>> host: phone dental host: you can send us a tweet or call. several stories do thing the

papers this morning. this was the one off politico. this is dave mather saying the trust fund likely to run out of money in 2024, five years earlier than predicted last year. host: looking at some of the details, this is on page two, this is specifically for the portion of medicare and talks about the trust fund the date

is five years earlier than estimated. host: also talks about other aspects of medicare as well. this is the supplementry medical insurance. part d as well, which provides access to prescription drug coverage. both refuse to be paid for, because current law automatically provides meeting this year. and this is the trustee's reports. the aging op haitian and cost

to grow rapidly, so approximately 3.4% of gross domestic product and 34% of g.d.p. by 2085. it goes on to add more. but if you've been following this issue and want to weigh in on it, already have callers waiting to do so. but you can call our lines. let's go first to chicago. al, on our democrats line. caller: this is one thing i don't understand. there's a ceiling where you don't get taxed over $106,000.

i think with social security and medicare, if they raised that to $500,000, that would solve a lot of their problems. if you're making wages above $106,000, that's actually like a tax brake. and i think with the increase and the situation, i think that they should take a look at that. i think that's what they call -- they need to take a look at that. they need to raise that ceiling. i think to $500,000 would probably solve a lot of our problems. host: so trays ceiling for funds to come in. caller: i do think the age should be considered because of the life expectancy. and it should gelft taken into consideration. host: that's what i was going to say, is there a number in

your mind? caller: well, they could look at something around 70, but i would want to see a study on this person, see how it affects the elderly, at first. host: now from chicago, grant from arlington, massachusetts, zant caller: hi. i think we all see both the republicans and democrats circling here. i think we all know there has to be a grand bargain. and some republicans have hinted around tax increases. i really don't think i've seen presidential leadership on are they willing to accept total ewan form, and -- >> caller: there has to be a willingness to lack at that. host: what do you think is

workable in entitle reform? caller: i think some level -- well, i think testing ped care is the main one. if you have significant assets as well. i think with social security, you've -- maybe what i pace is not appropriate. but meaning something for medicare and private aid and adjusting the cap as the previous caller said although the medicare cap doesn't ever expire. host: do you think republicans on capitol hill are going to be open to those kinds of potential ways to look at medicare? at least to consider holding off the depletion of the sunday in caller: well, i think the republicans in the house will be have to be dragged kicking

and screaming. the fact that it's not just the well -- welfare. -- i think the republicans in the house and -- we mean, i think the republicans in the senate can tut a bargain and one can convince boehner to do something. it's going to have to come out of the senate and the pedestal in the white house. so agreement to get together on this. host: the caller mentioned speaker boehner. he will be speaking at catholic university caller: there may have been stories about the nature of the address. here's from the national capital reporter. here's a letter you can find out online. says dear mr. speaker we congratulate you on the commencement address and it is good for catholic universities

to engage and even when you made the pros, whether a lack of it, mr. speaker, your voting vord one of your -- why have insisted that those in paur host: it goes on the to talk about details. the group asking them to be specific talked about those in his blocks right here on c-span, you could alsoen listen to it on c-span radio. the commencement address here. host: whether he's going to towards issues, whether you want to read the story on our homepage. it's our biggest series.

back to medicare and funds running out. colombia, ohio, jerry on our independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to bring out, ped, some facts. the united states is one of only two industrialized countries that don't have national health care and americans are paying twice as much as other countries for medical care, and i would like to point out also that teddy rose velt wanted national health care. it was a republican, remember that? and harry trueman is 1949 addressed the issue. but the a.m.a. and insurance tweans are in the drivers seat and until they get out of the drivers seat, ped, unfortunately we're going to have fear, fear, and fear and

then all we have to fear is most anddown talk about fear. the number, the information that's provided by the trustees as far as then funds running out by 2024, does that cause you concern? caller: well, i'm in my 80's, ped. so, [laughter] but it could be handled as the first coffee is rated. it's noun to $500,000 a year. also social security is not an entitle ment. it's an insurance, and it's guaranteed and it's good until 2013. and these things can be involved. boehner is in the pocket of the coke brothers, which i'd like to see you do some program on their billionaire expenditures to mr. boehner. have a great day.

host: an email stay says the wrong ned contradict host: arguing the problem is for-profit health care. if we transition to a true subject manifest, all these problems can be solved. our next call, kathy on our democrats line. from michigan. caller: good morning ped and c-span. let me read the headlines from tuesday, may 10. that's travers city. the person who causeded the theft here was the i.r.s. there is a perverted amount of money and a lot say they want medicine. ceo's and c.f.o.'s make tons of

money. you have nurses on the floor that make -- come pairtively very little money. hospitals are very -- anymore. 5 lot of things around furniture. stuff that has nothing to do with seeking medical care. host: so a reworking of the health care as far as hospital sincere needed? roip if there's one firm, you can start out wherever. caller: you just needs the basic. clean room. it's pretty straightforward if -- and i worked in medicine for 14 years. so i saw quite a bit of this. host: what did you do? caller: i worked as a work

clerk prior to. and i worked in surgery. and someone very intense work. but if you and you're fun to -- have some oversight. host: controlling costs aspect was always a question as far as plans for health care is concerned. as you see it from your perspective, is there a true way to control these costs? loip -- caller: it's not -- i could -- host: is there a way to control cost without it impacting the whole thing. caller: that was $7,000, and no

one seemed to blink an eye at it. and the patients or the public doesn't know that. and they should, though. host: kathy from michigan. fort wayne is next. republican line. caller: so is i don't understand why the government should be feeding people, putting people in hospitals, paying for their health. this is this is my plan. stop taking my money. i'm responsible for myself. if i need medical system, can he have -- you hoped they would i worked in a hospital for 21 years and i would see 0-year-old ladies coming into cancer and trs testimonying the

government is not my daddy or my doctor. i don't want anything from the government, when it's my time to go, i'm going to get a big terry cloth, next to a tree and sit down and die like a proper human being. we've turned into a nanny state like little babies looking up, help me, support me, give me. stop taking my taxes. let me generate my own taxes and leave me alone. host: off of twitter this morning. the panel, and real health care reform as well, but the p repubs stood in the way. from wisconsin. emily on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. good morning, america. the reason i'm calling is in

this month's magazine of national review, there's an article about the >> if this -- caller: because the pan elected to this board will be unelected and unaccounted and even congress will not have the power to override what these men decide, they can do whatever they want. they will have complete control and they will not be fired, when we start running out of money, this board will have the right to tell the doctors caller: and i don't think the american people realize what's coming down the pipe for them. so in addition to running out of money, by 2024, congress will have lost the power to do anything to stop ipap.

i think everybody should get a copy of the national review for this month. it's called the acronym that hates health -- i just don't want to see congress lose their power and have a government control everything about their medical lives. thank you, very much. have a good day. host: off of twitter, if doctors give one day's income a month in their areas of specialty host: abc news first reports extended remarks of the former president george w. bush after he found outability the death of bin laden. it was during an appearance at a hench french and he said when he-seed the call so i president

bush said -- host: when he was asked by the moderator how he felt upon learning the news -- he said -- host: zand korea, louisiana. democrats line. caller: i had two questions.

how come nobody is saying anything? they are talking about how government officials have stolen from medicare. also why no one, like, talking about 32 for two tylenols. >> when you ought to be that it's a -- don't they borrow money from medicare? host: and then the second part was the as far as the cost for medicines like that, are you saying they are also inflated unnecessarily? >> yes. $1,600 for a back brace you can get the same back brace at wal-mart for $19-$24.

>> robert in california, republican line. roip yes, sir. caller: the medications seel like they take doctors. host: how does that factor into the whole system of helping medicare out as far as funding is concerned. caller: personally, i know they talk about $3,000 a month. you can go -- but it's not 500. we can't sustain this. host: maryland, you are next. it's lewis from our independent line. caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. i am a retired physician who had a h.m.o. back in baltimore in the 1970's and 1980's called

the monumental health care plan. and what we had found, because we were practicing in a poverty area, that many of the poor patients. so we set up our own caller: prior to this time they had been going to the other hospitals and you know how the teaching centers hospitals in july had a new resident come come in. on july 1 he had a new ringtone. >> so the continuity of care was really hurt. therefore you repeat it, and the patients were seen by patients who were just i go ignored fighter -- caller: i think that if anyone is not a citizen, they are

being explained an american hospital hospital, they should pay some sort of tuition. the other thing is the idea of maybe you should think about salarying physicians and work out also as a perk, because many don't want to see the report on the elderly. and sfars the social security, i noticed even in the food stores they have robots ordinary person automatic checkouts and everywhere you go, even in the library, you have folks set up out -- and since they are reducing workers paying for the testimony. i think the problem is we are not getting advantage of -- from the system. so as we have less and less humans working and more and

more robots, but not paying social security. i thank you for taking my call. host: more in the paper to talk to us about mary kay. and the overall debt of the nation concerns, it says way over 6:00. that was $32.3 billion more than it brought in, during ack host: cincinnati, ohio? we're talking about medicare funds running out by 204. caller: thank you for taking my call. day two, -- there are two

comments i want to make, well, three. first of all, i'm going to try going to caller: physicians, particularly what specialists are charging. i'll give you an example. we just took my mom to see a doctor at the university hospital this past monday. she saw mom. my mom is 80 years old. they got a bill close to $500,000. to me, that's obscene. i had a problem with the ryan bill, and one thing i had a problem with republicans about is why are they not and sitting

down with them and talk about making sacrifices as well. 40 want to take a second to talk about our newsmakers program. the new mexican chairman of the senate and head of the natural resources committee, a host of questions regarding legislation and congress, how congress reacts. the polarizing nature of these kinds of discussions and the senator commeshted on this past week. host: is it -- caller: is it some postturing? >> well, i do think there's processturing going on, but i think there's some value in putting the hearing into dallas part is to say all the talk,

particularly on the republican side is where can we cut back on various programs that are an assistance to people. and if you're going to deal with the deficit, you can do it one of two ways. you can cut back on spending, raise additional revenue by cutting back on some of these tax breaks, and i think that was one of the purposes of the hearing was to remind people of that. and to say, is it make good sense to be continuing with all of the tax breaks in the code today, why we're cutting away at the various programs some people depend upon. >> so to be clear, are you a yes sflote >> frankly i haven't decided how to vote. i certainly support pearing back some of these tax breaks. whether or not there's a hole list of them in the proposal

that's been brought forward and thank you-all for host: more of that interview available to you on our news makers program 10:00 a.m. tomorrow and again at 6:00 p.m. on c-span. also you may have seen this report, senator bing m's colleague. senator jeff would not seek another term. it will be an important part of caller: answer that republican that called and wanted to know about the constitution. he couldn't find anything in there about taking care of people. i thought we were all americans and we all lived in this country together. i wonder who took care of him

on his greedy path up. who fought the wars. i'm an old man. i'm on medicare. i'm a veteran. but i'm going to tell you on with this medicare, problem. you tell me how we can put and bet on a man's health in the stock market. that is totally ridiculous. and this country is going to hell for it. host: middle ford, pennsylvania. caller: hi. i have a solution to the medicare problem. i seem to be the only one that doesn't seem like one politician understands the problem. i have a friend who was a male nurse. he now sells medical supplies. found a connection in italy who knew a guy in dubai.

johnson johnson or whatever medical caller: but in dubai they say we're not paying $10. we're only paying a $1. they doshte want to lose the market. so they send it to dubai for $1. he's paid people off on the docks. they ship it back. i literally helped him load zierings from the u.p.s. truck in his s.u.v. he drove to brooklyn. he gave so into the hospital for $7. they are still paying a reduced fee so they take it i don't think anybody realizes this. now he's got an office in columbia because the columbiaen government says we're not paying $10. host: so what's the lesson as it applies to medicare? caller: this is what the

government is for. they have to say to the medical sfly and drug companies we're not paying that. why do americans have to get screwed? why do we like to get screwed? the rest of the world doesn't get screwed. it's because the government stands up and says we're not paying that much so the medical supply companies say all right, all right. but if americans say that we are considered a communist. free market is that. host: minnesota. independent line. jack? caller: how are you? yeah. the first thing i think people should know is republicans, when they say they are trying to save these programs, that's a lot of hooy. the most recent comments by the canter, who said we can have the kind of america we want if these programs are in place. the first attempt to screw

medicare was done in 1997-1998 by gingrich. he said he hoped medicare would die on the vine. that's when they tried to bring in the supposed free market to bear then they managed to lower the life of the trust fund by about 8-10 years. and the reason it was lowered, the trust fund lifetime, was because they to the thealt insurance companies with their multi-million dollar c.e.o.'s. they also refused to norblete with big farma for lower drug prices. the whole thing was an attempt to screw medicare while giving huge subsidies to private industry. gingrich said he hoped medicare

would wither on the vine after that. host: what does that mean today? caller: what does that mean today? the obama administration was quite right to make changes in medicare that got rid of the caller: good morning. how are you this morning? host: thank you. caller: good. you know, i look at medicare with my mom, she's 85 years old. we pay a premium to kiezer medical firm to where she doesn't really used the medicare or medicaid. she pays only $119 a month for her services, and she gets excellent services through kiezer. but yet she still pays into the medicaid program, which is,

well, she's paid her life, these tools. i don't know how medicare is losing everything with the exception of the fact that the employees are the federal debt day, and i don't know how the payroll works for them. but maybe we should open military facilities for the citizens, and then this way since we're paying such high government payroll, these people in the military that will be coming home, hopefully from i'll take my answer offline. host: if other people want to chime in on what you said, they are welcome to do so. from houston, yes? caller: i've been living here

and i'm 69 years old now. and i've been paying this for years. now they are talking about running out in 2024. we got to live now. i mean, because i still like that i am paid. i worked all my life, and i do not run to the hospital, because i take care of myself. but i worked all my life we have to have things that work. if you don't, all the risk assessment, they don't guilty out there and cook and cut your yard. we got to have all types of work experiences. they act like -- republicans act like they are people and

the poor people is just marching and marching. they need their care too. they need to pay more they still need not to fay that much money. host: you probably read in the papers about george mitchell leaving his post as special envoy to the middle east. here's his resignation letter. you may notice it's dated april 6, 2011. he said when i accepted your question my intention was to serve for two years. here i trust this provide sufficient time for and thank you for giving me the opportunity to be a part of your administration and it's been an honor for me to serve my country. sincerely, george mitchell. host: ron, you are next. caller: good morning.

thanks for taking my call. we're here in charlotte. we're beginning our similar system here which looks at entitle and health insurance etc. the program marries the idea that the and what it does is it takes all personals receiving cash if so macing these individuals on a similar system which would stimulate what they had and as a result of that stim so we were table to become financially independent and able to give back for the assessment they have. the system put them on a pressed forp of what they are able to pay for their own doctor visits and food and fimenter. now to welcome this system in charlotte.

so rep is of the problem is consumption. there's no system to con is that right consumption into a more workable and renewable form of commerce. and we believe this system will probably do that and we will get back with you and thank you-all for our time. host: who created the system? who was behind it? caller: well, i am the owner. there's a similar program where individuals, it enadvocates personal responsibility and the system -- we're trying to get the governor and other agencies to mandate this system, because it can only help the individuals. so it takes care of entitles and converts it into more money for that individual who has been able to purchase their health insurance.

we thought that would solve a lot of the issues we have. host: snealt, ohio. malcolm, democrats line. caller: good morning. how are you? host: i'm well. caller: you know, if you're going to be a nation of -- a civilized nation, you have to be a nation of conscience. republicans look at health care as an entitle. and it's really not an entitle. it's a necessary did. you can't help an un but we have people owning 60-foot yachts while other host: you know, if you ever going to have a conscience, then you have to make sure everyone has ackdrose health care. caller: and you're not going to

get that as long as your health care system isal what could. that's exactly what it is. talk about controlling cost when you're going to be getting your products and services from companies that are in a wall street system when you note what you're going to look like. projects, margins. we're going to fight that and talk about controlling. can't be done. host: the labor department put out statistics as far as gas and food prices are concerned saying that in april, the inflation rose at the fastest 12-month rate since the latter part of 2008.

host: that's from "the new york times" this morning. also, there was another -- sorry. there was another story how people are using their credit casheds. i lost it. we'll find it. we'll go to georgia. republican line. caller: good morning, c-span. i earned an hour on these regular shows, would have sthovene host: with them trying to stimulate growth and pumping money into the economy. just causing inflation, because the federal government isn't doing what it needs to do, stimulate gross which brings me to the point of medicare and medicaid. because if the federal

government come pleets the programs, because of the driving up the cost of our own medical care. i think what they need to do is pillow it back to the states and actually cut taxes to the bone to stimulate growth. and then our tough country, because his cincinnati it was fch caller: we have the greatest amount of revenues and growth flooding into our country. host: christine writing ever since the united states emerged from recession, americans are spending again. this year evidence is building that they are. w every swipe of their credit card. in the most recent fch

host: consumer spending helps pro pell that growth and a global gleeth help accept cards. host: in florida, thank you for calling in on our democrats line. caller: yes. my name is mary gray from bradenton. before asking what president obama cowl do, it was much, much smoother. if a let of the congress met in congress and just stop flat-out telling lies about this fch host: a college man an woman would set out like the tea party. if they are so confused about

this field. and it is unbelievable, just like this weekend on sunday they are having a whole lot of republicans coming on. where the democrats? heard some stotch caller: this would go a lot smoother. after this the affordable care act hasn't even tooken effect yet. and some of the congressmen have, the government are mistaken this they repealed the government ack access to have host: one more call on this. mini, independent line from massachusetts. caller: hi. getting back to what that gentleman said about johnson & johnson that they have the ability to sell the supplies to

the hospital for 10 times the amount. what's up with that? why would any business man, which this country is founded on capitalism, it's got to be corruption. all these people that are in charge of making the decisions for the masses of the people, it's like special interests every time trumps everything else. and they need to hold the people that are making these decisions for people, account hold on to it and the caller: to give business to someone who is going to make

all this money off americans at the cost of the taxpayer, then they need to go after that. host: this is the front page of the "washington post," the pakistani spy chief offers to quit inform the apologized for what he said was an intelligence laps and he would leave his post if prime deemed him unworthy and also says about pakistan's alliance with the united states -- was feared. host: host: the story in the

washington journal said ed rollins who managed the huckabee campaign saying he doesn't think it's going to happen, but no official announcement have been made to date. if you've been following the last few days about meredith baker, leaving her post to go work for hbs universal. the follow-up story in "the new york times," edward wyeth, her official defends the move to comcast saying in her statement quote until late this spring she had intended to seek re-election as commissioner. now i have no one at comcast or central employment. she said in a statement --

host: and because of, this i plan to de part the commission as soon as i am able to. ewe'll have perspectives but coming up legal efforts to dismantle obama's health care laufment first, peter landers serves as editor to update us. and we will be right back.

>> what choices to do they make to kill people. >> in "q&a" richard miniter talks about osama bin laden. >> now that bin laden this is what we have to fear, terrorist entrepreneurs like khalid el-amin. -- like khalid sheikh mohammad. >> you can download one of our podcasts at "q&a." >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span3, fomer massachusetts governor and presidential candidate, michael duh cock cuss. i'll look back on his handling with my dinners over you. on sunday, may 2 2, american

history tv will be live from mississippi for the anniversary of the freedom writers. go to c-span.org/history >> this weekend on book tv on c-span 2, antonia uhoss talks about the deepwater horizon explosion which killed from chicago south side to the massachusetts governor's office and on afterwards, -- look for the complete schedule at book tv.org. sign up for book tv alert. >> i'm newt gingrich, and i'm announcing my candidacy for president of the united states. because i believe we can return

america to hope and opportunity. >> follow the candidates announcements and speeches on their road to the white house, and look back at their careers online with the online c-span earth i want it. "washington journal" continues. host: our guest is peter landers, washington editor for the "wall street journal." how have plans to president obama's health care law gone out so far? guest: so far three judges found it constitutional and two. or your pay a penalty to tch so there's a real party stand

still. host: so at the appeals court level on a couple of fronts, one dealt with virginia. can you tell us what happened. >> there was a hearing in two of the cases stemming from virginia one of which was found constitutional, the other wasn't. one of the issues that came up there was whether or not to state of virginia have standing to sue over the constitutionalty of this sflaw the three judges republican has the right, the standing to sue in this case. host: if he is argue, that the commonwealth does have a right, what's that? guest: the individual mandate that says you have to be insured or can can and then

inter -- simply failed to buy a product. that is not economic activity that can be regulated by congress. and they say congress has never been allowed to regulate inact. -- inactivety, so what was the construction you got from the three? >> the three all appointed by democratic presidents, seemed -- they were saying maybe it is activity if you refuse to have buy insurance. perhaps you're still participating in the health care market just simply in another way. you're maybe paying yourself or you may go to the emergency room you get care for free and

you don't pay. eventually somebody else has to bear that cost. so that's the government's argument and the three judges seem simple netic to it. they say everybody is involved in the health care system in some way according to the government so therefore, this is a proper thing for congress to rule on -- yes, they are making something of a statewide argument saying it's something the state can do and governor romney passed a law that has an individual mandate and they say it's ok for the states to do but congress hasn't given that power under constitution. >> the three panels are all what was the process of that hearing in this case? >> totally random.

the court is split along republican and democratic employees. the federal appeals court. >> nine and 3. guest: two of them were appointed by president obama. we can also see from the arguments and tenor of their questions, we can see where they are headed. but there are many other lawyers. host: how many cases like these are there currently in existence? guest: there are more than two dozen many were thrown out at the district level. i think there were four federal appeals court that were at some stage of hearing courses like this wufpblet and this is perhaps the most important challenge to the law brought by 26 state attorneys general.

mostly republicans. so that's the substantive challenge i would say to the law and where the opponents have the best chance at the appeals level. host: for those looking in on the legal -- there's not the consistency. what do these legal folks look at that and say about that product that you have so many -- guest: i think everybody sees this hanening. i would say we're somewhere in the middle of the lowell process. it began a little more than a year ago. the law was signed. i think we can probably expect a little more than year from now we'll have a final verdict on the supreme court. and we're on the -- that level. congress can regulate

interstate commerce, and everyone agrees about that. that power has been interpreted broadly over the years. used in the clean air act and americans with disabilities act. very important laws have been passed based on that power. going back to the late 1930's when the supreme court gave a very baud interpretation of that power. the question here is does it apply to buying health insurance? >> host: did they get -- guest: i think they will. they are going to see how the judges reasoned. certainly, if all the appeals courts come down one way or the other, that's going to every team

guest: they are going to be watching. host: what has been the white house's strategy while this appeals court process is going on? and the congress as well? guest: the white house sent their solicitting general to argue at the appeals level in virginia. . guest: it shows concern on their part. host: yes. they want their top guy in the courtroom. even at the appeals level they want their top guy in the courtroom arguing their case. host: that's at the congressional level? guest: well, we saw it earlier in the year. republicans in the house actually passed their repeal of the health care law. that was in the house daint get anywhere in the senate and even

if it passed the senate, the president would veto guest: osama bin laden and some other issues, so americans still say they want to repeal the health care law and replace it. but that effort has stadium for the moment, and i think the best effort of overturning it lies in the courts right now. host: our guest from the "wall street journal" serves as our washington editor fch. host: call on our lines, 2k do journal@c-span.org is our email and you can send us a twitter message.

fwoip the appeals court is hearing that in june. judge robert vincent in pensacola, florida delivered perhaps the strongest opinion against the colonial. . . host: if the panel buys the argument of the torpe generals, does that overshadow the decisions that have been made?

guest: for one thing it's possible in light of tuesday's action in richmond, virginia, it's possible that the challenge might be thrown out on procedural grounds, on the grounts that he doesn't have standing or the right to sue the government. and in that case, the focus would shift to this larger case. host: in florida. host: calls for you lining up. first one is from houston, texas for our guest. caller: good morning. first of all, the gentleman is on right now is from the "wall street journal" which is a division of news corps which is a division of fox news. so i take everything he says with a grain of salt. and also, two of the judges he keeps going on and on about the judges who declared the law to be constitutional were democrats. two of the judges who have declared the law were unconstitutional were republicans of course. and one of the judges there was

a direct conflict of interest because he has a vested interest in one of the insurance companies. he keeps going on and on about the mandate, it's unconstitutional. there's also a mandate in the ryan bill. i've never heard anybody talk about that. but the same law they're trying to overturn with the obama health care. and also the tea partiers who were so against the government inclusion have lobbyists on their staff. that was the first thing they did is hire lob wrists from different industries the guide them in how to legislate different things to make sure these companies stayed in business. in other words, they're looking out for the interests of corporations and not the interest of people they're supposed to be serving. guest: the caller made an interesting point about representative paul ryan. he has a health care plan that's part of his larger budget plan. and it's interesting how the individual mandate works. as the caller says, it's not -- you don't have to have

insurance. you have to carry insurance or pay a penalty. and by some definition that is may be a tax. this is one of the issues that's being liltgate. if it is a tax then it falls under congress' taxing power and perhaps the law is constitutional that way. but the way it was written, it was called a penalty. other people call it a fee. so maybe it doesn't fall under the taxing power. now, representatives ryan plan as i understand it flips that around and says that if you do carry insurance, you might get some sort of tax credit. and that seems to under his plan fall more squarely under congress' taxing power but there are those who say as the caller says that in effect the ryan plan is very similar in structure to the health care bill that was passed last year. so there is some question about that point. host: washington, dave, independent line.

caller: good morning. why don't you really talk a little about whether it's right or wrong to have the health care initiatives repealed or to move back from the state of which it is. we talk a lot about the -- host: caller's dropped. tennessee. jackie, democrat's line. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i just had a question and a comment. first, i am so proud of our president for getting this law passed in the first place. when we work on the state levels as i do, we see that people actually need insurance. i have discovered for myself that eetsdz we are pay on the frond end or we're going to pay on the back end. this is something all americans deserve because we need health care. i think this is one of the

major reasons the health care costs in this country is so high is because most people use our emergency room for health care coverage. and i think that's all over this country. we need health care and i hope that congress somewhere recognizes that. and even if it gets into the courts, i hope the courts recognize that we need health care in this country. and i think everybody needs to pay their fair share. i mean, if you can't afford a lot, you can't afford to pay a lot. but i think this is one thing that if the courts get behind it and repeal this, this is just ashame and that's all i have to say. guest: i think that's an excellent expression of why the democrats pushed this health care bill. they said that it's going to bring coverage to 32 million americans who don't have it now. and they saw the lack of coverage maybe some 50 million

americans don't have health insurance coverage. they saw that as a very serious problem but among the points made by critics is whether the bill will actually reduce health care costs. in fact, if you have more people coming into the system maybe costs will rise. now, there are some cost control steps in the health care law that was passed last year but there is a question as whether they'll work as well as intended. and if they don't, how can the country afford these higher health care costs? to me the key issue going forward, assuming the courts ultimately do uphold this law, the question is how do we keep these costs under control if they're going up greater than inflation, that's something that eventually the country can't afford. host: maryland, sophia independent line. caller: good morning. may i bring in just a little different view of this, please.

now, i am 67 years old and i'm a retired federal employee. i have kaiser as my supplemental insurance. i have had to take medicare of course. so because i have medicare and i have kaiser, kaiser only pays 20% of my care. medicare pays 80%, which makes no sense to me. something needs to be done about that. now, my total costs for health care per month is 636. the government pays $391 to kaiser. i pay $135 to kaiser. and i also pay $110 or 115 for medicare. so all of these costs, something needs to be done. i think we're overcharged and the main insurance that we really need is in my case would be kaiser.

kaiser could cover everything that people over the age of 65 need or whatever insurance they might want. and the government might not have to do anything at all as far as we're concerned with medicare. guest: ultimately i mean somebody has to pay these medical costs and somebody has to be thinking about how to keep them under control if you -- there is a proposal as you know from representative ryan that was actually passed by the house of representatives under which people would get a voucher to buy private insurance. so you might get a voucher worth let's say $1,000 a month, i just made that number up, but you might get something like that. and you would buy that to buy private insurance from kaiser and medicare the government would not be involved at all apart from giving you that money to help you buy insurance. so there is the proposal to make private insurance a much bigger part of the medical system for those over 65 such

as yourself. but whoever is paying for it, there is going to be a cost. and of course for the elderly it's increasingly high costs. host: you can cast this question into the legal discussions that are going on. but this is out of austin, texas. guest: well, there is of course that's a point often made by supporters of this law. i drive in washington, d.c. and turf carry auto insurance. that's the law. however, it is a choice for me to buy a car and own a car. and if i make that choice to own a car then the states or the district of columbia or state of maryland, if i lived in maryland, can say that you also must carry auto insurance along with your car. where as critics would say in this case you don't have any choice in the matter at all just by living and breather you must buy health insurance. and it's also something that

the federal government is requiring in most cases i believe it would be a state that would tell you you must carry auto insurance. so there's a big different f difference between state and federal here and how much freedom you have to choose. host: so states saying you are imposing on the free will of the residents of our state by forcing them to buy the mandate insurance, that's the argument they're making. guest: exactly. that the states have all kinds of power. the states have police power that the federal government does not have. so even governor romney the other day was saying in his speech about how he said it's ok, he reiterated that he thought he did a good job in massachusetts by introducing a bill there, a law there that guarantees residents of that state to have insurance. and it does inclue a mandate but the governor says it's a different story when you talk about the federal level. however, again supporters would say it's basically the same thing. you have to buy auto insurance.

many people effectively have to have a car to conduct their lives. they have to have a car, they have to buy auto insurance. how is it so much different to have to buy health insurance? are host: are there similar cases of the supreme court that go to this kind of case as far as a federal statute that imposes against the will of the state? like virginia? guest: well, there are -- i mean, in general federal law is superior to the state law. the federal law is the one that's going to carry the day if it contradicts with the state law. but the precedent that everyone talks about is the case from 1942 calledry your versus silver. this is a farmer in ohio who wanted to grow wheat for his own use and there was a government quota program that was going to fine him for doing so. and he said why am i englaging in interstate commerce? i'm growing wheat for my own

consumption. how can you possibly fine me for going over a quota? where is the interstate commerce in that? and the supreme court ruled unanimously that he could be fined. that congress did have the power to set a quota even though it involved a crop that he was growing for his own use, a very expansive broad interpretation of the commerce power passed in 1942 that holds true today. this is a case that both sides are trying to cite. the supporters of the law in particular cited. the opponents of the law say it doesn't go as far as regulating inactivity. but this is a very important case that you see some tea partiers say was wrongly decided back in 1942. they would like to go back to the 1930s when that kind of thing was generally not permitted by the supreme court. senator rand paul or kentucky's mike lee said was wrongly decided and the supreme court

let congress go too far in regulating the activities of individuals. >> host: a lot of supreme court decisions end up at 5-4. could it be expected that this case could end up the same? guest: i think it's pretty clear that the four liberal justices generally seen as liberal on the supreme court will vote to uphold the law. i think there's pretty solid four justices on that side and probably justice thomas is seen as pretty solid voting against the law based on the way he's interpreted the commerce clause in the past. however, i wouldn't rule out the possibility of a 63-72 in favor. now, he is generally seen as conservative, of course appointed by president bush. but there's also a question of, as we've discussed, federal versus state power. and there is a sort of strain of conservative legal thinking that does not want to restrict too much what the federal in this case congress can do.

you see that in some decisions by chief justice roberts that don't involve the health care or commerce clause necessarily. so how -- it's not a given that chief justice roberts and perhaps justice alito would vote against this law even though they're seen as conservatives. if you ask them personally what do they think of a health care law like this as a political matter they might say we don't support it but as a legal matter it's not 100% sure that they would vote to overturn this law. in the middle of course is justice kennedy very often a swing vote and it's again if it is 5-4 he would be the one to swing one way or another. host: north carolina loice republican line. go ahead. caller: thank you, pedro. mr. landers, i'm an 80-year-old retired rn. i retired when i was 69 years old. now, yungsville is just outside of raleigh, north carolina. we're some of the finest

physicians in the world are. duke university, university of north carolina. i moved here three years ago from new jersey and when i came here i was shocked to find out i could not get a doctor. none of the doctors would accept patients with medicare. and i shopped around everywhere and couldn't find a doctor. i was even in tears in offices and on telephones. begging people to take me as a patient. i said, i spent my life taking care of other people, and now i just want someone to take care of me now that i'm old. and at the time i wasn't sick. here's the point that i'm making. doctors are like private business people. they do not have to accept you. the government can say you must buy insurance to buy this product health care. however, the practitioners that provide the health care are not

mandated to give it to you nor do i think that they should be mandated to give it to you. the only people that are mandated to provide health care for you are in hospitals and in emergency rooms and that's exactly the place that so expensive. and speaking of expensive, do you have any idea what doctors charge an hour? -- it blows my mind. host: what do they charge you? caller: over $100 an hour to see you. and if you can get to see a doctor for ten minutes face to face, you're in good shape. guest: that's an excellent point. you don't sound 80 years old so i congratulate you on what seems to be your good health. but it is an increasing problem that we hear from people on medicare. they have trouble finding a doctor. and unfortunately it could get worse if the health care law

goes into effect as planned. because we will have some 32 million people entering the system not only people on medicare but in this days people under 65 who will acquire health insurance and they may try to see a doctor. they may say now i have insurance i can go to a doctor. and the question is whether doctors will be available to see them. and you're right that the doctors they prefer to receive the higher payments from the private health insurers. they may restrict the number of medicare patients they see. and i think the question of how much doctors earn is is it too much? is it the right amount? that's going to become the increasing issue over the coming years. host: philadelphia, pennsylvania you are next. caller: good morning. now, as far as the health care bill, that's what i want to talk about is the what you call the obama health care which is

like driving a stake through the hearts of certain individuals. i think what the bill needs is to be tweaked. now, give me a minute to explain what i mean by tweaking the bill. since everyone is screaming and hollering about the mandates that you are mandated to buy the insurance, tweak that. where bi everywho wants to par take of this health care bill can buy into the insurance. everyone individual who is covered by their employer or paying their own insurance bill allow that to be accepted. and everyone who has no insurance who doesn't want to buy into it, when you arrive at the emergency room for an illness with yourself or your child, you will be forced to pay $100% of what is going to happen in that emergency room. and if you have to, then be admitted to the hospital, then

they take the information from you and you will have to pay in full at least 85% of it. and the remainder would be attached to anything that you own. that means property, bank accounts, or vehicles. and you will have 90 days to pay that in full. and that should solve that problem and stop all of these lawsuits. and since no one since you don't want to buy into it and you don't have health care then no one should be forced to have to pay your helts bill. guest: that's a tough point. i think that's an interesting proposal. we kind of have something like that right now. i mean, if you don't have insurance right now and you walk into the hospital it's true they have to take care of you in the er but anything else is technically your responsibility if you don't have insurance. and in reality, it's difficult for people to be that tough-minded. it's good to say in practice

you mentioned the possibility of someone coming into the emergency room with a child and they can't pay. maybe the child needs some surgery that isn't technically er and they have no insurance but would you really deny insurance or coverage or surgery to a child that needs it because the parents failed to get health coverage? now, you may criticize the parent for being irresponsible. i think that would be proper. on the other hand, how much are you going to punish somebody for being irresponsible? and that's a tension that we see throughout this law. and one solution foirt is an individual mandate that says you have to carry insurance or pay a penalty. that was the solution that was found. yours is a little tougher. it might work as well but i'm not sure if it would coin side with our feelings about what should happen. host: there's a story about the governor of washington going forward with proposals as far as federal health care is concerned to set up state

health insurance exchanges. guest: some of the states when judgments came out against the law they said they might hold off on implementation. but in reality some of the states are going forward. there's a number that we know by measures a thousand or how fine the print is 3,000 pages, so there are many provisions already going into effect and states are implementing those. the one you mentioned is exchanges. in 2014 there's supposed to be exchanges where people can comparison shop those who don't have insurance on the job or medicare. and states can set up those exchanges on their own under the law. or if they don't want to do it, the federal government will do it for them. so that is one political decision that some states are making especially if they're led by conservatives who oppose the law. they say maybe we don't want to set up the exchange. that would suggest a level of

cooperation that we don't want to show. other states say we'd better get ready now it's just a couple of years away. host: can the state tell the government we're not going to set up an exchange? guest: they can and in that case people would shop through a federal exchange. in reality if the law is uphe would most states are going to want their own that are suited to their own states' needs. host: does that affect every state? guest: yes, 2014, assuming the law is upheld every state will have their own exchange or everyone will be able to access their own exchange. host: kentucky, republican line. pat. guest: good morning. there were two states that tried to have everyone have health care. it bombed in tennessee also. and when it was brought up to democrats, they said ours is better. we know everything. and i really disagreed with the

people that say nothing was -- all of it was negative. there were facts, charts, et cetera that said that this isn't -- they need this now -- and they just plowed on. and i'm going off the line. guest: yes, it's true that tennessee did have a health care, an expanded medicaid program, if i recall, that did not work terribly well according to many people in that state and the costs went out of control and the expansion of medicaid in tennessee had to be scaled back. so i think that is a lesson for the national program, assuming it goes forward as we've talked about before, how do we keep the costs under control? more people, millions of people will have new access to health coverage and if the spending just keeps going up like it has so far then that's going to be a problem for federal and state budgets. host: louisville, kentucky.

democrat's line. caller: good morning. good morning, fox news. host: our guest is from the "wall street journal," ma'am. guest: that is fox news. i wanted to say if you really wanted to have an unbiased discussion about this law, we should have had an unbiased person, not fox news. i think we all know that all the cable owners of the board of directors for c-span and of course republicans so we know where all this is coming from. the other thing i wanted to say is i think doctors have a moral right to treat people, medicare or insurance, whatever. and i think we've all been aware that doctors choose the specialty where they can make the most money. if you see how many specialists we now have, we'll know that

they're making lots more money. for example, so many of the anthese ologists now are going into the specialty of pain management. i went in for a problem and was charged by former anesthesiologist $9,000 for two shots. and of course medicare rebuked that and did not give him that much but that was his charge, $9,000 for this shot. and i had two and ended up in a wheel chair. so i think these specialties are really paying off and that's where they make the money. and i think all of the republicans that hate this health care law should be given the opportunity to give up their medicare. and their -- host: put a lot out there. you can respond.

guest: yes. i think the incentives for doctors are a big issue in this country. costs are enormous. maybe that particular doctor didn't get $9,000 but the fact that he would even try to charge $9,000 for two shots is kind of outrageous. and i suppose you were paying, suppose you were under 65 and uninsured, how could you afford $9,000 for a treatment like that, assuming that's all that it consisted of. so somehow we have to get the incentives better for doctors so that more go into primary care and there isn't an incentive for some of these specialists to really overcharge for procedures that may not be necessary because increasingly we can't afford it. host: silver spring silver spring, maryland. thanks for holding on. caller: good morning. first off, it seemed like the health care bill was rammed through. they're getting a lot of exemptions. i don't know what kind of state

exemptions there are. medicare, the coding. didn't that lead to a lot of higher costs as far as processing paper work? i guess the health care providers adopt those codes. i always felt that if you had a mercorp volunteer or gave tax breaks to a lot of people who used to work in the medical field but if you could bring them in with tax breaks to pharmaceuticals and manufacturers, i think would bring up a lot of donations of services and equipment to people who need medical help. and i could probably say a lot more but i will drop there and listen to you. thank you. guest: thank you for that call. there are a variety of ways to save costs. there's a limit to how much volunteer although volume tirg is very important in the health care system still with the amount of care needed probably that cannot be a solution in and of itself. one solution that i'm int

interested in and i would like to know more about is use of nurses and nurse practitioners and others who don't have an md degree necessarily but may be able to fill some of the functions of doctors in cases where the care is suitable for that level of professional. so there's a lot of ways that i think we need to look at to keep those costs under control because the way it's going now, it's not going to be sustainable. host: reno, nevada you are up next. bill, independent line. caller: my point is pretty quick right here. the people that are out there complaining about not having health care and everything like that, and they want to get on this government program and everything, they've got to remember their neighbors who are working are paying taxes for that health care. for them to get for free. doctors only receive from this medicare anyway $12, $18 in

some cases per emergency room visit. and everybody that's on health care -- well most people run to the emergency room for every little sniffle and headache that they have and they're trying to get on these very expensive medications and we have a very, very big problem in this country with people misusing these pain medications and stuff. but you know, why don't they ask their neighbor who is working you know what, why don't you pay for my car? why don't you make my house payment for me? why don't you buy my food for me? you know, why do they always have to -- they've got to understand that government is paying for most people. we, the people, are the government. and that's my main point right there. guest: i mean, health care is considered different in this

country and in most developed countries from other things. i agree with you. i don't want to pay for my neighbor's car or my neighbor's clothing or her suit. but health care is thought to be different. and so in essence we do end up paying for our neighbors' health care in one fashion or another. i mean, even right now again as people have mentioned, you're titled to care when you go to the emergency room regardless of whether you have the ability to pay or not and that's once of the laws that weeveped developed because we feel we shouldn't deny people health care if they can't pay for it. and there's always going to be some strug toll figure out how can the rest of us pay for those who need the care. and of course it could be us the next day who doesn't have the money to afford the care and we need to be taken care of by our neighbors. host: one more call for peter landers, richmond, virginia. caller: thanks for taking my call.

i just want to make a few comments. number one is we know that the health care pass path that we're on is unsustainable and it's going to have to change. the questions is how does it change? number one, and number two is when we talk or we use the word penalty, it would be good if the guest can cite some information on what the penalties will be. . .

the word "penalty" is out there. if we can give some definition to what that is, people can make decisions based on the information. guest: many of the changes take effect in 2014. it is not right away. ultimately, the penalty is going to be on the order of $2,000 or $3,000 a year for those who fail to carry health coverage. it is not a huge sum for most people. if you feel like you do not want health insurance, you can pay the penalty. you can go without health insurance if that is where you want.

if you only make 25,000 letters a year, under the health care law, you would be eligible for an insurance plan that would cost you very little. the cost for those in the lower income brackets of having insurance would be heavily subsidized. you could probably get coverage for a low amount per year. it would be more advantageous for you than paying the penalty and going without coverage. that is one of the features of the plan. now whether you could find a doctor on your plan is another measure, -- and other matter, but he would have some measure of insurance. it would be a big deal for you on the health insurance fraud. host: peter landers, thank you for your time this morning. coming up, we will talk about relations between the united states and china, economic relations between the two countries.

next, we are going to take a look at changes announced this week to the endangered species list. we will talk overall about the endangered species act. we will do that after we take a look at the news via political cartoons. ♪

>> this weekend, michael dukakis on calvin coolidge and how he vaulted to a popular political figure. a look back at jimmy carter and his handling of the energy crisis of the 1970's.

also, the long-term restoration of the treasury building. we will be live from mississippi for the 50th anniversary of the freedom riders. you can find the schedule online or have it emailed to you. follow the house and senate when you want. the comprehensive resource on congress makes it easy to find information about the elected officials with daily schedules, a full list of members, a list of house and senate sessions, and progress of votes on bills. it is now available, the c-span congressional director, a complete guide to the first session of congress. inside, new and returning members with contact information, district maps, and

information on the white house, supreme court justices, and governors. order online. >> "washington journal" continues. host: in the next 45 minutes, we're going to talk about endangered species with two guests. myron ebbel is with the competitive enterprise institute. he serves with the -- as the energy and environment director. bill snape joins us from the center for biological diversity. the decision this week concerning the list of endangered species, what was the decision? guest: it was not a decision as much as a proposed settlement. the obama administration has committed on paper to try to list 250 species that our own biologists have determined are imperiled by extinction.

the good news is the administration has a knowledge these species are in peril of extinction. for awhile, they were putting them off to the side. the bad news is details of the settlement are not quite clear. we need to make sure it is enforceable and species are protected. host: what is your take on the decision as far as what happened and the bigger picture? caller: it does not have a lot to do with protecting endangered species -- guest: it does have to do with enriching environmental groups that make the lawsuits. they get paid through the litigation fund for their efforts. at the other end, it is less about protecting endangered

species and more about putting on federal land use controls, shutting down economic activity on federal land, and telling of the world when the owners with the can and cannot do with their land. -- in telling the world -- the overall -- rural landowners where they can and cannot do with their land. host: was the decision a clearing of a backlog? does it streamline the process? caller: there is essentially a factory assembly line where we find more species, in many cases where there is little scientific evidence, this is done on the best available scientific evidence. if what is available is of poor

quality or minimal, you can go ahead and list the species. we have a huge number of species on the list where there is little being done to protect them. they are useful tools or weapons to block particular projects, especially in the rural west but also across the country. more species on the list, the more projects you will be able to block. we think this is -- you can say you think it is a critical environment for a species. you do not want to take a chance so you have to stop in mining project or oral and gas field. we have to get the ranchers of the federal land. this goes on and on. guest: he has thrown a lot of spaghetti on the ceiling. let me respond to a few of the main points. these are species that

biologists have decided after numerous years of steady warrant protection under the endangered species act. i think he is wrong on that point. will we can have a reasonable rate is on the role of federal public land. we think the federal public lands are owned but all americans. that is land we all own. we think endangered species ought to be protected. it is not for the sole use of private ranchers or companies to do what they will on our land. host guest: think we have a disagreement about what the federal lands are. they're not owned by the public. there are a lot of private rights on the land. in the west, ranchers own land that is mixed with the federal land. they own water rights. mining claims and the mining

laws, these are private rights. as far as timber production, this is the best example of how the endangered species act is best used prove the spotted owl was used to close down timber production on the most productive forest in the world in the northwest. over several years, about 175 mills closed down. the industry was destroyed. we now import timber from indonesia. instead of protecting the spotted owl, we set the course for one catastrophic thing after another. billions of feet of timber are added each year and nothing is taken away. the end result is catastrophic fire. that does not help any species in the forced eventually. guest: i completely disagree. i think he is wrong. when you look at the spotted owl

protections from two decades ago, we heard that this was the end of the world. the economies were going to hit the tank in oregon and washington. what we did is protect the last remnants of our ancient forest. things to cough and high-tech industries. did you need to liquidate the last remaining ancient forests to survive economically proved to be false. guest: he is completely wrong about the facts. oregon and washington took off in places like urban portland and seattle. rural areas have a continuing depression. -- things took off in the high- tech industries. these were real people doing real jobs. those economies have never recovered. the spotted owl was listed on the basis of saving the ancient forest.

the old growth of big trees, the spotted owls do not live there because there's nothing to eat. they have to have the undergrowth forests. as soon as the spotted owl was listed to supposedly save the old growth forest, they then stopped timber production on the new growth throughout the region. everything was shut down. it was not just shut down on federal land, it was shut down on private land. this is a disaster. it is an environmental disaster. it is an economic disaster for real americans with real jobs. quichost: if you want to ask questions of our guests, here are the numbers.

it was your organization and another that weighed in on the actions this week. guest: we did not sign the proposed settlement. we have concerns about the legal details in terms of how enforceable it will be in a court of law. the settlement amounted to the species we think a very important for protection. -- omitted two species we think are very important for protection. we're concerned if along, those species may not get protection. i think there were not. included because of politics. the announcement today by the president about drilling in the arctic ocean is an indication that the administration is moving timidly with natural resource protection. it looks a lot like the bush and ministration. -- it looks a lot like the bush administration.

when you talk to the department of interior, you have the political entities and the biologists. i think the biologists know what needs to be done and what to do the right thing. the others want to give some things to one side and others to another. it may be politics, but we think it is bad policy. host: the first call comes from oceanside, california. jeannie is on the democrats' line. caller: politics does seem to come up in every subject on your program. i am all for protecting the animals. however, when you talk about. in the lands of the border -- when you talk about protecting the land at the border, is a shame that animals are more important than protecting the people. i would love it if your guests would explain whether they are a

democrat or republican. we are having these political influences here. guest: i work for a nonpartisan group. we're on the political, conservative side. i think bill works for eight group on the political left of the spectrum. i do not think my personal politics come into it. it is pretty obvious what we support. we support free markets and property rights. that is that the competitive enterprise institute. i think the endangered species act, your caller makes some good points. it was set up to trump every locaw in the country. the question of how to balance human interests and the interests of wildlife is a good question. it is one we ought to have a debate about without starting to leave our hands and say this the last great wild place in the

world. if you look at the places his group and others have claimed is the last great place north, it would be most of the world. i think this is a legitimate discussion. the wolverine potential listing is a place where you might want to balance the interests of people. a wolverine has been spotted for a first term in a century in northeastern oregon. a doubt they are in danger. i think they are expanding their range. host: with is a balanced discussion look like? guest: it would be created to act very different from the current one. instead of penalizing land owners, it would reward them for providing the environment. he would have officials working cooperatively with the landowners and not having

everything turn into a legal battle with groups filed lawsuits to try to force the issue. i think cooperation and incentives rather than command and control selling land owners what they may or may not do. i do not think you can illicit or encourage behavior through penalties. i think you can discourage behavior. if you want to have people providing habitat, we need a cooperative system based on incentives. host: is cooperation possible? guest: absolutely. for human behavior, you need carrots and sticks. i would like to answer the your question about the border lands. it is a good question and underlines one of his points about how the endangered species

act is trumping losaws. congress passed a law that allows the attorney general to waive certain rental lo-- certan environmental laws. we have seen the degree of flexibility is necessary with the act. the endangered species act demands science when species are listed. at every other critical point, socio-economic impacts are required to be taken into consideration. the act is actually incredibly flexible. host: the next call is from florida. caller: if we're going to talk about the endangered species act, we need to ask the question of why the species are becoming endangered. i think it is important that we

all try to envision the biosphere in three dimensions. it is a sign that the human population is hitting 7 billion. the rate at which we are consuming resources of the planet, we're using petroleum and rate of 1,000 gallons a second. we cannot continue doing this. we have to turn the processes around. the endangered species act when it was created was kind of the first way of green to our attention that our human project gobbling up other forms of life on the planet. guest: i do not think i could say it much better. in many instances, the energy use we have is subsidized by the

american public. the oil companies give billions of dollars a year in tax breaks as they're making billions in profits. we ought to put all of the economic activities on a level playing field. host: greeneville, tenn., on the republican line. caller: of like to address the issue of the over-regulation by the legal profession in this country. i feel like the country is being taken over by the lawyers and the unintended consequences. the predictions are often not played out. years ago, they did say the oil pipeline in alaska was destroyed -- would destroy the

caribou. i think this is evident of the competing world views. those of us who believe in god know that god is built into the system. the environment heals itself. the attorneys are mostly liberal in this country. they not believe that. the dire predictions often do not come true. host: you brought up unintended consequences. guest: endangered species act is a factory for making a lot of environmental groups and lawyers that work for them rich. this question does go nicely with the previous one. the fact is we're not running out of natural resources. if you look at it long series of world bank studies, the countries in the world that have

the highest consumption rates and are the wealthiest are not only the healthiest for human beings and have the highest standard of living with longest life expectancy, but they also have the best environmental conditions. that is not a function of having the most onerous regulations that tell people they cannot use their land and hold a job digging or growing. it is a result of wealth. wealth and technology are good for the environment. that is what allows us to take care of things and preserve things. in very poor countries like india, the problem is not the population. is that they are so poor that they have to struggle every day to have enough to eat. that means they do not care about saving the forests because of weakened think about is

getting their next meal. we do not have that in this country. that is what allows us to spend time and resources on protecting the environment and the habitat for endangered species. guest: there are all sorts of conservative lawyers. there are some very talented conservative lawyers. i acknowledge that some people file about lawsuits. the system weed's those out. when you read the bible carefully, it is clear of the scripture is seen to be construed as -- good stewards of the land. that is conservation of natural resources. that has the same linguistic root as conservative. there's a reason for that. we need to be careful of correlations. that is true for countries like saudi arabia. i would not want to live there in terms of the lack of freedoms and other issues the country has

despite its wealth. it does not always work out as simply as myron is pointing out. host: are there safe harbor agreements on these kind of cases? are they effective. the man do they need changing? -- do they need changing roste? guest: these things are indicative of how flexible the act is. we think it times is too flexible in terms of those listings. if an interior secretary wants to make the act work and work with the landowners, 99 times out of 100 is able to be done. history has borne that out. guest: i think the problem with the endangered species act is the flexibility. the interior department, the fish and wildlife service, the

secretary of the interior can make deals. they can favor one corporation agains on rural land owner. we see this over and over again. people with a lot of political clout can do a deal and small landowners cannot. this is one of the real problems with the endangered species act. it is not a law. it is a moving target compilation of regulatory decisions. many of those are pushed by environmental lawsuits. the lawsuit, proposal is a deal. it is not the congress being involved. it is not the interior department doing its job it is a deal that puts the environmental agenda into the law. it then becomes difficult for people to do anything about it.

if anyone says this particular part of it is not fair, the environmental groups will say they have a deal. this happens over and over again with environmental regulations. it is a real problem. it creates political favoritism. the act is a guided weapon. it is used selectively to stop one project and allow another to go forward if the corporation is a big donor to environmental groups. it does not change much with too is in office. i think republicans have been slightly better than democrats, but not a lot. the of guesguest: in my view, ts powerful rhetoric. he said the act trumps laws in then talked about the flexibility. he cannot have it both ways. we base our decisions on the best available science.

we look at it as if politics transe science of time. the short-term demand for cash is immense. the act is an objective check on what would be an avalanche of developing business as usual if we did not have to look before we leap. that is all we want. guest: would you reveal how much funding you get through lawsuits? guest: we get no federal funding as well. guest: how much money have you gotten over the past five years from litigation? guest: roughly 5% of our annual budget. we get the money in terms of attorney fees and costs. we win when the law is found to be broken. all this been done is being made whole. we're not getting wealthy at all. host: diana is on the democrat''

line. go ahead. caller: my father has been in forestry for as long as i can remember. i am 45. we always had controlled burning in pine forests. i do not know what myron is talking about. i cannot believe what he was saying. i do not agree with a thing that he said. . .

most of those are federally owned and what we have found there is that they have been mismanaged for decades and i think bill would probably agree with me on that. and one of the reasons they've been mismanaged is because they're not privately owned. the federal land managers, the people in the forest service and the blm do not have the same incentives as private land owners. and so we find a long series of different regimes, different ideas about how to manage the forests. but by and large the federal force forests of the northwest are much more poorly managed than the mostly private forests of the southern united states. and so i would just say thank god for private land ownership and private stewardship where

people care about the land and one of the reasons they care about the land is they have an economic interest in it. and if they degrade it or wreck it, they will lose their investment. and this is not true of the west where most of the land is federally owned. host: wyoming mark, independent line. caller: good morning. i would like to weigh in on two specific species that i have observed in the last 20, 30 years of my life. the first being the grisley bear. i'm going to qualify myself. i'm a fifth generation rancher here in wyoming. i'm also a wilderness guide most of my life. the grisley bear, the magnificent creature that it is is one of the most first animals that was put on to the endangered species list. twice that animal has reached the number that was supposed to

lift it from the list. twice they have raised that target number after it was met. hunting in the yellow stone region has become a dangerous sport. it hasn't been hunted for so long it has absolutely no fear of anything in those woods. and in fact, when it hears a rifle it comes to it and you have to compete against the grisley after you have killed an elk or a deer. touf compete against the grisley to take it out of there before he comes and takes it from you. host: you made your point. but what's the question or i guess ultimate comment you want to make? caller: well, the wolf debacle is incredible. the wolf has spread all over the west. it's not staying in yellowstone. there's no fences there. and they're killing livestock all over the state of wyoming

and there's nothing we can do to protect our livelyhood. host: huh would you respond? guest: there's a lot to respond to. first on the grisley bear. the major issue right now for my advantage point looking at the science is that its main food source or one of its main food source is the white bark pine is an absolute decline because of climate change. and i understand your frustration about the different numbers and those numbers are driven by byeologies learning more about the species. so it's my sense in wyoming and throughout the region that the grisley bear management is working pretty well. wolfs are another matter. they were just delisted about a month ago in the budget battle done so in a way that we think is not a wise idea. they were not delisted in wyoming because wyoming does not have a state management plan as do montana and idaho. so again like with the grisley bear the wolf when you have

management plans in place you can balance the interests and make it work. host: pennsylvania, republican line bill. caller: i'm concerned that there's been a dramatic shift in the republican party to what i perceive as anti-environmental rhetoric and policy. the endangered species act was passed from support from both parties and there seems to be more widespread support for the inevirmente back in the 70s. and i think minor has either got a very shallow understanding of the issues or he's very deceptive because on one hand he says that the act hasn't done anything to protect species yet on the other hand he's saying it's too restrictive. these lawsuits are occurring because the government isn't protecting the species to keep them from going extinchingt. guest: yes. i think that the bipartisan and across the spectrum support for

environmental legislation has broken up because the legislation -- and it's not just the endangered species act. it's a lot of the pollution regulation laws, are out of control. they have gone so far beyond what they were envisioned to do and partly this is congress' fault in the way they dell gate too much authority to the regulatory agency. in this case the fish and wild live service on the land and marine -- what is it, bill? noaa? >> marine ma'amle protection act. guest: yes. i think the wolf delisting was done by congress. this is a good example of rural americans from the west, this was done by the lors from those states. they demanded it because they know what the wolf listing is doing to places like rural

montana, rural idaho and i would say also my part of rural eastern oregon where the wolf got across the snake river in just a few years. so this is not -- i think the debate over the endangered species act is primarily a debate between rural america which doesn't have nearly as many people as urban and suburban america. rural people know about the effects of the act. they know about the good things it does which aren't very many and the bad things it does which are a whole lot. they know about the threats to property rights, to the use of their land and their jobs and livelihood. urban americans can look at this and believe the propaganda from environmental groups that we've got to list this species to save it. we've got to stop oil production to save the care bue or the polar bear. most of this stuff is just made up. they get away with it because

urban americans and suburban americans don't live on the ground, they don't know what it takes to earn a living from growing stuff, for digging stuff up. and they are out of touch with the realities of i believe most rural americans. so i'm sorry, i just fundamentally disagree with you. i think that there are reasons why this is no longer a bipartisan agreement on how to proceed with our environmental regulations. host: let's hear from pennsylvania. democrat's line. caller: yes. thank you. i have a question for mr. snape but i have a comment first. i'm an environmental activist for over 40 years and proud of it. i knew at a young age that greedy corporations and right-wing politics would destroy our environment with no remorse if the choice was over a quick profit or natural resources. besides protecting endangered species much of our food sources depend upon the

protection of our environment. bush gutteded the endangered species act about six, seven years ago. he put the balance of power on the side of big business and big game hunters. he changed rules and regulations that were in place for over 30 years giving more power to then land developers, timber and oifment he did this by allowing federal agencies in his administration to determine on their own if development were endangering the species without having to consult with experts and buy ologists. i know president obama has reversed bush's policies on endangered species. could you give some examples? and as for you ebell? you lie. host: sounds like a script. were you reading that? guest: i'll answer that question. the endangered species act has been characterized as sort of cutting the baby in half.

ken salazar at the department of interior has rejected some of the bush rules but has adopted other bush rules. for instance, secretary salazar and i guess the white house support limiting protections for the polar bear as relates to climate change. we've already talked about the wolf example. on the positive ledger, the secretary of interior did reject the bush administration consultation rules which would have allowed agencies and corporations to get out of the normal consultation process under the endangered species act. so it really is a mixed record. one thing i want to say just factly which i think is hard to rebut is the longer the species is on the list, so if critical habitat is designated, a recovery plan is put in place, the data clearly shows that those species begin to progress and do better. in other words, there's been a lot of years and problems that put a species on the list. you need time to reverse those trends to put in protective measures. and when those occur, good things happen. host: 1374 are class fd

endangered or on the list so far. isn't that a lot of management? guest: it is a lot and i think it underscores the threats that speech eas in our world face. of those though, roughly three quarters of them are improving when they've got these protective measures in place. we're hopeful that within the next decade we do take more off the list. but you can't snap your fingers and have it done. host: what's the cost or at least the effort by the federal government to maintain this list? guest: this is an iceburg issue. the taxpayer funds that go into administratoring the act are very small compared to the amount of private money that is required by private land owners and the amount of money that is lost in economic activity. and there is no one from the environmental movement who cares about that. there are no studies on how

much it is. but we know it's huge. entire industries have been destroyed. i gave the example of the timber industry in the northwest. the biggest and most productive in the world has been essentially wiped out. billions and billions of dollars have been lost. tens of thousands of rural americans have lost their jobs. you see this. but i think one small land owner having his rights violated and his livelihood destroyed is just as important as say with some timber company. when you have a rancher who is told sorry you can't graze here any more, and he loses his entire livelihood maybe multigenerations of people have invested and cared for this land and taken care for it. and because they've taken care of it, because they have provided habitat for an endangered species they are now told they can't use it any more. it's disgraceful. and americans who understand this are angry about it and all

americans should be ashamed of what the endangered species act has done to rural america. host: we'll get back to ohio. caller: thank you for taking my call. i'm very upset with the way mr. bell is presenting the situation. i want to explain my perspective. ten years ago, i participated in an environmental cite assessment in southern ohio where they processed uranium for weapons. and they proceeded to contaminate the region for decades before any type of cleanup started. and that was ten years ago when i participated in that assessment. and only two years ago, i received a letter from the government saying that they were going to sponsor medical testing for me because of my chance of exposure. and one summer of doing work

there, all outside, should have been minimal exposure. but anyway, i just don't understand how mr. ebell can sit there and make the impression that this is some kind of a fluffy issue. this is such a serious issue. we have devastated our environment. and what people are seeing as far as an environmental movement right now is us doing the minimum to try to keep our environment together. because the vastness of the problems that we have created and i just think that he is doing a huge disrespect to the planet, to people who really care about the environment, and we have to get to a different place where yeah a lot of people are going to have to make changes on how they do their business. host: let me squeeze in one more call. michigan, dan, republican line.

caller: thank you. isn't it true that extinction is a natural process? and to try to regulate a natural process is almost impossible to government funds or so-called environmental concerns? guest: host: i'll let you go first. guest: let's start with the extinction issue. not at the rate which we have seen it over the last several decades. harvard bilings has calculated that we are ordors of magnitude thousands of times ahead of the normal extinction curve we saw for millenia even before the human epic but even including our species. i just want to go back to one thing minor said. the one thing about i don't care or we don't care. i have two sons 15 and 12, i care very much about not only the natural world but how people li in that world. when you look at the costs and the benefits of endangered

species protection and regulation, you have to look also at the soil that's protected, the water that's protected, the air, poll nators. it is a much more complicated world than minor is leading us to believe and the act protects those to eat good food, live in good places, to drink clean water. it is all part of the same ball of wax. the last point i would make the timber industry was dying a death several years ago irrespective of the species act. much of the same events would have occurred. all we need to say is we've already annile lated 95%. we're going to protect the last 5%. guest: to the previous caller i'm sorry i offended but you but i think we have a natural disagreement. we do have environmental problems. i'm sorry you have to have a

medical test to see if you've been exposed to radiation. i think that's clearly an environmental problem that we need to address. unfortunately, we are spending a lot of our environmental efforts on nonproblems, phony problems, we're wasting a lot of money insped of spending them on real environmental issues. now, on the issue of natural extinction, of course there's the process species are created and go extinchingt. i think that the phony biology of edward wilson and meyers, they do extrapolations from a few islands that they've studied and say that this applies to entire continents. in fact, the rate of extinction in the united states is pretty close to zero and part of that is because although there are more human beings leading wealthier lives, those human beings have more money and more interest in protecting habitat, saving species, and in fact of

course the endangered species act is a real problem. we're going to see species under threat in the northwest because of the spotted owl listing and the shutdown of the timber industry because we are going to see more and more catastrophic fires which not only destroy all the timber but they actually fry the soil down many inches because of the intense heat. this is the result of the endangered species act. that timber industry was not going down. it was incredibly vibrant and i know something about it and i know the people who worked in it are now building up timber fiber every year in such a way because we're not cutting it that the only result of that mismanagement as a result of the spotted owl listing is catastrophic fire. host: we're out of time but one more question, real queck response. does it needs to be revamped? guest: no. and my ron just called buy ron

phony. guest: well, edward wilson has done tremendous work on ants. a lot of his other work is very speculative and based on phony statistics. host: needs to be revamped? guest: the act needs to be replaced with a nonregulatory system that gets land owners and fish and wild life service on the same side, gets the lawyers from environmental groups like bill snape out of the way and gets the kind of political lawsuits that are done and the comfy settlements that are made in order to continue land use controls rather than species protection. host: we'll have to leave it there. thank you both for that discussion. in our last 45 minutes we will take a look at the economic relationship that the u.s. has with china. steven, a member of the president of the national committee on u.s.-china

relations will be our guest for that discussion. we'll be right back. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> this june on indepth, the balance between security and liberty.

the difficulties of the climate change treaty and the limits of international law. your questions for author and university of chicago law professor eric pose anywhere, his books include law and social norms and the perils of legal globalism. and he will take your e-mails and tweets. >> this weekend on american history tv on c-span 3, former massachusetts governor and presidential candidate michael due cackcass on the master politician calvin coolage and how he evolved into a popular figure. a look back at jimmy carter and his handling of the energy crisis in the 1970s. and on sunday may 22, american history tv will be live from mississippi for the 50 anniversary of the freedom riders. get the complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history. >> the c-span networks provide

coverage of politics, public affairs, nonfiction books and american history. it's all anle on television, radio, on line, and on social media networking sites. and find our content any time through c-span's video library. and we take c-span on the road with our dudgetal bus and local content vehicle bringing our resources to your community. "washington journal" continues. host: our guest joining us from new york is steven orland. serves as their president. this week, the u.s. and china both have high key representatives talking about economic issues. what was the nature of those discussions? guest: well, they were both strategic in terms of talking about the increasingly intertwined relationship between the united states and

china kind of on the strategic economic level. and then kind of in the weeds talking about things like u.s. insurance companies having the opportunity to sell car insurance in china, u.s. investment banks having the opportunity to underwrite mutual funds to underwrite corporate bonds. so it both was at the very high strategic level and at the low kind of ground level. i think the talks were very successful host: as far as the financial times were concerned, their headline quotes the talks as minimal progress being made. would you agree with that? guest: i would say incremental, not minimal. there's no magic bullet in the relationship and that they made progress on a number of issues, and there's a lot of progress that's made between these annual meetings. you know, it's interesting, it ran a similar story which actually or a story related to china which i think was almost

more relevant than what had occurred at the s and ed. they talked about this was in friday's ft that talked about coach, the manufacturer of accessories, hand bags, women bags, men bags and they talked about how their market share in china is going to go from 100 million and hope to grow it to 500 million. at the same time, they talked about the fact that coach was relocating production facilities from china to vietnam, phillipines, india. so what you're seeing in fact is a result of years of this strategic and economic dialogue that the increase in the value of the rnb, the inflation in china is making the cost of doing business in china so high that companies such as coach that are in the china market are now beginning to relocate outside of china. and that's something that's a result i think of years of

discussions between the united states and china on the economic relationship. host: our numbers are on the bottom of your screen. if you want to ask our guests questions about the u.s.-china economic relationship, is it true that you were part of these talks on some level? guest: well, they're government-to-government talks. so the private sector and the ngo sect senior not included. after the end of the talks i attended a very small dinner with the head of the strategic side of the talks, which is the state counsel for foreign affairs from china who is hillary clinton's counterpart and we had a very small dinner with secretary kissinger, secretary albright and a very small group of other americans and what they wanted to know from us was a readout on the

talks and how we felt u.s.-china relations could be improved. so we all had suggestions on both the strategic level and again on kind of the grass roots level on thing that is could be done to improve the relationship. host: as far as the amount of debt that china-u.s. debt that the china owns, how much of that shades these talks? guest: well, it's -- i don't think it really has an enormous effect on these talks. you know, china owns that debt. they have -- in an excess of $1 trillion of u.s. government debt. they have few other options in terms of placing that amount of dollars anywhere in the world. really, the euro market, the yen market simply are not deep enough to allow china to do it. so they're kind of stuck with doing it. what they worry about of course is our fiscal discipline. so kind of being stuck in the dollar being stuck in u.s.

government obligations, they worry are we going to exercise sufficient discipline so that we are able to repay that debt. we're not going to enter into a period of hyper inflation where they would be paid back in what is in effect devalued dollars. so there was some portion of the conversation that was about that. but it was -- there's not much the chinese can do about it, and our decision with respect to spending is a domestic issue and the chinese understand that's a domestic issue. i think the near shutdown of the u.s. government that it came literally to 90 minutes before the deadline struck them i think they were somewhat shocked by it. they looked at that and said oh, my gosh, the united states government really came that close to closing down? it struck them as not the best atmosphere for them to be putting over $1 trillion in u.s. government obligations.

host: atlanta, georgia is the first call for our guest. go ahead, atlanta. caller: yes. please give this some thought and let me finish what i have to say. first of all, the reason that the united states ose china money is because of the exchange how china manipulates against the dollar. wouldn't it be best united states would just print off the money and pay china and allow china this money back into the system? what i'm saying through the reserve and then the united states this money would be coming back to the united states. it will stop the debt. it will stop the interest payments on the loan. and then all the businesses have to come back and china will have to spend its money back to the united states because the united states has the largest economy.

guest: if this was a suggestion that the united states default on its debt obligations, i don't think that would be a great idea. what we've seen during the course of these strategic and economic dialogue is the rmb appreciating. what secretary geithner says and i think what is absolutely correct is that over the course of the last several years we've seen the rmb appreciate on both a nominal and real rate. so in fact, in the last 12 months, we've had a nominal appreciation of about 5% and then because china's inflation is far in excess of the u.s. inflation, we've had a real increase in the exchange rate of another 5%. so you're looking at about 10 to 11% appreciation in the rmb. and again what happens is you've got people like coach, back to my initial comment, deciding to relocate manufacturing facilities out of

china to other places, which also highlights i think one of the issues which is kind of an in the beltway versus outside of the beltway conversation. in the beltway, there's an enormous amount of conversation about the valuation of the chinese currency and that's effect on trade, and how if china revalued its currency the united states would benefit enormously. china should -- host: there's a question off of twitter. guest: i think the prospects given the diversity within asia, given the political conflict between the historical political conflict between japan and china, the two major asian powers, i think the chance of having an asian currency is extremely limited. i think what we're going to see is the chinese currency

internationalizing. given the size of its economy, given the size of its international trade, we're beginning to see an internationalization of the rmb. trade settlement in rmb. and what i think we'll see over the next decade is it becoming more freely converitible, becoming more of an international currency and at some point in the next few decades seeing it be a reserve currency alongside the dollar. . .

there were specific commitments made during this past week with respect intellectual property. previously, the central government agreed to respect intellectual property, in other words if they bought software to make sure it was properly licensed. they've taken that commitment and extended it to the localities said that the provincial and municipal governments will not take on that obligation to respect intellectual property rights. what we see happening in china and, when i first arrived in 1979 were there was virtually no respect for intellectual property of, and during the next 25 years, it was predominantly

foreigners looking to enforce their intellectual property rights. what is occurring now is that the chinese themselves that are looking to enforce intellectual property rights with patent suits, copyright suits, from one chinese company, one individual against another. our allies, the owners of intellectual property , and their allies also want to enforce it. we're seeing enormous progress in this area, but the chinese need to do better. the commitment from the leadership is there, but what they need to do is take the commitment and bring in local. but the local government to enforce local government -- intellectual property rights. host: on the independent line, ronald. go ahead. caller: in the 1950's, all they heard was, "communism,

communism, communism," and i do not understand why is going on between us down communist china. is it the profit of the capitalistic american businessman? all the negativity in the 1950's and 1940's, could you please explain how we got to dealing with china to begin with? dealing with turnaround because they were our partner in the opposing the soviet union. literally, 40 years ago next month, secretary kissinger had his secret mission to china in order to help us resolve the conflict in vietnam, in order to oppose the expansion of the soviet union, we decided we needed to establish diplomatic relations with china and we did.

over the years, it has evolved into a much broader, deeper relationships. viewing china as communist, the leadership of the party their roles is communism and, but its relationship to traditional communism is, i think, rather limited. in fact they would never do it, we often joked that if you would change the name to the chinese democratic party or the chinese socialist party or something else, it would more accurately reflect what has happened since 1979 aniline the reform by the emperor. caller: i ever the politicians complain about how they under crowded their money in the making their benchmark more, but

i was wondering what the arc from mechanics about them doing that. is it not true that we need them as much as they need us? guest: we need each other. the mechanics are that it is not a currency that freely trades, so the rates of exchange between the dollar, other currencies, and the chinese rmb is set every day. you can only trade at that level. it is not one which trades freely the way that the dollar, the pound, the euro, the japanese yen would trade. that is the effect of mechanics for how that works. host: military discussions were part of these discussions, right? guest: they were. i think there was real progress and for the first time, we have a very senior chinese general in the meetings with senior

representatives from the u.s. military and in addition, they decided to now organized a strategic security dialogue, which really is talking about military and military relations and doing that on a regular basis, which is another break for. having the u.s. military in the chinese military sit down together is critical to make sure that we both understand what each is doing. what happened as a result this summer policies, as a result of chinese response is that the relationship has often been sacrificed in the name of those policies. it is important that the dialogue has been established. it is important that beginning tomorrow the chief of staff is going to be visiting washington and they'll be visiting with

secretary gates, admiral mullen, during their bases so we understand better what the other is doing. ultimately, the problems in the world will be better solved the united states and try to cooperate, not the focus on conflict. host: pennsylvania on the democratic line. good morning. caller: how are you doing? good morning, everyone. i cannot help but think the money that we of the chineses would actually protects american corporate investments from being seized because china is a communist country. i was wondering you could speak to that. our middle class is being forced to compete against slave labor. i was wondering if you could speak to that. guest: if you of the bank $1,

they control you. if you a $1 million, you control them, so you can argue the chinese ownership of over $1 trillion of our government debt, and in fact, gives us greater leverage than they have overawes. again and, i think this is one where there is a mutual dependency, but i think are needed, when we need to do, the $1 trillion is only a small percentage, unfortunately, of our debt, so what we need to do is get our act together in the united states in terms of spending, entitlements, and not blame try for holding over $1 trillion in debt. host: as the chinese government weighed in on this discussion we're having as we approach the debt ceiling and whether to raise it? guest: how they wait in is they

say they want fiscal responsibility. they want the united states that actually reduces spending. they see this as the raising of the debt, a procedural matter, not substantive. they are expecting the u.s. congress and the executive branch to get together and find a way to rein in spending and entitlements. they do not worry much about the u.s. that will fold. they think that is highly unlikely. given if you are a major holder of u.s. treasuries, if there should be a crisis of confidence in the united states, interest rates go up, and the value of those treasuries would go down, so they worry about that. they worry about a crisis of confidence in the united states. it would emanate from capital markets. that is one aspect of the worry. the other aspect is they worry about qe2 creating an

environment of inflation in the united states in which case they fear that the dollar would devalue enormously and the treasury obligations that they hold will be repaid in a devalued dollar so they will take a loss on that. they worry about those two aspects, not really a default by the u.s. government. host: lexington, kentucky, go ahead. caller: a single treasury bond never should have been sold outside of the united states. we not only own money to china, but we barrault consistently from the federal reserve and almost 100% of our income tax goes to repairer debt to the federal reserve. the day that the world decides to stop using the dollar for the reserve currency, as the man just said, china will be repaid

in a dollar that is worthless, and what will they do in response to receiving worthless money? what will they use to cover the debt? as far as the military aspect, when china has a disaster or their economy fails as well, where are we had at that point? host: mountain view, calif., on their public and mine. caller: -- on the republican . caller: i have a few comments, and i will let you respond. this will take just a minute. rep wolf made a comment and said he characterizes the chinese government as fundamentally evil and according to the u.s.-china security report, they are aggressively

pursuing cyber warfare capabilities that will provide them with an asymmetric advantage against the united states. finally, you look at a comments made by this person, and they have almost 43,000 intellectual property cases ever taken up by their courts in 2010 in a range of industries and continue to complain about copyright and patent infringement. according to the american chamber of commerce, 58% of the respondents said their operations based material damage from chinese infringements and 70% said the beijing protections are ineffective. that was 2010 and i have been in china since 2000. i applaud you for being there in 1979, because that shows you are a real pioneer, but could you comment on this point?

guest: in terms a patent infringement, there's no question that there is work that needs to be done. i try to put it in a historical context at a time when there's literally no protection, and now there is a time of some protection and we want whole protection. if you look at other societies in the process of their economic development, that is very standard, low levels of economic development, low levels of palin protection. as it goes up the scale, there is increasing patent protection, because their citizens demanded. it is a serious problem and our government raises and on a regular basis with the chinese and but secretary clinton and geithner rays did during these discussions. as to congressman wolf's comments that their fundamental evil, i do not agree. is a nuanced, complex country.

when i have seen over the last 32 years, when i first arrived, there were hundreds of millions of people living in abject poverty, less than $1 per day. i would good villages where there was no running water, no electricity, illiteracy was very high. those places now have virtually 100% sign literacy, running water, electricity, schools, health care, there is less death in childbirth, they're living martyr. this government has enabled them. we do not agree with all of their policies, and we should not agree with all of their policies. we should politely raise those, but to say that their fundamental evil when they have raised over five under dock -- 500 million out of poverty, i think it is wrong. host: out of new mexico, the democratic line.

caller: you talk about how they're no longer aliterate and they have almost all of their jobs. when i'm curious about is the new labour force which seems to be unlimited in china. do these people know they're working for $2 an hour when the job was at one time over here paid $15 per hour? labor laws, oh sure, all these were created to protect the labor force -- osha, all these were created. do they know how little these wages are? these jobs are moving in this is a new form of legalized slavery. how long before the people turnaround and that say no? the work force would say there are working for this amount of money. does china know they're working for $2 per hour at a job they used to pay $20? guest: some jobs have moved from

the united states to china. i think it is quite a small percentage. job loss in the united states has been more based upon increases in productivity. some have moved. most of the jobs and ended up in china, did not go from the united states to china but to japan, then to taiwan, career, and then from there to try to. he's labor-intensive industries, shoes, textiles, toys, these there require low-wage workers, they left the united states decades and decades ago. i do not really agree with the premise. do the note with their wages? yes, they do. what we're seeing now is very high wage inflation in china depending on where you are. it is different in each region, but you're seeing wage inflation that is at 10%-20% per year which is creating a

situation where companies better in these labor-intensive businesses are moving out of china to lower wage destinations such as the philippines, sri lanka, and other countries. host: our guest is stephen orlins. can you tell us to fund your organization? guest: we were set up 45 years ago. this is our 46 anniversary. we seek to educate americans about china and the chinese about americans. for the last 45 years, we have been doing that. in 1972, we have to the chinese pingpong team. after the trip by mentioned were secretary kissinger went to china and the nixon went to shanghai, we had the chinese pingpong team which was hosted by s, and since then, we have sought to educate members of

congress, governors, mayors, the public about china as well as the chinese leadership about the united states. we have numerous programs you can read about our website to come -- website, ncuscr.org. host: how are you offended? guest: grants from the government, the department of education, the department of state, no. foundations. about 20% of our funding is from corporate america and a little less than 5% from individuals. host: on the republican line, misery -- missouri. caller: can you please explain how china benefited from these policies? guest: when they joined the

world trade organization, almost 10 years ago, it was required we give them a permanent favored nation treatment so they were treated in the terms of imports to the 90 states as every other country. that was a prerequisite to their joining the world trade organization. we do not every new the most favored nation treatment annually. in the 1990's before they joined, of we would annually have a debate on whether we would renew that treatment. now it is permanent. host: dallas, texas, on the independent line. caller: as a retiree, i tutor young people about currency changes because it is very confusing for those who really do not know how to invest in the future. excited about this

culture and i think the kindness was to stabilize the dollar. you joke about making a wage cheaper than the yen. the young people need to be inundated with enough information to understand this. india has better health care than we do. it is incredible. host: mcdonald county, missouri. on the democratic line. caller:, to take exception to something that mr. orlins said about the chinese helping us in the past. we thought the chinese in the korean war. we killed thousands of them and they killed thousands of us. we thought the chinese in vietnam.

they supplied north vietnam with technical expertise to help to the fetus in vietnam. my brother fought in korea and i fought in vietnam. last week, after the seals went pakistan and killed. lawton, the chinese military people -- killed bin laden, the chinese people tried to steal from the helicopter. they hack into the pentagon all the time. their spies are working here continuously taking everything they can. i would like our best to tell the truth instead of sugar coating this and say they are a wonderful nation and they love us and went to help us. they do not.

they are after our downfall. host: mr. orlins? guest: there are seeking to preserve stability within china and they need an environment of peace and security in the pacific in order to accomplish that. their problems are very much within china. they do not have a forced exposure in afghanistan, iraq, libya, and other places. i always smiling and remember a story told to me by someone in the chinese ministry of foreign affairs. this was during the bush years. president bush shot would get briefed every morning about afghanistan, iraq, somalia, latin america, and other places. president hu would get briefed about things going on within

china. they're basically focused internally. the two conflicts that were mentioned were both on china's borders and they have historically not sought to find power far from their borders. host: kansas, republican line. you are on. caller: most of the 60,000 jobs went to china. the jobs that they did not have here are no longer. they are out of work, they're taking lesser jobs. my problem is that there are no tariffs that we are getting from china. host: we will let our guest responded to that. guest: this goes back to a previous answer. yes, there are some jobs to have

left the united states, but predominantly, they left decades and decades ago and they went to japan. from japan in which currie and taiwan. that is number one. number two, even today, there are some jobs as a result of chinese investment and we really have not talked about that in the united states there being created by chinese capital. i have a friend who makes car parts in china. there is a car parts manufacturer in michigan that was going to be going under, said dave refunded and recapitalize the company and ended up preserving 125 jobs in michigan to that investment. that kind of investment is starting to happen more frequently and i believe in the coming decades, it will happen more. again, we should not blame tschida for these issues. we need to focus on what is going on in the united states. we need to rebuild our infrastructure, rebuild their

educational system, foster innovation. we need to do these things. the fact that the chinese are doing this should be a wake-up call for us to do it, not to blame them for succeeding at what they're doing. host: illinois, your next. caller: i take exception with a lot of the things this gentleman has said. in 1975, caterpillar had 2004 and workers. there presently building three new plants in china which they predicted in five years will employ 65,000 employees. california has 92. it was not for china, are still -- steel mills would be open. china sold their steel so low. i want people to start looking at every product in stores to

see the china is flooding the stores with child labor -- guest: can answer the question? is caterpillar, are they shift the unitedack to states? it's for sale within china. there was no way be cost competitive. they have not shifted those jobs to china. caller: if we were making it here, we could sell it to try. guest: and be cost competitive with the other earth-movers in china? i do not think that would be a realistic alternative. that is what globalization has done and caterpillar has responded to that. is not as if they took the jobs, move them to the united states,

and started to sell the equipment back in the united states. they set up to be cost competitive to sell into the chinese market which is with the overwhelming majority of u.s. companies have done when they invest in china. they invest in china in order to serve the market. host: off of email, "china has always been a great exporter of goods." off of twitter, "we should worry about what they're doing to this country and its people." on the republican line, you are next. caller: thank you to c-span. my question has to do with the approach you think the united states should take with china. we see that people are very angry and seem very frustrated. when you see someone like mr. trump --

host: i think that was in reference to donald trump's statements he made on china. guest: i would need a specific quota. host: sebring, florida. caller: i disagree with about 90% of what you have said. china imports about eight to one about of what our exports are. cheap chinese junks that goes into landfills. most of these products have toxins like mercury, lead, the we got out of our apartment 30 years ago. do you remember the pet food that they were shipping in that had rat poison? host: what would you like our guest to address?