defense authorization bill. later, we will chat about the cost of operating the guantanamo >> did morning and welcome to "washington journal." congress must decide whether to extend the holiday before this year is over. the senate may take it up as early as this week. what used -- what you think about those prospects? how does it affect you? here is the number to call. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-624-1111. the number to call for our republican line is 202-624-1115.

the number to call for our independents line is 202-624- 0760. you can also e-mail us, journal@c-span.org. find us on printer and facebook. -- on twitter and facebook. there is a vote to extend and expand the payroll tax cut as soon as this week. as their political showcase heading into the election year. a series of made for attack ads against pieces of the president's job package have served as appetizers for the main event. tax cuts for more than 99% of taxpayers and millionaires. workers will see their payroll taxes go up by 2% of their

income, $1,000 on a $50,000 salary on january 1. president barack obama put the spotlight on republicans during a visit to new hampshire. but republicans say it is a different story. we will hear from one of them in just a moment. first, a look into the phones. we're talking to jim, a democratic caller in minneapolis. caller: good morning. the payroll tax cuts should be

extended. it is a boost to the economy. it is easily paid for. all income should be subject to federal taxes with no exceptions. capital gains, interest, should all be subject to social security and medicare taxes. we have no funding problems. that also includes people flipping burgers part time. they should be paying the tax and taxes at the exact same rates of others in the system. that is the way it should be we have absolutely no problems with deficits, social security funding, medicare or anything else. host: let's hear from senator jon kyl. this was on fox news. >> the economy is not good right now. the political system here -- host: that was actually: powell. we will hear his comments later.

he is not talking about the tax holiday. if the payroll tax cut is so productive, why is unemployment static at 9%? good morning, tom. caller: good morning. i am a democrat. i'm usually pretty to all taxes and things to help out the lower class, but it is time to start paying into our country. i do not think the unemployment think should be extended. i've been on unemployment for two years ended this way too long. it is time for us to ship in and help this country out by paying more taxes. host: is that an important issue that it will affect how you vote next fall? caller: i will still vote for president obama. he is by far the best candidate. host: let's hear from senator

jon kyl. >> we will have to hear from a lot of other items before the end of the year. the problem here is that the payroll tax is not going to generate revenue to support social security. you cannot keep extending the payroll tax holiday. >> are you saying no deal on extending the payroll taxes cuts? >> the payroll tax holiday has not stimulated job creation. we do not think that is a good way to do it. before the end of the year, we will have discussions on what we will do for all of these programs. host: senator jon kyl speaking yesterday on "fox news sunday." mr. kyle said that the most affluent americans, including -- including small business owners would undermine the fragile economic recovery. there is a question of how to

payroll -- how to pay for the tax holiday. where are you calling from? caller: ohio. host: go ahead. caller: i believe it is a temporary tax. obviously, folks are going to make more on their paychecks, but for how long and whether they going to do with the money? i was recently, for the last 10 years, making it around $46 a week. i was being taxed around 45 per cent sign -- 45%. this would certainly give me extra money to invest or to put into the bank. but it is short-term. we need something long term. host: taking a look at the "the new york times."

they're giving a counterpoint to what senator is saying. here's some more details. they were -- what do you think, dale, calling us from virginia beach? caller: i just want to say that i think the rich people have more things, so they have to pay more taxes.

they have police protection, yachts. maybe the coast guard helps them more. nobody really says anything about protection that the government gives them and the benefits they have for being rich. that is all that i wanted to say. host: what does that mean to you? why is that significant? caller: because some say they are paying more. it stands to reason that you pay for what you get. the protection because they go overseas. a rich person may have multiple mansions. a poor person is lucky if they have one house. the police do not protect them as much. they need to be protected. that is my opinion anyhow.

host: no taxes good. and if there must be a tax, it should tax consumption at the same refer all products and all groups. caller: good morning, thank you for having me. i was hoping to shift the discussion away from the details and instead ask the broader question of whether or not taxes themselves are constitutional and if the founding fathers had this in mind. host: what are your thoughts? caller: i'm of the opinion at this point that there is nothing on the books that suggests that it income taxes are legally binding. host: how does that relate to this question? caller: as opposed to being clogged or bogged down into all those details, let's take a step back and ask the question, is the income tax constitutional at all? host: independent caller from

new york city, good morning. caller: good morning. i really do not feel that the tax holiday would really benefit the economy because the bottom 80% of local workers do not really controlled enough of the economy. it seems like the top 20% sign -- per 20% -- they are the ones who could really stimulate the economy by having the small wealth tax levied on them every year. i think that would be a little bit more to share the wealth around. that would help stir, you know, help spur the economy. we had a black friday and small business saturday. i did not hear anybody talking

about investing in america. host: generally all tax cuts help the economy, but why pick on just the payroll tax? from the independent line, hello. caller: i'm going to try to make everybody happy this morning. if i was king of the world, i guess what i would say is that i cannot understand why nobody has come up with a national lottery that pays for everything. people by those lottery tickets. i just cannot understand. that to be the perfect solution for everything going on because there'd be so much money coming in. host: your phone is breaking up, but his idea was to have a

national lottery. turn down your tv, your on the air? caller: yes, the thing that he is talking about with the tax holiday for the income tax induction thing is that it does not reduce the rate. it does not reduce your tax rate, and as a result, the following year, and this happened the last time we did this, when you go to your accountant to get your income tax done, suddenly you have not made enough contribution in terms of withholding because it has been cut. you now 0 taxes back. it happened to us the last time we did this. this is a scam. you do not get anything back because you have to pay it back the following year. nobody is talking about that. it has to be brought forward that this is not just temporary.

you have to turn around and pay it back 9 to 10 months later. host: less of a comment from facebook. comment from at a facebook. senator chuckm schumer who was on "meet the press." >> the first thing we're going to do we get back is but the payroll tax holiday back on the floor of the senate. it would give middle-class families about $1,000 extra in their pockets. it would boost the economy and we pay for it with a small surtax on incomes over $1 million. it is essential that we do this. we're going to keep at it because it is so important. >> why do you think the

republicans would go along with that in the senate? >> it is hard to believe the power -- the republicans would oppose this for two reasons. first of all, they spent so much time fighting to preserve the bush tax cuts for the millionaires, it is hard to believe they would support a tax cut for the middle class. that is number one. number 2, most of them have reported things like this in the past. they say the way to get the economy going is to cut taxes. it's not like increased spending on infrastructure or things like that. host: we're talking about the payroll tax holiday and whether you think that is good or bad for the economy. has it affected you personally? here is the definition of the payroll tax holiday. we got this from businessdictionary.com.

let's go to solomon, a democratic caller from houston, texas. turn down your tv, you are on the program. go right ahead. caller: yes, i want to say two things about the payroll taxes. i think one thing is essential. we should be at the minimum, reduce. as a democrat, i do not understand right republicans are trying to increase taxes we are in an economic recession. right now, taxes should not be increased.

i agree with the republicans on a different issue, the democrats should stop thinking about using taxes. the payroll taxes is a good idea. host: all right, let's go to iowa. caller: good morning and thank you for taking my call. host: where are you calling from in iowa? caller: muscatine. host: are you getting ready? caller: oh yeah. what i did not understand is there's a short-term gain of not paying taxes. we always did the annual estimated social security earnings when you retire. when i compare my latest earnings estimate with my 2009 earnings estimate, i'm going to

get $100 per month less because of the payroll tax holiday. basically, you're talking about $1,200 per year. if i live to be 20 years after retirement, that is $24,000 i am losing. for me, it is a short-term gain but it will be long-term pain, though. they're cutting off the nose to spite their face. president obama understands this. if he doesn't, he is being pretty disingenuous in the way he is trying to sell it. or he does not understand it, which is a little bit scary. i do not hear anybody talking about how this affects your actual retirement earnings. thank you for the call. host: let's go to lake of the ozark in misery. lance is a republican callers. good morning. caller: i think is going to have a small effect on our economy.

it seems to me that we are kind of missing out on the bigger issue though. let's work on cutting spending on top of this. thank you. host: a couple callers brought up concerns about what this will do to the economy long term, will it affect their social security. here's how chuck schumer wants to pay for it. we saw him a few moments ago talking about how to pay for this. he would like to tax high income people. here is some more information with history on this. after the senate rejected the president's job bill in december, the tried to pay for each piece with a surtax on income over $1 million.

michael, independent caller from michigan. good morning. caller: essentially all we are doing is messing up social security again. all that money is supposed to go to social security. i think it is just an absolute joke and a bunch of bull that they are pulling on the public. that is when it comes down to. host: michael, employers will still pay into it. is that ease your concern at all? caller: they will still pay end, but not as much as they used to. host: ok, let's go to north pole, new york. caller: i disagree with your last caller. i think it is a good thing to

extend these cuts. these payroll tax -- to extend the holiday is a good thing. it will not take anything away from social security. employers will still be putting money in. my comment really was, you know, to pay for it by having wealthy person's pay more in taxes is completely legitimate. i think the average person, and i just happen to have a window into a few wealthy families and how they live, if the average person who does not have that window, and i have a very good window and i am not part of it, they live, in many cases, such unbelievably fortunate life styles. they have so much excess income that the average person, you

have seen the shows, "lifestyles of the rich and famous," those are over the top. hundreds of millions of dollars of yachts -- i am not talking about that. i'm talking about wealthy families that have 50 million or hundred million dollars. they have lavish lifestyles that the average person -- the republican argument is extremely weak. they are tax dodgers more than they are job creators. host: seeking the wealthy should be paying more in taxes? caller: you look at the way the tax system is set up. wealthy people hired to accountants to avoid taxes over and over again. there are more like tax dodgers and job creators. host: let's hear another, that was made on the sunday talk shows yesterday. this one was from colin powell. he is talking about how the

media is influencing the in discussions going on in washington right now. >> it is not good right now. our political system here in washington on the hill, congress, has become very tense. there are two sides -- republicans and democrats. they're focusing more and more on extreme left and extreme right. we have to come back to the center in order to compromise. we've got to figure out how to cut back together. the media has to help us. the media loves this game. it makes for great television. it makes for great chatter. it makes for great talk shows all day long. commentators commenting on commentators about every little flat on capitol hill. we have to take some of the heat out of our political life in terms of the recovery of it. that with these folks can begin to work quietly.

host: that is: powell speaking yesterday. but let's look at another political story in the news. the washington journal says that ron paul is facing a hurdle. what he is doing in iowa. it talks about how his volunteers are very active, getting out the vote. a survey for bloomberg news found that 67% of republican voters have been contacted directly by the ron paul campaign, a higher share than any other candidate. ron paul has been given a strong presence in iowa. in addition, his longtime call for smaller government resonates with many voters. some activists see his foreign- policy views limiting his potential support. another story in the news, looking at newt gingrich.

the newly popular gingrich tries to prove he is not just the latest anti-romney. for newt gingrich, this is when it gets serious. after a surge from his candace -- his candidacy back from a punch line, a grass-roots organization will turn out voters in early states. a couple of other stories in the news. this when talking about washington. critics are talk -- are targeting a bribery law. for corporate america's top lobbyists. and a powerful anti bribery law has risen to the top of the agenda.

that is something that is going on here in washington this week. as far as what is happening in the capitol building behind me, the senate does come back to the session today and returns from work after the thanksgiving holiday tomorrow. let's give back to our question about what you think with the payroll tax holiday. let's hear from john in virginia, a republican caller. john, turn off your tv and talk to us. john, are you with us? we will have to move on. let's remind our viewers, turn off your television when you get on the air. democratic call in ohio. caller: i do believe -- i do agree with that last caller that

said people who have a lot of money, they do not have an idea. the middle class and lower class people, that is money deducted from their paycheck that would make a big difference, especially if they have kids. for those who say they have to re check back to the irs, they're probably in the high income bracket in the first place. i do not think it will affect social security because you are paid according to your years of work and how much you brought. that is how they determine what your social security lives yearly. if you put a lot of money in, it does have an affect. it has an effect on people who are spending the money and an effect on people who are providing the product. it is stimulating the economy.

i do agree with that tax holiday. i hope they continue it. the problem is that republicans do not want to vote on this tax holiday because they figure it is going -- i mean, the rich is going to have to pay more. that is the whole thing in a nutshell. have a good day. host: important question that a lot of callers have had -- what happens to the missing social security funds? the money you're not paying into the funds? here is some clarification about that. houston, texas, mary on our republican line. good morning. caller: i have a comment and a question. i am not a wealthy person. i am port. i am sick and tired of hearing about the rich, the rich, the

rich. my question is that if all the rich people only make $60 a week, when i have any more money? i do not think so. we all have opportunity in this country. if we get out and work hard and make the right choices, we can be wealthy to. -- we can be wealthy, too. i am tired of it. like a said, if there were only making $60 a week, i do not think i would have any more money. that is my comment. host: you think they should pay more in taxes? caller: no, i do not. i think it should be an even tax. if you make $5 million a week, the pay the same percent. that is fair. host: let's look a comet that came to us by e-mail.

we have another comment on e- mail. i am not in favor of a payroll tax deduction. columbus, ga., margaret on our independent color line. caller: i am one of the employees that make $7.25 per hour. deducting payroll taxes from me means i'm going back to work, i am 79-years old.

the economy, and within done to my ira interest, you cannot live on what you thought you were going to live on because they have destroyed that. now they are destroying social security. i do not comprehend why anybody that makes money from an employer, if you make $50 like a woman just said, you are taxed social security on that $50. those people that earn income, the millionaires, they are already getting a social security break. so, why does this help the poor person? but you have an answer? host: 84 sharing, margaret. let's go to jacksonville, north carolina. caller: good morning. it seems you're mixing apples and oranges there.

the social security -- the question is, is it a tax or a benefit? the whole point is that we pay in social security for a certain percentage based on the income, but there is a set amount that you pay, the whole point is 15%, which includes social security as well as medicare. but charles schumer, the same thing, he is one of those rich people. the whole point is if they cut back on what you pay in as a benefit, you're going to get less out as the previous caller said. we are not paying a tax per say, but if you won a college tax, -- if you want to call it a tax, you pay out and then that affects would you pay in.

people need to understand exactly what security is. it was a benefit. that determines how much you pay in. host: just to clarify how this is working, the missing social security funds are the funds you do not pay in based on the payroll tax holiday. congress decided to go from the general fund to the source security tax fund to make up for the tax reduction. maryann on our democrats' line, good morning. caller: thank you for c-span. a guy called about having a window into wealth. i am a political junkie. i watch and listen very hard. i actually do have a very close- knit relationship with a wealthy family, which the caller is right. this is an entire family who lives off of an inheritance who somebody's grandfather made. but their whole scam is to buy

businesses, rent them to the brother and sister. their whole idea is to not pay any tax. i actually lived with one of these people. i have seen $80,000 goes to his head this year and keep a $300 in taxes. i am a single mother with five children. i earn $50,000 and i paid $4,700 in taxes. host: what in your mind would fix that? is it getting rid of all the deductions? is it making the code more uniform? what would you do? caller: there should not be any tax law written that is not fair to every person filing a tax return. ok? there should not be loopholes where a person can write off -- i know three families, personally, writing off every dollar bill they spend off on a small business that is never

turned a profit in more than 10 years. that is wrong. host: i hear which you are saying. i understand the point you are making. to bring back to our topic this morning, does the payroll tax holiday affect you this past year? caller: yes, it most certainly did. host: you want to see it continue? caller: i think the need to stop picking on little tiny things in the tax code. why did all-out. if you are upset because you're going to give me a tax break, then you have to take a tax break from someone else. let's not let people write off business home deductions anymore. if i filed a tax return and i claim the interest on my home, health insurance, whenever i claim as a deduction on my return, i am required to submit the documentation back of that

deduction. ok? host: let's go on to our next caller. jackson, mississippi, republican line. caller: i would like to agree with some of your previous callers. i think it should be a flat tax across the board. everybody should pay something, even if it is only $1. i think they should cut out all the loopholes for the rich and the poor. there should be no such things as earning income credit. that is a big joke. i like to say to all the politicians and all the people who are so supporting the lower class and poor, if you see what the majority of people who get earned income credit refunds do with the money that -- then you'll know why we eat, the middle class, are so angry.

in the end, they make as much money as we do by the time they get money back at the end of the year. we are their pain in. host: what you think about the payroll tax holiday specifically? caller: i do not see how we can afford it with the state's -- with the state of our finances for this company. these people need to realize that we're going to have to pay taxes or how are we going to run the government? that is including the lower 50% to pay none. it is just not run fairly. i am angry over it. i am angry at the rich to get all the breaks and i am also angry at the port to take advantage. you see all their cell phones and are the little trinkets -- ho host: it sounds like you're

willing to let go of a tax break that may help you? caller: i'm willing to do my part for this government. host: let's go to salem, new jersey. caller: i want to disagree with what mary said with what the poor do with their money. if you looked at what americans spend -- millions and billions of dollars on, it is ludicrous. it is not enough money to pay for this. how about every time that a child is being born in the united states they take their versatility to the federal reserve break and take out a million dollar loan in this child's name. in my name they did it. , they may have done it in your name. -- they may have done it in your name. there is money out there that is

just sitting there. people need social security. they need that money. they have the right to that money. host: let's go to a comment on twitter. springfield, new jersey, mike, democrat line. caller: i would like to add a little bit of information about social security. the tax has a cap on its. so, people that make, i believe it is about $103,000 a year, pay the full social security tax. anything over that, is free. the rich do not pay.

they do not pay the upper social security tax. also, on the flat tax, i would like to inform people that if you are going to have a flat tax, it is going to have to be 20 to 25%. that is a big tax increase for most poor to middle-class people. if we had a progressive flat tax, the representative from my state, and i cannot remember his name, he was redheaded, he proposed a progressive a flat tax that would be a good idea. our country was founded on progressive taxes. host: what you think about the payroll tax holiday? caller: i am for it.

you gave out some good information. i did not know they took taxes -- or, money from the general funds to cover losses. i have always worried about the money coming in to social security. that pretty much it just gets rid of it all. i am still for it. georgia,s good to leon, independent line. caller: the payroll tax holiday is good for stimulating the economy for some growth. it will benefit business -- it may increase growth and our jobs in some sectors. maybe not all.

what the american people need to understand is that not all of the country is in deep debt, but the american people are in deep debt. a little more money in our pockets would help us to pay down our debt and possibly create some employment. host: does it worry you that we are on an unsustainable path? republicans and some others say that we have to start paying down the debt. democrats are also agree with that on a lot of fronts. you think that is a bigger concern than getting your own personal break on taxes? caller: paying down the debt -- you have to increase when you are in debt. the best way is to increase my income and to lower my expenses. there has to be a balance there. republicans need to understand

that. you're going to have to increase revenue. the democrats are going to have to understand that we're going to have to decrease spending. host: let's stick to a comment on facebook. let's go to a republican in columbus, neb.. good morning. are you with us? caller: hello? host: you are on the air. go right ahead. caller: thank you for giving me this opportunity. hello? host: please go ahead. we're waiting to hear your comment. what you think about the payroll tax holiday?

caller: the payroll taxes on the holidays, well, what i'm thinking is in new york, the way he speak about giving $1,000. hello? host: yes? we're going to have to move on, i apologize. good morning. caller: i do not think it is a good idea. the 99% have not been prospering of the last 30 years. we're not made any in come. i'm a veteran of the two wars that just passed. republicans never want to pay taxes, but then i am out there paying for freedom with my blood. they are not paying anything. it will not pay taxes.

it is just a bothersome. host: let's take a look at a couple of other stories in the news. "usa today" profiles members of the occupy protests. you can see some images of the other protesters there. the protesters reflect a range of backgrounds. here is news about what is happening in los angeles with the occupy movement. police in riot gear began closing in on monday with some 2000 anti-wall street activists who defied a midnight deadline to vacate and eight-week-old

encampment outside los angeles city hall as some protesters blocked traffic. we are watching what is happening there. here are some other stories in the news. this is about president obama and the visit he is making around the country. his swing state visits surpass presidential record. looking at some international news, what is happening in europe, also from the "wall street journal."

"the new york times" reports that europe is running out of time to find a solution. they really only have a few days to avoid collapse. this is a commentary that says ms. merkel can get her fiscal union, but in return she will only -- she will have to accept a eurobond. arab group sets broad sanctions.

and from "the financial times s."te thank you for all of your calls during this segment. coming up, we will look at a number of topics in this show, including guantanamo bay and its future. first we'll talk about the future of the health care policy with susan dentzer. we will be right back.

♪ >> by the phone calls that we get, by the e-mail's that we get, by the increased participation that we have seen on our programs, we know that we are being successful. >> the communicators continues its look at broadcast in other countries. tonight, carlos garcia-press. a-perez. >> i have been there one year and one week. we have found that people in cuba really want news. they definitely want news.

they mention the markets. >> the communicators, tonight at 8:00 on c-span2. >> the newly designed c- span.org website has views that make it easier to get our schedule, with new features so you can quickly scroll for all the programs and even receive an e-mail alert when your program is scheduled to air. there is a section to access our most popular series and programs like "washington journal,", and "the contenders." you can quickly find where to watch our c-span networks at the all new c-span.org. >> within 90 days of my inauguration, every american soldier and every american

prisoner will be out of this jungle and out of their cells and back home in america where they belong. [applause] >> his pledge at the democratic convention came after almost one decade of being for senators to speak about the vietnam war. his groundbreaking campaign changed american politics and the democratic party. he is featured this week on c- span's "the contenders." live a friday from 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> "washington journal" continues. host: susan dentzer, editor-in- chief of "health affairs journal." thank you for being here. tells about the court took up this month and how that time and

will unfold. guest: the court agreed to a decision on the appeals decision -- specifically, one that was conceived of that was being the most important was whether the so-called individual mandate provision of the affordable care act was in fact constitutional. in addition to that, the court said it would review other matters that many were not inspected. a particular one is that under the affordable care act that in estimated 16 million people be expanded to the medicaid program. court will look at whether not the states are being coerced into that. that was completely unexpected. it also said it will look at a couple of other issues. one was whether the individual mandate provision -- that is to

say, if the individual mandate were invalidated, would the entire law fall apart? host: does the rest of its standard as the rest collapse? guest: exactly. finally, a third of another issue that many were not inspecting. -- expecting. of his collected out later, because it is a little bit more complicated. -- i will go back to that one later, because it is a little bit more complicated. host: whether you expecting experience to be when the supreme court takes this up? it sounds like it will be a long argument. what kind of window we have into that process? guest: in terms of what the corps will actually argue about?

what the court said it will do is take up an unprecedented five hours of argument on this. that really and truly is unprecedented, including a lot of time spent on the aspect of the decisions that we did were not expecting. -- we were not expecting. what we will know is the kind of questions that were being asked as this is argued. we know they have spent a lot of time thinking about these issues. they have been looking very closely at the various decisions of the appeals courts. up until they are hearing the arguments in front of them and asking, there will be very pointed questions. host: al queda susan dentzer -- susan dentzer is joining us from "health affairs journal."

that fits right into the political season. guest: indeed it does. to go back to one of the very important incisions. it is extremely important whether or not the individual mandate is of help or not. there's a lot of debate about the impact would be if the mandate were found unconstitutional. the courts would then have to decide this whole question of several ability of the individual mandate from the rest of the law. it is possible the court could decide the whole law will go down as we said earlier. it is possible that it could be invalidated and the rest of the law would stand. then the clear situation will be that if you do not like the rest of the law, and elect a new president and a new congress. the corps will essentially be saying in effect that that the affordable care act is

constitutional and therefore you may not like it politically, in which case you need a new president and new congress. but in fact, it was in the balance of the constitution to enact the law and the first place. the fourth one was going to say is that the court was going to take up the question of whether you sue against the individual mandate, whether in fact -- if in fact the individual mandate has not gone into effect yet because of the penalty has been considered to be a tax. host: that means the individual would have to wait until the individual mandate came in, would be taxed for would have to deal with it, which is not for a couple of years, and then could file a lawsuit. guest: because under the so- called anti-injunction law, the individual would have standing because it would have been injured by the penalty. what is complicated all of this

is that these pieces of this decision are interlaced. if in fact the court said that nobody has been injured yet, you have to come back in a couple of years and su, that would put the entire case of. -- and sue, that would put the entire case off. it does not look very likely. there really has only been one of hill's support that so far has decided the anti-injunction law applies. host: we're talking with susan dentzer, editor of "health affairs journal." the number to call for our republican line is 202-737-0002. the number to call for our democrat line is 202-737-0001. the number to call for our independents line is 202-628-0205. let's hear from mark, a republican in hawaii, hawaii. caller: it seems like the courts

have a pretty simple deal. if they rule that the mandate is constitutional, i think the majority of the citizens will look at the court as being corrupted if you understand history. host: why you think that mark? caller: there seems to be a confusion. we were taught constitutional law in high school. i am 63 years old. we look at how they could form a judgment on something. if you have been taught that the separation of powers, the federal government has certain powers. there is nowhere in there that they have the legislative power to instruct citizens to buy or purchase anything, even of war bonds in world war ii. host: markets making an argument that opponents often make. guest: that's right.

again, what most of the courts have said is that the central issue here is about the ability of the congress essentially to act within the so called commerce clause of the constitution, which gives congress the right to legislate in the case of something that involves commerce among several states. it is very clear that health care falls into that category. with the courts have said is that it may in fact be somewhat different than other decisions, but in fact this is an interstate market and essentially this is within the rights of the congress or the constitution of the congress and congress has the ability within the constitution to undertake this stuff. host: let's hear from laura in massachusetts on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i have a question about the private health insurance and where your children can stay on until they are 26. would that be affected with this

going to the supreme court? host: has that impacted your life? have you benefited from that? caller: yes, my son was laid off. he was under my husband health insurance, and now none of us will have insurance at all. but if i do get on a local health insurance, with a family plan, he would be able to get on my health insurance. but if they take that away, then that is something that i thought was good that was part of the health-care reform act. host: let's get a response a susan dentzer. guest: the answer really is, it depends. for example, if the court decides that the individual mandate is unconstitutional but

that it can be severed from the rest of the law, there would be no impact on that particular provision of the affordable care act. if, in fact, they decide that the individual mandate is constitutional, then it obviously does not have to decide the separate ability question. the bottom line is, and we have to step back and look at the big picture. more people willthere for the ee law will be upheld. -- there for the entirety of the law will be upheld. "the: a story in washington post" -- talk us through this story. guest: in essence was that

scripted what this is about is this the fact that justice taken work for the obama administration invalidate her decision. justice thomas wife has been involved, and so involved a major debate has broken out over whether these justices need to recuse itselthemselves. host: they both have said they did not plan to. who ultimately has saying over this? guest: i believe it is the court themselves. >> de you believe this will have a debate over the legality of the law? guest: the supreme court has been deeply enmeshed in politics, whether it likes it or not, for quite some time, and

certainly from the 2000 presidential election on, it has been perceived as being in step with or i should say if not overcome, at least in gauge with politics of the time. this will not be any different from that situation. host: editor in chief of "help affairs journal" = = "health -- "health affairs journal." caller: good morning. i keep hearing from republicans to repeal obama care, but i hear nothing from them about what they would replace it with. guest: that has been an issue. there are some individual republican lawmakers that have

proposed replacements of the affordable care act, but generally speaking, there has not been a major effort, notwithstanding the fact that there were boats very early on in the current congress to repeal the affordable care act. there has not been a major piece of legislation mark appeared in many of the lawmakers who have headed the committees have said they simply were not going to waste their time doing that. everyone understood that as long as president obama was in office, that he would veto any effort to repeal or replace the affordable care act, so really it was going to be a show trial to do much of anything along those lines. notwithstanding that, i think we also heard from republican lawmakers that they are very interested in preserving some provisions of the affordable care act. the insurance changes -- the changes in private health insurance. we have one calller noticed it

provision that allowed children up to age 26 they on their policies. those kinds of provisions are very popular. a number of republican lawmakers said they would take pains to preserve those. that gets into the question of how much of the law you can preserve and still say you will preserve the individual mandate. the bottom line is we have not seen a major provision come forward with a lot of republican backing to replace the affordable care act. at this storyok by david jackson -- guest: that is true. it is also the case that the affordable care act, it looks like the affordable care act is

at an all-time low in terms of popularity. a lot of support has fallen away on the democratic side as well as the republican side. because we also see that many continue to have confusion around the affordable care act, it looks as if the real problem here is the general problem, the economy being week, the president be very unpopular. and the dissatisfaction is tied up with the broader dissatisfaction about the economy. the major provisions of the affordable care act have yet to go into effect. why people would be so dissatisfied with it at this point seems to be problematic. it could be on the democratic side people are dissatisfied it is not fully in effect yet. >> let's look at he

althcare.gov. what has yet to happen? you mentioned getting your children covered up to age 26 is now in effect. the individual mandate is still in the future. can you give us details about other elements of the law? guest: yes, quite a bit has gone into effect. the pre-existing restriction can no longer be held against children, so that if you have an infant born with some terrible set of issues or something develops when a child is one or two, that child cannot have pre- existing conditions omitted from the parents' insurance policy. that has also gone into effect. we also have something called a medical loss ratio regulations that has gone into effect. this essentially says health

insurers have to spend a certain percentage of their premium dollars that they take and on actual medical claims as distinct from administrative expenses or marketing expenses or even salaries. that is already going into affect. we also have throughout much of the country now a pre-existing conditions program so people that could not buy insurance because their pre-existing conditions, can access coverage either through a state pool or some other arrangement. so just on that entity insurance side, we have those things that are brought into effect. we look over the other aspects of the law that are very important. one of the things we know is that health-care expenditures have gone up very substantially in recent years. we also know we spend for per capita -- more per capita than

any other industrialized country on health care. a lot of that is tied to the way we run the health care delivery system. we need a lot of change so we achieved what people have said is the triple game. battle -- better health and better health care in all at lower cost. a lot of changes are beginning to play out with than the medicare program to try to figure out new ways of organizing care so that it is more aimed at keeping people healthy so that it is also lower costs, and these changes are starting to drive through the delivery system and forcing a lot of change, change we hope in the end will make health care costs much more sustainable for our country. >host: , joins us from albany, kentucky, on the republican line. -- tom. caller: i wanted to comment on

how successful our country has been in medical care and reform. and how important saving lives and the quality to life is. they have the numbers of what actually is required to save more lives around the world, and how history is being good to us for saving lives. and how important this is, and the courts are making decisions about health care, which are not necessary for the courts to make. the courts need to add just -- address the lawyers and people better detracting against the fight of saving lives. it is not really in their decision to make those decisions.

guest: it is true we have an extremely effective health care system in many regards. if we take the larger issue of the health overpopulation, we note things do not look so great. we know if we look at our life expectancy, it is like we're losing ground in much of the united states for much of the population as opposed to gaining ground. that gets to a broader set of issues, not health care perce, because health care is very good, it gets to issues around income inequality, and inequality in educational attainment. we know the main things that drive our help as individuals have nothing to do with health care and everything to do with

our behavior, how well we take care of ourselves, how educated we are, because more educated people tend to be healthier. we know we a long way to go. we know even though we spend a lot on the health care system, it does not correct all the problems we have in place in this society. notwithstanding the fact of the health-care we provide is in many instances as effective as it is. host: austin, texas. mike on the democrats' line. caller: good morning. my call in in question would be in regards to cost retain it. that was mentioned earlier. we have seen in medicare today where there is discussion or debate about privatization or using the insurance market within the medicare system. under the affordable care act,

the insurance industry won that debate in the affordable care act, and there will be private insurance out there that will sell to americans under the affordable care act without a public option. essentially you have medicare that has traditionally been a public option that doctors are moving away from, because they can make more money out and open insurance market selling their services to our broader population of americans. >> all of these things are very complicated. just to set out a couple of facts, already one out of for medicare beneficiaries chooses to enroll in something called medicare advantage, which is getting the package of medicare benefits, but getting them through a private insurance company, so it looks like a number of people are voted with their feet because nobody is

coercing them to buy coverage -- private coverage that is backed by medicare. so we see that happening. we know that much of the country is enrolled in private insurance provided through employers or that they're by themselves. when we go to the full-blown affordable care act, much of that will happen through medicaid. even people that are on medicaid today typically are getting medicaid benefits through a managed care entity, that is to say a private insurance company. you need someone to organize those benefits in the delivery system are around individuals. the bottom line is when we start to talk about private versus public and health insurance, it gets very complicated very fast.

what the government is essentially doing in medicare and medicaid mainly is writing checks and writing checks often to individuals to buy coverage, but very often sending that money to a private insurance entity to supply benefits to individuals. it is a little bit more complicated than just the strict, public/private dichotomy we sometimes fall back on. host: a story from "the l.a. times" last week about dr. ronald burwick.

this overseas government health- care programs that insures close to 100 million americans. was this a surprise? guest: it was very long in coming. it was very clear that when don berwick was appointed, it was good to be a tough haul. he was appointed right after the affordable care act was put into law. immediately he became the punching bag. he was the personification of the things people did not like about it. there was an attempt to get him confirmed prove the conventional process. hearings were never scheduled. there was some dragging of the speech, even among democratic

lawmakers that were not eager to see hearings happen fast. president obama decided to appoint him in our recess when congress was out in 2010. it was very point of -- very clear about his tenure would be limited. >host: this is a woman who has been picked to replace him. the washington post profile her today and says she is known as a pragmatist. tell us about her. guest: she is known as a pragmatist. she was a nurse for many years. she worked in virginia. she let hospitals and rose to become a hospital ceo. eventually she became the top health official in the virginia state administration. she is definitely considered a pragmatist. she is considered a person that very much cares about

participation. most of the people consult with her say you better be prepared when she ask you questions about why you came in to see her, you better be prepared to say why your perspective will advance the interest of patients. host: she is a relatively quiet interest in the administration. and they had taken remarkably different paths to the same job. the conflicts that have arisen are unlikely to play out with her. her health care experience lies much more in management than in policy. what does this say about the choices of a manager rather than a policy expert? guest: i think that is a little bit of an overstatement. if you look back at dawn for what he essentially was doing was very much involved with figuring out a way to make a halter system functioned

better. he was a pediatrician of long standing. his own wife was seriously ill for a long amount of time who was in and out of hospitals. some of the finest countries in the hospital. he became aware of the errors that were happening in her care, the fact that the care was not extremely patient focused. he became very concerned about preventable events in the nation's hospitals, the fact that many of the people go and for one thing but end up dying of something else -- go in for and of dying of something else. he led a major national effort to try to reduce the preventable errors and hospital. one of them was called a 5 million lives campaign. frankly there is every reason to suspect there probably have

been 5 million lives saved as a consequence of the force that was unleashed to improve care in the nation's hospital. that is not that different from what maryland was doing for many years to actually deliver very good care as a front-line nurse, and then to basically run a hospital in nature the care was provided optimally. she also went into policy, leaving the virginia state government. i am not so sure i would say their paths were that different. i think they both come out to the same place, which is we do not have a health care system that is focused on the patient. >host: let's go to texas. carolyn on the independent line c. caller: good morning. i am in texas, you know my situation and health care is not

good. rick perry has proposed to exempt texas from the benefits of the affordable care act, and we did not even get to vote on it. i am very worried about this, because if anyone can do this is the legislators and rick perry of texas. will all of the benefits not be available to texans who have the most uninsured patients in the nation? thousands of people die because they do not have access to care in texas, and they do not care. thctsbout the compaq'tc that states can get out of? guest: it the supreme court finds the affordable care act is constitutional, that the individual mandate is

constitutional, then all of these state provisions will fall by the west side, because we know we have of federal government and the rights of the state's essentially are assumed by constitutional acts of the u.s. congress. it is bound to be constitutional, it will not make any difference. by the same token, a lot in virginia that said virginians will be exempted from the individual mandate, that will no longer have an effect if the court finds the law is constitutional. >> long island, new york, republican calller. caller: i have two questions. the first one is it this is such a good act, why has congress exempted themselves from the health care act? they feel they are entitled to their private insurance, but the other health care insurance is mandated on the rest of us.

second question is, if you say there are at least 16 million uninsured, probably now there are more due to high unemployment in this country, and we have the same number of doctors, doesn't that pretend -- portend the government will regulate how much health care individuals get? we have ezekiel emanuel that has written extensively on this subject stating that a 40-year- old person, since they have many more years left, has more of a right to a hip operation or other types of health care than a person said to be five or 80. it seems to meet this person is intimately involved in the health-care law, and given his philosophy, there will be rationing.

guest: you mentioned a lot of things, so let me take them up in sequence. members of congress are covered under the federal employees' health insurance plan. they have private coverage are ready. -- already. they have not exempted themselves from the wall. to the decree was to exempt people who did not have it, they did not extend it to themselves, because it already has that coverage. also, there are closer to 50 million americans that are uninsured. when we look at ways to get those individuals covered, what congress said its we are going to do that through two avenues. we will expand the medicare program for people that are at 130 percent signed party level or below, and for everyone else we will create a more functional private insurance market so they can buy coverage, and we will

give them subsidies if they are below a certain level of income to help before that. that is the overall constructs for the affordable care act. to the question of are we going to have enough doctors, there is a concern as we bring more people into coverage how the health care system will accommodate them. we do not have an especially efficient or well-organized health care delivery system, certainly one that would be state of the art. today is cyber monday. millions of americans will buy coverage on line. health care is not even organized enough that you could buy health insurance protect relief very efficiently on line. in many instances you cannot even e-mail your position because your position will not take your emails-- in many

instances you cannot e-mail your doctor because your doctor will not take your emails because they're not paid to do so. if we're able to do that, if we are able to see more patients, we will be able to extend the reach of the current number of positionsphysicians we have. i think you will see our reach to make a more efficient to get more care to more people come and do it more cheaply than is the case now. finally come to the point of ezekiel emanuel, what he is really arguing there is not a question of federal policy, nor is a related to be affordable care act. it does not speak to any issues around our rationing or figuring out whether we will get coverage to this person or that person. he is really talking about a broader set of issues, which is how we expand the health care dollars, and should we spend so

much of our health care dollars in the last phases of life? those are legitimate questions to ask, but they do not have anything to do with the nature of the affordable care act. host: pa., democrats line. caller: i have a question. i have a lot of health issues. getting insurance is almost a nightmare. we do have insurance through my husband's job, but this last year it went up 50%. i do not see how any of the new electoral laws have helped me out or my family. we're almost financially wiped out because of health care problems and outrageously high copays. i have looked for alternatives, something cheaper. in my county there is only to help insurance companies i can pick from.

-- only two health insurance companies i can pick from. you cannot even afford the premiums. you are lucky to even have that. i am not complaining that i have insurance, but it is so expensive, i really cannot even use it. i did not see what has been done for someone like myself. i know there are plenty of people like myself. guest: it sounds as if you are getting coverage now through an employer, but it sounds like it is a smaller employer. under the affordable care act, there will be, assuming it is upheld and goes into effect, individual states will be organizing new marketplaces of health coverage called health insurance exchanges, so that small businesses will be able to buy coverage through their employees through the exchanges,

as well as individuals that do not have coverage. there will be new marketplaces. it will depend on how the states set them up. they have a lot of leeway to do things in different ways. in theory estate would have the ability to say we want 15 or 16 or 20, or maybe even everyone to come in and compete for the business. you will have to provide us certain package of benefits. the whole point being to give individuals choices among a variety of health insurance plans. if you are in fact below a certain level of income, you will have assistance from the federal government in terms of assistance to help you buy the coverage. in theory a person like you will have more choices at some point down the line. as to the question of cost, this

is a real issue. we see health insurance getting so costly. i saw our recent projection that in california an hmo coverage could be $40,000 per year for a family. we know it is getting increasingly unaffordable. we have to look at ways under the affordable care act, as well as through other measures, to try to make health coverage more efficient, more effective, and to cost less. it is precisely the situation that you described that is going on across the country where come up to relieve those that are giving coverage through employer years, we are seeing premium increases of 20%, 30% and higher from year to year. obviously that is not sustainable over the long run. >> genie on the independent line. good morning.

>> i want someone to explain why it the insurance companies are so necessary. it seems like they are a big middle man. guest: it probably often does seem that way too many people, because many people are not fully familiar with all that the scenes athind insurance companies to make sure you were getting appropriate care. we know the way we pay positiohysicians in this countra fee-for-service system. everything they do for you, he or she may be paid more. the vast majority of doctors and nurses in this country are extremely honorable people, but there are certain percentage of people that if you are faced

with do i give this patient something, it may or may not help them, i get paid for it, some of those individuals will make decisions to do things that are not always necessary, and are not always safe and effective. insurance companies can step in often and say, i am not so sure that is appropriate. i am not sure of that patient needs a ct scan for a headache with their record to get additional radiological exposure. very often patients do not perceive that. patients tend to put a lot of trust in their doctors. often that is very appropriate, but not always. someone often needs to step in to the stature ration and make sure thing step -- make sure things happen better for patients. there are many cases where patients -- insurance is have

gone in the way. so this is always a game of a little bit of pole and tug to figure out what is appropriate. we can only hope in the future there will be a better alignment so that people are not necessarily paid more, providers are not necessarily paid more to do more for patients but paid to do better for them. figuring out a different way to run the system. we hope that will achieve the kind of environment where everyone is on the same page about doing the best thing for patients and having providers paid appropriately for doing that. host: susan dentzer from "health affairs journal." coming up next, a look at the role of state covered and

national security. first, an update from c-span radio. word today from the economic cooperation and development that development could escalate if your fails to resolve the debt crisis. policy makers must be prepared to face the worst. while they warn of an easing -- worsening economic crisis, european leaders are in washington to meet with president obama. the group expected to discuss the european debt crisis and will talk about it at a news conference set for later today. c-span crews are covering the event. stock index futures are up-to- date on optimism over the latest proposals out of europe. germany and france are exploring ways to integrate a result countries as a way to impose tighter budget controls. s&p futures are up about 31 points. the dow up 248, and the nasdaq up 51.

those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> within 90 days of my inauguration, every american soldier and prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cell and back home in america where they belong. >> george mcgovern's pledge of the 1992 democratic convention came nearly a decade after being one of the first senators to peak -- speak out publicly against the vietnam war. he suffered a landslide defeat that year to president nixon, but his ground-breaking campaign change the democratic policy. he is featured this week on c- contenders."he that is live at friday at 8:00 eastern. >> by the emails we get, the replies that we get, by the increase participation that we have seen on our programs, we

know we are being successful. >> the communicators continues its look at u.s.-government sponsored broadcast to other countries. tonight with carlos perez, director of office of cuban broadcasting. >> we have done 23 focus groups. i have been there of year and a week. what we found out is that people in cuba really looked for -- they want news. when they seek news, they mention the martinez. >> "the communicators" tonight at 8:00 on c-span 2. >> "washington journal" continues. host: congress will address the defense authorization bill. in it are issues related to

states and governors. let's start with a dual command status. what is that, and why was the put in place? guest: it is part of a proposal that developed through the council of governors, which brings together governors with the secretary of defense, and senior white house officials to really address what has been a long-standing concern for governors, which is the coordination of state and federal military forces during a domestic military response. this is something that really comes from the lessons learned from hurricane katrina. it is not unique to hurricane katrina, but we have had instances where there have been state and national guard forces operating under command in control of the governor. at the same time, the world of the three forces operating under secretary of defense. the release of a competing chain of command. when you are talking about trying to save lives and protect

property, you need to make sure everything is as well coordinated as possible, and a dual status command appointment is a mechanism to ensure everything is coordinated. what it does is provide of national guard in most instances to simultaneously direct federal and state forces to ensure we are operating seamlessly together to save lives. >> you mentioned hurricane katrina. give us an example of how that can break down when you're getting directions from different authorities, how can that go wrong? guest: when you're talking about something of such a massive scale as hurricane katrina, you have so much going on. in the beginning every response is essentially a local response. you're going to have your local police officers, firefighters, emergency management responded. they will form an incident command center. when they need assistance, the

state will come in and back that up. if it goes beyond that level, states could turn to other states for assistance. you are laying response upon response asset. say we have a massive earthquake come in europe folks that need to be extracted from buildings, you would have a number of search and rescue teams stepping in to try to provide response. with some of the different assets doing things at the same time, you still need to make sure you are record dating to provide the best response, and operate seamlessly together. the few were stovepipes and chains of command you have, the better it is for everyone at the end of the day. so pipes and fewer chains of command you have, the better it is for everyone at the end of the day. host: what was the consensus of how it worked? guest: i think they were

pleased. hurricane irene with the first instance where they were appointed for a natural disaster. in the past they have only been used for planned events the presidential inaugurations or special security events like the super bowl. we have months of time to plan for that. but hurricane irene this was the culmination overt a two-year effort to address this issue, and we work with folks at the department of defense to develop all whole training and certification program for national guard officers. we have developed a memorandum of agreement that now 45 governors have signed with the secretary of defense, which set up -- which facilitates the agreement of the gulf that is. we saw this during the hurricane. it was a great effort. it showed the partnership for emergency response. host: another aspect is the proposal to give the national

guard an equal voice on the joint chiefs of staff. guest: this is called the national guard empowerment act for 2011. it was introduced by way he and gramm, the co-chairs of the seven national guard cockers. -- by laeigh and gramm./ it does a number of things to support the national guard in the emergency management role. one of the key mechanisms to do so was providing a seat on the joint chiefs of staff. this would really help insure that the national guard has two sides to it. it is a very unique force. while many of the federal responsibilities are very well represented within the pentagon through policy and decision making process these, providing the national guard a seat would also ensure that it is a critical domestic emergency response aspect and very well

represented, which is particularly important as we are getting towards the critical budget decisions. host: is there a concern that there could be a power struggle between the governors and that position? guest: i am not sure that is so much the concern as the guard would that be over represented perhaps on the joint ssheath. chiefs. we worked very well with the federal partners, and we are interested in trying to make sure that as these decisions are made, that there is a clear picture of how governor's rely and how they utilize the national guard. each day in this country we have 6000 national guards deployed under state authorities to help respond to emergencies. jointlet's hear the chiefs of staff chairman talking about this issue. >> the service chiefs are the single issue for their

respective services. with the service secretaries, they bear sole responsibility for making the key resource decisions that produce an organized, trained, equipped force. this includes the national guard and reserve components. the proposed change could undermine this effort. each of our services has a reserve component, but only the army and air force have a national guard. this proposal will create a situation among our reserve component forces whereby to of of the six wo fo th will be represented unequally. each of the joint chiefs is subject to the civilian oversight of a single appointed and confirmed secretary. the chief of the national guard bureau has no such oversight. elevation would make them equal to the service chiefs without accountability. this seems to me to run counter

to the carefully packed red -- carefully crafted principles established by goldwater/nichols. i do not find arguments to change the composition compelling. it is unclear to me what problem we are trying to solve. host: chairman of the joint chiefs of staff saying he does not see the need to have our representative of a guard on the joint chiefs level. what is your response to that? guest: he is invited to participate in the joint chiefs of staffs meeting, and many serbs and have indicated his input is valuable, so what we're looking at is codifying current practice to avoid instances where that may change in the future. the card is a very unique force, and what we're really trying to do is ensure that all of what they do on the home wind defense side is really brought to bear

in all of those decisions. i would point out that when the common stock of the marine corps and a vice chairman of the joint chiefs were added, at the time the current sitting members very much opposed their addition, but looking back we will actually say they could not imagine the joint chiefs without them. really hoping that this is another one of those instances. host: heather hosett is our guest. -- hogsett. now let's go to the phones. john and myrtle beach. caller: i want to find out why during hurricane katrina, nothing was, not out of bond ruche -- coming out of that larouche -- bgaton rouge to

help. -- baton rouge to help. i do not understand why bush was blamed so much for this. there could have been a lot of things done, and all they wanted to do was push this office -- push this off on the federal government when the local government did nothing to help. these people probably could've gone most of them out. guest: what you highlight is one of the key reasons why are so excitedor's about the military response. her take katrina was a very complex event. without speaking to some of the specific instances you are referring to, i think really what we tried to do -- one of the key lessons we all learned that information was not shared in a timely manner and as widely to all of those trained to respond as it should have been.

between the local levels and the federal level, what everyone has tried to do since then, and there have been a number of bills passed, really tried to break down a lot of those, not just stovepipes, but lack of other -- how we all work together. since then we have made a number of changes to how we plan to emergencies, how all levels of government work together. we train better and exercised together. so that when something like that does happen in the future, we have a much quicker response by all levels of government to help serve the people that are affected. host: independent calller in maryland. welcome. caller: two points. my first one is that director brown of fema, i do not necessarily blame the president, but the director at the time

totally dropped the ball in was not prepared for the job. he was appointed by the president. where else could you have a job where you screw up massively, and you are rewarded with other grants, they expand the size of your company, and you get all of these benefits. the other thing is the constitutionality of this, the 10 governors, they are doing the same thing with the super committee. this is unconstitutional. this is the federal government laying out all first, when in all reality law originates from the local regions. basically your local sheriff is the end all for law enforcement at that level. to have the federal government come in and shut down all local police and governors, if they're not one of the 10 governors, is completely unconstitutional. i would like tether to address

that. guest: i think what you're referring to is the council of governors. this was created in response to some of the problems highlighted during hurricane to train appeared and we have mechanisms to get all sides a government talking to each other. -- this was created in response to some of the problems highlighted during hurricane katrina. they meet with the secretary of defense, homeland security secretary, and a director of fema, and a number of senior administration officials. governors are the ones that have been driving that agenda. the work very closely with our partners. what the council focuses on is trying to ensure the federal government has an appropriate view of the local and state needs. one of the key things we have

done through this memorandum of agreements is preserving the state. it insures when the federal government steps in to provide assistance, they are in support of state who are in support of the locals. this is a critical piece that i cannot underscore how much of a partnership this has been, but how much of a leading role this preserves for governors and their constitutional authority to exercise their authority within the state when something does happen. i would also point out to you that the co-chairs and all 10 governors to serve on the council work through the national governors' association to share and develop plans that are being addressed with our partners throughout the year. this is something that involves all governors, not just the 10 that are currently appointed. host: our calller talked about administrator browner and fema and when things go wrong with disaster response.

how would changing things to a dual-that his command situation hold people accountable? guest: and make sure everything is under command and control of the government. it is maintaining a single chain of command for a response operation, which means the governor will then have clear visibility and know who the appropriate people are under his or her corrections that need to be held accountable if something does go wrong. host: heath hogsett is with the national governors' association. here are the numbers to call if you would like to join the conversation -- -- heather hogsett is with the national governors' association. items we have taught that are

looking the national guard jeep a seat with the joint chiefs of staff. also the dual status command and how that can help clarify who was in control when disasters strike or when the national guard is needed to go out and work on a variety of issues. you mentioned they can go out, not only four incidents like hurricane irene with their need is unexpected and last minute, but there are things that are planned long in advance. how much different is it preparing for an unexpected disaster or catastrophe vs planning for things you know about far in advance? guest: really what you're talking about is the authorities are all the same in essence. the difference is just making sure that it is a no-notice event to have the tools that as commander requires the appointment of the president and governor. you just really need to facilitate the appointment, which is what we've done through the memorandum of agreement. it is an agreement signed by

each governor and the secretary of defense on the president's behalf to by name who would be appointed as a duel that as commander so that when something does happen, that the governor can just pick up the phone, make a call and say i want someone as my dolls that as commander, and the paperwork can follow. -- i want so and so as my dual status commander, and the paperwork can follow. they have developed a very detailed training course that each of national guard officer, if he or she will be appointed, needs to go through to be certified in order to serve as a commander. we are now at the point that nearly every state has at least one, if not to come and national guard officer certified to play the role. host: let's look at the numbers. the army national guard has

362,000 members. the air national guard, 108,000. 50,000 national guard members are either deployed or mobilize that any given time for federal mission. let's get to phil in clearwater, fla. of the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i question is about the national security of the whole deal. let's say we're like egypt and we have the million man march. i am a little it be. i marched against the vietnam war. -- i'm a little hypie. the 99% became the 99 percent signed. what is homeland security and national guard corn to do then? will they shoot like they did in camp state? i really want to know that. are we going to control and try to control all of the people with homeland security? do you consider that a national

threat by americans? guest: that is a hypothetical instance, but i am not sure i can speak to, but what i will say is that really know governor would like to see something come to that point. we would really work with the local authorities on the scene to help manage any sort of instance where you have a whole bunch of people try to exercise their rights at that time, and we would do all we can working with local government, state government, and if necessary, the federal government to preserve order and peace for everyone. host: rabin in denver, colorado. good morning. -- rob in denver, colorado. let's move on to eric in cincinnati, ohio. caller: good morning. my question is, what roll hall

will the incident management system play in coordination with detention centers that are being built around the united states when it comes down to local government? host: are you still with us? talk us through what you are asking about. you are talking about the role of the national guard, or who are you talking about? caller: whole incident management system. the holy emergency management system. what role do they have with new detention centers that are being built? -- the whole emergency management system. under the homeland security act, whatever role they have. guest: what i can simply add is i think if you are referring to the incident command system, which really forms the

cornerstone of emergency response in this country, is simply dictates that every response is local and any other response on top of that is in support of the local incident commander. the incident command system would certainly be used to step in in that case. host: fremont, california. benjamin on the democrat line. good morning. caller: i was curious about where does the coast guard fit in? and also, are you trying to pass the budget all of the states by including -- the making them go first kind of deal? guest: with respect to the coast guard, they are a somewhat unique military force in this country. they perform missions every day and they fall locally under the department of homeland security. governors do not exercise in the command control over the coast

guard. it is somewhat unique and falls under the secretary of homeland security, and in rare instances they are federalize to put under the command control with the department of defense. with response to your second question under the budget, i think what governors are really concerned about today, and why they are interested in the national guard and power of that act is to make sure as we are facing tough budget concerns, that governors can help provide answers and solutions to that. they would like to have a seat at the table, and really want to ensure that everyone understands within the military establishment was some of the ramifications are of certain decisions that might be made. for instance, if you have an air national guard wing that is removed from the state, that my how far-reaching consequences throughout the entire region of the country.

so if something like that were to occur public governors would like to help in that decision process, but also look like to know as soon as possible, because this will impact their emergency management plan any to make adjustments. because we never know when something might happen and what this deal might be, it is important to make sure everyone is at the table. host: how is the role of the national guard changed since 9/11? guest: governors will let you know after 9/11 many people may see the national guard deployed. since then we have had over 5000 national guard serve alongside the active-duty military overseas. we have seen the home when defense mission grow. within this country many people may not realize, but the national guard is the only one who can provide a first response to what we call of chemical,

biological, radiological or experience in this country. they have a localized response system to provide a quick response. this is something that did not exist before 9/11. what we have today is a highly skilled, highly-trained work force that has proven its value time and again, both to the oft-duty military and governors as they try to serve their citizens. host: let's go down to new orleans. will on the democrat line. caller: good morning, ladies. i am calling from new orleans. i disagree with the calller previously about the states. i believe the federal government has the authority, in my opinion, to step in and take control of the situation and do what is appropriate, and me as a

person with medical needs, i was very disappointed in my federal government, because the local governments basically, in my opinion, were powerless, because they did not have the resources to deal with hurricane katrina, something i just wanted to college on a voice my opinion. host: before you leave us, what do you think could have fixed the things for hurricane katrina, in your experience? we lost him at. how much has been learned from katrina? guest: really, we have worked with local and state governments to come together and insure that it is not necessary. because of the localized nature

of an event, the best able to respond are those who know the area well, who know the people, know their neighbors, know what response may be provided. congress passed a number of bills in the emergency reform management act which insures that the federal government is better able to support state and local efforts to respond to their first on the scene. host: to argue his point, you live in one state that borders another with a dedicated resources and the other state does not, whether it is because of their own budget or a lack of interest on the governor's part. does have been more federal control of the many disparate? -- eliminate disparity? guest: all the time states provide assistance, the

emergency management assistant program. it allows the state that is not able to provide that response to go to a neighbor of or someone several states over and say, "we need firetrucks." they can then provided through the emergency response system. host: st. paul, minn., on the independent line. caller: does having federal involvement create more of a disparity? i think it does. after the patriot act, i think you will find more federal involvement will take on more management roll like yothey didn katrina. fema get in the way of local governments. i would like your guests to comment on the patriot act in particular.

tost: i'm not prepared comment on the patriot act, but you raised another good point. fema and the federal government does not have first responders and that can be brought to an event. they have specialized personnel to provide assistance, but they do not have the first responders to control. the military is restricted on pearl -- under law. unless we are under military law, they are not able to do so. host: newtown square, pa. good morning. caller: i'm so sorry. host: take your time. caller: all the concerns about homeland security that have come up since 9/11, it is great that

people have been able to coordinate better, but is costing us so much money. one thing in particular that they are spending so much money on is all this equipment, this riot gear. if you look at anyone officer now come i cannot imagine how much money everything costs. one officer could be wearing that on his body. do we really think it is necessary to spend so much money on all of this equipment? are there other ways to organize things without spending so much money? we're talking about cutting costs, and this all costs so much. host: let's hear what heather

hogsett has to say. guest: they are looking for better ways to perform these missions. it is up to the governor to provide for the safety and security of citizens. they are interested in protecting, whether it be a law enforcement officer or firefighter, in their duties. governors have had to cut hundreds of millions of dollars from their budgets over the last several years, as they are looking for all sorts of ways to more efficiently provide those critical services while better utilize in taxpayer dollars. that is one thing that has been highlighted today with the world and national guard. -- the role of the national guard. for one active member of the military, you can provide three or four members of the national guard. they are a great resource and a great value. they are ready to serve

overseas when called. they can respond in the united states for a fraction of the cost of other federal resources. host: a couple of people are weighing in on at twitter about homeland security. maverick says -- in what if a governor has a difference of opinion with federal efforts? what they feel that the national homeland security efforts are too heavy-handed? guest: if it is a specific emergency response under the control of the governor, and virtually all of them are, the governor has that authority to tell federal resources to stand down. some governments feel very strongly about respecting their authority and if something is going on within their state. they will put an end to it

through their own chains of command. one of the key things to remember here is that we have learned so many lessons about the partnership between the state and federal government is very different than it may have come across in the past. it is clear to us in the federal government that they are in support of governors and the local emergency response. we just want to support the authority of governors in the constitution, but help of those with response efforts with possible -- when possible. host: heather hogsett is with the national governors association. their web site is nga.org. they do public safety, homeland security, emergency management, and veterans affairs.

louisiana, democratic caller. welcome. hi there. caller: hello. what i was trying to say is that it is like a big cookie jar here with this military budget, in every branch of the military. no one is standing by the cookie jar to slap those crooked hands. it is hurting the american taxpayers. we need enforcement of laws. we need bookkeepers. period. host: how does that relate to homeland security and the states' roles for you? caller: i am talking about every branch of the military, including homeland security, should all be overseen if we want to get the budget on.

-- to get the budget done. guest: there is homeland security and homeland defense. homeland defense falls under the military aspect. homeland security is more in the civilian demand. governors are working as well and are very interested in insuring that taxpayer dollars are used as efficiently as possible. they are looking for all ways to better reduce costs while still providing these critical services. one thing? governors have been doing is to work with congress in the area of interoperable communications. that is a critical emergency response tool. the ability of view, as a citizen, to be able to call or text 911 for help and make sure it gets to your local police or fire in a real time and are is something that governors are

trying to look for opportunities to better leverage your technologies out there to help overall reduce costs through out how we provide communications. that is one example of ways people are trying to use taxpayer dollars efficiently. host: raleigh, n.c., independent line. caller: good morning. i work in the field of emergency management at the state level. people talk about homeland security since 9/11, and it did not exist prior to that, especially katrina post- -- fema post-katrina. fema was in pretty good shape in the 1990's and was much improved under his rule. it was then gutted. bush's philosophy was that it only needed to beat a checkbook to hand over to the governor. pre-planning is crucial.

the structure is correct. the locals respond first. when they exceed their capacity, the state steps in. when they exceed their capacity, the government's federally steps in. i think the structure is right. the key is to implement it and appointing people to positions that are competent and take the job seriously and know how to plan as much as respond. they are both crucial. that is something that needs to be ongoing. guest: that is a very key point he makes. we get the best system in place, but if we do not train, exercise, and have qualified people serving in those positions it can be difficult to

provide a good response to people. that is by working with the federal government, we have really put the focus on making sure that we have trained national guard officers to serve as dual-status commanders in these instances. we are not exchanging the proverbial business card, but we really need to work together beforehand and have a clear understanding of what their responsibilities are to really serve our citizens. dual-let's talk about the status commander a little bit more. do they require special training? guest: they do. there are several weeks of training that they go through with the assistant secretary of homeland defense and other organizations. they have to go for a course to ensure that they understand what the national guard can do under title 32 authority versus what can happen under title 10 federal military authority. the go and meet with officials

at the federal emergency management agency and learn about the incident command system issues that have already been brought up by a previous caller. they are all certified. we are at the point today that each state has at least one officer trained and certified to serve in this capacity. that is a critical piece to actually making this happen. host: when incidents happen along the border, how do governors work with international agencies or international leaders? how does that command the plight when we talk about who has control -- how does that come into play? guest: the borders are really a federal responsibility. the national guard is under title 32 come under the command and control of the governor, but with the federal government providing the funding. the national guard has assisted.

editing going along the border has impacts well into a state and it can affect different agencies both on the human side with hospitals, health care, schools, but also law enforcement. governors court in it very closely with the federal government, -- governors coordinate very closely, but it is much more coordinated by the federal government. host: so if it is along the border, that is something that the feds would be more coordinated in a response? guest: it depends on the incident and where it is located. it is a border point of entry, that is a federal area of control in the federal government would lead that response. if it is further inland, it would be under the governor's authority with a lot of assistance from the federal government.

host: democratic caller from florida. go right ahead. caller: i am in water hill, fla. host: thank you for calling in. what is your comment for heather hogsett? caller: my comment is that you were seeming to go through this mountainous approach of thinking to stop terrorism. there are so few of these numbers that you should be concentrating on the people who could be possible terrorists. it is ridiculous. that is just my opinion. i just think you're making a mountain out of a molehill. host: what role do governors and national guard play in detecting terrorists? guest: that has to do with the role of governments sharing

intelligence and information through our fusion centers to bring together intelligence analysts, law enforcement, emergency management, and the health-care community more and more to ensure that as information comes in from overseas regarding possible terrorists that it is tracked, analyze, and integrated with the things that states or localities may be seeing. there is a fusion center in each state, and i believe 72 across the country. they are a node and follow all of that information and they are concerning with all of these crime control and prevention things. it is trying to break down the walls between a terrorist and a non-terrorist, so they try to bring that information together so that the people who could do

something about have the information to respond appropriately. host: heather hogsett serves as the homeland security and public safety director of the national governors association. coming up next, guantanamo bay in the "your money" segment. first, a news update. >> 9:17 a.m. eastern. word today from the pakistan army that the nato air strike over the weekend that killed 24 pakistan'si soldiers lasted two hours and continued after commanders had pled with coalition forces to stop. they described it as "tragic and unintended" and have promised a full investigation. after days of protests in cairo, they are standing in long lines to vote in the first parliamentary elections since the ousting of president mubarak. some say they are voting for the

first time because their votes before did not matter. police have arrested three people after ordering occupy l.a. protesters to leave an intersection. hundreds of people gathered in the street after a midnight deadline to vacate the park. in philadelphia, the protesters are promising to stay until carried out by police. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> within 90 days of my inauguration, every american soldier and every american prisoner will be out of the jungle and out of their cells and back, in america where they belong. >> george mcgovern's plant at the 1972 democratic convention came nearly one decade after being one of the first senators to speak out publicly against the vietnam war. the senator from south dakota suffered a landslide defeat

against nixon, but his campaign changed politics and the democratic party. george mcgovern is featured this week on "the contenders." from the mcgovern center in south dakota, live friday at 8:00 p.m. eastern. >> the newly designed c- span.org web site has 11 video choices making it easier for you to watch it the day's events. easier for you to get our schedule with new features like the three-network layout to scroll through all programs and even received e-mail alerts when your program is scheduled to air. you can access our most popular series like "washington journal," "american history tv ," and a handy television reminder for cable and satellite systems across the country on the all new c-span.org.

host: carol rosenberg with "the miami herald" , and she has written extensively about guantanamo bay. good morning. you did a recent story looking at the cost of prisoners, how much it costs to detain people there. every monday, we have a segment called "your money," where we look at a program, how much it costs, and how public money is being spent. why did you start looking at the cost of keeping detainee's at guantanamo bay? guest: "the miami herald" has covered guantanamo bay coming up on 10 years. in july, the administration wrote congress in a letter signed by the dni, the attorney general, and the secretary of defense that this is costing

america $800,000 per year per detainee. they compared this to about $25,000 in federal detention. they were doing this as part of a letter talking about the pros and cons of military versus a billion trials and military verses -- military verses civilian trials and military verses civilian detention. how could this possibly be? this makes it arguably the most expensive detention center on earth, $800,000. we set out to break that down. host: carol rosenberg, we're looking at a chart right now, the cost per prisoner at guantanamo bay compared to other prisons. miami dade county jail is $50,000 per prisoner compared to $800,000 at guantanamo. colorado supermax is $38,000.

the state board system is $19,000. once again, guantanamo bay $80,000. where did these come from and how have you been able to parse out the numbers? guest: we added the supermax because there is a small group of people there that would be more like the supermax than it would the dad county prison. we tried to give comparisons for those in maximum security, not necessarily solitary confinement, but on their own, to mix it all up. what we knew all along was that the commanders down there had told us to think of the guantanamo as an aircraft carrier in the sea. it is totally dependent. they create their own water,

their own electricity, they bring in all of their supplies by barge or aircraft. because they cannot live off the land and everything gets brought in, you have mark ups for contractors and transportation. there are rotational staff, people coming and going, and there have never been any fixed costs. you can think of it as the international space station, staff coming and going, supply missions all the time, no expense spared. that is more the way the detention center functions way out there with what they need brought in and the rotational staff is key. the guards come in go in six, nine, 12-month rotations. they get 24/7 mental, medical

health care come amusement, entertainment, three square meals, entertainment, and housing. there is no detention center where a prison here in the states that functions that way. a guard gets up, packs their launch, drives to work. it is their car, their home, their lunch. at the end of their ship, they go home. guantanamo is a 24/7 operation. when they are inside the wire and working as guards as opposed to other stocks that may be outside what they call "the wire," but also get combat halite their brothers and sisters outside of guantanamo. is it like a gated community down there. host: a pie chart from "the miami herald."

carol rosenberg, you have worked hard to try to get more specific numbers. why they are spending, and what they are spending. tell us about your search for information. guest: this is a very superficial snapshot, the best we could surface when we ask the detention center staff and their supervision at the southern command. they give us a very, very broad categories. when we asked them to drill down and asked what intelligence meant it, ask for things that seemed, perhaps, privileged but

are actually quite meaningful at guantanamo, we could not get anywhere. basically, the people down there who handled the budgets, the people who handle public relations refused to drill down to any level. when we went to their supervisors at southern command here, the pentagon's office they say they are responsible for a portion of the budget but give us is superficial snapshot. it is hard to know exactly what they mean when they say something like "intelligence collection missions." we know from briefings that sometimes at the intelligence operations has been responsible for books in the library. we know that there are linguists down there and some of them are accompanied by their families living in the base in these apartments. we are trying to figure out what the true cost is if you were to

separate this out and how you could consider this huge figure of $800,000 per detainee and we only got so far. we filed under the freedom of information act a couple of months ago. we asked for expedited consideration, because as everyone knows there is a debate in congress about pentagon expenditures at the moment. we were denied expedited consideration, so we are still waiting for the documentation that breaks this all down. we did get numbers, but they were the numbers that the detention center has been publishing through the years as a part of their transparency mission to show certain things that they want to show. i think you have a chart there for food costs. they are considerable when it comes to the detainee's. it is not quite $40 per day per prisoner to feed them.

if you look at about, we have compared it to come for example, the average american living alone what they pay out of their pocket, what in midshipmen would pay out of their pocket. what we're trying to show is that they are not eating surf and turf, not all you can eat salad bar, but three meals in styrofoam containers, but there is a considerable markup. everything that comes down there starts out frozen solid in a barge in jacksonville and is shipped in. the exception is that the military has been very careful to observe hallal, the islam

equivalent of kosher. they bring in special lamb. for holidays, they bring in treats, honeyed baklava. i think those are special order, but generally often out of detroit and brought in by aircraft. host: carol rosenberg wrote a recent story for "the miami ."rald," caller: anthony wayne meyer. guantanamo bay is a clear demonstration that we, the people, are under siege. a state of war exists between our federal government and our people. they are using our federal tax dollars to capri's -- to

oppress everyone around the planet including our own citizens. it is an outrage. the 99% protests demonstrate that our money is being used to terrorize everyone on the planet and it has to stop. guest: what we have learned is that we just report the facts which is one reason that we try to drill down and figure out the meaning of the figure of $800,000 per detainee. people read the same story and a drop completely different conclusions about the wisdom of the detention center, whether we should keep it, whether we sneed it, whether it is a good or bad thing. our stories do not follow the politics of the guantanamo issue. we just cover it. host: georgia, chris on the independent line. you are on with carol rosenberg.

caller: guantanamo is more of a wartime facility for prison detention. right now, we are not even in a legal war. only congress can declare war, and we have not been in one of those legally since world war ii. do you also do studies on the crime rates in the united states? we basically lost the war on drugs in america and how that is affecting the statistics that you're looking at. guest: we did a very basic straightforward comparison of the cost of detainees. we look at different types of prisoners and captives ranging from convicted terrorists at

supermax to those in the county prison that cover the types of crimes you were speaking about. what is interesting about the war on terrorism is that this project at guantanamo opened on january 11th, 2002, so coming up on 10 years. one of the things we learned in preparing this story and doing reporting is that, in some ways, the pentagon was spending and preparing for the next 10 years. they would not grow down and explain their operating costs and how they could spend $138 million in the basic operating costs. we studied contracts and it took a look around the system, but they have been on a bit of a spending spree, resupplying for the next 10 years. they put out a bid for new equipment in the detainee hospital, which they are in process of moving to a different

part of the base, and different prison operations. remember. guantanamo is a navy base which has a porch, an airport -- a port and airport. in the corner, there is a series of prison camps that have been built culminating in three fairly rigid structures that look more like prisons we would recognize in the states where most of the detainees are not kept. that is just a corner of the base. we only looked at the cost of that corner, which we describe as kind of like a gated community. they have their around jim, movie theater, health clinic -- they have their own gym. we are talking about the

detainees. they have their own satellite television, three meals per day brought in. they have a section of the kitchen that feeds the guards and prepare and their meals, but they all eat out of the same kitchen in effect. barnes, interrogators, intelligence units, command staff, the people who control the budget, the public relations team, they all eat out of a special dining room set up separate and apart for this community within a community which, as i said, part of which are getting combat pay. host: carol rosenberg, off of twitter - presumably, for the pentagon. what do you have to say? guest: we found no evidence that is the case.

but you can go down there and see buildings under way. one of the big questions i have asked since the start of the project is how much they are actually consuming in fuel at this detention center? there are building this all along a part that overlooks the water. everything is air-conditioned. a stadium-style lighting so that might look like they. they consume large amounts of fuel. -- they have stadium-style lighting so night looks like day. the detention center on the occupies a portion and they consume $100,000 worth of fuel each day supposedly. the money is being spent, but the question is how to drill down and see suspect that the clean -- and see specifically how much is going to feeding the

guard versus the detainee's, the command staff, and a number of people that are on hunger strikes. they do not give those numbers come out exactly how many prisoners underwent that treatment. they are certainly consuming a lot of money. i guess that would be my answer. host: three meals per day, satellite tv, it sounds like club med. you can submit your tweets, @cspanwj. our guest is carol rosenberg with "the miami herald." the first dispatched her to cuba in january 2002 ahead of the arrival of the first of the captives. she has been there from the

beginning. carol rosenberg, can you paint us more of a picture of what the detention center is like? he described the kitchen facilities and the way the people who work there live, but how much access do you have as a journalist to the prisoners? guest: we have never spoken to a prisoner. one of the conditions of access that you signed in the voluminous ground rules to get to the base is that you will not talk to the prisoners even on occasion when they shout at us. engaging with a prisoner would get you banned for life, as it happened with some of my colleagues. the live on a section of the base that was built since the start of this enterprise. it used to be a beautiful, beautiful piece of land overlooking the water and now it is surrounded by barbed wire, offenses, with guard towers -- fences, guard towers.

there are about one dozen of prison camp-like structures. half of them are out of service at the moment. it started out as a temporary enterprise. it to the but the pictures you have seen it with 20 men on their knees in orange jumpsuits, that is not even the camp they are using now. you cannot use that facility anymore. it is dilapidated. then they built more prison camps at considerable expense that they are not using any more either. the weather is unforgiving. it is salty, hot, sunny, and the infrastructure to not hold up well which is why they are in their third or fourth iteration of these buildings. they went with steel and cement air-conditioned buildings that

are all steel bulk -- sealed up with little access to the outdoors. people are in these lockers, pretty much, with access in the cooperative camp to an outdoor area that is surrounded by, again, fences, barbed wire, guard towers. i want to go back to the club med analogy. when you visit as a reporter, it is a surprising place. the detainees do get these good meals, the satellite tv, and they get 2,500 calories per day. the military, as they developed the detention center, realize that what they wanted to do was keep the detainee's busy and

distracted because there was tension between capt. and guard. the guards are soldiers and sailors in their 20's and the captives have been there sometimes for 10 years. the objective is to keep the two sides from having this tension and having them occupied. they did introduce the satellite tv's and there are some that will not watch. remember. some of these are quite militant in their observation of islam and they will not watch television. there are some radio stations and audio teachings of islam. but back to club med, it is striking when you go to that base and you worked there as a part of this rotating staff that does six, nine, 12 of months,

some of them volunteered for multiple-your duty and get to bring their family. -- volunteer for multi-year duty. when you leave the prison and go to the base, there is a scuba diving, an irish pub, beautiful beaches, fishing trips, constant visitors and entertainers coming, cheerleaders from professional teams, comedians. they have some of the best gyms that are available both to guards and anyone who lives on the base, aside from the detainees. they have a wonderful baseball field that looks like it came out of "the field of dreams." it is a beautiful, surprising place when you are posted their

as part of the military. there is a tremendous transportation system in which buses run are around like a little community. they have a school for some of the military and contractor kids for attend. -- kids to all attend. scuba diving is very popular down there. they also have night school. the staff complains that the internet is so low. if you ask them what the biggest gripe is, they want faster internet to skype with their families. you can call home anytime, but you can use the internet and study to get a degree or higher education. once the government decided they were in the guantanamo business, they went down of their way to

improve the quality of life of the military down there in such a way that it is really a fine duty. you talk to soldiers and they will tell you that they picked a guantanamo over afghanistan or iraq any day. in a way, it is a commuter job. the military has planes coming and going all the time. they have guessed housing, guest quarters, and you can bring your family down a. if you are not part of the long term staff that gets suburban- style housing with your kids in school, you can arrange to the military bureaucracy to bring your girlfriend or boyfriend down and put them up in guest quarters that are like hotels. i am not saying it is club of mad, but it is definitely a surprise when you go to that

base. -- i am not saying it is club med. host: who is actually serving there? there is a total of 2046 on active duty. guard, 400, and 70 reserve. our guest, carol rosenberg, writes in "the miami herald." you go through some of the other benefits they get there. omaha, neb., on the republican line. caller: i would just like to make a comment that this is one of the most biased things i have ever heard c-span put on. we are talking about a

detention system whose conditions are set by the geneva convention, the aclu come and the media for the most part. i do not suppose ms. rosenberg has ever been sent overseas without her family. she describes it as a space station, well of course it is. you cannot observe stars from a motel 6 on the corner in motel -- in omaha. there are security concerns. there are so many differences between the guantanamo base and any other prison that is not set by international tribunal. to make a dollar on dollar comparison just because the military treats their soldiers the way they need to is senseless. host: we are not making a judgment on that. the segment is about your money

and letting you know about how it is spent. it is up to you to have an opinion on that. "the miami herald" is just trying to do the monetary brake down so you know what is being spent where. guest: it is a hardship to be away from home, and no one disputes that. being separated from your family is difficult. the have been engaging in this war for 10 years now. what is notable is the commanders have gone out of their way to ameliorate that isolation. to their credit, they can call home every night, and if there is an emergency, they can get out pretty quickly. that is to the credit of the pentagon. we are certain that when we drove down and study the cost of $800,000 per detainee per year, part of that cost will be taking care of the guards in such a way that they have the ability to, again, ameliorate

their separation from home. we are interested in trying to figure out what the true meaning of $800,000 per detainee per year is. getting back to the figures, there are 171 detainee's at guantanamo. the last time they reported to 50s, they said there were 182 pentagon employees down there, the vast majority in uniform. also at the detention center are cooks, art teachers, part of the process of trying to keep them distracted. there are language teachers that decided -- initially, they decided they did not want to, but they decided to give english class as to those who wanted to study english. everyone is there for the long

haul. it is clear that what the pentagon has done in this $800,000 per detainee expense is to make it easier on everyone including the soldiers and sailors, sir. host: democratic caller from virginia beach. welcome. caller: why can they not put these detainee's into a military prison like a brig? guest: why have they not been moved into the brig? first of all, the bush should ministration di -- administration did use brigs. the south caroline navy brig has experienced a holding these enemy combatants in their special housing units. they only had a few. today could they move them to a

brig? congress has set now. they have legislated against transferred to u.s. soil. this current administration decided that initially they wanted to close guantanamo -- or rather close the prison at guantanamo. they are still committed, but there was never really a vision that was articulated that they would move the majority of them into military detention. they did look at a state prison in illinois as something they would purchase and perhaps move some of the guantanamo detainees to. that could be a brig-style detention come -- detention, but congress did not allow. there are 171 detainees.

none of them are moving elsewhere anywhere in the near future. it is impossible legislatively. host: milwaukee, wisconsin. good morning. caller: i have one question. as halliburton involved in this in any way at all? guest: halliburton did some of the construction of the prisons, the steel and cement prisons that were done early on were the majority of the detainees are currently capped. they had a hand in construction and you can see it on the plaque on the building. we have had a very, very difficult time drilling down and servicing the meaning of this $800,000 per detainee cost.

i am not aware of any current halliburton contract, but they have not given us the transparency we sought in order to answer that question with any more specificity. host: kevin in nashville, tenn., on the independent line. caller: i would just like to make one comment here. host: could you start over for us? caller: i have been listening to some of the other callers in the people that are pretty penstock about guantanamo bay -- pissed off about guantanamo bay even being on the planet. what we need to slow down and realize is fort irwin had nothing. it was like being a military personnel and living without. we were lucky we had at the one

burger king and then transform the whole base into a city. there are just as many people that work down there in guantanamo bay than are prisoners. without that prison, it will be a nightmare because no one up here at state side wants that in their backyard. if they would allow the prison to move up here with the new infrastructure is taking place, then they would it turn around and the city, state, county would be receiving benefits from that prison being there. they need to look at all the issues. these are family members and lives. other than the fact that you

have to take care of the prisoners and anyone that has studied anything about taking care of prisoners knows that somewhere out of someone's pocket there is probably $48 per day to house each person. host: kevin brought up a couple of things ranging from his own experience in service and how one in -- how lonely that can be verses' the option of bringing the prisoners to the united states and how that could be effective. guest: it is true that the price we are paying is a considerable markup because of the need to contract out all the services. nothing that gets eaten down there does not come in by march. you cannot go to a local economy. -- nothing that gets eaten down there does not come in by barge. they are not plugged into the

cuban water or electrical grid. they make their own water and electricity. everything is more expensive dam ever. if they went -- everything is more expensive down there. if it went to a local community, which is illegal, you would then be able to pay for the local internet, local electricity, and everything would be cheaper if it were on u.s. soil. again, i understand that soldiers and sailors have served in isolation, in a very solitary, lonely conditions, and that has been ameliorated in guantanamo. it was decisions made by successive commanders to attend to the quality of life of the current 850 pentagon employees who live and work down there at that detention center. it is hard work.

no doubt about it. the guards do 12-hour shifts four days per week. when they are down, they can go to the beach, go to a ball game, go to the irish pub, and they can go eat in a series of galleys, get entertained. they have a church for every denomination and religious services for anybody. they have a mcdonald's and a talk about -- and a taco bell. there are lots of distractions and lots of ways to keep disease -- busy and not be lonely. you are separated from home. when people sign up for the military, you recognize you do not get to stay with your family and you go on deployment with the exception of the commanders and certain staff people who have been able to bring their family with them and get very nice house and. guantanamo bay is a 45-mile

squared island. it is a little piece of americana with a lot of amenities, especially to those people who remember isolated and lonely service posts. it was a different military that he is describing than what you encounter when you go to guantanamo bay. host: new york city on the democrat line. caller: good morning. that last caller stole a little of my thunder. first of all, when president obama came in and said he wanted to close guantanamo bay everyone was with that until everyone was figuring out where to house these prisoners. no one wants them in their state, but they want guantanamo closed.

i look at it like this. it is like alaska. they have a vast land. why do we not just build something in alaska and house them there? maybe that is the only solution. no one wants them. host: let's get a response. we only have about one minute left. carol rosenberg? guest: in the article we wrote about guantanamo, we pointed out there was a study done down there by a general on the expenses and how truly expensive it is to run the place because it is not on u.s. soil. he likened it to alcatraz, the now-defunct prison in san fransisco. what the general in this secret study, which would also like to see, concluded that bobby kennedy shot down alcatraz in 1963 because it was too

expensive. we have never had a discussion in america that suggests it's to keep or let go based on cost. we just saw a surprising figure this summer and drilled down as best we can. you can follow the coverage on miamiherald.com/guantanamo. recovery pretty much all time. host: carol rosenberg, correspondent form." thank you for being with us -- correspondent for "the miami herald." that is it for "washington journal." barney frank plans to retire. he will not seek a 17th term next year according to his office. we will be back tomorrow morning with what washington dermot" at

7:00 a.m. eastern time. -- we will be back with "washington journal" at 7:00 a.m. eastern time [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> a quick look now at some of today's live coverage here on the c-span networks. we will be live at 12:15 eastern as former national intelligence director, dennis blair, will talk about how defense cut could impact military readiness. c-span 2 will be live at to o'clock eastern as the senate doubleton. c-span3 live at noon