future of education with dennis van roekel. and later the president of the alzeimers association harry johns discusses the latest efforts of battling the disease. >> we should be rooting for china to grow because not only does that then present an enormous market place for american businesses, american exports, but you know, to see so many millions of people, hundreds of millions of people lifted out of poverty is a remarkable achievement. host: president obama speaking at the asia pacific cooperation forum. good morning and welcome to

"washington journal" on this sunday, november 13, 2011. the president continues meetings with apec today in honolulu where he's expected to reiterate his message where he wants china to play by the rules, he thinks the u.s. and international community should be rooting for it. do you agree with the president's message? should the u.s. be rooting for china to grow? if you're outside the united states that number is 202-628-0214. you can also email us and find us on twitter. also find us on facebook and join the conversation there. look for c-span. wondering about your impressions of what president obama is saying, the duel message of encouraging china to play by the rules. a little bit of reprimanding as

well but rooting for the nation. let's look at the report from "the new york times." president obama sees an opening on china trade. he promised to continue a framed dialogue on economic disputes with china as he met with the president in honolulu. but the president added we should be rooting for chineo to grow. as millions of chinese emerge from poverties those are potential customers for us in the future. let's go right to the phones and hear what you think. dan joins us from chicago on the democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: welcome. go right ahead. caller: i believe that it would be good for china to grow. it's not 1929 any more. this is a world economy.

host: so do you see the u.s. benefiting from that? caller: yes, i think it would benefit. i think growth is better to have economic interchange rather than a military interchange. everybody needs to work. host: all right, let's hear from bobby, republican caller in new orleans. hi there. caller: good morning. absolutely not! have we learned nothing about human rights? i understand everybody's on this corporate bandwagon, the previous caller. absolutely against all we stand for as americans. no democracy, persecution, the muslims in the west on a regular basis. one child policy, forced abortions in china. the persecutions in tibet, the occupation, illegal and immorale. we should be sending a clear and

decisive message. if these human right violations despite the economic juggernaut that china presents will not be tolerated. host: do you think there could be a duel message bobby of both chastising and also giving encouragement? caller: no, and this is what we've seen with fence sitters from bush to obama. corporate lackey's selling out for capitalism. phony, croney capitalism. we all know this, we're standing by on live your, blythely going to wal-mart and buying these goods that china is producing on the backs of people stepping on human rights. they care nothing for anything but business. and i think rational people see this. host: ok, let's hear from al, independent caller in san antonio, north carolina. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go right ahead. caller: well, i just heard the previous caller and i think it's quite naive to assume, to ignore the fact that china is a growing

power and they have quite a bit of economic might. and american businesses need to grow. so, it makes sense. you can have a duel message. they need to continue to grow, but they need to grow in a way that's responsible so we can compete. because if we're allowed to compete we will win a significant amount of the time. we just need the rules to be fair so we can compete. and that will ultimately create jobs back here. to assume that we can't, those two ideas are mutually exclusive seems to be very naive and that's not really a 21st century mindset. that's we need to move forward, not this old, tired crap assuming we can stay on both sides of the fence. host: let's look at werders reporting on what the president is doing in honolulu.

president obama under pressure to create jobs at home and trying to highlight adopted a more steelly tone with president huh than he has with other meetings with his chyneas counterpart. obama said china must play by international rules when it comes to trade and stop poaching u.s. intellectual property. is that a enough of a message for you? do you think he went too far as one of our callers said. let's hear from mindy. caller: good morning, how you doing? host: well, thank you. caller: what we need to do as americans in general we have to work together. we need to see how fast we can

create china from an economic standpoint. [inaudible] host: ok, let's look at a comment coming to us via the internet on twitter. you can leave your comments on twitter and facebook as well. writes why doesn't the u.s. start producing goods that china needs at a price they're willing to pay? way imbalanced basically. let's hear from rich, a republican from ohio. go right ahead. caller: china agreed when they went into the other nations on the trade, on the exchange rates. they don't seem to want to keep their word. and now we have a second issue of human rights. we don't even know, selling body

parts if they can stay with our agreement on the other, how do we know where the body parts, if there are body parts, or are there human rights violation. we're about ready to tear apart pennsylvania for minor infractions that need to be taken care of. but china is mouths and mouths worse than that -- host: i'm not sure what i'm talking about in pennsylvania? caller: there are violations in penn state and they need to be taken care of. but when you put what china is doing to human rights, doing to their people and maybe even selling body parts when they kill people, we really got to take care of it because they're not staying with agreements. showing up in the trade and i'll hang up and hear your answer. host: well, we're looking for your comments and responses to the president's duel message this weekend talking about china. i would say to our last caller that the perception of a lot of

people around the penn state community is that it was not a minor infraction. tom, weighing in on the cape cod. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. what most people don't realize is that the united states is in great debt to china. we borrow, borrow, borrow. and they receive our money and what do they do with it? they buy, buy, buy. and some examples are vast land properties throughout africa, great stores of food. they own massive amounts of oil, gas, timber, raw materials throughout the world that they have brought the property rights to and therefore they will starve us out of mineral wealth and they will have a great advantage and industrial capacity that no other nation in the world has ever had and they will drive us into economic

ruin. and it's something that the president should see, and the people should see that if somebody controls the cards, the dealer, the casino, no one has a chance to win in any manner. it's very, very difficult to see the united states fail because they lack the fortitude to manufacture again, to get things organized so that we can be a free running back. host: let's take a look at comments on twitter. bill sends us this -- only 15% of americans feel economic expansion of china has been generally good for the economy and he says that comes from a cbs news poll. speaking of cbs, the network paired with national journal last night to bring debate of g.o.p. candidates for president on the topic of foreign policy. we're seeing an image from the washington post. debate brings g.o.p. candidates to south carolina. let's hear what candidate mitt romney, former governor of

massachusetts has to say on the relationship with china. >> well, number one and day one is acknowledging something which everyone knows -- they're a currency manipulator. on that basis, we go before the w.t.o. and bring action against them and that allows us to apply tariffs where we believe they are stealing our property, hacking into our computers or artifically lowering their prices and killing american jobs. we can't sit back and let china run all over us. people say you'll start a trade war. there's one going on right now folks, they're stealing our jobs. and we're going to stand up to china. host: we're talking about the president's message that china should be encouraged to grow, which can then help the u.s. economy. let's hear what connie thinks on our democrats line joining us from chicago. hi there. caller: good morning. host: good morning. caller: i am in favor of the

president's policy. i'm a proud supporter of president obama. i'm in favor of china growing but not at the expense of the american worker. i was out shopping recently and i got so discouraged. everything i put my hand on made in china, made in china. this is why our american workers don't have jobs! and then the prices for these very cheaply made products were so inflated. it is extremely discouraging. so yes, china can grow, but not at the expense of the american workers. thank you. host: alex, independent caller in new jersey. good morning, alex. caller: hi. host: welcome, you're on the program. caller: yeah, i think we should definitely encourage growth in china because i think that will grow the u.s. economy. i don't think we really have a

choice here. china owns most of the u.s. debt. i also think as china grows economically, there are over a billion people there for consumption of all sorts of goods. right now we can't compete. but i think as china grows economically, all these other issues, humanitarian problems, and political problems, and everything there worth mentioning will eventually get sorted out. just like the same situation that happened in the soviet union. host: comment on twitter, liz writes candidate romney talks big but the bottom line is we are in no position to stand up to china. they own us. let's hear what president obama also had to say at the summit on this idea of intellectual property and how things are going with china. >> government procurement, you

know. if we are allowing foreign countries to bid on projects in the united states of america we want ress prosity. how they work. all these issues i think have to be resolved. some of them can be resolved in multilateral forms. others will have to be resolved bilaterally. i am sympathetic to the fact that a lot of people in china were still impoverished and there's a rapid pace of urbanization that's taking place there that chinese leaders have to work through. but the bottom line is that the united states can't be expected to stand by if there's not the kind of reciprocity in our economic relationships that we need. host: he followed up by saying that he has brought up this issue with president hu of china in the past and intellectual

property is important to the united states. he said our biggest competitive advantage is our patents and copyrights. what do you think about the president's message that the u.s. should be rooting for china to grow? tom, democrat in fargo, north dakota. good early morning to you. caller: good morning. yes, i guess i kind of fail to see how it really benefits us in the long run. as you know we do have a national deficit. how do we expect to pay that out as long as we keep outsourcing jobs. whether it's big business, obviously they're doing that. there's a whole bunch of others, it's hard to say how many there actually are. and they're investing into our country, and that doesn't actually benefit us in the long

run. so i guess i'm kind of wondering how in the heck can that actually help out. host: diana from florida on our independent call line. hi diana. caller: good morning. i think that the president is on the right track and i think he's always been on the right track. i think he's been insanely sabotaged by the republicans. when they talk about human rights and all that stuff, where are the women in this country come from? our human rights have been squashed for centuries and the president seems to be taking some good points about china with growth. we need to listen, we need to understand that he's trying to make this country grow. he's not trying to sabotage anyone. he's trying to make this country grow. and i think that's the important thing you need to look at as far

as president obama, and see where these people are trying to sabotage his efforts. host: and diana what is your biggest concern about china? caller: i think that they -- there's always going to be poverty-stricken people, middle class people and rich people. we can't get past that. and i think that china is doing something that is positive as far as growth. and we need to learn from that. we need to understand that people, countries like greece and italy who are pulling us down, pulling the whole economy down and china who is growing, we need to look at this in a calm, sensible, rational way and learn from it. host: let's go to patrick, democratic caller in newcastle, delaware. good morning. caller: good morning, how are you? host: good, thanks. caller: i tuned in a little late. i wasn't sure if you were talking about china or israel? israel treats people horriblely, but they have this killing of

fetuses, embryyon i think stem cell research and our taxes are paying for them. no one calls in and criticizes israel for what they've done. the pope has finally come out and condemned, it's about time. host: how does this relate to china? caller: the people that call in about china are being hypocrites. we give our money to israel and they don't call in about that! host: let's hear about huntsman talking. >> i don't think mitt can take china to the wto, second i don't know this country needs a trade war with china. who does it hurt? our small businesses in south carolina, our exporters, our

agriculture producers. we don't need that at a time when china is about to embark on a generational transition. so what should we be doing? we should be reaching out to our allies within china. they're called the young people. they're called the internet generation. host: john huntsman speaking last night in south carolina that was hosted by cbs and national journal. talking about china and the relationship the u.s. has with that country. president obama said yesterday that while he's trying to keep china to follow some of the rules, he would like to see the u.s. root for china to grow. let's take a look at some emails that have come in. steve a democrat writes i think we should focus on our own manufacturing base, not other nations. taking a look at another email that came in, fran from new york says --

debra a republican in florida. what do you think? caller: well, we need to implement the fair tax. we could end up paying off, paying china back. china really doesn't care about anyone but themselves. and also along, i heard someone mention with iran, not going along with the united states as far as sanctions against iran because israel. israel is our closest and longest and best ally and really only real ally in the middle east. and we need to always stand beside israel.

also the united states is not respected any more. and when you use the word respect -- when i use the word respect i'm using to it be politically correct because respect really means fear. no one fears the united states any more since this administration has been in. and we need to elect a president that the world will respect again. and in that way i feel that newt gingrich would be the candidate for that position. host: let's take a look at some of the international news that's in the papers this morning. this is from the "baltimore sun." italy's long serving leader steps down amid hopes, fears and lots of uncertainty. the italian prime minister berusconi resigned saturday

night as throngs of people brimming with both hope and trepidation that a new era would soon begin for the country. "the new york times" looking at what's happening in europe, even as governments act, time runs short for the euro. the window of opportunity to save the euro is rapidly closing as the debt crisis arose the -- other international stories in the news. they vote to suspend syria. steps have been approved and it opens the door to intensify pressure on syrian leader assad.

a sweeping package of measures senn censuring syria. host: some of the international stories in the news. we'll look at more of the u.s. political store i haves as well. let's take a look at one more story in japan. the devastation, first look for outsiders after the nuclear disaster. "the new york times" reports that the most striking picture at the crippled power plant was not the blasted out reactor buildings or the makeshift tsunami wall but the chaotic mess. the ground around the reactor buildings was littered with twissed metal beams and broken building frames left mostly as

they were after one of the world's largest recorded earthquakes started a chain reaction that devastated the region and to some extent of japan. there's a tour going on there and you can see an image here of the bus tour. journalists joined a tokyo electric power company officials. our question for you this morning is also on the international front. what do you think president obama, what do you think of his message that the u.s. should be rooting for china to grow? and the u.s. will benefit from it. let's hear from blue sky in little rock, arkansas on our republican lines. good morning. caller: good morning. thank you for having me on. host: thanks for calling. caller: president has spoken about ress prosity. we're talking about china and we're supposed to be rooting for their growth. that i understand. but we're also looking at a country that limits the freedom of all of its citizens.

china already owns us over here because everything you go to the store to buy is either made in china, taiwan or japan, ok? i'm not against china's growth, i'm just not able to understand how obama can think that we are -- we should trust china. that's like trusting russia at this point ok? or iran. we need to take care of our own house before we start rooting for everybody else. because our country is in dire straits right now. the unemployment rate is phenomenal. if you think there's going to be any reciprocity to them who we have given money to? in payment back to us for

rebilling of country, isn't going to happen. and if it did it would only go to line our senators, congressmens pockets. i don't want to go there with that. i just want to say you know rooting for china is like they've got a country that only allows them to have one child! they don't have rights. they can be arrested for anything and the whole caning thing i don't even want to get started with. i think this is a country that is not going to be our friend. i think this is a country that has come in under the radar and bought our property. we just stood by, all of our americans, just stood by blindly letting them pull the whool over our eyes. i don't expect it from china. i expect them because they're the owner to take us over.

thank you. host: president obama didn't just make the statement that he thinks the u.s. should be rooting for china, he also put pressure on the country. he met with the chinese president hu and he told them american republic is growing increasingly frustrated with progress between the two nations. jean, independent caller. hi there. caller: hi. i just want to make a couple of points. firstly it's very disturbing that no one has mentioned tibet at all. china is not just bad on human rights. running over their own citizens several years ago, but they are literally run over tibet. they've put in rail lines, they've imported their own people there, and have completely devastated the dibetan people, many who fled the country many years ago.

the dallly lama is still in exile and even recently many buddists nuns have set themselves on fire. it is so bad over there with the chinese. so, i think it's our duty as consumers not to buy chinese goods. we should not go to stores that sell only chinese goods like wal-mart. wal-mart has lured many u.s. factries, including hoover, handcuffy bites, i believe lego, they have lured these factories to china. host: jean, do you have any success shopping for non-chinese goods? do you do that yourself? caller: absolutely. i do not go to wal-mart. yes, you do pay a little bit more. but if you go to small, local stores. sporting good stores, --

host: jean, so you're talking about what you can do, but what do you think the white house should do? caller: what do i think the white house should do? host: yep. caller: i think that they should completely stand up for tibet right now. the nuns, the priests in tibet are trying to bring attention to this that the people there are being devastated and tortured by the chinese. we should have no more trade agreements with them and the president should insist that they leave tibet and let the poor, ancient culture alone. host: let's listen to more of what the president had to say when he said the u.s. should be rooting for china to go but then he went onto talk about the trade-off. >> we should be rooting for china to grow. because not only does that then present an enormous market place for american businesses,

american exports, but you know to see so many millions of people, hundreds of millions of people lifted out of poverty is a remarkable achievement. whether it is china, whether it is india, these emerging countries -- what they are accomplishing in a few short decades -- alleviating poverty, helping ordinary people all oral world get access to opportunity -- that is a wonderful dream that we should be rooting for, and those are potential customers for us in the future. but what i have said since i first came into office and what we have exhibited in terms of our interactions with the chinese is we want them to play by the rules. currency is probably a good example. there are very few economists

who do not believe that the rnb is not undervalued. that makes exports to china more expensive, and it makes exports from china cheaper. host: president obama speaking yesterday in honolulu. democratic color in los angeles. good morning and welcome to "washington journal." caller: good morning. i am calling about the china deficit, the trade deficit we have. it is still out of control. it is unbelievable. i believe president obama has a good heart. i think he is ill-advised by some of his advisers. the man does not have a clue what is happening here in america. you go to the store, they had a

program recently where they ended a house and everything that was not made in america was ended out of the house. i wish to buy a fender for my 1963 chevrolet pickup and an antique store. i get defend our appeared turn it over, it is made korean china. -- i get the fender out, turn it over. it is made in china. we do not have any goods to sell to them. they are cheaper and competitive in every way, shape, or form. i think they should have an increase on all products coming

in from other companies and not worry about the trade deficit and trade war. we are already in a trade war, and we are losing badly. two or three years ago, the government of china bought 10,000 mortgages in america in one lump sum. it is a wake up time for america. forget about what china thinks or our trade deficit for them. just take care of ourselves. take care of our people. >> president obama was saying yesterday that by rooting for china, the u.s. can take care of itself. accessing that marketplace. he talked about how there is an opportunity to have american goods sent to china said the millions of people there could use american products. what do you think, rick, republican in massachusetts? is there a way the u.s. can benefit from china's success?

caller: only if we get really tough with them. i am a conservative. china basically join modern society 20 years ago. they want to join wto. what i tell people at work is they are playing poker with us but they keep insisting on getting six cards and we only get five. there is some positive news since we got tough. cheap labor in the world does you no good if you do not have the patents and processes to build it. that is why china keeps on forcing companies to transfer technology to them to partner with their local companies if they want access. i think this is against wto laws, but these companies will not say anything because they know once they do, they will be frozen out of the market forever. two good examples are wind turbines -- basically ge only

has the technology. they basically forced companies to transfer technology. we filed a case against them and won, but it was already too late. they do this consistently. i can go on and on and on. we could make stuff in the united states and sell it there, but china basically says, "we are a developing country and the only way we will advance is taking your technology." you can go on the web. obama talked a lot tougher when he was on the campaign trail. i might vote for romney just on the china issue if he is serious about it. they took close to 6 million manufacturing jobs in the last 20 years. thank you for having the subject. next let's go to our caller. mike is in seattle on our independent line. good morning. caller: good morning. host: go ahead. what do you think about the idea

of rooting for china to grow? caller: the idea is that we could make our country grow as well as theirs. we should not worry too much about china and how fast they grow. we should worry about how fast we can grow and how fast we can develop jobs as well. host: president obama talked about how america could export goods to china and that there might be a lot of customers there. do you think growth can happen on both fronts? caller: that maybe it, but when it comes to business and trading step here and there, they are going to play to win, and we should be doing the same thing. really, we need to wake up. i do not know if the government people are really on drugs or not, but really, somebody is slipping. even canada is showing up with the oil prices. we need to wake up, put ourselves back together, and get

our country growing the right way. as far as jobs and whatever else we need. host: let's look at the question of intellectual property and china's role in using american technology. other nations and companies' technologies. this is from the bbc.

salt lake city, utah, kevin, democrats line. good morning. caller: yes, i wanted to say mitt romney is not being truthful when he says he will stand up to china. china is literally loading almost all of -- they are loaning us all of our money that we are using. there are driving our economy into the ground and put us in this position. now, we are forced to borrow all this money. no one is going to stand up to them. they are learning as way too much money. it is all a smokescreen. he is trying to sound like he is going to be tough on china. it is never going to happen. let's be realistic. they are literally propping up our economy. host: 8 you were on twitter rights -- a viewer on twitter

writes -- let's look at a story our last caller broke up. this from the "new york times." it is looking at mitt romney's time in a private equity firm. it says -- the mit" looking at this

experience -- the "new york times" looking at this experience. it looks at the liabilities. their total liability, which included short-term and long- term debt soared, and employees, the total work force, was 6000 in the year 2002, about the same as 1996, but with 17 fewer u.s. workers. it shows the u.s. worker number going down there. that is from the "new york times" this morning. other political news, some of it focused on the debate last night where presidential candidates and the gop side squared off in the debate by pbs and national journal and dealt with foreign policy. it was the first such foreign policy debate yet this year, and it touched on issues like iran, china, as we have been talking about, whether or not foreign aid should be given out.

let's look at this lead from the "washington post." omaha, nebraska, david on our republicans line. what do you think about the president's message that the u.s. should be rooting for china to grow? david, turn down your tv for us. caller: oops, i am sorry. i think they need to -- i think the american economy needs to turn around and look at itself and find out what the problem is internally. i do not think a guy needs to make $32 or $38 an hour to stand on an assembly line. it is no wonder why all the big

companies -- the big motor companies are going to mexico or canada or wherever. it is like, "come on, americans. let's put some stuff together and be the kind of people we need to be again." host: we have been talking about the president's comments about china yesterday but we have also been talking about presidential debates on the gop side appear that have been a series of debates also in the past week. let's look at "saturday night live"'s interpretation of rick perry and his performance at the debate last week. he had trouble remembering the three branches of government he wants to eliminate. >> i've got it -- the three apartments i would cut -- education, commerce -- why is it so hard? i can feel it dancing around.

it is up there somewhere. i would know if i heard it. >> epa? >> that is it. thanks. let's hear it for running a call here with his little birdie arms -- let's hear it for ronnie paul here. >> is it really the epa? >> no, sir. no, sir. i am trying to think, but my brain is just going -- >> you still have to name the third department. >> i did not? i know, it is -- mard. that is not a word. can we just move on? i want to be present, but not like this. -- i want to be president, but not like this. >> all three now, ready? commerce -- oh, god, i only know one now. host: "saturday night live"

spoof on rick perry. we talk about the president's comments on china yesterday. saying that the u.s. should root for china to grow. here is what maverick says on twitter -- here is what paul says in an e- mail that came in to us -- that is an e-mail that came in to us this morning.

next up on our phone lines, rick, independent, and connecticut. good morning, ric. caller: i have been involved in this issue since the early 1990's in the trenches fighting. host: how so? caller: 80% or 85% of people opposing favored status for china, the gap, which was 7.5- feet high and nobody had read, and they somehow coursed senator dole, president of the senate at times, to reverse its opposition to it. and after, which we were told, talking about insulting intelligence. the excuse is, cassette and if it does not work, there's a clause in it where we can get out in three years." i could speak on this issue for hours and hours.

the bottom line is, a couple of things that people need to know -- the collateral for all government debt is your real property, your house and your land in the final analysis -- that is the collateral. second, this whole thing has to do with corporations increasing their customer base so that they can continually increased their profits. you know, i will give you a couple of quotes, and this is not just from the neocon's. this is from teh ne -- the neolibs. this is a couple of quotes from some democrats, god bless them. cuomo used to reveal a glimmer truth when he got hot under the collar. he said the average wage in the

country is over $24 an hour, and we just have to get that down. in the intelligence squared debate, at the very end, he said california is not a field state -- a failed state because we had innovation. he says he cannot innovate things, you cannot outsourced things until you innovate them. host: sum it up. we are about to leave the segment. what is your final comment? caller: my final comment is this is similar in some regards to refusing to prevent immigration and open borders. this is to bring up everyone else a little bit at the expense of america. this is economic treason. i do not know if people still laugh at the term -- these to laugh when people said it 20 years ago, when we were being told by certain groups around the united states what was coming. everything we were told by those

groups that we so demonize has come to fruition. ladies gentlemen, this is economic treason, and we are ready for a nationalistic candidate. host: we have to cut rick off there. moving on this morning, we will have the head of the national education association talking with us about education union issues. also, we will look at the disease of all summers. next up, a discussion on the joint deficit reduction committee and potential cuts to the defense budget. first, a news update from c-span radio. >> we will hear more on news at noon today when c-span radio riviera's five network tv talk shows. topics today and the program include the 2012 presidential election, charges of abuse at penn state, and the upcoming deadline for the deficit reduction committee. again, we began at noon with ."c's "meet the press it then, a gop presidential

candidate congresswoman michele bachmann, also the chair of the democratic national committee, congresswoman debbie wasserman schulz. christianne amanpour talks, and then tom corbett on the sex abuse scandal at penn state. and chris wallace talks with pennsylvania republican senator pat to me, democratic representative james cliburn, and pennsylvania governor to become core but once again appear at 3:00 p.m., cnn's state of the union, the co-chair pyridine, virginia democratic senator mark warner and oklahoma republican senator tom coburn, both members of the gang of six in the senate. finally, here "face the nation" on cbs. former chairman of the republican national committee,

haley barbour, and the chairman of the democratic governors' association martin o'malley of maryland. again, we begin at noon eastern with nbc's meet the press at 1:00, here it is he posted this week, 2:00 p.m., fox news sunday, 3:00, and pose a state of the union pier finally, 4:00 p.m., "face the nation from cbs ." listen to them all here listen on your iphone or blackberry or nationwide on xm satellite radio channel 119, or always, you can listen online anywhere at cspanradio.org. >> karl marlantes finally recognizes and comes to terms with his posttraumatic stress disorder decades after vietnam. >> i started telling this guy about my symptoms. you know, jumping up in the middle of the night running out site without even knowing what was going on.

the car would hope behind me. i would get out of my own car, just angry, just attacking the car behind me. and he said to me, he says, "have you ever been in a war?" that hit me so hard. i am in the middle of this room with 80 people, and started bawling. it was that simple. when he finally got me back into some semblance of control, he says, "you have ptsd. have you ever heard of it?" >> more tonight on c-span's " q&a." every week and on american history to become the people and events that document american story. collaborators/conspirator or innocent boarding home owner? a group of lawyers, judges, and historians retry mary surratt on charges that she was involved in president lincoln assassination. send to prison for his role in watergate, macgruder on working

on the committee to reelect. and boston university professor thomas whalen on the presidency and cold war policy. look for the complete we can schedule at c-span.org/history, or for our schedules in your in box, click the c-span alert button. "washington journal" continues. host: the president and ceo of the center for security policy joins us. thanks for being with us. the deficit reduction committee is in its final week and a half of coming up with a plan. do you think they will reach something they can present to congress? >> i tell you, it beats the dickens out of me. as far as i can tell, everybody else is having a hard time getting it straight beat on this. it sounds as though they may pick up one or two republicans or something that will look a lot like revenue enhancement, another name for tax increases,

which might give them what they need to get a deal. on the other hand, i am also hearing from people on the committee or close to it that it is just not coming together. we have the president saying over the weekend that he will veto any effort to repeal the sequestration that will come slamming down if this committee does not come up with a deal and congress as a whole does not accept the deal. obviously, the stakes are very high. i think at the moment, it is too soon to tell whether there is something that will gel out of this or whether it will move to be what i think will be a real train wreck. host: let's hear what the defense secretary said last week, warning that the deficit reduction committee fails to reach a deal, it will lead to, in his mind, a hollow military.

guest: -- >> a hollow military has the organizational structure but lacks the people, the training, and the equipment it needs to actually get the job done. it is a ship without sailors. it is a brigade without bullets. it is an airline without enough trained pilots. it is a paper tiger. the barracks, buildings, and bonds without enough trained soldiers able to accomplish the mission. it is a force that suffers low morale, corps readiness, and is unable to keep up with potential adversaries. in fact, it invites aggression. host: defense secretary leon panetta speaking thursday at a press conference about what could happen if the deficit reduction committee does not come to an agreement.

automatic cuts go into place, and he talks about what those cuts could lead to. give us your impression of what the defense secretary was saying. >> i think he is right with one small caveat. i think he is understating the magnitude of the danger, and i think you certainly need to recognize that the cuts that he and president obama have already embraced are likely to give rise to the outcomes he is talking about. this is a point that is not entirely understood by people on capitol hill, let alone the public at large. even before we get to what ultimately comes out of this operation on capitol hill at the moment of the super committee and perhaps this catastrophe, as i say, of sequestration, there has already been almost $500 billion slated for cuts in the military's budget.

i think what the secretary has said describes a hollowing out process, but i am really concerned, i have to tell you, that i think we are approaching the point where we are looking at the eviscerating the military, not simply following it up. one that he really concluded with, which is the one i think we'd better all be thinking about is -- this is not simply happening in a vacuum. the hollowing out or if his rating of the military, as i say, is happening against the backdrop of a world that is becoming, i believe, vastly more dangerous by the day. indeed, i think there is a very high probability that before the next election, we will see a major regional war breaking out in the middle east. the next war for the survival of the state of israel, i think. and if we are in fact inviting aggression, as the secretary said, by taking steps that make

us appear to be a paper tiger or at least unable to defend our interests and protect our allies, that does make this dynamic that is already in evidence, i think in particular in the middle east, and in various other places are on the world, vastly more dangerous. >> looking at "national journal" pose a reporting on this -- "national journal"'s reporting on this. let's look of spending on the military. $708 billion peer $200 billion of that goes to readiness, training to military bases. $109 million to iraq and afghanistan. another $139 billion goes towards military pay. $51 billion to health care. the wars in iraq and afghanistan

changing, the war in iraq essentially winding down and the president being limited in afghanistan -- is there room to make some big cuts in a way that would not be resulting in a sort of paper tiger? >> well, we are going to find out. we are taking, as i say, $500 billion out of defense spending over the next 10 years, and the thing that is troubling to me about that is not only that i believe it assumes that when we withdraw from iraq and afghanistan that that is kind of the end of it. that there will not actually be further problems from either of those places. i think that is, well, foolish, and probably reckless. the trouble is the adversaries we have been confronting in this places are going to see the vacuum is a power we are creating by our withdrawal as an

open season, i think, on us, perhaps, and on certainly our interests. when you add on top of that the fact that what we have been doing already under the cuts that have been mandated even before the latest nearly $500 billion was directed by the president is putting on hold virtually all of the modernization programs with the united -- that the united states military has had in the pipeline for some years. we are not putting them on hold, we are certainly pairing them back. what is so worrying is that we are talking about a military that is not going to be able to contend with future threats. when you look at the fact that much of the equipment that they have been fielding to date, sort of living off of -- back when i was in government in the reagan

ministration, the investment that was made then that was being broken or burned out or certainly one down -- worn down in the president theaters of operation, you have a force that is desperately in need of both greatly enhancing the performance of the existing equipment. that is not happening. it is in the cards, and it will not happen for sure if another $600 billion is taken out. host: frank gaffney is our guest. you can join the conversation on defense spending and the deficit reduction committee by calling these numbers.

let's here from atlanta, republican of in raleigh, north carolina. -- let's hear from elena. thank you for calling. caller: i am a german citizen. i have to establish the american institute of security and defense and the nonprofit organization. the name of my younger sister -- the proposal asking how to address the deficit.

host: i am having a low trouble understanding you, but you are talking about how to address the deficit? we will leave it there. did you get a sense of her question? guest: i am sorry to say i really did not. obviously, she is a german national who has migrated here to work on these sorts of issues. sorry i do not know more about what she is doing. host: it is unfortunate the phone connection was poor. let's talk about the idea of reducing the deficit. have you talked perhaps about ways that they could cut spending and defense so as to avoid not coming up with some sort of cutting plan? guest: honestly, i do not think that it is advisable to be taking still further cuts out of defense. in that, i have been joined, at least as far as i can tell, by president obama and leon panetta and the joint chiefs of

staff. i think the military more generally, because they are still trying to figure out how they are going to take, safely, responsibly, the $500 billion that has now been slated. my purpose has been basically to urge the super committee, the congress more generally, not to take more out, not to figure out other ways to do it. there are plenty of people in washington who have got great ideas, but i have not yet found one that does not mean we are leaving parts of the world and covered without a military presence, and ability to project power. in some cases, allies abandoned out right, all of which i think simply makes the world more dangerous. mike, work on those issues -- these things almost always turn

out to be penny stupid and found insane. we wind up making false economies that turn out to accelerate dynamics that are hugely expensive to repair. often not just in terms of national treasure, which is bad enough, but in terms of the courtesy that we actually hold much more deer, and that is the lives of our men and women in uniform and perhaps civilians. it if you wind up doing what we do, a kind of bus and boom approach to national security, there's not a business in the country that will operate that way, and yet, we think that is the way it operates the most important business. if it does translate into a loss of life as well as treasurer and property and so on, it is very

much a false economy. host: massachusetts on the independent line. welcome. caller: good morning. in a lot of areas, i agree with your guest. i think the only area we would be reasonable claim cutting defense spending is requiring our allies to put their pound of flesh into the game. we do a lot of defending of our allies, and they provide not anywhere near as much of their own defense as they should. on the other hand, i do not believe this administration has any interest in a strong military. look at the way they are kowtowing to the chinese, to the saudis, the palestinians, the iranians. something needs to be done to safeguard our people. however, i think our allies really need to start stepping up

and paying a far larger share of their defense than they are. japan is a good example. guest: good points i think on both counts. what we find is that most of our allies are simply not pulling their load. what they have done, which i think has been helpful to us, is say in many cases virtually all of the freight for our deploying and maintaining our forces on their territory. there are some who say that is one way we could make economies, just bring our troops home from south korea or japan or germany. my concern about that is not only do we lose the forward projection capabilities that those bases represent for us, especially in a time when we are going through these kind of budget exercises, which will be more valuable than ever, but we are also, i am afraid, going to

find that it costs us a lot of money to bring those troops home. unless we are simply going to disband them. you have to build facilities to house them. basis, airfields', shipyards, and the like. this is not, i think, again, the sort of thing that will leave us stronger. while i would certainly agree with the caller that we ought to be pressing our allies to do more, none of them is likely to do it, and i would make it, i guess, a principle that we will not compound the problem that their failure to supply their own defense represents by withdrawing our spirit on the question you raised about is there a kind of wrecking operation going on here on the part of the obama administration, i have said i believe that the president's doctrine is effectively emboldening our enemies and

undermining our allies and diminishing our country. i think if you look at what he has been doing around the world -- you mentioned a number of specific examples with which i would agree. i think that is the practical effect, and again, it is contributing to a more dangerous world and on top of it, hollowing out of the military. host: utah, democrats line. caller: i want to say first of all, i am and american, and i am really ticked off at this president. the reason i want to say that is this -- when you send out american troops to war -- i do not care what country it is. i do not care about politics -- we are supposed to look out for them. when they come back, we are supposed to look out for them. we have done so much damage to the military. if we pick a fight with a

country, they pick it with us, our american soldiers have the right to have everything they need to fight that war. guest: thank you for that very patriotic attitude. and i could not agree with you more. the thing that is so worrying to me is as we look at what is happening here on capitol hill is first of all, very few members, unfortunately, at this point really have much of an understanding of national security and foreign policy matters. i think this is contributing to some of the attitudes or least some of the structural arrangements like this sequestration deal that is so problematic. beyond that, i think very few americans these days have the kind of personal connection to our armed forces that your

comments seemed to suggest you do have and i think every one of us should feel. we did not, as a general rule, have persons we are related to, for example, serving in the military. i think 1% of the nation is doing so. and in an%, which is not the 99% we keep hearing about, with the occupiers, but that 99% is increasingly removed from what these folks are doing for all of us. it has reduced the footprint of the military. the industrial base that supports the military has contracted dramatically, so there are a few of us working in it or working for it. put all that together, and i think there's a real danger that we have simply failed to

understand. the people keeping is free, and if you do not think that is what they are doing, just watch. if i am right -- and needless to say i hope i'm wrong, this world will become more dangerous, considerably more dangerous, as a result of real or perceived weakening of the military and of our nation. i think it is going to mean the importance of our security will only grow. we only hope they are better prepared to deal with it. host: 1 of our followers on twitter asks who funds the organization appears we will also look at your website as you answer that question. guest: the social secured a policy is a not-for-profit organization. we receive charitable contributions from all kinds of people. about half of them are from individual contributors.

a portion from industry, including the defense industry, but not exclusively. the rest from foundations, who have been generous in supporting what we think of as the need to promote a philosophy that my old boss called peace through strength. host: in addition to his role as founder and president the center for security policy hosts a secure freedom radio show and is also a weekly columnist with the "washington times." he contributes to the "national review" on line. it was a professional staff member on the senate armed services committee back in the early 1980's.

republicans in pontiac, illinois, good morning. guest: -- caller: good morning. always a pleasure to hear what you have to say. i was in d.c. in 2007 when you were talking about hybrid cars. i have a question about the f- 22 program. as i understand it, that is being de-funded by the obama administration. at present, apparently, the chinese have developed a knockoff of the f-22, and is going to make sales available to pakistan. exactly how good is their version? guest: let me say christians united for israel is a terrific organization. a privilege to visit with them during their annual convention

which we could address at some point or on another occasion. and many other matters. they are doing very important work here. on this question of the f-22, this was one of the examples i was referring to earlier in which the obama administration has been, even before the next rounds of cuts go into effect, systematically taking down the modernization programs on which i believe the future of the united states military and arguably our security as a country will depend. the f-22 is by far the best still fit generation fighter in the world today. i do not think another country on the planet have the capacity to make that aircraft that would voluntarily truncate its production run at a fraction of

what had been projected as needed. we have done so in part on the basis that the administration thought the f-35, another relatively smaller, relatively less capable but also fifth generation stealth fighter, would pick up the slack. unfortunately, as is often the case, that bird in hand was real, and the bird in the bush continues to have problems and to be dragged out and to be, unfortunately, not as available or as capable, needless to say as tof-22 -- as the f-22. as for the chinese, i think we are a ways away from knowing how capable their fighter is. they have incorporated stealth technology in it. it is unclear whether it has the super crews capability, but it is certainly evidence that it

was a serious miscalculation, as is often the case in these things. when the secretary of defense, robert gates at the time, said we would be able to rely on the few f-22's we have and then the maintain our air superiority for the future, whether they sell to pakistan or simply populate their own air forces, we will see in due course from china and from russia, aircraft that are more capable than the ones we have in our inventory in substantial numbers, again, many of which came into being in the reagan years, not quite anti. my point is again, basically this. we were in a world that is dynamic, full of surprises, and have the capability to share something that we have enjoyed basically in every war since world war ii, nearly complete control of the air means control

of things on the ground as well. if you give that up, you may not, and that may can translate into real danger for our troops and our allies and our interests. host: let's take a look at the different opinions. looking at the "new york times,", there is a sunday dialogue section, readers responding to that. this is from the center fellow at the senior for american progress. he was an assistant secretary of defense in the reagan administration. he writes that there are ways to make cuts in the defense budget. he writes that they are unlikely to use nuclear weapons.

you already address some of these issues. you disagree with some of those findings, especially activity in the middle east, but you are looking for some room for cuts. guest: yes, he was one of the people i was thinking of one and said there are lots of folks around here who have great ideas as to how to hollow out the military. i had pretty consistently disagreed with larry since we served together in the reagan administration, and on these matters, and particularly do. let me turn to the first question first -- i think in real terms, that is to say not inflation dollars, but real terms, the budget is not three times the size of the clinton budget. more to the point, the clinton budget was one of those in which we went into the bust phase before. we have not really, i believe, recovered from the peace

dividends that the clinton administration used to try to balance the federal budget back in its day. we have spent a lot of money, to be sure, fighting two wars. you have to, i think, at that into the calculation. what is so worrying is when the clinton administration cut the military, like it -- it did so relatively close to the buildup of the reagan years. so you had more cushion than we have now. what is happening at this moment under the obama administration, the cuts that it has already taken, already committed to, to say nothing of the cuts now in prospect, is that cushion is gone. we have not been keeping faith, i would say, with the military. nuclear forces are being slashed. the administration of barack

obama is refusing to do anything to modernize those forces. it is talking about as a result of budget cuts, going from three legs, as they call it, as a triad, to two legs meaning some of the redundancy and offsetting strengths of the nuclear forces will simply be defenseless. at a time when we are talking about the china that we have recently learned has built 3,000 miles of underground tunnels. they call it the underground great wall. to conceal what assuredly is a large and growing nuclear capability. there's not another nuclear power on the planet, friendly or not, that is not building up its nuclear forces. i think it is a very ill-advised time for us to be getting hours, let alone failing to modernize it as we are doing. that is just one example. we have touched on retirement

spirit we have touched on withdrawing forces from elsewhere. i think these are the sorts of things that invite greater danger. i disagree with larry and others who say that they can be done safely. >> let's hear from a democrat in granada hills, california. good morning. caller: good morning. i think cutting the defense budget is ridiculous. soldiers did not have the proper equipment during the bush administration, and everyone knows that. i would also like to talk about president obama's routing for china. i think it is shortsighted how americans have forgotten about the history in this country. it was not centuries ago that the civil rights movement was indeed a movement, and native american indians are still suffering in this country today. why would we not move for another nation? because our civil rights history

is perfect? i really do not think so. thank you so much. guest: i kind of lost the logic here, but i certainly agree with the first part. i think that under george w. bush, we were not doing as much as we should have, as i mentioned earlier, to replace obsolescent equipment and ensure that the equipment we were using was not simply being ground down and made very difficult to maintain and operate, but it looks like the good old days, compared to where we are now and where we are likely to be in the future. so i really agree with you that this is the sort of thing that should not be done. it certainly should not be down slightly, let alone in the kind of fashion that will be obligatory if this so-called sequestration option is exercised, which is to simply say we're going to take $600 billion off the top of what the

defense department has in addition to the previous $500 billion. and they will simply have to take it out of every single account. modernization, research and development, maintenance, operations. pensions, benefits, and so on. this is, again, to put a fine point on it, we have an all- volunteer force. that is a force of people who willingly submit themselves to the sacrifices and hardships that are necessary to protect the rest of us. if we do in fact windup breaking faith with them, and i think, again, that has to happen if we see the source of magnitude of cuts, we are already asking them in many cases to perform repeated combat tours. some people have served as many as six in the course of a military career. and to tell them they will not get the retirement benefits, not get the health care, not get

the bonuses and other benefits that they have been promised -- i think it is a way of breaking the military. add on top of it some of the cultural stuff being done lately. the imposition of homosexuals on the military, and it simply aggravates further an already problematic situation. i think we will rue the day as a people if, god forbid one more of these wars eventually -- and we are ill-prepared to protect ourselves in them, to say nothing of securing them in the first place, which is obviously far preferable. host: we are talking about the deficit reduction committee and the work it is doing and what will happen if it does not come up with a plan to fund $1.20

trillion in spending cuts or revenues. it has to take a vote by november 23 and advance that to the whole congress. congress must vote by december 23. if there is no agreement reached, $1.20 trillion in automatic cuts between defense and domestic spending. members of congress behind the scenes were talking about across the board cuts as an option, but i enroll calls, one reporter had this story -- are you hearing there is any potential to exempt or take out

defense cuts from sequestration? guest: i see a lot of members, including some on the committed himself, who have an appreciation that this is truly a catastrophic approach. that does not necessarily mean that there will be legislation adopted. that is what would be required, of course. you would have to amend or repeal the existing bill to make those changes. but what the president has said, as i understand it as recently as yesterday, is he will not support any such relief. so though he has said before, as has his secretary of defense, that we have done the cuts that we can afford to take any defense and we are not going to take any more, he seems to be saying he will in fact insist that there be another $600 billion taken out of defense -- guest: that could be -- host:

that could be a bargaining chip, appeared having the threat of sequestration, could inspire them to come up with a plan that congress could vote on. now, where's the incentive? guest: people in washington have on occasion, you may have noticed here at c-span, said things that are not true or that they do not mean or that they are just doing for political posturing. the problem is there is no question that there are substantial numbers of members on capitol hill on both sides of the aisle, and i think even to some extent in both parties. it horrifies me as a republican, but actually having defense performed the bill payer function envisioned by sequestration is better than some of the other options, whether they are raising revenues or whether they are cutting entitlements. even if the president is just posturing at the moment, my guess is that you will have a

hard time getting through the senate under democratic control the kind of reform or repeal legislation that would be required to spare us. host: talking about the deficit reduction committee, related to that, on c-span we will be hearing from grover norquist, president of americans for tax reform. he talked with reporters about the debate over spending cuts versus tax increases and adjustments in addressing the u.s. debt. here is mr. norquist talking about the deficit committee and what he expects from them. >> the modern democratic party made it clear they want $1 trillion in democratic texas they want the spending cuts to be completely funded and what the $1 trillion in spending. a position is set up to make this fail. there was an effort by republicans to think maybe you could do tax reform inside the super committee. there were two of the democrats, one of whom i ran into today on

the hill, who were hopeful that maybe you could do something. harry reid, obama, pelosi want it to fail. it will fail. but the narrative has changed, the idea that they could blame republicans. if there plan that was offered was the final deal and lots of republicans voted for it, that would be a tax increase. could you support the deal if it is the one that actually came out? >> because it is not written down, because it has also moving parts, it would be inappropriate to talk about a hypothetical, but it would -- since it is not going to happen, it does not keep me up at night. host: grover norquist of americans for tax reform, president of that organization talking about his doubts that the deficit reduction committee will come up with a plan. the entire interview with him airs on "newsmakers" today at 6:00 p.m. eastern time. it is also available online at c-span.org.

our guest is frank gaffney, talking about possible defense cuts as the deficit reduction committee works toward its deadline. let's hear from north dakota. a large contributor to our deficits and our budget because right now we have a $600 billion dollar annual trade deficit. half with communist china and now they are the largest holder of our debt and they are telling us we need to cut our military spending? and in a senate foreign relations committee senator jim webb said if communist china is engaged in transshipment of nuclear technology and equipment and material from north korea and senator bob menendez said they have inaugurated a mistal plan in

iran and transfer from communist china to iran. and on fox news on the huckabee report netanyahu from israel characterized about ballistic missiles that can hit the u.s. and they are not going to be used to deliver medical isotopes. of course he was talking about a possible nuclear strike by iran on america and of course iran appears to be a client state of china. host: let's get a response. guest: let me make a point on the earlier intervention. grover norquist is one urging defense cuts. i completely disagree with that and as franc wolf pointed out, he works with and for muslim

brother operatives and anybody who thinks it's a good idea to follow his counsel on this should be aware that it may be in the service of our enemies that he's recommending this. the fact that we are not only deeply in debt to them but as a senate arms services committee pointed out. we are relying on china to supply military components. some of which are defective and some counterfit and all of which may not be available to us when we need them all of which are the short-sighted idea of globalization that has put us in a position where we are not providing the kind of industrial capability that we need to support even our military let alone our larger

economic interest. as far iran it goes without saying the latest report out of the iaea iran in short order is going to be a nuclear threat to this country and israel and beyond, and that will -- as we heard from several of the presidential candidates that will be a world change. against this backdrop it's insane for us to be cutting our military. >> frank gaggney has joined us this morning to talk about possible defense cuts in the federal deficit reduction work and the president and c.e.o. for the center for security policy. guest: thank you for having me. host: first up next, looking at the role of education unions with the president of the nea. we'll be right back.

>> in his new autobye graphical narrative, carl finally recognizes and comes to terms with his post traumatic stress disorder decades after vietnam. >> started to tell this guy about my symptoms. jumping up in the middle of the night and running outside without even knowing what was going on and a car would honk behind me and i would get out of my car just attacking the car behind me. he says, have you ever been in a war? that hit me so hard. i'm in the middle of this room with 80 people. i started balling. shot? coming out of my nose. he said have you ever been in a war? it was that simple. he said you've got ptsd, have you ever heard of it? no. >> more on c-span's queaquea.

-- "q&a." err weekend on american history tv, the people and eeveblets that document america's story. this weekend collaborator spreert, a group of historians retry mary surratt. and work, on re-electing. life after his release and from lectures in history, boston professor -- look for complete weekend schedule at c-span.org/history or for our schedule in your inbox, click the c-span alert button. >> i want to make sure that we have taken every step possible to bring peace of mind to the family members often our fallen heroes. and for that reason, this review commission will look at the processes and procedures

there and make sthaur we are implementing the highest standards in dealing with the remains of our fallen heroes. and in addition to that, i want to make certain that dth we have taken all appropriate disciplinary action. >> with respect to the most recent accusation, i have never acted inappropriately with anyone. period. >> with hundreds of hours of new public affairs programs every week, the c-span library is your source to find what you want, when you want. it's washington your way. "washington journal" continues. host: there's a numbers to call if you would like join the

conversation talking about education and funding. democrats, 202-737-0001 and republicans 202-737-0002. independents is 202-628-0205 and for educators, it's 202-628 -0184. we've been talking about the deficit reduction committee at work in the capitol building what are they looking at as far as education funding? caller: well they have a very difficult task in front of them. they have to cut some $1.2 from. there are some principles we have to be aware of. can't just be cuts. the discretionary funding is a

dangerous place because of the needs of the people around this country. and i think we have to be sure we protect our most needy with medicaid and medicare and it's important. but it comes to medicaid. if that's cut, it's going to have a direct impact on education and health care. one in three children in america get their health care through medicaid, so if they get their cuts there, it impacts children. and there will be additional cuts. host: what about if the super committee, the deficit reduction commee doesn't come up with an agreement, triggers are in place. cuts copies the board. what would it mean for education? >> a $7.8 trillion cut. what that makes so powerful in terms of impact is most federal governments are designed to pick up the slack for kids

whose needs aren't being met. all of those programs are designed to deliver the needs of children that were not being met by the larger system. that a cut by 8.7% will have an incredible impact by students across america. >> if the trigger is full and the committee doesn't come one its plan, $37.54 billion cuts would go into effect. nearly $9 million to the idea program and $590 million to head start and a loss of more than 70,000 jobs. >> each one of those programs were programs designed to level the playing field, to give kids who have less an opportunity for their shot at the american dream. but it would be devastating to see that across the country. >> reminder whiff lines set up for -- reminder, we have lines

set up for educators. how have you been contacting, lobbying the deficit reduction committee? is guest: well, we encourage all our members to be involved in the process. as educators we teach the duty to be good and involved citizens. so i remembered to contact the members of congress. but the cuts on education, specifically, but also to make sure they are getting rad to vote. we want our members active in the political process. host: there's a lot of discussion about no child left behind. and it's been renamed now. talk about the re-authorization of that. doesn't it mean a clean start on the education policy or ncld can be retooled? guest: well, no child left behind as we called it before.

there's a consensus that it's broken. so a re-authorization instead of a major overhaul. as we've looked at the proposals come forward, there's good things. we need to know which students are not purporting well so we can change what's going on and make sure those students are not cheated out of their opportunity for a real education. in addition to that, they were talking about multiple majors. which is really important. they have tofe ways of measuring. guest: well, no child left behind are based on one test one day of the year. there's no profession or athletics. it takes multiple majors to know whether or not to student is learning. so multiple majors is really essential.

host: scott from long "view" texas. he is an educator. good morning. caller: first of all, thank you to the guest and comment on the last guest. we're seeing a lot of heavy, severe cuts to not only education budgets but to the other medicare. medicaid not only on a federal level but also on a state level, we just had the ohio governor try to strip teachers and here in texas we've had a massive, very severe radical cuts as if it is the main problem of the deficit. educating our children and

providing a safe place for them to learn is the problem of quote spending and what not. so my question here is one, what is your agency doing to try to assist teachers and local governments to resist this radical change in how funding is distributed. and also how can teachers and other people, aside from standing up for what they believe in. what can we do to reassist this? it's so radical. that's just my question. both. guest: thank you for your question. you are facing key issues facing americans and society as a whole. cuts in education, i was recently talking to one of our members in pennsylvania. small town near him. last year they had 326 teachers, this years they have 180. class sizes are 40-45. call members of congress and tell them those personal stories.

talk to them and tell them how these cutsal impact the students they teach in each community. >> for middle class. republicans, democrats, independents, union members, progressive groups. people of all ages, they came together, and i think they sent a real clear message to the members in ohio. don't play politics with nurses, teach erps and firefighters. it's unfair that teachers aren't able to advocate for the number of children in a classroom and it hurts all of ohio. i think it was a very clear message and one politicians need to pay homage to. host: and union leaders said

wednesday they are considering striking down a law pointing to an energized labor movement that could be persistal in helping democrats win pivotal states in the election. >> the pro bigs in ohio. if the places had voting members. 82 out of 88 counties voted no on senate bill five or ballot measure two. and we had people from all walks of life. it was truly a victory for the middle class, the working class in america saying you do need to attention to your host: good morning. caller: yes. i agree with you, detention dense. that the -- dennis. that the the role need to be increased. we need to stop taking money from social security and

education and give more to the military. because we need to bring some of the overseas money back home and pay back social security and get what the education and help children in specializing. new scientific studies, because the world is changing and we need to keep up. guest: ip couldn't agree with you more. in my own life i grew up in a small farming community of 1,700. i wanted to be a math teacher, and i got my dream. because i was encouraged. and the idea that i was able to go to college and become a math teacher for 20 years, my story i'm sure is multiblide all over the conditioning. but jeaks in this country has always paid dividends. and we cannot stop investing in tomorrow's future and our leaders of tomorrow. host: let's look at a comment made by andrew big talking

about an american enterprise -- >> going back around 50 years indicating a high school degree is not as -- in finance or physics is going to make more than the research indicating a degree in something less will earn less. we look at how they -- how teachers scored, like a.c.t., scores in the armed forces qualify indication guests. with what other similar things the other sectors get.

host: andrew biggs from a.e.i. speaking on "washington journal" yesterday. what is your response to that? guest: well, first of all, i believe it's a piece of flawed etch research. they said raising teachers pay for security but the wns out of a job would disagree. the differential is real. it's up to 12%. even when we take into account benefits, it's %. and for women it is much, much more. 75% of all teachers are women, and that wage penalty is so high for similarly requirements for education. and i guess i take a little you mean barrage for the demeant it's less rigorous. i think i expect every teacher to be well qualified in content area. but once they have content, it's about how to teach. how to create a learning

environment? how the create the individual students, come try it for a week. host: he served in other positions at the n.e.a. including vice president, secretary-treasurer. and before that he was a high school math teacher? phoenix, arizona for over two decades. joe writes on twitter, this idea of multiple measures, teachers shouldn't be evaluated and school shouldn't be evaluated by one test on one way of the year, so with what if i had evidence of student if -- if you're an art teacher, you like to show ed of student learning. if you're a drama teacher, whether it be vocal from the beginning to the end, you want to sheend demonstrate evidence of student learning.

it can be done by examples of students' work or other things involving parents in the educational community. it can be about leading and doing things within the school community. are you someone who mentors other teachers? do you have axess or a curriculum that go into and all of knows ought to be part of an evaluation or understanding of what a teacher is not simply a test score on one day by a student. host: that's a much more complex view of teaching and about the evaluation process. can you give us more details about how you would put that into place across the country? areas like music or home economics even? >> well, what i believe is symptom of this conversation like the -- we need to figure

out what we're doing wrong in the recruitment, training and hiring practice that we're not doing. one of the things is we're not properly training all those teachers and number two, from day one until the last day you teach, it should always be about growth about professional growth. improving your practice. many of the things i mention are things you do to improve your practice. in state law in times it stays purpose of teacher evaluation is for improvement in instruction. the way to do that is to the sit down and collaborate with members and the people that will be suggested. in doing that, that gives us the best results for students. host: derek joins us.

from illinois. good morning. caller: yes. i would like to say first of all we know the politicians and bureaucrats basically destroyed education with a lot of their policies. but the union has also contributed to a lot of this. because the union's purpose if ever they would just be honest is to protect teachers, which makes a lot of sense. but the problem that's happened is they protected a lot of inner city public schools. and it destroyed many children. and that's why the vouchers said the poor performance schools is actuality necessary, because we cannot continue to just dump money to the chicagos, the detroits, the washingtons. now the suburban public schools are doing much better. as far as the money is concerned, there would be a lot more money if at the end of the year retirements bumps weren't

in place where our n.e.a. former president is getting $20,000 a month. true the retirement system, so they are the ones with blame to go around, we probably can hire more teachers if we weren't spending so much money at the top. that's my comment. and then our union definitely leans a certain way, you know, n.e.a. sends out a magazine, so we have to kind of clean house ourselves of the situation. thank you very much. guest: thank you for your comment. there's something you said that i think is really important and i totally agree with you. you used the word blame and responsibility. think i it's more about responsibility than became. it's a shared responsibility. i take that and understand our role as a union. we can't just say no to bad ideas. we have to lead and find solutions, and i accept that

responsibility. when you talk about the purpose of the union, our mission statement at n.e.a. i'm very proud of it. an assembly of over9,000 voted for this. we advocate for professionals. we do. but it doesn't end there. it is also a mission to unite our members of the nation to fulfill the promise of public education to prepare every student to succeed. i take that very seriously. as a union, we have a role to. close the achievement gaps, and we can't do it alone. flagstick a shared responsibility. that collaboration between management and the school board and the people who work there is essential. so we need to figure out this whole profession and the system and make i want work for every student in america. host: the n.e.a. has been supportive of the up a protest,

up a wall street and protests that have gone through there. why? >> well, they have not taken an organizational position but understand the difference you know it's kind of crazy in this country. in 1990 when a c.e.o. average made 42 times the average salary. today it's 260. that means in one day a vow c.e.o. makes what an average worker makes in an entire year. years ago the highest paid 37% of their income in taxes, today it's 18%. on that same period their income grew by 274% while the little 60% in america their income grew by 4%. so the increase has been seven times as large and taxes cut in half. so the up a wall street? they relate and understand that the government and policymakers

have to may -- make a change. caller: i agree with most of what you said. i particularly wish people who go after the unions and teachers, all those things are essentially silly. basically because of what you said. also when you look at that erroneous study that you all just played that video of, there's just several things wrong with that. for one, what you teach, you have got learn a skip. you're learning whatever it is you want to teach in the professional world then you have to go get the certification requirement. so essentially, you're able to go out to the private sector and pfpble.

-- and perform as well as going to the teacher profession. so the methodology used for that study were totally wrong. also the gentleman, one of the previous callers wanted to attack the inner city schools, and he was erroneous, too. >> and he was pointing out problems in detroit. caller: correct. the biggest problem? detroit is when you have a job, leave, and they go to a -- places where it's cheaper to produce jobs. and where the tax base is cheaper for the suburbs. but that displaces the city. so now there's less money for that particular city to put towards education. when you add vouchers, that's the problem, too. because we still haven't gotten the money to follow the student

as they move around to private school and public school and charter school. and that is a big problem and all those things bleed the public schools dry. >> one of the things you mentioned about the vouchers. it's important. that is a partial solution. it is for some children not getting education. i think we need to find a solution that impacts all students. i just don't think it's right that in the richest capital of the world we ignore this. it's about 25% after can in 10 years that's 10 million young people without a high school diploma. what's their potential of following up on their american dream? how do they find a decent job? own a home? raise a family? i think it's the responsibility

for us to make sure all are created equal and entitled to an education. pointing fingers of blame does nothing to solve the problem. instead we ought to syd sit down at the table and say what do we want to do for the future of this nation and share the responsibility and just do it. host: that's -- we have a special line set up for educators to call in and weigh in this morning. that number is 202-628-0184. bruce, good morning. caller: good morning. my opinion is we do need to keep up with the 21st century. not through a monopoly of public schools, but through competition. we need universal vouchers so a whole bunch of independent charter schools will pop up and the students will get better

education through the magic of competition, not a monopoly which is the public school system. >> it's interesting on the vouchers. there's nothing wrong with having a private school system and charter schools, but it shouldn't be done at the expense of a public education system that the dying for all. some charters do better than other schools but over 40% of them in fact do worse. the voucher program that's designed for a few is the way to go. i don't believe everything for a few is the way to go. every child in america deservest it. if you look around the country, look at any family of means and what they provide their children -- pre-k education, opportunities for soccer and

dance and music. why in the world can't we as the richest most powerful nation in the world provide it to every young person. that's the strefment investing in our people as we have done in the past and it will ensure a future for us. host: dana is an educator. from water town connecticut crft. good morning. caller: good morning. i was recently elected to the board of education in our town. the past several years we've had a town budget that's been pretty constrained on the education system, so i noticed over the past two or three years we've loaded up on grants. your thoughts on the -- for example in our town we have about a $35 million budget for our schools and we've increased anywhere up to $4 million at the state and federal level. so we're going to talk about the funding and what are

actions towns like myself can do to mediate these funds that will dry up, as you said in the middle of the program. >> you've really identified the tough issue. guest: the budgets are being cut across the country. especially at the state and city level. what do we do? how do we provide what we want to do for our kids? whibet take those? i have to other side of that coin. what do we do when they are no longer there? the long-term solution is we have to have sustainable funding sources. we can't depend on grants alone, because when they diswere, what they have funded also disappears. so we've got to find a sustainable revenue. but i hope the economy comes back. but they'll be able to fund education better than they are right now. and hopefully they can pick up the slack as the grades

disappear. but how do we provide them in the short term yet a long-term solution with sustainable funding? it's something we all have to work on. >> robert joins us on the republicans line. host: welcome. caller: yes. good morning. how are you guys doing? guest: good. caller: fantastic. i do want to do some finger pointing at you, dennis. i think that we have an education failure on our hands, and for generations and generations, we have spent hundreds of billions of dollars. and when we rank 17th in the world, and that seems to be fine with the status quo. but if i was head of education, i would fair to everyone. all the teachers, all the administrators. we are a lot more worried about climate change than what the kids are learning. and i think we can do a lot

better. host: robert? robert? what was your experience like in the school system? did you go to public school? >> yes. i did. host: and how did you come out of that? >> you know, i remember even as a child, i was getting weekly readers and how we were always told to -- rather than we should have been learning about jefferson and -- i just think this person on your panel is the problem with our country and hoss no solutions in making us number one in the world. host: do you hear that level of frustration? do you hear people saying let's just get rid of everyone and start from scratch? guest: i think that's common not only referring to the educators but also the politicians. while it's fun to talk about

but it's notreality. i see people across the country that do all they can and who are you going to replace them with? there's no doubt there are flaws in the system. you mentioned the way the united states prepares an international study. the performance of international achievement. our scores are all about in the center. but here's a statistic they don't often give. if you take all the opportunities, the less than 10% poverty. we are number one in the world. what that says is we do educate some of our students very well. but it also shows that growing efficient we can't do it alone. we have got to be able to do something about the intact of

poverty. it's not an excuse. it's a shared responsibility to say what's our response to ensure and create a system that figures out a way to take into account those factors that create obstacles for students learning. i'm not as pessimistic as this caller. i believe we can do this. what i believe we've done too much of that harms us is we try to do it together. this is not an easy figure out a way of the budget crisis whether it's state and localal officials trying to figure it out i happen to believe in the power of collaboration that sitting down we can find a better solution that aids all of us host: let's hear from mark on our democrats line. where are you calling from, mark? caller: from central florida. i'm a native central illinois person and grew up in public schools and would like to thank

dennis for assuming the leadership role and thank you for hosting the show. i actually kind ofo my life to public schools. like you're hearing they are save colors for children. i mentioned i can say things that dennis can't say because of his position. but what we are under is the encroachment of corporate and two driving are the koch brothers, the wealthiest brothers in america worth about $43 billion and growing. and they tie right in to the project but the top richest 25 c.e.o.s in the country make more in combined salaries than their american corporations pay in taxes and they have been obscured and now we're laying off fair to minnesota and

school teachers. so dennis is right. the uphill battle is it. we do it with no mall lass and heart. but i think with the reduction of the tax base, and then the attack of the public service worker is really a poor indication of a civil society. and it's all being done for the sake of greed. i would also say that the agenda is to take public schools like the public highways and charge parents now to send their child to a public school and then say the teachers reduced like here in the state of florida, i think there's 165 public school teachers that pay $46,000 take that 16,000 per person, per year. multiply it time 164 dennises, the math guy. that's a big number and charge the family to attend school and grind number.

for a salary. and then take somebody off the street and call -- caller: it's like saying to tell the teachers to solve the education problem and now fair tomen are terroristst because they want a pension? really? i a a marine corps veteran and i thank dennis for the work he does and support any teachers union and i support my country and i didn't join the marine corps in 1977 for the koch brothers but for the work they do. >> guest: i think you're talking about something aw of us have

to think about. it's like two americans. sthrees a fork in the road and what kind of america do we want? here in the midwest, maybe we did grow up with the glass half full. all of the folks in my community. my teachers, everyone said that education was the way to go. if you had a dream, if you work hard and get an education, you can achieve that. i lived my dream for 23 years, so i believe in that deeply. and i think we have to continue to do that to provide for every person in america. host: joining us from georgia, an educator. crawford, are you with us? caller: yes. i am a retired military person participating in the troops for teachers program. i comeback into service as a school teacher. i work in a public school in georgia. it's proud now because it has a

77% graduation rate up from 50%. i've got to tell you, i'm getting a little tired of the finger pointing being done as we can't fix this problem by ourselves. every friday night we have a pretty good football team and we have 400-500 parents in the stands but at p.t.a. meetings we have 12 parents. we have got to get the parents involved. i can teach their child history but i can't teach them how the behave. that's a parental responsibility. the first teachers of the children are the parents. so if we want to say the teachers are failing, we ought to take a look at the first teach errands encourage them to do a better job of supporting us and work together, because after all, if we don't take dare of these kids, we are going to pay for them when they are incarcerated in the first

place. thank you, very much. guest: well thank you for your added contribution not only of being a veteran but also being in troops to teachers saying you're going to give more. i really prirkte all you've given and i appreciate your comments, too. it's a big challenge and the fingers of blame don't help. i was going door-to-door in ohio. encouraging people to vote no on -- and i ran into a mom there. she is a former lawyer and decided she wanted a less stressful life so she decided to go into teaching. i said is it less stressful? she said absolutely not. but she was so enthusiastic about getting involved and making a difference. host: our caller, crawford from georgia brought up this idea of

parents getting more involvement and saying there has to be some accountability there. what's the n.e.a.'s position with getting parents involved? how do you get that dialogue going and -- >> we believe in that. as crawford said our parents of students are the first teachers but we call it family and community partnerships. we brought in teams, parents, administrators and union leaders. so how do we do this together and build this partnership within the community? it's real essential. and we spent a lot of time thinking about the 21st century what do we need to do differently to get our parents more involved. we know when parents are more involved, it works several of the affiliates, they go in teams, meet with the parents, talk to them about things they can do at home that would

support the work at school and that it is a partnership and the results are fantastic. so i think we're just going to continue to work harder done and more in terms of family and community partnerships. host: dennis, tomorrow kicks off american education week, the 90th anniversary of that. tell us a little bit about what that entails. >> guest: it's a great week. i look forward to that week. as a former student, i appreciate it a lot that we take time out for a week and talk about the american public school system, what it's done for our nation in the past and what it's doing right now around what we want for the future. monday is the kickoff day. i'll be visitting the elementary cool school here in the washington, d.c. area with secretary duncan. but tuesday is parents day where we invite parents into the school and all those people in addition to teachers who are absolutely necessary to provide

a child a real education. then there's be an educator for a day. we invite those come and spend a day in the school. then it's substitute educator day. we celebrate their contributions and dream about what we can achieve in the future together. host: let's get richard in the conversation from franklin, texas. on our independent line. caller: hello. finally got through. my comment first of all just briefly. i won't mention any website, not mine. if people would look at that, we'll see where the real problem is for not having enough money for a lot of things including education if you put in militarycentralcomplex, i'll leave it at that, and you'll see what's going on there. as far as our public schools, the biggest problem in texas i think we have a disease. i don't know when mom and dad

get it. it's called "mom and dad kids sports syndrome disease" and it's incurable as one called it before. stating about a football game so many being there. we also have the problem of our school board they don't want you come there and participate. you have to be on the agenda and it has to be about something they want to talk about. but if you think about our sports. when i was in school we had one coach and two or three math teachers. today we have 14 coaches in our school and maybe three math teachers. so the emphasize has gone to this sports syndrome, as i call it. and i don't know what we can do about it. host: we'll leave it there. guest: he brings up a very important point. i think it's part of that family-community partnership.

although i believe athletics are very important, fine arts, drama, music, all those things are important. i was recently reading about -- they talk about dealing with the whole child, the mind, that's the academic. the body, meaning physical education, emphasize on being healthy, and they also talk about the heart. making sure that they understand their responsibility to their community. to their society. their civic responsibility. and i really appreciated that approach. the idea that we're looking at a whole child here. we're not looking at just a little part of him or her. we want them to know reading and math and so much more. host: but that means sports is part of that. but our caller says he thinks there's too much emphasize on sports and not enough on education? guest: i think the caller's

point is a valued one. overemphasis is the problem. i coached wrestling and girls track and helped with basketball. what i found is if that's what motivated a student, that's good, because it kept them in school and in my math class and they learned both. i don't think it's an either /or. but the overemphasize that it excludes the importance of the academic, that's harmful. but i think we can do both. host: thank you so much dennis van roekel of the national education association. and american education week begins tomorrow. coming up next we'll talk about alzheimer's association. first this update from c-span radio. >> a discussion of the day's and week's news begins at noon eastern time when c-span radio re-airs five of the network talk shows. they include the 2012 election, charges of abuse at pen state and the upcoming deadline for

the definite reduction committee. beginning at noon we hear "meet the press." republican governor tom corbett is a member of the pen state board of trustees and the chair . at 1:00 p.m. cyst jan only on pore talks with david all bright and then tom corbett on the sex abuse scandal at pen state. at 2:00 p.m. it's fox news sunday. chris wallace talks with pat too manyy. democratic congressman james clyburn and another appearance by tom corbett. at 3:00 p.m. it's state of the union. the co-chair of the super reduction committee jeb hencer ling then oklahoma's tom coburn. both the are members of the

gang of six in the senate. finally "face the nation" from cbs. bob sheefert talks with former senator lindsay gram and governor haley -- and martin o'mally. again, it re-airs the five talk shows beginning with "meet the press." at 3:00, "state of the union" and at 4:00 p.m. "face the nation from cbs. on 98.1 in the washington, d.c. area. on your washington or blackberry. or listen online anywhere at c-span radio.org. >> in his new autobye graphical narrative, karl marlantes comes

to terms about his post traumatic stress syndrome. after vietnam. >> i started talking about jumping up in the middle of the night and running outside. a car would honk behind me and i would be angry and attack the car behind me. he says to me, have you ever been in a war? and that hit me so hard. i'm in the middle of this room with i don't know, 80 people. i started balling. shot? coming out of my nose. he said have you ever been in a war? it was that simple. when he finally got me back into some semblance of control, he said you've got ptsd. have you ever heard about it? >> no. >> every weekend on "american history tv." the the people and events that document the american stories. innocent boarding homeowner or co-conspirator?

mary surratt was retried. from oral histories. sent to prison, jen mcgratituder working on jeb magruder. look for the complete schedule at c-span.org/history or for our schedule in your inbox, click the c-span alert button. "washington journal" continues. host: president and c.e.o. of the alzheimer's association. thank you for coming in this morning. guest: good morning. host: alzheimer's where the front lines. looking at americans' experience with alzheimer's, and what they think should be their priorities in addressing the disease. what prompted this? >> well, the alzheimer's association worked very hard with leaders in congress and

the white house to get the act passed and it will actually, for the very first time, create a plan for alzheimer's in america. and the alzheimer's association wanted -- one of the former shapers of the plan. i'm on the council that has been a pointed by the secretary of h.h.s. to advise the president on building the plan and we wanted to sick tarpe and the people who are shaping the plan -- host: so it was signed by the president last january and required a strategic plan an annually updated national plan submitted to congress and all timer's research and care and their outcomes. guest: it is the first time ever that the united states will have a plan for alzheimer's. you know, alzheimer's is

devastating to the individuals who have it and their families, friends, caregivers. and the numbers on alzheimer's are staggering. right now we anticipate we estimate that we have 5.4 million people today, and we anticipate as many as 16 million by the middle of the century. 10 million boomers, my generation, will have the disease. we've got to turn the tide or it will be too late to affect that generation. host: your generation points of the top 10 deadliest diseases to hit the generation, this one has no cure. no way to slow it guest: we have made progress to improve people's lives but we don't yet have any way to slow or stop the progress of the disease. it is already killing more people than diabetes. more people than prostate

cancer and breast cancer combined. people don't realize the impact of the disease on the american public, and we wanted people to really make their comments known, so the people putting the plan together at the federal government would be informed by the realities that they face each and every day. host: hairy johns with the alzheimer's association. we're talking about a new report for which you talked about 40,000 over the country. what are these events like? you're going out into a community, putting out a call saying the average person come talk to us about your experience with alzheimer's and what you think needs to be addressed. guest: yes. we have sections in communities across the country. we had a telve conference and telephone town hall where people could join us to make comments and make comments online. at the sessions that were live, the outpouring of the feeling,

the emotion that is associated with the disease, it was striking. to me, even though i do this every day, my momed that disease. i've experienced it personally, up close. but even with all that, the outpouring from these folks was truly dramatic. and i think they have identified what truly needs to be done about the disease. that i recognize that awareness alone needs change about alzheimer's it's not discussed enough. it needs to be talked about. the way we talk about cancer today. the way cancer was once not discussed is the way that it is still today with alzheimer's. we have to change that to change the course of the discussion and truly then change the course of the disease. >> let's go to the phones. margy joins us. republican caller from amarillo texas. good morning. >> good morning my husband

developed alzheimer's when he was 59. and he died 10 years later. i took care of him at home for almost eight years. and then i got to where i couldn't handle it anymore. i tried so hard, and finally i had him in a alzheimer's ward. and in amarillo. and he lived almost three more years. but i tell you, it is so, so horrible that we don't spend money or talk about alzheimer's like we should. i try to tell everyone. i have a neighbor across the street that her mother has alzheimer's. and i'm 79 years old, and it's a scary thought, you know, when you're getting old. i try to keep my mind developed as much as i can. because my children, you know, they all worry about me. but i'm doing ok. but i'm telling you, it will break a family.

as far as their hearts and their lives but it's money. we don't have money. you know? it costs so much to take care of him. i took care of him as best i could, because i didn't have the money to put him somewhere. but he couldn't even -- we didn't even have social security for him. because he was not old enough that the time. when he developed it, he had to stop work. and i had to stop my job to stay home and take care of him. it's a horrible thing. so i wish you all would work really hard for this disease. thank you, sir. guest: you can be assured we will work very hard. what you describe is unfortunately true for very many people. the reality of the cost.

both the emotional, the human and the economic cost at the family level and at the macrolevel, at the national level are just amazing. the fact is that we've got to address our budgetary situation in in this country, but alzheimer's is going to cost this country one way or the other, just as you've described at the personal and national level, we know at this point that last year it cost $183 billion just for the care for alzheimer's and other dementias. we know that was up and it will be more than $1 trillion each year. that's not inflated. that's in today's dollars and beyond all the human cost. as you said, it can break a family. often the caregiver predeseeses the individual with the disease.

it's terrible for the family and our nation. and at this point our policymakers have not truly addressed it in a manner that's really required to do what needs to be done. passing the alzheimer's act was a -- we need a plan. and that plan, as indicated by the folks who contributed to alzheimer's at the front line, folks like yourself, really have to include extended investment in reform. there's no way we will have the kind of diagnostic and treatment of people identified in their own voice in different set of sections across the country if we do not make additional investments in research. today, while we invest $6 billion in cancer, $4 billion in cardiovascular disease, $3 billion in hiv/aids each and

every year, and with positive outcomes, these are great investments. the investment in alzheimer's is only $450 million a year at the investment in health. we have to change that picture if we're going to turn the course of the disease. >> president and ceo of the alzheimer's association. let's look at the key all summer challenges your study identified. margie hit on quite a few of them. one, a lack of public awareness. second, in sufficient resource funding. she felt like there was not enough research done. other items include mounting costs, both for the nation and for care givers themselves. then, margie talk about the challenges she had appeared one of the items you found people were concerned about were unprepared care givers. a couple more of these, dimension can -- dementia care. as specific challenges facing diverse communities and those with younger onset alzheimer's.

>> you have named the challenges. our federal government at this point has not addressed those challenges. each and every day, the alzheimer's association talks to people on a help line. we help people across the country. we invest directly in research, but we cannot do it alone. we have to have the federal government step up and make investments to change the course of the disease. we do that, the science community believes that with what we have already learned, we can quickly advanced to the point of having better treatments, having better diagnostics where we have already made great progress. but we need to make those investments soon because it takes time to get the returns on those investments, and the boomer generation began to turn 65 on january 1 of this year at the rate of 10,000 a day. we have got to invest soon. even in these difficult times, investments can pay off. there are folks on the hill trying to cut $1.20 trillion

from the budget going out 10 years. the total cost of alzheimer's between now and the middle of the century, just for the care alone, without investments in research to change the course -- $20 trillion. we can save not only human lives and human effects. we can save huge economic costs that we make those investments today. host: let's hear from francesca, independent collar -- caller. caller: alzheimer's is one of those diseases where it needs awareness, but there are so many other things out there that you definitely need more awareness for. like aids. it is made fun of it over community, but it is not really funny. or as much. i am always seeing people with the breast cancer awareness, and what makes breast cancer more important than any other form of

breast cancer -- and any other form of cancer? alzheimer's is a very serious thing, and it does need to have lots of awareness. host: how old are you? caller: i am 15. host: it's all summer something you have experience? host: caller: someone of my street had all summers. host: that is your connection. compare this to a range of illnesses. guest: we need awareness for all these kinds of issues. we've made huge progress in cancer, both in awareness and in terms of saving people's lives. 2/3 of cancer patients are cared today. we have made great advances, great strides. we have not yet made the same advances in alzheimer's. the reality is the very investment in doing research, in pushing things forward, has changed cancer, has changed heart disease, has changed hiv/aids. in each of those cases, we see

downturns in mortality. in alzheimer's, we see increases. over the last eight years, 66% in mortality. across those other diseases, those other conditions, we just mentioned, we have actually seen decreases. the investments again are considerably different. we do not yet have the investments in alzheimer's that will drive that that we need so desperately. host: the caller mentioned awareness around hiv/aids. is there a stigma attached to alzheimer's in the way they're used to be -- we look at the anniversary of magic johnson revealing to the world that he is living with hiv. he is still alive, still doing well. do we have role models in the alzheimer's community like that? guest: alzheimer's has had a huge bit of the nile associated as well as stigma about the symptoms of the disease. that was true, though, as you indicated, for cancer years ago. people did not talk about cancer. there was a study done in 1961 of doctors asking if they call

their patients when they had a cancer diagnosis pier 9% of them did not tell the patient. they told the family. -- when they had a cancer diagnosis. 90%-plus of them did not tell the patient. breast cancer was a taboo topic. that still is the case for alzheimer's today. the alzheimer's association has been engaged in changing the public discussion in forums just like this for the last several years. again, we still need to make additional progress because people are still too concerned about talking about it. the coach at tennessee recently announced she would continue to stay in the public eye, as has glen campbell. those kinds of things are changing the nature of the discussion in america, but we have to do much more to talk about it and to really drive awareness for the public.

host: new jersey, independent line, welcome. caller: my family is the victim of huntington's disease, which is similar. it is neurological. there is no form of treatment and no cure. i see your organization has done research, but maybe you could speak a bit about what efforts you are making. i think it is atrocious that we cannot purchase catastrophic insurance for at least something like huntington's or alzheimer's. i was wondering what efforts your organization is making towards the type of insurance being available. thank you. guest: we are certainly working on those issues and have worked with congress again on the process of, particularly for alzheimer's, what could be advantages in medicare for dealing with alzheimer's. we know that even though there is no current way to turn the course of the disease, we can,

in fact, improve people's lives and change not only the effects of the human level, but at the economic level if people are diagnosed. only about half the people who are estimated to have the disease are actually diagnosed. we have worked with congress to see to it that in fact, any administration -- that people can now have what is a wellness visit under medicare. under that wellness visit, there will be a requirement for a cognitive exam that can make a difference for people. we still do have problems, as you indicate, whether it is for huntington's or four younger onset alzheimer's individuals, when they are diagnosed before 65, before they are eligible for medicare. there is still work to be done there. host: on twitter, sarah writes in and says -- how would you differentiate the

two? guest: much as we know that cancer is the umbrella term and there is lung cancer and colon cancer and prostate cancer, dementia is the term for the conditions and all summer and is by far the most really occurring type of dementia. there are also others that make up smaller parts of the total. host: let's hear from rick in hawaii, democratic collar. good morning. caller: how's everything going? i was just wondering -- i have been involved in alzheimer's research for a long time. back in 1978, two kinds issued. what concerns me most with all the years of research -- by the way, in the 1980's, president reagan cut back research in alzheimer's research by a little over 70%, and that really set us

back. what we discovered was a safe, all natural compound that reversed the formulation that prevented the free radical damage that you see. the material is incredibly safe. it is just incredible. my point is that this material is safe, all natural, and it has been shown in quite a few peer- reviewed publications to be effective. the reason it is not being used is that the pharmaceutical companies are worried that if they were shown to be commercially viable, people would go to alternative sources and could not capture the market. host: let's get a response from our guests. guest: i did not know of any compound currently available

that has been proved scientifically to change the course of the disease, to truly work on the underlying disease, as opposed to treating the symptoms, which are of the drugs available today. we believe side typically there was something like that out there, we would be promoting it widely, no matter what its source. so i simply unaware that anything such as that exists today. host: sasha von twitter says -- "long term care is available just not affordable." caller: good morning. thank you so much for c-span. i just want to get mr. john's opinion on doctor-assisted suicide, related specifically to the onset of alzheimer's. i will take your answer offline. guest: certainly, individuals have to make their own choices, but it also is association does not support that specifically. these are individual family choices.

the really severe condition that alzheimer's is at the end of a life is truly difficult for families. we believe strongly that the path here is to find the answer through science and make the investments in research that will truly change the course of the disease. we have made the advancements, again, in cancer if we are not all the way there. heart disease, hiv/aids. we can make these advances in alzheimer's as well if we make the kinds of investments that have been made in those kinds of conditions. host: caller from new york city, independent line. good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. my first encounter with alzheimer's disease was in 1968 when i did my first autopsy on a patient. i was in the privacy of columbia university, new york, for 26 years.

i wholeheartedly support mr. john's focus on research and funding. here is my specific point -- there is no one single thing i have found clinically to make a significant, reproducible difference. i and several other physicians with strong academic careers, published in the most prestigious journals -- we could meet with you and tell you that indeed, in the early stages of alzheimer's disease, that our programs focusing on things like vitamin b, but you have to give them into vascular or intravenous. the point is you can convene a

group of physicians like myself working pro bono, not asking for any compensation for our work, but we could show you some cases, and i believe in the early end intermediate stages, it is a serious slip up not to focus on -- and i want to repeat at the risk of repetition, local programs just focusing on nutritional and the talks -- host: let's get a response. attrition, detox, the idea of boehner research helping out your organization and perhaps the u.s. government. bamut -- guest: the alzheimer's association runs the largest conference of researchers. we do it internationally. we have 5600 people there in attendance this year, the largest ever. host: if someone wants to get a

bald in that, how should they find out? guest: go to our web site and see information about the conference. host: can you address the idea of slowing the disease, nutritional supplements preventing it through diet and exercise and exercising the brain? guest: many researchers have conducted extensive work on what would be nutrition and physical activity we have known to be successful for cancer, heart disease, diabetes, for example. at this point, regrettably, we do not have sufficient evidence as accepted by the scientific community, to indicate that any of those approaches will truly make a preventive difference in alzheimer's disease. there are researchers who believe there is evidence to at least encourage people -- an all-time association would encourage people -- to follow a healthy lifestyle. we cannot say that it will be risk reducing, truly, but there is mounting evidence, but to go before physical activity, that there is not yet sufficient

evidence to make the help clients. host: 1 twitter user asks -- guest: they are, and too few people realize it. about 200,000 people we estimate to be younger than 65, so they are in the primes of their lives, many of them. we certainly have programs for people at our community level, our chapter level across the country. we have an early stage advisory group at the national level who helps us understand what they are going through so we can better to and our programs for what their needs are. but it is a truly devastating situation for those individuals. we worked with the social security administration said that the access to ssi and ssdi were more easy to obtain, and that has been an advantage, but it is a devastating situation

these individuals face. host: president and ceo of the all some association. he has held the position since september 2005 and prior to that, spend two decades working with the american cancer society. let's go to the early shock, independent line. alicia, - let's go to and then the line. caller: good morning. my love and blessing to the troops. keep up the good work. you are doing great. are there any studies you have done where they are connected to, like, let's say, brain injury from accidents or sports or any other brain injury? and also, which group, male or females, are the ones beget more

numbers of those who have alzheimer's? guest: in the sense of dramatic brain injury, the department defense made an appropriation recently specifically aimed at dealing with this as it relates to the commonalities between specificallyand tbi -- traumatic brain injury, my apologies -- in the very essence of the soldiers you mentioned at the outset of your comment. we need to learn more about all those kinds of injuries, but there certainly is mounting evidence that there are connections. we need to know much more, though, as we need to know across research. in a sense of your question about men and women, regrettably, many more women will have alzheimer's than men. we know that from a report released last year.

the report indicated that about 60% of the incidence of diseases in women. alzheimer's is not normal aging, but age is the biggest risk factor. so women live longer than men and more women will get the disease. host: break it down by race and ethnicity as well. who is at greatest risk? guest: the greatest risk is from african-americans at this point, who have about twice the risk of the general population. latinos, about 1.5 times. that is one of the reasons that you saw in the edification of issues by the public the need to deal with disparities in communities across the country because of that set of numbers. we have to address that in a comprehensive plan as we address the national alzheimer's project act and get the right kind of plan. the national alzheimer's project

act and the plan that will, it has great potential -- it is truly a great opportunity to change the course of this disease, but what we have to believe as we will get the kind of plan we need from hhs. again, as a member of the council -- i cannot speak for the council, but i can say that individually, we will work very hard to do that. host: democratic color, from michigan, good morning. caller: i would like to know, does he think what party gives more support towards health care problems as far as funding and things of that nature, and do you think the president's health plan bill -- does that help your organization, or does it hurt your organization? do you think as a whole, do we need to go towards a more --

approach sort of a collective situation where all parties are trying to send money to research all summers -- alzheimer's and other health problems? guest: certainly as you said at the end, we have got to get more money invested in alzheimer's research if we are going to see the kinds of changes we need to seek to avoid the great human and economic impact we talked about earlier. we have seen leadership from both parties in congress -- the national alzheimer's project act was passed unanimously in both houses of congress and signed into law by the president. that is the first time, though, i must say that we have seen that kind of leadership on alzheimer's so far. what we need to see is action that makes those investments. right now, the national alzheimer's investment act only requires the plan to be done. it does not actually fund more

in research. we have to see that additional funding. again, we have seen leadership -- on both sides of the aisle, but we will have to see leadership that takes it to the next level policy and makes those investments. host: independent line, greenwood, arkansas, welcome. guest: for years, i have fillings in my mouth. i finally got the of the top of fillings, and i am having medical problems. drinking water is known to lower people's iq and they have got it in everything -- host: we will leave it there. guest: i do not know of any signs that makes the kind of links between the things you have identified. i know we need to do much more research, but i do not know of anything in the science that indicates that. i am not a scientist, but i do have the benefit of working with the best in the world, and i have not seen any signs or heard of any signs that makes the connection. host: linda asked on twitter if

your organization also researches other degenerative disorders, which she says can be misdiagnosed as alzheimer's. guest: we work on other forms of dementia as well. host: looking at funding for this, which you talked about, i want to remind our viewers that your organization came up with these key challenges and they range from a lack of public awareness all the way down to mounting costs, but you talk about some of the costs on society. what do you want to see happen in the near term, the next year or two, when it comes to federal government support for research. guest: i asked a question during the first council meeting about the amount of money that was in what was the former breakthrough act up on capitol hill, which the all-time association has

supported. that act asked for $2 billion of additional investment in alzheimer's research -- total research. we think that as a floor. we think that is a threshold. the answer to my question, i think, which could be said to be pretty much an unequivocal yes, that the research community could take up that kind of investment. based simply on the amount of unfunded proposals that come to the national institute on aging each and every year that are ranked as qualified but cannot be funded, so $2 billion, we think, is a threshold level that should be invested very quickly. then, we really believe there should be a much more thorough review of what needs to be done on a comparative basis to hiv /aids, cardiovascular disease, and cancer, to make the kinds of gains we have made in each of those chronic conditions. host: we will look at an image here of the cost of alzheimer's

this year. you can see that breakdown, but our guest estimates that will skyrocket by the middle of this century. wilmington, north carolina, joe, republican, welcome. caller: hello? good morning. i am enjoying your show. thank you very much. i am a care giver. my wife was diagnosed in january with the mentor, frontal temporal lobe. i would love to educate myself because the learning curve is very steeped. i created a facebook page called "dementia support." i invite everyone to go to it. this is my issue -- i take articles from the world press and expose them to everyone, whether they are anecdotal, whether they involve a former logical issue, neurophysiology or wherever it is. in any case, they are doing a lot more in every place but the united states. japan, england, wales.

it is very huge in japan. i thank the gentleman for being involved. i am very happy to see his commitment. thank you, c-span, for presenting this program. host: how are things going for you and your family as you deal with this? caller: it is very difficult. breaks up the family. the costs are enormous. we were able to find a gerontologist who was able to issue some of the stuff. success stories are very thin. they probably do not work and the medicines are very expensive. i have found a nutritional supplementation for my wife. she is very cooperative, but it is very difficult. host: thanks for sharing your

story. caller: -- guest: it is very difficult for individuals dealing with it. he also made a point that is important to note, which is that things are happening in other parts of the world as well. we held that international conference, the alzheimer's association international conference, as i mentioned earlier, in france this year. i actually had the opportunity to introduce the president of france. regrettably, i had to say that he had led the best plan in the world for a nation on dementia because they have in fact invested significantly in the process. the: we're talking about alzheimer's association's new report. you can find out more about that at their website, alz.org. that is all for "washington journal."

tomorrow, we will talk about the deficit reduction committee. we will also speak about the 2011 open doors report looking at student exchanges and international enrollment, and "new york times" small business reporter will talk about bank loans to small companies. thanks for joining us. we will see you tomorrow morning. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> next, "newsmakers," with

grover norquist. president of americans for tax reform. after that, cassette and the contenders," on key presidential candidates who ran for office but lost but changed the process -- "the contenders," on key presidential candidates who ran but lost. >> with the two reporters here to help us with questions for grover norquist. susan, go ahead with the first question. >> right now, everyone is focused on the super committee. their job is to come up with cuts or savings that will reduce our deficit by a minimum of $1.20 trillion. cuts across the board. right now, we are really close to a deadline. they have to have something by november 23. they do not have a deal yet. part of the reason they do not have a deal, according to the senate majority leader, is you. harry reid says you are enforcing a no-tax pledge to the point that it is getting in the point that it is getting in the way of a deal