you threw out a lot of akron's. guest: whether or not all law was designed to force all of us into a certain, large data base, if you will, and then enable the government to invade our finances for our lives in ways that we would not like. clearly, the way the law sets forth the path for health insurance regulation over the next several years, it is true that the federal government would have been increasing involvement in determining what insurance coverage we can get and how we apply it. they would need to know a fair amount about us in order to

facilitate some of the arrangements or mechanisms they are putting into place. i do not attribute that to and the malicious intent. it is just a national -- a natural way in the way you set up a regulatory mechanism. i don't want to see the federal government set up expensive bureaucracies to collect all of that data and then -- they will make decisions presumably that are based on data and information. i give them credit for that, but they are going to be making decisions of that americans would rather make for themselves. at the very least, a significant majority of americans would rather make those decisions for themselves. that is a fundamental issue. do you want to be able to work

with your doctors and others who care for you, to do the things you think would be best for you in your family, or do you want the federal government to step in and say sorry, we cannot afford that? it requires a level of responsibility on the part of americans. that is what we have always done. we take responsibility for ourselves and we make decisions within our own lives. that is the way you use precious resources as sensibly as possible. we need jobs. we need opportunity. we need to dedicate our dollars to growing all the aspects of the american potential that we can. we would like to see various industries thrive and the money for innovation in energy, manufacturing, and the services we provide. if we are spending so many of

our dollars on our health care because of the fact that we do not have a direct say in how we are paying for the care, that is the problem. host: rep nan hayworthof new of new york. you never contributed to a campaign or had a political sign on your front lawn. >> i had contributed to john mccain of's campaign, a modest sum, but that was the first time. i have always been a very engaged voter and a registered republican since i was 18 years old. i have always had a passion for these issues. it was the super majority election that inspired me, and so many others, to get involved because there is something precious and unique and an

eminently worth saving about the american character. host: what to do due as a republican at 18? guest: by and the daughter of an immigrant. my mother was in the british army. not in a combat role. obviously, a patriotic young woman. although she had grown up with not many resources, she is the most charitable woman he will ever meet. she believed in individual responsibility. wind nationalized health care was instituted in england, that was the last straw for her. she felt her opportunities would be a vastly better in the united states, so she crossed the atlantic ocean on her own. they raised me to cherishe fact that my birth as an

american. this is the most extreme -- i do believe in american sectionalism for opportunity, for raising humanity from poverty to prosperity with the regularity that is unprecedented. it is not by accident. it is because we are free to do what we think is best. that has exactly what to do with what the constitution sets forth with limited government. i do not question my colleagues who voted for the affordable care act, but i resent this mechanism which confers too much power to the federal government, which is unfortunately not in line with the kinds of forces of human nature that make us -- that make unwise decisions that

affect others in ways that we do not want. host: congresswoman, we are out of time. come back again and talk to our viewers. coming up next, we are going to turn our attention -- excuse me, and about a half hour, we are going to turn our attention to the visit of chinese president hu jintao. coming up next, a democrat of illinois will be our guest. >> secretary of state hillary clinton on cbs says she has high expectations for this week's talks with chinese president hu jintao, saying they must build a stronger foundation of trust despite their differences. she calls today's talks a continuation of to use of the obama administration's efforts to build a positive,

cooperative, and comprehensive relationship with china. you could watch the news conference live at about 1:00 p.m. eastern time on c-span2 television. meanwhile, u.s. officials say president obama is going to announce a deal today to step up cooperation with china on nuclear security. it is to be signed during the chinese president's visit this week. it would establish a jointly financed nuclear security center in china. turning to congress, republican representative bob daryl ices says the foreclosure crisis and a tarp will be the subject of his first hearing. both the overseer and treasury secretary tim geithner have been invited to appear. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> c-span networks.

we provide coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books, and american history. it is all available to you on television, radio, on line, and on social networking sites. we take c-span on the road with our digital bus and local contect vehicle. created by cable, provided as a public service. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are back and will continue our discussion with health care with a representative from illinois. we will begin with health care and talk about the debate. republicans cannot with their own report, saying that kellogg will cause companies to not hire new employees because they fear their health-care costs will be too high, creating a loss of

thousands of jobs double damage the economy. what is your response? guest: the bill is very friendly to small business, in particular, in giving a large number of tax breaks that allow them to be able to afford health insurance for their employees. the current system is really the one that is employer-unfriendly. i had a press conference yesterday, and a businessman with 15 employees said his insurance goes up double digits every year because he has one employee that is 62 years old with a pre-existing condition. they cannot change health insurance policies because otherwise he would not be employed. what they also find is that it is unfair in some ways to all of the other employees. they understand because they want this person to stay

employed. now we have situations where employers have to look at a potential hire and sink about if they can afford them because they may have a pre-existing condition. host: what about larger employers, the big companies? what confidence do you have? what is the counter argument to republicans saying that 650,000 jobs will be lost? guest: if you look at the increase in employment, it is really in the health sector. this is a burgeoning industry right now because we are going to be adding 32 million people to be able to be injured right now. that is rolling in even as we speak. there are so many benefits right now. more people will be able to get

health care. large employers right now can keep the policies that they have. it is not going to change. what does happen is if a person is on affordable, they can go into a health exchange in 2014. this is helpful to employers because there will be a fallback position for employees to go into a health exchange, all private insurance. i heard my new colleagues who was just on the show, saying there is less freedom with this new plant. actually, it frees people up from the demands of the insurance industry that makes decisions on who to insure, how much to charge them, what benefits are going to be covered. that applies to employers as well as private insurance companies. host: a lot of back-and-forth about how much is going to cost.

the budget chairman paul ryan was on the floor yesterday talking about the costs. this is what he had to say. >> this health-care lot is left in place will accelerate our country's a path toward bankruptcy. this health-care law will do as the president's own chief actuary will do which will increase health care costs. we are also ready seeing premiums go up across the board and he read from thousand employers from across the country talking about dropping their health insurance. we are already hearing from the lack of choices that consumers will get as this new law is put into place. this new law is a fiscal house of cards, and it is a health- care house of cards. it does not make our system better. i would argue that it makes our system weaker.

we cannot repeal the system without a trillion dollars in tax increases. we believe in this. let's have health care reform put the patient in charge, not the government in charge. host: your reaction? guest: he is wrong on many fronts. the congressional budget office would be the standard. we would all agree with this nonpartisan analyst so that repealing the health care bill will cost $230 billion over the next 10 years and $1.40 trillion over the next 20 years. this whole idea of somehow putting government in charge, we have to get rid of that notion. but right now, the insurance industry is in charge, and so many people are left out because insurance companies decide.

they can cancel your insurance. the new bill says they cannot do that anymore. if you have a child with a brain tumor or diabetes, the health insurance companies can say now we are not going to insure that child because it is too expensive. a 24-year-old who has a job but does not have health insurance can now stay on his parents policies. seniors who cannot afford their drugs, right now, are going to be able to get help under this new bill. that is why the apggrf poll says that 62% of americans actually support the health care reform as is or want it expanded. only one in four support

repealing health-care reform entirely. many of the people who oppose the bill thinks it does not go far enough. we are the only country in the world where our citizens and our people deserve to have health care. i would venture to say that there is no one in america who would say that if someone gets in a car accident, we don't treat those people like road kill with our list of their insurance. we take them to the hospital. if they are uninsured, guess who pays for it? we pay for it. it increases our health care costs every year. premium payers will see the cost added to their bill, at least $1,000 a year. host: a new poll shows 46% of those surveyed do want it repealed and only 40% want the law to stand. guest: there is a number of

different polls, but if you ask people about the specifics of the legislation, people support most of the specifics that are provided by the bill. many people would agree, and a thing democrats would agree, fine, if you do not like this provision, why don't we sit down as a congress and go through the bill and decide how to make it better? host: what areas do you see that both sides could compromise on? guest: a provision for businesses i think everyone across the board would think it is a burdensome for businesses that we should repeal. we have not had that conversation. they do not want to have that conversation. our chairman of the energy and commerce committee has said that repeal can happen now but it could take a long time for

the improvements to be made that americans all want. of all the rich countries in the world, we have more preventable deaths in the united states of america. mitch told the story of her daughter in law who died because she had a pre-existing condition. do you know what it was? pregnancy. she had another child. this is not uncommon, where health insurance policies -- a prior pregnancy is considered a pre-existing condition. but the time they mobilized the health care they needed, the child died. this is wrong in the united states of america. caller: good morning and thank you for c-span. i get a little nervous when i

get through, but if you give me a second to get my point through. first of all, i am in favor of health insurance for everyone. i just lost my insurance back in november. i could not afford the $16,000 a year i was paying for cobra, and i am not eligible for medicare until the month of may. my point is, -- i don't think they should repeal this bill. i think they should reform it just like the rep was saying. i totally agree, and i am a republican. when you look at the fraud that is involved, i know that my prescriptions are very expensive, but i also know even if there was only a half-dozen people seco to doctors and get

prescriptions and sell them on ,he streets, which i don't do but if you took just those people alone and their doctors that more or less given to them because at medicare pays for all of it, even if you had 2 million people frauding dthe government and the insurance companies out of $10 million a year, the savings would be astronomical. guest: i appreciate your comment. i wish you good luck and would just point out that medicare will certainly help. i wish you the best until may when you will be able to get the advantages of the medicare program. one of the things that we did in the legislation was really beefed up the fraud and abuse detection to take out the money

that is wasted. i have to tell you that a lot of that unfortunately is in the provider sector where various providers will charge medicare or medicaid for more money that is actually spent. that is more fraud than individuals. and that is a terrible situation, when people go out and sell their drugs. there are people right now who cannot afford their medication or divide it in half, a prescription drug shared among the elderly, which can lead to serious diseases which put people in hospitals and cost the government and you even more. host: meant as, tenn., a democrat. caller: good morning. i think it is important that we refer to this as a lot and not a

bill. i want to say to the representative, i appreciate c- span. this is a lot. -- a law. of the republican representatives kept saying we like this. if this were repealed, it might take us another 100 years to get the parts that all americans like passed again. it can be modified. guest: you make an excellent point. it is one thing to have a debate in congress about daa bill, but now we are at the point where people are taking away things that people already have. do we really want to do this to children, to seniors, to small businesses? take away the benefits they have right now under this law? thank you for tha tpoint.

host: and the reality is that they are not going to -- this is not going to be repealed. republicans will then in the house go to the committee level and try to go after the new law piece by piece. what are you expecting from the committee? guest: we will see, first of all, about the attitude of the vote on it repealed. if they are hearing from their constituents about that vote. i actually believe that a vote is not going to end up being a positive. i don't know if that is going to be in the long run or in the short term. yes, i think there will be section by section repeals. there may be some that we agree. my hope is that if it repeal passes in the house, and it goes

nowhere, which can actually have that conversation that has been postponed about ways to improve the legislation. that is a possibility. host: it was said that republicans like to open up insurance across state lines, expand health savings accounts, and have a marketplace model for pricing. are you open to those three things? iqbal guest: the marketplace model has been the model. what we are seeing is an insurance companies gouging consumers. i really challenge anyone out there to call and say the rate increases have been reasonable. finally, we have the situation under this bill which says 80 cents of every dollar now has to be spent on insuring health care, not ceo profits or management and overhead and

bonuses to the executives. other kinds of solutions they are providing, again, put insurance companies in the driver's seat. we have seen what happens with that. this bill controls that. it is to private insurance. a consummate money, but we have set some rules of the road -- we have set some rules of the road. host: think for waiting. you are on the air. caller: i have about four questions to ask you. host: we are going to have you -- we are going to have to have you pick one or two. caller: ok, i will pick two. i will pick two questions. first, on health care reform. they started back in the bush era.

host: could you quickly get to your questions? caller: i think they ought to leave the bill like it is. i am a republican and and on social security. me and my wife both. we both draw together $1,500 a month. since they have stopped the rays on disability, we have not gotten a raise in three years. but, i have to make house payments, and my health is bad. i had three ct scans in the last four months and that cost me $3,000 apiece. host: what is your question? caller: why do they not quit arguing in washington and get together and go through this plan to get it worked out so that the public can see what is going on? host: congresswoman?

guest: i completely agree with you. also fear -- first of all, i agree with you that the lack an increase in social security has been a real burden on older americans. i think that is a problem. i also fear that we are going to seek from the republicans that social security and medicare get cut even further. we are going to have to mobilize to make sure that does not happen, because what we are seeing is the disappearing middle class in this country, and poor people are really being hurt. healthcare, number one, is i think the problem that is driving personal bankruptcies and premature deaths in this country. you are right. up what i am hoping is that we sit down, work it out, and come up with improvements. host: mantis, tennessee, good

morning. caller " yes. caller: yes. i want to make a comment. they do take your insurance away from you when you get sick. i have cancer. i pay for my employer -- i pay his company for 12 years to 13 years, and the minute i got sick with his cancer, they paid up until about nine or 10 months, and then after that, they cut me off it would not give me a reason why. i thank god i was 66 years old and was able to get bond medicare and medicaid and social

security. host: what is your reaction? guest: first of all, i wish him well, but this is the united states of america. you must have been thinking about that. how could this happen? like a person like you, someone who has worked hard and stayed with your employer, now is left to fend for yourself without health care coverage? maybe not even being able to pay for it. i ran into a number of people that no matter what they do cannot afford health care that they need. that is why we need this legislation. host: another vote is coming up, whether or not to raise the debt ceiling. in the wall street journal today --

guest: i am shocked that he would propose something like that. i would question -- he writes it in the wall street journal, whether the market with think that is a good idea to start fooling around with full faith and credit of the united states of america. the debt ceiling has been raised under every president without

fooling around with that. it is another matter to talk about how to deal with the deficit or the long-term debt. frankly, i think that the president should not and the congress should not be held hostage to arguments like that, but that he should do the responsible thing, the adult thing to do. most republicans i think would agree on that. then we should look at the question of the debt. moscow is the accurate that he -- host: is the data accurate? guest: the idea that we should leave all other expenditures -- what is he saying, that we should stop with any kind of building of roads or providing job training or medical research? everything should be stopped, all other spending should be stopped? that is not responsible either.

i have no idea if his numbers are accurate. host: another piece in the wall street journal, an op ed piece about what congress should cut -- ending farm subsidies were produced $290 billion. cutting spending would save $90 billion. and in urban mass transit grants would save about $52 billion. guest: a number of these i would be willing to look at, some of the subsidies, and i did in my own proposal how to reduce that debt, but that is one problem that we have to deal with. the other problem we have to deal with is this disappearing

middle-class, the growing disparity between the super rich and the rest of america. this exacerbates it. if you start cutting programs that help middle-class people like housing and urban development, then i think we are going to make the problem worse and a further erosion of middle income people. we have seen a massive transfer of wealth to the top 1% who control the top 30% of the walls of this country. -- of the wealth of this country. this gap is a danger to our democracy as a well -- as well as our economy. host: an independent, you are on the air. caller: on the health bill, i wish in those 2500 pages someone

would go through it and explain it so i could understand it because i cannot read it myself and understand what is in there. no. 2, january 1 of 2010, my son who was 22 at the time was also disabled, was cut from bluecross of new jersey because i guess they did not want to wait until september when they could not do it. also, in the middle of a contract year, bluecross raise my rate 60%. on the second area, talking about businesses who are winding and crying, i was self employed until 2001 when i got sick and was forced to leave my business. tax rates were higher than.

i paid for all of my insurance for my employees because i thought that was the right thing to do. people do not seem to have a moral conscience today, to do the right thing for your employees. i think it all came back to me. they make such a big deal about this. it is not going to stop me from hiring people if i need people. host: we have to leave it there. if we could get a quick reply from you, we are expecting surely the arrival of president hu jintao to the white house. guest: the age qualifies him and i believe because of the pre- existing condition that he can no longer be denied. check that out. but i agree with your statement, that this is really a moral issue. in the united states of america, no one should go bankrupt or

have to die because they do not have access to health care. thank you. host: congresswoman, sent to some much for being here -- sent you for being here. we expect momentarily at the white house the arrival of chinese president hu jintao. you can see there on your screen that vice-president joe biden, secretary of state hillary clinton, and defense secretary robert gates are all waiting for the chinese president to arrive. he was elected or became the ruler in china in 2002. he is expected to serve for two more years. the president and hu jintao have met seven times over the last two years. this is their eighth visit. they will have the official arrival at the white house today. then on the south lawn. then there will be bilateral meetings, a joint news conference as well around 1:00

p.m. eastern time today. there will be four questions allowed. allowed. that is it, for the president of china and for president barack obama. at 2:00 p.m., they will go over to the state department where vice-president joe biden will be hosting a lunch for the president. after that, around 5:30 p.m. today, you will start to see at the white house the arrival of guests for the state dinner. the last time there was a state dinner for a tennis president was 13 years ago under president clinton. at around 5:30, that will get under way. after that, you will see remarks by the president barack obama and you will see the first lady as well greeting the chinese president parade around

8:00 p.m. eastern time on c- 8:00 p.m. eastern time on c- span, which are going to be taking your questions and/or comments as well. live coverage here on the south lawn, expecting the arrival of chinese president hu jintao. he arrived yesterday and was greeted by vice president joe biden and made his way into washington, d.c. today marks the day of meetings. he is also meeting today with business leaders, both chinese and american business leaders at the white house. he will then go to chicago as well before heading back to beijing on friday. joining us on the phone is the former chief of protocol for the clinton administration in 1997 until 2001. let me just begin as we await for the arrival with what is

going on behind-the-scenes right now. what has happened to prepare for this moment and what is happening behind the scenes? guest: good morning, greta. there is definitely a lot going on behind the scenes. people were preparing for the ceremony, which is the welcoming ceremony on the south lawn for people to know whether the ceremony is going to be outsider inside. i am so happy it is on the south lawn. lawn. it looks like a beautiful day. it is a lovely ceremony. there is the military, which is the primary part in the beginning, and then, of course, you have what happens inside. people are getting lined up, they are getting everything together so that they can walk

out and president hu's car rides and the president and greet him and they go by the welcoming committee, the vice president, secretary of state. then they will go to the platform and the military will do their parade, and then the speeches. then they will go back into the white house and have the receiving line for the formal welcoming committee. there is a lot that is happening right now to make sure that it all comes off right on the minute for the time schedule that things are proposed to happen. host: i am wondering, from your experience, who briefed the president and first lady today about protocol, and the importance of different aspects of chinese culture, etc.? guest: the chief of protocol for

the united states would have done that briefing. there have been many, many meetings the four, i'm sure, six weeks or more, planning this visit, and discussions with the chinese embassy, and advance trips back and forth from the chinese delegation. during that time, all the problems and subjects of protocol would have been discussed. it gets quite in-depth as it goes along. host: mary mel french, how much staff, resources, what is the budget like for the step of that visit? guest: i'm sorry? host: budget. guest: well, the budget gets a little tricky sometimes. i don't know exactly what the budget for this is. i think we have so many state visits that there is a list and you sort of go down in and you make sure that there are ample

supplies to take care of everything to make this a lovely visit for the president or the mark of -- monarch of a country that the state visit is being given for. host: the front page of "the new york times" this morning has a piece about the dangers of protocol and how much attention the chinese pay to these protocol issues. i was just wondering from your experience back in the clinton administration, 13 years ago, the last time the chinese president had a state dinner, what was that like? , attention to the payback than typical -- how much attention did they pay back then to protocol? host: the united states is much more informal in our relationships -- also pays a

great deal of attention to this. it is very important for the chinese of any country in the far east to save face and not be embarrassed socially were formally -- or formally. you always remember that when you see a person's name from china, the first name that is written is their family name. that is the name that they are called. a lot of people don't know this. they think it's as we do in the united states, mr. or president obama. is president hu, and that is his family name. host: what else should the viewers know about chinese culture, or should be noted at a state dinner like this? guest: one thing is that you never use all-white flowers. in china, they preserve all-wide

for funerals. you don't wink at someone. there -- that is very offensive in the country, and you don't point with fingers. it is hard to remember sometimes, because we don't think about it, but we try to make an issue. in public and in meetings, the chinese are always very polite. we tried to do the same thing and treat them accordingly. we find they know a great deal about american way of life, about our culture. we as the world become smaller and smaller and are beginning to know a great deal more about china, and to solve many of our problems in our relationships by understanding their culture. host: it looks like president

hu is about to arrive any second th. we will listen in and come back and talk to you more. guest: thank you.

>> ladies and gentlemen, the national anthem of the people's republic of china, followed by the national anthem of the united states.

host: on your screen, president obama and the chinese president hu jintao, kicking off the official state visit. this will be followed by bilateral meetings and a joint news conference at 4:00 p.m. we will have live coverage of both of those things. and a state dinner tonight. on the phone with us, mary mel french, the former chief of protocol during the clinton administration from 1997 to 2001. mary mel french, right now they are playing the chinese national anthem followed by the american anthem. why is this necessary? what is going on here? guest: we play our guest's national anthem first. everyone stands at attention. then we play the anthem of the

united states, where americans stand at attention with their hand over their heart. this is done at every state visit, and it is part of the program that goes on, part of the formal ceremony. host: just wondering, as we watch the chinese president get out of the car there and shake hands with president barack obama and the first lady, they then venture over to the line but vice-president joe biden and others. it seems that in past arrivals at the white house, they have gone into the white house. what is the difference there? guest: in a state visit or official visit, they always go down the present -- the president takes in the visiting leader down the official receiving line. if it may be is a visit where we don't have a state ceremony on the line, then they would arrive

and just go into the white house. but always at a state official visit, they walked down this line making introductions, because this is the united states and the chinese welcome in committee for the ceremony. host: where is the chief article during this event? -- chief of protocol during this event? guest: the chief of protocol, when the car drove up, made the first introductions to the president. -- the president and mrs. obama. then they walk properly over and stand by the platform where a the president and the chinese president will make their remarks. then she will lead the group back into the white house. the president and the president of china and then the formal welcoming committee from both countries will enter the diplomatic reception room and go upstairs for a reception and a

receiving line. host: mary mel french, author of a new book as well, "united states protocol, the guide to official diplomatic etiquette," thank you so much for joining us this morning. guest: thank you, greta. host: joining me on said, we have two guests, and nancy benec of the associated press and james mann of the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. by the way, if you want to continue to watch what is happening, live coverage, uninterrupted, on c-span2 this morning. nancy, let me begin with you. what is going on here? guest: well, if lot of this is

the very important optics of giving the chinese the full high octane ceremony they are looking for. 21donna salute. it is a little -- 21-gun salute. it was in little touch and go with the weather. the chinese are very interested in all of that. when the last state visit occurred in 1997, president clinton wanted to be able to include as many people as possible, so he proposed having the state dinner, for example, in a tent on the south lawn to accommodate more people. the chinese were very interested in having the full opulent dinner inside the white house, so they declined that. the tent could only accommodate as many people. it is very important, the

symbolism of the ceremony. host: the joint news conference will happen at 1:00 p.m. today and we will have coverage on c- span2. only four questions are asked. why? guest: we are kind of lucky to get that. host: chinese reporters, u.s.- based newspaper? guest: the chinese president is very scripted and a little media at-averse -- media-averse. it is lucky to get that much credit when the president was in china and 2009, for the state visit to china, they just gave the statement. they did not take questions. host: james mann, let me bring you into the conversation. what is the chinese president going to try to get across to the american public? guest: his key theme always,

both in the united states at home, is harmony. everything is fine, everything is under control. his answers will be very simple, anodyne. i don't think he will make much news. he will talk about cooperation and not discuss the details about specific policies like north korea or currency more than he has to. host: the president of the united states, what does he want to get across? guest: the white house over the past week or more has gone out of its way to make sure that this summit is different from president obama's first trip to china at the end of his first year in 2009. at that time -- of course, he was on chinese territory, but he was very much under wraps and he was criticized -- he was kept under wraps by the chinese in

many ways. he could not have any open session, for example -- cannot have any open session with students, for example. the criticism of that trip was that he was too deferential and cannot pay attention to the issue of human rights. it seems that over the past 10 days, the white house has got out of its way to make sure that people knew he was going to raise issues like human rights, and that this was going to be and that this was going to be -- he was going to take in some ways a tougher posture towards the chinese that in that last visit. host: will will be the difference between what we will see a public at the joint news conference and what is happening behind the scenes? nancy? guest: the president of china, we are told, has almost photographic memory. probably his answers or already set for the news conference. he will put on a topic at the

question and he has a canned thing he is going to say. behind the scenes at the meetings, there will be more give-and-take, and he will have to have some actual conversations, and there will be some give-and-take. the hope is that there will be more of a personal connection cemented between these leaders, and that they will be able to move this relationship forward. host: james mann, behind-the- scenes in these meetings, closed-door meetings, who is in the room, what kind of staff is in the room, and how do they go about negotiating? how long do these meetings last? how long do these meetings last? guest: they tend to last an hour, sometimes longer than an hour. the president will almost certainly be in the room with his national security adviser, his national security adviser, tom donilon, probably secretary of state clinton, possibly secretary of defense and gates. the chinese president will have

his foreign minister, ambassador to the united states, maybe a couple of other people. you are right, it is completely different in private than in public even so, both sides of talking points. -- even so, both sides have talking points. it may be that the american president listening to hu will not hear chinese positions that they have not heard before. but it will be more than in public. they will get some pushback, a lot of pushback, if they ask, for example, for chinese help in dealing with north korea. there are likely to get, as they have before, it warning that china has not all that much influence with north korea, not as much as the united states thinks. thinks. host: we will continue to watch

the talk with our guests. your phone calls. greg, democratic line, sarasota, florida. caller: it was interesting to see the pop and circumstance. the real issue today is 50 million americans are unemployed and our jobs are being shipped abroad there. the largest computer research center in the world is china. we just want to know, why is the media moot on this subject? why are we talking more about foreign policy and what is for dinner than why our jobs are being shipped to china and the tax breaks being given to huge corporations? also, ge sense business over to china? why are we getting these jobs in america? if he could respond, i would appreciate that. host: we will get a response when we come back. let's listen in to what president obama has to say. >> members of the chinese delegation, on behalf of michelle and myself, welcome to

the white house. on behalf of the american people, will come to the united states. -- welcome to the united states. -- welcome to the united states. three decades ago, on a january day like this, another american president stood here and welcome and other chinese leader for the historic normalization of relations between the united states and the people's republic of china. on that day, deng xiaoping spoke of the great possibilities of cooperation between our two nations.

looking back on that winter day in 1979, it is now clear -- the previous 30 years had been a time of estrangement for our two countries. the 30 years since have been a time of growing exchanges and understanding. with this visit, we can lay the foundation for the next 30 years. host: president barack obama on the south lawn introducing and talking about the state visit

for chinese president hu jintao. again, if you want to watch the president's full remarks, turned to c-span2. live, uninterrupted coverage there. james mann, let me turn to you and the collar's question about jobs and the perception that jobs are going to china. guest: i think that is a fair issue. the color pasta question is understandable -- the caller's question is an understandable one. since i know it comes from a democratic caller, that caller and any other democratic voter in the primaries, the last presidential primaries, would have heard both barack obama and hillary clinton talk about the importance of jobs, and if either was president, he or she would label china to currency manipulator. of course, when the obama administration took office, it did not happen. i would say that looking back

over the years, it is commonplace for american political candidates to attack china on trade and that have different positions while in office. host: "the baltimore sun" says this about president hu's visit and his planned visit to chicago later in the week, "it represents an attempt to turn the tables in washington with public perception. thanks to a handful of chinese investments in u.s. companies there and other parts of the midwest, beijing can argue it is helping to bring economic renewal to a region long plagued by a decline." stephen, a tampa, florida, you are on the air. caller: the whole idea of free labor and a slave labor they have in china. slave labor costs 1/20 of free labor. of course these american

companies are going to take advantage of these poor people's plight and send all of our jobs over there. i think the president is wrong, and as soon as the american people understand why we are losing jobs, why all the buildings are being built in china, people will send him and bring us new leaders. host: nancy benec, this is an important issue for the white house. yesterday we heard from robert gibbs talking about tough talk the president will have with the chinese leader. why is that? guest: well, the president knows that china is a huge growing economy, and for the health of the u.s. economy, we need to engage with them and tap into those markets. after the bilateral meetings at the oval office today, there will be a larger meeting at the white house with the president brings in a lot of the u.s.

corporate leaders. the economic component of this is huge, an important to our economy. host: stephen, again, independent line. caller: i think the visit for president obama -- not the president of the united states of america, but the united colonies of america, because of our trade deficit to china. does that make any sense? host: all right, we will get james mann to respond to that id first, "the baltimore sun" shows the percent of those saying that trade with countries is fair, unfair. with china, those who say it is fair, 29%, on fair, 63%. james mann? guest: i would not buy the characterization of "a colony."

can hold a lot of u.s. treasury bonds, but the interactive -- china holds a lot of u.s. treasury bonds, but the interaction is much more complex than that. there are a lot of countries that invest in the united states. i think is kind of a little too easy and not accurate to talk of the colony. oddly enough, the most nationalistic chinese talk about colonialism of western powers of the united states in china over the century. host: michigan, david, democratic line. good morning. caller: good morning to you all. i want to remind the previous caller that was trying to put the blame on the jobs going to china on president obama, it was ronald reagan who came out and said that we will move away from being an industrial manufacturing country and being a service country.

that was the same time they had beat the unions with the big stick to it if our jobs are not in america and more, it was because of republicans and supply-side economics. host: "the washington post" as this this morning -- "our relationship that many feel is tilted towards beijing. treasury secretary tim geithner and commerce secretary gary lauck but complained that china has not been respectful of u.s. intellectual property rights. if the united states and china are going to begin to rebalance their economies, china needs to bring more jobs to the united states. as of 2008, chinese companies that invest less than a total of $5 billion in the united states, even as u.s. firms made

$50 billion in capital investments and that china -- in china." democrat glenn, good morning. caller: i want to respond to china owning so much of our debt. ben bernanke has done it two rounds of quantitative easing over the last two years. we have are the money from china, $2 trillion. how are we paying for the war in afghanistan? we are borrowing from china. they know that and they are laughing. they are looking at five years ahead and we're looking to the next election. we need to be careful, and robert gates needs to address the issue of what types of military equipment they are looking at. ge is allowing their technology to be used in china to build aircraft engines. they are going to build their own international company.

this does not bode well for the united states. we need to employ our richest nation and the will to preserve democracy. communism rules china. we must be very alert about that. host: we believe that their. james mann? guest: i will make a point in general about the economic relationship. president obama is going to meet this afternoon with business executives. i will be watching to see whether there will be any american labor leaders as well. that is relevant to this issue. it is not unheard of in the past. it was mentioned by the president in the opening ceremonies, the opening to china in 1979 under the carter administration. in the carter administration, the ambassador to china was a labor leader. the labor part of this relationship -- president obama,

when he visits china, asked to talk to labor leaders. that, too, is part of the relationship. i really second of the caller -- second the caller who asked about the importance of jobs. that is an issue in the united states and i hope the obama administration agrees. host: there is a list of companies will be represent a meeting -- coca-cola, dow chemical, goldman sachs, hsbc holdings, as well as microsoft, motorola, westinghouse electric co., as well as others. california, where allen is joining us on the republican line. caller: i want to make a quick comment and say that i really feel that the relationship between china and the united states has been severely skewed

and unbalanced, just from the simple fact there is a lot of underlying aggression that goes on in the far east as far as a militaristic standpoint. i don't know that the current administration is really addressing the national security issue. instead, what i see is i see as welcoming -- going to quite a bit 2 welcome the chinese leader during a time when unemployment here in the united states is at an all-time high. i really do believe that that has to do with the types of decisions that are made as far as our economic dealings with the people's republic of china. host: nancy benec, one was the decision made to hold this state visit? guest: i cannot tell you exactly, but it is something that has been in the works i'm sure more than a year, going back to when the president was there for his state visit. these take months and months and months of preparation.

negotiation, every little detail is negotiated in advance. the chinese are very good at keeping records of what has been done on past visits. i read one former protocol person saying that the chinese records were better than this one and they were negotiating exactly what the parameters of the visit would be and what exactly what happened. the preparations have been going on for quite a while. host: to what extent to the chinese have influence over who is invited to tonight's state dinner? guest: well, they would have control over their official delegation. i don't think it would have a veto power over who the president invites, but you know the president would be extremely -- in the social thing would be extremely sensitive to not inviting someone who would create tension. host: and who are some of the names that people will see tonight arriving at the white house for the state dinner and will not be there?

guest: the guest list is very tightly held until the end, so we don't have a full guest list yet. one by one names are trickling out. you what the official delegation -- you will have the official delegation. there's not much room left. the leaders of congress have been invited. notably, john boehner decline. harry reid won't be there. there will be a celebrity component t. jackie chan has confirmed he will be there. prominent chinese residents. the mayors of san francisco and oakland will be there. entertainment is starting to trickle out. there will be a jazz pianist, for example. the guests, most likely, will have quite a large business component, showing that part of the dynamic.

you will see some campaign contributors as well. family and friends. quite a mix there. host: "the wall street journal" features a piece on ambassador jon huntsman and his role in negotiating the visit. he gave advice to both sides on how to sell their relationship to domestic audiences ahead of chinese president hu jintao's trip to the united states and will be on hand for hu's full itinerary for the visit." howard, go ahead. caller: i'm kind of angry about this whole thing. when israel's leaders showed up here, they shunned them, and as soon as this dictator shows up, they gathered in front of the white house and bowed out to him. someone was on earlier talking about middle class jobs. all of our middle-class jobs

went to china. when i was going, our government didn't do nothing to stop it. our government is completely out of control. thank you. host: james mann, let's talk about the flip side of that. you have heard arguments that this relationship with china has helped the united states. guest: it is true that american exports to china have increased. if you compare our products from several years ago, 10 years ago, to now, they are way up. having said that, there is a huge imbalance, a growing imbalance. i can actually remember when president clinton talked about a trade imbalance of $15 billion a year, and thought that was a lot. we are now hundreds of billions of dollars a year. the united states does it exports, and it does get the benefit of -- does get exports

and the benefit of less expensive chinese imports. having said that, if we're talking about jobs, i don't see the benefits. host: glen burnie, maryland. rebecca, republican line. caller: i think our country has been eroded by our leaders in their education and business second. we award scholarships to chinese students and deny our own kids to harvard and yale and all these elite schools. these students, when they have their degree, they never lead the country. our business sector -- they wanted bigger profit and cheaper labor, and the long-term welfare of our nation and people -- that is what happened, no jobs no education for our kids. host: all right. we will move on to atlanta, georgia. go ahead, scott. caller: i am an american, but i

reside in singapore and i have a small country i moved to china. my son is they're running it now. i am moving another company to florida making control boards for vietnam. my question is, with the south korean, my plan is to move from vietnam to korea and. to the u.s. -- and korea to the u.s. are you familiar with the south. trade pact? is that still on? do you think that is going to have anything with the chinese and the u.s. moving that way? if that happens, i will move it. as far as catalysts, you of not been anywhere -- as far as

capitalists, you have not been and are until you move to china. there are no regulations there anywhere. no rules of their road -- new rules of the road, nothing. but if you teach, they will kill you. -- if you cheat, they will kill you. guest: i think the trade pact is going forward. the administration thinks it is. i don't think it'll be a big subject at the discussions between president hu and president obama. the chinese really don't have a lot of standing to complain or urge that one way or the other. i think that is something they will not want to get involved in. host: california. rick, a republican. caller: good morning. i really have to center in on our environmental issues.

it is so unfair. they allow china to do whatever they want to do. but in the united states, california, our environmental protection rules are so strong any we canno't hardly mold kind of steel and more. our costs are so high. if there ever is the time of war, to dismantle our ability to make parts and pieces, how was our country going to be protected? host: so, rick, what is the solution then? others have said that in order to have any movement globally i on climate change, you have to bring china into the fold and negotiate with them. caller: they don't have to negotiate with anybody. you cannot even buy a pair of tennis shoes in america anymore. they are always made in china and everywhere else.

how does this help our middle- class workers? the democratic party says they want to help the middle class, with these strong regulations, they keep sending it overseas. not everybody can work on a computer. the middle class needs these jobs back in america. host: nancy benec, what have you heard from the white house as far as climate change and if that is on the agenda? guest: i cannot tell you what is on the agenda or not. but certainly the obama administration is very sensitive to this issue of regulation. the president actually yesterday made a point of making an announcement that he will be having his cabinet members look at regulation and tried to eliminate some of the burdens. host: will you be heading back to the white house to cover today's visit and the joint news conference? guest: we have got a whole team. it is interesting to see the game plan. there are these different events and we will be switching in and

out. host: what is it like to cover the white house on a day like today? guest: it is quite a logistical feat, because each of these events has their own little life of its own. you have people going in for the news conference, people doing the luncheon at the state department. people are preparing for the afternoon preview, evening dinner, people trekking down. it requires quite a logistical planning. host: there are details we don't know about for tonight's dinner. where is all that information released? guest: at 4:00 today they will have a preview event in which they will basically bring people in and show them the setting. they will release what the menu is. they will show off the flowers. even the smallest details of all kinds of the symbolism bill that -- built into them.

today use the china it used on the last visit? -- do they use the kind used on the last visit? there will be paying attention to the flowers, what the colors represent. they will be releasing information about the entertainment. the guest list will probably come out very late in the day. lots of details yet to come. host: we will be covering many aspects of today's state visit, including the dinner. we will take your calls and comments after tonight's state dinner, around 8:00 p.m. eastern time, on c-span2. go to c-span.org for more information. manhattan, is a doll, an independent. good morning. caller: has anyone called america -- how can anyone call america at a rich nation or wealthy nation when we have hundreds of people sleeping on

the streets and we oce that money? host: ok. james mann, you want to take that? guest: we are a wealthy nation because overall in the aggregate there is wealth. it happens to be distributed in a way so that some people have huge amounts of wealth and other people are homeless. but that is what is meant by an overall wealthy nation. host: kenneth, republican line in odenton, maryland. caller: good morning. i was in the u.s. army in world war ii, and i was a chinese interpreter, and i was a student of u.s.-chinese relations. i am no longer in the service, but the best information i have been getting, two years ago

their foreign minister said that the model for relations is the one that china has with russia. that was two years ago. recently, there was a guest on the same program, and these were professors in the national defense university. the point that they made, we should respect and so on. henry kissinger wrote in "the washington post" that we should not start a cold war with china. if you try to create a new cold war enemy, that is going to happen. host: james mann, what is the model between china and russian relations? guest: i think what the caller means is that he thinks the united states model for dealing with china is the united states model for dealing with the soviet union. i don't think that is correct.

the relationship is entirely different in lots of ways, good and bad. we have not had a relationship as we do with china now where our economic relations are -- and trade relations are so close and so interdependent. that is a fact of life that we did not have with the soviet union. frankly, i don't believe this whole idea of the cold war mentality. i think that is a false charge that people make any time there is either conflict between the united states and china or the united states is pursuing something in its own interests that they would like the united states to back off of. host: rick, go ahead. caller: my question was more about green technology. we talk about freedom of

information and rights and google, but my question is about how there could be a form of unity between green technology businesses that could be beneficial and create jobs in america as well as control the amount of pollution and garbage, because i watched this special on at cnbc about garbage and plastic beaches and how much garbage up to millets and the oceans coming from rivers that trail into the oceans. maybe if there could be some unity in industry, we could create jobs in america. i read in the newspaper that china is doing a long-term investment in green technology so that when the time comes, the wave of reliance on green technology as opposed to options of green technology comes, china will be way ahead of us in that regard. host: rick, what would you like to hear on that issue today at the joint news conference or in the coverage of this state visit? caller: i would like to see

unity in the industry. i would like to see restrictions on china. and i would like to help them if they can help us, if they cannot give us back jobs and technology, -- if they can help give us back jobs and technology, we can help them reach out to the world. not only do they create tangible things, those things create a lot of pollution because there is so much manufacturing there. host: j., florida, an independent. caller: good morning. i was taught that the old soviets masked their inflation during the 70's and 1980's through their sales of oil. there's a lot of talk today about chinese undervaluing currency grid how likely is it that there are large and hidden inflationary pressures going on in china right now? guest: i have to say, i don't understand your point about oil.

there do seem to be hidden inflationary pressures in china now. one, and that line of thinking is that -- indeed, people in washington have been saying as recently -- if china does not let its currency appreciate, that will lead to greater inflation in check, and one reason for china to do is up about the value of the currency -- to do something about the value of the currency is to keep down inflation. there are inflationary pressures for sure. host: franklin, democratic line. you are on the air. caller: i know the united states has to do everything in its power to provide jobs for citizens. at the same time, the way they are coddling china, a communist nation, and at the same time they have managed to isolate the

country of cuba, also, in this country -- also a communist country, it is hypocrisy all over again. host: ok. nancy benec, correspondent for the associated press, and james mann of the johns hopkins school of advanced international studies. nancy, you have written about this visit and the colors and behind-the-scenes. this is we heard a lot about security -- this is the third state visit to the white house. we heard a lot about security at the first one. guest: after the infamous the crushing incident at the first state dinner, -- infamous be crashing incident at the first state dinner, they added greater vigilance for those coming in. guests coming tonight -- they have had to send in the information in advance and be

thoroughly checked, providing information, social security number, all that. by the time they get to the door, the outside date, their name should be cleared and on the list. if it is not on that list, they are not going to be on their way in. typically they go through multiple checkpoints. they might have to go through three checkpoints before they ever get in the doors. given that it is january, i hope the addressing warmly over their evening gowns tonight, because it will take a little while to go through before they actually get inside. host: due date that the amount of press allowed to cover the state dinner -- do they limit the amount of press a lot to cover the state dinner? guest: they do. a limited pool will be allowed to witness the arrival of the chinese president tonight, and the official photo in the foyer when they first arrive. there will be smaller group of press -- there'll be another

small group of press that will called thearea booksellers, were they will stop and make a few comments and maybe get pictures taken. a small group will be brought in to listen to these hos -- the toasts. and a small group will be brought in to witness a snippet of the entertainment. there are lots of different events here and there. host: here is -- sorry, go ahead. guest: there are all kinds of interesting things that happened at each one of them. the one that president obama mentioned it in 1979 with deng xiaoping, the guest list included richard nixon, who had not set foot in the white house since the day he resigned. another one, when president george bush's senior -- george bush sr. went to china, they

threw a return dinner, and he invited a chinese dissident to the dinner. they exercise a veto power on that particular day by preventing him physically from going to the dinner. when nancy reagan gave a return dinner in china, that was a huge controversy in this country because i think she brought her own china and everything else over to the dinner, did not stint on wasting money. each of these dinners has its own history. host: here is a tweet from of you were asking about the issue of money. do you have any idea, either one of you, about the budget of these state dinners? guest: i do not. guest: you know it has to be

hefty, but it is built into the budget. thinking of all the logistics that go into this tonight, there was a comment michelle obama made prior to the first inner which i thought really captured what is going on. she said it is very much like being a swan. look perfectly calm and serene and the service and underneath you are paddling like mad. next host: call. -- host: next call. caller: mike hollis bought gold standard money, and fiat money. -- my call is about old standard money, it's not money but it does not work anymore in this country but what about going back to the gold standard? why haven't we decided to go back? i blame richard nixon for this whole mess, starting by taking

us off the gold standard. host: james mann? guest: without getting into a long debate about the gold standard, it was a contributing factor to the great depression. you can make an argument at times of change, but that is a strong burden that the gold standard carries among many others. host: houston, texas, jimmy on the democratic line. caller: how are you doing? host: doing well, sir. what is your question or comment? caller: the united states, in this country with the chinese -- that all began with the republicans. i believe the reason why obama doesn't have a good relationship with them -- not of the democratic presidents had a good relationship with china like the republicans did because china puts a lot of pressure on the

american economy with all the cheaper products. if you look at the products we have now, all these 99-cent stores popping up -- host: jimmy, let's leave it there, and get from days met a history perspective -- guest: i don't see it as republicans having a good relationship and democrats don't. on all sides, there has been a surprising amount of continuity, for better or worse, in american relations with china over the years. there are some changes from one president to another, and yes, the caller is right in this respect -- the relationship with china started in republican administration under richard nixon and henry kissinger. but that administration and the

ford administration were not willing to grant diplomatic relations with china. the carter administration did. and so on. in my experience over the last couple of decades, it really is not an issue of one party believes or does on china and the other does not. there are debates on different issues within both parties. host: another tweak from a viewer. richard, independent-minded calle -- rich, independent line. caller: i tried to get on the other day. you had the secretary of state of affairs under president bush. i wanted to tell him how ashamed i was of their behavior during

tenements where -- during tianamen square. we let them become our banker and now we are built into this brutal regime -- behold in to this brutal regime. host: next call. caller: i am concerned about health care and insurance companies. health care insurance -- [unintelligible] host: that is a reminder that the debate or vote to repeal the health-care law gets underway today. you can keep the channel here to watch that. maryland, democratic line, go ahead. caller: my problem is basically on the trade agreements.

the free trade agreements. basically, all it does is open up two spigots, the spigot that flows are jobs out the country, and the other spigot, the cheaper products back into our country. look, we need a fair trade agreements with countries. that way the jobs would not leave, and the jobs that were created in these other countries would be sustainable jobs instead of these slave wage jobs that are created. host: here is a tweet from cspanjunky. james mann, you want to weigh in from what you've heard from callers and tweeters? guest: it is hard for me to connect the