caller. massachusetts. independent line. caller: good morning. i was a fan of your show years ago. i used to sit in my living room watching your show. we could not guest: i am glad that you were watching. caller: i appreciate what you are doing with the video. i always thought that war in our country was always taken for a joke. when i was growing up, war was romanticized with john wayne and seemed like something beautiful. even george bush talked about it in a romantic manner when he was talking to troops in iraq. at the end of the day, americans need to recognize it is a loss of life, nature.

thing that could go wrong, can go wrong when you're dealing with war. it's not like in the movies. when you say not go, it is bombing, shooting, and killing. and whoever is left standing is the winner. it's not heroes and there's no real victory. the guys that start the war is said and home and drink beer and smote their cigars. just like you said, the poor people and the young are on the front lines fighting for what they think is real. in america we need to start recognizing that, stop letting our politicians tell us what is important. any little thing is justified for loss of life. host: what's your response? guest: this is a very thoughtful phone caller. i want him to know that the

invasion of iraq followed a brilliant strategy of fear executed by the bush white house. it was the bush white house group that created the bumper sticker -- "our smoking gun will become a mushroom," which was written by a columnist now for the washington post. we weave the congressional debate on giving bush permission to invade iraq. only 23 if senators voted no. the house and senate, many members stood up and read the talking points of done it smokes after it is fired. john mccain said, "along kirby

way it, the more dangerous. be dangerous" you could fill them are indeed of the nation begin to beat faster as the lust for continued and this president took the nation by the era and walked right into the sword. the last gentleman that called is where more americans are arriving at. it is going to be tougher to go to war with each store will mistake. host: our guest is the creator and host of the phil donahue show. he was one of the early talk shows that changed the conversation in the way talk shows go in america. the focus on controversial issues of the time the divided liberals and conservatives. his most frequent guest was ralph nader, for whom our guest campaigns in 2000. is now on the campaign trail for norman solomon for california

opposes second address to all district on the coast -- for california's second congressional district. our question is whether the u.s. should engage in -- our tweeter asks should america put troops on the ground over there? guest: whenever you talk about peace, you have to answer, what would hitler do? you have to join the real worldjoinman. i have heard this from sean hannity. what do you want to do, just

roll over, he says. if you call for peace, you are risking the life of our nation. another reason why it is so easy to go to war. we went to the moon. i think we have the ability to affect coalitions of other nations who are just as honorable as we are to intervene in a civil way in these disturbances. i don't think we can pour magic dust on the horribly violent, angry collisions of people --is in the people. when i was on msnbc, i had people from peaceful tomorrow -- these are people who lost loved ones in the twin towers and you could see the pain in their faces -- and there were saying

don't go kill other innocent people to avenge the death of my innocent loved one. i have never seen moral courage like that. this was a month or so after the towers collapsed. i think these are the patriots. these are the people and who believe in the bill of rights. these are the people who don't think you should be able to tap a person's phone without judicial and authorization. all of these fundamental bedrock features of this nation are being chipped away because we have to protect the american people, they say. if we did not go to war against hitler, they say, we would all be wearing swastikas. they are able to talk themselves into the verge of dropping bombs on people. nobody likes it. we are in there alone in the world. it may not be notus dropping

those bombs, but they think it is -- and it often is the u.s. dropping the bombs. so let's ban the unmanned drones. if a soldier goes into a house and blows a family in the away with an ak-47, that is a war crime. if a drone cars and incendiary device in the family home and kills everybody, it is collateral damage. these contradictions sooner or later become something of consciousness. i think people and home are seeing the absurdity of our military and foreign policy. host: let's go to georgia, and joining us on the republican line, kenny. caller: hello.

this is a question to mr. donahue. i wonder what you think about the reason we don't get out of iraq and afghanistan so fast is because the higher ups when considering the expense involved and getting all that equipment, tanks and armored carriers, and places where we have to house all of our soldiers and everything over there. if we pull out and something happens in iraq or afghanistan or iran, then we have to move all of it back in again. it is the other expense on top of that. guest: i say there are too many armchair warriors in congress war andot wait to go towar

would not think of sending your own kids to fight. we are bogged down in iraq and the afghanistan in order to save -- in order for the military and i think many civilian leaders to save face. this film, thomas young is the subject of my film, kansas city, shout to thomas -- these are the people that find it very easy to start a war and send other people there. i don't think that one death of one american is worth an old man's face. that is why we are there now. --t: host: a tweet gary is our next caller,

independent in michigan. hi. caller: how are you? i have some opinions. generally, i believe men in general have too much ego. when money becomes involved, it gets us butting heads against other countries. i believe women should actually be in charge of it, because women on either side would not let their own children who they bore go to be slaughtered for man's mistakes. guest: i agree with you. bring a oit on. george w. bush wearing blue jeans walking out there with dick cheney. how about the aircraft carrier? a flight suit and wearing that helmet's strutting on that carrier.

the media and home swoooned. we loved it. we thought it was fabulous that the president landed on an aircraft carrier in the plane piloted by someone else and he goes strutting around. the worst stunt in the history of the white house. and here we are more than 4000 dead, millions and millions of refugees living in tents because "don't mess with texas." that's why we went in this thing. bush could not wait to go to war. dick cheney said to bush in the cabinet meeting about sadaam hussein, " you're going to take him out or not? imagine that. it's that simple for dick cheney to send thousands and thousands

of young people from other families. we definitely have a macho creature of our culture. it's in our movies. in has been since i was a kid. i wanted to be john wayne. these are thoughtful calls and i should not patronize anybody, because it is something how smart -- imagine these calls now. imagine the calls you're getting when bush called for the invasion of iraq. the nation is changing, people are changing. human rights are popular now. people don't want to the war. people think that gay are real people and title to the full weight of the constitution.

if you criticize america, you don't like anything about america, they say about liberals. wait a minute. we are the patriots. i believe in the bill of rights. if you put the bill of rights to a vote among the people that i hang out with, it would pass. i don't think you could say that, certainly not in the bush administration, and the national defence act that recently passed, is horrible. we are killing other americans in another country. how long do we think we are going to get away with it? i have grandchildren. are they going to look around all their lives and say did i get on the wrong bus? this is the world we are giving our kids. host: on twitter --

guest: well, it is certainly true. what is it doing for their minds? i have comic books. these pictures -- i used to have comic books. but these pictures moved and bodies are blown in half. host: what do you make of what the conversation has been regarding rush limbaugh, the comments that he made about the georgetown law student sandra fluke? bill marr has a piece in the new york times this week that is called "please stop apologizing." guest: " i think the system is working. the framers were right. don't shush rush limbaugh. the state should not shush him or me. the fact that the sponsors have risen up, this is a fabulous demonstration of our democracy

and the ability of sponsors to make their own judgment about what is good for their logo, their company, and their stockholders. hooray for that. by the way, all this has happened without any kind of state intervention. i love america and i'm proud to be an american. host: let's get an independent caller in plymouth, wisconsin on the conversation, kurt. caller: good morning. i am a 72-year-old american, a veteran of the cold war. this is my opinion about war. we have not fought a war since 1972. world war ii in the eastern theater against germany waws won by total annihilation, total destruction. same. the stam what we have now is congress is

declaring war when they don't mean war. war is hell and that is by definition. you have to go in and totally destroy the other side. if they don't want our people to go to war, tell congress don't declare war, declared a meat grinder for our troops. host: on twitter -- guest: i agree. you have to say it is necessary. if you don't say it is necessary, then you are someone who does not really understand the reality of geopolitics. they will not you down whatever way you go. if you criticize the war before it starts, then you don't

support the president, and how can you undermine the troops, they say. when you need to show the most, you have to shut up and sing. most people agree with me, if you cannot speak out against the war and you have thousands of people through the years who have fought to defend our way of life at the center of which is free speech, then if you're not allowed to speak, then stop sending these people to their deaths. we will find a neo-mussolini and will all make decisions behind closed doors and we will also lose. it's up to us what kind of country do you want. host: our guest is the creator and host of the phil donahue show. he is an outspoken critic of the afghan and iraq course. he's the producer of a new film war." "body aof

it was the winner of best documentary from the national board of review. it was released theatrically at the landmark pier. guest: yes, no distributor would take our film. landmark theatre is said that we put you in our theater and see how you do. i would appear with him and we would do q&a in seattle and washington and all over the place and the place would be jammed. the next night there would be seven people in the theater. we did not have the budget -- this is an out of pocket investment, which i would do again. this is a chapter of my life and i hope no one will work on the film will ever forget the experience. alas, we were not a commercial hit. we played the clinton library. we have shown the film in

several venues, but not commercial. the distribution is a lot more honest than the opportunity i had at msnbc. in a network, a vice president in the morning while he is shaving can cancel you for political reasons or any reason, maybe his wife does not like you or her husband does not like you. in a theatrical distribution, it is different. if you don't put fannies in the seats, they take you down from the marquee. who can blame them for that? goal of free enterprise. host: the film profiles thomas young, a soldier paralyzed in less than a week of service in iraq. thanks for being with us. thank you.k u

host: in our next segment we are looking at america's uninsured. >> on monday the supreme court starts three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health care law. hear the oral argument for yourself as the court releases audio at around 1:00 p.m. mr. anita dey a, with coverage on c- span3 and c-span radio. and at c-span.org, listen and add your comments. our coverage starts live on c- span and monday morning with washington journal and it continues through the day with supreme court, and then the oral arguments on c-span3. >> this weekend on the presidency on american history tv -- >> think of the next fdr memorial, it was not just 3 re- designs, it was three plus designs before they got to a final plan. and so, i think we should not be

afraid of looking at this issue, because we are building something for the centuries and we want to get it right. >> with the eisenhower memorial design opposed by the family, a house subcommittee discussed it t 34. once that sunday at 7:30 eastern and pacific this weekend on c-span3. >> i mean a new america where freedom is made real for all without regard to race or belief or economic condition. [applause] i mean a new america, which everlastingly attacks the ancient idea that men can follow their differences -- solve their differences by killing each other.

>> as candidates campaign for president this year, we look back at 14 men who ran for the office and lost. go to our web site, c-span.org to see video candidates who had a lasting impact on american politics. >> the radical left continues to offer only one solution to the problems which confront us. they tell us again and again and again we can spend our way out of trouble and spend our way into a better tomorrow. >> c-span.org/thecontenders. washington journal continues. >> bradley hearing is associate professor at john hopkins bloomberg school of public health. guest: good morning. host: we're looking at the uninsured in the united states. tell us about the number of uninsured americans.

guest: yes, 50 million uninsured. there's a little uncertainty in terms of getting the number down. 50 million.r big difference between adults and children. the percentage of noninsured overall, 17% of the overall population, represents a higher portion of the adults and a smaller proportion of children. host: who are these people and where are they living? guest: it's nice to have a fair amount of time, because it is a complex story to try to understand the uninsured. the second thing is to think about people near poverty versus people who ar3e non-poor. the people near poverty is essentially that the safety net has not cover them.

the medicaid program and chip program have done a pretty good job covering children. it's not perfect, but it's done a pretty good job. if not so good of a job for their parents. and then pour a childless adults, not so well at all. so a lot of the uninsured at or near property are adults without children not eligible for the medicaid program. then if you think about the non- poor people, it is really a story about them not obtaining private health insurance coverage, which has a whole set of different reasons. i could go into it. host: the center for disease control looked at the number of uninsured americans. they found 47 million americans without insurance. "60 minutes had gone without insurance at some part of the year. -- 60 million

let's look at the cdc graphics. tell us who -- tell us more about who is covered by public coverage versus private coverage. guest: public coverage is for people at or near poverty. the medicaid program started off

in 1955 alongside the medicare program for the elderly, initially geared toward covering a low income families. over time, eligibility has expanded. it is a little confusing to understand eligibility because it is a joint federal-state program. the federal government provides the bulk of the funding, but state government determines eligibility and have differences in terms of how many kids they cover going up the income scale. so the medicaid program geared toward low-income children, and not so much for the childless adults. host: qusseir from the cold in greensburg, kentucky, on our independent line. -- let's hear from nicole. caller: my kid is on chip, in

kentucky. their father is a veteran and when he got out of the military a lot of these veterans are promised compensation and to get their medical. my husband has been out six years and we are having to file a class-action lawsuit of where these men join the military and their families are promised to have coverage and then we have to go without it and put our children on state-provided insurance because the government does not want to do what they say they are going to. i don't understand, we can fight for our country, which my -- what is up with that after 10 years of service? veterans and their families should not be going without medical care? guest: great point. we have a fragmented health-care system.

medicare for the elderly and medicaid for low-income families, private health insurance for the bulk of the population. private health care costs consider very -- vary considerably. it then we have the veterans administration that provides health care benefits for veterans. i think, state governments, federal government, employers, the veterans administration is struggling with rising health care costs and kind of struggling to provide needed care for people, unfortunately. host: a question on twitter -- what percentage do the underinsured play in this? guest: that is tough to answer,

because there's really no classic definition for under insured. do you have health insurance coverage, might be on the survey. underinsured, researchers tried to measure that with how they think out of pocket spending higher than some proportion of their income or maybe their total medical spending. foreshore, there are lots of plans with either high thattible, high co-payment leaves uninsured families facing high out of pocket costs. then there's the flexibility of having mini-med plans that could have benefits provided until you reach an annual limit or lifetime maximum, which could lead somebody underinsured. host: in adults ages 18 through

25, there have been stores in the nose looking at young people and decided to go without insurance because they have to pay out of pocket and it does not seem relevant if they are young and healthy. here are statistics from the cdc -- guest: yes, the administration in particular, but researchers as well pointing to one of the minor provisions of "the affordable care act to allow adult children up to their 26th birthday the opportunity to stay on their parents' plan, that took effect about six months after the passage of "the affordable care act" two years ago. some estimates. 2 million uninsured -- some

essence said 2 million uninsured children gain coverage as a result of that provision. it is trying to tackle the notion of people at that age range, young and healthy often don't see the need for purchasing health insurance coverage and also lack the afford expensive health insurance premiums. host: let's hear from our next caller. caller: i am on medicare and the va. they took medicare fraud off the table when it comes to the hearings. that is the most corrupt thing i've ever heard in my life where the country but spends an enormous amount of money on the medical business.

it is not even care anymore. i am using none of mine benefits because i take vitamins and i exercise. we have no information. the belief system in this country is so backwards that the single payer system would eliminate all this employee system and where people have to pay and pay. we are paying. we are paying enormously. in thelief system an citizens of this country is all backwards. my friends in canada had heart operations and he gets right in there. there's no such a thing as waiting period i would like your comments on single payer. guest: it's a big issue.

the caller is right. it was taken off the table pretty early. vocal and small minority, 15% of the population, that is very much in favor of a single payer system for the united states. the single payer would be the medicare program for the entire population. so the canadian government, for instance, covers everybody, serves as a single payer of health insurance coverage through taxes and intern reimburses private hospitals and physicians. there are other ways -- other countries achieving universal coverage. they're all pretty government- oriented. you could swing even farther to the left of canada and emulate the uk system, which is much more government-oriented. or you could swing a little more to the middle like the

netherlands, switzerland, germany, that actually does use -- those countries to use insurance plans, but they are non-profit and heavily regulated. host: associate professor at john hopkins bloomberg school of public help, he researches in economic and public issues related to health insurance coverage. he recently started a product to examine the effects of health insurance and how healthy people are and hospital competition on private plans. how do people get medical care when they don't have insurance? guest: we actually do have a modest safety net of medical care for people if they are not insured. go to a public hospital, a nonprofit hospital, and receive

care. not a great care, but good care, in haphazard ways. go to a clinic, community health centers and the uninsured can receive care and pay on a sliding scale. private physicians provide about eight hours per month in uncompensated care to patients. so the uninsured do receive care. you can think of them consuming about half as much medical care as someone with private health insurance. of that medical care that they consume, the charity care they receive represents about two thirds of that. the best estimates are about $70 billion or $80 billion a year cobble together from all these different services to provide uncompensated care to the uninsured. host: misty is joining us on our independent line from austin,

texas. good morning. caller: good morning. i am in a situation under insurance coverage through my mother until i was 18. i lost it and are progressively got more and more sick. i'm about 30 and i'm on disability. i can work and it's only because of the medicare and medicaid i'm receiving. as soon as i start working, i will lose my medicaid coverage. i am allergic to everything. that is. my is i see other people around me who have had to -- that is my situation. and i see other people around me who have had to drop out of medical care. i had a 103-degree temperature

and they told me to come back 106. got to if you want to work, you cannot afford. or medical afford thank you and have a wonderful day. host: you, too. guest: that is indicative of how fragmented our system is. as i mentioned, the medicaid program largely covers low- income families, but they also cover low-income elderly as a second source of coverage for people with medicare. but they also cover the disabled. so many disabled people gain access to coverage through the medicaid program, perhaps after a couple years the social security administration deems them disabled and able to receive si and in turn be eligible for medicare. but for some people who can

work, that opens a whole new set of questions about is the job where they are going to work offering coverage and is that coverage affordable? and if it is not, does someone have an opportunity to purchase coverage on drone in the individual market, which is impacted by a whole bunch of regulations perhaps. and then there's the state's high risk pools which can serve as an insurance carrier of last resort. host: dorothy is on our independent line in al-aulamilw, wisconsin. caller: thanks for taking my call. i watched c-span religious links. i just recently retired. -- i watch c-span religiously. i will be 62 years old in may.

i just retired, so i have to pay almost $600 a month for my insurance, which will eat up maybe a quarter of my pension. mr. herring is talking about insurance and insurance pools for low-income. i consider myself one of the low income now. i've always worked. i worked over 30 years in various jobs. i don't like to think of myself as a charity case. but in order to have insurance coverage, i have to pay $557 a month. i had a child late in life, so she is still in school. unfortunately, i had to drop her from my insurance coverage because i cannot afford over $1,000 a month. host: is she on medicaid now?

caller: she is not. in wisconsin they have a waiting list -- they call it badger care, a low-income insurance plan -- there's a 180,000 people on the waiting list and they have capped it. guest: states are struggling to recover their low-income populations. for your case, as someone in their 60s not yet eligible for medicare, the way we subsidize health insurance coverage now leads a bunch of people lost in the middle. so we have the safety net providing subsidized care for certain people at or near poverty and then for everyone

else who gets their insurance privately we the government spend a lot of money subsidizing private health insurance coverage, but in a very perverse way. private health insurance benefits through the workplace are tax-exempt benefits so that workers entire wages get a very large subsidy may be as high as 40% or 50% of their health insurance is subsidize, where as low-wage workers get a much smaller subsidy. and then someone like the caller who is not getting insurance through their employer but getting it on their own, right now we are not subsidizing of individual market coverage and all. the callous thing to say is if you can wait until 2014, subsidies in new state health insurance exchanges will be available to low-income uninsured people to offset a

portion of their private health insurance premiums. host: the congressional budget office has numbers on "the affordable care act" which has its second anniversary today. guest: right. put them into perspective a little, the congressional budget office projects there would probably be about 56 million uninsured in 2016. thet's a couple years after main provisions of the medicaid expansion, the insurance subsidy, kicks in. of the 56 million uninsured, "the affordable care act" is estimated to cover 30 million of those with over half of going into the medicaid public program and a little less than half gaining subsidize private health insurance coverage, which in turn will leave about 20 million

uninsured after the expansion -- rather 26 million, i'm sorry. host: jon is a democrat in oregon. caller: i was born in canada, so i have little experience with their health care system. i agree with the previous caller, there is no bogyman over there. my wife was in a high risk p ool, but last year, thinking we had everything covered, the insurance company came back and said, you were eligible for medicare, so we are going to take everything back. so i spent six months of battling with them to do the just thing. in other words to maintain their responsibility. so i am concerned when my wife goes on medicare, with a lot of these ideas that, let's say, senator widen and senator paul

are bringing up regarding privatizing or having privatization in a way of medicare where we are having to pick and choose. along with the cost, i think what you end up doing is having overwhelming choices that are not real choices. guest: a couple issues there. host: are you still with us? caller: i am. guest: maybe one follow-up question is, if you were in short in a high risk pool and then you or your spouse turns 65, would you not be better off to enroll in the free medicare program instead of paying a high health insurance premium to the state high risk pool? caller: right. that's what we will be doing in july. but for me the question would be the callbacks.

in other words, we did not need it. i could afford it. guest: you did not need a high risk pool? caller: it was kind of like we were penalized in some way because of that. i have a concern in terms of insurance companies that have really broad issues. my wife has had an issue for most of her life with her vision. but what they were starting to say is pre-existing conditions and is this medically necessary? those kinds of issues. and so, when i hear the term death panels, most of these insurance companies have their own panels already. so would not be the most just think to have a uniform across the country instead of having individual insurance companies decide what is covered and what

is not covered? guest: that is certainly one prospective. i think that you hit on the main ideological debate between republicans and democrats. not to overgeneralize, but democrats generally in favor of government provisions of health care. and so, the sarah palin comment about the death panels, while terribly overblown, the origin of it was really trying to think about a panel called the independent pavement advisory board, which was going to be a panel of 15 experts of the medicare program trying to figure out better ways for the government to reimburse physicians. -- payment advisory board.

that kind of top-down approach favored by many democrats, where as republicans have a different perspective, which is to really let the market decide what types of health insurance coverage we all get, emphasizes the value of choice. but then the problem with the private health system is you can often have lots of people fall between the cracks, particularly if people with chronic health conditions for whom insurers are reluctant to cover. host: bradley hearing, so sit professor at john hopkins bloomberg school of public health. if we are talking about america's uninsured. we're looking at this graphic from the centers for disease control looking at the percentage of americans under age 65who did not have health insurance at the time the cdc conducting this interview. it is broken down by age group and by gender. the light blue is male. the pink is female.

what the make of the curve as we see this graph start here, go up, and then down? guest: maybe starting with a couple things, noting the big difference between children and adults. and also tied in some of the difference between men and women. i think you can really point to

the medicaid and chip programs, public programs which have covered low income families. and so, that explains the children. but as far as the adults go, you can speculate that women are more likely to be leading single parent households. and in turn are little bit more likely to be eligible for medicaid as a parent of those children. then if you think about the differences between the middle- aged or people in their 20's and 30's relative to the 40's and 50's, i bet a lot of the reduction in and ensure that the people get older is tied to a higher income. as people age, their income grows and that in turn explains

health insurance coverage a little more affordable to them. i think you could also tell the story and not contradictory but complementary story about how young people feel less need for health insurance coverage. they seldom go to the doctor or have health conditions there as older people have a much higher need and much stronger demand for health insurance coverage. host: they may prioritize it more so than younger ones. guest: beat that's right. if you see otherwise identical people that have the same level of income, the older person spends much more on health care and in turn would have a strong desire to obtain private health insurance coverage. host: lakota john, a republican in louisiana. caller: good morning. that chart, you need to look at

that and maybe say how many of those young people voluntarily choose not to have health care because they would rather spend the money for something else. a chart like that can be misleading if not broken down. also, when you speak of the single payer system, statistically speaking right now half of working americans who file federal income-tax returns don't pay taxes. if half the population who files in income-tax return pays no taxes, it is a question of where you are going to get the money to pay for a system where everybody is covered but only half the people. as a military target, i might suggest you need to do a little more study on military retiree program. a thing called try care -- tri care. it is you have to pay --

medicare picks up 80%. i am retired. i paid $20,000 in income taxes last year because i live a very frugal life and i saved for my own retirement. so in addition to my air force retirement, i retired from delta air lines. it is a matter of i set up my life to look at my retirement. i am 69 years old. alth, but youhe never know what can happen tomorrow. the lady that called about her husband goes a problem, i think she said he was on in the military 10 years, which does not qualify your for medical coverage. i believe you have to retire to do that. if his disabled, that would come under the va. host: are you going to weigh in at the polls on saturday in louisiana? caller: i have already voted.

in 69 years i've never divulged who i voted for. host: we respect that. are you hearing a lot of ads down there? caller: just a few recently. i love c-span and i watched incessantly. it's not very public and you don't see very many signs. it's under the radar. but we have a very active tea party. i live in the shreveport boulder city area. but it does not come from signs on the road. host: thanks, john. let's go to our guest. guest: a couple of points. first, thanks for the clarification to include tri care in the mix as well. the comments related to income taxes, it is true that about

half of households don't pay federal income tax, but many more than half of households actually pay payroll taxes to fund social security and medicare. and so, single payer advocates have their druthers, the single payer plan would most likely be financed through an increase in the payroll tax to fund this new program. i think people who are concerned about maybe some negative consequences related to the single payer system, one, this is related to the negative rate wouldt high tax have on our economy. one way you can think about this is you probably would not want to raise taxes to provide health insurance benefits to higher-

income people who can afford them on own. that would introduce a tax distortions. but of course people have different opinions on the pros and cons of these things. another thing that probably gets people little antsy about single payer is having too much government control in terms of setting prices for health care providers, whether it is hospital rates, a physician rates, pharmaceutical drug prices, and feel that the market is more appropriate to try to determine the appropriateness of those things. so economics can say little about the effects of different policies, but at the end of the day a lot of this is ideological and people have differences of opinion. host: on twitter --

people that have jobs but are still reaching out for public assistance. guest: there are lots of low income earners, like people working at wal-mart, benefit from. earned income from. some of them certainly, if their incomes are low enough, might be eligible for medicaid or maybe their children are. a lot of the spots will import about how health care reform will impact things is whether lots of employers with relatively low-wage workers will actually drop their coverage so that their workers could benefit from the subsidize coverage through the health insurance exchange.

kerfs a relatively small according to estimates. but some people would be better off getting subsidized coverage through the exchange. host: we have an independent caller on the line. good morning, joe. caller: yes, ma'am. i just thought it watching c-span the last six months. last sunday night there was an excellent program last monday night that compared our country to about 19 other industrialized or wealthy nations. we are good in some areas, but we are terrible and other areas. another one of my comments, when they were working on this health-care thing, government employees, the congress and senators and government employees, like the man was

talking about his veterans stuff, they have some good programs. why could they not get inc. something like that for the whole bunch? and under ronald reagan, if we would have raised just 1% more on the medicare thing, we could have a pretty good program. but everybody wants to cut everything. nobody is forward-looking enough in that. whether it be health care or energy. i will take my answer offline. host: he was talking about a show that he saw on cnn. guest: first, a tax increase of 1% to handle all this might be a little too optimistic. reference theado referencecalle

manner in which members of congress receive benefits. it's called the federal employee health insurance program. it is actually a mechanism for people to shop for different private health insurance plans, learn about the different options, which costs more, which costs less, of which have more extensive benefits versus others. that model of letting people choose among different health insurance plans is actually what is going to be implemented in 2014 through new state health insurance exchanges. most states will set up one exchange for individuals and a separate exchange for small businesses, but the hope is that these new marketplaces will make shopping for health insurance coverage a whole lot easier, more transparent. and in turn the competitive pressure might reduce health insurance premiums and make

coverage more affordable. that is the hope. host: ann independent caller in san marcos, california, norma. caller: good morning. i want to follow up on the latest from kentucky and the air force veteran who called, also. i have a friend who is a 17-year of the marine corps. he is disabled. i felt it is a good program. that does sound extend to the families. if you are a military veteran of 20 years' service or more, then your family is eligible for try care. -- tri0care. my father is retired marine corps veteran i son retire. his family is under tricare.

the military health insurance extends to the family if the veteran has completed the 20- years of service. i think the baby from kentucky said her husband was only in 14 years. -- i think the lady from kentucky said her husband was an only 10 years. i second point, i am a retired civil service employee. 30 years and the government. there's a misconception somehow i feel with the american people that we get our health insurance for free. i pay $99.90 a month for medicare. i pay $135 a month for my supplemental kaiser advantage program. i also have a long-term care policy for $82 a month. i am paying over $300 a month, which is about 10% of my yearly income. the federal health employee benefit program is excellent,

but i would like everybody to realize it is not free. we have paid for and i paid all of these years i was in federal civil service. thank you for hearing my comments. have a good day. guest: we want to emphasize this. health insurance benefits provided through the workplace are paid for the relatively lower wages. the health insurance benefits now and those in the future all essentially paid for to relatively lower wages so employers really think about this from a total compensation perspective. typically think about that in the case for private sector employers, but it also would be the case for public sector

employers like the federal government or state government providing health insurance and using those benefits as a form of compensation. host: there was a story this week that looks at two individuals, one in massachusetts and one in texas. the story says, texas had the highest rate of uninsured people in the nation at 25% compared to massachusetts where 2006 law made coverage and a tory has the lowest rate, fewer than 2% and people are uninsured. it says hospitals in texas spend over $4 billion a year treating uninsured patients like the woman there profiling. she works at a christian school, but does not get health insurance through the private school so she has to pay for medical costs herself. she cannot afford to get full coverage plans. in the end, somebody pays.

guest: the uninsured do obtain private care. my estimates are about two- thirds of the medical care they consume is from a charitable sources. so some of that is certainly taxpayer money. public hospitals provide a lot of that uncompensated care. there is a source of government funding to essentially subsidize charity care. but then, that kind of maybe allows a transition to think about the big issue of the day which is the supreme court case coming up next monday, tuesday, wednesday. one of the arguments they're in favor of the individual mandate is there is a fair amount of

uncompensated care the uninsured receives, and technically, not participating in the health insurance market may be technically right, but there's a participating in the health-care market. the extent to which uncompensated care does not get covered by taxpayer funds, there is a "cost shifting argument clause >> that a hospital, for instance, would in turn target higher prices to privately insured patients to cross subsidize the cost increase for providing uncompensated care to the uninsured. host: the story profiles the man in massachusetts to needed daily insulin for diabetes and talks about his medical journey. it says he can get the medical care he needs. care for him is free, the state spends roughly $182 million more every year on health coverage

for low-income residents than it did before 2006, according to the massachusetts taxpayers foundation. the gentleman, peter brooke, says he worries about that and the cost. he says, who is paying for it? what have we learned from the massachusetts health law? guest: it is very, very similar to the affordable care act. the architects, if you will, of the plan in massachusetts in 2006 are heavily involved in shaping the affordable care act, federal affordable care act. i think the results from massachusetts so far have been good. they reduce the uninsured by about 50%. massachusetts had it relatively easy compared to other states in that they started off with a relatively low number of

uninsured in the first place. but the general model of try to do a mix of expanding health insurance coverage through a public expansion, subsidizing private coverage is indeed what massachusetts did, a continuing to do, and with the federal government is planning to do in 2014. review.t's bradley hearing is with the john hopkins bloomberg school public health, an associate professor. we have been talking about uninsured americans as part of our america by the number segment. thank you for being with us and talking about this issue with us. the president is coming out now to do announcement, announcing the new head for the world bank. he has tapped jim yong kim. >> good morning, everybody.

the president of the world bank announced he would be stepping down at the end of his term in june. he has been a strong leader. when he taught me about his plans, i immediately began to search for someone to fill his shoes. the world bank is more than just a bank. it is one of the most powerful tools we have to reduce poverty and raise standards of living and some of the poorest countries on the planet. in the world growing smaller and more connected every day, that is a critical mission. not just for those who are struggling, but all of us. when we reduce hunger in the world or help a former recover from a flood or drought, it strengthens the entire world economy. when we put an end to preventable disease, all of us are safer because of it.

new businesses are started, it opens up new markets for our country as well. when the nation goes from poverty to prosperity, it makes the world stronger and more secure for everybody. that is why the world bank is so important. that is what the leader of the world bank should have a deep understanding of both the role it plays in the world and the importance of creating conditions where assistance is no longer needed. i believe that nobody is more qualified to carry out that mission than dr. jim yong kim. it is time for professional to lead the world's largest development agency. after a careful and thorough search, i am nominating dr. jim kim to the next president of the world bank. jim has been more than 20 years working to improve conditions in developing countries around the world. as a physician and an anthropologist, he co-founded partners in health and the world health organization campaign to treat 3 million patients with

hiv/aids. i have made hiv/aids in the fight against the dreaded disease and the promotion of public health a cornerstone of my development. we pursue these efforts around the globe because it is the right thing to do and because help the populations help with growth and prosperity. i am pleased he brings this experience with him. jim was also the chair of the department of global health and social medicine at harvard medical school. he has earned a macarthur genius fellowship. for the last three years, served as the president of dartmouth college. i should mention after emigrating to this country at age 5 from korea, he went on to become the president of his high school class, quarterback of the football team, point guard of the basketball team i found out his 05 handicap in golf. i am a little resentful about that, but he does it all.

jim has truly global experience. his work from asia to africa to the americas, from capital to small villages. his personal story exemplifies the great diversity of our country and the fact anyone can make it as far as he has as long as they're willing to work hard and looked out for others. his experience makes him ideally suited to forge partnerships all around the world. i could not be more pleased to nominate jim for this job. i think i can speak for secretary clinton and timothy geithner when i say we're looking forward to working with him. i also want to take a minute to thank bob zoellick for all his hard work. are the last five years, he has made the bank more transparent, helped shore of progress in places like afghanistan, raised billions of dollars to help some of the world's poorest communities. jim is the right person to carry on that legacy. i know his unique set of skills

and experience will serve him well. i am grateful for his willingness to serve. i do not think the world bank could have a better leader. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> [unintelligible] allegations of lingering racism of the so-called stand your ground law? can you comment on the trayvon martin case? >> i am the head of the executive branch. the attorney general reports to me, so i have to be careful about my statements to make sure we are night in pairing in the investigation taking place right now. -- we are not competing in the investigation taking place right now. obviously, this is a tragedy. i can only imagine what these parents are going through. and when i think about this boy,

i think about my own kids. i think every parent in america should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together -- federal, state, and local -- to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. so i am glad not only is the justice to permit looking into it, i understand the governor of the state of florida has formed a task force to investigate what is taking place. i think we all have to do some soul-searching to figure out how something like this happens. that means we examined laws, context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incident. but my main message is to the

parents of trayvon martin. if i had a son, he would look like trayvon. i think they are right to expect that all of us as americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and that we're on it to the bottom of exactly what happened. thank you. >> president obama in the white house rose garden, nominating caribbean borne dartmouth college president jim yong kim to head the world bank. his a graduate of brown and harvard universities and served as the director of the world health organization's department hiv/aids. treasury secretary tim geithner,

he graduated from dartmouth and secretary of state clinton appearance was the first to recommend kim for the job. kim would replace robert zoellick announced in february he is stepping down this coming june. we are alive the heritage foundation for conversation on aviation security. the obama and ministration has proposed cutting in half funding for a program providing guns and air marshal trying to airline pilots. minnesota congressman, a retired airline pilot, is speaking this morning at the heritage foundation. >> they do it because of the honor they feel they must protect their passengers and their fellow americans. like i said, many undergo -- many undergo personal expenses. for pilots, if you're not flying, you are already gone 15 to 16 days a month, going away to spend their own time once again so they must or so they actually pay for the privilege

of defending this great country of ours. despite all this, even with the challenges the federal flight officers have, the country has been growing of dedicated volunteers that have the sacrifices to protect americans in the flying public. the consider it an honor to do so. the first 44 federal flight deck officers that graduate in 2003 at a budget of $10 million for it that grew to $25 million in 2004 and kept that level since 2004. but this funding is being eroded by a carved out for crew defense, about $1.4 million out of that program. last year, due to the funding levels, not one federal flight deck officer could have a background check. this is a challenge for us. the federal flight deck officer program is not expanding. it is contracting under the current open administration, for

proposing to cut the program in half. sending it to an eventual course, in my opinion, of elimination. janet napolitano hazmat is quite clear to me that they wish to erode the program down and cutting back and does not fit now the risk-based intelligence based security they're looking at. while i applaud the secretary, again, using this analysis, they're always must be a safety net. to capture those who might slip through the security based screening. but even as we focus on threats of higher unknown risk, and we must always remember that we cannot allow anything to slip through the crackes. one of the bus cost-effective ways to reduce the risk, increased deterrent, and also respond to the safety of

passengers and the flying public. the secretary also fails to understand the thread. the threat does not necessarily come through the terminals of an airport. the threat is in the shadow of the airplane as well it is a double threat and all threats must be analyzed. that is what the safety net must always be there. in the testimony before the committee of homeland security, she said the armed cockpit door was the last line of defense. as i have already said, it is the armed pilot that will most definitely be the last one -- line of defense from using an aircraft as a weapon of mass destruction. that is why i'm very proud that our staff will be introducing very soon a fully offset the bill, doubling the program from $25.5 million to $50.5 million

for fiscal year 2013. our goal is to enable the program to cover all qualified volunteers and increase the security level for the national public. to bet want anyone holding their kid and sing another airliner go into a building. i don't want another passenger ,rom minnesota say, let's roll and overtaken airplane knowing there when the plunge to their own deaths to protect the united states. that should never occur. at $15 a flight segment, i think we can pay for it. thank you. [applause] >> we have time for some questions. if you have a question, raise your hand. wait for the microphone. also, state your name and

affiliation. >> i am brian from the heritage foundation. thank you for coming and getting this presentation. my question is, you touched on this a little bit, but what can congress do to fight back? clearly, the obama administration wants to end the program. the evidence is they want to cut the program in half as part of their budget. janet napolitano has publicly stated her intent to not include an her version of a risk-based system. how can congress fight back? >> we're introducing a bill to counter it right now. the program has remained stagnant the last years. with no new flight deck officers come on board. the program, not only stop the threat program, but also a chief

deterrent. the terrorists will think twice before they realize when the open that cockpit door that they will have an armed, highly trained pilot behind it. what we need to do on the level of congress, introducing this bill and lobbied hard on the hill for this program. quite frankly, when i come to congress, and i understand we're in a budget crunch, that is why this is offset by another program within the tsa for over to personnel. but this program is the central part of the safety net program. we cannot be this on the hill and i think i can get a lot of colleagues to sign and push this through. >> thank you for being here. you mention background checks were no longer being performed on pilots. how long has that been going on? was that a function of at

defunding aspect of the program or just administration? >> the next panel will probably be better to ask. as i can understand, there has been a backlog because of the amount of funds available, the backlog of getting new pilots into the program because of the background checks. background checks are expensive. we want to make sure those flying the aircraft with a weapon should be doing just that. i strongly support having a full background check, but give us the funds to do it to make sure we can get remained in a program and increase it. again, it is the least expensive program i think on the hill. i cannot see any other program for $15 a flight segment to protect an aircraft from being used as a weapon of mass destruction. i do not lead to underestimate the deterrents that a federal flight deck officer has.

just the sheer program itself, knowing there may be an armed highly trained pilots on that flight deck, would -- would achieve deterrence that is from a terrorist thinking twice about using a commercial airliner as a missile. do not underestimate that. if they see the program is going to be cut in half, to them, that is a window of opportunity. >> congressman, i went as to a broader question about tsa. the bureaucracy now has a bigger budget and the fbi, one of the largest federal work forces. could you give a broader

assessment of tsa, where you see it going in the future, things should be doing or not doing, the strengths and weaknesses? >> with any program, there are strengths and weaknesses. what the tsa does it is a highly valuable function and they do it well, but we have to be smarter and use a risc-based on intelligence-based issue and i agree with that. one bill we were able to pass, for example, military people coming home on orders in uniform with their id cards are going to be treated like the heroes they are and be a to go through expedited screening process. the same type of expedited screening process of their frequent-flier travel and programs have. instead of having our troops come home from afghanistan just trying to get home to their families, you see them in their stocking feet and t-shirts going through tsa. that is not how we treat our returning warriors.

using risc based analysis so we can focus on the unknown or known risks and then allowing those considered low risk go through expedited screening process. securityt type of basis, that is why it is absolutely imperative that we strengthen the safety net associated with it. that is why the program, dollar for dollar, probably has the most effective way of knowing this as a deterrent and also to stop the threat. >> thank you very much for your time, sir. my name is mark weiss. i am with the spectrum group in washington. i used to be the deputy chairman of security for the pilots at american airlines. in the past, the program had

always been treated as a really unwanted stepchild. it never really had the support from the tsa, no matter who the demonstrators seemed to be. at this point in time, as the fan program becoming a little more robust, have they been more supportive of the ffdo program? >> they realize, the men and women that are federal air marshals, they do a fantastic job. there on the road constantly. they have a tough life. i respect highly what the fams do. do not take away from this that i would want to cut the fam budget or degrade what they do. i do not.

they work in tandem. i do agree with your analysis that the ffdo program was not embraced, so to say, by the tsa. that is why there is some discussion that i would like to see possibly and working within congress and taking the program out of the tsa and possibly putting it in the doj. i think it might be the competing interests there might be alleviated. >> any further questions? join with me and thanking the congressman. [applause]

>> i am excited to introduce the panel. these guys have done this for a living. i will introduce them all right now and order and then we will run down the road and taken to their comments, then open it up to the floor for questions and comments but al aitken is retired marine corps botanic colonel, a veteran pilot, -- retired marine corps colonel, a veteran pilot. retired from american airlines. he was one of the founders and principal leaders and pushing for the establishment of the program.

then we have mark karn. his the security director for the coalition of airline pilots association and secure the chairman for the allied pilots association and also an american airline pilot and has been flying for 14 years. tracy price is commercial airline pilot for the past 25 years, 19 years as a boeing 737 capt. for a major u.s. airline and also founding publisher and chairman of national organization that did help create the ffdo program. you have a wealth of experience and not just flying, but also with the program itself. i cannot think of better panel of experts. let's just go in order. >> do you want us at the podium? >> it is up to you. i tell you what, i will just sit

right here. thank you very much. i want to discuss a little bit about the inception of the program, the history of it. the obama administration had institutional hostility toward the concept armed pilots, specifically the ffdo program since the beginning. i was chairman of the washington pundits for the allied pilots association back in september 2001. after the aerospace reopened, approximately four days later, i was on one of the first flights out of washington for dallas for our first board of directors meeting at which we set policy at the apa with a goal to arm as many of the united states commercial airline pilots as possible to defend against another repeat of the 9/11 attacks. there were other efforts going

on at the same time. the air line pilots association, alpa, some in the leadership said we cannot be wyatt earp and sky king at the same time. the vast majority of alpa pilots disagree. apsa was derived from that. my friend creek to well over 55,000 members, about half of which were pilots, but the rest were just cooks and bottle washers from all over america who thought pilots ought to be armed. at the same time, senator bob smith from new hampshire with

young brian darling working for him introduce legislation to armed america's airline pilots. that all resulted in the transportation security act 2001 signed into law november 19, 2001 and that is the act that created the transportation security administration. here is what it said. the pilot of a passenger aircraft operated by an air carrier in air transportation or interstates air transportation is authorized to carry a firearm into the cockpit if the undersecretary, meaning the tsa, approves, if the airline approves, if the firearm is approved by the tsa, and if the pilot received proper training for use of the firearm. well, we went to work. several meetings with the tsa and several letters to secretary of transportation fell on deaf

ears. they did not want to have a thing to do with us. in fact, the administrator said, i will not allow pilots to be armed. that required a 10-month extensive lobbying effort with congressional members and staff. and although some in the alpa leadership leaned towards a limited program of 2% public cap and a two-year provision, would certainly have kill the program very early on, an amendment by rep removed those limits and the bill was passed 310-113 in the house of representatives. in the senate, they always wanted a full blown. although, there was opposition there as well from the airline transfer -- the airline

transport association. they sent a letter expressing their concerns against the program in a sign it by 21 airlines ceo's. then tsa administrator testified before congress with the same programs almost identical to the ata better. despite that ,hr5005 was passed overwhelmingly 90-9 with one absent. that established the department of homeland security and inside of it, the army pilots against terrorism act, which mandated the ffdo program. the undersecretary transportation for security shall establish a program to that because volunteer pilots of air carriers providing passenger air transportation.

it has some procedural requirements it set a deadline of three months for the tsa to create the program and that same three months for them to start training pilots. notice i said the word "passenger." that was not in the previous language. that basket and late one night just before passage, which basically carved out the cargo operations. let me ask you a question. isn't the boeing 767 full of fuel and boxes just as lethal weapon as zero boeing 767 full of passengers -- just as lethal weapon as a boeing 767 full of passengers? there was a three month deadline, but the tsa took five months. in all the meetings we had with it to see a ministration helping to design this program, they

complained. in fact, the newt minister of tsa complaint and one of our meeting saying, we have such a short notice, just three months but i said, actually, you have had 15 months. you decided not to create this program. they also refused to accept a database we handed to them with 10,000 volunteer pilots on a cd that could have got them started contacting pilots and putting them into the program right away. they refused to accept it. they refused to accept a program outline we divided or developed in concert with the fbi. some agents of the fbi had designed a cockpit protection program. they did not want to have anything to do with that. we also started a professional standards program within the group of pilots that would eventually be armed. they ignored that. there were also hostile to the design of the program itself and

designed to discourage participation. they created excess of background checks that were redundant to the background checks that we already had just become an airline pilot. with regard to security, financial, and criminal background checks. their initial weapon choice was inadequate. we called it the barney fife pistol. it was a six-shot revolver. we produced a video that showed them it was inadequate to the job. we had in enactment of terrorist actors attack the cockpit. we were not able to handle it with the six-shot revolver or the tasers they asked us to use. we ended up with a more appropriate weapon. also the carriage procedures the design were a logical and unsafe. it required us to transport the

weapon, except when the cockpit when we could carry it. the differences tearing it or in some other method, like a bag. no other law enforcement agency carries or transports the weapons in that fashion. the ministration has continued institutional hostility toward the program continues to this day, as we can see with the administration costs budget submission for 2013. they want to kill the program by cutting the funding in half. when the funding should be increased so we can get more pellets into the program. -- more pilots into the program. we knew we would have to spend the rest of our careers to protect this program. i have in return for seven years, and here i am again. i will turn it over now to capt. tracy price to talk about the current program. >> thank you. i will be brief. i will make three main points. i want everyone to understand

farming pilots is not a new idea. it has been going on for a long time. army pilots is safe. armed pilots were arming them is an effective method of securing an airliner. it is irresponsible for the obama administration to propose to strangle this program did that. armed pilots, pilots have been arms from the dawn of commercial aviation to present day with a brief interlude from 1987 to shortly after september 11. it was during the brief interlude, that was fixed -- experimental time when we saw the september 11 attacks. understand that pilots were armed from the dawn of commercial aviation through 1987. there was no regulation. there was no training requirements. there was no incident. there is no record of incident or problem associated with

pilots carrying guns for that long time. for a series of silly reasons, pilots were disarmed in 1987. we saw the results of that on september 11, the inevitable result of having an undefended cockpit. then we rearmed pilots in 2003. the program has been extremely safe. the armed pilot program or the federal flight deck officer program has proven to be extremely safe. it is the third largest law enforcement agency in the country. many, many, many armed pilots, the actual number is classified, but it is huge. the safety record rivals or is better than any other law enforcement agency in the country.

there were all kinds of predictions when pilots were rearmed after 9/11. predictions of a terrible host of consequences. pilots would get mad and to each other. were pilots were on have accidental shootings. there were going to be all kinds of issues associated with -- none of that has happened. the program has proved to be extremely safe. not surprisingly, airline pilots are stable, responsible people we trust with our lives every time i get it on an airplane. we can certainly trust them with a handgun. the armed, program is in back as been discussed, the first line of deterrence in the last line of defense. if you're a terrorist group, the best in history for you was september 11, 2001. the most successful attack in history of any terrorist group.

they would love to repeat the performance. the fact there are armed pilots, large numbers come in cockpits that an unknown -- nobody is exactly sure where they are -- provides an incredible deterrent and effective deterrent that has caused terrorist groups to look to other ways to attack us. that is pretty armed pilot program is doing its primary function of deterring future attacks. that is our main goal. we want to create, raise the bar of difficulty to the point where tourists say, you know what? we're not going to be a tuesday's airliners as weapons any more and we're going to look to other ways. and they have. we have plug the hole of the armed pilot program cockpit takeovers in the airplane becoming a missile.

the last thing i want to point out is there's a lot of discussion and secretary napolitano has irresponsibly suggested that we can rely on the cockpit door, this new reinforced cockpit door that we have, as the way -- we can take because welots' arms have this new cockpit door. there is no such thing as an impenetrable door. the new cockpit door we have is better than the old one. i will tell you the old one was sent -- that was in place when the first pilots were rearmed after september 11. we got the new door almost immediately. few were willing to bet the lives of hundreds of people on an airliner or thousands of people on the ground on that door not been breached.

that is an irresponsible thing to suggest, that we will but the lives of thousands of people on a door holding up. in fact, the door, by necessity, it is open in flight. it has to be food and beverage service, a bathroom breaks, and operational reasons why pilots have to open the door in flight. it is a terrible, irresponsible assumption to make the weaken just rely on the cockpit door and everything will be fine. that is a terrible, dangerous game to play with the lives of americans on board airplanes, airliners, and on the ground. we have tried this army pilots with disastrous results. that is the new kind of idea that we experimented with irresponsibly from 1987 to shortly after 9/11. we saw the results of that.

when tears break into a cockpit and find the -- finely pilots defenseless, there is no hope for the passengers on board the airplane. the armed pilot is the last resort, a final one of the sense that will save those people on board that airplane, possibly thousands on the ground. the u.s. military stands ready every day to destroy commercial airliner filled with innocent passengers because the cockpit has been commandeered. it is irresponsible, the height of irresponsibility to not give those people on board that airplane, the last resort, final line of defense of an armed pilot in the cockpit. >> mike, i am sorry. >> i want to touch on a few items in summary. also, point out a couple of things as we have walked along.

there's a lot of assumptions with security to assume we are catching everything that is coming through through passenger screening, cargo screening, perimeter screening is simply a fallacy. daley, i get reports of different weapons found on aircraft from not only the member airlines cappa, but my brother and sisters at the air line pilots association as well, constantly the system is porous. things are getting through. we need a back up. when we assume the cockpit door will be the final line of defense and we take away the capability of the pilots to defend a prevent that error -- airliner from being a mass of weapons, we're not doing that. we are more vigilant than we have been in the past, but we're not infallible. to listen to take weapons away from the pilot is to assume in

this case we've got everything up to the cockpit door and they're not doing it. we have had at least one recent incident where an off-duty ffdo, in speaking vaguely on purpose, was able to stop an individual from attempting to breach the cockpit door. our federal flight deck officer had the presence of mind to intercede in the situation and subdue the individual. for the cost of $15 a flight, we have an extra layer of security, an extra layer of security to protect us. nobody had caught this in screening, nobody was aware of this person was going to attempt to do that. yet now we're talking about taking the weapons away from pilots and assuming we have caught everything. we already have evidence to the contrary. we have evidence in the last few

years that terrorists have considered the fact pilots were armed. there have been several reports as terrorists consider ways of assaulting the united states they also consider that pilots are armed. that is a deterrent to them. there are facts that can be proven that cannot be revealed here. based on the obama administration to look at this program and cut it in half is simply irresponsible. to assume security is not porous is irresponsible. this program is effective. a couple of things that have not been mentioned, it has been noted pilots would be able to participate in this program at no cost. we have figured on average a pilot spends over $10,000 of their own money to participate in the program. that is over six years. if you compare that $10,000 of their own money, to take time away from home, to drop a trip they are not paid for, to pay

for their travel, pay for training, to pay to go to the reclassification, to pay for their own ammunition -- all of these things are carried by the pilot. when you take that $10,000 and multiply it times the number of pilots, it is over $400 million. you compare that to the $22 million the federal government spends for the program, the pilots are paying over $400 million to participate in the program. as of this year, they ran out of money to bring any more pilots into the program. there are over 700 pilots would in to participate, to spend $10,000 of their own money to be the last line of defense. they say, we don't need you right now. in fact, we will cut the budget back. there are several requirements for federal flight deck officers to participate. they have to requalify with every six months, go to

recurrent training for two days. this would reduce the number of facilities, increase the cost of the federal flight deck officers, limit the number of federal flight deck officers simply by cutting its budget. consider what i said, $10,000 per pilot is what they spent over six years. if your to do a bar graph and look at it, the amount of money being spent by the pilots to participate enormous. the amount the federal government is spending is incredibly small compared to that. so why wouldn't you take these people? why would you not want these pilots armed? the congressman made a comparison from a federal air marshal and the ffdo. those were numbers we receive from tsa a while ago. as an aviator and airline pilot, i love when the fire marshals

are on board. but it also want to see our pilots armed. for the price of an air marshal, 3000 river dollars per flight, the present to the air marshal's in the form of an aircraft, you can fill up all of business and coach with federal flight deck officers on a 777. the amount of flights covered would be enormous. the two forces combined, federal air marshals and federal flight deck officers, last line of defense. the missing, we believe the door is sufficient. they're turning those folks away. we think that is a travesty. that puts us in jeopardy, but the flying public in jeopardy. we think is that only a misunderstanding of security and aviation, and from the comments i've heard indicate [unintelligible]

we are more vigilant than we have been in the past, but not infallible. this current budget proves his in ministration this not support this program and we have to go to the legislators for that support. we're asking for the support in this. the federal flight deck officer program is the most cost- effective program to counter terrorism we have at $15 a flight. it represents the third largest group in the nation and a group of people willing to spend incredible amounts of their own money to protect the public, protector airlines, and to protect themselves. so any changes to this, any changes to this program right now would be done at the expense of all of us. >> thank you. questions from the floor, again, raise your hand to be recognized and state your affiliation and your name.

>> brian darling, heritage foundation. when you look back at the history of the creation of the program, this is not a partisan issue at all. the leadership of barbara boxer of california and many democrats in the house has stepped up in support of this. it shows it has bipartisan support. as you mentioned, the overwhelming bipartisan vote in the house and senate creating the bill was part of what brought it into being. my question to you, maybe if you give as a history of the meetings to have had and the fact congress overwhelmingly supported this on the record on numerous occasions, yet for whatever reason, this administration wants to in the program? >> it was favored by almost everyone in congress. of course, it was early after 9/11, and we all have emotions. we all knew what had happened. it was relatively easy to

convince -- but we did not make this a gun rights issue, because that is not what it is. it is a national security issue. we had great support from folks who you think would actually otherwise be against it. it was both in the house and senate. there were a few holdouts. i think our argument was convincing. >> if i might add, life isn't a partisan issue. people all want to see preserved in terms of how we deal with terrorism. so we have seen a lot of support on both sides of the aisle. that is why this is such a disconnect. the context for which we're approaching several members of the homeland security, we have bipartisan conversations with counsel from both sides we were looking at, getting additional

funding just for the additional pilots in the pipeline right now, over 700. they were in agreement and we were working toward that. that is why the budget was such a surprise because it was a complete disconnect from what we had been seen on both sides. >> thank you. i wonder if you could enumerate the success of the program in terms of numbers of incidents as potential attacks you have thwarted? the countries that have ffdo? >> is that directed at me? >> anybody. >> as far as armed pilots and other countries, no, there are no other countries aren't in that case. we are unique in that case. for instance, there are

numerous. some we have to be careful talking about because of sensitive security information. in general, i talked where the ffdo was able to thwart an incident did with the shoe bomber, and underwear bomber, and both of those cases were people in the middle of the aircraft over the wing that stopped or saw those things. while i cannot point to specific incidents is other than the general when i talked about, i can assure you they are out there, that they have happened, and they're stopping things. it is effected. i hope that helps. >> if i can take a shot at that, i am aware in my airline specifically of a couple of cases where a federal flight deck officer was instrumental in containing a threat to the cockpit.

that is really about as far as i can go with that, but i think the idea that we of not have any cockpit breaches since we started the ffdo program, so let's get rid of it, the threat is gone, we tried that. we did it from 1987 to shortly after 9/11. we had a really bad cockpit reached, four of them. we lost 3000 americans. we learn that day this is a horrible, horrible experiments of disarming the cockpit of commercial airliners that have been armed from the dawn of commercial aviation until this day with that one brief time -- i do not think it is wise, i do not think it makes any sense to go back to that failed experiment. >> i think once this has happened, you know under have individuals that will come to

aircraft in flight to cuba and have extended negotiations period for the aircraft will be returned to the states. the paradigm is gone. the one we live and now is the aircraft will be used as a weapon of mass destruction, therefore, we have to assume any assault on the carpet is to take over these to her even a greater number of people. >> before the question, could i add an extra comment with regard to the numbers? coming from the inception of the program, we ran a survey through the winston group who survey the american people income up 85% of those surveyed said they thought their airline pilots should be armed. we rented of other programs. -- we ran two other surveys and they said they thought pilots should be armed. at the time of 9/11, we flew over 30,000 flights per day and

had over a little over 100,000 commercial airline pilots. if you take the 80% number, we expect 80,000 pilots thought pilots should be armed something north of 50,000 or 60,000 polish republic actually volunteer to be armed. now, we do not have that many. we have a significant number, but not enough. >> i am from senator barbara boxer's office. my question, you mention the air carriers expressed early opposition and concern. could you speak to their current position and whether not that is changed? >> i will have to defer that to my colleagues who are still flying actively. but i will tell you at the time, one of their major concerns -- think about it. if you own an airline and one of people to come fly with you, --

wanted people to come fly with you, would you display the attitude of we have a problem and addressing it or would you say we did not have a problem? to draw more that was basically the synopsis of their concerns in that the apa letter. there's the question of where are we going to store their weapons and all the other concerns they did not want to deal with, because in the airline industry everything have to think of costs money. >> if i might add to that, and they did to my senator barbara boxer in california as being a supporter of this program. change in the opinions of the airlines toward the federal flight deck officer program, the former ceo at american airlines had an article that mentioned it

in american way magazine that is put in the seat backs, touting the success of the program. there have also been times when under certain security situations, it has been rumored, and i'm sure other folks from other airlines could probably repeat this, but some management said that i wish we had an ffdo that flight. so the view has changed to the positive if. of the greatest compliment to the program is when we go out and talk about it, if i hear a lot of people say i did not know pilots were armed. they have forgotten about it because they are quiet professionals doing their jobs, performing their duty. they are there as a last line of defense if it needs to be activated. thank you. sperry.ith cnn, todd give me a brief [no audio]

i just want to understand better from your perspective. >> airline pilots from the dawn of commercial aviation through 1987, through the mid 60's the air line pilots were required to carry firearms off whenever they had u.s. mail on board, which is a large number of flights. it was an actual requirement that existed in place for airline pilots to carry guns. in late 1986, there was a cockpit takeover that people don't know and don't remember, where a guy broken to the cockpit, pacific southwest airlines that had about 100 people on its he had a gun, the

pilots and killed them and crashed the airplane and everyone died. if so we had a situation where there was an unarmed cockpit and the result was a loss of an airplane and all the passengers. the faa response to that -- and by the way, that guy was not a pilot. this was not a problem with a pilot at all. the pilots were trying to live. . fia response to that was true then require pilots to begin going through screening. the pilots were then effectively disarmed. prior to that, pilots often carried handguns in their flight backs. some estimates, up to 60% of pilots depending on the airline carried handguns. as of 1987 if there were no more armed pilots. it is really inexplicable why

the faa chose that course of action. rational course of action, after that murder, it would've been to say, wait a minute, if only those guys had had guns in their flight bags, it might have saved these people, we need to get more armed pilots and figure a way to encourage more armed pilots. faa response was completely irresponsible and backboards and i'm not sure if if anybody can explain why they took the course of action they did. pilots predicted at that time that there would be attempted cockpit takeovers, but there would be more and more. the captain named victor predicted to his wife, he said, and it, mark my words, there will be attempted if cockpit takeovers as a result of this. he died on september 11, 2001 when his boeing 767 was blown into the south tower of the world trade center. the other important elements of

this thing to mention is that up through august of 2001, the regulation in the federal aviation regulation under which we all operate, the regulation existed that allow pilots to be armed. there was a provision that would allow an airline, if they chose to, to go through a process to arm their pilots. i think, frankly, it was kind of an anti-gun sentiment that existed that is irrational as well, in my view. but that regulation kind of disappeared in a horrible coincidence, it disappeared in august. not that it was being used, but at least it existed. then in september 11, 2001 we had the attacks and surely thereafter be armed the pilots again -- we armed the pilots

against. >> may i make a comment? i work with the gentlemen at the allied pilots association. culturally arming pilots and oftentimes a population or even police officers is against the thinking in many other cultures. not theiro i population that is attack. if you go back to what happened in london with the bombers, that was not an attack on the u.k., that was an attack on a number of u.s. and canadian-based carrier's. the whole thinking has changed as to why the u.s. arms their

crew members. the other thing is, if you take a look away pilots are trained, they are trained in layers of safety, layers of security. it has been happening that way because it is a learning experience to prevent accidents, to mitigate the negative experiences. and what you have done is you have added another layer of security into this equation it is hard to prove a negative. we would not take out a layer of safety training that you done with the pilots. by doing what they are doing here is the support to take that away. >> one of things to point out, mark, is when we talk about these incidents, remember we have to be right every single time. the terrorists have to be right only once. >> i ask a question for my own

purposes. from 2003 through january 2007 i was aviation policy adviser for the house, and security commission and i worked with several of you in that capacity. my question was rational in terms of trying to get a grasp of the value added of this program and how you have advanced over the years. it is a perfectly rational question and it's from my own knowledge. >> i agree. >> did we help you answer the question? >> let me ask a question. i was looking at some tsa data. last month they confiscated 200 guns. help me understand, what do i make of that and how does that fit in with the discussion we have had here today? >> >> when you look at the vast majority of those confiscations,

probably, and i get the reports on those, somebody inadvertently leaves it in their bag, i don't know the difference between accidentally doing that or actually testing the system, that could be other question, but the fact those are caught does not mean things are not getting through. that is just what is being caught. we have issues of an airline industry also with the dea examining how many drugs are being brought on board aircraft. if something can be smuggled on an aircraft, just fill in the blank of what you want that to be. it could be narcotics, a firearm, and edged weapon. we are more vigilant. we are not infallible. a lot of the cases, there are large number of them that have a concealed carry and forget to take theirs off before they come to the airport. we have all seen there are

people out there testing the system. there are people always actively testing the system. to think that we have a static defense that cannot be penetrated. is a penetrated >> you could interpret the data as if they are confiscating 200 guns, there is potential is something to worry about, because people are still trying to get guns on planes? >> absolutely. >> the other argument that is important to remember is we are trying -- a theory under which we are operating is that we are going to make the cabin of a commercial airliner a completely weapon-free zone. there's going to be nothing there that one person could use to harm another person. we try to do the same thing in completely locked down federal penitentiaries and the control extremely carefully who gets in and out and who gets a strip search. every time we do a shakedown on

the federal penitentiary, we find all types of weapons. it is unrealistic to think that we can never produce a security system ever that will make a public venue like airline travel weapon-free. it is an unrealistic thing to do. in fact, the record of failure or success, however you want to look at it, the tsa security screening has amassed is virtually identical. it is an incredibly difficult thing we can do to find anything that the third person and make sure it never finds its way onto an airliner. we will never get there. >> this might sound counterintuitive, but the most successful security system is one that assumes failure with multiple layers. you have to assume that certain

lawyers will fail. you might fail on the background checks or at the screening of the passenger or at the cargo. having all those multiple layers in their means somewhere along the line you will catch it. , we havey on aircraft hydraulic systems, redundant systems, there is redundant electrical systems and fuel. things that back up. because when you are up there, you cannot open the window and asked for help. what you have is what you have. i think the best security systems assume a level of failure of and have backups in there in an attempt to catch them. it's a lesson we've learned over a lifetime of aviation and try to make aircraft safer. >> i will ask our panel for your last thoughts. let me go around once again and see if there are any last comments or questions. is one in the back and then one in the front. >> one more question. the facility in new mexico has

been mentioned several times as far as training goes. is that the only training facility, if not, how many training facilities are there across the country? forhat's a primary facility initial training. there's also two other recurrent facilities with a three-five- year re-deposition process. the reduction in the deficit will possibly bring that down to just two facilities. the problem we have their is the pilots that are being armed are from hawaii towards the east, people from all over. these pilots are doing this on their own money. they are traveling to these destinations. it is becoming more and more difficult to get to these destinations, to pay for their participation. countered that to the administration budget -- we don't want all these people that want to payton thousand

dollars to participate in the program. so have the issue of shrinking the facilities and the desire not to accept these people that want to spend our own money to participate. >> i'm from the heritage foundation. why is it only the federal government owes a responsibility to provide on-site security? why can we not create a partnership with the airline industry itself to provide its own security? >> if it's all right i will address that. conservative, limited government folks would like to see private property protected by the owner of that property. and that is fine. probably personally i tend to think that way myself. however, in the realm of what is realistic and in the realm of what can in fact be done and in

the realm of what will bring -- there are all different kinds of people who think in all different kinds of ways to get this accomplished, but that will not happen. there's one way for pilots to carry a firearm to protect his passengers, is cruel, and the people on the ground. that is, if he goes through, gets a background check, gets a psychological evaluation, but tens training at a federal law enforcement training center, becomes deputized. then and only then can that pilots carry a firearm and protect those passengers and crew. that's the only way that will happen. if we do away with the ffdo program in hopes of a panacea that some may think is the best way to go about doing it, there will be no more arms pilots. >> also to the point is when you are crossing multiple state lines, operating out of several different cities, it requires

federal jurisdiction. we have seen something similar to this with safety. airline margins depend on how the airline operates and uses its airline, but as one airline to do something and another one they will say it is costing too much over here, so any to cut back over the apparent we have seen that with traffic collision avoidance systems having to be mandated and ground proximity systems having to be mandated. with the federal government you have standardization and you have jurisdictional issues that are solved by having the federal government operates these. >> one more and then to our panel. >> is there any way for the airline industry to have to pay for this instead of the taxpayers, providing security for the airline industry? >> taxpayers will pay for it one way or another.

ultimately, what the taxpayers are paying for is the security of this nation. a legitimate function --i think everyone would agree --a legitimate function of the federal government is to defend the nation from attack. we were attacked on 9/11. the weapon of choice was a commercial airliner. it is the federal government;s responsibility to protect us and keep us safe from attack. that is the reason we created the federal government in 1787. with the primary impetus for doing that was to protect the nation. i discussed it is a legitimate responsibility of the federal government to make sure airplanes are not used as weapons against our country again. make sure cockpits are protected. >> based on the current federal budget for the program and the amount of money each pilot is paid to participate in the

program, i would suggest to you, as i have done on the hill, that pilots should get paid and way over what -- -- that the pilots are spending much more than the federal government is spending on its. >> i will go down the panel and see if there are any last thoughts or comments before we close. >> i will remind you that this has been an uphill battle for 10 years, a little over 10 years. it was an uphill battle to get the program initiated. there was great resistance to that. there's been great resistance during this last 10 years, in the procedures that have been outlined by the tsa that has discouraged pilot participation. we would like to see the funding retained, if not increased, to

attract more. the program to achieve the deterrence that we had intended for in the beginning. >> i think the greatest compliment to this program is when somebody says they did not know the pilots were armed. they are quiet professionals. the fact that they are spending a lot of their own money to participate in the program tells you that they are concerned with not only their own safety but the safety of the passengers behind them. i always get asked while i'm in the cockpit of going to get their ok? well, if i get there ok, you will be ok right behind me. this program is the most cost- effective to turn to terrorism out there. this program has the potential to expand incredibly and still be very. ,. as you add more and more pilots to the program, the cost per flight drops. -- the program has the potential to expand incredibly and still be very cheap.

it's very cost-effective. it's a very incredible program. considering that our security systems are porous and to assume we can start dismantling the security systems is a big problem, saying we don't need this and that. it puts us in harm's way. >> i will summarize my thoughts by saying that airline travel is something that virtually nearly every american enjoys at some point in his life. lots of americans travel all the time. es often oname fac andes my flights. they are putting their trust in me, the pilots, the people in the cockpit. once we are airborne, that's all they have got. it is us and what we have on

board, the redundant safety systems we have. it is irrational to say that we trust these pilots with our lives but we are unwilling or reluctant -- as the obama administration has suggested -- we will try to limit their ability to defend that cockpit with a firearm. it is proven to be safe and effective. i don't know how many federal government programs can make that claim. >> let me sum this up with one observation. i work on all the home andlahomd security issues from what's going on in the air to what's going on in local communities. what is disturbing about this issue if it is i see this as a larger pattern of behavior on the part of the federal government. this is not the only area where we have seen this happen. if in immigration enforcement, where states have wanted a partner with the federal government, in this program, helping the the federal

government do its job, 287 g, deputize state and local law- enforcement and the use of some federal party they do things in their interests. that program has been largely killed off by the administration. there's a provision in the law that established the tsa which allows airports to opt out of federal screeners. there's a half-dozen or so airports that were initially set up as pilots to do that and they run their own security. it is every bit as effective as the tsa screeners. the administration has put obstacles in a way of expanding that program. if we are going to build a process where the federal government is going to do everything to protect us, what is going to happen is we are going to wind upo being less safe and less free and it will one the costing us a lot more money.

we as a nation, the people that live here, have a part to play in protecting ourselves. it is in finding that balance that advances our freedoms, preserves how we keep our economy free and open, and allows for the common defense. that is important. i think there are two really key factors here. i call them rights and responsibilities. there's good nest in having the people that are responsible for themselves take ownership of that responsibility. hurricane katrina, for example, the most effective responders in katrina were the victims. there were people in that community that cared about their community who did more and were more effective in organizing response than anyone else outside. it was the people at the local wal-mart that opened their doors and said we will help our fellow citizens. in many ways they were much more

anythinge than morefe fema did. when you look at surveys, people said the most effective help was some non-governmental organizations. 80% of the people said that. if you bring the commitment and knowledge when you take ownership that someone else cannot. in this case, the pilot that lies that plane crash and that the airline, they care about that airline, they care about that pilots and they will give it a degree of commitment that nobody else really kampf, because they have a sense of ownership. exercising that sense of ownership is a very important part of being a free and open society. going with that, there's an element of responsibility. when you've own destruction or do things in the public space and are performing a public good, if there is a sense that you have an obligation to defend

your own home, but you are also defending other people and impact in the lives of other people. so you have a responsibility to exercise the right to defend yourself with a degree of due diligence and professionalism. and what you you see in the federal flight deck officer program is a quintessential example, of doing that exactly right. have people taking ownership of their own responsibility and technology? . and you have a program which insures you have a level of professionalism and that they are going to exercise that right responsibly. and if we cannot do something like this in our own defense, then i am not sure what we can do. the simple fact is, when you are at 10,000 feet and all alone in

the cockpit, see something, say something does not covet. -- not cut it. thanks for coming today. the archives are programs at heritage.org. we have a paper the lobby. it is also on our website that you can find and share with others. thanks for our panelists and thanks for coming. [applause] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> homeland security secretary janet napolitano answered

questions last month on capitol hill about the flight deck officers program. the administration wants to cut funding for the program in half. she says it does not add to the probable cause to arrest based security system. she testified before the house homeland security committee. here's her exchange with a congressman. >> thank you, madam secretary, for being here. president's budget cuts to the federal flight deck officer program from $25 million down to $12.5 million, this is approximately a 50% decrease. this program comprises volunteers will ultimately pay more out of their pockets than it actually costs for them to be an ffdo to protect our nation. in fact, to provide the protection for each flight deck officer, for each ffdo flight costs the nation is $15. that is how efficient the program is. i have to believe that is probably one of the most cost-

effective programs in the u.s. government. these guys basically volunteer their time and money to be a determined to our country. they are the last line of defense when it comes to air pilots. what prompted -- did you make this cut or did come from the president or where did this come from? >> the reduction for the federal flight deck officer program was predicated on the fact that the program was not risk-based. you will have an ffdo whether somebody is on a flight or not. we are moving into the business base systems and those are the ones we will put money into. >> i agree with risk base systems, but i also fully believe a $15 federal flight deck officer is the last line of news of defense on an aircraft is absolutely essential. would you agree the federal

flight deck officer would be the last line of defense on an aircraft? >> there are many layers of defense and that begins even before people get their ticket. if one of the things i continue to emphasize is the checkpoint at the gate which has caused some concern is only one of many layers. so there's a lot of things. the ffdo's have been useful, that's true. i don't know about the $15 figure, but -- as we look around the universe of things we want to do in the aviation environment, like i said before, we have to find places to cut. that was one of them because it is not risk-based, that was put. >> i fully understand risk- based. again, the federal flight deck officer, is that the last line of defense for? our travelling for >> i think the armed cockpit door probably is.

>> speaking as a 17-year pilot and also as a federal flight deck officer, know about the cockpit door. , i havell you, ma'am, flown as a pilot and also federal flight deck officer, you may think that the door is the last line of defense, but it is that our pilots in the cockpit that will be the last line of defense. thank you for your comment, though. is your intention that this program be phased out? >> i think as the budget request shows, it is our intention to reduce it, yes. but we have not predicted its demise. we just think we can do it with less. >> expound upon that. what kind of message does it send the pilots willing to join the program on their own time, take personal vacation days off at work, pay for their own

lodging to train for the privilege and honor of protecting their fellow citizens? how do you think it will affect that program? >> representative, honestly, in a difficult budget we had to make difficult decisions and this was one of them. the last linem, of defense for the most efficient program that you have in protecting the traveling public, i would strongly courage you to reevaluate that position. also, it's come to my attention relatively recently, in line with the president's budget requestpresident'snorad has posted a new 24-hour control sites from langley to be eliminated. -- norad has posted a new

24-hour control site to be eliminated from langley. they deploy in a lot of places. can you? comment on you >> there are several other similar type things around particularly the northern border. in the analysis that's been done, those operations can be covered from the consolidated center elsewhere. >> thank you, i will yield back, mr. chairman. >> vice-president joe biden campaigns today in coconut creek, florida. the obama reelection campaign released experts of his speech this morning. the vice president is expected to say mitt romney, rick santorum, and newt gingrich all want to be "end medicare as we

know it." you can see that speech live it 12:15 eastern. we're showing a discussion at the cato institute about the health care bill the president signed into law two years ago today. if the supreme court is hearing a challenge to blaw next week. the discussion is right now on our companion network c-span3. the supreme court is hearing arguments next week on the constitutionality of the health care law. the argument if scheduled for three days, monday through wednesday. even today the court is releasing audio recordings of those arguments. you can hear the oral argument as it is released each day at about 1:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span3. also on c-span radio and online at c-span.org. earlier today, president obama nominated dartmouth college president kim to head the world bank. he's a former director of

hiv/aids at the world health organization and received his undergraduate degree from brown university fans as a medical degree from harvard. the president made the announcement in the white house rose garden earlier today and was joined by the nominee treasury secretary tim geithner and secretary of state hillary clinton. president also answered a reporter's question over the shooting of teenager trayvon martin in florida. >> good morning, everybody. audio] [unintelligible] the president of the world announced he would be stepping down in june, in february. i immediately began to search for someone to fill his shoes.

despite its name, the world bank is more than just. the banks it is one of the most powerful tools we have to reduce poverty and raise standards of living in some of the poorest countries on the planet. in a world that is growing smaller and more connected in every day, that is a critical mission, not just for those struggling but for all bus. when we reduce hundred a world or helping farmers recover from a flood or drought, it strengthens the entire world economy. when we put an end to preventable disease, all of us are safer because of it. when entrepreneurs can start a business that creates jobs in their country but also opens up new markets for our country. all tamale, when a nation goes from poverty to prosperity, it makes apparel stronger and more secure for everybody. that is why the world bank is so important and that's why the leader of the world bank should have a deep understanding of the role the development plays in

the world and the importance of creating conditions if where assistance is no longer needed. i believe that nobody is more qualified to carry out that mission then dr. jim kim. it's time for development professionals to lead the world's largest development agency. that's why today after a careful and thorough search i am nominating dr. jim kim to be the next president of the world bank. he has spent more than two decades working to improve conditions in developing countries around the world. as a physician and an anthropologist he co-founded partners in health and led a world health organization ledto treats 3 million patients with hiv/aids. is made hiv, the fight against the dreaded disease and promotion of public health a cornerstone of my development agenda, building on some of the outstanding work that was done by president bush. if we pursue these efforts around the globe because it's

the right thing to do and because of healthy populations enable growth and prosperity. i am pleased that jim brings this particular experience with him his new job. he was at harvard medical school and has earned a macarthur genius fellowships and. for the last three years he has served as the president of dartmouth college. after immigrating to this country from korea at age 5, he went on to become president of its high school class, quarterback of the football team, point guard of the basketball team. and he's a five handicap in golf, i just found out. i am a little resentful about that last item, but he doesji it hem has truly global experience. he has worked from asia to africa to the americas, from capitol small villages. his personal story exemplifies the great diversity of our country and the fact anyone to make it as far as he has as long as they're willing to work hard and look out for others.

his experience makes him ideally suited to forge partnerships all around the world. i could not be more pleased to nominate jim for this job. i think i can speak for secretary clinton and secretary brightener if when i say that we are looking forward to working with him. i also want to take a minute to thank bob zelnick once again for all. his hard all for the last five years he's made the bank more transparent, help to shore up progress made in places like afghanistan, he has raised billions of dollars to help some of the world's poorest communities. jim is the right person to carry on that legacy and i know his unique set of skills and years of experience will serve him well. if i am grateful to him for his willingness to serve. i don't think the world bank could have a better leader. thank you. >> thank you. >> you are going to do great. all right. ofthere's allegations

lingering racism in our society. the stand your ground law in florida. can you comment on the trayvon martin case? >> i am the head of the executive branch and the attorney general reports to me, so i have to be careful about my statements, to make sure that we are not impairing an investigation that is taking place right now. but, obviously, this is a tragedy. i can only imagine what these parents are going through. and when i think. when i think about this boy, i think about my own kids. i think every parent in america should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect

of this and that everybody pulled together, federal, state, and local, if to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened. so, i am glad that not only is the justice the problem is looking into it, i understand now that the governor of the state of florida has formed a task force to investigate what is taking place. i think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how did something like this happen. that means that we examined the laws, the context for what happened as well as the specifics of the incidents. my main message is to the parents of trayvon martin. if i had a son, he would look like trayvon. i think they are right to expect that all of us as americans are going to take this with the

seriousness it deserves and that we will get to the bottom of exactly what happened. >> the president this morning with the announcement of the nomination of dartmouth college ofjim kim who was the head of the world bank. in 2005 he spoke to the u.n. about the hiv aids epidemic and the role of religious organizations in fighting the disease. here is a portion of his remarks. >> let me just say, if you call evangelical church is the american consorted organization, you can trace their participation in a number of ways. i credit them with bringing to the attention of president bush

and jesse helms and others the problem of hiv deaths in poor countries. they are the ones who who really pushed the republican politicians to move forward on those programs. they played an extremely important role in bringing attention of the number of deaths. they were losing their missionaries, the stars of their work, in poor countries. i commend them on that. in terms of the role of conservative organizations in areas like prevention, what we know is that we will never really know for sure exactly what particular intervention led to a particular change in a person's behavior. and so, what we recommend is that the full range of prevention interventions must spare this is abstinence message and, certainly for children. behavior change when it's relevant and can be helpful.

and condom usage. we know condoms prevent the spread of hiv. the actively -- very effectively. when you take one of those out, you are putting an individual at risk. so this is our position, are there particular conservative groups who want to focus more on one than the other, yes, there's no question there are groups and would like to see abstinence-only programs, to which we flatly say you can do that but you are really pulling three legs out from under the chair. >> vice-president joe biden campaigned today in coconut creek, florida, for the obama reelection campaign. they released excerpts of his speech this morning. the vice president is expected to say mitt romney, rick santorum, and newt gingrich all want to "end medicare as we know is."

you can see that speech live on c-span at about 12:15 eastern. the supreme court is hearing arguments next week on the constitutionality of the health care law. the arguments are set for a monday through wednesday. each day the court is releasing audio recordings of the arguments. you can hear the oral argument as it is released each day at about 1:00 p.m. eastern on our companion network c-span3 and on c-span radio and at c-span.org. once again, vice president joe biden on medicare and the two- year anniversary of the signing of the health care law. if that starts about 12:50 and we will have live. >> week schools may be a security threat. the report says the system needs an overhaul.

let's hear what condoleezza rice had to say about this report. >> if we are not the one nation, then we cannot defend one nation and we don't have the confidence and the unity and the optimism to do what we have done, which is to go out into the world and to advocate for free markets and free peoples and to have that leadership role. but there are, also, some much more technical aspects to this or tangible aspects to this. first, we're not educating the people in science, math, engineering, and basic reading skills to take on the jobs that

are available in the 21st century so that we have the competitiveness and innovativeness to continue to lead. condoleezza rice cochaired a task force that looks at the u.s. schools system and whether a week school system could be a threat to national security. ."re's the "washington times looking at a couple other stories that covered this --

let's hear from kevin joining us on the independent line. caller: thanks for having me. i am an educator and a special educator. i will be honest, as an independent with no party affiliation, i think that it's a very big problem. our government right now is using education as a political tug-of-war, if you will. one of the biggest problems that i see is that we give so many "rights" to students, and they fail to understand that we don't live in a democracy, we live in a republic. those rights are for it to us by

our parents. they don't know how our government works. they have the internet at the tip of their fingers, but they don't research any of it to find credibility. they don't want to follow the rule. there's no money really to support the discipline situation in the classroom and in the hallways. host: since you are an educated, what would you do not? what should change? caller: as an independent, i get a lot of grief from a lot of people that i know that some say i am too conservative and the other side says i am liberal. one thing i would like to see -- and i get a lot of grief over it -- is the pledge of allegiance

back in the classroom. people don't. after saying it but it would be respectful for them to a knowledge the fact they live in a country that grants them rights -- not freedoms. -- people don't have to say the pledge. we live in a country of rights as long as our behavior does not impact other people's rights. it is not you get to live however you want to. if you get to live however you like as long as it does not intrude or take away the rights of somebody else. there's no respect anymore. host: let's listen to a tweet -- our next caller is larry, a democrat in mississippi. hi there. caller: good morning. rick santorum called the

president's a snob's for wanting the country to be well- educated. so, yes, it is a threat. but it is rick santorum and the republicans, they don't believe the country should be educated. he called the president is not. he is the biggest hypocrite i have seen. -- he called the president a snob. host: lead skoda blue oaks on our republican line -- let's go to luke on the republican line. caller: if you have children not being educated, they are not brought up correctly and in a culture that prioritizes freedom and individual rights, you have more people likely to return to radicalism in an attempt to solve these problems. there is the link between poverty and education and between party and radicalism.

there's a definite link between the strength of american schools and the strength of american security. host: a tweet -- of's listen to more condoleezza rice, what she had to say on the panel report that has come out that cites a big education system as a potential national security risk. here is dr. rice. >> we know that we have difficulties in recruiting into the military from across socioeconomic strata because of the failure to educate to the level that the military needs. not to mention in foreign languages or cultures, so that we have a ready group of people for the foreign service 44 intelligence agency is. pink of the computer literacy that it takes to contribute to the problems in cybersecurity and critical infrastructure protection. across the board, and human potential is what makes a nation

great today. it is not what you can dig out of the ground like it was in the 19th century. it is not what you can manufacture a long and assembly line as it was in the 20th century. it is human capital. the key to human capital is education. and that is why we believe that national security is indeed affected by the difficulties that our education system experiences. --t: here's a tweet louis, a republican in philadelphia, pennsylvania. we are talking about the education system and a new report says a big educational system could threaten national security? what do you think? caller: my position on the school issue is we need to go back to the three-tier program. when i was coming up, children

had a choice. as it stands now, the country is moving the kids to do directly into college. some of the kids incentive is not to go that far. they want to come out with a career, a job, a vocation. nowadays we have -- in my day we had an academic level, a general level, and a trade level. if we could choose which level we wanted and which career path. today? they don't have that. as a result, you don't have entry-level anything unless you go to college. and then the colleges are not too the generalized --if they make it that far. the high school dropout rate is high and bullying is high. my position is that we should go to a three-tier program for the schools and allow kids when they get the middle school and high- school to be able to choose their career path and then have

the curriculum to meet those career paths so kids can come out and go to work instead of trying to figure out what they can do next. that's my position. i have talked a lot of school people in the district and all they do is advocate college. every kid does not want to go to college. on theet's hear from jay independent line from louisville, ky. caller: good morning. one of the big problems that never seems to be addressed is there's an idea in our culture and it goes across all ethnic groups, being cool, especially with young males is that you cannot be educated. they turn away from education because they want to be cool. it's been like that about 40 years now. but all i have to set. host: what can be done a vowed that? caller: i don't know. somehow or another they need to open up to the fact that being

cool is not going to get you anywhere in life. host: did you have good role models when you're growing up who promoted education? caller: 0, yes. i had my interests in stuff and i stayed with the books, unlike some of my friends. host: i hear the birds chirping in the background in louisville, sounds like a spring day. caller: i'm standing on the front porch. host: lead skodtodd in georgia n our independent line. caller: i'm a high school erly.tor form we don't teach them enough about the way the government works. there's a class in ninth grade that most kids in georgia state. it is called sixth.

we have a test at the end of the course and that the only social studies is u.s. history and economics. a lot of the kids are coming into our school and they hit them real fast with the civics and they have forgotten by the senior year. they forget all about how the government runs, the senate and house and the judicial system and exactly what the president does. that's real important. that's more important to our national security on how our government runs than math and science. that's my opinion. host: let's look at a global scorecard in the washington journal, looking at where the u.s. stance compared to other countries in educating its students. this is ranking the performance of 15-year-old every three years.

we're talking about the american school system, a new report that has come out. the council on foreign relations looking at u.s. education and now snow satirically -- and national security. there's a tweet -- let's go to new york, new york on the democrats' line. caller: hello. if we are a nation that is failing to teach critical thinking skills and we have become cab service nation now as opposed to one that is performing, inventing, servicing

and developing other skills other than a service nation. for example, in addition, the has beenh -- verizon giving instructions for their company on the telephone in english and spanish, yet our youngsters are not being taught foreign language until they are in seventh grade. by age 12 the brain no longer is able to take on a foreign language to be able to be fluent in it, while other nations teach their children for language from the time they are born. i think that we have to have a revision of what our country is doing in terms of teaching the

critical pinking skills. the ga-- thinking skills. the gap between public and private schools is getting much wider. host: let's look at the wall street journal story -- that touches on something our last caller had to say. butwayn is on wayne is in indiana, for twain on our republican line. caller: i was born and raised in new york city and went to catholic school. a i i always got a's.

i came home crying to my mother saying they are all morons. the government should never be involved in the education of our children. it is an adamant failure. thehe 1950's the u.s. had number one educational system in a world. we have gone backwards. i remember watching my buddies that lived in the inner city, we would go into the schools and they would the teachers are afraid to teach and it is all imploding on them. the only way we're going to get this back is to allow teachers the individual rights to teach their children. corporal punishment should be in the schools. until we go to that, we're going to have a failure.

the kids do not even know who the president is. in my kids' school, they eliminated cursive writing so that they could tweet and all of this. >> wayne is advocating state control of the educational system. here is an article with arne duncan defending an increase in school funding. we will be hearing more about the ryan budget plan later on

with congressman tom cole walking us through that plan. here is secretary arne duncan advocating for education funding. let's hear from jackie. caller: good morning. thank you for taking my call. i wanted to call in agreement with the gentlemen who spoke earlier about the three tier system. i am a retired high school teacher. before you can teach, you have to have them in the seats. lots of technical classes, students may be did not want to go to college but maybe wanted to learn some type of shop class. if students were allowed to

learn the kinds of things they want to pursue, this would allow educators to persuade them to be interested in some of the other subjects. the other set -- the other thing is that if you do not have parental involvement and the parents involved in exactly what the students are doing, there is nothing the teachers can do. of course we do not have corporal punishment. we do not have anything that seems to deter the students from not participating. guesthost: laura on twitter agrs with part of what you had to say. we are talking about a new report from the council on foreign relations talking about the american education system. it says a week education system

could be a threat to national security. the school chancellor had this to say about the length of the united states school day. >> it used to be we had a 9:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m. day, 180 days a year, and the thought was that the kid would go out and work on the farm. the idea that we're going to accomplish the things secretary rice was talking about and have a short school day and a short school year it does not make sense. schools are starting to crack the code. we just need more time on task to accomplish the things she was talking about. host: talking about the length of the school day and the length of the school year. caller: i am so happy to be here to talk this morning. if you put the kids in all the

countries that are doing better than us in our school system, they would still do better than us. our schools are not bad. we know that teachers spend money every year on supplies. 50% of black kids and hispanic kids drop out. the problem is us. i taught at catholic schools in brooklyn. you have to have a meeting with a parent. you have every single kid in class. the parent comes up and says, my boy would not do that. my girl would not do that. we talk about the '50s. we do not need corporal punishment. like every other kid, i did not want to go, but my parents

impressed upon me that i was going to school whether i like it or not. i was getting an education. i am a lawyer now. i taught for two years in the schools. the kids do not understand how important it is to their future. i go to a drive through and see these kids. if you do not finish high school, that is where they're going to be, the drive-through window. two hispanic and african- american parents, if you want your kids to do well, you have to get it through their head how important it is. if the parents would read to their kids one hour, one hour. you can spend $10 billion a kid. it is not going to change anything. host: do you think this comes down to race or class?

caller: i think it is worse in hispanic -- and i just mean the number of kids not finishing school. i think it is across the board. my niece teaches in public schools in new york. it is all kids throughout society. it is us. parents are not -- we say it is about teachers. do they not work hard enough? are they not trying to do the best job? can no parent in it that their kid might be the problem? not spending enough money? we spend twice as much money as every other country and we get such bad results. it is not because teachers are not trying. it is not because we do not have the funds.

it is because we do not value education. host: let's look at the response the teachers union had to this report. six members of the task force had additional and dissenting views from the majority of the report, including randy weingarten, president of the teachers union. while endorsing the report, she criticized it for placing undue responsibility for improvement on the teachers. good morning. please go ahead. caller: it is the responsibility of parents to educate their children. our public education system is dismal because it is based on

the communist manifesto. the idea is to socialize children. the longer children spend in schools, the less their values are held intact. they are taught a godless ideology. they are, sexualized. -- homosexualized. they are taught insensitivity to abstinence and that abortion is acceptable. i'm offended that secretary rice would come out and start pushing this when she knows that education is not the responsibility of federal government. we really need to get education back to the homes and the families so that we can retain our values and stock becoming -- stop forcing ourselves to force servitude where obama can force

us into community service and build his army. obama is a snob and his whole agenda is pushing us in that direction. host: here are three recommendations the panel made about boosting education performance. students should have more choice in where they go to school. government should develop a national security readiness audit to determine whether schools are meeting targets. the new report that has come o from the council on foreign relations. chicago, illinois, cynthia is on the independent line joining us. caller: hi. i believe this is a political ploy.

1% of the school population serbs in the military. usually, the military is comprised of tse that cannot find jobs, at least the army. 50% of the military is african- americans. those accepted at college are kept at record low numbers. second, education is not the responsibility of the government. here's another thing, foreigners who are not even fluent in english and did not go to our school systems, those are the ones that have jobs. especially, hispanic immigration, those are the ones that have jobs. speaking of universal langge where elish is a security threat. . that's my host: milwaukee, wisconsin, vi, democratic caller.

caller: hi. the collapse of public schools has a lot to do with the -- program. they took money out of state programs. $800 million was taken from our schools this year. that's a big deal. the kids are expected to get a primary education. it will not happen. another thing, poverty is at all-time high and there are not any jobs for the people. and so, all this mixture of just poor living, no jobs, this has taken a toll on the education system. you cannot expect thteacher to be able to be the mother, be the

social worker, do everything and still sustain the level of education that you are supposed to be providing to the child. host: do you see it as a threat to national security, having a big ramifications for the united states, going? caller: not just globally in th . at this rate you will see a revolution in the streets. people were not built to sustain themselves. you cannot keep giving them pennies when it costs more than that to live. that's where the frustration level will go high and there wille some type of resistance. host: let's look at some comments on facebook --

you can join the facebook dialogue by looking for c-span and weighing in there. and we are reading your and tweets. jan says on twitter -- we are talking about national security and whether a week education system threatens that. condolzza rice and joel klein co-chair task force that looked at the issue for the council on foreign relation let's hear more on what secretary rice said. >> it can be too easy to say i can send my kids to a good school. eager private school or i will move to an area where they will be in a good public school, but it really is a threat to allf us. if a child in east oakland is not educated or the kid in south central los angeles or

anacostia. that means we have a collective national interest in the education of all of our children. host: condoleezza rice. let's hear from kathleen dayt, ohio, independent caller. welcome. caller: thanks for getting on this topic. until we look at the education system as the response ability of teachers, parents, and the community, it is not going to improve. i want to talk about funding in ohio to the schools. our supreme court in the state has determined three times that the way we fund our schools in ohio, which is unfair based on taxes, because in oakwood, ohio, if the kids have a 11th thousand dollars spent on them. in an urn area. in apalachicola, it might be 6000. when the kids start on an even playing field as far as funding

and in regard to a teacher pay, how do we expect them to get ahead? but i want to talk about national security. i think it's a greater national security issue when our country uses people like condoleezza rice for such an issue, because she was part of the team that got us into iraq. in regard to national security, i would not trust or base anything in our country based on the individuals who lead our nation into war. i don't know why the mainstream media keeps recycling these iraq warmongers. host: what you think about the rest of the folks on that panel, joel klein from the new york city public school system, and the head of the american association of teachers? do you respect what they have to say more? caller: i do respect brandywine garden. part of her agenda is unions and i think teachers should make a good salary.

i would have a greater respect for a lot of teachers being on the panel. i know that condoleezza rice is teaching at stanford, but i don't trust people who already lied. i don't know joel klein. parents are struggling. i had a friend that was teaching in new orleans 40 years ago. they used to do after-hool programs for parents. they would find that a lot of parents were embarrassed in regard to their own skills and embarrassed in working with their kids, so they would not admit they were struggling. so they did a program for parents who were behind on certain issues. i thought that was wonderful and it made a lot of sense. help educate the parents who might feel frustrated about trying to help their own children. host: adams writes on twitter --

couple other a stories in the news. u.s. jobless claims hit four- year lows -- green jobs accounted for 2.4% of the nation posted total employment in 2010. the labor department reported on thursday. this was from the washington post.

ben bernanke says lower rates did not fuel the bubble. the fed chairman said it was several reasons -- looking at the campaign trail, the financial times has a piece that says the tea party patriarch gives romney support.

the race move to louisiana, which folks there go to the polls on saturday. louisiana stays cool on romney -- "usa today" says the louisiana gop actually matters this time.

let's hear from our next caller. it's from missouri, and independent caller. len. good morning, sir. caller: what i want to talk about is a lack of prayer in schools and the lack of the pledge of allegiance and the lack of the teacher being able to control the kids. host: how do you think that is feeding into a national security? caller: if you cannot control the kids, make them mind and learn, then they are not going to know what to do when they get older. i am 83 years old and i was in the second grade and there were seven boys that got whipped about every other day by art teachers. th we went home and got whipped by one of the parents.

the parents all got together and decided that us seven the should stay in school until we learned to mind, in the second grade. so we spent the second year in the second grade and we were perfect angel the second year. nowadays the parents cannot even punish their kids and home, even though they don't hurt them. host: you think that helped you? caller: that helps kids learn respect, responsibility, and makes better citizens out of them. host:len talked about wanting to see god in the schools more. but here's a different viewpoint from twitter -- dallas, texas, fred, republican joining us now caller.

caller: good morning. i have two children in education. i'm 70 years old. i live in texas, grew up in california. with the failing of t families, the school started going down. mostly blacks and mexicans. if you look at the white or asian populations, most of them are doing fine. but when you have an 80% illegitimacy factor for blacks and now mexicans are 80%, of which 80% of those go on welfare, those kids do not learn to self-contained on anything. their parents feel entitled, the kids feel entitled. i have won the child who is a principle. the two children that are teachers, one of them is a history teacher and the other is an art teacher in san jose, california.

they have problems with these kids. the main problems the parents. kids all start off equal. i don't believe black kids or mexican kids all white kids -- everybody is born with the same facilities. but the failure of the family. white people are at 28% illegitimacy. that is where the bcks started in the 1960's. they were at 28% illegitimacy. when they started welfare, it destroyed these families. when i was young, mexicans in southern california, there were no problems with illegitimacy. the families were tight. people came here and learned to speak english and stuff like that. they don't even do that now. host: let's look at a piece in "the huffington post" that gives information --

charleston, south carolina, john is on our democrats line. caller: hello. i am so glad you gave the information to the last caller in reference to to welfare rates. it is a big misconception that blacks don't educate our kids, we don't care, we are a bunch of welfare recipients. that is not true. we do educate our kids, we do care. there are more whites that create violent acts in schools like shootings. basically, we have to t together.

i am in south carolina where the policies, basically, cut off opportunities for blacks. there are more schools that zone blacks into white areas to educate when they could use the funding to build up the black primary schools and high schools. we see that allied. -- a lot. the black schools are being diminished and black students are forced into areas where they are uncomfortable. that causes some type of inferiority complex with these black students. it is a lot that goes on. host: can i ask you something? do you see this as being a national security threat? how do you see the u.s. performing globally?

caller: well, we have to work together as a country. this is a melting pot. if our kids are being discriminated against, not receiving the same, then we are not going to be able to come together as a country to fight any kind of global threat, because we are too separated. host: thanks for your comment. bill on twitter - our last call for this segment comes to us from norman, oklahoma, karen, a republican. caller: good morning. i am not going to go with black, white, mexican, because it is happening to everybody. but the government is tching our kids that if you hava baby when you are a teenager or get a

girl pregnant, you can have free housing, food, everything you needed, cell phone. so ty don't really care about education when they have kids. they don't have any incentive for kids either, when they have kids. how it is threatening our security is we are sending so much money on teenagers and their babies and it takes away from our military. at least the military gets up and goes to work ery day. for the lady that says they cannot sustain themselves and they will go to the streets, don't have nine children if you cannot get by on what the taxpayer gives you. host: one of our listeners wrote on twitter --

>> live pictures from florida this afternoon. we are expecting remarks from vice president joe biden. he is campaigning today at a retirement community in coconut creek, florida. he is expected to talk about the president's accomplishments and a two-year anniversary of the health care law. while we wait, a discussion on insurance affordability and the number of uninsured in the u.s.

guest: as far as research goes, there is a little bit of uncertainty as far as getting this number down. there is a big difference between adults and children, so the percentage overall, about 17% of the population represents a higher portion of adults than children. host: tell us where these people are. where they are living. guest: i think the starting point is to think about people near poverty versus people who are poor. four people near poverty, the safety net has not covered them. the medicaid program does a

pretty good job of covering children. not so good a job for their parents. for childhood, not so well at all. a lot of the uninsured at or near poverty are adults with out children who are not eligible for the medicaid program. if you think about non-poor people, it is really a story about them not obtaining private health care coverage, which has a whole different reason. host: the center for disease control looked at the number of uninsured americans. at the time they did this, there were 47 million americans. 60 million had gone without insurance for some time during the year. the statistics range a little

bit because it is tough to figure some of these numbers out. let's look at the cdc graphics. you can see how these numbers go. uninjured during the time of the interview for at least part of the year and then more than a year. 40.9% were covered by public coverage. 53% or covered by private coverage. when you get into adults, 15.8% were covered by public funds and 15.4% or covered by private funds. tell us more about that. guest: public coverage tends to be people at or near poverty. the medicaid program started with a mission geared toward

covering low-income families. over time, eligibility has expanded. it is a little confusing to understand eligibility. the federal government provides the bulk of the funds but state governments determine eligibility and it differs in terms of how many kids they cover going up the income scale. the medicaid program is geared toward low-income children and not so much childless adults. host: let's get right to the fun and hear from nicole in kentucky on our -- to the phone and hear from the: kentucky on our independent line. caller: my kids are on k-chip. their father is a veteran. when he got out of the military, a lot of veterans were promised

to get their compensation and their medical. my husband has been out now for six years. we are having to fight in a class-action lawsuit where these men were in the military and their families were promised a have coverage and here we have to go without it and put our children on stay provided insurance because the government does not do what they say they're going to do. we can go and fight for our country and my has been can sit in jail right now for not handing over his veterans compensation. i do not understand the government and why any of us should be going without medical insurance right now. guest: you raise great points. we do have a very fragmented health care system with private health insurance for the bulk of the population, but private

insurance varies depending on whether you work for a large firm, a small firm or are self- employed. we have medicare and medicaid. then we have military insurance for active service members and then the va, the veterans administration that provides health care benefits for veterans. i think state governments, federal governments, employers have been struggling with rising health care costs and struggling to provide needed care for people. host: a question about under- insured americans. what percentage do the under- insured play into this. how many have insurance that does not cover what they need? guest: that is a tough one to answer. there is no classic definition for under-insurance.

under-injured -- researchers tend to try to measure that by having -- >> we are leaving "washington journal" to go live to coconut creek, florida. vice-president joe biden is campaigning at a retirement community there. he is expected to speak about the president's accomplishments and the two-year anniversary of the health care law. >> good morning, everyone. in your congressman, and it is great to be back. how does everyone feel today? are you fired up? is everyone excited that the vice president of the united states is right here with us today? i want to thank you for joining us on this incredibly important day.

how many of you remember, two years ago today, the president signed into law affordable, accessible health care? how many of you will ever forget that? today is about the history that was made that day, but it is also very much about our future. because if the other guys get their way, we are headed right back to the failed policies of the past. you have heard them. you have heard them on the campaign trail and in congress. it is all the same. what do they say about social security that you depend on? let it go bankrupt. what do they say about the medicare that you need? let it go bankrupt. what do they say about the new health care lot? let it go bankrupt. and what do they say about florida seniors? let them go bankrupt too. you know what is bankrupt?

their ideas. it is up to us to protect the change we fought so hard for four years ago. is up to us to keep the promises, protect the promises that president obama and vice president biden kept and the change they delivered for kids, for working families, for women, and for all of the seniors in this community. if we do not get to work today, today, if we do not get fired up this year, then the historic health care law and all of these great strides forward, those will be history. that is what we are here for today, and it is my great privilege and my great honor to introduce someone who stands up for our values every day, who works tirelessly on behalf of floridians, who stands up for all americans, who stands up as the leader of the democratic

party, my great friend and neighbor, the chair of the dnc, debbie wasserman schultz. [applause] >> thank you so much. thank you. it is great to be here. wonderful to be home. thank you so much. really, please give another round of applause to my friend and your fantastic representative in the u.s. house, ted deutsche. let me tell you, i am so proud and so privileged to be able to stand in the chamber of the u.s. house of representatives, standing with ted deutsche, fighting side-by-side on behalf of seniors, on behalf of working families and the middle class every single day. this community and ted's district was so smart and so wise to send him to represent you in the united states capitol. thank you so much.

good job. i am so excited, so thrilled to be able to be home, here with the president -- vice president of the united states in our community to talk about the tremendous progress we have made. it has been three years since president obama and vice president biden were collected and hand it the worst set of problems of any administration since fdr. really. they said about tackling them one by one. we have gone from bleeding 750,000 jobs per month thanks to the failed policies of the past. three years later, we have had 24 straight months of growth in the private sector and we have focused on the middle-class and working families. we have a fighter alongside president obama in the vice president of the united states. joe biden and his more than 40 years of public service.

it is remarkable. from the time he was 29-years old, joe biden has made a commitment to help improve the quality of life of all americans. he has been in there scrapping, scraping and standing up for working families. he is a full partner with this president. through history, vice presidents have seen the ups and downs. some of them are fully embraced by the united states president. others are kind of swept under the rug or put in a corner. vice president biden was selected by the president and land with the president and serves with the president as a fault -- ran with the president and serves with the president as a full partner and advisor, a companion and a friend. he is a friend to all of us here in florida. it is wonderful that he is here with you.

i'm so excited, so thrilled that we are here and the vice president is here on the two- year anniversary of the affordable care act being signed into law. that is a big deal and very personal to me. many of you know that in a breast cancer survivor. in 2007, i became one of job loss away from being uninsured and uninsurable like so many survivors before me. the affordable care act lifted that burden, lifted that angst ine the survivors like m shoulders. but more importantly, for me as a representative of this community, a representative of thousands of senior citizens, a representative who has stood on line behind seniors in my district at the drugstore when the pharmacist brings them their

prescription and five or six come to the counter and they can only take two or three of them home because they are too expensive because of the dreaded donut hole, because of the ridiculous gap in coverage in the medicare prescription drug plan that now will finally be close thanks to the affordable care act. [applause] 3.6 million seniors have already seen a reduction in those prescription drug costs, an average of 600 four dollars in savings. that is incredibly important. it is incredibly important that we ensure that we continue to transform medicare from a sick care system. i mean, what too many senior is talk about -- what to many seniors talk about? how many of you talk about your next doctor's appointment and needing to get that pain checked

out? this affordable care act has made medicare a wellness program instead of basic care program. because now you are entitled to a free wellness' visit. you can go and get a check up just because you want to make sure that you can go and stay well. that is what we should be doing with health care in this country and tanks to president obama and vice president biden, we are doing that, finally, finally. let me just tell you, we have a lot is -- we have all lot at stake in this election because mitt romney and my republican colleagues in congress want to reverse all that. they want to pull the affordable care act up by root and branch and completely repeal it and replace it with nothing. they want to take us back to the time when insurance company

bureaucrats will be making decisions about what kind of care you can have. this week they revealed, by reintroducing the rhine and budget plan, which -- ryan budget plan, which mitt romney fully embraced, at 2 and medicare as we know it -- to end medicare as we know it. that is unacceptable, and president obama and vice- president biden will continue to fight to ensure that that safety net will be there for you forever. that is why i am so proud to stand with the president and the vice president every single day as the chair of the national committee. i can tell you as someone who represents a very large population of senior citizens, we will never let you down.

we will fight along with the president and the vice president every single day to ensure that the safety net for seniors, the medicare program is preserved. we will never again let you go back to the time when seniors could become medically bankrupt, to the time when children had to worry about how they were going to care for their aging parents because they could not care for themselves and health care was not there for them. that is why we have to make sure we do everything we can for the next to under 27 days to send barack obama -- 227 days to send barack obama and joe biden back to the white house. now it is my great privilege to introduce the most important person in the room. and i think the vice president will agree with that, because it is not the vice president. it is harold. i want to make sure that one of our favorite residence, harold

goldberg, who is a passionate advocate for making sure that we have medicare preserved and a safety net for our senior citizens, and who is committed to the reelection of the president and the vice-president of the united states. it is my privilege to introduce your friend, harold goldberg. >> good afternoon, everyone. it is an honor to be here and to introduce president biden. my name is harold goldberg. i have lived here for 18 years. for the past six years, i've served as the volunteer president of this community. as someone who has won a tough election or two, and as a native of pennsylvania, i think the vice president and i have a lot in common. some of the other things we have

in common are even more important. we share the belief that health care should be a right in america, a right for all, not just for the wealthy few. we both believe it is wrong that you could go broke just because you got sick, and we are grateful that two years ago barack obama signed into law historic changes that are right in what is wrong. the law is already helping millions of our grandkids, wives and daughters. as many of us know, it is also making a huge difference for seniors. one of the most important ways it is helping us is by closing the doughnut hole. that means a lot to me. like most of us, i have had some

aches and pains over the last few years. i take prescriptions for some breathing issues, and i use the patch to relieve some arthritic pain. the bills were adding up, and those patches would cost me $200 down at public. as you might imagine, i was happy to hear my insurance would cover it, but only for so long. we all know why. the doughnut hole. the last time i went to the pharmacy, i asked how close i was to hitting the limit. we figured out my insurance would cover the medicine until about may or june, just a couple more months, and then for the rest of this year, i will be on my own. that is why i will be spending the rest of this year fighting

to reelect president obama. [applause] the health care law he signed is already saving seniors money on our prescriptions. when it is fully up and running, law will close's the down a hole completely. -- donut hole completely. when the other guys talk about repealing health reform, what they really mean is that they will reopen the doughnut hole completely. what they mean is when the going gets tough, we are on our own. that would hurt almost everyone here. it would hurt a whole lot of folks in florida. it would hurt a lot of seniors all across america. it is going to be a tough fight, and i am glad we have vice-president biden in our corner. trust me.

i am originally from philadelphia. we think we are tough, but we have nothing on this man. when he goes out there and fights, he is fighting to protect our economic security and our health security. he is fighting for the fairness president obama signed into law two years ago. it is my great honor to introduce him to you now. please join me in welcoming the vice president of the united states, joe biden. [applause] >> thank you very much. thank you. by the way, my speech is coming

in launder. thank you very much, and my colleagues. i understand a state senator is here in a state representative is here. thank you very much for being here. folks, this is the second of four speeches that i will be making this spring on what is at stake from our perspective, what is at stake for the middle class in this election. the issue i'm going to focus on today, with your permission, is retirement security. but i have to tell you, i come at this issue of retirement security from a slightly different angle, a slightly different perspective than it is usually talked about. my dad used to have an expression. when someone would say, this is what i value. my dad would say, do not tell me

what you value, show me your budget, and i will tell you what you really value. like many of you here, i had the privilege of having my mom and dad live with me in my dad's final months and my mom's final year. neither my siblings nor i -- just like when you had your parents and were helping them -- neither my siblings nor i could separate the security of my mom and dad from our own well-being. neither my siblings norite could separate the needs of our parents from the needs of our children. this is all family. this is all about -- it is not just seniors or the young. we talk about it like it is an either/or proposition. this is not who we are as people. this is not what we value. that is how our parents live

their lives and how we live hours. throughout my entire youth, there was never a time in my 3- bedroom home where one of my parents relatives did not live with us, like many of you as you grew up, because there was no alternative. that is what is missing in this debate today, the connective tissue, the notion that we are all in this together, every generation. every generation. there is no question that the baby boom generation, which i was at the front end of, puts incredible pressure on medicare and social security. the number of seniors will be doubling by the year 2040. so the question is, are we going to strengthen and sustained these programs now and for the future, or are we going to use these challenges -- it is a real challenge -- are we going to use

these challenges as a pretext to do what so many have been doing -- trying to do from the beginning, dismantle these programs? at the end of the day, we are all old enough, we have been around enough to know that it is not just what you hear, it is not just what you see, what you feel, what you taste, what your heart tells you, what your heart tells you about whether or not someone speaking to you means what they say. the one good aspect of growing older is that mechanism in us gets more acute. we understand better. the president and i believe that every american after a lifetime of hard work should be able to look forward to security and dignity that social

security and medicare provide. folks, it is about dignity. it is not just about health. it is about dignity. it is about our dignity. if we had any doubt about clarity of a choice, it just how high the stakes are in regard to both of these programs, we got a reminder a couple of days ago from a good man, a decent, smart guy, a guy named congressman ryan in the house of representatives. i disagree fundamentally with him, but this is a smart, decent guy. but they have a totally different view than the president and i have. this week congressman ryan reintroduced what was called the republican budget, embraced by every republican candidate for president and passed overwhelmingly by the

republicans in the congress. they voted for it. he and they made a clear choice. the choice they made was that in order to "save" the programs, they lowered the standards for those living on medicare rather than asking the wealthiest among us to help deal with the problem. you may remember the first ryan budget. nothing subtle about it. it dismantled medicare. within 10 years, it was a voucher system. it meant the average senior would be paying another $6,000 a year out of pocket for the medicare benefits they now receive. the reaction of the nation was not very subtle either. so after an overwhelming rejection of last year's ryan republican budget plan, they went to draw up a new one. but if you take a look at it,

they really did not change anything they are trying to do. if he did not change much in the substance, what changed? what is the difference between these two budgets? it is the way they talk about it. literally, the way they talk about it. and do not take my word for it. all of you are adept with computers. go online to an outfit called politico.com.com and read an article that says, "how paul ryan sold his budget plan." he sold it to his republican colleagues by telling them there is a new way to talk about it without getting hurt politically. he told them, he told his colleagues that they could win

this debate this time with essentially the same plan if, " you use the right, poll-tested words." now again, i do not take my word for it. look at the article. he said if you use words like " bipartisan," use phrases like " fix medicare," and use words like "choice," the american people will not punish you for this plan. but we are not about to be fooled. i have more faith in the american people than i think our republican colleagues to for being able to cut the meat from the chaff here and see what is going on. the vast majority of the american people know there is a fundamental difference between

us and the republicans on this issue. we believe and strengthening medicare and they don't. make no mistake about it. the republicans in congress and their amen corner of romney, santorum and gingrich, if any of them get the keys to the white house, i promise you, you'll see medicare and did as you know it. and it isit is not just about m. it is about the other benefits for seniors that they want to undo. we passed a lot to close a doughnut hole. a significant portion is closed already, but it will be fully closed when this law comes into effect in 2014. saving the average senior with high drug costs $600 just this last year alone. that will increase. they want to repeal it. they simply say they want to repeal it. repast the law to provide per of

preventive services. i can remember sitting there, and thank god my mother had at least two financially successful children -- not me. [laughter] we would go up and get my mom's prescription spirit we had to literally lie to her and say all the savings covered everything. my mom did not want her children having to make sacrifices. we all chipped in about $6,000 a month all told. not only that, at the very end when my mom needed some care, she needed somebody there just to help her with her large as she got toward the end. but my mom, it was all about her pride. show me my checkbook. and my brother rick quickly run into deposit more money in my mom's checkbook. [laughter] because -- because she had

dignity that she wanted to preserve. [applause] this is about what these guys do not get. it is more than whether or not my mother and father got the care they needed. it was how they got the care they needed. i build a new house -- we sold the house we had and we build another house. on the ground floor, i build a whole suite for my mom and dad. they would not move in. joey, my whole life i had someone living with me, which was a great asset for her kids -- my whole life, but i am not born to do that to her kids. you all know it. you feel it. you tasted. everyone of you feels that way. what do they want to do? the want to go in and tell my

mother to get a checkup. she knew it would cost 20%. she would have to pay to get that check up. but she did not want to ask her kids. obviously if we knew, we would work out something with a doctor before hand, but she did not want to ask the kids. how many of you wonder whether or not that thing that just happened to you -- is it a harbinger of something more serious? just want to go and ask the doctor. folks, these guys want to repeal all that. in the process, i would argue, they will be repealing that sense of dignity, which is an incredible part of what this is all about. they want to repeal all -- they want to repeal all the things that i have mentioned.

the end result is you are going to have to pay at least $600 more year for your drugs, 20% more for your visits to the doctor. you're going to have traditional medicare change, as you know. look, we would be so much better off as a country if we spend a lot less time and energy planning of these efforts to dismantle medicare. and i mean it dismantle it. we need a little more time together. democrats are working on how to figure out how to preserve medicare. we can make medicare solvent again. we do not have to gut it. look, in our health care law, we already extended the life of medicare and its solvency to the year 2024 just buy one thing. we have uncovered and recovered over $10.7 billion just since we have been in in waste, fraud,

and abuse that we put back into the system. our republican colleagues to join us, we could reduce the cost of medicare by $100 billion just by doing one thing. saying drug companies cannot charge medicare any more than they charge any other federal program. [applause] saying they cannot charge our elderly any more than they charge our veterans. that is $100 billion. we could save another $20 billion by asking the very wealthiest of us, those who could easily afford health care, if they had retirement incomes that are significant, to pay a little more. that would add another $20 billion. look, there is a lot more we can do to save this program, but it requires someone on the other side wants to preserve the system, really cares about preserving it and not gutting it. look, we are preparing to sit down -- the president and i, sit

down and work with our republican colleagues. you may remember we talked about the biden budget talks with the republicans. we talked about all these things. but not one single thing was able to get done. but if you do not start from the premise that this program, this program, medicare, must be preserved in its current form. look, folks, social security. social security is in better shape. but here again, republicans have an approach on social security that they say "saves social security for the next 75 years." and they do it by cutting the benefits. some salvation. a plan like the one that governor romney has introduced would cut social security benefits for your kids and your grandkids, cut by $2,400 a year for a double co-worker in their 40's. it would cut by $4,700 social

security coverage anyone working in their 20's would get by the time they retire. here is the thing that nobody has really noticed, governor romney and the rest of supported a thing republican leaders called cut, cap, and balance. they call it cut, cap, and balance. another one of those new republican party plans which are probably the right-tested words. cut, a cat, and balance. except nobody knows what it really means. nobody knows exactly what they intend. because like so many of the most damaging things, it looks and sounds innocuous, so let me cut through -- no pun intended, and tell you what it means in plain english. the cuts are in the beginning cuts in social security

benefits. they will tell you, do not worry, you will not be cut. as a all you care about is yourself. and the thing that i get angry about, they look at people like you and me, and they think all we care about, after all you have done for the nation, all we care about is ourselves. after a lifetime -- a lifetime of you not a lakari for your cells but caring for all those people you love. caring for your community. [applause] they turn around and say as long as we tell you you will not be cut, you will not mind if your children -- she will not mind if your grandchildren -- you will not mind if you're young your neighbors and friends end up having to pay. they do not understand us. look, the cap they talk about is the cap on what they ask of the wealthiest americans, the top percentage of americans and what

they pay to make this country work. and the balance they talk about is the balance the budget on the backs of seniors and men across americans. why? so that they can preserve the this is not your father's republican party, guys. so that they can preserve a $1 trillion tax cut. a new $1 trillion tax cut for the wealthiest americans. that is not hyperbole, folks. that is not hyperbole. that is what this is about. governor romney supports a cut, cap, and balance. there is no daylight between governor romney and republican leaders on the most important issues facing this country. and not even romney's etch-a- sketch is going to change that. he might buy a new one, but he cannot do it. folks, we can resolve -- we can resolve the challenge that social security faces. we can do it in good faith. we did it before.

i was there. in 1983, it looked like social security was going to run out of money. remember? it was coming to an end. in 1983, i sat down in a room as one of the junior guys, leaders like republican bob dole, president ronald reagan, democrats like pat moynihan and tip o'neill, and we shook hands. we should hands. everybody gave something. we preserved the system through 2028. together we sell this for generations at that time. look, folks, you know in your gut what i know. it is about being willing to put politics aside, just for a moment. just put it aside for a moment. to preserve the single most significant and consequential government initiative in american history, social security. leg, some of you remember -- i remember. these two guys will not remember. [laughter] but some of you might remember.

we remember a day when we did not have social security. but remember a day when our grandparents did not have medicare. and remember what it meant. remember what it meant. we remember. look, what we need today is just a temporary -- like they say in grade school, a timeout. just a timeout. say, ok, what are we going to do to deal with preserving both these programs? and that is what is missing this time, folks. it was there in 1981, 1982, 1985, and 1989. because the republican party today is fixed on one thing, additional tax cuts for the very wealthy. we tried to put 400,000 teachers back to work and 18,000 cops back to work because city budgets are being crunched. we said we will have a tax on every dollar after the first $1

million you make. that would have paid for the whole thing. no republican would vote for that. millionaires were calling me saying they were for it. i come from the wealthy state of delaware. the people of there, the people knew theythe money, new should be paying just a little more than that. folks, these guys will not bunch a single engine on a $1 trillion problem. we know we have to bring our budget back into balance. was a democratic president who last balanced the budget, i will remind you. [applause] and folks, the day that president obama and i were sworn in, that they were sworn in, that magnificent day on january 20, looking out on a million people on the mall watching, we were handed that day a gigantic deficit and in the economy that was in free fall.

and we moved ahead. we moved ahead to get the economy moving again, but we also moved ahead to begin to cut the deficit. last year, with the help of my two colleagues, we cut spending by $1 trillion. we also made a deal with republican friends to cut it by another $1.2 trillion and set up as supercommittee. remember? what did they come up with? nothing. and we are on our way, on the cusp -- cousin of negotiating, i was doing most of the negotiation, for an agreement that would cut the overall deficit by something like $4 trillion. but republicans walked away from it. why? because they wanted to maintain every major tax cut for the very wealthiest and have them move in perpetuity. look, they want an additional $1 trillion in tax cuts. when you say that, it is like $1

trillion -- you cannot even calculate that. let me put it this way. of that $1 trillion, $813 million of that $1 trillion tax cut will go to households making over $1 million a year. 315,000 of the wealthiest families in america, average income $3.1 million a year, would get a $100,000 tax credit -- a tax break per year for the next 10 years. anybody're not asking very wealthy to change their standard of living. i am serious. we're not asking them to do anything they cannot do now. $3.1 million, you do not need another $100,000 to maintain your home, to drive your vehicle, to vacation where you want to vacation. but when we ask you to take a

20% cut or a 30% cut in your medicare or your social security or your children, that changes the standard of living. ladies and gentlemen, we do not think it is fair, and we do not think it is right. more importantly, we do not think it is in the interest of the economic growth of this country. the do you preserve medicare and fix social security and brought down the deficit or you spend another $1 trillion on tax cuts for the wealthiest. you cannot do both of these things. you cannot do both. and we refuse. we refuse to shift the burden and responsibility of putting america's fiscal house in order on the backs of those who will have to change their standard of living, who have played by the rules, who have worked hard all their life, and have earned their retirement benefits they are getting. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, like so many of you, i came from a

family where medicare and social security made a difference in the lives of the people i loved the most. i am not sure, as i said, that these guys remember what it was like when folks did not have medicare. but i can remember, a lot of you can remember. there was not -- it is not a time we want to go back to again. 17 million men and women would be struggling in poverty without social security. just that alone. before medicare, nearly half of all americans aged 65 lacked health care. one half of all americans lacked health care. these programs have afforded the elderly -- i do not like the word elderly anymore, man. i am not big on that word. [laughter] for years, i used to rip up the aarp books i got. but i am not ripping up my

social security checks. know what i mean? but i do not like elderly. those of us who are more mature. [applause] but i tell you what, it is about our independence. it is about the dignity everybody craves. they argue that cutting now is the only way to save programs for the next generation. i read an article in the paper today here about that. that is not how i see it. retirement is multi- generational. it is a matter that matters to your children. if you have a decent retirement, everyone of you, it matters to your children. because if you do not, your children feel obliged to step up. caring for a parent is a privilege and one that any honorable child would try to undertake. but for some families, it would come at an incredibly high cost. because they are struggling so

badly themselves. the cost for my family was de minimus because of the circumstance my mother's four children were in. because a lot of families, you know, they cannot get their kids to college, having trouble paying the mortgage, out of the job, and the added burden of looking at mom and dad and knowing they do not have the health care they need. they are having to make these choices that you talked about when you go into the drugstore. that is something that is multi- generational. and families are stretched thin. it forces hard choices. i say families. not when we are stretched thin. when our children as well are stretched thin. this is more than access to health care. it is about who we are pure the last thing my mother and father wanted to do was to be a burden to meet and my siblings. social security and medicare

helped them live independently right to the very end, preserved their dignity, and most temporarily from my father's perspective, their pride. so if they choose to cut social security and make vouchers for medicare, rather than asking for a shared responsibility for all, they're not saving the next generation. they are putting an incredible burden on the next generation. they are doing that right now. [applause] and to make it even harder for the middle-class at a time when we know if we want our economy to be strong, the middle class has to be strong. they are tearing the bonds that connect us generation-to- generation at the moment we should be strengthening those bonds. this year, you're going to make some choices about what you want, do you want to lead this country, and who will speak up for you and speak in the way you want on this and many other issues. on this issue, i ask you to do one thing, as i said at the beginning, when you look at

burke obama and me, when you look at our opponents, take our measure. i used to say as a kid, look me over. if you like what you see, vote for me. if not, vote for the other guy. but look this over. look into your heart. ask yourself the question after all these speeches are done -- who do you believe? who do you believe is genuinely committed to preserving the dignity of people in terms of their health care and other basic, basic ability to live? thank you all very, very much. i love you. thank you for having me. [applause] ♪ [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] ♪

♪

♪

primaryiana's president is tomorrow. the polls close at 9:00 p.m. eastern. you can get the results here on c-span and online at c-span.org. the campaign continues to washington, d.c., maryland, and wisconsin on april 3. then connecticut, delaware, new york, pennsylvania, and rhode island. and more primaries in the month of may. c-span will continue to bring you candidate speeches, rallies, and campaign events. >> on monday, the supreme court starts three days of hearings on the constitutionality of the new health care law. here the oral argument for yourself in its entirety as the court releases audio at around 1:00 p.m. eastern each day with coverage on c-span3 and c-span radio, and at c-span.org, listen and add your comments. coverage starts monday morning

with "washington journal" and continues through the day with the supreme court. then the oral arguments on c- span3. >> louisiana pose a republican presidential primary is tomorrow, as we said. today, and it romney campaigned in metairie, louisiana, talking about repealing the health care program president obama signed into law two years ago today. this is half an hour. >> thank you for getting up this >> i love you, too. good to chat with you about health care and "obamacare," but i would like to thank my chairman in the state. this time it is a winner. thanks to the lieutenant governor for welcoming here and introducing me here. i appreciate your support. it is important we get a

republican in the white house and get this country on track with a bright future, and i intend to be that a republican. this has been a great experience so far, and i hope it will continue to be so far through november. i have had the chance to meet everyday americans and learned a great deal about their lives, and you could not be more optimistic, actually in case inspired when you see americans in tough times. i am struck also by the results in illinois, a good win theere, puerto rico, and a few states as well. i was with illinois, and i met one couple that was talking about their lives. they have a couple kids in college, and mom stayed home to raise the kids, but now she has

decided to get out in the work force again, and they are living on a pretty thin margin, but she is working so her kids can go to college without having to amass massive loans. she is now taking time away from herself, going into the work force, and paying for her kids' education. it is remarkable what people will sacrifice for their kids and their future. i have met entrepreneurs of interest. one was an executive at an advertising agency, and decided to leave and start a business with his son. they make amplifiers for cars. that is what he and his son make, and they had to employees and that they had to lay off the other two employees and now they are doing it on their own.

he said he calculated what he has to pay in federal, state, real-estate tax, gasoline tax, and add it all up and concluded they spent 65% of what they make goes to the government in one level or another. that is not good news. [unintelligible] without the death tax, that is right. coming soon, i am afraid, to all of us. [laughter] imad another fellow who worked for the city of st. louis and he decided he did not want to work for the city, he wanted to be an entrepreneur. he said he has a few folks working for him, but the challenge he has is paying for the gas. he spoke about the gas that goes into the snow blower, but not much snow this year.

it is amazing to see people across this country what they are dealing with, struggling with, what their concerns all are, but very hopeful. people are on happily -- unhappy with what they see so far. gasoline prices have doubled, that that is massively larger. the president has doubled it. the president, by the end of his four years, will have put in almost as much debt on this country as all the prior presidents combined, and you have 24 million people out of work or underemployed. this presidency has been a failure. the centerpiece of this failure is this piece of legislation back here, "obamacare." you know the white house is not celebrating "obamacare" today. that is for a reason.

most americans want to get rid of it, and we are among those americans. i want to get rid of it, too. there are a lot of reasons for that, and you may have some you will add to this list, but i see some wearing a medical uniforms today, so you have additional reasons. interesting how many doctors are unhappy about "obamacare," how many are concerned not just about their own profession and their work, but also concerned that young people coming up through education ranks are not going to want to become doctors because of this. that is one of the great disadvantages "obamacare" represents. marco rubio said even if it were a perfectly -- piece of legislation, which cannot

afford $1 trillion of new federal spending. we learn from the cbo it is not just $1 trillion. it is more than double that. the advocates work wrong. "obamacare" is massively more expensive. we cannot afford more taxes. the president raised $500 billion in taxes to pay for " obamacare." you are thinking that just goes to the companies out there. those companies have to get paid for the products they sell and they will add to the products they sell the cost to the additional taxation. it is not a tax on their profits, but on sales. this goes directly to the price of the goods of all this to use products, and at some point or other, it all of us will. the president said when he was

pushing for this that if we wanted to keep the health care we had you would be able to do that. now we know by survey have gone out to employers and said, are you want to change things after a gets put into place? 30% of employers said they are going to drop the coverage for their employees. for those americans, who thought they were able to keep the health care they wanted, they are going to be surprised when their employer drops them from the health-care coverage they have had. this is a piece of legislation which is very different than what people were told when it was being sold by the administration, and it is one more reason why i think it needs to be repealed. we learned other things in the last few weeks. one was that the catholic church is being told that they have to provide insurance that covers morning after pills, sterilization, and contraceptives despite the fact

that these very features violate the conscience of the catholic church itself. the legislation not only is expensive, not only will cause people to lose their coverage they want in some cases, it intrudes upon religious liberty. it is amazing how things are wrong with it. i will tell you that i think the american people have taken a good hard look hard"obamacare," have seen in the additional taxes. i go to advance and i see signs being held up by members of the aarp and they say to not touch my medicare. i go up to them and say there's only one medicare -- one president in history who has cut 500 billion out of medicare, and that is your guy.

it is critical we replace -- we repeal it and replace it. it is not just repealing it. i am the only person in this race who has laid out what i would replace it with. i want to describe for you a couple things i would do that i think will improve our health care system and replaced " obamacare." you have heard i intend to get a waiver to all 50 states on day one. the president has been getting waivers the unions and friends and so forth that he has felt deserved a special deal, and they have gotten in. my idea is the people of america deserve that freedom and i will get them free from "

obamacare." you may ask how are you going to care for the people who are poor? i will return to the states the authority and responsibility that states have always had to care for their poor and their uninsured, and states will experiment, as was intended. we will learn from one another, we will have good plans and bad plants, which will compare them, and states will select those things that work best. there are differences between state. in my state, we at roughly 8% of our population uninsured. the solution for massachusetts is different from the solution for texas where 25% of the people are not insured. different states have created different approaches, and i will return to states the responsibility for caring for their uninsured, and i will take the medicaid dollars that normally come from washington with mandates and strings

attached and block grant that money back to the lieutenant governor and the state of louisiana and other states across the nation, so that those dollars they can care for their poor and they're uninsured in the way they think best. that is part one. second part, right now almost all people that have insurance are getting it from their employer. nothing wrong with that. a lot of folks like being able to do that. you might wonder, why is that i buy my car insurance result, but my health insurance comes from my employer? why the difference? a long time ago we decided to give corporations a tax deduction if they buy insurance for you. you do not get that deduction if you buy it for yourself. why is that? why is it you cannot buy your own insurance if you want to as opposed to getting it from your employer and get it under the same tax-advantaged basis that your employer gets? what i want it do is make sure

we prefer to individuals the opportunity to have the same tax advantage that companies get. i want small businesses, individuals, to be able to buy insurance on the same tax- advantaged basis that we currently can for employers. let's level the playing field. i happen to believe if we do that you will see greater competition between the insurers. they will find different types of policies that match the individual citizens. we will find -- have to allow this -- people buying short across state lines, like auto insurance. and we will have to focus on getting the cost of health care down. you might ask, how are you going to do that? insurance is a small part of the cost of health care. it the real cost of health care is the provider, a hospital,

nurses come all the people who provide us that health care. how do we get those costs down? i believe one way of doing that is to create greater incentives for us as patients, the people who receive health care, to shop around and to look for the best product ant the best price. i was with an orthopedic surgeon the other day, and he said, i found it interesting that when a person who has a health savings account comes to my office and i tell them they need to get an mri, they ask me, where they can get one at the best price. who will do them at a good low price? when i had people who come in that cannot have any stake in what the cost will be, who always -- already pass their deductible, they never ask me. they are going to go wherever, because they do not care what the price is. in our system in this country,

many times we did not care what the costs because we're not on to pay a dollar of it, and when we do not care what something costs, it is going to get more expensive. the people selling it us, if we do not care what it costs, they will like to get the price up, and as a result we find costs going up. instead of having the government come in and mandate price and cost control, i would like that individuals have a greater incentive to shop a round and to make this act more like a market. "obamacare" is the wrong direction. it substitutes government interests of this for the dynamics of individual responsibility, for individuals being able to pursue different options, and the dynamics of the free market. i believe in the marketplace, consumers pursuing their own

dreams, individuals being able limiter and choices. as i look at this administration i see "obamacare" as one example of a president pursuing his attack on economic and personal liberty. this nation and this economy is fuelled by freedom. free people pursuing their dreams, living their lives in the way they think best are what have driven america to be the most powerful nation economically and militarily on the planet. when the founders crafted the declaration of independence, they chose carefully their words. we were endowed by our creator with our rights, not by the state, not the king, and among the threats were the life, liberty, and the pursuit of japanese. -- and among those work life,

liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. we get to select our course in life. by virtue of that, people for hundreds of years have come to this place seeking opportunity, seeking a brighter future for their children, and by virtue of been doing that and coming here with this pioneering spirit, they built enterprises, had it internet -- innovations that changed the world. if you crash that come up by bureaucrats by pure cap, attacks by text not regulation by regulation, you crossed that innovative spirit. you crush what has driven america to the economic powerhouse of the world. that is what is happening. every innovation is the product of a dream, of someone who had an idea, and dreams are fragile things. this administration with its regulation and overwhelming burdens some lost creches dreams

and dreamers. we got to stop it, and restore to america the principles that made us the hope of the earth, and i will. you look at this administration's agenda, and virtually from david won everything they have done has made it harder for dreamers and innovators to purser economic liberty and freedom. whether it was proposing higher taxes. the president wants to raise the marginal tax rate to 40%. i told you about that guy making amplifiers, where he calculated the government takes 65% of what he makes. if it goes to 40%, it will go to 70% of what he makes. think of what that does to the entrepreneur oriurial spirit ins

country. if i'm one of the lucky ones to be successful, then the government wants 7% of what i make, so i might as well not do it. [unintelligible] you got to borrow the money anyway to do it, and then i got to pay that back, and if i am successful -- when you compare the risk with a return, people will not do it. that is what is happening. day in and day out i hear how regulators are crushing our capacity to develop energy resources. the regulators and the president said no to the keystone pipeline, bringing in oil from canada. now the president says he is

going to build the bottom half of that. let's connect it to the oil in canada. most people in this room did not give thought to something known as dodd-frank. you do not think it affects you all on a direct basis. "you all" -- i'm not going to prevent i am from louisiana. it does affect everybody in the room, because it makes it harder for community banks to make loans and to renegotiate loans. if you have looked over the last three years, the big banks are getting better, and the community banks have pulled back. it is the community banks that

make loans to small business people, and it is small business that pull people out of recessions. one of the recent this recession has been so hard to pull out of it is because community banks have had a hard time making loans. under president obama, the number of business start-ups has declined 100,000 a year from what it was at a time before he came into office. these regulators, whether on banking or on energy, whether on health care -- these folks are making it hard ur. you got all these people out of work and people who are seeing sliding paychecks. the median income in america has dropped by 10% in the last four years. people in this country are having a hard time. incomes are down at the same time you're seeing the price of

gasoline and food and health care up. [unintelligible] government spending is up. there is no recession going on in washington, d.c. there are under 40,000 new workers. this has simply got to end. there is an old jerry clower -- a story about him hunting for raccoons. he says shoot them all up here because he is fighting with a bottle cap up here, and john says send them all up here. this has to end one way or another. this overspending has got to end. we have got to return to the principles of our nation.

i can guarantee you, if i'm lucky enough to become president -- [unintelligible] thank you. i am going to get that waiver for all the states of " obamacare." i will get it replaced with something that actually brings down the high cost of health care, which allows free-market dynamics, which allows you to pick your own plan to buy one from louisiana or another state, and by virtue of doing this, which will reinstate the kind of economic freedom that has made america a power house and a leader of the world. i love america and i and love what it stands for. it is time to end this anti- economic liberty agenda that we're seeing out of washington

and return to the principles that made us a great nation, and i will have as my inspiration the declaration of independence, and as my blueprint, the constitution of the united states. only one more thing i want to say to you today. i need you to get out and vote, all right? you got a contest coming up real soon. i would love to have your help. you have a lot of delegates here. i would like all of them. i am probably not want to get all of them, but would like to get as many as i can. give me a good sendoff. puerto rico did. had a conservative team down in per re. they're doing good things. one of the first thing they did was fired 37,000 government workers and lower taxes. home sales in puerto rico are

up 50% under this administration. our policies work. theirs don't. thank you. great to be with you. thank you. ♪ >> louisiana's presidential primary is tomorrow. you can get results here on c- span and that c-span.org. the campaign continues in maryland, washington, d.c., and wisconsin on april 3. more primaries into the month of may. c-span will continue to bring you candidate speeches and other campaign events. >> where freedom is made real

for all, without regard for race or belief or economic condition. i mean a new america [unintelligible] the ancient idea that men can solve their differences by killing each other. >> as candid its campaign, we look back at 14 man who ran for the office and lost. good to our website c-span.org /thecontenders. >> they offer only one solution to the problems which confront us. they tell us again and again and again we should spend our way

out of trouble and spend our way into a better tomorrow. >> this morning president obama nominated jim kim to head the world bank. is a medical doctor at the world health organization. he made the announcement in the white house rose garden and answered questions about the shooting of trayvon martin in florida. >> good morning, everybody. [unintelligible] at the end of his term in june. bob has been a strong leader for the bank for the last five years, and when he told me about his plans, i began to search for

someone to fill his shoes. despite its name, the world bank is more than just a bank. it is one of the most powerful tools we have to reduce poverty and raise standards of living in some of the poorest countries on the planet. in a world that is growing smaller and more connected every day, that is a critical mission. but just for those who are struggling, but for all of us. when we reduced under in the world or help a former recover from a flood or drought, it strengthens the entire world economy. we have put an end to a preventable disease, and all of us are safer because of it. new business creigh jobs in countries and also opens up new markets in our country. when a nation goes from poverty to prosperity, it makes the world struggle. that is why the world bank is so important. that is what the leader of the world bank should have a deep

understanding about the role and development -- that develop place in the world and the importance of creigh conditions were assistance is no longer needed. i believe that nobody is more qualified to carry out that qualified to carry out that mission than dr. jim kim. that is why today after a ireful and thorough search , am nominating him to be the next president of the world bank. he has spent more than two decades working to improve conditions in developing countries. as a physician and an anthropologist, he co-founding partners in help and lead a world health organization to treat 3 million patients with hiv-aids. i have made that a quarter cent of my development agenda. we pursued these efforts because

it is the right thing to do and because healthy populations unable growth and prosperity, and i am pleased that jim brings this to him to his new job. jim was also the chairman of the department of social medicine at harvard medical school. he has burned a fellowship. for the last three years he has served as the president of dartmouth college. after emigrating to this country from korea, he went on to become the president of his high school class, quarterback of the football team, the point guard of the basketball team, and i just found out he is a five handicap on golf. i am resentful of that last item, but he does it all. he has truly global experience trick is work from asia and africa to the americas, from capitals to small villages. his personal story exemplifies the great diversity in our country and affect anybody can make it asar