at 9:15 a.m., the pew health group will discuss the approval of drugs and medical devices. "washington, a journal is next -- "washington journal" is next. >> holstein of barrick has been sentenced to life imprisonment. hosni mubarak has been sentenced to life in prison. we will talk about the nation's economy. in that first 45 minutes, we want your reaction to michael bloomberg's plan to ban the

sales of drinks. here are the numbers -- gulif you want to reach us on social media, you can join us and c-spanwj. and some of the proposals you have heard earlier this week, --

after announcing this proposal, the mayor appeared on "the today show." here is what he had to say -- >> in moderation, it is fine. all we're trying to do is explain to people that, if you drink a little bit less, you will live longer and have a better life. the restaurant has to serve it in two glasses. it is not taking away your freedoms. all the studies show that, the

-- that, if the glass in front of you on the plate in front of view is smaller, you will live longer. >> it could take place as early as march. >> it is the role of the nanny in the state that has prompted a .ull-page ad i

it says that the state is the mayor bloomberg who is photoshop ped into that picture. what is next? this newsom and by consumerfreedom.com. darnell from maryland, your next. >> i think we should go ahead and tax sure gary drinks. on a hot day, the smart thing to do would be for us to tax sugary drinks. >> some of the arguments against the tax would be on cigarettes. people still buy cigarettes. what do you think of that?

>> that is great. tax sure agree drinks. tax certain drugs. tax them, tax them, tax them. i have no problem with that. >> i think that mr. bloomberg is overreaching. we would like gave perfect world they perfect nanny-state. well, maybe not a perfect nanny state. but the contribution of the individual has to be supported. you cannot breathe a culture of infants and expect them to have a functioning democracy. we will end up with people like obama in office and suffer the

consequences. i think it will be the only thing that will make people take responsibility for their health and the economy. everyone else will have the consequences of what they voted for. i believe our problems will be fixed. we're still irrational nation. >> un dep with the monopoly of drink-producers, just we ended up with a monopoly of taxed tobacco producers. the value of the addicted stocks went through the roof and the number people who are addicted

remained high. >> i think the mayor is right. something has to be done with this, the upc the rate. i believe he is right. >> what is the approach, though? >> for people to live longer, it is just right. they can go by and do something different, use sparano or some kind of the substance out there, but we have options. >> what about the previous close statement about personal responsibility and taking responsibility for what you eat and drink? caller: that is true, too. but everybody will lead do that. it is not cost-effective.

>> we will continue on to this photo bay and -- this photo ban. >> that is from the associated press this morning. here is the "mountainhome", florida. i am -- caller: al-amin little

trouble with paying other people's problems because they to not afford medical insurance. thatdone $100 on a bill they could not explain. people of insurance are automatically charged $1 for people who do not have insurance. i am not saying that he should just ban it. but the tax thing, it has been proved that the higher the tax on cigarettes, most the people are quitting smoking. it does help then it does deter them from doing that. but people will not take responsibility. the health costs just killing the rest of us who are doing it.

i do not think that and did mr. with submit that, but this is a giant step. i give up my rights when they took them many. he is headed in the right direction. because you're hurting the people, the taxing, like i said, it has shown that the higher taxes on cigarettes has caused people to quit smoking. xce >> good morning.

i do believe that the emir is right. we have to taking in these circumstances that, for the american children who have to be led, we are ranked 27th in the world. a lot of times, you have the option to order a large drinks. we don't take into public service the fact that they are not help before us. we end up having to pay for our businesses.

it is easy to make the wrong choice. but did this -- but is it the .lso convenient > new kent, are there not commemorating their choice? >> people do not like what they're doing, especially in america. -- int think that america at theof looking tha expenditure of health care. even people who do not have insurance dunite even think

about the extensions of their actions. host: the defense budget and defense issues. this in the wall street journal worrying about controversy, the u.s. naval plan transfers towards been asia.

florida -- >> i am talking about the soda bay and in new york. i feel that the government, when they are trying to regulate, we go back to the 1920's when prohibition occurred. it did not work.

a said a banhy would help regulate people's behavior. i think it is a further step to socialism and communism or the government decides what we do. >> the mayor has touted cigarette smoke in restaurants to improve behavior and health. >> yes, smoking is toxic and die can understand that. but coke is not a toxic substance. the difference between toxicity and sweet stuff, i would not agree with that. >> barber, independent line. >> i would disagree with the

as usual.planation, i wonder how much of all is in a beer when you go to a sports stadium. it excludes stores like starbucks and all of those things. they all have shirt in them. there seems to be a class element to this event as well to drink that whirlpool can afford. we are no longer the country of the free. the the site and means scientific studies? or is this something he thought up in his head one night? host: calleris this the topic of

discussion among new caller: yorkers? yes, it is. people understand why bloomberg does, like, and enjoy his money and stay out of our lives. this is ridiculous. host: there is talk that the next incoming mayor could easily take away the ban as well. that would be a plus in their favor. host: that is barbara calling into the independent mind. this is a proposal made by mayor bloomberg.

you may way ian any time. coming in about half an hour, we will talk about the economy issues. even in new york city, as this was going into place, we see them participating with open -- are you kidding me? [laughter] come on, don't we have bigger issues to deal with? host: tucson, arizona is next. caller: bloomberg has lost his

mind. my grown-up in newark's city. they have cameras all over the place. it is something like, what? $13 a packers something. they reelected him for how many terms, i don't know. what are your thoughts specifically on the band? caller: like i said, they have cameras all of the place with surveillance. when i went to visit, -- people paid the super to park

their car. host: this is sam roberts riding in "the new york times."

host: of buffalo, new york. >> and think the ban is totally ridiculous. does he realize that prohibition did not work? i guarantee you that this is what will happen. if he imposes this band, the drug cartels will be smuggling big gulps into our country. host: off of quarter, this is cyberfleet aha. the democrats' line. >> my comment is a little bit different than those given so far. i agree with the idea that americans are getting too fat.

i, myself, got that way. i was up to 260 pounds to about 10 years ago and diagnosed with type ii diabetes. i went to the doctor the the day and my a one c level is says that he is taking me off medication. as long as i continue to watch what i eat and what a drink, i won't have any more problems with it. the thing that i remember is when coca-cola was first sold in vending machines. i believe it was the 6.5 ounce bottle. that seemed to satisfy the public at that time. but things started to get -- there were fast-food restaurants. there were competing for

business. the only way to do that was to give you more for your money. if we tax the end of heavily, such as they do say europe, if we put that type of attacks on any item that is individually sunnis -- individually-sized larger, it will cut down from the fast food restaurants with advocacy that is basically what i had to say. host: sales include chinese real

estate and domestic of ridges and bribery allegations. host: according to the report, --

caller: it seems to mean that what they did in was conceived -- with wisconsin is what they should do with mayor bloomberg. but both he wants to the people to go on a be in bed and go on fast foods and. what a babbling idiot. host: what you think the approach should be? leave it alone altogether? caller: the approach should be to encourage people to eat healthy. if you do physical exercise, you get more premium for your insurance. the healthier you are, the less you pay for your insurance.

but a ban on coca-cola -- i don't usually agree with boehner, but he is right. this band -- this man is out of his mind. he should be recalled and put out of office. >> good morning. how are you today? i am agree with the last gentleman about being healthy and being on a vegan diet. people do realize that there is a lot of toxicity around. biden and know why he is for the ban of coca-cola. everybody needs to be educated on food toxicities and substances and their areas. i think he has good intentions,

but the ban on coca-cola -- host: sugary drinks altogether. caller: rate. i have recently tried to change my diet. they don't want to direct you towards a healthier audio. hi wish people would do an investigation into it for themselves. what do you think of the -- host: what do you think about attacks on sugary drinks over a band? caller: people continue to drink it because they are addicted to it. it will come out of those

pockets. it is their money. it may stop some people from taking it. i don't know what the answer is. i don't know what the right answer is. i wish people would be more educated. i learned a lot about our environment and stuff that is going on that people have no idea about, most people don't know what a brown shield is. most people do not know what super-fund sites are. we want all of these companies to come back to america, but the problem -- there are so many companies that are not regulated. they are polluting our air. host: the previous caller

mentioned wisconsin. this is "the new york times." host: we see a picture there

with secretary clinton. the canner has raised $30 million since january.

>> caller: we need to regulate more stuff like that. we have so much diabetes, and so many people going on the dialysis because of all of the drinks. >> host: do you think if there's a ban that you can work around it? >> caller: yeah, it would make you cut back. >> host: good morning. republican line. >> caller: yes, sir, in all

difference to the gentleman that spoke before me, i live in corpus christi, texas, one the ten baddest cities in the united states. it's my personal choice to go drink one bottle of coca-cola or a six pack. i think it's just ridiculous to live in a nanny state where it's that slippery slope where it's going to be okay now it's this and coke. double you can only get a double pounder or single and so on. and i'll let it go. >> host: the proposed bans is not on certain types of drinks but more to the size that will be banned in certain outlets in new york city.

if it were to take place, it would come in as earl early this year. >> caller: i have two comments. last week senator schumer called an investigation on grill brushes, now they are banning soft drinks. it's getting funky. my second comment that mayor bloomberg has always supported a women's right to choose siting abortion she has a right what goes in their own body. now he's saying they can make important decisions about abortion, but they are too stupid to make choices about what he drinks. that makes me happy. that's all i got to say about that. >> host: wall "wall street journal" saying

>> host: story also this morning, this is the "new york post" about the achieve volt. it was the best selling rechargeable auto in the u.s. in may, topping toyota's plug in

prius. >> host: new york city, bobby, democrats line. >> caller: hi, how are you? >> host: fine. thank you. you are on, sir. go ahead. >> caller: all right. i believe -- you know, i'm from new york city. i see everyone consuming all of these sugar drinks, and i do feel that the quality is going higher and higher, people are consuming more and more. and the idea behind bloomberg and the purpose behind it is a great idea. and for good health and drink healthier and drink a lot less of the sugar drinks. then again it is crossing the lines with what we can do and can't do. it is our choice, it is our options. we're allowed to do what we

want. it has the adds up. i think that should work. like the troop commercials. maybe have stuff like that instead of banning it. >> host: even the mayor himself said go it a restaurant, you can't get a large drink, get two smaller ones. >> caller: that can't only benefit the big soda companies, not us. people will still want, they will buy two or three of 16-once sodas. i don't see how it will help. >> host: dana, republican line. you are next. >> caller: good morning. >> host: hello. >> caller: i had a comment on we forget what the drinks has changed since 1983. we were using the high fructose

corn sugar. a lot of people don't realize when you drink the fructose corn syrup, you don't feel full like when they were made with real sugar. that's how we have the people drinking the 40 ounces at the time. in the old days, mother would say don't drink soda, it'll ruin your meal. now you drink it and it doesn't make you feel full. high fructose came out and they are lobbying on who should have more rights. it is a no-no food and it's no good. >> host: what do you think about the proposed ban on the certain sizes? >> caller: i think the people will work around it and find what they need. look at walmart with the carts. they are getting cases and cases of soda pop. they will find ways to get their fix. they need to be educated on what's in it and how to affects

their body, i think that will help versus the ban. enjoying the show. thank you. >> host: independent line. >> caller: good morning. this proves scalia worry on the supreme court about obamacare, when he said do you mean a regulator can decide we have to eat broccoli to make the country healthy. and everybody laughed at him. now you hear bloomberg saying i'll tell you what you can't eat. it goes right into scalia's worry. but like with cigarettes, they raise the tax on cigarettes to pay for the health care add ons that smoking caused. well, they can increase the tax on soda or whatever to pay for the so-called health cost of sugar. but i think this is really proving scalia's point. this is obamacare is going to allow this in every state.

and it's not going to be voted on just regulated. >> host: securities and exchange commission said to be proving facebook. that's the headline from the "washington post" over the stock questions remain on ipo glitches, client exposure. kim also writing that officials would neither confirm or deny >> host: if federal regulators come up empty handed, that would be cause for current concern. whether or not the fcc and other regulators brick down the

hammer, he believes that facebook's ipo is a clear sign that capital markets are rigged, facebook closed friday at $27.72 a share, down 27% from the may 18th debut price of $38. jacksonville, florida. alex, democrat lines. >> caller: yes. thank you for taking my call. i applaud bloomberg for at least trying to do something. first of all, food manufacturers, especially cereal, target children early with advertising. they get addicted very quickly to sugar. 50% of americans it's been reported especially children are so overweight that we're going to have a tsunami of health care costs down the road. one more comment, i think that last year the agriculture department proposed healthier choices for school lunches and sarah palin's response was to bring a huge tray of cookies to

a school in alaska. i'll leave it at that. >> host: oklahoma. good morning, margaret, republican line. >> caller: good morning. concerning mayor bloomberg and his wanting to ban, you know, the amount of coke or pop. i wish he really had done his research. there's a dr. ted brower, a biology, and he had a neighbor to his office in florida. he said to him he was drinking diet coke. he said if you drink that, you will have brain tumors and you will go blind. the man laughed and said if that were true, the government wouldn't allow them to sell it. if that were true, they wouldn't be selling cigarettes or the horrible medicines that have the horrible consequences.

well, the young man didn't listen and a year later he was dead of a brain tumor. that isn't where it all stops. this is a drop in the bucket. i wonder why they called him the most dangerous man in america. they have regulated things. the seniors are -- when they get the food boxes which why aren't they just getting toed stamps instead of boxes. they can be forced to eat green beans and vegetables with no salt and no sugar in the fruit, all of this stuff is thrown away, wasted government money, for instance, the whole wheat rotiti pasta is thrown away by the dons. i used to buy planters cashews

for my grandchildren. instead of having salt, they will say. they were white, they were tasteless, and i've never bought any since. all of the regulations are affecting our economy, regulations, presidential orders, and on the health care bill, you should see. i read a doctor from indiana, you could probably get him online, he gave pages of it. one the last ones on there that really got my attention, some were material, he said there will be certain doctors chosen for end of life care. and he said i would hate to stand before god after being paid for that job. >> host: oklahoma, margaret on the republican line. a story in the "financial times" about the death bird and facing u.s. graduates. it gives us some statistics and a graphic.

>> host: a story from rutgers found that 2/3 of graduates would have made different choices, such as majoring in another field, taking on more internships, starting to look for work sooner and choosing a different institution or skipped higher education altogether. minnesota, shelly, independent line. >> caller: yeah, i'd like to give kudos to the mayor of new york. something needs to be done. where i live in our school half of the parents are obese and half of the children are obese. the parents need to take

responsibility in what they are feeding their children. i work in the medical field in the cardiac unit. we've had so many obese children coming in starting to get clogged arteries. this is totally unacceptable. i think all of the governments should step in and regulate the amount of sugar in all foods. that's all i have to say. >> host: the "boston globe" has a new poll. the question they asked which candidate will you vote for in november? >> host: hawaii, miguel, democrats line. >> caller: aloha, c-span. thank you for having me. i wanted to agree with the last

caller. i'm 22. i remember when i was in high school, they went away with soda. it's a real popular decision. oh my god, the government is taking over. yeah, it's unpopular right now. but in the long term and in the future and people are going to be healthier, soda is not good for you, it's not good for our children. i'm just going to -- we should get over it. it's going to benefit us. >> host: why is the ban the way to go? >> caller: because how else will people -- we're so oblivious and blind what the media feeds us. every two seconds you see a commercial about mcdonald or pepsi or cola. people are blinded. we need to find a way to force the policies so that it just goes away. when we stopped having soda in high school, the next year i forget about it it was just using gatorade. >> host: carter, alabama. independent line. good morning. [dial tone]

>> host: they have left us. coming up in just a couple of minutes we're going to have a discussion about the economy and most of the headlines reflective of the major papers here in washington and the "pittsburgh post gazette." according to headlines, jobs data worst of the year. not only does that have offer implications for economics, but those in presidential campaign as well. we'll have a discussion about that coming up in just a few minutes. we keep going as far as ban on the -- the proposed ban on certain sides of the sweet drinks in new york. go ahead. >> caller: good day, how are you? i'm from tennessee, not alabama. that's a different story. here's the thing, i'm 5'10", 150 pounds. i'm not overweight, i'm a construction worker. when i leave mcdonalds and

burger king, i want something to go to drink. to limit me on what i can have and drink, it's wrong. he has the right idea about dealing with people that are overweight. you can't do that. i'm taxed for my cigarette habit, but nonsmokers are not taxed. why should i be taxed or bans from having something that i'm not at risk of health for? i think it's absolutely ludicrous that the man is trying this. you can't legislate morality or health. >> host: question for you, how much do you pay for cigarettes? >> caller: $5 a tax. >> host: how much is taxes. >> caller: $4. >> host: did that change your buying habits? >> caller: norse. >> host: i ask because some are saying perhaps a tax is the way to go. >> caller: like i say, i'm a

cigarette smoker, only i get taxed. nonsmokers don't get taxed. i'm not overweight, why should i be taxed if i'm not overweight? >> host: democrat line. thank you. >> caller: all right. i just wanted to say i know you are sick of hearing this, but it is a catch 22. it's just with the soda thing, you can't just put a ban on it. it just can't be soda. it has to be about everything. you can't just -- to me it's about the soda industry and the government and about making more money. you can tax it all the want. it's just making them richer and the poor get poorer. tell me why soda is a piece of crap for $1 a bottle. all of us broke people can afford it because they have it for $1. what about water? water should be free. give it out for free. there's people out there thirsty. they are charging 50 cents for

water, i don't want to hear it. make healthier stuff cheaper and make in a way you do get addicted to soda and the junk foods early on. and it is horrible for children. but that's all we've been doing is giving our kids, you know, you are not supposed to have soda. you'll give the kids once in a while. here's a sip. then they get hooked from jump street. and what about putting a ban until they are 18 like cigarettes and beer? soda is junk. why not let them not have soda until they are 18? >> host: that's the last call. i appreciate those. here's what we have coming up. we're bob going to look at the economy. check the recent numbers and

unemployment numbers as well as other factors, you probably have to take a look at europe as well what's going on. we'll have the discussion later on. michael greenburgher from the university of maryland. this has hurricane season started on june first. we'll look at how the government prepares, how well funded and manned they are. that will take place later. first of all, if you switch over to our book tv and american history tv channels which with c-span2 and 3 respectively on the weekend, we're featuring history and literary life. this is with the help of our cox communication cable partners. to give you a sense of what you can see this weekend, we have a look at water mark share book collection as phillip tells us about the store and shows us one of the rarest books in their collection. >> my name is phillip. i'm the managing partner of water mark west rare books here

in wichita, kansas. we've been in the rare books business since 1985. we originally started as a subcategory in the water mark new bookstore. in the early 1990s, we took over the entire building here. we have not looked back since. we've been stuffing this building with books for the last 27 years. and we thought you might like to see some of the more interesting ones we've got. this is one the earliest things that we have in the store. it's a 1655 elsiveer published in amsterdam. it has an illuminated title page, it's a work on the e --

ecclesiastical church times. it is in latin. i'm not going to attempt to tell you beyond that. the volume is a white type of sheep skin. it's the earliest sorts of printing in europe. because while it is still done today, when you see one of these on a shelf, you make a beeline for it. because this is the -- well, this one is not the holy grail, but it's always a good thing to find. >> "washington journal" continues. >> joining us, patrice hill. what's the snapshot of all of the economic information that came out yesterday and in the

past week? >> >>? >> guest: well, we're in a major slow down. there's a fairly robust rate of health. but the report that came out yesterday on jobs really demonstrated very definitively that we went into a sharp slowdown around april and may. we've seen this before. we've been in slowdowns before. it's no threat to our survival. but it's a big disappointment because the signs had been up to this point that the economy might, in fact, be improving our accelerating going later into the year. and so the markets took it badly. we had a big drop in the dow yesterday. and it's an adjustment for everyone. >> host: if we've seen this before, what does history tell us about the future of our economy? >> guest: well, you know, our economy fluctuates a lot between

periods of boom and bust and so on. the likelihood is it's going to get out of this drum and get back into a more normal rate of growth. when the economy slows down like this, it can be vulnerable and shocked. it's like when you are sitting idol, you can get hit, you know, by someone. you are not really posed to take off and avoid a collision if something comes your way. so the economy is more vulnerable at a time like this. >> host: a lot of papers referencing what's going on in europe and parlaying that into what's going on here in the united states. what's the connection between our economy and europe? >> guest: there was a lot of people believing our economy was slowing. our trade connections are not big with europe.

it amounts to about 5% of the gdp is the trade we do with europe. that's where you are seeing the most direct connection with europe and, of course, our spot market has been loyaled for the last month or so by the european crisis heating up again. now we don't know if greece will be exiting the euro zone. this has been causing a lot of angst. that's the most direct connection. consumers in our country has been basically tuning it out because european debt crisis has been going on for two years now. and people aren't keeping up with it. it's almost impossible to even, i, as a reporter, am trying to cover it from a distance, it's hard to keep up with it all. there's so much going on. most people had tuned it out. that's one reason people were fairly confident the american

economy would just keep going fairly steadily, because our consumers aren't too tuned into that. >> host: looking at the unemployment number at 8.2%, who's suffered the most in the unemployment category? >> guest: it was safely across the board. although construction workers, you saw a layoff in the construction sector. if you are a construction worker, you probably were most effected by this. by the same token, the construction workers got a boost this winter. because it really never at least here on the east coast as you know, no major snowstorms and very mild weather. there was a lot of construction going on in the winter this year that normally does not go on. this -- some people were saying this is a pay back for that that we had a slower month of may because we had a faster month in february in construction. there was an element of that weather-related in the report. but the weakness was broad

enough that it's pretty clear that there was -- there is a major slowdown in the economy right now. >> host: discussion about unemployment and the economy with our guest patrice hill of the "washington times." if you find yourself employed, here's the number to call. you can ask about the economy, talk about your experiences in this economy. for those unemployed, the line to call 202-737-0002, and those that you find yourself underemployed, if you find yourself in that category, 202-628-0205. does it break down that evenly among employed, unemployed, and underemployed these day? >> guest: there are a lot of gray lines as you say. even people with jobs might want to get another job but they can't find one and so on. i think that's a good way of at

least you are going to know people's statuses they would tell the government anyways. >> host: president obama was addressing in minnesota yesterday. during the speak, he talked about the economy, the growth of it, here's what he had to say and i want to get your response to it. >> today we're still fighting our way back from the worst economic crisis since the great depression. the economy is growing again. but it's not growing as fast as we want it to grow. our businesses have created almost 4.3 million new jobs over the last 27 months. but as we learned in today's job report, we're still not creating them as fast as we want. and just like at this time last year, our economy is still facing some serious head winds. >> host: your response about growths and jobs being added?

caller: when you talk about the growth of compliment, do you feel that the reason why they are not posturing -- why they're not passing the kabbalah jobs fill is to keep things down so that, if they get the presidency, they will try to give out jobs like they are the big changers, like they're the

ones holding us back? host: he talks more about the political nature. callerguest: people seem to thit the government makes it johnson the government steps their fingers and makes jobs for you. that is not true. jobs are made by a large by businesses. we were just talking about what businesses were thinking when they consider hiring. honestly, members of congress on themselves to not have a direct control over what businesses do. it is much as one business, what what millions of businesses is around the country and make decisions on how many people to hire arnott.

what congress and the government have to do is create conditions which are conducive to businesses hiring, which is to promote steady growth. one of the principal things the government is supposed to do is to have a clear and stable tax policy. that is one of the things that is holding back businesses now because we don't know what the tax policy will be a year from now. there will be major changes in the tax policy at the end of this year. so this is a major issue holding back business right now. the scenario, where congress and the press included dresses, they are really not doing that. you really just here a letter resurrect going around, blamed cast by one slugger over another. host: richmond, va.

caller: in your last segment, we were blaming so appalled for obesity problem. in this segment, we're blaming republicans. i have to identify with what i believe the problem is. i believe it is the lack of economic freedom. without an economic feeding, you will never have social freedom. but we want to play the blame game. i wonder if you know how america is ranked in economic freedom around the world. we have long term unemployment like we have never had. we have long term keep high gas prices. they agree that $3.33 per gallon is better than $4. but two years to three years from now, the price of gas has

been between three $25 per hour. it is high and will remain high until we get to me to pick this person up. we will never get better. we'll only get worse. callerguest: you bring up the gd points as far as economic freedom. gas prices are set in global markets. that is done something that the government -- there is no conspiracy to have prices up. oil prices are high and they are likely to remain high cure our lifetime. we now have china, india,

russia, all of the developing world's for in getting cars and driving cars. there is a lot more demand will around the world. we will have to live with at least $3 gasoline for a long time. host: litchfield the members of the federal reserve, some officials have started arguing for more action before finding a report when the and employment rate rose to 2.2%. one big question they face is whether the outlook is actually lessening -- actually worsening. >> certainly, the fed is

concerned. you can be assured by the slowdown in the economy. they would like to see more jobs created. i think "the wall street journal" is correct. the thing is that the fed has come about every tool they got in their kit. they do have a few tricks left, i'm sure. but as far as interest rates, we have them as long as they can go. we have 3.9% mortgage rate. that is of a believe -- that is unbelievably low. whatever amount they go lower, how much will that have available to you? the fed tools term limitation. but i am sure that they will see

what they can do. host: they put out programs known as q e one and qe ii. guest: through these programs, the fed is trying to bring about long-term interest rates. six months is the longest. those rates are set by the market. on the fed lunches these programs, you wanted to affect the market rate for long-term interest rates. they have been very successful with that program. you can expect them to feel around a little more. once again, they're dealing with the markets and get a better mind set on the market so far.

host: good morning, this is marked in the category of the underemployed. >> i working construction, landscaping, things like that. this mild winter should have helped us. we're still here in new jersey, about 50% of the employed and underemployed. the third thing was about the federal reserve. in the last four years, the fed has given out $4 trillion in federal reserve. we, the taxpayers, the country are so liable about a people that need to be tried and the law applies to them. host: i feel like a lot of people don't understand the way

the fed operates. to say they are giving money to foreigners and not helping the u.s. economy is incorrect. if the fed gave a loan to a foreign bank, it is because those foreign banks were assets within the united states, providing funds and projects in the united states. foreign lenders are very important to our economy. you will see that many of our banks are owned by foreign companies. especially the european bank, a bashful example of the united states. we cannot cut the moppet the border, especially in the financial markets. the markets are very fluid. it is hard to limit an activity

for so long with in the activity. what do you bring while from poehler, new york. >> first of all, the owners the businesses decide they want to help poor people and balance out what is going on in europe with the deficit. they will not do anything until they think they will be able to sustain the people that they hire. we have talked about the federal result's. all of this is helping. what happens if they make a mistake? what are the consequences of the fed gideon wrong. ? >> there is always a danger that the fed could get it wrong.

it is hard to imagine that the fed could do much more for the economy at this time. some people think that the fed will be airing on the side of being too convenient, soap and that it will sow completion by teenagers who are loose with money right now. so there is a group of people like that. when you have this kind of slowdown in growth korea to decide where legislation will come from, wages, which we haven't even talked about, wages are running below 2% of growth. that is unhealthy for the high -- for the son of the united states. with wages so since so subdued, it is hard to see how the fed could be steering up wrongly

into a course of inflation. yes, it is always true. the feds can always change their minds. in hindsight, we look back and see it host:. -- and see it. host: looking at that translated onto paper. host: people have not gotten raises in years in some cases. some people have not gotten a raise in four years, since the crisis. you may have a job and that is why people staying in these jobs, employers and not just hiring, but they are giving away the near st. this is a major issue at stake.

consumers can and increase spending and the dominican increases in wages. you end up going into further debt, which nobody wants to go into. the wage issue is a big issue, but in terms of feeding and replacement, you cannot go away with it. when use of gasoline prices fill up, did you see anybody in the areas and in us -- on the -- they know they have to eat the cost of higher gasoline. but they will not get compensated for that. >> the dismal job report of 2011 since -- the dismal job reported

2011. >> we would not be europe businesses did not take their businesses out of the country. a free trade agreement is outrageous. with all the things coming into the united states, we will have to pay out money into other countries. they are americans. they have their businesses overseas. on not make a free trade? there is no such thing as free trade. we're getting stomped on here. people need to wake up. guest: i think there is some

truth to that. not all of our trading partners are doing that and they are taking us to the cleaners, stealing jobs and so on. i think there is some truth to that. you're starting to see where the costs, for example, in china is making rates going up. but it is some like the in the united states. also, transportation costs from here to there and from there to hear are expensive. some companies are bringing jobs back to united states because of that. this is a weight on the u.s. economy. it is not a new development.

it has been going on for a long time. i do think there is a promising trend that is a result of the subdued wage is that we have had. so businesses are bringing back jobs to do u.s. bill follows of sign that the average work week is 30-41 points per hour. he also as that perry's is not a priority. >> i am sure the people out there have the experience of asking them for a raise. some people i know did. often, they are told to wait. maybe in another six months if it does not just an issue of jobs.

it is an issue of wages and hours and all of those things that are needed for people to get the kind of paychecks they need. host: you talked about the shortening of the work week. guest: yes, when the production schedule goes down, they cannot make as many cars. the demand is not out there. an employer can caught hours as that of jobs. -- an employer can cut johours instead of jobs. host: there is a sharp increase in car sales. guest: yes, they have been doing very well. in 2009, three years ago, the

auto sector was in bankruptcy. no production for several months in the auto sector three years ago. so we have had quite a renaissance in the auto sector and sales have been good. that has been a bright spot. but i think there has been some softening their as well this spring, even though that continues to be one of our stronger sectors. host: howard from clayton, new jersey. guest: gas prices are the easiest thing to fix. pilaf the market's. pump it, she but, selig. as far as the government goes, i don't really blame neither

party. there are the chances out there, maybe not better, but you have to find out. the republican and democrat, same thing. if they do away with the port projects when they go to vote partisan on something, that would also help out with the debt. thank you. host: 4 lauderdale, florida, good morning. guestcaller: the government doet have a major impact, however, right now, if you look at how their refuse to pay for

transportation, which was in public of millions of people, it in itself, i that is what they're doing to -- for election purposes, let's say they would resolve a lot of problems. that is something that is strictly political by republicans. host: i will lead this from "the washington post. -- "the washington post."

guest: that is one area where the government can help create jobs rather rapidly, which is in the building roads and bridges and a traditional government responsibility. we have a lot of work we can do in that area. there has been a fight over that. this is what happens when you get so much in debt. you do not get enough money for something worthwhile like that. that is a very legitimate teapot -- legitimate point. how much money or whether to put money into construction so they can hire somebody and put them to work on the roads. right now, you see a slump because of state and local. you have cities and counties and

states also. they make up the lion's share of the road building in the united states. you see a slump there. there are constraints that were at the government level. our debt was so high that you have to argue over the traditional responsibilities. host: our jobs in transportation and construction still seen as far as what we saw in stimulus spending? >> guest: the federal government is maintaining the thought that they have built-in structure projects. what you see is a holdout at the state and local level. yesterday, it was suggested there is a pullback out the state level. host: pa., we have the lines of

aside for those unemployed. caller: minimum wage has been on the front for many years. it was $3.75. that is where i live, anyhow. people who make more spend more and in the economy and boost the economy. minimum wages kept about $13 a r -- $13 a hour. host: you can respond if you wish. caller: it sounds like a raw logical solution. it would be nice if we could just say that everybody gets $12 an hour. really, that is not the way the

real economy works. they set their own prices for labor or you could end up eliminating jobs. they will not hire you in the first place. you just eliminated a job right there. you have to be careful about that. it sounds like he did idea. it may not be a good idea. host: he mentions a minimum wage when it comes to worker groups. the labor department said it was somewhat a% for men. callerguest: we have a serious y problem in this country. the problem is not proper training and education for the jobs we have. we have a serious problem in this country.

we need to be debating training and education of our youth so they can take the jobs that are becoming open. you have jobs that are available that no one is still in because they do not have the skills needed. and we have a mismatch there. so how will we address it? i just wrote a series of stories on germany and its economy. germany has a much better system for funneling people into training and education programs where they will have practical skills to do skilled work and they get out of school. you have people going to college, more people getting technical/vocational training, and this is all a part of the system. it can be done. countries that are doing this -- and we have asserted to address it that much in this country, even though we have such a high

and employ a problem with youth. you have a huge story of kids going to college and they cannot find judge -- cannot find jobs. this is a very big issue that we should be debating instead of just attacking the fed, which will must solve the problem. host: one more call, clinton, regina. >> i have been poor for 19 years because companies want people to work part-time instead of full- time. with romney and where he is going, if you talk to most of those people who work for that company, they are part-time workers. i daughter has been unemployed for over a year. companies are telling people not

to send people who are employed to them. my daughter applied for a job. they told her she qualified, but companies are telling us not to send people who are employed.

host: thank you, patrice, talking about the economy and the unemployment rate. thank you for your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: we'll talk about the preparedness in light of entering hurricane season. michael greenberger will be our guest. and later on, we will talk about efforts on still. what it means for the inspection and the manufacturing of drugs. we'll take up that discussion later on. our "newsmakers" program with the director of enforcement, robert khuzami.

he talks a little bit about the congress' ruling to fund the s.e.c. and you can see this program tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. and 6:00 in the evening. >> what we tried to focus on in a great emphasis on specialization so we can identify wrongdoing earlier in the cycle, before the investor funds are gone and in areas that are not quite as transparent as they otherwise are. we took a look at all the investments and who -- whose returns were statistic over a period of time when you expect to see volatility? those two factors are not necessarily indicative of wrongdoing but that would be the kind of fund that you want to

take a second and hard look at to determining whether or not there might be a fault evaluation, things like that. we're using my data to identify subsets or firms of individuals that we want to take a closer look at. host: just to come back to the sort of -- the impact madoff had on the agency, do you feel when you go up to the hill and ask for more resources that that continues to like be a headwind essentially and your request for additional resources? and is it making your job harder? >> no, i don't think so. we haven't forgotten the lessons by any means but i think that there's enough of a track record of honest reform and proactive efforts that the honest critics will see that and don't use madoff as an example to deny

funds. and look, even for those persons who are still troubled by madoff, i think the statistics make it clear that even if you take that into account, we are significantly underfunded. the chairman recently gave the comparison that while we are responsible for regulating 35,000 entities, those are investment advisors, transfer agents, anybody who might commit securities fraud and we are about the size of a d.c. police force. and i think that's one way of getting a measure of how our size and our budget compares to the task at hand. >> "washington journal" continues. host: it was earlier this week that the white house press secretary jay carney explained the president looking at past hurricanes, talked about how he's preparing for this upcoming hurricane season and the larger aspect of disaster preparedness. here's jay carney talking about

emergency response this season. >> the briefing highlighted lessons learned from disasters ranging from hurricane andrew which made landfall in the southeast united states 20 years ago this summer and remains the second costliest hurricane in u.s. history as well as responses on the hurricane irene last year. there were also a discussion of steps taken to incorporate lessons learned from major pour outages caused by severe weather. the president thanks them all for their efforts. host: joining us now, michael greenberger, to help in homeland securityer? ing services there. when it comes with hurricane season, what is the challenge for this administration? >> the challenges are very, very big. guest: the aftereffect of hurricane katrina and the poor

response by the federal government, that crisis was a terrific political setback to president bush. fortunately, he had already been elected president but i'm sure the president obama is concerned about the well-being of people might be hurt by hurricane but it has very big political ramifications if the response is not right on target, there can be a lot of unhappiness. host: what are the practical ramifications facing the various -- arms of the federal government to deal with disaster relief? guest: essentially, the agency within the department dove homeland security, the chief federal quarterback for the response to hurricanes and other serious natural disasters, but the frontlines of protecting the american public come from states and cities emergency responders. the fema is a quarterback and organizer, a funder but the

front line of defense is local fire, police, emergency, medical, technicians, medical personnel and others. if things get very bad, the national guard will be called in and the national guard might even be federalized. but the weight of the responsibility falls on state and local government. host: how much is that? depending on the funds to do that? guest: that's an excellent question. the emergency -- the severe weather problems are increasing and the funding as your prior economic observer noted. the funding is dropping very, very fast. so there is terrific tension between the public's need for these public services, fire, police, emergency medical technicians and the ability of state and local governments to fund it. host: for 2013, fema has budget request of about $13.5 billion. how much of that is slated to

specifically for disasters? guest: well for the emergency disaster fund, about $6.5 billion. somewhere in that neighborhood. the big role theme of play is when a disaster hits and if it's serious, the governor of the state can apply for federal funds over the -- under the stafford act and support for state and local response. in this particular area of funding for emergencies, there is unusual bipartisanship and the reason is emergencies no political party, we have republican governors, we have democratic governors. they all need funding and resources when a tornado, hurricane, wildfires hit and it's encouraging to see that as the appropriations for fema move through congress. there are some minor disputes between the parties but in a major sense, there's

bipartisanship. host: our guest is here to talk about budgeting and other efforts when it comes to disaster preparedness. you can ask michael greenberger questions on one of three lines this morning on your screen -- you can also end us an e-mail if you wish and we will take your tweets. let's take a call from california on the republican line. alex, good morning. you're on with michael greenberger. but go ahead. caller: good morning. host: are you there? ok. let's move on. texas. dorothy. democrats line. hi. caller: hi. good morning. yes. can you define this budging -- budgeting for disaster premiumness? does this mean for before the disaster or after? and my second question.

i come from central texas here recently to southeast texas. i am originally from southeast texas but i've began gone for 30 years but while i was in central texas and after two disasters here in southeast texas, we've received all news goals -- in central texas because we became a refugee city to these victims of these hurricanes. i moved down here and enrolled my daughter in school in southeast texas and the campuses here are still smelling like water. there's no new nothing. how does that work? guest: with regard with the money about how the money is spent is it's spent in preparation or is it spent in response? it's pretty much a 50-50 proposition. fema with the help of state emergency management agencies and then emergency management agencies of the city and county

level are doing a tremendous amount of work preparing to respond to natural disasters, whether it be a hurricane, texas has very serious wildfires last summer. the worst in the state's history. tornadoes. the joplin missouri incident was almost completely devastated the city. earthquakes. so they are spending a phenomenal amount of time and our center for health and homeland security works with fema in training state and local first responders in how to respond to these emergencies. the money i believe is very well spent. the emergency management community, whether it be at the city, state, or federal level, i think is in first rate condition. we saw that last summer in the response to hurricane irene. now, after a serious emergency or major disaster, the governor

can ask the president to declare either an emergency or a major disaster and that triggers the ability of the federal government to assist state and local resources in the recovery. and it's very important. you'll see after major disasters, the governor of the state will file the application. there's about $6.5 billion in the budget for that but if they run over that, again, on a bipartisan basis, congress will supplement that budget because the money is so badly needed. in terms of how the money is spent for reconstruction purposes, there is a lot of criticism about that, about how the money is spent. in some instances, people complain that the facilities which may be 50 years old are put back to a 50-year-old standard and not new. that there's a lot of debate about that.

with regard to obviously the situation you're talking about, are the refugees from hurricane katrina, many of them ended up in texas. that was a very hard relocation situation and quite frankly, if the response to katrina had been better in the gulf coast area where the hurricane hit, there wouldn't have been that refugee problem in my opinion. host: lee from twitter asks why don't states set up their own emergency fund especially in hurricane and tornado alleys? guest: they do set up their own emergency funds. every time you see a major natural disaster, a hurricane, tornadoes, wildfires, earthquakes, flooding, the state has its own infrastructure that responds. they set up a -- what is called an emergency operation center. it's a war room in effect that controls operations throughout

the state. i'm most familiar with maryland's emergency operation center and it's really quite effective and very well organized so that the people in the center can reach out all over the state. they have television cameras that put them in touch with things that are happening in the state. and then at the local level, whether you're -- for example, in this region, the counties closest to washington, momentary -- montgomery and prince george's county have their own center. they are run in smooth fashion so the state do set aside a lot of money for this but when the states overwhelmed by a serious disaster like a hurricane katrina or last summer's hurricane irene where the situation in joplin, missouri, the disaster is so substantial that it overwhelms the resources of the state. on a day-to-day basis, for

example, yesterday, in this area, we had bad thunderstorms. trees came down. electricity was disrupted. we had some tornadoes. that's principally going to be handled under regular revenues under the local communities and the state. but when you get a hurricane katrina, hurricane ivan in 2004, hurricane irene last summer, the state cannot handle that and you never know where it's going to hit or who's going to be affected. irene -- host: mark, independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. my concern is is that the american people definitely need to waning to the fact that all these fema centers are opening up all over the place and these threat fusion centers that are opening up when people are

talkin' to those places or go to those places, nobody's discussion why is the barbed wire facing in. i mean, aren't we supposed to be free? why is it being planned that we're being jammed into these places? excuse me. guest: well, omblings one of the big objectives of emergency management whether it be at the federal level, state level or local level is to make shelters available for people who are displaced. in a -- for example, category four or five hurricane. the winds are so phenomenal that houses are going to be destroyed. people are going to be out of their homes. another situation is that there needs to be evacuation for areas where the storm is going to hit. for example, with regard to hurricane irene last summer, the eastern shore and maryland, which is on our coast was

evacuated. those people need to go somewhere. my own experience is that there's been tremendous improvement in planning both for the shelters and reactivation and i don't see this as a situation that in any way interrupts personal freedom. these are people who need a place to go in the storm so to speak. host: dennis makes this state. you can respond it to. first responders are so busy documenting actions for reimbursement, they have little time to help anyone. guest: i really don't see that experience. it is true that whenever there's an emergency, there is a response mechanism called the infinite command system. somebody is put in charge of the system, wherever the region is that's affected and usually one of the people who supports the person in charge is documenting the expenses. i think our first responders

have become extremely competent in principally responding to the emergency, but also making sure that they're keeping track of how the money is spent. i think they've embedded that in the emergency response system very effectively and i do think it's important for taxpayers to be satisfied that the money that's spent here can be documented on actual need. host: our guest is michael greenberger from the university of maryland. we're talking about budgeting for disaster preparedness. steve from the republican line. caller: hi. my issue is that everybody in the government is generally there -- they're all unions. and this is costing american taxpayers huge amounts of money. where there's an issue with all the people we have in the jails and prisons, they are low risk. couldn't they be used to be --

it didn't work that these union workers with doing their -- fix everything or prepare for everything. i mean, there's a lot of people sitting around doing nothing and here's -- it's just an easy way to get workers very cheaply. host: we'll leave it there, caller. guest: well, i've got to say if you watch the response by first responders from north carolina all the way up the coast into new england last summer, these people whether they're union or non-union are paid relatively low wages. i mean, when we look at our bankers, for example, the woman who caused the $2 billion loss to jpmorgan got paid $14 million for that year. you look at our fire, police emergency responders, many of them as the prior speaker talked about, with regard to the economy haven't had raises in

four years. i know in maryland, we are under a salary freeze. these people perform at a very high level of efficiency and competence and training. i think the american taxpayer gets a bang for its buck out of this. if anything, these people are underpaid, not overpaid, and as for using prisoners, in under estimates the sophistication of the response. if you -- when you are in an emergency and when you need help, when you need to be rescued, you're going to see the fire emergency responders and police doing the very best job they can do with the best equipment they can bring to this and this criticism of government disappears very quickly when somebody is standing on the top of a house with a flood all around them and needs a helicopter to lift them out. again, katrina was the worst example of this first responder

situation from the federal government on down to the city of new orleans. a lot has been learned as a result of that and i think if you look at the response to hurricane irene last summer, whether the governors were republican or democrat, the federal government got a real pat on its back for quarterbacking that. and as an observer of the first responder situation from north carolina up through vermont, i can tell you i was very impressed with the efficiency and response of the fire, police emergency medical technicians, et cetera. host: in 2011, about 11,000 fema employees nationwide. what's their role and how do they coordinate with states, especially when it comes to disaster situations? guest: if you go to fema's website, you will see they have an enormous checklist that they do. they do training.

they work with private institution to make sure that the private sector can support the public sector in an emergency. they are responsible for assisting fire departments around the country. but their principle mission is to work with state and localities and ensuring that there's an integrated federal state local response. they're there to supplement resources, provide training. my center, as a matter of fact, does nationwide training on behalf of fema for state and local first responders in teaching them how to develop contingency plans for example, when a disaster is so severe and the fire department or police department or the hospitals are put out of commission. how do they get up and running in 12 hours to provide essential functions that were disrupted by the emergencies? and all across the line, the training from fema, i think, has

been at a very high level and i think the american public has benefited tremendously. it's easy when you're not in an emergency to criticize government infrastructure. but as i said, when you're standing on the top of a roof of the roof of your house with water all around you and worried about yourself, we're very happy to see that government come to people's assistance. host: ricky, independent line. go ahead. caller: yes. i actually am one of those that surviveed a very, very large and major hurricane that i did not hear you speak on once. but i will say good morning to you gentlemen. and also ms. patrice hill when she was on, she should have spoke something more about credit, which does affect jobs as well as businesses, even being able to get funding. host: ok, caller. the point at hand that we're talking anti-what's your

question about disaster preparedness? caller: my claim was that they claimed that my credit was not sufficient even though i showed all of the damages and i brought in all of the documents that they required. host: lincoln park, new jersey. deneefments democrats line. caller: good morning, professors. thank you for taking my call. fema, the first responders and the national guard came in president obama was a mile away. the governor was ok. you get the idea. i still -- this is my specific question. i still -- i was on c-span a week ago. the senate was having a hearing on the flood assurance program. you can only buy flood insurance through the federal government and this is my question. seems to me and it goes up every year, by the way. it's very expensive now. you can only buy it through the

federal government and it seems that i'm reading they want to eliminate any subsidies to this program and if your whole house is destroyed. you have no heat. no hot water. no kitchen. no bathroom. you're flooded completely and there's no flood insurance or it's going to be deeply eliminated. i didn't catch that hearing and i was looking for it all over c-span. can the professor please comment upon this? this is a deep concern to me. i have every kind of insurance but without flood, they won't pay a nickel. guest: well, the comment you make is a comment that represents a wide spread concern. the private insurance sector will just not take this. the risks are too high and the premiums can't compensate the risk. so the federal government needs to step in. obviously with all the budget problems that we have now with debt ceiling crises, everywhere

you look, there's an attempt to cut back on government programs. i think the insurance program has been the program that's been most badly hurt by these kinds of budget issues. again, when you look at the appropriations process, generally, this year -- in fact, last month, for fema. i think the kind of bipartisanship you saw there and the ability to step up and realize that these things need to be funded was really quite commendable. on the other hand, flood insurance has been a continuous problem. it's something that needs more attention from policymakers and you're quite right. without proper insurance, if you're a flood -- flooded out, it's a uncompensated life-changing disaster and we need to focus more -- our resources more on that. host: and a couple of weeks ago,

we devoted a segment to flood insurance program. if you go to our c-span video library, c-span.org and type in national flood insurance program, you should be able to get video linking to that program and everything else we've done on it as well. freeport, new york, good morning. gregory, republican line. caller: hi. i was just calling just to really find out exactly where this fema money goes. because hurricane katrina took place years ago and still to this day, people on twitter, facebook, they're still saying they're hurt. so these billons of dollars, where exactly is it going to help people? is it making homes for people? is it making trailers for people? what exactly is it doing for these people? host: well, that's a very good

question too. guest: besides the fact that the immediate response to the hurricane was very poorly designed, very poorly implemented at the federal state and local level, the money that was spent on the recovery was uniformly criticized. those trailers had toxicity problems. they were not proper residential safety situation for the people who were displaced. a lot of lessons were learned from that. in the wake of something like irene, if businesses are wiped out, they will get loans, interest -- well, low loans to restart businesses. it's schools -- if hospitals and schools are devastate, they can get rebuilt. if equipment was destroyed, government state and local equipment, it can be replaced.

and i think, you know, irene of the response to irene spans in -- stands in cobb trast to katrina. this was not just democratic mayors or or democratic may years. republican governors, chris christie new jersey, which is on the eastern shore and was badly affected by irene, everybody was pleased with the government response. i think we have learned a lot. things are being done more effectively and this is one area where there is not partisanship. >> michael greenberger talk about the personal role in preparing for disasters. here is a tweet -- people need to be prepared for three to five days on their own. guest: when there is a threatened a hurricane, there

are many observers of the hurricane center in fema. the public is aware of the dangers of the hurricane as it is coming up. i think people have to take that very seriously. there is something called the watch which says there may be a hurricane. you have 48 hours to get ready. there is a warning which is about 36 hours. that suggests that you will be hit by the hurricane and you should prepare. then the there are more dire evacuation's. there were a lot of evacuations -- it is very difficult. the those that were conducted were quite remarkable.

some of them, mayor bloomberg evacuated new york city in new york city did not get hit. there was second-guessing after that fact. safety first. better safe than sorry. the most important thing is for people to be listening to the many venues that are providing information and to take seriously what is being said in terms of how long you have to repair and the likelihood of where you live being hit and what you need to do, including the fact many to leave your house. the government can force people to evacuate. that is a government response that has been aborted. they have relied on a voluntary evacuation with dire warning. that seems to have worked very well. in terms of personnel -- personal preparation, you should have three days' worth of food staples and drinking water.

he should have a first-aid hit. a radio. a battery radio. an extra battery. flashlights. make sure your car has gas. make sure you have all of your prescriptions that you need. there are a laundry lists on various sites. national weather service, american red cross, scene of. you are able to see the personal items that you can think about if you are going to be hit by a series hurricane. host: north carolina. candy on our independent line. you are on with michael greenberger. caller: good morning. i want to focus on the distinction between spawns -- response and recovery training. if you look at any given disaster, a small percentage of time is on response.

then, it is the long-term recovery were 90% of the time, the training is inversely proportionate. 90% of the training is on response. that goes over protests. in north carolina, i work in the field of the vestry recovery. -- disaster recovery. for irene, it is $100 million. half of that is the removal. the vast majority of the rest is long-term recovery. things like the training me to be more focused on the long term recovery so they understand how to put themselves back together. you have years of recovery that goes on and that is where things get dirty up. there are times when the obligation of fema gets held up.

we have had times when our projects were not getting obligated because we were waiting for congress to pass another budget for heal. that does not always have been immediately. i wanted to focus on the distinction between recovery versus response and the proportionate training. host: thank you. guest: i know you want to focus on that but i want to talk about the congressional funding. the the need for funds, not only four hurricanes, but earthquakes, the worst wildfires, tornadoes, got swept up in the debt ceiling fight was summer. there was a national -- initial resistance to increase emergency disaster funds. again, that withered away because disasters do not know political parties and republican

governors needed the money as much as democratic governors did. that initial resistance to top off the emergency disaster fund did cause delays last summer in getting the money out. i did think lessons -- i do think lessons were learned. he will not see that again. governor. governor perry insperr texas, he changed his mind on this. that is a lesson learned. with regard to response versus recovery. -- i think in a broad picture, you are correct. obviously, i think there is some human psychology involved here. because the worst thing that can happen to you is your car, you and your car swept away and you drown in your car during flooding warrior came. or you are stranded in your house trying to get arrested and

there is the psychology of making sure in the disaster of getting people out of harm's way -- we tend to emphasize preparing to respond more than we do to the response. the response probably also is not as glamorous as preparing to mitigate disaster to begin with. but if you look at the academic teachings on this, the guidances, response and recovery are supposed to be treated equally. i think we're heading in the right direction. one thing is also if you do not respond effectively to the hurricane and people remain in harm's way and to not evacuated, the recovery will be that much harder. so, we need a good response.

that will mitigate the need for the recovery. but there are a lot of incidents is put on recovery. probably not enough. the caller's point is well taken. host: west virginia. david, good morning. caller: here, we have a 4-h scammed that is pretty good size. steam that can use it to evacuate. you can put about 50 people there -- 1500 people there. the we have enough of these? i hope we do. please respond to these people that see these places being set up been prepared. they're being prepared so that the government can hurt us all -- heard us all into concentration camps run by fema. it scares people. i wish your guest would respond to this and tell people that we need more of the shelters ready if we need them. questionespond to this becau

about seeing the camps. guest: for my observation of the preparations of shelters for people who have lost their borat had to evacuate from their residences or their nursing homes or if they are patients, the intention is good. i wish everybody could rub shoulders with the first responder community. the fire. the police. the emergency medical technicians. the public health officials. these people are underpaid. overwork. they have one thing on their minds. protecting the public. the furthest thing from their mind is some kind of conspiracy where they will hurt people. again, when an emergency hits, it houses are destroyed, apartment buildings, nursing homes, hospitals, we need to put

people someplace on a temporary basis. in fact, it is the disaster -- staying in your house or in a high-rise building is not wise and you need to shelter yourself to get out of harm's way. so, we need these facilities. a lot of emphasis is put on these facilities. a lot of emphasis is put on making sure these facilities can deal with people who are disabled or otherwise handicapped. so, i just cannot tell you -- the first responder community is underpaid, overworked, has one thing on its mind -- protecting the public when the public is in harm's way. host: mary, republican line. new orleans. caller: yes, hello. i would like to make a comment about the fema trailers.

i think that the people who are fighting the government over the fema trailers, they are a disgrace. the next time when we have a disaster, maybe they would prefer to camp out in a tent or perhaps lay on the ground. the cold ground. the taxpayers and the government are trying to help these people. they take it vintage of it by a lawsuit. it is a disgrace. it shows the character or lack of character of the public. if you live in this area, you know to be prepared. and you know to get out. a lot of these people take a binge of it. so, they scanned the government and get rich. i lived through this. there are some many of these people. they literally got rich, but new

houses, that everything paid for, it is a disgrace. i think that people should be ashamed. i think it is the character of the people that is wrong with our country now. it is a disgrace. guest: well, this is in response to the hurricane katrina situation. that situation is an object lesson on how not to do response and recovery. the response was weak. it was poorly organized. the federal government was confused. people were put in very bad situations. the superdome. the convention center. new orleans was under water. the federal government debate about whether to intervene. and, the trailer equipment that was blocked -- bought, the

conventional wisdom is the trailers were not sufficient. i do not have details about whether people profited from that situation, but i can tell you that i do know that there was a widespread misery when the levees broke a and there was an -- web is broken there were people placed in situations where crimes were being committed. it is a disgrace to our claim to the first world country, representing the highest principles of democracy. the trend has been a lesson on what not to do. i hope that the response to hurricane i rain last summer shows us that the federal government and the state government and the local government can be responsible, can be helpful.

can provide for people who are in harm's way. for people love lost their possessions. and, you do not hear the same kind of complaints coming out of the irene situation from 2011 that you heard about the katrina situation in 2005. host: this every state have a person task with disaster relief? guest: absolutely. we have the federal emergency management agency. every state has its own emergency management agency. in maryland, it is the maryland emergency management agency. that is usually a cabinet level office. in almost every instance that i know of, that year of the governor. they are well organized. the it is not just up the state level. the county level. the city level. the response mechanisms arca for the limited resources that can

be deployed -- they are very sophisticated. the dean of the law school is not an expert -- he washaun around emergency operation centers in montgomery county. he came away very impressed. most people who saw an emergency operation center would be very comforted by the hard work to ensure that response is properly carried out. host: new jersey. line.endent good morning, alice. caller: there are many types of disasters possible. there are not all weather- related. we had the possibility of terrorist attacks. we are told to be prepared but the patriot act prohibits too

much preparing. if we face a major disaster of any sort, and the first responders and every law- enforcement official is overwhelmed, how prepared can we be? guest: that is a very good question. you know, prior to hurricane katrina, a lot of institutions -- mine was found in the wake of the september 11 terrorist attacks. everything was focused on counter-terrorism. after katrina, the approach was -- all hazard. be prepared for man in a tax. terror attacks. natural disasters. thank goodness we have had very few terror incidents in this country. we have had a lot of very serious natural disasters. the planning, training is often coinciding with the needed for

expertise. we evacuated the eastern shore in maryland on the atlantic ocean because of the threatened hurricane. if there was a spray of labile pathogen in the same area, we would need to evacuate the eastern shore. a lot of the 24 natural disasters has carried over value -- a lot of the training for natural disasters has carried over value to terrorist attacks and with the limited resources that governments have and in the budget crisis that we have that the federal level, i think we are doing a really, really good job. i would certainly say that getting additional resources is badly needed. host: michael greenberger with the university of maryland. thank you for your time. one more segment for today. we will take a look at the fda and the house passing the fda

reform act of 2012. we will learn about it and the legislation, which would give the fda the funding to approve new drugs. allan coukell of pew health groups. we will discuss that when we return. ♪ >> said a night, -- >> i think the problem with walter cronkite is people think him as the friendly man.

he was. there is another side of him that wanted to be the best. he was obsessed with ratings and beating the report every night. he is the fiercest competitor i have ever written about. i have written about presidents, generals. walter cronkite's desire to be the best was pronounced. >> douglas brinkley on his new biography of walter cronkite. sunday at 8:00 p.m. eastern and pacific on c-span. >> despite the long tradition of extending voting rights to non property owners and to women, the people of color and to americans, today, a growing number of our fellow citizens are worried about the same disparities and problems that nearly five decades ago, some saw to address. i have heard a consistent

drumbeat of concern from citizens who have reason to believe that we are failing to live up to one of our nation's most mobile ideas. the civil rights movement is in the balance. >> eric holder gave the keynote address at the inaugural faith leader summit on voting rights. watch his address online at the c-span video library. >> "washington journal" continues. host: guest is allan coukell of pew health groups. welcome. this week, work in the house when it deals with the fda and how drugs are inspected and how the drug safety is maintained. give us a sense of what happened? guest: this is a big bill that congress takes up every five years. it is the bill in which the drug industry pays user fees to

support review of new drugs and devices before they come to market. they have done some new things. one of them is looking at how our drugs get to us. now, a lot of them originated overseas. the fda has not recently been able to do overseas inspections, which has created a safety risk. the legislation contains new provisions to address the safety risks and look at manufacturing, the way it is today. host: what you mean by a lot of it coming overseas? guest: 80% of the active ingredient in our prescription drugs originate overseas. some of that is in europe. increasingly, that is from india and china. even the finish drugs -- come from outside the u.s. host: not to many inspectors

going on over here. probably when they come stateside. guest: the law required the fda to do inspections every two years on a domestic facility. they come close to that. every 2.5 years. the law was silent on how often the inspection should occur overseas. for reasons, they are not occurring very often. overseas, every nine years. in china, where it is hard to inspect, less than that. that creates an uneven playing field for american manufacturers. it also means that some of the highest risk facilities are not getting inspected as often as they should. host: if i am paying a user fee for the fda, guest: like a return -- what do i get a return? guest: you do your studies and bring them to the fda and they lok at the evidence. in the 20 years since the fees started, those fees have been

attached to shorter and shorter review times. drugs are coming to market. the review time is much shorter than it used to be. we also have user fees that support these inspections. host: as far as the time to make these tests, what is the length of time? guest: it depends. for the priority review drugs, the ones that really are significant advancements, six months. for the state review, 10 months. host: what is the difference between priority and significant -- standard? guest: priority review is worthy of dss is that this is a significant step review. and we did with the fda assesses this is a significant step review. host: having the manpower to be able to do that, how would you describe the manpower situation at the fda? guest: that is why this

legislation is so important. the fda -- the user fees support half of the fda's budget for the centers for drugs, in particular. the reason the review times have gotten shorter is because there are more people doing these reviews. the reason that it is so important that congress reauthorize is the fees as they will fund. the layoff notices will have to go out if this is not passed. the host: this bill approve that. that is our -- improve that. if you want to ask our guest questions, here are the numbers. 202-737-0001 republicans -- democrats. 202-737-0002 republicans. 202-628-0205 independents. email journal@cspan.org or tweet @cspanwj. the one thing that was highlighted with the bipartisan nature of this be able to go

through. guest: that is a testament partly to the importance of this legislation. the drug industry and the device industry are important parts of the economy. they employ a lot of people. there is a bipartisan recognition that we have to make sure that the innovation is not slowed down by the ending of these user fees. it is a testament to the leadership in the house and the senate, where it started out with different positions on the number of issues. the in an old-fashioned way, we do not always see it, they sat down and compromise to negotiated it out. it has been a true process of bipartisanship. host: there are differences in the house and senate bills? guest: there are close enough they should be able to reconcile. their goal is to get these to the president's desk before july 4. host: here is hartford, conn. abidjan, democrats' line. you are on with allan coukell of pew health groups/

caller: jello. -- hello. i am interested in knowing if there is anything in the bill concerning the regulation of vitamins because i am a little concerned about what happens with vitamins. they seem to be going the way of penicillin where it is overregulated. they're taking the rights away from people as far as taking vitamins. the drug stores do not supply folic acid any more because they make more money selling it by doctors' prescriptions. thank you very much. bye-bye. guest: the short injuries that this legislation addresses brand name drugs to, and their prescription drugs, medical devices. -- generic prescription drugs, medical devices.

by the mets are not addressed. host: beverly hills, california. go ahead. samuel, republican line. caller: good morning. good morning, pedro. i just want to tell your guest that the abhd has manufa ctured -- those are being regulated by the fda did to the high demand. i have adhd and those drugs help. they are getting harder and harder to get. that is because they are being abused by people who are getting spun out. they are boiling the pills. shooting the pills. they're not going to those who are really needing them. can you explain that?

guest: you may be referencing the drug shortages situation, which has been an acute problem in this country in recent years. we have had a lot of crucial drugs that have simply become unavailable. a lot of the time, it is an intravenous drugs used in hospitals. drugs for cancer, in particular. we have had shortages of drugs used for a ph.d. -- adha. those are regular -- adhd. they're regulated by the fda and the dea because they are controlled substances. the d.a. set quotas on production. when we get into shortages, the fda is tasked with something to look at and figure out whether there are ways to reduce said

that it the shortages. interestingly, we had reports of counterfeit drugs for adhd. that is another risk we get into a shortage situation. those are not coming to people through their regular pharmacies. they were being sold on the internet. it illustrates another risk of drug shortages. host: wisconsin. independent l allen ine. allen, independent line. guest: i am sorry for the person has to be on national tv to tell us that every nine years, overseas, plants are being inspected for drugs. that is appalling. you ought to be embarrassed. add the gellar legislators and the fda -- i think the

legislators and the fda rejects something should be done. i would like to know how you feel about that. guest: i think you are absolutely right. it has been a number of years where we have recognized that we cannot have the situation where our drug supply is going on this way. the law was created to deal with a domestic industry. that has changed in recent years. supply chains are very long. they are global. there outsource. is changing now is congress as we have to inspect the facilities and not have this unequal situation of doing very frequent inspections in the u.s., much less globally. host: when it comes to drug tests, what is the backlog like this fallers the ability to bring the drugs to market?

guest: the place where there is the most to give the kid back what is lifted. croaks. -- backlog is generic drugs. the generic companies come in and market the same drug. that is an important part of controlling drug costs. there is a huge backlog in the approving those applications. that is another thing addressed in this legislation. the generic industry will be paying user fees. that should speed up the review of those drugs and hopefully get rid of the backlog in five years. host: massachusetts. hello. caller: good morning. i am hiv-positive so my medication is expensive. one of the reasons they're so expensive is because farmers doing all of this research and drugs are expensive to make, but if they are making that drugs in india were the same drug is $80

a month, why are the prices so high in the u.s.? also, i would like to ask if you could talk about the copycat drugs and why they are so expensive. guest: i think a couple of important distinctions are to be made. one is that it is really expensive to develop a new drug. it is not the cost of manufacturing that drives that expense. it is the cost of doing the clinical studies and coming up with a molecule in the first place and the cost of all the ones that fell into nine get to market. the companies have to eventually recoup. and some parts of the world, drugs that are still on patented the u.s. are being marketed in generic form elsewhere. that is one of the differences that you are seeing.

host: he also talked about copycat drugs. guest: the caller may be referring to generic drugs, which are, once the drug is off patent, you can have the competition command. in other parts of the world, the padron regime it protection is not quite the same. we have situations where countries like india is marketing a drug that is still on patton in the u.s. caller: my question was -- over the past few years, we see more and more lawsuits saying that you can sue to get money. is that due to not profit follow up? were there in medical studies been done hockey -- in adequate

studies being done? do see a lot of lawyers advertising, if you have taken this drug, call us. we will help you get money. i have a surgical implant in my neck that has cost me a lot of problems. i see there is a lawsuit or money put away. that might be one that i might be able to reach because they used an improper implant. it did not work the way it was supposed to. guest: this speaks to one of the differences between the senate bill and the house bill. when a drunk comes to market, it has been tested. -- drug comes to market, it has been tested. we have some experience. you need a system that looks

after the drug has been in wider use for safety problems that you could not have detected early on. we have some of that in drugs. we could have a better a more robust systems. for medical devices, we have much less. the vices often come to market have an been studied in fewer patience. -- patients. they're trying to improve the post market monitoring for safety problems in devices. one of the things we need is a unique device identifier number on each device so that you can have electronic systems that will detect the safety problems when they occur. the senate bill also has some provisions that allow the fda to require a longer or more robust safety studies once the things are the on the market. host: what are examples of medical devices? guest: anything from a town

depressor to an implantable artificial hip or a cardiac defibrillator. the simple things, the more high risk is. the more evidence the fda needs to see. host: missouri. good morning. greg. republican line. caller: do they have any drugs going into the pipeline for ms patients? or their drugs to repair ms? i was just checking to see. guest: well, thank you./ there are some new drugs in the pipeline. host: this tweet -- guest: well, increasingly, the

raw ingredients for generic drugs are coming from india and china . especially china. that is where a lot of growth is. host: louisville, ky. caller: yes, i was wondering why is it not allow that the drugs from in from countries that said of the u.s. -- wht is iy is it allowed tha? guest: the same reason why clothes are manufactured overseas. companies have globalized. source drugsng to into manufacturing in environment where they can do that more competitively. the same market factors that drive some of the other products that we take overseas apply to drugs. host: looking at the reform act, just to give you a little bit of an explanation of the bill was

discussed in the house, it would approve the five-year price tag for $6.4 billion in user fees. $609 million coming from user fees. companies will pay that to the fda. it expedites the approval process of prescription drugs and approves the safety and addresses national shortages, provides public the list of prescription drugs and courts apply. that list, is that available on the web site? >> -- guest: there are summaries and the most current summary is the legislation on the congressional website. host: boston. good morning. paul. republican line. >> caller: there was a drug with a brand name and a change the formulation to make it a film from a tabloid. they get another hole seven years as a brand name, is that true? host: i do not want to comment

on one product or another. certainly by changing the formulations, it is one way that companies can use to extend the time that they have without facing generic competition. host: result, california. can become the democrats' line. -- kathy, a democratic line. host: with mr. question. repeat it. host: i want to comment on a couple of his previous answers about copycat drugs. his answer was inaccurate. copycat drugs are not generic. they are fake drugs that are sent in from other countries or manufactured elsewhere and then the restructuring -- there was a shortage of paid methods. that is not true. they're not being prescribed

because doctors fear to prescribe them. that is my comment. guest: copycat is not a term that has any defined legal meaning. i think how an earlier caller was using the term -- we need to distinguish between generic drugs, which fda- approved and meet standards for safety, and what this caller is referring to, which is counterfeit drugs coming in from outside. that is a separate list. one that is not addressed in this legislation. that is something congress is still looking at. do we have a system in our pharmacies that would detect

counterfeit drugs? we do not right now. congress is still looking at this with a potential to added to this legislation. host: which agency is investigating counterfeit drugs? guest: the fda and state regulators. host: same cloud, minnesota. larry on our independent line. go ahead. good morning. caller: i am an illustrator for a medical oncology practice. i have noticed it has only been for three years we have had this unacceptable shortage of chemotherapeutic agents, which are causing major harm to thousands of patience throughout the country. it seems like there is all of this -- the change in regulatory

activity, i guess i would say. that does not sound very independent, but it is. guest: you are absolutely right that the shortages that we have seen to have really spike in the past few years. and that cancer drugs have been especially affected. a lot of the problem has been drugs for intravenous use. the lot of the problems can be traced to manufacturing problems in a relatively small number of facilities. and, so, one of the things this legislation does is required manufacturers, if they are making a drug where they are the only supplier or one of a few, to give the fda more advance notice if they have a problem or if they decide to stop making a drug that could lead to a

shortage. i think it also underlines the importance of making sure that companies are meeting high quality standards so we do not have the distorted situations. host: how to other countries handle the rate at which they bring new drugs to market? just funded a study last week comparing review times in the u.s. with canada and the european union. a.m., studies find that drugs typically come to market faster in the u.s. then either canada or the youth. -- the e you. review times are shorter. they come into the u.s. first. host: do they depend on user fees? guest: good question. i do not know the answer. host: california. hello.

you are on our republican line. caller: hello. i have a good question. i have insurance. i want to know why we are covering certain medications that are required by your doctor on the insurance. if you already have insurance. the but, because it is a certain brand name, they will not cover it. the i am fighting my insurance company right now to get this medication that properly helps me with my depression and anxiety. unfortunately, my insurance company will not cover it. we need to fight for it. i want to know, also, why is it so expensive? guest: i think one point to make here is that the fda does not have anything to do with what insurance covers. the job of the fda is to look at

the products before they come to market and weigh up the evidence for how much benefit is and what their risk is in to make that determination. also, once the product is on the market, to stay vigilant so we understand safety risks. insurers, which are temperas, are looking at that same evidence for risk and benefit. they are grappling with how do we control cost and they are making determinations about which products they will cover. that sometimes puts a patient in a difficult situation. host: this tweet -- guest guest: are on $1 billion. this takes into account the cost of failures of all the drugs they start developing. and they will not eventually make it to market. there are certainly people who say that number is now higher.

there are others who will say it is actually much lower than that. that is an inflated number. that is a ballpark number. host: when it comes to drug testing, did they use a centralized approach or debate format to other labs? guest: it depends on what you are talking about. when you were looking at the core function of how effective our drugs are, the fda is looking at data provided from studies that the companies have conducted. the companies do studies, working with hospitals and doctors. the foot looks at how the studies are designed and works with the companies. they do the studies and the data back to the fda. they certainly have analytical laboratories for looking at chemical things that they have at the fda. in terms of that core function of looking at the effectiveness of the drugs, that is looking at data the companies are bringing in. host: the final decision is based on data provided by the company itself.

north hills, connecticut. good morning to you. caller: hello. my concern has to do with the person saying the cost of drugs -- somebody wanted to know. it cost drug companies a lot of money to develop these drugs. the federal government provides large research and development credits. those tax credits are huge for the drug companies. so, it is not as expensive as you are alluding. could you please comment? guest: well, i think the development of medical products occurs in an environment where among the early research's

published -- private capital makes big investment to refine molecules into the clinical studies, as with under industries. there are various tax credits that applied. over recent years, the industry as a whole has been healthier and less healthier in terms of their profit margins. i think there is room for debate about the balances within the system and how well is structured. but, i do not think anything would argue that it is not expensive to develop a new drug. host: we are talking about a of pewsafety with l health groups. dayton, ohio. marie. hello. caller: i want to know why it is more expensive the a u.s. than in france. i was in france.

i bought the same medication and it was much cheaper there than here. i do not understand why. it was the same company. the same brand. guest: i will make the point that the legislation we are talking about this week is really the fda, which does not go to how drugs are a price. part of the answer is in some countries, their price controls on drugs that we do not have in the u.s. host: this e-mail -- tweeted -- guest: a generic drug contains the exact same active ingredient in the same amount and any tablets has filler,

which is part of making up the tablets in making sure that it dissolves in the right way. generic drugs have the same active ingredient as the plan name drugs. host: buffalo, new york. republican line. caller: i would like to know why is it that the public is not notified that there is pork being put in medication. you have religious individuals who do not eat pork. pork is also damaging to people who have asthma, at some of, high blood pressure. the also, diabetics. now, the doctors knew this years ago. they did not put pork in medication. now, they're putting pork in medication.

people are suffering from this. they're having their legs cut off because of the healing process. for people with asthma, it causes asthma attacks. host: how did you found out about this? caller: i read in the medical journal they were putting pork in medication. it the generics. host: we will leave it there. >> i do not know -- guest: i do not know what the caller is referring to. one possibility is that she has read about a drug called -- it is a blood thinner. it is one of the drugs that has been crucial in raising the recognition that we needed to address.

this drug was made in china and was contaminated during its manufacturing. the molecule that is used to make the drug is derived from the guts of pigs. what we learned when this drug reached the u.s. and sickened patience was there was not adequate control on that outsourced supply chain. that may be what the caller is at least in part referring to. what this legislation does is it increases the fda's ability to conduct inspections overseas, where the drugs come from. it holds the manufacturing to a higher standard in terms of them knowing who their suppliers are

and what quality is in place. host: allan coukell of the pew health groups. dallas texas. caller: i'm sure the fda and -- pharmaceutical companies are very competitive. does the fda submit or let the doctors and hospital know that one drug is better than another drug? do they have a ranking list that they give these doctors and hospitals for these new medications that come on line? guest: the fda approves a drug based on its effectiveness. what they say about a drug when it comes on the market depends how it has been steady. if a drug has been compared to a placebo, all the fda can say is this is more affected than a placebo. if the drug has been compared to some drug that is already on the

market, the fda can say how it compares to the drug that is already out there. if you do not have the data, you cannot make this sort of list the caller is talking about. host: if the bill did sign, how long before we would see action at the fda? guest: this legislation comes up every five years. the fda will almost immediately be responsible for beginning to implement these things. the user fee agreements as well as providing funds to the agency. holding the agency accountable for holding deadlines in terms of reviews and inspections. host: how much of the budget is made up of user fees? guest: over have for drugs. smaller for devices. in the food center, there are a few. host: this is robert.

democrat line. caller: is it true the pharmaceutical lobbyists are the most well funded in washington? guest: it is a large lobby. i do not know if it is the largest. it is an industry that is larger and that is heavily influenced by the actions of government. host: talk a little bit about your role in this. guest: pew health groups conducts research and advocacy. we conducted early research on the supply chain and the risks associated with global -- drug globalization. we have worked with the industry and members of congress of both parties in both chambers to raise awareness of those problems. we've also done a lot of work to

looking at antibiotics. a drug for hypertension will always be effective for an antibiotic loses effectiveness. we are recognizing that we do not have many antibiotics in the pipeline. we could have a serious public health crisis. we have been looking at what policies we could put in place to make sure that we have continuous innovation of new in idiotic and one piece of this legislation is a provision that would add some protections and value to companies that develop certain new antibiotics. we have been looking at medical devices and what steps we can take to make sure we have a system that will get innovative products to the market in a timely way, and be effective in looking for safety problems and detecting them once the product are out there.

host: california. republican line. caller: i just have a quick question. it is not necessarily having to do with drug safety. it has to do with the law. i saw a doctor in one county and he notified a doctor in another county that i was going to see. i was kind of going from appointment -- a day or two without calling. he called this doctor in another county and told him that i was doubling up on medication and that he should not seen me. is there a law that protects me from that? guest: that is not a question i have an answer to. medicine is not regulated by the fda. host: what is the timetable and

what you expect over the next few weeks? guest: the goal that the house and senate have laid out is to reconcile the bills and get them to the president before july 4. i am optimistic they will be able to keep to that schedule. host: thank you for your time. for tomorrow, we will talk politics starting at 7:45 a.m. with mark murray. we are joined by craig gilbert of the milwaukee journal. the recall election takes place in tuesday at 745 -- takes place next tuesday. this starts at 7:45 a.m. we will talk about yesterday program in europe -- the austerity program in europe. at ninth about 3:00 p.m., we will talk about what is going on in syria, particularly as the

u.s. considers a role. that'll take place tomorrow at 7:00 a.m. do not forget, "newsmakers" starts at 10:00 a.m. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2012] >> our guest this week as enforcement chief for the securities and exchange