to try and break down the psychological brainwashing of the north korean people that's happened for 50 years. host: our conversation has been with michael auslin. he's put together this publication for the american enterprise institute looking at security in the region, what he calls a regional strategy. he's also an author and

professor. thanks very much for being here on c-span. guest: thanks for having me. host: all this week we are looking at policies that affects america's food supply. that's coming up later in the practice. but first a new study focused on drinking water and possible carcinogens that could potentially being in drinking waters in a number of communities around the country. but first a news update with bobby jackson and c-span radio. >> thanks, steve. here are some of the headlines. president obama is expected to announce his choice for top economic advisor after he returned from his hawaiian vacation next week. potential candidates include investment banker roger aldman, treasury department official, gene sperling. the replacement for lawrence summers will have a guiding hand in nearly every economic decision the obama administration makes.

iran's president, ahmadinejad, says the west hostile policies could harm further talks over his country's disputed nuclear program. the president said if the west continues on this path, "it would not close the road." he remarked that the u.n. security council as well as germany agreed to another round of talks in istanbul in late january. india has issued kahnwide alert on information of a potential terror strike by a pakistani group. more police patrols and strict security checks have been order and in mumbai and several other cities. following credible reports that a band of militant group was planning a new year's attack over the weekend. a siege in 2008 killed 160 people in mumbai. and finally the empire strikes

back and saturday night fever are among the 25 films announced today selected for preservation this year by the library of congress. each year that library adds 25 films to the national film registry. to preserve films with artistic, cultural or historical significance. there are now 550 films in the registry which began in 1989. and those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> c-span's original documentary on the supreme court has been newly updated. sunday you'll see the grand public places and those only available to the justices and their staff and you'll hear about how the court works from all the current supreme court justices including the newest justice, elena kagan. also, learn about some of the court's recent developments. the supreme court, home to america's highest court, airing for the first time in high definition sunday at 6:30 p.m. eastern on c-span. >> the c-span networks.

we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. it's all available to you on television, radio, online and on social media networking sites. and find our content anytime through c-span video library. and we take c-span on the road with our digital bus, local content vehicle bringing our resources to your community. it's washington your way, the c-span networks. now available in more than 100 million homes created by cable, provided as a public service. "washington journal" continues. host: our focus is the safety of the drinking water, a new study out earlier this month showing the 35 cities around the country may have cancer-causing agents in the drinking water. our guest is olga naidenko. she is a senior scientist at the environmental working group which put together this study. good morning. thanks very much for being with us. guest: good morning. host: let me begin with some of the conclusions. what did you find? guest: we found that out of the 35 cities the drinking water

from the tap in different homes, 31 of those cities had some levels of the cancer causing agent called chromium 6. host: what do you say about the safety of drinking water? guest: well, first of all, e.p.a., the environmental protection agency, should finish up the study for chromium 6. right now we don't have any study even though the agency has been looking at this for a long time. and we need to also make sure that we know exactly what other cities in the country may have this problem. host: and what cities in particular were involved? guest: we looked at a mix of cities. we looked at some big cities but we also looked in those places where some chromium may be found because of tests of chromium and what those agencies have to do. we found three cities with the highest level in our study, not necessarily highest around the country. norman, oklahoma, honolulu,

hawaii, and riverside, california. host: this is the same chemical that was made famous by erin brockovich that was later turned into a book and movie. what are the potential dangers? guest: well what we now know from studies and also from studies of people exposed to it is it increases the risk of cancer. it increases the risk of stomach cancer in animals. if we swallow it our intestines are at risk of cancer. host: what point do we reach a dangerous level? guest: that's a very good question. as new scientists coming up and that happens all the time, we are finding more and more about the dangers of this chemical. earlier scientists in california looked at it and they proposed what they feel

would be a safe level which is actually quite small. and the average level we found three times higher than a safety level proposed by california state scientists. host: 202 is our area code. 202-737-0001 is for republicans. 202-737-0002 is for democrats. if you're an independent, the number to call is 202-628-0205. or join the conversation by sending us an email or a twitter comment. how much of this could be attributed, though, to aging infrastructure, pipes that are in many cases 50, 75 years old that send the water from the reservoirs or the water treatment facilities to homes? guest: oh, steve, it is a problem all across america. but in this case, specifically for chromium 6, the main sources of contamination is industrial pollution. micro processing. so it is because all of them

have been in many places and that's why you're finding it in tap water. host: is there potential a form of litigation for those that can draw a correct correlation of a cancer they may have to the water supply that they're drinking? guest: well, the only study where scientists have you been able to see a connection between chromium in water and rise in cancer rates is in fact in china for villages next to a chromium or processing facility. in the united states, of course, the famous erin brockovich case, scientists are still debating what is happening to the health of residents in the area. so we do not have in the united states a are specific correlation between chromium in water and here is a cancer case. we do know there may be a link. host: how do people found about the water in their particular community? guest: very often in the specific community, e.p.a. has

not tested or looked at we wouldn't know which is why the e.p.a. administer last week announced that e.p.a. will provide technical assistance to states and communities across the country to do this kind of in depth testing for chromium 6 so that we do get a full picture, whose water may be polluted. host: and you go to the environmental working group. we have a link through our website, c-span.org, and get information on the organization itself responsible for this study but also find out what the water is like in your particular community. howard is joining us from atlanta on our line for democrats. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, please. howard, you with us? caller: yes, i am. host: go ahead, please. caller: yeah, i'm sorry. water purification devices that you can purchase at wal-mart or target, will they help filter out that chemical that she's talking about right now?

guest: thank you for your question. when it comes to water purification, unfortunately, the simple inexpensive filters that many of us have -- i have one of those -- they will not fake chromium 6 out. to take it out, people need more expensive systems such as a water switch which will remove chromium 6. so many communities, the choice -- for utilities to try to remove it as a source. host: amy is joining us from alabama. good morning to you. our line for republicans. muscle shores, alabama. -- muss sell shores, alabama. caller: good morning. what about the bottle water, is there anything added to that kind of water? guest: it is a strong recommendation of the environmental working group that people very often going to bottle water is not a safe solution. for one, lots of bottle water,

do, of course, come from municipal water sources. so if people want to invest better in their health, get this more expensive home purification system, is probably more sound financial investment than buying bottled water. host: our conversation is with olga naidenko. she's with the environmental working group. and one conclusion is what is a proposed safe limit of so-called chromium 6? the average amount in your study found was.18. your recommendation is to bring it down to .6. guest: yes. in fact, this is not just our recommendations. this is based on very sound and detailed analysis by the state scientists of the state of california who proposed .06 as a level that would be safe. so this is their proposed public health goal for chromium 6 in drinking water. host: but explain in layman's terms in what it means in parts per billion, how much is in the water and just how dangerous is

it? i mean, how much water are we talking about, how many gallons? guest: absolutely. sometimes we say that one part per billion is like one part pancakes stacked very high. we are talking about small amounts which is important to consider that people say, who cares about small amounts and what the studies are showing is that chromium 6 is toxic at fairly small levels. that's why this low standard is proposed. host: and what is the role? you indicated lisa jackson, the head of the e.p.a. what can the government do when it comes from local communities? guest: there is a lot that the e.p.a. can do. there is a poll that has been under way at e.p.a. looking up standards for chromium 6 and lisa jackson in her speech last week, again, recommitted the

agency will go ahead and finish that process. so look at all science. and lisa jackson indicated that the new standard will be significant than the lower standards. host: good morning. welcome to "washington journal." caller: good morning. what i'm bringing up here is documented government putting in toxic waste into our drinking water for over 50 years now. i'm talking about a classified toxic substance that is a byproduct of the fertilizing manufacturing industry fluoride which is there are laws against dumping it in the ocean. it is a documented fact that fluoride was first used in the russian gulags and the nazi concentration camps because when hitler was experimenting with mind control drugs they found that fluoride reduces your i.q. on an average of 20

points and made the prisoners more docile and easier to handle. our government then after project paper clip brought over an estimated 500 to 1,500 nazis and put them into our intelligence and science agencies, started showing up in our drinking water across this country. host: i am going to stop you there. maybe offtopic. i'm not sure if our guest is able to answer that. guest: it doesn't -- our report is looking at chromium 6. i think the caller is right to point out that lr unresolved questions about what amounts of fluoride may be safe. there was a report by the national research council looking at this a few years ago. so the science on this question is still developing and that's what the environmental working group supports as new science comes in the need to evaluate

our old positions on such and such chemicals. host: talking about the e.p.a. should our water sources be federalized in order to make sure that our water is safe? that question is from our twitter page. guest: what is happening in the drinking water standards is the e.p.a. set up the standards because they have the resources to do the necessary finds. those standards are implemented by the states so the states and the local communities who do have control of their water, it's not at all an issue of if it is federalized. the goal of the e.p.a. in washington is to provide technical assistance and sound science to help us deal with this kind of risk to public health. host: rose is joining us, crestwood, illinois. good morning. caller: hi. guest: good morning. caller: our town buys our chicago drinking water from the town next to us and our officials, it was found out,

were using well water to save money so they were putting that in with the chicago drinking water and the well water had vinyl chloride in it. so we don't have a cancer, do we? just a comment. host: thank you, rose. guest: when it comes to vinyl chloride, it is a very problematic. it's a carcinogen. the good use is that for many of those contaminants we are looking at the issues of chromium exposure. fortunately the contaminants concentration would be so high that it is not an immediate problem. what our caller pointed out is that water supplies, water sources may be compromised because of long standing chemical pollution and it's really important for us altogether to start looking at

this issue seriously and to put extra emphasis on drinking water sources. host: our guest is olga naidenko, a scientist with the environmental working group which came out with a study earlier this month that said more than 30 communities around the country had higher levels of a cancer causing agent, a chemical that made famous in the book and movie from "erin brockovich." our next call is from texas city, texas, our republican line. good morning. caller: good morning. i was calling if this there is an upcoming event that is a concern, what can i as a citizen do to better my water with cooking or drinking or to notify the -- contact my city water organization or what can i do as a citizen to help the situation? host: and let me add to his question, a follow-up that is related, is this problem reversible?

guest: very tough and very important question. the first part, what can we as citizens do? i think this is something that is really important because we can all express our strong support for drinking water protection and for the things that the e.p.a. is doing to protect water. utilities are trying as hard as they can to provide safe water to their users, but often they're overwhelmed. the source of the problem from outside the power of the utilities? they do have a hard time. they need support. they need support locally. they need support coming from washington, and we as citizens can all help express the need for doing so. now, when it comes to individual decisions, what can i do as an individual do? unfortunately, if somebody wants to remedy the situation at their home they are looking at fairly expensive water

treatment systems which is doable. one can buy it easily. it's that we are looking at a high financial investment. host: and is it reversible? that's a question from monty on our twitter page. guest: it is very difficult and very expensive to deal with chemical contaminants once they do get into the source water. when the source water is coming into the water, the utility plant, the utilities can help take out chromium 6. so once it's out there in the water, we do have to clean the water coming from the plant so that users don't get chromium 6 tainted from the tap. host: and arcadia, florida, independent line. good morning. caller: good morning, steve. good morning,, miss naidenko. it sounds like to me -- hello.

host: we can hear you. caller: is sounds like our administration is totally compromised. the chromium 6 i believe was a heavy metal, it can be taken out by filter. however, the administration is pushing for the replacement and a lot of politicians are of the incandescent light bulb with the mercury vapor light bulb which contains mercury. can you imagine having your whole house replaced incandescent with the mercury light bulb which when they break they dispense mercury dust all over the house? i worked in the environmental field for a while, and normally something like that you would have a hazmat team come in and clean up. miss naidenko, can you please comment on the health hazards

of mercury and how the -- the effect it would von the environment if we allow this to continue? host: clyde, thank you. guest: thank you for your question. a little bit different from the focus of our report which looked at chromium 6 in drinking water. but our caller, who has a really important question, when we as a country, as a community go on to adopt various measures which seem like sound environmental measures, we do need to look at the full range of consequences and certainly when it comes to the issue of disposal of mercury contained light bulbs, it's an issue that has not been fully resolved yet and is coming up right now as some of the older bulbs are getting older and replacement becomes an issue. mercury is a known tocksicant. and it's something that we need to focus seriously. host: our focus is the safety

of drinking water. maybe it's a naturally occurring substance. guest: it is naturally occurring. so in some communities which have higher levels of chromium is the groundwater. some of it may be from natural sources. however, natural does not mean safe. arsenic is a natural chemical and we know that arsenic is a bad thing to have in the water. so on the one side, yes, it may be natural. on the other side, many affected communities and certainly the community which erin broke vitch plays, the source of contamination was very specifically from the facilities that discharged chromium 6. the electric facilities that was discharging chromium 6 into their drinking water. so for many communities across the country that have chromium 6, it is not from natural

sources. host: our next call is isaac joining fruss atlanta. good morning to you. caller: good morning. host: go ahead, isaac. we'll try one more time. if you're there, isaac. caller: ok. can you hear me? host: we sure can. go ahead, please. caller: i'd love to ask you a question about your report. does it talk about exposure rates to the workers who work on the municipal lines as well as people who work on lines externally like firefighters? host: let me remind you the website is ewg.org which is the environmental working group. olga naidenko. guest: very good question about the potential health facts for workers. what our report did was provide a snapshot in time and place when we went out and tested water. it was 35 cities across the country.

the follow-up testing that the e.p.a. administrator, lisa jackson, is looking at much wider across the country for all kinds of chromium 6 that will help us identify hot spots where chromium 6 may be found and it will also help us learn about the potential risks to workers who may be tackling this contaminated water supply. our report wasn't able to answer that for now. host: james is asking, though, this debate should at least discuss the cancer rate in hinkley, california, one of the communities that was mentioned in your study. guest: absolutely. as possibly our caller knows, scientists have been unable to as of now resolve the question of cancer rates in hinkley, california, and the brave specialists, the public health officials, are looking at the issue of cancer-causing chemicals. yes, they may or may not be in clusters, but when they look at toxicity we look at evidence from available studies.

.

reverse osmosis will take chromium 6 gauck. -- chromium six out. i live in washington d.c. and if there is chromium sixth in my water, the good news is that the levels of exposure is not by taking a single glass of water in the morning with my teeth. this is a situation where individuals do not necessarily need to worry unless they are in very high contamination communities. host: glenn is joining us from texas. caller: my question is -- and you may have answered it. but what is the source for

chromium 6? it does not seem like it would be a naturally occurring substance. is there a medical treatment, a key nation of therapy -- a chelation therapy to get rid of it? and third question, i was wondering if oxidation, changing the chromium makes it less harmful? guest: i will start with the third question first. most of the chromium that i have dealt with comes from metals processing as the contaminant. scientists do know that when people ingest chromium 6 it will

accumulate in various organs of the body. fortunately, for most people around the country it would not be a huge amount. however, scientists do not know of any way to remove chromium 6 from the body of a then how did naturally gets out over time. waterford -- a reverse osmosis is the only thing that would take chromium's expelled. finally, the caller did mention the very important issue of oxidation. a common and can exist in two forms. chromium 6 is the dangerous form. chromium 3 is actually an essential nutrient.

our body needs a for glucose metabolism. people with low acidity have less in their stomach, have less of an ability to deal with chromium 6 and sometimes less of the necessary chromium 3. host: when studying these dangerous levels, just how dangerous is it? guest: the community in which we found the highest level of chromium 6, this is norman, oklahoma. they have been known to have elevated levels of total chromium. the risks there would be somewhat higher than for me here in washington d.c. i do have chromium 6 in the water level, but not much higher than the proposed a safe level.

in most places where there is even more chromium 6 than what they found, the epa testing will help us answer that question. reverse osmosis may be a good option for those who are exposed right now. host: olga naidenko earned her back -- her doctorate in biology. patrick is joining us this morning. caller: good morning. i am a resident of staten island, new york. my water comes from pristine areas of upstate new york and i'm very concerned with this hydro flattening that is taking place in pennsylvania and 30 some odd states across the country. what i'm most concerned about is

why politicians, especially in pennsylvania, which of course is because halliburton provides jobs for these people, why they are not on top of the situation and what our media is not publicizing more the dangers of introducing benzene, etc. into the fracturing process. i understand the natural chemicals, how difficult it is to fight that. but this is something that the companies are introducing into our waters and no one is talking about it. thanks host: for putting that issue on the table. we will get a response from our guest. guest: definitely in the state of new york and the city of new york they are very fortunate in that they have invested a lot of resources into water protection.

that is something that other cities across the country would do well to emulate. the biggest concern -- i can say for me, as a toxicologist, is that the fluids are not disclosed to the communities and not disclosed to the health department. it is a whole makes, not just spending. -- is a whole mix, not just benzene. there was growing public attention to this issue. -- there is a growing public attention to this issue. host: jack is joining us on the independent line in tennessee. caller: karen burk of which was

in tennessee recently -- aaron brock of it should -- erin bro ckavich was in tennessee recently and i'm calling from chattanooga where we have massive pollution into the rivers. it seems like we have a huge campaign by public officials trying to sell their area as a tourist destination suppress this kind of information. are there any part of your study of around the country where you are hitting kirkwall's? -- hitting a brick walls? guest: she is bring attention

to water pollution in areas around the country. some companies may feel, look, we are meeting average standards and why should anyone complain. as new science in developing their finding contaminants previously thought save are not, in fact, safe. it is a jump in -- an adjustment that we all need to realize. host: another question from one of our viewers, sasha is saying, is there anything about the mountain top removal waste and its impact into the streams? guest: in the working group, we

searched through the water quality throughout the country. we have found that areas that suffer from high levels of pollutants have come from natural sources, but there pollutants -- but the pollutants, the levels in the water would be much higher. a lot of those chemicals do end up in our water supply. host: olga naidenko is a scientist with the environment to work in group. earlier this month they came out with a study looking at cancer causing agents in water supplies around the country. arsenio is joining us from winston-salem. good morning. caller: good morning. my question is, is there a safer water to purchase, or is that a safer method to boil it?

when does boiling it remove the contaminant? guest: a very good question. there are contaminants, for which water boiling is a safe choice. for chromium 6, waterboarding would not be able to eliminate it. -- water boiling would not be able to eliminate it. buying bottled water is extremely expensive if you're looking at a lifetime of buying bottled water. host: here are some of the figures from the study.

mark is the last call. louisville, kentucky, good morning. cann you hear me -- caller: you hear me? host: yes. caller: i've been told that louisville is one of the safest water supplies. i have been in other counties and the taste different. i know they bleach the water quite a bit. if it is heavy metal in the water she is talking about, she is talking about little shavings of little particles that are going to flow. leach will not take it out, right? guest: i presume when you are

talking about bleach your talking about water chlorination, which is essential to be sure that we do not end up with microbes and bacteria in our tap water. chlorination is very important. when they chlorinate, they may end up with new pollutants. for example, chlorination can convert the innocuous form of chromium, chromium 3 coming into the dangerous form, chromium 6. host: does your science or research indicate at what levels this is dangerous and what impact it has on those who live in these communities who are drinking is tap water? guest: our research is in alignment with research done by the state scientists of the state of california who proposed our safe levels of

chromium. however, this is an issue for chromium exposure. we did not find the case that it was a media -- it was immediate acute danger. host: our conversation with all good naidenko. she is a senior scientist with the working group -- the environmental working group. more information on the study available at ewg.org. from drinking water to the food supply. looking ateek we are doin federal policy toward the food supply. that is next. but first, a news update. >> in washington d.c. here are some of the headlines.

home prices are dropping in on nation's largest cities and are expected to falter next year with the worst declines coming in areas with high numbers of foreclosures. the twin city home price index, this is from the standard and poor's case schiller fell 1.3% in the month of the kemper. -- month of september. pakistani officials say third u.s. missile strike has hit the trouble area along the afghan border, killing nine -- tribal area along the afghan border, killing nine. the white house says president obama has kecoughtan had that and stop smoking. -- kicked the habit and stopped smoking. it has probably been about nine months, says white house spokesman robert gibbs. mr. gibbs said this is the

longest he has known the president to go without a cigarette. research shows that those who stop smoking for a least three months often do not to relapse. and an economist who became known as the architect of the regulation under the carter of administration has died at the age of 93. he chaired the now-defunct civil aeronautics board. scholars say his efforts to dismantle air travel as the domain of the lead and pave the way for low-cost airlines. deregulation also gave birth to the concept of airport hubs and frequent flyer miles and led to the creation of new airlines. some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> watch "book tv" all this week. tonight, closer prime -- pulitzer prize winner, isabel wilkerson.

and then at laura ingraham about her book "the obama diaries." "book tv" in prime time all this week on c-span2. >> you are watching c-span, a new politics and public affairs. every morning it is "washington journal" to continue with policymakers, politicians and journalists. when every weeknight, congressional hearings and policy forms. also, supreme court, oral arguments. on the weekend you can see our signature programs. on saturdays, of an " the communicator's" and on sundays q&a and prime minister's questions. it is all searchable on our c-

span video library. c-span, washington your way to my public service crater by america's cable companies. "washington journal" continues. host: all this week on c-span we are focusing on federal and state policy affecting america's food supply. if we began by looking at food safety legislation. today we want to look at issues facing farmers. then a sustainable food on wednesday and on thursday with a childhood nutrition legislation. then we will conclude on friday with regulations surrounding organic food. we're joined with chancellor kohl -- we are joined by chandler goule. what is a family farm? guest: the actual definition of a family farm varies from person

to person. giving you an exact number would be difficult. but there has been a steady decline in the last 40 years of just farmers and ranchers in general. with that, the first of the group to go are usually family farms. host: and corporate farms, made famous by archer-daniels midland, what impact they have on the price that we pay at the grocery store? guest: larger corporate farms, like the ones that you mentioned, and produce food in bulk and keep prices low for consumers. unfortunately, they have decreased competition as they continued -- continue to consolidate. these farms get larger and larger and make it more difficult for our independent family farmers to stay in business. you either get bigger or get out. host: i will put some numbers on the table to set up our discussion. from farm aid, there are 5

million fewer farms in the u.s. than in the 1930's. put this in perspective. guest: basically, you do is put the numbers to what i have said over the last 40 years. forms are getting bigger. the family farms are going out -- farmers are getting bigger. of family farms are going out of business. the father and son or the two sons raising cattle or corn or whatever has become a thing of the past and you have literally staffs that are producing in raising the food for these large

corporations. host: we are dividing our phone lines regionally depending on where you are living according to time zones. if we do have a line set aside for you who are in the farm business, either a family farm or a corporate farm, or have a family member who worked in the farming industry. the numbers are on the screen. $12.5 billion in 2009 paid out by the u.s. to permit of agriculture in farm aid. where did that money go? guest: a lot of it went up to disaster payments or counter cyclical payments due to commodities. some of it went to a dairy program. but most of it goes to corporate farms. larger firms have more loss, and therefore get more money than

the independent farms. host: can an independent farm make a profit? guest: in today's economy, it is getting harder and harder for family farms, due to increasing competition. again, get big or get out. it is becoming more difficult these days. host: and what about insurance that you pay on the family farm? you have all of the equipment and all of the chemicals that could be cancer causing agents to the people who spread the material. guest: there are so many costs that the farmers have to endure. health insurance, which is the reason most farmers are self insured, and like you said, you have to ensure your tractors, your barnes. you have your disaster payments. the average, as $250,000 p.c.the

days. host: who are the insurers? guest: card bill is one of the big ones. -- cargill is one of the big ones. and of course, you have tysons, j b s, as your life -- a large packing companies. host: and even though we have fewer farms than in the 30's and 40's, there is certainly no shortage of food in this country. guest: there is certainly not because we import more and more food each year. we import a parks on the 15% of our food. host: why does the usda, our tax payer dollars, still subsidize farmers? guest: because farming is

unpredictable. you and i may have a job and guarantee that the electricity will come on, but i cannot guarantee the sun is going to come out in a certain way or that there will not be hail or ice or something like that. there needs to be somebody to help underwrite the risks associated with food production. host: we are joined by martin in dayton, ohio. caller: i am not a farmer, but i do live in a state who has quite a bit of agriculture. when i drive around farm roads all you see is basically two crops, basically soybean and corn. one goes to processing and the other goes to a feeding cows. if you go back to nixon and his agriculture secretary, it may

have been a guy named butz and i think he did a good job of getting us to this point. we are subsidizing the wrong things. it is very unhealthy because what we subsidize his corn, which goes to a feeding cattle, which goes to burgers, and soybeans, which go to processed foods. we are basically feeding into our health problems. i think butz did such a good job of getting us to where we can have all of this junk food, you know, this and the calorie diet food that can feed this large population fiorina -- the empty- calorie type food that can feed this large population. guest: we do grow a lot of corn. if you look back 30, 40 years

ago you would see a more diversified farms. you have a little corn, a little soy, and you would probably raise oats for horses and hey, for cattle production. if you are seeing farms become more specialized where there is one particular crop. debose also have to do with the farm bill -- that does also have to do with the farm bill. there's more specialization in the farms these days and that is just a sign of what it takes to survive. host: here is a comment from twitter. guest: companies like monsanto do both. you have to pay for the biotech treat because they are patented and that makes production more expensive. that makes it difficult for the

family farmer who has less money to operate on. however, when you dis -- a decrease pesticides due to biotechnology, that is a benefit for the environment and your water supply and things like that. it is a double-edged sword. host: next call from california. caller: i think there is a big error in the accounts of family farmers because what the large conglomerates farmers are doing is by get these small farmers of they can get the subsidy from the government -- so they can get the subsidy from the government. they let the family farmers run the farm, but they actually own it and therefore, are getting

the subsidy. holding is going down the toilet. guest: you did point something out. i mentioned to these larger farms and having a staff. sometimes that is the data and two brothers. technically, you would not say that is a family farm. when it comes to the subsidies that are going in that direction, of course, the larger you are, the more subsidies that you get. some of these larger the subsidies are because of the farms that have bought out the smaller entities. host: you can get more information at fu.org. next call is from ohio.

caller: a process my own food. the basics that we get at the grocery are just paper products. our family has had our own farm four years from kentucky to ohio and we do everything. we can, we freeze. we do not have to get food from china or these other foreign countries. we can produce our own. host: the doors, what do produce -- doris, what do you produce or grow? and she is gone. guest: she lives the way we did exactly -- exactly the way we did 30 years ago where we did produce our own. unfortunately, the average american is six generations away from the farm. host: next call from tom.

if you are on the air. -- you are on the air. caller: i just sold the corporation that i have by far under and a lot of people do that because of liability. host: explain how are your foreign works. and if you want to share with us, the corporation that owns it, and your interaction, how you grow and other issues with your crops in general. caller: i have a corporation that owns land and then i have a corporation that forms land. -- farms land. basically, the only worker on it. it used to be my dad and me and my brother. it is down to me and my boy. we have about 150 acres and

about 150 cows. we are not really big. i see this regulation coming down from government. you know, one of the clean air act says we cannot have just leave the farm. you cannot help that when you are, -- when you are operating your,. -- combine. as you say, we are sixth generations from the farm -- we are six generations from the farm and the people making their roles are six generations from the farms and they do not understand how these rules work. i wish they would do away with the government payments. host: thank you for your call. but what about his point?

guest: tom makes some very good point. and when we look at the insurance, which is again, the risk-management tool the government provides. as he mentioned, he had about 150 acres and 150 cattle. there is concerned about some of the regulations coming down. does particular matter is, an issue that we continue to work on -- and dust particulate matter is something that we continue to work on. that is why it is important to continue to participate in these regulations as the comments come out. as the gentleman mentioned, when you combine, you cannot help but get dust in the air. host: our guest is a graduate of

texas ann m. -- texas a&m university. bush is joining us from indiana. -- bush is joining us from indiana. caller: here in southern indiana we are part of the appellation for a spirit and the appalachian he appellatio forest and the government has given us help with soybeans and cows. we are taking a commodity and getting rid of it. in fact, one of my friends who

farms about 5,000 acres of other people's land said he had to quit because he did not know what he was going to get for his corn. but if you are in a production situation where you have to depend on what you are going to get from someone else, you are in trouble. now he has a used car business. and it was a change for making money. but back to the trees, it is just like growing gold. we cut the trees down and we'd grow soybeans. i just do not think it is proper use of the land and i hear other people talking about misapplication of government influence in farming. host: thank you for the call. mr. goule? guest: just like the gentleman mentioned, you do not know

exactly what you are going to get for your crops, which is why farming is such a risky business. farmers in general to not want to receive government assistance. if the price covers production costs, that is what farmers want to do. they want the market and the trading market to make up the cost. they do not want government payments. unfortunately, we do not have full control over that. you do not know what the market is going to be this year to next year to the hereafter. that goes back to that risk that he was mentioning. to go back to the trees, there are several programs that actually conserve trees and actually will allow producers to leave trees on their properties, or leave them to be buffers. there are ways other than simply clearing them off to produce commodities to save them, through conservation programs. host: family farms are being

lost to property taxes. true or false? guest: i am not an expert on that subject. taxes will vary state by state depending on whether you have a state income tax and whether use that for education in your state. when we raise any type of tax it hit small independent from -- family farmers harder. host: end of this, and from montana. guest: the state taxes something that we have been discussing for 20 years. basically in the last round of tax cut in 2001 and 2003, it continued to raise the exemption level for the estate tax and decrease the amount -- or the value that your party would be taxed at.

starting january 1, the estate tax was going to go back to a 55% rate, i believe. it might have been 45%. which is already low, when you look at it. with the new estate tax bill that was just passed, that will definitely help farmers and ranchers. that exemption level. host: michael is joining us in florida with chancellor goule. -- chandler goule. caller: good morning. i'm asking about a scientific issue for monsanto and their production of see pollen -- seed pollen that affects other crops in the general area, if you know i mean. and i should say, their monopoly on the production of seed.

would you comment? guest: monsanto, as you know, had to sell some of the companies that it has purchased over the last 10 years due to some antitrust violations that came up during how much cotton treats that they actually own. the doj did some investigations in losses in those particular instances to make sure they do not control too much of the market. when you are doing biotech products on one side of the room and not on the other, that is an issue that the national farmer'' association takes very seriously. you will find under our gtmgmo policy, we take it very seriously. if i do not want gmo products,

there needs to be some sort of fire wall that for? the producer that is not with gmo's. it is a big issue that we continue to look at. host: do you think farmers will take a cut in their subsidies to balance the budget? guest: they have already taken 8 $6 billion cut. as the budget comes up for the next congress, the usda already cut insurance by $6 billion. if we go across every jurisdiction that is represented by these committees on the house and senate side, and they each take a $6 billion cut, then the agriculture will get back in line. but we have already taken a hit this year. host: our topic is issues facing family farms. eric is joining us. good morning to you. caller: good morning. three points, one is, corporate farms pretty much do have a

monopoly -- adm's, monsanto. by the pri -- protection of certain corn that they bioengineered -- by the production of certain corn that they bioengineered, like corn, they have control. it is fine to heart -- it is hard to find a safe seat. we go with the market. unfortunately, it is hard to compete with adl. they bought more land that they got from farmers that they put the squeeze on and they sold it cheaper. we need fair trade, not just free trade.

what we produce in this country, no matter how is produced, union or nonunion, gets the same level playing field as some other country and let's get rid of all of these subsidies across the board. host: let's get a comment. guest: we have a michigan farmers union division and the things that you have outlined, it sounds like you should be a member. if you would go to our website, you can find out. but just like you said, farm prices or land prices declined for commodity prices declined and that is when the corporate farms come in and buy the family farm. it hit them harder because they have less cash flow. you just describe the situation occurring in all 50 states and white farms are getting bigger and why we are seeing -- why

farmers are getting bigger and why we are seeing some fewer family farms. if we are going to sign trade agreements with countries, we need to make sure that just because they allow us market access that they have the economics and money behind it to purchase our products. we completely agree with you that we need to look at our trade policy here in the united states and go with fair trade, not free trade. host: next call from illinois goule.andler pool how are you? caller: i am still alive, still breathing. host: well that is good. caller: here in illinois, people who inherit the family farm are supposed to sell to big business.

it has transformed into more of a big housing subdivision for soybean and other crops, corn, and other vegetables. is there a way that the national farmers union can possibly solve this problem? host: thank you, fernandez. we had a little bit of an echo, but hopefully we got the essence of your question. guest: yes, basically, you have brought up urban sprawl, which drives up land prices to where once the first or second generation family that was on the land and use it as their income has passed on, the children or grandchildren -- as i mentioned, the average american is six generations away from farm production.

as they move out, the land becomes extremely valuable and they are selling it off for subdivisions. rent and land prices is a huge concern that the national farmers union continues to work on to try to produce the barriers. if the price of your land is so expensive that you cannot even rent it, that is a problem. as we mentioned earlier in the program, the average age of the farmer is 45 to 65 years old. you are not seeing 25 to 35 year-old farmers anymore because it is too expensive to get into the industry. host: we have one farmer who said over a tweet -- guest: that is a typical comment that your view were just mentioned. i will agree, they chose or their children chose to sell the land. that is a little different than the issue of where we are out

where land prices increases are not due to urban sprawl, but because of low market prices, where a farmer has had to three years of bad market prices and they are bought out by a corporation. that is a different issue. host: only 6% of all farmers today are under the age of 35. nancy, go ahead, please. caller: a couple of years ago i saw a documentary with a group of people called king korn, and it took place in a row -- in iowa and our live with miles and

miles of corn and howard was being subsidized by our government. i came away wondering, why are we not subsidizing organic farmers? picking corn sarah been -- the king corn zeroed in on the corn production in our country. by your people say? -- i hear people say that we are adis because we do not exercise. no, it is because there is corn syrup in everything. there is an author who wrote a book about how soil is not good for us. soy isre we not -- how sorr not good for us. why are we not dealing with organic foods? host: i will point out that we are dealing with the organic

food later in the week, but i will give you a chance to respond. guest: when i was working with the agriculture community in 2008, it came out for the first time -- and it was called horticulture, but that is predominantly where uc jürgen a community working. for the first time they were included -- where you see the organic community working. for the first time they were included in that bill. we did have the market access program, and of course, beginning farmers, and drexel to farmers' markets and things like that for the -- a direct gisele to farmers' markets and things like that for the horticulture committee. in the next farm bill, you will see more and more movement toward fruits and vegetables and making those more sustainable a crop to produce similar to the way we produce corn and soybean. we are going that direction,

just not as quickly as you would probably like custer. host: it is next -- like us to. host: ed is next. good morning, ed. caller: what they have done by the subsidies, they favor political communities like the farmers' union. they are damaging my ability to have products and toys. i would rather pay less money for a reporter from overseas, or at least the least expensive high-quality producer. why do we have these lobbies destroying consumer rights over in washington? guest: i think that is a very good question. and consumers have a lot of options when you go to the grocery store. a particular piece of legislation that was backed by

the farmers union very heavily was the labeling of the country of origin. you have the opportunity to look at a product and say, do you want to buy a product that has been imported from china or from three or four countries. the when you go in, more and more of these programs where we put information out is usually because of consumer demand. host: susan is following up on anti- from toledo earlier saying that the caller -- following up on nancy from toledo earlier, saying that the caller had excellent points that were not addressed. guest: i will be very honest, i am not a specialist that can answer that type of question. i will have to go back to what i

learned in high school and college and basically say that, a balanced diet with proper exercise is what we need. but to say that is one specific commodity or processed food, i do not think i'm the expert to determine that. host: and we will also deal with the issue of childhood nutrition and obesity issues among american children later this week. let's go to madison, florida. good morning to you. caller: many farmers are forming the government rather than forming production from the land. everything is based on what the government will pay. on the rotation program, we have farmers that get money from the government to do rotational grazing. as soon as inspections are done, things are left wide open and rotational grazing is a thing of the past. i think we need to go back to production from the land, not

production from the government. guest: you do bring up a very good point. in every industry there is always a bad actor. whether you are talking about industry or lawyers or farming, there are always bad actors in every industry. i would say 90% of farmers produce because it is what they loved -- 98% of farmers produce because it is what they love. it just takes one bad apple to spoil the whole -- the whole carta. that is what gets the media attention. i would say the large majority, above 95% of farmers, are not in that category. host: in this post 9/11 era, the issue of terrorism is prevalent in every aspect of society. what about in the food supply? guest: i hate to say it on

television, but our food supply is very vulnerable. along with our water supply. if i believe the guess you had on before me was talking about our drinking water. -- i believe the guest of you had on here before me was talking about our drinking water. that is something that we need to make sure dhs, usda, and the fda continued to look at to be sure that we have a secure food supply for americans. host: kurt is joining us from -- from vermont, illinois. where is that, by the way? caller: it is about 25 miles southeast of a town called mccomb, where western illinois university is located. it is a big farming area. i was a bit disappointed that your guest has, let three or four lefties come on the program

and rail against the antichrist of the large growing corporation and how they are all making us wait 400 pounds and is not because we do not get up and go to work and exercise or watch our calories. he also failed to mention when somebody came on and said something like corn is only used for feeding cows and soybeans are only used for -- i can remember. the guy said one use. there is a list a mile long of products and things created and produced using corn and soybeans. one thing you do not often hear, but it is true, when you walk into a giant supermarket, you can look around and from the lights over your head to the floor under your feet, 75% of

everything you can see is made from using corn. the thing that your guest is riding upon right now is made from corn. -- riding upon right now is made from corn. -- writing upon. gasoline contains about 10% ethanol. soybeans are used to produce rubber and some type of rubber by product. the reason decatur, ill. it was known as soy city, illinois was the back during world war ii when we could not get rubber out of africa, there was a call for farmers to switch from growing whatever they were growing at the time to soybeans. and they got the name soy city.

and your guest should have a little card that he carries around in his wallet that are made -- that they the card in his wallet that is a list of all the things that are made from corn and soybeans and just start rattling them off. host: thank you for your description of where you live in illinois. we will get a response. guest: i apologize if i did not give as good a description as you would like. corn and soybean are good products. national farmers union is a huge supporter of renewable fuel. the corn used in biodiesel and ethanol, like you mentioned, we have been huge supporters of. they are making diapers and shirts are of corn now. -- out of cornell. the other callers specifically asked about high fructose corn syrup. but there are good uses.

it is not just used for feed or consumption. there are some very good products. i agree with you. host: nancy, from sebring, florida. caller: my question is about the florida cowhide hunters. i write about their heritage. aside from the disappearing cattle farm here in america, it is also the disappearance of a culture. there is a widening between those who make the rules and those who have no knowledge of the industry. i asked one of the small family farmers and he was saying with the foreign imports there is not enough regulation, even at the port. the when you bring in need from other countries, we do not know what their source of food is.

we do not know what regulation is the usda has on importation of foreign products. and here in florida, aside the -- aside from the disappearing cattle farmers like we had 200 years ago, establishing the first branches and the cattle industry, -- but the other thing is, with the depression of the housing market, if they could because of county regulation, they would probably take the whole thing. guest: that is a very good point. my granddad was a county agent, born 1909, i believe. something like that. my grandparents slaughter of their own beef and had their own course restore and their own port and eggs. -- there ona a grocery store and

their own pork and eggs. this country was built on the back of agriculture and to see this go way is something that we need to make sure that we capture in our history books and try to preserve as much as possible. in regard to your comments on imports, there is a significant difference between usda and the fda when it comes to imports. usda has very specific rules and regulations for imported meat. any country that imports a meat product into the united states has to have what is called equivalent standards. it means, it is not exact, but the end result has to be the same of what our regulations do here in the united states. each year, the food safety inspection service goes to countries to import into the u.s. to verify that their food safety -- food safety systems safety -- food safety systems are equivalent to