after that, an author on what americans really want, which examines public opinion and what people want from their lives, plus your e-mails and phone calls. "washington journal" is next. dû host: on capitol hill this week, another busy week. on the senate side, the finance committee marks its health-care bill. 500 amendments are out there on that senate bill.

the president makes appearances on several of the sunday morning talk shows today. then he heads to new york for his first meeting with united nations. we want to get your thoughts this morning in advance of that meeting. have you think the president is doing eight months into the job? how is he projecting the u.s. around the world? for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. lots of coverage of the president's pending appearances in new york city this week. lots of activity in new york. as part of the coverage, "the washington post" had this picture of him shout -- sharing a moment with the u.n. secretary-general. in new york on wednesday the president will address the u.n.

for the very first time. the headline on the front page says "obama's world wide star power finds limits." "barack obama has become a global celebrity, far more popular abroad than he is at home and sometimes it but in the four leaders among their own people. he has sought to use his renown to repair america's image in the world, extending an open hand in major speeches on trips to more than a dozen countries. obama has started talks to limit nuclear weapons, helped orchestrate the world's response to economic collapse, reversing bush era politics that have angered allies. just as the domestic honeymoon ended, international and have demonstrated the limits of obama's personal charm. as he takes the stage to address the united nations for the first

time wednesday, obama will face world leaders whose rebukes of the new american presidents serve as reminders of the world's differences with the united states transcend who is in the white house. european nations have refused to sign -- refused to send significant numbers of new troops to aid the u.s.-led war in afghanistan. u.s. efforts to head off a coup in honduras were ineffective. north korea continues to develop nuclear weapons. iran may be doing so. middle east leaders have rebuffed obama's efforts at peacemaking." a bit on the president as world leader today. our first call, from georgia on the democratic line. caller: how are you doing? host: fine, what you think? caller: first of all, thank you for c-span. i think that obama is doing a good job. he has been in office for about

eight months. i am not a racist, understand that, but it does not make a difference. what he does, someone is always going to criticize the president. fox news, bill o'reilly, they spend so much time talking about bad things about him. host: i get your point, but let me jump in. as it relates to the foreign affairs aspect, what can you point to that is good? caller: specifically? host: what do you see out there? caller: he is trying to get these countries together. trying to talk to them in a positive way. not like a bully. he is trying to get people to talk. people will not let him talk. people always criticize, which

is ludicrous host: joe, independent line, texas. -- ludicrous. host: joe, independent line, texas. caller: what he is trying to do in the middle east, telling israel to stop settlements is the right thing. it is moving the middle east governments closer to our position, where they fell completely apart from us. and he has begun to talk to iran, talking to him about the problems, moving the missiles out of eastern europe. making the strain with russia less. north korea, allowing clinton to go in there.

that is all going to add to the conversation and put less stress and strain. i think that the opposition wants a continued war. that is the only industry that they see in this country. the military industrial complex. host: we appreciate your thoughts. let's hear from georgia, from mississippi. republican line. caller: i want to say that as a leader he has done a terrible job. host: how so? caller: morceau domestically. i know that you asked about nationally, he is supposed to unite the united states, but he did not even unite his own party. half of the people have united -- have of the people voted for hillary clinton. he has treated her very poorly.

as a result he has lost a lot of support in congress. he has divided his own party, for that reason. host: more from "the washington post." "there was a sigh of relief around the world because it was not president bush. what was he going to do to solve these problems? they have not seen that yet. obama's top foreign-policy advisers say the president's popularity abroad has helped to clear a path for substantial policy achievement by ushering in a new era." the u.s. ambassador to the u.n. said "the administration's conscious decision to break with the presidency of george w. bush has altered the dynamics of world politics.

it is palpable every day with a new openness and willingness to listen and respect our policies and politics, a readiness to cooperate even where in the past we have met resistance. not just change in tone and reaction, but change in policy that has been noted in recognized -- noted and recognized. "what did you expect? the president is elected and we reach nirvana in short order? that is ridiculous." angelo, democratic line. president obama as a world leader, how is he doing? caller: fantastic, he could not do better. host: give me an example. caller: he has de-vilified several world leaders who were portrayed during the bush

administration as ready to slice us up. hugo chavez, remember we had to sell that oil out of the reserves? he came in with money when we needed it. he has spent more time in europe, probably, than bush did in his entire presidency. they love him because they understand he is an educated man. he was a professor. he and his wife, it is almost like a storybook. hard to believe they are for real. god bless them. i think that this is going to turn out to be the best presidency. he has ruffled a few feathers by abandoning the missiles and all of that.

more the people from the military-industrial complex that will locket rich off of those missiles. the same way with the patriots in israel. they do not work. host: some more news out there, "politico" writing about the israelis and palestinians. "one day after george mitchell left with no deal on the resumption of peace talks, the white house announced saturday that president obama will meet tuesday with benjamin netanyahu in new york. that meeting will be immediately preceded by separate meetings between obama and each leader. the announcement change to the mideast had not had -- headline from stalemate to break through as the obama administration enters the week in which foreign policy takes center stage.

all parties say it is unlikely that the meeting and tuesday will be accompanied by his long sought announcement on the resumption of peace talks." winchester, massachusets. you are on the air. james, independent line. caller: a ibm a big fan obama. he has done a really good job internationally. host: how so? caller: i think a lot of it is just the tone. europeans and others really looked down on the united states, at least our government, during the bush years. they thought that we were arrogant. they thought that we did things on our own. i agree with them. obama's is very intelligent. he is really awful.

i agree a lot with that editorial. host: let me throw at you "the washington post" tenor of the piece. "popular abroad, not translating into foreign policy." do you see it that way? f caller: i would agree with that. the fact is is really hard to influence the world really directly, but by changing the tone, that is the first step. you change the tone and work with your allies. you do not expect things to turn around immediately, but to go in the right direction. host: amanda, republican line. how are you? what you think of president obama as a world leader?

caller: he has done a terrible job. host: what has been terrible? caller: my husband lost his job here in ohio. we were told that if obama got in, be would not have a job, that unemployment would rise if we did not pass the stimulus. host: what kind of work does he do? -- caller: he worked in a foundry. i am watching a friend after friend lose job after job. i am not seeing the great things i keep hearing about. i am afraid to say it, but then if i say it in a racist. host: "warm reception likely for obama at united nations."

an article by betsy pisik who will be on this program tomorrow. "visiting summit on tuesday as a part of climate change. aiming to force agreement between developed and developing nations on carbon emissions. the same day that mr. obama will host the meeting in an effort to lay the groundwork for renewed negotiations. tuesday the president hosts a lunch for leaders of sub- saharan african countries. the president is going to focus on job creation for young people. wednesday, when the general assembly formally convenes, he will speak third. mr. obama will be followed by

the libyan leader, khaddafi. stanley, hello. caller: i think he is doing a great job. it is going to take him four more years to clean up the mess started by george bush. when he left office, he wants to blame mr. obama? that is ridiculous. this time, four more times, every year that george bush was in office. host: calif., independent line. caller: how are you doing? host: what is your reading so far on the president as a world leader? caller: we agree ecstatically,

on each side of the nation. i cannot hear my own ears what i hear the lying republicans, who lied about 9/11, iraq, now they are shouting liar when they know what they did? they are the masters of fabrication. using taxpayer dollars to commit genocide and innocent civilians. why will the propaganda puppets not rely on what they're doing? bring back anti propaganda. bring back the media. fine the hell out of those fear mongers and traders.

do not forget pat tillman or racial corey, killed by greed and political retards, i think. host: we are doing a round table in about 10 minutes with kevin baker and stephen moore. we will talk economics and other issues with the obama presidency so far. from "the washington post" they point out "muslims in india watching a live broadcast of the president, speaking of a new beginning of u.s. islamic ties. barrels of good will for obama, a few foreign policy benefits in doubt. he has gone a long way of meeting its goal in restoring his country's international standing. polls show that many people in

many countries appeal better about this than the u.s.. it has translated into limited tangible policy benefits for mr. obama. foreign leaders have not done out of their way to give him what he has sought. st. louis, good morning. caller: good morning. 64-years old, indoctrinated republican. president obama is probably the best president i have seen in my lifetime in terms of international relations. it takes time to affect change. the very fact that international leaders are willing to speak with him, that he has extended an out reach is an extremely positive step for this country.

one cannot expect miracles overnight. in my opinion his efforts will bring results that the road. host: appreciate it. boston, are you on the line? caller: the measure of a great president is how prepared he is to stand up against the israeli lobby. he is light years ahead of bush and all of the other sycophantic. host: "the week in review" has a picture, "welcome to new york." the right about the u.n. as being a studio for the showings of the world on the home front. who is in charge? "view, first."

"100 liters prepared to lead on climate change -- 100 world leaders prepared to meet on climate change, it is the highest level summit meeting on climate change ever convened. the indian government has announced a major commitment to solar power, yet they were pilloried last summer for accepting the international goal of preventing a global temperature rise of more than 2 degrees fahrenheit. the u.s. is hoping for progress on a badly stalled agreement and is hoping for someone to take a firm lead." college park, maryland. the morning. caller: my attitude towards the obama administration and how he is doing as world leader and

all, one of the things i have noticed is that i do not see a big difference for basic departure in the way he has conducted himself as a world leader. one of the things i was looking for, personally, in terms of him demonstrating that he was going to do something different was his attitude towards investigating the bush administration. there was a coalition of american citizens that came out, what do the american people have to do to get noticed by their government? there was like a nationwide coalition of citizens calling for an investigation of allies and dubious ways and means -- of the lies and dubious ways and

means that we got into the iraq war. change and a different attitude in the way the intends to conduct his office as president. host: thank you. virginia, republican line. hello th backup caller: i have a couple of things to say. -- hello? caller: i have a couple of things to say. i think he has done a miserable job. he apologizes about everything about the usa. he is uninformed. he has weakened our defenses. he has the means the majority of the united states of america. if you disagree you are a racist. if you have tea parties you are a key backer. -- tea bagger.

we are going have over $17 trillion in debt. i can he help done a miserable job all around. host: "politico" writes that obama touts reform. "in advance of the economic summit in pittsburgh, the president call a for regulatory reform legislation that has been languishing on capitol hill." "part of his message seemed to be aimed at americans when they find themselves wondering why he is planning to spend most of next week hobnobbing with world leaders at the un and in pittsburgh while historic health care reform legislation is that a critical state in congress. attempting to close gaps in regulation around the world,

that will be one of the big topics." in "appear heard post-gazette -- "the pittsburgh post-gazette," obama called it a city that is a model for the future. "if there is any precedent that might sympathize with the thousands of protesters expected to flood pittsburg, it would be the one who used to be a community organizer. the president said he was not an advocate of mass protests, such as the ones planned for this week, while working in the south side of chicago in the 1980's. "i was always a big believer, when i was doing organizing before i went to law school, that focusing on concrete, local, immediate issues are what makes a difference. to have hot protest about abstraction like global capitalism is -- to have a protest about abstraction like

global capitalism, not going to have an affect her." -- not going to have an effect." robert, good morning. caller: he is doing ok in redirecting the missile defense shield. on one thing, the secretary of state was overseas. she was asked what her husband's opinion was on an issue. the press seemed to jump on her for getting upset about that. i think that he should have backed her up on that. if you are doing this and your people out into the field, secretary of state, you should

let the world know that she has your full and complete backing. show a bit more backbone for the people you are sending out there. other than that i think he is doing a good job. if the news media would stop treating this presidency like a nielsen's ratings war and taking a poll every damn time he takes a deep breath, we might get something done rather than having him running around answering this and that question from this and that poll. host: joe, ky. independent line. good morning. caller: this guy cannot even be a leader at home. he has got the country divided between the whites and blacks. i got another question for c-

span. you guys need have a host on their from alaska public radio. they have a host this from alaska public radio on your program, which is shameless. host: "obama cannot afford to put afghanistan on the back burner." here is the thesis, she writes, "the president wants to postpone a full-scale debate until congress passes health care reform. unfortunately, afghanistan will not wait on health care. a debate on the direction of his afghan policy is already brewing, especially over whether to send more troops. yet this debate is being conducted in a vacuum. the president has laid out his name, to disrupt dismantle and

defeat al qaeda, and other extremists in pakistan and afghanistan. administration officials have briefed congress on a list of 50 metric by which to judge whether the policy is succeeding. with the crucial element in the debate is missing -- the president has not resolve the dispute among advisers and within his party over his afghan strategy. " ken, good morning. what you think of president obama as a world leader? caller: a couple of things, real quick. i think they he is on the appeasement side a little bit. the war in iraq, we often hear about how president bush lied, lied, lied. he went through the back door to

stop and allocated-supplied country. remember, al-zarkawi was killed in iraq. chemical weapons and nerve gas missiles, let me drop those in your backyard. since the end -- 1860's we have been trying to get past this. we had 6000 casualties in the union army. a lot of confederate soldiers died for the wrong cause. you cannot have separation of state. but the thing is we have to realize whether the president is black, white, yellow, red, here is the thing, we need to be realistic. now we have to look of the casualties where we are at now. i think that appeasement of

these other nations, trying to get into everybody's private lives as far as health care goes, he is throwing some kind of division into this country. we need to quit calling everyone names. host: bruce, jacksonville, independent line. you have the last word. caller: i have been watching the national media for the last couple of days with this missile defense thing. everyone says it is on the anniversary of the day that russia invaded poland. everyone got it wrong, it was germany. the president is going around apologizing to european nations? they have forgotten about the second world war, where we bail them out. -- bailed them out.

our friendliness with the dictators down there in honduras, not recognizing their supreme court, basically we are just going around apologizing everybody, kissing the hand of the king of saudi arabia. if we had not had the gulf war's, he would not be sitting there. that is all i have to say on that. host: thank you, sir. in our next segment we will have more of your phone calls, as well as our guests, stephen moore and kevin baker. we want to remind you about our "newsmakers" program, tonight with michael turner, republican from ohio. ranking member of the armed

services strategic subcommittee, talking about various items related to the defense missile shield in iraq and afghanistan. >> i will not take a point of view of the russians, but it did drive them crazy that we would have large interceptors that could be armed with nuclear warheads right next door where they have very little warning. >> they have got 3000 tactical nuclear weapons right there. i do not buy that they have a reasonable basis to be asking for concessions from us on a defensive system. therefore i do not buy that it is a concession we should have made. >> if they were to put large missiles in cuba as a defensive shield? >> a different issue, obviously. >> i think that if the shoe was

on the other foot, would you feel threatened at all if they were putting large interceptors in our own backyard? >> is a nato endorsed system. -- it's is a nato endorsed system. -- it is a nato endorsed system. you are conceding that we should not be there and that nato should not be there. >> i am trying to get at why we might want to -- we have bigger fish to fry with russia, for instance. we might want to concede that a planned. you do not think -- can seem that -- concede them a pulli. point. >> i do not believe that defense of systems are the way to do it.

-- defensive systems are the way to do it. i do not believe that the risk of moving from 2013 to 2020, the u.s. capability of icbm protection from iran is worth it. host: that is congressman mike turner, republican from ohio. "newsmakers" today at 10:00 a.m. eastern and 6:00 p.m. eastern, here on c-span. here is a cartoon, showing the president on the food network. there is a couple sitting on a couch. "is there a channel he is not on." appia [laughter] wannstephen moore is one of our

guests. he is going to be on five networks this morning, what is his goal? >> pushing -- guest: pushing the health care initiative. i do think that he is suffering from overexposure. i think that people are getting a little tired of seeing him on television day after day. it is interesting, the more that he talks about an issue, the less that the public approves of it. the public wants this " to succeed. -- wants this to succeed.

host:k, -- kevin baker, obama to hit sunday talk show circuit, five appearances facing the familiar issue of overexposure. there is that word. can a president be overexpose? oguest: talk about one of the greatest non issues of our time. before the problem was that he was not out in front on this issue, now he is overexpose? as i recall, his poll numbers for health care went up after addressing congress. i do not think that this is a problem at all. host: this is a round table. for democrats, 202-737-0002. for republicans, 202-737-0001. for independents, 202-628-0205. up in new york city, kevin

baker, one of the contributing editors for "harpers." here at the table is stephen moore with "the wall street journal." the reason we wanted to peer you together is that you have had interesting writings lately on president obama and herbert hoover. mr. baker, you can see this shot of the president here in a herbert hoover-esque collar. "the best and brightest blow it again. " what are you saying here? guest: like herbert hoover, barack obama was ahead on seeing the various crises we had to deal with, but was not able to detach himself from the

conventional wisdom of the politics of the time. host: why he -- why has he not been able to detach himself? oguest: it is a very markemuch t of him. a professional attachment to the people, barack obama probably too much respects the sort of people that built the current wall street, built the current american economy, feeling that things just need some tweaking. a more dramatic change is necessary. guest: like herbert hoover, he is advocating trade relationships changing. let's hope that he does not turn

out like herbert hoover. it is clear that what was the trigger point for the great depression was the infamous tariff on over 2000 good throughout the american economy. it was the trigger for the stock market crash. you need a president that is free trade. congress is always going to protect their parochial district. southerners protecting agriculture. if you do not have a president that is pro-free trade, you will have a problem with the trading system. one out of every three jobs in the united states is a result of export. host: the health-care debate on capitol hill, we know how strenuous and has been for the president and others along the way, in "the new york times"

they are talking about 500 amendments floating around out there. what is it going to take for the president to get what he wants. what do you think that he wants at this point? guest: not sure what he wants. remember, the wall street crash was before that tariff. i am not sure that the president knows what he wants at this point. going into the debate it was about controlling costs. now he feels the public option can be discarded, apparently, from the mixed signals he is giving us. i am not sure what is going to come from this. one of his problems is that he has been to free in letting everyone in congress have a say. the congressional leadership is so confused, it has led to

chaos. host: let's take a short look at a piece on the president on the joints health care reform session -- on the joint session of congress on health care reform. >> added up, we will be spending less than we have spent on the iraq and afghanistan war is, less than the tax cuts for the wealthiest few americans that congress passed at the beginning of this administration. [applause] most of these costs will be paid for with money already being spent, but spent badly in the existing health care system. the plan will not add to our deficit. the middle-class will have

greater security, not higher taxes. if we can swallow health-care costs by one-tenth of 1% each year we will actually reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over the long term. host: here is the editorial from "the washington post." "there are flaws in the max baucus plan. " where you want to see this go? like guest: to set the record straight, kevin has it wrong on the smooth polly tariff. there is a great book by jude wineski, it is true that it passed after the smoke -- after the stock-market crash, but it was moving rapidly through

congress. every time that the bill moved through congress, the stock market crashed more. no question about it, it was the trigger point. [laughter] read the book, an excellent book. on the health-care problem, the american people made it clear they they did not want a government takeover. the problem is that this president, so many massive big government spending programs. i think that the american people are in revolt. i was there on saturday, people are so angry about the massive expansion of government, people are not in the mood for this bill right now. they do want to see reform, they

do not know how to do it. host: mason, republican line. good morning. caller: hello. i was just thinking, like, does cost make any difference? looking at cost as a whole, would we not have to add it up as cost for the nation? looking at it in a completely different way? say that an illegal mexican comes over here, why not treat him and sent him back to mexico if he catches the flu? that is all i got. host: kevin baker? guest: there is a problem with excluding illegal immigrants from all of this, which obama is doing. i know that that is a big issue

with the astroturf protesters. health problems do not stop at an individual. in new york city, this is a city where four years the wealthy would be dying of the diseases of the poor. cholera, typhus, eventually people got the idea. these things spread, we need have decent health care for everybody. the latest version is that the legal immigrants will not even be able to buy, with their own money, into an american health care plan. that is ridiculous. guest: first of all, it was not astroturf. there were a quarter of a million people. capitol police said it was the biggest protests since the

vietnam war. guest: not really, no. guest: that is what the capital corp. -- capital police said. the problem with this issue is that the president is going to create this massive entitlement for folks without health insurance. it is a laughable preposition. how are you going to cover 40 million more people? the biggest health care crisis we have in this country is medicare. we are $30 trillion in debt over the next five years how are we going to make this -- five years. how are we going to make this work over the next decade? guest: those people without health care insurance, they have to go to the emergency room every time they have an illness,

which greatly drives up the cost. medicare, for whatever problems it has, runs at a much smaller deficit than these private health insurance policies, in which huge amounts are taken out for profit, huge amounts are spent trying to deny claims. host: apple valley, minn.. independent line. caller: how are you? i am a little disturbed about the press ought -- about the press and what they have been saying about racism and everything. it was the white people that voted for robaracko halfin. i am from a by racial family.

that hit me really hard when they said that theory got i have so many white friends, black, american, vietnamese, i have lived in japan and saudi arabia, if it is not like i have not been out of the united states or anything. a person is a person in this racial thing that is being stirred up, it would not be hard for braracko to come out to say that it was the white voters had voted me in. no, there is no comment coming from the white house to stop this. you know what i am saying? op-e

host: thank you for the call. guess how the president has said that he did nothing to there is racism. there is a racial component to this. when you have protesters holding signs about africans in the white house, let's face it, there is a racial component. host: is there a racial component? guest: by m aid -- at -- i am at a disadvantage against kevin, i have met these folks. covering these town hall meetings. the idea that these are manufactured or trumped up by industry, that is crazy. the american people are extremely angry and the polls show this. they are angry about the out of control government in washington.

on the issue of race, i am a conservative. i have spoken to many conservatives. we are proud of the fact we have a black president. it is a great moment for america. i was on chris matthews a few weeks ago, the idea that conservatives do not want a black president to succeed, that is insulting. jimmy carter was a bigger dingbat and the people in the white house now, and he was white. how can this be racial issue? guest: i think that there is something well beyond race going on here. something more disturbing, the refusal of the right in this country to accept the legitimacy

of any elected democratic president. that is a very disturbing thing. constant, well funded attempts, well documented by industry and various lobbying groups. attempts to take away the legitimacy of this president by insisting he was not born in this country, etc., etc. guest: because a democrat would never claim that a republican president was not legally voted in. you made my point. [laughter] guest: let's identify some of that mob in miami and talk about grassroots, 2001, people that broke up the ballot recount. it was decided by the republican

dominated supreme court, democrats went ahead and accepted that george w. bush was the president. there were no disputes as to who won the last election, republicans have refused to accept the legitimacy of this president. guest: it is more the ideas. there are some people on the fringe that believe that barack obama was not born in the united states, i do not believe that. a vast majority of conservatives do not believe that. this is a policy dispute. do we want the government to run out of control as it has under george bush and barack obama? bush economic policies have been a disaster for this country, $9 trillion we cannot pay back. host: the jimmy carter speech

will be running tonight on c- span. eleanor, democratic line. caller: i am a dentist here in tennessee. thank you for this program, it has been very interesting. one of the issues we are facing in this state and across the country, there has been a great deal of talk about medical issues in this country, but very little talk of the dental care costs in this country. i am the founder of the dental aid society in chattanooga. one of the reasons why this organization was founded was because there has been a great deal of staff in the united states -- death in the united states due to lack of coverage for dental. when will we be talking about these issues? we have invited the president to

come to chattanooga to address the issue of access to care in the area of dental. all over the country we have seen deplorable health [no audio] host: are you still there? we got the point. comments? guest: if you look at the condition of america's dental health, there is no question that we have much improved over the last century, but to the greater point, do you want health insurance? what is insurance? many conservatives believe that insurance should cover catastrophic events. cancer, you break your leg, and expensive procedure. one of the problems with the direction we're going is that we are covering things that are not expensive. things like going for a dental

checkup, that should be paid out of pocket. if you do that you could cover a huge number of people and we could reduce by half the number of people without insurance coverage. host: kevin baker, from your piece you write "every instinct that the president uses in washington, every inclination of the political culture urges the liberation. if any significant change is to be brought about, we are at a rare moment in history where the radicals have become pragmatic. these emergencies have not been confronted more than a handful of times in our history." guest: change is incremental. lasting change comes incrementally and is done through compromise, worked out over a certain length of time.

however, there are times where you are headed towards a cliff and you have got to dramatically turn the wheel. that is what he has failed to do here. mr. obama and his aides seem to have felt that the hundred days scenario was a kind of fetish of the media and in this case it was not. it was a very good time in which to do things in any administration, particularly at the moment of crisis that he was blessed with when he came in. trying to get done as much as you possibly can with your narrative, he made a major mistake in not doing that. guest: my goodness, out of the gate he passed the biggest spending bill in this country. we have the bailout of the car companies, a bailout for people that cannot buy their homes. what is going on right now for the left, there is a massive movement against big government. there is a gallup poll from last

week asking americans how much of every dollar that you spend to what -- that you send to washington is wasted? the average answer was 50 out of every dollar. people do not want this agenda. that is the problem they're having, in revolt against the government. guest of you keep mentioning these bailouts, you never mentioned the bailout of wall street, something lots of people were very upset about. somehow the right wing was not really that opposed to it. letting it go where it would, allowing things to fall apart. if you think that that would have been a good idea, letting the world financial market go down without intervening, i suggest you all should have spoken up louder the time.

guest: i did. many conservatives did. you remember the vote that we had on the big bailout bill, and you remember, all, that republicans -- you remember it. guest: anyway, they took a political posture that defines the republicans today. guest: it was democrats and bush that passed the bailout. conservatives were against it. how can you say that that -- you are against wall street bailout when you say that you thought it was the right thing to do. guest: i said that it was one of the things that people are very upset about. you keep not mentioning it. guest: i was against it. guest: the total

irresponsibility of your party goes on and on. same thing with health care. an attempt to block something that every other western country has, half the idea that everything would be all right this kind of amazing. guest: kevin, the american people do not want a government takeover of the health-care system. they do not want a system like france or canada because it does not work. guest: that is not what the president is proposing. >> yes, he is. >>guest: and, by the way, it wos pretty well. this is something that a lot of businesses are laboring under, this burden. host: we want to get some more calls in. we have about half an hour left

with our guests. "harper's" magazine, kevin baker, a bit more on this hoover comparison. stephen moore, herbert hoover, you wrote about him as a protectionist president. speak to him about trade policy -- speak to the issue of trade policy. .

so there are -- and then he sort of build up government which then led to the new deal unched f.d.r. so i think the better comparison is obama is more like jimmy carter who is trying to move the country way to the left at a time when the country doesn't want to. i think he's misread his mandate from the american

public. host: what do you think of that comparison? guest: i think it's funny, trying to distance himself from presidents who does seem to be rather conservative at heart and quite incremental. yes, jimmy carter, that terrible radical who passed all those socialist policies. this is ridiculous. and as far as all the terrible things hoover did with protectionism, it was overwhelmingly the policy of the united states for decades throughout the 19th century. and under it, we used it to build up quite a few of our industries at home and quite effectively. as for the tire dispute, this is called negotiating. you try to get the best deal for us in the world. that's one of the things you try to do. you rattle sabers. other countries do it as well. to pretend that say china

doesn't have a nationalist economic policy or that france doesn't or anybody doesn't is kind of ridiculous. host: next call, florida. the republican line. hi, tom. caller: good morning. i was going to ask a question earlier but these guys got me interested in another question. the trade issue is very, very interesting. we've got three trade agreements that obama has squellched with colombia and a few others. poland. he stabbed them in the back. they won't return hillary's calls. you know, people tend to forget, the real war in world war ii with japan started out with a trade war. there was protectionism, and it did nobody any good. and when it turned into a hot war we lost a lot of people defending our interesting. and i see the same weaks in. in jimmy carter. what a loser. and i see the same mistakes that hoover made and jimmy carter made.

host: for the last roughly 40 years, we've had a pretty free trade policy in the united states and we haven't had dramatic trade protectionism. we've opened up trade in north america and with europe. and it is true that we are more free trade than other countries like china and especially like europe. what's interesting is that over the last 30 years as we've moved toward free trade, the united states created 46 million new jobs. europe, which is much more trade protectionist than we are, they keep out imported goods, they created 1/6th as many jobs as we did. so this idea that trade loses jobs in america, it just isn't proven. guest: during that same period, we've had that going back to 1980, we've had serious stag nation and reduction in buying power and wages in this country. so the question in part is what

kind of jobs. just to speak to the caller. our war with japan didn't start over a trade war. it started over the fact that we were boycotting certain goods to japan in protest of their imperialist policy attacking nations like china and trying to expand their territory. the japanese took exception to this. so just to put that right. guest: consumer protection, that was the topic of the president's weekly address yesterday. here's a short piece. >> central to these reforms is a new consumer financial protection agency. part of what led to this crisis were not just decisions made on wall street but also unsustainable mortgage loans made across the country. while many folks took on more than they knew they could afford, too often foiks signed  contracts they didn't understand. that's why we need clear rules, clearly enforced. and that's what this agency will do. consumers shouldn't have to

worry about loan contracts written to confuse, hidden fees attached to their mortgages and financial penalties whether through a credit card or debt card that appear without a warning on their statements. and responsible lenders like community banks trying to do the right thing shouldn't have to worry about ruinous competition by unregulated competitors. not surprisingly lobbyists are for big ranks are trying to keep thing it is way they are. but we can't let politics as usual triumph of so business as usual can rein. host: even more the politico writes those comments as part of in advance of the g-20. what are your thoughts? guest: well, look, i'm certainly for a lot of the thing that is barack obama talked about. more transparency so you demow what you're signing up for is

pro consumer and it will lead to less defaults. but what's interesting is when the president went to wall street this week, i think monday or tuesday, he gave a lot about a return to financial responsibility on wall street. there were some snickers in the audience, and the reason for that is, my goodness, who in the world is washington to tell wall street to be financially responsible? folks, we have a $6 trillion national debt that the president wants to take the national debt up another $9 trillion. we're going to see the bankrupting of this country if we stay on this path. we can't do this. we have to start slashing government so that we can pay our bills. and so i just thought it was ironic when the president said wall street should be financially responsible when washington isn't. guest: well, i think it's telling wall street is one of the foundations of our prosperity in the 20th century. before the 1930s, before the new deal reforms, most people

did not invest in wall street. they stayed far away from it even if they had the money because it was considered an inherently unsafe place full of bucket shops, et cetera. one of the things that was done by regulating this is to make wall street a place that a lot of people wanted to invest in. and i think that's something that's got to be address ds now. i think wall street doesn't quite understand how much they've endangered their brand here. if you have another one of these debalkles as we did last fall, you're going to have it be the thing with with where for generations people will be afraid to put their money there. guest: i agree with that. host: there was this story in the "new york times," leading senator pushing nuss plan to oversee banks.

guest: it's interesting. i just heard about this. but it is true that we have unbelievable numbers of agencies that oversee wall street and banks. we have the fdic, the s.e.c., the federal reserve bank, the federal home loan bank. so we have all these multiple agencies that are supposed to be guarding wall street against these financial crisis and to some extent they fell asleep at the switch. i have some skepticism as to whether new financial regulation is going to prohibit the kind of thing from happening again. i think share holders need to be more vigilant about how they're investing their money. and i think that we saw with the sarbanes oxley bill, remember that one that passed in the wake of the scandals, the accounting scandals we had with enron.

that was supposed to be the end of scandals and then we had another one. so i'm not entirely convince that had more regulation is the solution. host: gregory on the independent line. caller: well, you know, first tonight say to them, i generally support our president. but i do have concerns about the cap and trade legislation for congress. it's my understanding that that's going to cost like each taxpayer, american taxpayer like $1,700. so i would like to see that our government goes a lot slower on that. also, on the health care issue, i think that going and making health care available to every american is going to make this country more competitive in the end. my understanding of economics is that through the circle of spending and expenditure, we will get an expansion in the general economy. host: why don't you take the

cap and trade part of that, the climate change legislation. as you said up in new york, we're reading about the largest pending meeting ever on this topic in new york, and some of the headlines suggest somebody from somewhere in the world has to step forward and lead this charge. what are you anticipating up in the u.n. and elsewhere this week? guest: what i'm anticipating is nobody will step forward and lead the charge. but, again, i think it's one of these issues that has to be addressed because it won't go away. i don't know if cap and trade is necessarily the best way to deal with it. some people think a straight carbon tax will be better. but i think this is a problem and it's going to be a costly problem. here in new york, you'll look at how much of the land here is quite low. to keep that from going underwater as sea levels rise in the next 20, 30, 40 years you're going to have to build about the world's biggest complex of locks and dikes and

levies. this is going to have to happen around the united states. you're going to have huge problems created in other countries. so this is nothing that's going to go away. and the cost down the road will be beyond anything that's being contemplated through cap and trade. but i think also things like cap and trade and addressing the issue present an opportunity. this is an opportunity for us to get ahead of things and to push right into the technology of the 20th century. i think green technology presents all kinds of opportunities and i think we should look at them as opportunities and seize control of that. host: we have 15 million people unemployed in this country, 10% unemployment rate. it's now 16 or 17% who can't find full time jobs. it's almost an obsent to be talking about this massive tax.

i call cap and trade the china and india full employment act because we know what will happen if we do this. we will move much of our manufacturing industry out of the united states to countries like china and india. so it is a job killer. this is the absolutely worst time to be talking about it. and if we had a carbon tax and we used that tax money to reduce taxes on business investment and things like that, i wouldn't be so opposed to this. but to put a trillion dollar new tax on the american people right now is economic suicide. guest: i don't know if you've noticed, we've already moved a large number of our economic base overseas. and i find it interesting that china and europe are rushing into these technologies. they're going to eat our lunch on this unless we start to act on it. buveragetsdz they've made it very, very clear, as you know, that they will never, ever agree to a cap and trade. they want the united states to

do -- the rest of the world wants the united states to do cap and trade so we lose our jobs to the rest of the world. that's why they want the united states to go first. guest: it has to be a negotiated thing, of course. but we also have to lead and they won't have cap and trade. what they will have is all the new technology coming up if we're not careful. host: our guests, kevin baker up in new york city, contributing editor to "harper's magazine." he has written sever books. and here in washington, steven moore, editorial board member for the "wall street journal," educated at the university of illinois. also, george mason, also has written several books. founder and president of the club for growth. next call. caller: hi. good morning. this is directed to moore. you say you went to some of the tea parties.

it's just disingenuine for you to say that you are for the health care. you know, your people are against obama because he's not black? i'm a black woman. i've never been embarrassed by the tea party and the way they've treated our president. we never did this to george bush. yes, we were against the war. yes, we were against george bush spending the money that we had. but we never disrespected the office. and for you to sit there and say that there is not racism in america when it boils over and we have a war in this country, then what do you say? guest: well, as i said i've been to these tea parties all across the country. they are multiracial, people of all ages, young people, senior

citizens, they were republicans, there are a lot of independents, a lot of perot voters that revoted. and, look, there is racism in america. but a vast majority of these people are people who love their country, they think their government is out of control. and god bless them for coming out. there are people who traveled 12, 13 hours on buses to come to washington. now, you may not agree with what these folks are protesting against, but i think it's great citizen involvement. and we say people are not paying enough attention to politics. this is citizen enpowerment. these folks are going to be voting in the next election, so politicians had better pay close attention to what these people are saying. caller: good morning. i think the future of american industry is tied to health

care. i think this health care bill is nothing but an insurance bill. american industry is getting killed. just that whirl pool thing, a thousand jobs, $2 million a year in health insurance. were going to have to change our entire system of paying for health insurance. otherwise, you're going to have mother teresa take care of it. because when you lose jobs, you lose medicare. you lose social security. guest: i think the caller makes a great point. i think the history of the nation going through the --

right through the internet is that government often supported great industrial leaps forward by different policy. and i think providing health care is one of those things. i don't think everything has to be on a pay as you go basis. i don't think everything is a marketplace or should be a marketplace. there are thing that is support markplaces. such as infrastructure, such as a good universal health care policy. guest: there are three thing that is we could do to reform the insurance system, the health system in america that would make such a huge difference. swun to do medical mall practice reform which would save about $100 billion. and the 1100 page bill the senate reported out, not one page goes after dealing with the lawyers. the second big reform is have high policies going out. and the third and maybe the

most important is let people buy insurance in any state that they want to. you can buy an insurance policy in new hampshire for one third as much as it costs if you live in a state like massachusetts or california. so let californians and people in massachusetts buy a policy in new hampshire and they will have much lower cost and you'll be able to have people who are uninsured afford health insurance. host: let me get your thought on that. guest: you could speak about the other thing. the value voters summit we've been covering. what are your thoughts? guest: well, i thought it was interesting that president obama did support reform in medical mall practice. it's certainly an issue. i would think one possible way to deal with it would be for the government to pay for mall practice insurance. meaning that you could have the lawyer you want and the doctor you want. listen, you know, certainly there are lawyers who abuse this. on the other hand, i like having that legal protection.

you know? if i go into a hospital and a doctor does something outrageously wrong, i want to have a chance of that protection. i think it's interesting the republican enthusiasm for buying across states. you know. what this is is more i feel a republican cartel capitalism. the road to having one or two or maybe three huge private health insurers and then calling this choice, calling this capitalism. this is sort of the problem, constant favoring of the biggest industries over smaller industries, over private entrepreneurs such as lawyers, guest: i don't get that. i think the whole idea behind allowing people to buy insurance across lines, right now it's true in a lot of states you can only buy insurance from one or two companies, if you allow people to buy insurance across lines they can buy from any of a hundred companies. i think we all agree, choice is

the key thing here, consumer power. and if you move towards a government system or towards a system where only two or three insurance companies run the pool of insurance, i think it leads to higher costs and worst quality of care. guest: i don't know if choice is the question. i think health care is fundamentally not a marketplace and that some choice is already eliminated. you go to the hospital with a broken leg, you can't choose instead to have a corn removed because you don't have the money for the broken leg. that choice is already removed from health care and i think that that's one of the things that's got to be addressed here. host: let's hear from fort lauderdale. caller: hi. i have a couple of small comments for steven moore. he bragged about the 45 million or so jobs that were created in the last 30 years. may i remind you, mr. moore, that slaves had jobs.

and the second comment is we should have had a little moderation about shipping all these jobs overseas. i mean, we just keep buying stuff? we have to borrow money to buy it? it doesn't make snens to me. guest: if you look at the census bureau just came out with new stats tiss ticks on this, the average compensation to workers, when you adjust for inflation is up about 25 or 30%. so it's not true that we're creating less, lower paying jobs. the good news is, though, that if you look at how we get out of this crisis, i think it's pretty clear. we've got to get government under control. we can't pass the cap and trade bill. i agree with you, we don't want to create incentives for american ind stroy move somewhere else. cap and trade taxes, higher taxes do that. we have the second highest corporate income tax in the world. even countries like sweden and

germany are cutting theirs while we're raising our rates. it makes absolutely no sense. host: we have ann on the line. democrats line. caller: hello, and thank you for taking my call. i'm a 71-year-old white senior citizen and i can tell you they drained us off when they signed dick army. he is behind. you can tell by the professionally made science. he's against medicare, against social security. as most of these people on the right are. they still believe all of these off the wall things. so senior citizens, watch out who you line up behind, because these people don't have you in mind.

you talked a little bit about the comparison. to herbert hoover. how can you change the direction? what's the prescription in your view? guest: i think among other things, i feel much more corporate sponsor i think there's millions who would love to be out continuing to work for president obama's agenda,

continuing to protest for that, to put pressure on their congressman. instead it's been damped down most of the time by the president. an occasional rally here and there. but we would love to get into the town halls more. we kind of need that sort of organization here to go at this in the public square. i think that's one of the things he's got to do. that was something that fdr was very, very good at was throughout his administration. this whole kind of persona that president obama seems to want to take on, the no drama obama thing,. he's very nice for the most part. you want a cool headed leader. but the leader has to wear many hats. he has to be the impassioned advocate as well. and i don't know that president obama is yet comfortable with those other parts of the role. and i think he had better get

comfortable with them or he's not going to get a thing done. host: how about the role of the opposition in this as well? guest: this is a president who came into office with about a 75% approval rating. the american people really wanted this president to succeed. and he has an incredible dropoff in susm six months. i think his first six months in office have been a big, big mistake. the stimulus bill, all of this spending has americans up in arms. so the question is how does barack obama salvage his presidency. i think he has to do what bill clinton did. bill clinton started out, his first years were a failure. you had the massive 1994 revolt. and then he moved to the middle and then he was a very successful president. he governed from the middle. we did well with the reform, we did balanced budget, we did free trade agreement. if barack obama were listening

right now, i would say, sir, with all due respect, do something about this mass yi public debt. make america more competitive by bringing taxes down. if we huzzf does those things, i think he will have massive numbers of americans behind him. host: one last call. caller: hello. wonderful. i'm glad i'm the last caller. i just find it very ironic, because the anger that throughout this country is because of the honest, good hard working people that are being called tea baggers and astro turf after mr. baker has been constantly condescending in his comment. so i ask mr. baker, with everything that's going on in this country and especially living here in new york city area with the queens raid from

the fdi, i don't want to follow someone who is as whimsy as you are. we need strong people, and you obviously aren't one of them. host: kevin baker, wimpy. what a guest: what a way to talk. come on. you know,. you know, i wish the president would be less wismy on these things. i'm for going out into these town halls. and, by the way, they called themselves tea baggers originally. but i'm for taking them on mano y mano. as long as they don't bring their automatic weapons this time. i think we should go right at them here. and i'm sorry you feel that different points of views are wimpy but that's how.

guest: they call these folks tea baggers because in fact the people who go out do call themselves tea baggers, because this was basically moddled after the boston tea party, which is something that this country was founded on a tax revolt and you've got a big revolt against high taxes and big government right now. we know from the pundit polls that there's a lot of unrest in this country. i think president obama has a responsibility to stop polarizing this country right now, try to pull us back together. and by continuing to talk about government run health care, cap and trade, you're going to have massive amounts of protest until that kind of behavior in washington stops. guest: i don't think anything justifies showing up with automatic weapons and with signs saying that the tree of liberty needs to be watered with blood. talk about importantlyizing. guest: i was out there. i didn't see -- with all due respect, all the events i've been to, i've never seen

anybody with a swastika, with a gun, and these people are not anti-american. host: got to wrap it up. kevin, thank you. and the same to steven moore. thanks a lot. i appreciate it. we will take a short time out and then we're going to talk about the 2008 f.b.i. violent crime report. our guest will be james lynch who will go through it with us, he is a professor. more plus more of your calls.

>> congressman ron paul wants to hold the country accountable. he wants to end the fed. today he talks about his new book. and follow us on twitter for

the latest schedule updates. >> monday night, using the internet to provide health care resources. >> washington journal continues. host: james lynch, criminal justice professor, we're looking at the f.b.i.'s recent crime report. after looking things over, what were the most significant or interesting things you learned? >> well, one of the thing is that we're sort of back to the old days in some ways. host: what does that mean? guest: we had a period of time where there was a mass yiffer drop in crime, and it was absolutely huge. so the run-up was very steep and then the dropdown was very steep. and this drop has continued.

historically you've seen small changes of between 1 and 3% in the crime index, and its various components. so it's sort of oscillation. and so after that big sort of rise and then the trough, we're back to sort of periods of small changes up and down. and so it's sort of a, we're in sort of a stable period in a sense. so i think that's why it's the old days. so you're seeing 2 and 3% increases, some under 1%. so i think that's where we are. it's not as exciting as the old days where you drop 12% or increase 15% or something like that in that period of time. so that's what i mean. host: these are f.b.i. statistics out there. law enforcement agencies made 14 million plus arrests in 2008. estimated 1.7 million drug abuse violations, and three and

four people arrested were males, 69.2% white. and if you dig in a little more, you'll find out about driving under the influence, 1.4 million arrests in 2008. according to the f.b.i. 45% were violent crimes. 17% property crimes. that were cleared in 2008. what does the word clear means? guest: that they found a suspect and arrested that suspect. host: murder, the highest clearance rate, 63.6%. that's the highestr? guest: i think it's in the neighborhood of the highest ever. i didn't exactly look at that. i i think that homicide gets a lot of attention. and so a lot of times the clearance rate is driven by attention and resources devote to it. and also as you saw in other parts, a lot of the people involved in homicides know each other, and so the idea that the police actually have someone named as a suspect by someone else increases their chance of

clearance as well. host: some of the headlines indicated what they refer to as a black on black crime. a lot of the headlines point to that. can you speak more to that part of the issue? guest: i think for a long time people realized that a lot of the interpersonal violence and particularly fatal violence is among acquaintances and people who know each other. it's not just random acts by strangers on the street. so it's more and more people realize that the violence is embedded in the social network that is people operate in. host: phone numbers for our guests, you can see them on the bottom of the screen. start dialing now and we'll get your calls in as soon as we can. the f.b.i. has released its report looking at crime. violent crimes fell in 2008. and our guest will talk about some of the reasons for certain numbers that are out there in

crimes. speak more to historical trends. you began the program starting that. bring us up to 2008. guest: my sense of history is probably longer than yours since i'm a little older. but in the period of time in the early 70s there was a fellow at the university of pennsylvania who predicted the crime rates reasonably well through the mid 80s. this was in the mid 70s. because most of the up and down, the crime rate increased then through the 70s to 2008 0s and then it dropped, and peaked in 93 or 94, and then dropped again in 2000. during which this period of time there has been this oscillation. so his thought is this is driven by age and demographics. so this crime prone age groups increasing in size. in mid 80's, things all

changed. so in the 80s it was sort of age driven. but around 86 there was this massive increase, especially in violence. and i think people have documented that pretty we will. so it was of the first times it wasn't demographically driven. so you had some changes, largely al bloomstein i think and others have documented it well you had things driven by the drug trade so you had massive increases in homicide and as people contested drugs markets. and then you had this very sharp drop as law enforcement and other things changed the dynamic. so that historically that's the up and down of it i think. now we're in this oscillation period which is confusing everybody and making criminologist the object of derition saying they can't predict anything. but it's a much more complicated situation now.

host: first call for our guest, democrats line. go ahead. caller: yes. i tried to get through here for the last two hours here now. host: glad you finally got through. caller: yeah. i guess it takes a while. anyway, my father was a chief of police for 40 years, and we're going back to andy of may bri times. now, things have changed. what i think they need to do, this issue i need to talk to is just about crime rate. i talked about other issues earlier trying to get through. but we need to make the penalties for the crimes match the crimes. ok? i'm a grand father. i'm ah years old. i've got two grand kids -- 55 years old. now, according to crime rate, mainly what you have now is you have a big problem with the internet and i'm -- i see our

attorney general for pennsylvania is doing an excellent job on fighting that. you know, with the internet. you've got your per verts using the internet to lure kids into this. and i think one thing that we really need to do now is match the penalties for the crime. because when kids -- when kids are young, that instills -- kids are supposed to be innocent and pure. you know what i mean. and but the problem is, is when we have these idiots out there on the internet, the predators, and we need to make the crimes match what they did. host: got the point. how about penalties? plug that into all of this. guest: first, let me say something about internet crime. and generally the statistics you presented here and were the

occasion for this don't include internet in a visible way. we don't know that they're in there. for instance, if an assault occurs after the fact and the internet was involved, they're in there but we don't know them. so in a lot of ways the crime statistics that we have do not have not sort of kept up to date in some ways that some of these sort of new crimes have come on line. but the uniform crime report that ufere referring to rorppeds the same bucket of crimes it has since 1929 even hoe the world has changed. so your guest raises an interesting point. also the idea that we need to monitor this. is this a big deal or is this a tempest in a tea pot po? so he may be very right. i think people are making efforts to survey people and see how prevalent this is because you don't want to go out all fired up for punishment for a crime that may not be the

way that people think it is. so it doesn't have the same contours, for instance, that the nature can be quite different. so it's important that we get out in front of this so people don't be needlessly angry about this kind of thing and prescribe policies that aren't appropriate. i don't think anyone can quarrel with the point the caller brought up. host: more calls, the f.b.i. report is linked to our site. you can read it. 2008 crime statistics. on the republican lynn. caller: how are you doing? host: good morning. caller: one thing which i realize was a major problem with our whole system here is the prosecutors. anything that comes in front of them from anything they prosecute and they put people in jail for not being able to

pay their fines. you know, driving while suspended because they can't pay their fines. or stuff that even shouldn't come in front of them. these people can't afford attorneys and they prosecute them. you know? and actually they drow -- it's really wrong what they're doing right now in this country. host: do you want to speak to that? veraged i hate to turn into a one note sam ba. we really don't know a lot about prosecutors. when you look at the set of indicators to see what the criminal justice system is doing and see how bad the problem is, the prosecutors are largely invisible. for instance, we have a lot more information on the police and on the courts and the sentencing and things. for example, the guest raises the question about aggressive prosecution and things. so the declination decision, the decision to decline to prosecute, we have no national data on that to speak of.

host: more of these statistics. violent crimes, down 2.9%. property crimes, down 3.2%. there were 14,180 murder victims, age 20 to 24 accounted for most victims. a little over 2400. and then the number of forcible rapes, 89,000. that's the lowest figure in 20 years. guest: it's a very difficult crime. for example, the f.b.i. statistics are not going to include a large proportion of that because of the traditional way in which people have responded to that crime. and things have changed. attitudes have changed and people's definition. but very often that's a crime that we have one of the most difficult times measuring because people very often won't report it to the police, especially date rapes and other things. so that's, i have no reason to doubt that figure. but you're going to realize that of all the figures that

the are presented by the f.b.i., this one may be the most prajile because of the unwillingness of people to report things to the police. and kind of inherent ambiguity of the act where people consent is very important in this. so i think it becomes very difficult. the ncvs, which is a survey base, is not subject to the same kinds of things and it's showing similar drops. and the ncvs has its own problems. so even to interviewers people are reluctant to talk about this kind of crime. but when both indicators are moving in the same direction, that giffs you some reassurance that's the case. host: caller now from kentucky. thanks for hanging on. caller: hi there. i was calling about the illegal immigrants and what's going on with all the border towns down there and all that is spilling

over, the murders spilling over. we have here in kentucky every once in a while, here on the expressways where they catch people with a lot of drugs and most of the time they're illegal immigrants. and here in kentucky, i work against these people quite a bit and there's a total breakdown of the law. and what i'm talking about is like the workers comp laws. there's no -- nobody's paying any attention to them, the illegal immigrants. and all the labor laws, they're not paying any taxes. and everything is breaking down. i was just wondering on these murder reports, is there any percentage of how much the i will legals are in here -- illegals are in here participating in it? could you answer that? guest: it's very difficult.

the f.b.i. data do not include information on the citizenship status. in fact, throughout our justice system, there's very little information on citizenship status. the place you have that information is really in the correctional statistics. now, this may change because of the keen interest in this issue. so, but i tried to do some work on this in the past and all i could really find was citizenship status indicated in the corrections data. i think -- and this is a very touchy issue. many of our social indicators will refuse to ask people. they'll ask -- and part of the census bureau is leery about the response rates. even if a person is legal they may not want to talk about that if they have a green card, they

just sort of -- paranoid about the imcongratulations situation. so we really don't know how much illegals are contributing to this. there have been some studies and many of the studies suggest that immigrants have lower crime rates than the native population. and so also, the -- you have to distinguish so journing foreigners, people who are here traveling from people who have come here to settle. so many of the drug people involved in drug trades and things like that are so journing foreigners. they came here expressly for the purpose of bringing drugs and things. and i think that's different than the immigrant population necessarily. so you have to be careful in parsing this out. but we certainly don't have as much information as we should. other countries in europe are much more acid yuss and sort of making note of a person's immigration status. we don't do that. so it's difficult. host: our guest, a

distinguished professor. let's go to the next call, wyoming. butch is on the line for democrats. hi there. caller: good morning. you're not mentioning the fact that you put anybody in jail you're going to have lower crime rates. we've got over 2 million americans in jail and about 60% of them are nonviolent. our drug wars, i don't know how many years now, 40 years, 30 years, is costing us trillions of dollars and it's a nonviolent crime. if we legalize drugs, we wouldn't have this. you have private prisons. so of course you're going to have people sent to these things. it's a money making situation. there's no rehab in any kind of prisons really that people in prison get free medical care. the cost is $40,000 a year for

a prisoner. and which costs more than going to a college,. we're just throwing our money down the drain and for nonviolent crimes. we have to figure out a different way of dealing with humanity instead of throwing them into prisons. host: there's that legalization argument. guest: first let's talk about the way we use our prison resources. we do use our prison resources for drug offenses but we also use our prison resources for violent offenses. so those are the two sort of major categories. everybody sort of focuses on drugs alone and it's not drugs alone. we've gotten very serious about violence in the last 20 years and a large chunk of our prison resources are consumed with violence. though drugs are part of it, i think. and so i think people have made that policy decision.

now, your guest question that is and that's a fair point. host: more from the f.b.i. report from 2008. estimates and findings. stolen vehicles. 5.6 billion in property losses, more than half recovered. as far as arson goes, 62,807. the average loss was $16,015. then they do some regional breakdowns. regionly, the south, including maryland, florida, texas had the highest, the northeast had the lowest. western region had the largest year over year decrease in murders. anything there you want to latch on to? guest: there's a lot of interesting things in there. when you sort of -- motor vehicle theft is not just this year. that's a big drop. 12% is unambiguous. there's something going on here. i think that -- and i think that is also a multiyear drop. so it's not just last year. this has dropped considerably

over time. host: in that area, what is going on? guest: i don't know. i think when i say i don't know, we've just seen these things. i think that here one suspicion suff a lot of technological advances in terms of low jack and other sorts of things. people can take themselves. and engineering in the cars themselves. along many years ago steering wheel locks, this is old hat now but in the 70s i think. so this led to substantial drops in this kind of thing. so i think technology can make a great deal of advances here and that's what i would suspect. it would be very interesting to see, buro into this. you have a bunch of incidents as opposed to these are just aggregated accounts. so beginning to unpack that. what will tell us a lot is make and model. we don't have that. the insurance industry has that

but we don't have that. so that would be an interesting thing to get so you can begin to unpack this. another thing that's interesting, you are looking for big things. not just a year drop uff. and burglary is interesting. burglary dropped like a rock from 19le 0, almost to 20,000. no one was paying attention. violence goes up and down, burlarry is dropping like a rock. here is another place where you think technology may make a difference here in terms of how keeple can keep themselves safe. it's intreg, you look at stuff in the recent ones that there's a steady increase in residential burglary but a steady drop in commercial. so again, you're getting suspicious about saying, well, maybe the businesses are taking better care of themselves. they're willing to invest in self-protective things. and is this causing a shift over to the residential market where people might not be as able or willing to engage in these kind of thing sns so

there's some intriguing details in this report. host: in general from your research, connect economic conditions locally roon the country to the crime rate. so much has been focused over the years. guest: this is? some ways complicated because we have blunt tools to study this. a lot of things we look at is unemployment rate. sometimes at the national level, sometimes at the county level. so there are some conflicting results. some showing big effects of unemployment, some showing no effects of unemployment. people like to refer to a lot as well the depression, we had very low crime rates in the depression. so they used that. so i think it's a little complicated an part of the reason is this is a very blunt instrument. the unemployment rate. and i think more recently people like rick rosen feled from the university of missouri have said crime, especially violent crime is a very highly

clustered kind of thing. in washington, d.c., for example, you will go to maybe seven or eight neighborhoods who will account for a fair chunk of your serious violence. and so it's very clustered. and so you have this mazzive thing like an unemployment rate which is including lots of different kinds of people and maybe not very -- doesn't vary that much in that particular clustwrer all these crimes are going on. so he looks at it from a different indicator, which is an indicator of confidence in the economy and so he thinks there's much more sensitive to some of those populations. and his argument is that it isn't unemployment but it's the people's reaction to that. and they engage more and more in black market economy. so if you can't afford target any more, you buy it on the street or something like that. so the more people are involved in these unregulated margets, drugs being one of them, but also unregulated markets, the

more violence is used to regulate those markets. so that's intriguing. it's not as blunt as unemployment. so conflicting things with a blunt instrument, people beginning to look at more nuanced ways of detecting the effect of the economy. host: get some more calls in. new york. go ahead. republican line. caller: good morning. thank you for c-span. professor, i also have a bit of a longer view of history. and the mantra of the 60s, if it feels good do it and do your own thing has truly paid dividends. to people who are least able to control their emotions have paid the price and lessening of controls over society, softness on crime i think is the root of a lot of the rise this crime

during the 70s and 80s. guest: well, i think there are a lot of changes that have occurred in society that are driving the crime rate. and so there has been i guess i would say some of the same things you did. but sort of degeneration of families and other things like that and these things have been -- have contributed. also, just some demographic changes. you have people -- people forget that. that you have larger young people commit crime. and larger groups or proportions of population young people. these are going to drive these things. so the idea that somehow or other we've degenerated i think there's been some strain on some of the primary institutions of social control. that's for sure. but remember now, we're back now in crime rates that we saw 20 or 30 years ago. so we're in a fairly, a period

of fairly low crime at this point. and so the be bjs report suggests that for some of the things you talked about rape it's the lowest that they've seen. so as fragile as those numbers are. so i think that to think that we've gone through some sort of massive moral decay which would be reflected in much higher crisme rates, that's not true. i mean, we used to do a lot of cross national comparison and it used to be that the united states had the highest crime rate in the industrialized world. that's no longer the case. the nedserlands and england have the same rates we have, even hyper. so i'm get long in the tooth and people feel things were better in the old days. but we're back to what we've seen in the early 80s i think at this point or maybe even lower. host: we go to detroit now, jesse on the independent line. caller: good morning. mr. lynch, i've been a fan of

yours for some time. but you know, professor, you are off base with these statistics that you are trying to quote here. and as a former agent ict you that it depends on where you concentrate the investigations. if you look at wall street, you look at mad off, he got away with stealing for like nearly 20 years right under the nose of the criminal justice system. and if you -- it's just so much out there that i don't think you considered. the most dangerous man in america today is rupert murdyock. he wasn't even born in this country and he owns fox news and "wall street journal." and just about every day on washington journal we're seeing this dude come on like kneel

king and chalk hawkings. today we had onstein moore. and you know these guys, you know, they're not trying to promote unity, they're doing just what the -- their bosses want them to do. host: anything toupt respond to there? veraget it seems like the call ser talking about things other than crime. people expressing their opinions. and we can disagree and all but it's not a crime. host: let's get one last call in. middles borrow, kentucky. jimmy. caller: yes, sir. thank you for c-span. i'm a first-time caller. glad to talk to the professor and i would like to bring up something that so far has been mizzed and that is how the -- it's easy to get a hand gun. ok? i just got a couple of statements, a couple of minutes. in tennessee, the legislature -- legislation, republicans, they passed a law that make you

able to carry a hand gun. i mean, into a bar. ok? and i live like five minutes away from the border of tennessee. ok? flee markets, you can -- they have what you call florida markets. u -- flea markets. you can get guns. you don't have to have a background check. you don't have to have anything at all but just money. we have a show on our local am radio station, fox, of course, that runs for an hour and people can sell any kind of gun they have on there for any price. with just all you have to do is have the cash. you know. and here in kentucky you can carry a gun in a church. host: final thought on that comment and the crime report in general. guest: people have wrestled with this for decades. and i think we're looking for

that balance where i think the most effective -- your most effective in terms of gun regulation and when you can identify a population that's motivated to use guns inappropriately. and i think that is different from an all-out ban and other things which is kind of a blunt instrument. so people have pointed to switzerland as an indication where you have a pri lens of guns. everybody military or military service has a gun at home and they have low violent crime rates. so the real ticket is to identify those places and groups which are likely to use these things inappropriately. i think some of the work that david kennedy has done, for example, in boston and now he and germy travis i think are expanding this to a network of cities where people are really saying we have to ge the guns off the street in those places where it looks they're used inappropriate lifplt and i

think the network of 20 or 30 cities is doing, it's a form of gun regulation but it's sort of targeted enforcement. and i can that's more likely to get the motivated populations. i think that's a promising strategy. host: james lynch, we appreciate your time this morning. guest: thank you. host: and a reminder the f.b.i. report on 2008 statistics, check it out on our web site. . .

host: "i think we can say with satisfaction that we have a budget agreement." rendell called the plan good, responsible, and fair. he boasted that the idea would make one of the pennsylvania defuse states in this horrible recession that is actually increasing funding by education. the lead story in the "new york times" talks about president

obama requesting that governor patterson of new york drop his campaign to win a seat for another term in 2010. he sent a request to withdraw, fearing that he cannot recover from his dismal standing. this is according to two senior officials. the decision was proposed by of visors to obama but approved by the president himself. they say this is an extraordinary move. the move against a sitting democratic governor represents an extraordinary intervention and to a -- into a state political race by the federal government. contenders for the post include andrew cuomo and productively on

a -- rudolph giuliani. pat from washington d.c.. your online. go ahead. caller: i started women's movement in d.c. to address domestic violence. it can be private, local, or national. so many players were up in front of women, even try to get into the court. i take issue with the courts, because i realize that a lot of crime is going on. you cannot address corruption in dc on the nation's capital and then turn around and ask the same individuals to fix things. i wish that we would have an open dialogue. and race does not hurt. we have mr. clinton, we had marion barry, and we also had

mr. bush, and all of them talked about race being a problem and being able to get lawyers to actually address racial issues into the court. so until we address our federal laws and our states respect to the supremacy clause, we will have problems. we should not put up barriers and keep victims of crime out of the federal or political expediency. >> appreciate your thoughts. mary, republican line. go ahead. caller: yes, i would like to address that taxpayers have to pay for an illegal immigration -- illegal immigrant committing a crime. that is wrong. and people on death row, if they are sentenced to death row, they should go ahead and do what they need to do. host: democrats. what is on your mindset this

sunday morning. -- what is on your mind this sunday morning? caller: i have a few points. a woman called in and said that white people should be thanked by the president because they put him in office. john mccain had over 70% of the white vote. you have other candidates like ron paul and ralph nader who also got white votes. barack obama got like 25% of the white vote, 95 black vote, 60% of the hispanic vote, and the lion's share of every other vote. so we are hard-working americans who all contributed to having a magnificent president in office. my second point is that professors stephen morse said that barack obama was bankrupting this country.

you cannot bankrupt country was already bankrupt when you came in. he is doing everything he can to keep the bottom from falling out. host: walter from new york city, thank you for waiting. what are your thoughts? caller: thank you, c-span. this has been part of a ritual for years, and i'm a first timer. i have a response to your previous guest, the professor. the caller that said that drug abuse and drug crimes are non- violent, i have to dispute that point. it is absolutely wrong. it is violent and dangerous. people get busted, and i know this from a family experience that when they get busted and go

to jail and are incarcerated, there is nothing more violent than that. the crimes that happen there are off the charts. i do not know if there are reported, but it is definitely a crime, deftly violent. -- definitely violence. host: thank you. we had live and taped coverage from the values of voters summit of the past few days. social and conservative religious activists from 49 states came to washington for a straw poll. it was a victory for mike huckabee, who lost a similar poll to rahm the last time around. on saturday, huckabee to 20.40% of the vote, while romney was a four way tie for second place

with tim pawlenty, sarah palin, and my -- mike pence. caller? caller: we are very excited here in georgia. we have tom graves, one of the five people who spoke at the rally. i think he will be president someday. he is a great texture champion -- taxpayer champion. we have lynn west more and tom price, two great taxpayer champions. i think the republicans will take back congress and make the president in 2012. i am excited and fired up about that. host: but stiffer marlin -- that

-- let's hear from marlin. caller: chris matthews whine about how president obama would not appear on fox. meanwhile, on fox news, they have a chiron that said president obama has been on tv more times than president bush or president clinton at this time. this winding or crying is just to parker's the -- this whining, this crime is just hypocrisy at the highest level. host: in his speech to the general assembly wednesday, obama will lay out his you for international cooperation in the

21st century and the need to move beyond old provisions. later on, iran's president will be speaking shortly after a bomb on wednesday. in a preview of his speech friday, he told an anti-is a real rally in tehran that the holocaust was a false pretext to create israel. they pointed out here that when they later, obama will chair a meeting of the 15-member security council where libyan president khaddafi will be in attendance. it could be awkward. a couple more quick calls from the phones before we bring on frank luntz. fort lauderdale, independent. hello, there. >> i wanted to hit on a couple of things. mr. obama -- i'm kind of

concerned that he may be of little bit more concerned about the world than he is about our own country. the fact he is making such an effort to try and unite the world into a one-world government is disturbing to me. in fact, it is very disturbing to me. the professor you just have on, the reason why i believe primers have gone by -- gone down is because people of not been doing so well. as a former criminal myself, i committed crimes were was 18 years old and i can tell you, if i had more guidance as a child i probably would have never ended up in jail in the first place. i think a part of my problem is with this criminal activity in the united states. the fact is, we do not have guidance.

our government teaches parents not to spank their children, and that is a crime in and of itself. that is what it boils down to. i think if you decriminalize things like marijuana, you'll find that people will not be killing each other over it. there are a lot of different things that can be done rather than just slamming people into prison and troy the key. it is just not how you solve that problem, in my opinion. i think you solve the problem by realizing that people are people. especially children. they need to be guided. they also need to be disciplined when discipline is necessary. and the fact of our government pushes this -- we teach our parents to not spank their children. that is not what the bible said, that is for sure.

host: wading river, new york. go ahead. caller: i read the new york times story. i would not vote for david patterson. he has done some things i like, but for the most part, i do not agree with him. host: part of the speech says that regard giuliani may get in and sweep a lot of republicans in a large to a democratic state. caller: i think giuliani would be great for new york. not everybody likes him, but i think he would be a great government -- governor, better than last two we had. it is ironic, because race has become such an issue in the last week and the news, and it is getting to the point where the party of free speech, which comes quite a bit from the left, it just does not likes -- like

free speech when it does not agree. to make this a racial issue is inappropriate, because nobody wants a president you cannot criticize. history tells us if the president did a good job or a bad job. if gov. paterson is one of only to the black governors we have in the united states, if someone disagreeds -- disagrees with him, are they disagreeing with the fact that they do not think she can go for reelection? host: surely, democrats line. -- shirley, on or democra -- on our democrats' line.

caller: it happens during the primary campaign. republicans did not want hillary in office. they thought they could run over president obama, so they switched over during the primary to make sure that president obama became the presidential candidates -- candidate. they thought they could run over him, and now they see that they cannot do it and they're trying to tear down the monster that they built. so i believe that that is what is happening today. host: a. share your thoughts. after a short break, we will talk with frank luntz about public opinion these days. here is his book. he will be here to take your calls. in the meantime, a short piece

about political cartoons. the events of the past week through cartoonists in the united states. be right back.

>> this is the highest court in the land. we are studying the great lawgivers and taking a look at what they thought was important for the judicial branch world to do. >> go online now to c-span.org/ supremecourt for a tour and links. "washington journal" continues. host: frank luntz joins us. he is a familiar face to c-span

viewers. he is the author of this book, "what americans want, really." you write that a majority of the country now fears that the next generation will inherit a world worse than this one. simply put, these people are mad as hell. what are they mad about? guest: i want to add that this is not how i wish it to be or any ideological bent. this is based on a survey of 6400 americans. this is based on focus groups and filing sessions. in the end, i've calculated i have spoken to about 1 million people in the last 15 years. either myself, or telephone and e-mail polling. 72% of americans to find themselves as mad as hell and they are not going to take it anymore. that famous line from network. they are mad at the economy because they see themselves as

losing jobs at a time when ceo's still getting bonuses. they are mad the economy and at the social structure. they are mad that the future does not seem to be as bright as it once was. there are a whole lot of reasons to be mad. host: you write that our economy is in pieces, our expectations shattered, our horizons narrow. guest: so much has changed in the last year. our perceptions of this country and where we fit in as citizens have been changed forever. the last year of this crisis -- we no longer assume that next year will be better than this year. and you only have a third of

americans believing their children will be better off than them. that is the most depressing thing of all. and the great thing about it, this has no partisan differential. republicans feel this way and democrats feel this way. it makes it almost tragic that we all feel that tomorrow is getting worse. host: back to the title, then. you have laid out a lot on the table so far. what do americans want? i will show you if you hand me this right here. what americans want most is the one you're showing me here. guest: men want more money. they want the torch to stands a walsh -- george costanza wallet, because they measure

success that way. women want more time. they're just desperate for another half-hour at the end of the day. everyone is interested in more choices, but they do not want to make them. there are looking for the right to choose and less hassles. if you try to buy a scissors and sit and struggle and try to open up the package, you cannot unless you have another pair of scissors. that is the definition of a hassle. we do not feel now like everything is going to be ok. so those of the five parties that americans are looking for. host: from the book, we do not trust anyone anymore.

we have no faith. we're even losing faith in faith itself. the personal trust most as the american people. so put that back into things they want the most. are people saying that they will take it on themselves and get all this done? they are not believing in politicians, right? >> you have hundreds of thousands coming to these town hall meetings. they are angry, but not angry mobs. they, as individuals. i loved to thousand eight -- i love 2008. people participated in politics in a greater way than any time except 1968. i love 2009, because people are showing up. we know that change is important, but more important than change, we want accountability in politics and respect in the workplace. this book is a lot about

politics, but there is even more about how not to get fired here, what people want and retirement, what they want from their children, what they see from religion and faith. it is meant to be a snapshot of war really is going on in the lives of 300 million americans that you cannot get any place else. host: what we really want from health care? walker's through what you think people really want. guest: this is going to make all three sides look at this and said they love it or they hate it depending on what part it is. number one, we have decided that a health-care plan is not a privilege, is it right. everyone must be extended that plan. number two, we're not a social security number. we are people and human beings. stop treating us like a number. petraeus like the people we

deserve to be treated. number three, and this a find interesting, it is an issue of time. it is not like winning for a new car to come in or it is ok if the cable guide is not show up for a day or two. when it comes to health care, we want treatment and testing that we need when we needed, and any delay is in effect a denial. no. 4, the doctor-patient relationship is sacred, and nothing, not an insurance company or the federal government should get in the way of that relationship. there is no love lost towards insurance companies, even with people satisfied with health care, and they do not want to add another government bureaucracy. no. 5, the frustration -- seniors will come and save the receipt from a health-care procedure that have, or they will cut out the article. they will remember something from c-span. if you ask a senior if they can

point to waste fraud and abuse, the public says stop it, enough is enough. as new -- newt gingrich says, let's hold people accountable. and simplify the process. i cannot read books this thick on health care. i can read them on america, but do not make me go through the paperwork. simplify it for me. that is what we want out of health care. caller: how what to think this young gentleman for sticking up for the american people. it is not democrats or republicans. just fed up with big government. that's all i wanted to say. guest: thank you for calling me young. i was not the sole when i started appearing on c-span. but this is one of those few

programs for public but to watch their elected officials and call in immediately to have impact. we wanted to figure out what mattered most in terms to our day-to-day lives. you get a chance to be heard here, but that is only the third highest priority. i s priority is the opportunity to succeed than the good life. america came in fourth. because people see the dream slipping away. they see that nest egg that they have seen for years eroding. they do not feel that anyone is protecting them right now. so the good life is a day-to-day success of the american dream. >> mark calls now from winston, democrats line. good morning. caller: thank god for c-span.

first let me say that i find it ironic i'm agreeing with anything that request would have to say. but look. we're both americans, sir, but what i see here is a total corruption, really, on the republican side as well as the democratic side. in terms of corruption. but we find the same thing with the republican party. we have is a corporate fascist theocracy in this country. it died in the '30's when the republicans cut kissed off about the way over from teddy roosevelt, when he was first to talk about health care.

what we need in this party is of viable third party. i have been a liberal, life. i spent 14 years in europe. i have lived it. but i do know for a fact that the medical system in new york or in france this 100 times better than here. when you have people making the money, 400% in terms of what they're doing, denied it started. this is screamingly obvious. guest: and yet when you ask people who has the best health care in the world, they say america. they do not like the cost or the insurance restrictions, but they do not want to destroy the system. so you have this gridlock, this hostility. i am disappointed that you have

a democratic, republican, and independent line, because americans do not want hyper partisanship. but in the end, it is about quality of life. in the end, it is not about whether your a republican or democrat. it is whether you believe your kids live a better life with you -- menu. what matters most to seniors is their grandchildren. if you want to connect to seniors, asked to see their grandchildren. the closest human relationship is not mother-daughter or father-son, it is a grandparent and a grandchild, because they both have the same enemy. think about that. number two is their health.

number three is control. what control means is they can make decisions for themselves. did not want control to be given to anyone else. once they lose control, they feel like they're losing respect. member for his peace of mind. it is not security. security means there's a threat. peace of mind means there is no threat at all. i can feel comfortable, and feel relaxed. number five is financial independence. if you do not have cash, you actually do lose control. one reason i know you have a large number of 18 to 49 year- old to watch the show -- people who colin tend to be older because they're so information- oriented, they want all the facts they can get. and seniors might only meet their congressman wants, but they are going to miss them --

meet them this year and give them a piece of their mind. finally, the good life. do something every day to celebrate and make life worth living. if you provide seniors with those things, their optimism and hope will return. but if they lose even two of those items, they lose it again. this is about society, about how we live and behave. host: you say in the book that we do not trust anybody anymore, but one caller talked about a viable third party. is there any evidence in your discussions with these 1 million people you talk about that that can be trusted, that is something that could bring the good life and other things?

guest: the answer is no. i always thought that might bloomberg could be the guy, because he is successful and not a republican or democrat. but in the end, we will have to rekindle that sense of american exceptional some which says that the individuals -- self- government is about us as individuals, and only turned to government when we ourselves are failing. caller: hello. we have been to tea parties, and i am hurt and angry to be called a mob. if we could go to washington, we should have -- we would have.

but we are terrified about the future. we have no freedom of speech anymore. they gave more coverage to britney spears and michael jackson than they have to us or the issues. i turned on msn b.c. and it was a democrat love fest. what we're feeling, and what you have noted in your book, are exactly the facts. there is corruption in government and correction in everything. brando, they're letting him fly. -- rangel, they are letting him fly. john conyers said he hasn't read the health care bill. we have to have a voice, and we

no longer have it on national tv. >> we ask everyone what matters to them. i did not think has happened before. the caller does not use the freedom of speech. it happens more than any other one. freedom of religion is second come surprisingly. freedom to own a gun is third from away back. more americans are using freedom of speech this year than anytime since the vietnam war. one other point. we look at the most important values of america represents and it is not democracy, not justice, not opportunity. it is liberty. and when americans start to feel that there liberty is being taken away in some way, they will rebel. and that is part of what these town hall meetings are about.

caller: on want to know what the government is going to do about these companies the far you when you get injured on the job. they do not pay into workers' compensation. and here and with an injury now that i have been struggling with tree and i have been fighting them. host: that brings us your comments about what americans want. guest: companies do not feel like the leadership of corporate america respects them or values them. respect is the number one indicator of whether somebody will be staying at that job, and the second indicator is whether you feel you have a career.

are these interviews a career? or a job? host: a career. guest: that you will be here for a long time. -- then you will be here for a long time. part of the american dream is to celebrate careers. a sense of recognition and respect. it has stopped in recent years because companies do not have the money to do it. part of it is spending less because of the economic downturn. it is to stop these performance awards and merit pay. what workers are saying is, please, if you do something good, do it well. let us know about it. and the fourth item, net -- know my name, not my badge number. and finally, the daily's

celebration. there should be something at life and work that makes me glad i'm there, whether it is a perfect, wedding, or a job well done. let me celebrate something so i'm appreciated and valued. host: you also write how to keep your job. what are you saying here. how to keep your job. never do the following. guest: if you say something is not your job, you basically have 30 days left. number two, "i am not paid for that. in 2009, because we have less workers doing less work, you're paid to do with a pure's wants you to. and remember, i did speak up in favor and please -- of

employees. but management needs to get things done. if you do not pay for, there will not tolerated. and if you do not know how to get things done, learn. if your home, write these statements down. because if you touch any of them, you are not long for this world in the job you have now. caller: banks to c-span. good morning. i always appreciate people who have the ability and gift to right. but i've one question for you, sir. the research. have you done any in reference to what americans want? who did you interview? did you interview african- americans? asians? people of that lower cost,

middle-class, and upper class? how did you come to these conclusions to write what you wrote? >> 6400 people is an unprecedented survey. most polls are 1000 or 1200. it was done over several months, and we were collecting information from the very end of 2008 to the beginning of 2009. and the crossed tabs, taking a look at age, income, education, party affiliation, and one of status and savings, it could stacked as high, try to work her way through with that. but to me, those are not numbers. it represents attitudes and opinions. there's a big difference between whites and non-whites, particularly african-americans and latinos, over these issues. i do not want to go there because i do not want to get into a discussion of race, but

it is fair to separate -- white community and african american community have a different attitude toward government, business, and culture. the african-american community is more religious and spiritual of the white committee -- community, but more hostile to business, more supportive of government. they're closer to the church, closer to government, and further away from their employer and business and the white community. host: where do they worship? for number one, you have the catholic church, followed by southern baptist, followed by united methodist, followed by the mormons. guest: we found that the more religious you are, the more

likely you are to be content. the more likely you are to be optimistic about the future, the more apt -- lightly -- the more likely want to be satisfied with your job. religious study has impact on how you view everything. and far from being a panacea, it is one of the few things that people find uplifting in these tough times. host: 0 cretonne, florida. -- boca raton, florida. caller: i am in college. i am wondering when the power of the lobby is going to change. all of the other things seem to still be guided by our financial

greed or our lobbyist interests in promoting this country. guest: the most hated occupation in america is the lobbyist, and the most despised occupation is a special interest. it is hard to define them, but that caller and the grandparents and parents can all agree on one thing, that the american government seems more distant from the average american than it has been in decades, and yet, because of these meetings, for that one reason, it seems closer. the solution to all of this, one solution is for more town hall meetings, not less.

to encourage politicians to be willing to take the challenge from the public rather than backing away. there was a congresswoman who stepped away and refused to do town hall meetings, and i thought that was a disgrace, because her constituents have the right to tell her what they think. host: i want to point to more research as it relates to government, taxes, and money. here was what you're right. -- here is what you write -- guest: we are a mess. and that sentence is like

america. it just goes on and on and on. if my publisher is watching, maybe you can let me edit out for the paperback version. that is the way we are, and that to me is what is so precious about this, that's in my hand are all the positives and negatives, all the hopes and dreams and fears and nightmares all at once, and that is what we are. and i have something i will encourage listeners to get a paper or pencil for. before we end this interview, on what to talk about our children in the next generation -- i want to talk about our children in the next generation. i have been able to determine what has the greatest impact on a young person. it is happiness, health, and whether they are drug and alcohol free. politics does not matter. it is what happens to our kids.

this is very serious. the number one indicator of whether your children will be happy, healthy, and free, is whether you have dinner with them five nights a week or more. because that says that you prioritize them, that you care about the more than anything in life. if you only have dinner for two nights a week or less, it tells them that you do not care. that is the number one indicator. the second indicator is how often do they go to religious services? if they believe that there's something out there > them, they will respect living things, respect themselves, and treat themselves better. do you check your kids' homework? because that means intellectual development is important as physical development. number four, do you know where they're going on friday and saturday night, and do they tell you the truth? if they lie to you about their

travels, they will lie to you about anything. that is a slippery slope. number five, if your parents start to use their blackberry what you're talking to them, you have permission to take it, run to the nearest toilet, and flush it. because any parrot who for whatever reason is on their blackberry when there travis talking to them, that is the equivalent of a slap in the face. excretes distance, it creates agitation, and it causes some the problems in our kids' lives. we all blame kids for being focused on technology, but kid'' parents to the same thing. so grab the blackberry and flesh it. finally, a team sport. that teaches respect for colleagues.

if you follow five of those six, you have great kids. if you cannot say yes to a least three of them, you've got a problem on your hands. caller: eight years ago, there was a war fought over a credit card. i do not remember seeing people like you talking about the deficit and things like that. guest: actually, i have talked about the depths of my entire career. it is so unfair that the next generation will have to pay the bills for what we're spending. the numbers do not mean anything. but when you think of the tax rates are kids are going to have, of the responsibilities of financial pressures because of this debt, it is frightening.

i am personally optimistic for the future but frightened when i look at these numbers, because i know what they represent. this deficit and debt is the responsibility of both political parties, and after both sit down and be honest with the people. caller: good morning. i have an issue with this book. i am listening to the responses from different folks, and they just do not add up. i know you say you polled 64 on the people. of those people, it seems like they were all in the same group. he cannot honestly do a poll unless you have an even number

of people across the board. host: what group do you say they are? caller: i would say more to the right. guest: no. caller: to have people, you need to do it in a way that folks are equal across the board. guest: what of all of these statistics i have talked to about today gives the impression that this is grouped to the right? >> you said most african- americans are more concerned about government. guest: yuma's heard me. african-americans are more pro- government than white americans are. caller: when you were talking about the fact that folks were concerned about jobs than health --

guest: that is the number-one issue in american today -- in america today. you may be more concerned about health. my life is now a nightmare because of town hall meetings, because people at focus groups assume that they can yell and scream at each other, they yell and scream at me, and it gets a little frightening. it has not been that way since 2000. everyone was yelling, people who never voted were demanded their right to be heard. it was tough out there. it was dangerous. it is the same way now. host: americans are good supporting bold action, but their personal record of participation is spotty at best. guest: you have so many people

pretending to be environmentalists. we talked about laurie david who would run out her driveway and yell at people driving suvs, but she would fly run the country in a private plane. in our lives, there is so much hypocrisy, but there are solutions to all of this. and because i do not want this to an upset and negative, if i can, i try to find ways to focus on something positive. mentor ship. those of you out there in your 30's, 40's, 50's, and you have a skill or a trade, do you realize the impact you can have if you all for that teaching to somebody who is underprivileged, to be able to take them to work with you, to show them how to build a car, fix a sink, trade a stock, teach a class?

it does not matter what up station. mentoring is so powerful. and unless they hope will happen, seniors. we have been untapped wealth of information and capabilities and wisdom in that population, and yet we seem to want to retire them. if u.s. me to choose whoever would rather hire, a 66-year- old or a 21-year-old, i will go with the older individual. they have experience and wisdom from having tried and failed and tried again. i did not think we respect the capabilities our seniors have, and solutions like this can help make a better country. caller: i cannot believe i'm talking to a political guru.

i'm from kansas. i come from the same county as thomas frank, so i will be a mixed bag here. i owe you a thank you because i'm a salesman, and your book works at work. it is now when you say, is what people here. that may be a lot of money. so thank you very much for that. the question i have for you is all along the lines of the finding conservatives and liberals. liberals are more into social progress reform rather than revolt, where conservatives are more concerned with what is best

in society and oppose any radical change. that is easy to soak in and understand, but the thing is that you really have a good, independent way of thinking about things, but the fact is that you're the one that starts that way of thinking that, no matter what democrats, with, it will be a government takeover. people are afraid of a government takeover of health care. but what i want to know is, is there anything you can say to these gop people? is there anything you can tell them, like that medicare is good? they know it is good. host: guest: --

guest: one thing i've said is that the american people expect health care reform. if you say the system is just fine as it is, there's a whole section on what americans want on health care in this book -- if you say that health care is fine, america would turn off to you. but what they're asking is to take care of the 30 million american citizens were uninsured without destroying the system for everybody else. you need a balanced approach. sang no is unacceptable to the american people. a complete, radical change is unacceptable to the american people. the caller talked about independence. a larger number of people to finance -- define themselves as independent now. it is a rejection of partisanship.

caller: but incorrect that idiot from kansas who wants to say that conservatives want to preserve everything that is good of society. conservatives want to preserve profit margins. right now, in this health care debate, conservatives want to preserve the status quo that is immoral guest: you can disagree with the previous caller. one of the aspects of what americans really want is stability. did you have to call that previous person an idiot? caller: i think he is a liar. guest: now you are calling him a liar. but i bet you would have yelled at congressman wilson for

calling the president of wire. we are not idiots and wires. we have to learn to have these conversations without acrimony. the more the people of mississippi understand the people of montana, the more likely we are to be able to have this discussion. we have cable and email and the internet. we have some much allowing us to learn so much. why do we have to be so rude to each other? i do not understand. host: our guest is frank luntz. thank you for coming back to the table. we appreciate your calls this morning. "washington journal" starts at 7:00 eastern time, every day of the week. tomorrow we have a preview of the united nations meeting and

dg-20 summit this week. robert rector or will be along from heritage, and the washington post's take on finance items, including what to do about banks. see you tomorrow. enjoy the rest of your weekend. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] .

>> up next on "newsmakers," discussion of defense issues with congressman turner. and then some of this week's remarks on health care legislation. we'll hear from senators, president obama, and house republicans. >> joining us on "newsmakers" on this sunday is congressman michael turner, republican of ohio and a member of the house armed services committee. and here for the questioning, john and james. congressman, let me begin by referring to what the president said last thursday when he made the announcement. he said that the new approach would be swifter, smarter, and more aggressive in going after threats around the world. >> i wish any portion of that was true. the plan that he is scrapping that would have been a

european, land-based system would have provided both europe and the united states with short, medium, intermediate, and long-range. and the most important would be long-range, icbm protection. it would be able to respond if iran, which is an icbm, at the united states. that system was scheduled to go on line as early as 13e. that was the scheduled deployment time period. there was some concern as to whether or not that was the appropriate configuration because there are other systems currently in play that perhaps in a different configuration could have made a difference. an independent assessment that our subcommittee just had presented to us earlier this year showed that this was the most cost effective system of all the other system that is we have in play or in place, this would have been the most cost effective. now, the other aspect is time. again, this system having been slated for availability as

early as 2013, the white house in their own communication indicates that their plan, which is currently really unde find, plan, won't even be available until 2020. so sitting here in 2009, having the president say he is going to choose a different plan available in 2020 for a threat that's i believe is imminent, is very curious. >> so why the change in policy? >> i think the president has been toying with trying to send a signal to russia theapts to start a new relationship with the reports earlier in the year that he had sent a letter to russia perhaps even offering scrapping this system in exchange for russia coming to the table to assist in iran's pursuit of its nuclear program. now, there has been no indication that russia has any indication of doing that. in fact, the indications have been in the opposite. russia has been asked to

support sanctions or stand against iranian continued march toward having a nuclear program or its advancement in missile program. russia has not been a voice of deterrence or trying to hold back iran's ambitions. so the president had signaled that perhaps he wanted to start a relationship with russia and placing that on the table would be helpful perhaps in starting negotiations. russia had expressly stated that they wanted the president to concede on this missile defense shield that would have been targeted for being based in europe as part of the start negotiations. having the president concede this before we entered into negotiations. the trouble is historically there has never been a point where concession to the russians in negotiations has ever resulted in any advancement of concessions on their part. so it's an odd strategy to take. but i think that's the only one we're left with. host: we'll go to john.

>> i want to ask you about the issue of the time line on the missile defense. because in fairness to the administration, they argued that they are deploying a system that will be able to intercept short or medium range missiles which the current system wouldn't and they would be able to deploy that system sooner than under the previous plan starting in 2011. so isn't it important to give them credit for getting something in the field sooner in response to what they say are the more pressing threats from iran? >> well, no. not necessarily. because if you look at their communication they go on to say we're going to address short and medium by 15e, and icbms by 2020. this system available 13e would have taken care of medium, intermeet yat, and long range. for short range we obviously have other systems and short ranges are a different issue as to the fact of looking at

european defense and of course intercontinental ballistic missiles and u.s. defense. so i wouldn't trade short for long-range. i don't think i wouldr say congratulations, you're going to achieve something by 2011 and in exchange for that you're going to move protection to 2020 2020, which is on their own website their time line. >> but hasn't secretary gates said that new mgs said that iranian woint have long range until 013 and then move towards the icbm capability as you said in 2020. >> i never suggested doing that in 2020. that's a false choice to say that we can't do two things at once, which would suggest that if we have a threat that's growing, that responding to this means that we have to put at risk the continental united states. and i don't believe that's the case. >> how does that put us at risk? >> the system that would have

gone in place in europe that the president has scrapped would have been available by 2013 and it would have provided protection to the continental united states from this european site. the president's own website description does not identify icbm protection as being available as part of his plan until 2020. >> secretary gates has said there's new intelligence that they won't have the capability for some number of years beyond 2013. >> no one has the intelligence that he is citing. i'm the ranking member for the committee on armed services. everyone has access to the same information that indicated that their capability is going to be 2015. meaning that the president's plan would arrive five years after iran has reached icbm capability. but the other issue is we're talking about 11 years for the president to say with secretary gates that i have new information and that they are

11 years away from an icbm capability when we all know everyone sitting at home in their chairs watching television who has watched cnn and fox news and c-span that iron has launched a satellite into orbit. this is the type of capability that translates into icbm capability. and also, the other issue is they are working in concert with north korea and others and certainly could acquire and have advancements in their system that then we will not be able to respond to. >> reportedly, the dates for the new intelligence estimate, and it's a may 2009 classified national intelligence estimate on the iranian missile threat is that it is likely to emerge after 2015 but by 2020. so that's the iranian piece of it. my question concerns the united states' ability now to defend against an iranian attack. general cartwright, the vice chairman of the joint chiefs, testified to the senate armed services committee that we

currently have the ability from the alaska and california sites to defend against an iranian launch anywhere in the united states, he said, and from any point of launch in iran. i checked with the pentagon today, and they said that that is correct. that they have the capability now, and that the european, the poll and check site would have made it a little stronger capability, but that we still have it now. >> that's an excellent argument, but there are three important issues that we have to address in trying to grapple with that. the first is, is the argument of we'll just shoot from alaska. we don't have to shoot from europe. we can handle that just intutively among ourselves. if you and i both have packages to send to iran and i'm going to send mine from europe and you're going to send yours from alaska, i think we can all agree that i'm more likely to get there before you do. and that's the system he just scrapped. the second thing is that the president just cut missile defense by 1.2 billion and

eliminated a third of the missile field in alaska. there were 30 missiles that were scheduled to go up there. the president proposed a $1.2 billion cut. while this administration is on a spending spree in every other category, while we have north korea advancing toward missile technology, icbm capability, and clearly already has nuclear capability, wee have iran marching to nuclear capability and making it clear that they want to seek icbm capability, this administration this year cut missile defense by 1.2 billion, and a third of the cut was missiles to that. the next thing is, three items we have to address for this. one of course is i would rather shoot from europe than alaska if i'm going to toward iran. the second is this administration cut a third of alaska's capabilities. and the third is if you have europe and you have alaska, you have both. you have a second shot. you don't have a second shot if you're shooting from alaska. if you shoot from alaska and you're unsuccessful, where do

you take your second shot from? >> i think the administration would say that even if you get it there faster, you can still get it from alaska. they clearly say that. second thely, the number of interceptors may not be as many as they had planned but secretary gates says it's sufficient. and so how would you respond to those points? >> a lot of these are buts. yes, but, yes, but. we can still do this, we can still do this. why would we ever choose less? that's what this discussion is about. we have technology, and the united states has always had an innovated spirit and a commitment to our own defense. if we have the capability we reach for it and we try to ensure that our freedoms and liberties are always protected. in this instance, we have this administration cutting right now missile defense by $1.2 billion while everybody sitting at home knows that north korea and iran are the biggest threats emerging. this is an important list.

and secondly, touch issue of cutting current capability and inventory. and thirdly, you have the issue of eliminating whole systems. if iran decides to send an icb plnch to the united states with a nuclear capability, i'm going to want to have everything in my disposal because we're talking about the united states being attacked. >> we have a secretary of defense who is a life-long republican. he was president bush's secretary of defense. he proposed the system that he is now substituting another system for. he is -- he has the chairman of the joint chiefs on board. nato allies seem to think this is probably a better way to go too. why would all these people be behind it if as you describe it puts us in a vulnerable position? >> this is fairly easy to discuss. nato endorsed this system and you said this secretary proposed it. it is not speck lative for us in comparing the two scenarios

to look at the gaps. we know the administration has said 2020. we know that the administration has said and secretary gates has said the other system is available 2013. that's seven years. we know that the intel says could be 2015 for iranian icbm capability and perhaps nuclear capability. but there's still a 2020. it's a five-year gap from where the projections are that iran would have icbm capability. seven-year capability gap from the plan that he scrapped. it's not more cost effective. there's an independent study that was done of all the system which is includes the president that the president is proposing of using more aegis sips and the like which says this was the most cost effective. so they say, -- they don't disagree with the things that i've just said to you. all of those are their numbers. they say that the risk is

acceptable. and i don't agree with that. >> one thing you're leaving out is that the joint chiefs of staff and the missile defense agency say we have the capability today to intercept an iranian missile if it were launched at the united states. so you don't trust them on that point? >> there are systems that are in place that can assist us. but they're certainly not to the level that everyone would like or the president wouldn't be proposing a new system. think about what you just said. we can already do it. well, if what we had already was sufficient, the president wouldn't be scrapping this system and proposing a new one. he would say we're already there. >> he's proposing a new system that will evolve starting with shorter range systems eventually a strategic long-range defense. >> in 2020 and no one contradicts 2020. and the system he scrapped was 2013. seven years. the difference between us is he believes that seven years is a risk theas willing to take and i don't believe it's the type

of risk we take as the united states. >> talk about russia. you said this is primarily an attempt by president obama to improve the relationship with russia. a lot of republicans, including george schultz and henry kissinger and others have said that's absolutely critical to do because the proliferation of nuclear weapons around the world are our number one threat and to get at that touf have more support from russia on iran, but also reduce our own arsenals to convince other countries that we're serious. so wasn't getting that relationship back on some sort of a workable position important for the obama administration? >> well, that's absolutely true. and i agree with that whole heartedly. getting the russian relationship strengthened, ensuring that we have a successful start negotiation is important. having russia for the first time agree with us that iranian advancements in the nuclear area and the missile area is something that should be addressed through sanctions and

the diminished would be wonderful. i don't agree that the way to do it is by lessening the defense systems of the united states. and i would be surprised if others agree that by lessening the systems, that it's the right way to go. we need to get them at the table, but not this way. and let's die gress and take the russian-united states discussion on missile defense and break that down to find out what we've done. russia says they don't like our missile defense system. it's a missile defense system. it's not an offensive system, it's a defensive system. for russia to say i don't like your defensive system is saying they want their offensive systems to be more successful, more effective. i don't think we should ever go to the table and have someone ask us for concession on our defensive systems. in this instance, you can loosely translate what russia is saying is i want you to put your defense shield down because i might want to bomb. and because of that, that is --

that is an unreasonable request to begin with. >> as everyone knows, this is absolutely yules against the russian arsenal. >> so you've given us an excellent arguement >> i'm not going to take the russian's point of view but it did drive them crazy to have the fact that we have large interceptors that they said they feared could be armed with nuclear war heads right next door where they had little warning. >> they have 3,000 tabblingt cal nuclear weapons right there? i don't buy that they have -- and here's a good point. i don't buy that they have a reasonable basis to be asking for concession from us on a defensive system. therefore, i don't buy it's a concession that was worthwhile to make. >> and if they put large interceptors in cuba, we wouldn't have a problem for that? we've been through that.

haven't we? >> cuba is a different issue than europe. >> but i'm saying we are putting these interceptors in their back yard. i think if the shoe is on the other foot, would you feel threatened if russia was putting large interceptors in our own back yard? because that is what we're doing? >> are you arguing against nato? it's a nato endorsed system. nato endorsed it. it's part of and to be part of an integrated nato system. if you're saying we shouldn't do it because it's in russia's back yard then you're conceding we shouldn't be there. >> i'm not saying that at all. i'm saying that, to get at why we might want to, if we had bigger fish to try with russia, we might want to concede them a point -- i think that's what the obama administration is doing. >> here's my point. one, i don't believe that even if the goal is laudable, for increased relationships with russia and bringing them to the table and -- in a way that's

meaningful and shows that we want to bring them to the table, i don't believe the defensive systems are the way to do it. secondly, i don't believe even if the president believes the offensive -- defensive system should be on the table, that the risk from moving from 2013 to 2020, the u.s. capability for icbm protection from iran, is worth it. that's a risk i would not have taken. >> but based on what secretary gates said last week, couldn't better relations with russia lead to better relations with iran or less of a threat with iran? >> that's an interesting point. because, one, russia has not shown any interest in playing that role. they have not stepped forward at all and given us any indication that they would be effective in reducing iran's thirst for missiles and its nuclear system, or the -- or that even if russia was interested, that iran would be

-- would respond. iran's not indicated that they would be dissuaded by russian intervention. here's the third thing that's important. a real i think dynamic thing happened the same day the president made this announcement. the same day this announcement occurred, the international atomic energy agency made an announcement in vienna that they believe iran has already got the capability to be a nuclear power. that they already have the ability to make a nuclear weapon. and that release is sort of a game changer. because if your goal is to dissuade iran from having that capability and the agency is issuing their press release saying that they already have it, what are we expecting to get from the russians? >> the key issue is their ability to deliver that weapon. and so the question is what is their time line for icbm development on their side. and then the separate question is what is our capability today

to defend against that? and it sounds like you just don't accept the word from the joint staff that they have that capability today to intercept the iranian missile if it -- whenever it becomes capable of launching toward the united states. >> what i'm saying is that they're not speaking as absolutely as you are. i mean, if they believe that they had everything that they need to counter an icbm threat from iran, the president wouldn't be proposing an alternative system to the one he scrapped. they'd say we're already there. but they haven't said that. there are capabilities that we have, but they're not the type of capabilities that everyone wants to say we're done including the president and the joint chiefs. they're saying the alternative system will be available 2020. the one they scrapped would have been ablee 2013. and the difference i think is an unacceptable time period. >> they've stated unequiveically in testimony and today to me in an e-mail that they have the capability today to defend against an iranian missile. >> they are not trying to

improve the capability they have in alaska. they cut it by a third. >> to augment it with a european installation. >> the interceptors in alaska, this administration, this year, cut missile defense by $1.2 billion. nearly a third of the capability in alaska is -- that was slated to be in alaska is going away. so for them to say to you we can rely on alaska when they're diminishing its capability by a third -- the joint chiefs are saying we have a capability that could respond. we're expanding alaska's capabilities and we were placing this capability in europe. so we have three shots, full, plus we have the technology and innovation as it's progressing. this is 2013. and they've taken alaska, diminished it by a third, they've taken alaska off the

table until 2020 and they say we have what's left. and that's not efficient. >> this is a technical subject. as i read their release, they said they have the nuclear material possibly to make the bomb not that they've maffered the weaponization. our own c.i.a. said iran got out of that since 2003, unless i've missed some intelligence. >> i have the ap news break, nuke agency says iran can make bomb. not that this material -- experts at the top atomic start are in agreement that tehran has the ability to make a nuclear bomb and is on the way to develop a system able to carry a nuclear war head. so, we're all just going on what the associated press said. but they don't just say material. they say the ability to make a bomb. and that came on the same day the president said i'm unimpressd with their progress on delivery and i'm willing to

let the united states be exposed for an additional seven years while i deliver a different system in 2020. >> did he say that? i'm willing to let the united states be exposed? >> when he says 2020 and the other system was 2013, that's what he is saying. it's a difference between 2013 and 2020. >> we have about two minutes left. >> on the -- maybe the ap reporter is not experienced but having done this story and talked to them, i'm not sure they've said they weaponized it. that usually comes from us. >> i believe they're saying capability. and capability means that they have the ability. and here's the issue i think we all have to be more concerned about. there are no absalutes in any of this. i mean, when you say 2015 and maybe by 2020 they'll have it and do they have it weapon niesed? this is what we know. iran has a program that they are actively seeking the ability to have a nuclear bomb that they are actively seeking

missile technology for delivery, and that they are on a path that we can't really predict with absoluteness what their time frame is going to be of success. we do know that some in our intelligence believe it's going to be as early as 201513. we do know what we would have had in europe would have been 2013. which they still could be 2015. we do know straight frm the white house's website that first time the system they're proposing would be available for icbm capability, responding, is 2020. that's not up to -- for debate. >> once again you left out another thing. we do know that the vice chairman of the joint chiefs of staff in testimony before the senate armed services said that the current system has the ability to intercept icbm. it may not be the adeal system but according to the pentagon it's a system that is capable

today. >> as i said in response, if they thought that was sufficient and that's all we needed, they wouldn't be propozzing another. they're not saying we're there yet. yes, we have capability, but even they believe in what the president is proposing they need additional capability. i disagree with them, saying the one they scrapped is the one we needed. >> how big a threat is iran to the u.s. sflrining it's a great threat. you have a country that has repeatedly had instances where people are from their own military are see seen chanting death to america. i tend to believe that when we have an adversary, that we should believe them. we shouldn't say that's for show, they don't really mean this. if that's what they're saying and we know that they're seeking the weapons system, they're seeking missile systems, we need to defend ourselves. that's what america has always done best and i think we need to do it now. >> there's no argument here, i'm sure, that iran represents

a threat. the question is, there's a lot of zero sum game in this. there's only so much money to go around. you can't do everything. and they made a choice. i take your point, some people are going to be uneasy but apparently the joint chiefs are comfortable with it. >> this is an administration that apparently thinks we should spend overwhelmingly in all areas but the military. to cut at this time, missile defense by $1.2 billion and then to go and cut this european system, i believe, is irresponsible. especially when this administration continues to propose new spending but looked for savings in something that puts our country at risk. i don't think it's risk. congressman michael turner, thanks for being with us. >> thank you. >> we continue the conversation with john donnelly and james kitfield of the national journal. open ended question to both of you. what was behind the president's decision last week? >> well, they won't acknowledge yet openly but i do think there

was a big view toward russia in that decision, an attempt to hopefully bring russia closer to helping out with the iranian nuclear missile problem primarily, among other issues. but i do take them at their word that it was a reprioritizing of the way the system is going to be configured to deal with a threat that is more immediate in the short and immediate range missiles with a it can noling that is more proven on the u.s. side and then down the road moving toward a longer range capability in europe. but you have to take them at their word that the system we have in alaska and california is at some degree capable of intercepting an iranian icbm launched at the united states. >> they won't say that because they want a quid pro quo with russia, but he went to moscow last summer in july, and said he wants to reset that relationship. this system they announced without nato's approval, the

bush administration all on their own, and it just kind of really got under russia's skin. so you had to sort of weigh how much advancement you think you can make with russia on strategic nuclear arms reductions, on pressureing iran. it was a nonstarter to seriously negotiate that with this system being constructed in what it considers in its back yard. we should remember that the republicans are much more weded to 2 idea of missile defense ever since ronald reagan gave his star wars speech. it's been a part of every republican plank since then. democrats are lail more skeptical about its utility, how much it costs, how effective it will be. in this case, i think he got kind of middle ground and tells me is you've got a republican secretary of defense and all the joint chiefs to agree on that. these are not people to known to accept unacceptable risk for their country lightly.

they take that seriously. so that tells me there's a middle ground here that will be successful in selling this. >> something representative turner said, agreeing to everything except defense. >> there was an increase in the defense budget last year. it's not what the bush administration wanted upon leaving but they have increased it. and the defense budget has soared since 9/11. >> and what you notice about this is again going back to the joint chiefs, what a loot of people don't know is the uniformed military is a lot less passionate about strategic national missile defense than a lot of people assume. this shows that ink nation of theirs. theater defense they know how to do, they do it well. these systems we're talking about well have been tested more, have been more successful so they're more robust. and they want to build up from the theater up to the strategic level. the bush administration was building down bark to the

theater. and so it's not really surprising the democratic president went this way. and, like i said, if he gets this much buy in from the military suggests to me he found a middle ground that's sort of the sweet spot between those who want to scrap it altogether and those republican whose would rather build missile defense than anything else. >> how is this playing both in eastern europe and in western europe? >> i think there's not a monolithic response from poldnd or the czech republic. there's people who hate it and people who did not like the idea of deploying this system in their countries. so there are divisions there. >> clearly, poland and the czech republic wanted to build this system because it gets american troops on their soil. that makes them feel a lot safer with the big bad bear next door. so there's some disappointment. but the public wasn't behind it but the political elite were. in western europe there's a breathing of a sigh of relief, because the really bad

trajectory that we saw between russia and the u.s. was making a lot of the europeans very, very nervous. >> james kitfield whose buy line appears in the national journal and mr. donnelly, thanks for being with us on "newsmakers." thank you. >> the house returns on monday for a quick proforma session. the senate will be in at 2:00 eastern to resume work on interior and environment spending for fiscal year 2010. live coverage on c-span. you can see gavel to gavel coverage on c-span 2.

up next, some of this week's remarks on health care system legislation. we'll begin with senator baucus and senator mcconnell followed by a house hearing on insurance company practices. followed by remarks by president obama, followed by remarks by republicans. wednesday, senate finance committee chair max baucus unveiled his version of health care legislation following weeks of negotiations. the bill now goes to the full finance committee for a markup session. this is about 20 minutes.

well, first, welcome, everybody. our health care system is simply unsustainable. it's breaking the bank for everyone. families, to businesses, to government. americans today simply cannot afford quality health insurance, in fact, to this day another 17,000 people lost insurance. more businesses cut benefits and more americans filed bankruptcy because of high medical bills. that's why it's time to act. and that's why this is our moment in history. we cannot allow this moment to

pass. last week president obama laid out what he believes the key criteria foor reform. it should expand coverage to those who don't have health insurance. it should slow the growth of health care costs. and, it should keep insurance companies honest. the chairman's mark i am releasing today delivers on these critical reforms. it delivers on the vision for a meaningful health care reform. and i share with president obama and millions of americans of all stripes that goal. it meets the criteria laid out by president obama. and it could achieve our common goals for health care reform. it reflects months of work, and more than a year of preparation by our committee. it represents an effort to reach common ground and a real

chance for health care reform. and, it is balanced, a common sense bill that can pass the senate. achieving reform means we need to hold the insurance industry accountable, and that's why we're presenting this package and that's exactly what this package does. it provides competition, holds insurance companies accountable, and ensures that americans have real choices when they buy insurance. our mark ensures choice and competition in the health insurance market. so every american can find quality, affordable coverage that cannot be taken away. it protects those with preexisting condition, very important. it prevents insurance companies from discriminating and capping coverage. and, it requires insurance companies to sell and renew a policy to anyone who applies so long as the policy holder pays their premium in full. our package makes clear that if

you like your doctor, your health plan today, you can keep them. it delivers affordable coverage to tens of billions of americans and reduces costs and expands options for millions more. it increases the focus of prevention and wellness. it begins to shift the focus of our health care delivery system toward quality of care provided, not quantity of services provided. it protects medicare and makes the medicare program stronger to ensure future generations can benefit. for seniors, it lower prescription drug costs dramatically. for small business it establishes a new marketplace to shop for coverage to help make benefits affordable again. in fact, the congressional budget office estimates that our reforms will significantly reduce cost for individuals and group markets. for the uninsured, our package

guarantees immediate access to quality affordable coverage. it is fiscally responsible, it reduces the deficit within ten years, and it controls health care spending in the long run. we've done everything imagineable to get the most generous, more affordable coverage that we could within president obama's target of $900 billion. there are honest and principled differences between all of us working for reform and this package may not represent all of our first choices. but at the end of the day, we all share a common purpose, and that is to make the lives of americans better tomorrow than they are today, and to get health care reform done. which means the time to come for action is now, and we will act. we will act and pass health reform legislation this year. next week, the finance committee will do its part to help expand coverage. we will do our part to control

costs. and we will do our part to work closely with president obama to deliver health care reform for the american people. i look forward to the efforts of my colleagues on the committee to make this an even better bill. i also look forward to working with leader reid and chairman harken and dodd and the rest of my colleagues on the health committee so we can merge quickly our bill with theirs. this is a good bill. this is a balanced bill. it can pass the senate. and i look forward to making sure that we have an even better bill that passes with even a larger margin. thank you. >> you spent so many months in a room with two other democrats and three republicans and you actually delayed this much to the chagrine of the white house and the leadership because you wanted to work with those republicans and now you're standing here alone and they were not ready to support this. a, how disappointed are you?

and, b, do you really honestly think that you will get republicans on this? >> i believe i have an obligation to work as diligently as far as i can to try to get the most broad-based bill possible, because after all the american people want us and i think washington to work together, republicans and democrats. they don't like all the partisanship that's going on. and i also think a bipartisan approach is more durable, more sustainable. it generally means a better policy. so i worked very hard to try to get that bipartisan support. and i think that we will get it. i think that certainly by the time the finance committee in this room votes on final passage for health care reform there will be republican support. no republican has offered his or her support at this moment, but i think by the time we get to final passage in this committee, you will find

republican support. this is a bill that should enjoy broad support. it is common sense, it is a balanced bill. i think this bill -- i know this bill will pass. it certainly is a bill that can pass. and the choice now is up to those on the other side of the aisle whether they want to vote for it or not. >> how come the bill doesn't provide a long-term fix for the sgr? >> sgr will be addressed. there's no doubt in my mind about that. >> will it be a long-term fix? >> i can't address whether it will be one, two, three, four, five six years or a permanent fix. there's no doubt that we will in the senate address it. [inaudible] >> it's a separate issue. sgr is not part of health care reform. it's basically -- well,

medicare pays providers, especially doctors in this case, and we will find a way to deal with sgr. that's not going to be an issue. we'll find a way to deal with it. >> there's several democratic members who said they have raised concerns about this bill and they feel you made too many concessions to republicans. how concerned are you that you may not have enough democrats on your committee to pass this bill? >> there's no doubt in my mind this is a very balanced bill that's going to get good support. i've talked to democrats, i've talked to republicans, about this bill. just intensively. and i can tell you that those conversations, there's some who think i've not gone far enough, there are some on both sides of the aisle who think identify gone too far. and this is basically within the framework that president obama outlined in his state of the union address. it's very similar to what he suggested.

and, again, i talked to senators, democrats and republicans, some think too much, too little, and i think i've come up with a good bill that will pass is the senate. and i will work with those senators, clearly. this is just the beginning stage. there will be amendments offered. no doubt about that. some will make good amendments that i will support. then we'll merge with the health committee. there's lots of opportunities. but to stay within the confines of under 900 billion and trying to find a balanced approach here. and, again, some want more, some want less. ting this is a very, very good beginning. [inaudible] he thinks the bill is deeply flawed. >> i'm sorry? >> the he had of -- there's some concerns that democrats have about your bill.

he says [inaudible] to provide health plan to provide benefits for many middle class families. in other words the cad lack. can you tell us how that came about? and how is it that you'll be sure that cost isn't then trickled down? >> well, first, the president endorsed it in his package to the country. second, it's the measure that many of us have supported for some time or some versions of it. senator kerry particularly has been pushing that measure. and it's basically a tax, frankly, on insurance companies. and i think it's appropriate to get the fat out of the insurance companies. i'm proud, frankly, that this bill focuses on those who have profitted the most under our health care system and i think they should be part of the solution. and, actually, without getting

too deep in the weeds to further answer your question, the congressional budget office says frankly the net result of all this will be a significant change in the way companies and their insurance companies provide benefits to employees, namely, as a consequence of this wages will be increased, otherwise paying in health insurance benefits, and frankly that's going to increase taxable income of employees and it's -- and that, therefore, cbo gives it a positive score. [inaudible] >> is it also advised -- thank you very much for helping bend the cost curve. that's one of the main theories of it. >> you have an estimate from cbo. do you have an estimate for how many people the bill will cover? >> i don't have exact estimates. that's an issue that has been foremost in my mind every week

if not a couple, three times a week. because we don't want coverpbl to get too low. if coverage gets too low then we start to no longer have the benefits of virtually universal coverage. too many people will -- who will -- who need insurance will get insurance if the coverage -- those who don't want insurance, don't need it, won't seek it. kind of a spiral phenomenon if the coverage level is too low. the more coverage is up, the more we have true insurance, and the more that's going to help assure lower premiums for all americans. so i don't have the precise number right now, but it's -- i don't want to give you numbers. it's in the mid to low 90s. but it's a concern of mine. it's a point i will be focused on through dwrout committee and as we pass health care reform. >> mr. chairman, you have said

that you don't want americans to lose their coverage, people who have it can keep it. why not have a stronger employer mandate then? because it looks like it would be cheaper for a lot of employers to just take the tax credit as opposed to actually -- >> well, in an effort to get balanced again, in an effort to get a bill that can pass, we -- i decided that it makes more sense not to have the actual mandate. but for an employer who does not provide coverage, that employer will have to pay a penalty for not providing coverage to discourage employers from dropping coverage. [inaudible] >> it's 400 for all employees. or, it's a tax credit per employee that an employer may otherwise drop. it's another example of the difficulty in trying to find the right balance here. that is, on the one hand we want to keep our employer based

system and want employers to keep providing coverage for their employees. on the other hand, we've got the make sure that it's not -- insurance is not too onerous for employees, and the employer is not too easily -- drop coverage. so it's trying to find that penalty and right balance so as to not to reduce coverage very much. >> what kind of support is there among governors and state legislatures to make this expansion? >> i frankly think that this is pretty much resolved. that is, medicaid expansion. we are a group of six have had several conversations with governors, several conference calls, one yesterday. and on the conference call yesterday with maybe a dozen governors, bipartisan, explained what's the net result

will be to governors under an expansion of medicaid. and essentially, when you factor in the fmap rates, that is how much uncle sam is going to pay, what portion uncle sam will pay for the expanded population, and when you factor in other matters such as increase of the drug rebate from, say, i think it's 15 to 22%. when you factor in chip flexibility that states will have and you factor in some other provisions on a net basis, average basis, throughout the country, states will see, according to the most recent calculations, 0.8, 9% increase. in states medicaid obligations over the baseline, over what they would baseically pay.

so on average 0.89. >> [inaudible] >> [inaudible] >> sorry? >> the very thing -- medicaid in the bill? >> well, a key point here clearly is delivery system reform. that's a key point of this bill. and, regrettably, in my judgment, this has been lost on most of the national debate on health care reform. that is, we have to begin to change the way we're compensating providers for medicare and medicaid away from paying on the basis of quantity and volume, more toward paying on the basis of value and outcomes. and the more we can move down that road, and the more quickly we can move down that road, the more quickly we're going to not only reduce costs, this is

extremely important point, also inimprove quality. i want to underline that last point. improve quality. if you look at all the integrated systems, more of them are developing because most folks know this is the right approach and where we should be going in health care today. i don't care if it's kieser, cleveland, mayo, it's intermountain, giceger, montana has a bill that's clinic, whether it's integrated, acute provider are integrated. they're providing that their quality is increased significantly. and as costs are lower. so we're building incentives in this bill to help groups to evolve into integrated systems. and that will get at the question of medicaid reimbursement. and this will take time. it's not going to be accomplished overnight. but i do believe firmly that

this is probably if most transformtive game-changing vision here. it will start to lower health care costs. it will start to bend the cost curves. there are other provisions, too, that will accomplish the same objective. but it's so critical for our country. >> when it comes to the efforts to try to get bipartisan support, what do you think you need to do in terms of actual policy changes to get republicans on board? >> i just think it's continuing talking, working with, exploring, probing, cajoling, just being creative about it. this is probably one of the largest pieces of social legislation in american history since the depression. it affects everybody in our country. it ambingts everybody in many different ways. it is comprehensive. it is complex. it takes time to fully fathom, put the pieces together to

understand and then make a suggestion, to make it better. i also believe, as firmly, that we have a moral obligation as americans to pass meaningful health care reform this year. all of us here are not going to be here forever. you know? we have a moral obligation to, when we leave this place, to leave it in as good of shape or better shape than we found it. each of us in this country has that moral obligation. and this is our opportunity, our moment to help fulfill that moral obligation for our kids and grand kitsdz to have something better than we now have. i began my statement by saying that all the costs of inaction are just horrendous. we've got to get going here. and i think most everybody has some sense, there might be something to that. and i think a lot of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, we're now talking specifically about the republican side of the aisle,

they get that too and understand that too. this has a certain sense of inevidentibility it's going to pass. and i think with that, more and more people are going to think, oh, gee, first it might be the right thing to do. and probably this is not too far off the track from what we need to do. so let me work with it to see what we need to do to make it better. i fully believe that at the end of the day there's going to be republican support for this bill. >> [inaudible] policy changes? >> i know we've got to finish. it's interesting. i've said this several times too. essentially, we've debated this thing, we've met over a hundred hours. identify forgot what the total is. there are no real policy deal breakers. it's more getting more comfortable with what all this is. and i think that's what this comes down to. it's helping working with it, making this, helping centers in

the country, the public be more comfortable with all this. i think we have to explain to the country with greater clarity. people have a better understanding and i say presump shsly a little higher comfort level. look at, there are millions of americans today who do not have health insurance. just think of that. we're going to provide the opportunity for all americans to have health insurance. there are millions of americans today who have lousy leltted insurance. preexisting conditions, to now based on health status. no limit on out of pocket costs. or recissions. companies put limits on coverage, how many dollars they'll pate out. we're stopping all of that. just think of that for a moment. that's so important. and that's why i do think at the end of the day we're going to get significant bipartisan support and we're going to pass it. thanks, everybody, very much.

thank you. >> the republican leader is recognized. >> mr. president, the debate over health care continues to to be a tp concern for most americans, but it's important to realize that this debate isn't taking place in a vacuum. of a nation that's increasingly

concerned about the size it's taking place in an america that's increasingly concerned about the size of government. over automakers and insurance companies. they've seen government spend hundreds of billions of dollars to bail out banks and other financial institutions. they've seen government run up unprecedented debt. and now they see the government trying to take over health care. if the white house wants an explanation for all the unrest it's witnessing across the country, to all the worry and concerns that americans have about its health care plan, this is a crucial piece. democrats in washington may see all these government programs and interventions as separate, individual events. but to most americans who are weathering a recession, it seems like every time they pick up the newspaper or turn on the television, democrats in washington are pushing another

$1 trillion bill or calling for more spending, more taxes and more debt. that's why people are becoming more vocal, and that's why they have been delivering a consistent message for weeks: no more government take overs, no more spending money we don't have, no more tax increases, and no more debt. americans are concerned about a government running their lives and ruining their livelihoods, and they don't get the sense that either the administration or democrats on capitol hill are listening. nowhere is this disconnect between the people and the politicians in washington more apparent than in the debate over health care. americans don't think a bigger role for the government in health care would improve the system. yet, despite this, every single proposal we've seen would lead to a vast expansion of the government's role in the health care system. it's not that the democrats in congress don't sense the

public's unease about a new government plan for health care. i think they do. the primary reason some of them are backing away from proposals that include it. what some americans don't realize, however, is that even without a government plan -- even without a government plan -- the health care plans democrats are proposing would still vastly, vastly expand the government's role in our health care. and that's what i'd like to discuss in a little more detail this morning. let me list just a few examples of how government's role in health care would expand even without -- even without -- a government-run plan. even without a government plan, the proposals we've seen would force employers to pay a tax if they can't afford insurance for their employees. employers have warned that this provision would kill jobs. at a time when the nation's

unemployment rate stands at a 25-year high of 9.7%, we should help businesses create jobs, not kill them. even without a government plan, these proposals would require all americans to choose only from health insurance plans with standards set by the government and would let government bureaucrats dictate what benefits are available to families. on this point, americans have been equally clear. people want more choice and competition in the health care market so they can pick a plan that would work for their market so they can pick a plan that would work for their family, not one politicians here in nment plan,

these health care proposals would require states -- states -- to expand their medicaid program, something the senator fus concerns about the effect this particular proposal would have on their state budgets. they think these kinds of decisions should be left up to them -- the states -- not the federal government. and, frankly, so do most americans. even without a government plan, these health care proposals would impose new taxes on small businesses and on individuals. under the house bill, for example, taxes on some small businesses could rise as high as roughly 45%, a rate that's approximately 30% higher than the rate for corporations. under the same house bill, the average combined federal and

state top tax rate for some individuals would be about paychecks. finally, the president has said that his plan won't require any americans to give up the health insurance they have and like. well, what about the 11 million seniors who are currently enrolled in medicare advantage? nearly 90% of whom say they're satisfied with it. this program has given seniors more options and more choices when it comes to their health care. yet, under the administration's plan, the government would make massive cuts to medicare advantage, forcing some seniors off this plan that so many of them have and like. when it comes to medicare advantage, democratic rhetoric just doesn't square with reality. let me sum it up. while getting rid of the government plan would be a good

start, the democratic bills we've seen would still grant the government far, far too much control over the health care system. over the past few months americans have been saying they have had enough of spending, enough of debt and enough of government expansion. how are the democrats here in washington responding? by trying to rush through another trillion-dollar bill that americans don't even want and can't afford. the american people do want health care reform, not with more government but with less. they don't want a new government-run system. they want us to repair the system we've got. on all of these points, the american people are sending a clear and persistent message. it is time we in congress started to listen.

>> congressman michael turner of ohio, ranking member of the armed services strategic forces subcommittee discusses defense issues including president barack obama's plans to cancel the event special -- defense missile shield in europe. that is of 6:00 p.m., eastern. >> thursday, there was another meeting on health care reform. this was the second day appearance of the subject produces about three hours.

the domestic policy subcommittee on oversight will now come to order. today is the second of this subcommittee's two-day hearings examining how the bureaucracy of the private health insurance industry influences the relationship between physicians and their patients. yesterday the subcommittee heard the testimony from individuals, doctors, whistle blowers and policy analysts, all of whom related their experiences with

and opinions about the private health insurance bureaucracy and its impact on health care in america. today the subcommittee will hear testimony from top executives of the sixth largest health insurance companies in the united states. and i want to welcome the witnesses and thank them for their presence here, and we look forward to hearing from you. now, without objection, the chairman ranking minority member will have five minutes to make opening statements followed by opening statements not to exceed three minutes by any other member who seeks recognition. without objection, members and witnesses may have five legislative days to submit a written statement or extraneous materials for the record.

i want to add that the house has adjourned for the weekend, and while generally that means that there would be very few members here, i think there are a number of members that have expressed an interest. you may see them come in throughout the course of the hearing. but good afternoon, and thank you very much for your presence before this subcommittee. yesterday we received testimony from the daughter of a man whose bone marrow transplant was delayed an agonizing 126 days while authorization from his insurer was denied and sustained on appeal. she asks, would there have been a different end to my dad's story if he had been given approval of the first transplant request in april 2006?

would he be alive today? we don't know. what we do know are his chances for survival certainly did not increase because -- and she was talking about the insurer -- built the bureaucratic road blocks that changed the course of my father's treatment and made him wait for his potentially life-saving bone marrow transplant. we also heard from the father of a two-year-old who was born with a severe cognitive disorder. he's had to struggle to get the coverage his premiums pay for. recounting the toll on his family that the repeated delays and denials of care for his daughter caused by his health insurer, this is what he told us. he said, the stress of constantly having to hold the hmo and the agents to their agreed-upon obligations has relegated me to the role of my daughter's care manager, and all too often rob me of my role as

sydney's loving daddy. the experiences of these individuals are the tip of an iceberg. court and state regulatory records are replete with recent findings of wrongful denial and delay of health care by private health insurance bureaucrats. hundreds of thousands of people have been wrongly denied health care coverage, hassled with unnecessary documentation requests, under paid claims ripped off by fixed databases that underpaid claims. the actions of insurance company bureaucrats and causing needless delays and denials of coverage for prescribed treatment can be as detrimental as the disease itself. now, this was the conclusion of the ohio supreme court when it upheld the largest jury award in ohio's history against anthem for denying life-saving

treatment to esther dardinger. here's what the court said in that decision. then came the bureaucracy. anthem had worn the dardingers down as surely as the cancer had. like the cancer, they followed their own course on caring, object li oblivious what it destroyed, seeking only to have its own way. regulatory actions and jury awards do not tell the whole story since these measures consist only of instances in which insurers were caught and punished for a violation. there is no record of the silent suffering that our constituents endure without filing a complaint or lawsuit. recently, however, the research of the california nurses' association published payment data maintained by the california department of managed

health care. they found that claim denials by health insurers operating in california averaged 21% in the period 2002 to june 2009. unfortunately, we learned yesterday from another witness that there is no comprehensive data source on all health care coverage that has been denied, substituted or delayed. in this absence of transparency, health care institutions promote the image that they encourage healthy living. all the insurance companies here today wanted to be represented by their top doctors. had we allowed that, their preferred representatives would have been consistent with the coverage they continue to deny, but it would have been inconsistent with what health insurance continues to represent. what is your business model? whether the doctor agrees with a pre authorization is in large

part a business decision, it's not a medical one. they carefully chart the medical loss ratio, which we're all familiar with, the elr. the dollars that health insurers spend on medical coverage, that they continue to be a key indicator of what the insurer spends on medical health care and there by is a predict or of medical probability. according to a former executive, one of the nation's largest for-profit insurers, quote, investors want that mlr to keep shrinking. if they see an insurance company has not done what meets their expectations with the medical loss ratio, they will punish them. i've seen a company's stock price fall 20% in a single day when it did not meet wall street's expectation with the medical ratio. they have developed a sophisticated bureaucracy to avoid paying for expensive

treatment. they're developing products with high co-payments so they don't have to pay health bills. there are rescisions in which they revoke a policy after receiving premiums in which it was filed. they cause them to become insolvent at the start of the illness. finally, private health insurance companies are charging higher rates and earning huge profits by not covering people who are very sick. that's what wall street wants to see. we have testimony from the six largest private insurers in the nation who are here to explain to this committee and congress how you can reconcile the demands of wall street which are quite significant and severe sometimes. demands of wall street with the health care needs of your

policyholders. that's what we're going to be exploring today. so with that, i'm going to recognize the distinguished ranking member of this subcommittee, mr. joe mcguire. >> thank you, mr. chairman, for holding this hearing. yesterday we heard some heartbreaking stories of families dealing with severe illnesses and the mountains of paperwork they were forced to wade through when trying to get coverage. in my opinion, those decisions should be between doctors, patients and their families. that constituents come into our office and say their child got sick and their insurance got canceled. practices like this are in excusable. it is precisely these instances when people most need coverage. individuals who have been acting in good faith, paying their premiums and have upheld their contractual responsibilities in fact should be covered and get coverage. we heard of health care

rescisions. rescisions should only occur when there is a material fact or breach of contract. all state regulators and consumers should try to prevent these occurrencesíaáo @ @ @ @ @& >> instead, we should keep what keep works west -- what works best in the present system. all americans must have access and that coverage should be truly owned by the patient and we must improve the health care delivery structure and we must tend to reign in and out of control costs. everyone has a seat at the table and i'm glad our witnesses can be here today. >> i want to thank my colleague

from ohio. we have a bipartisan effort on these hearings and i always appreciate his perspective and the fact that you sometimes offer a contrary point of view which is needed to get to the truth so i thank you. we had the privilege of having the chairman of the full committee. i am sure all members would agree would agree that it is our responsibility when the chairman of the full committee shows up to provide the chairman of the full committee with an opportunity to be recognized. and so at this time, i want to thank mr. towns for the support he has given this subcommittee in our effort to get to the bottom of some of these serious health care issues, and thank you for your support in the whole range of concerns the american people have. the chair recognizes the chairman of full committee, mr.

towns, of new york. >> thank you very much. i would like to thank you, chairman and ranking member jordan for holding this important hearing on unfair practices engaged in by private health insurance carriers. let me begin by saying i agree with president obama's statement last week to the joint session that private for-profit health insurance companies perform valuable services to their subscribers and our nation. i hope president obama rightfully calls for health care recognition, that he limits discrimination because of age and gender so that seniors and women will pay the same coverage as others, prevents insurance

companies from dropping coverage when people are sick and need it most. caps out on pocket expenses so people do not become broke when they become sick. and eliminates additional charges for preventative care such as mammograms. in many states, insurance companies can simply cancel person's insurance if any existing medical condition is not listed on the application. and this can happen whether the person is even aware of the condition or not. we hear repeated reports that insurance companies limit benefits simply drop or deny coverage for high-risk patients who whose claims eat into the carriers' pockets and produce high claims. the carriers are doing this at

the same time their executives are receiving millions and millions of dollars compensation packages. businesses cannot provide the employees with coverage due to their own eagerness to make a profit. on the other hand, patients are afraid to disclose health conditions and might even be forced to lie in order to receive medical treatment. some patients suffer greatly as their health declines without necessary medical treatment. these insurance carriers' practices are unacceptable and must be reformed. i believe insurance carriers must be held accountable. if a company sells insurance, it must provide insurance coverage. when claims are made in that

regard, it is essential that congress enact health care legislation that includes provisions designed to ensure accountability and strong enforcement. mr. chairman, i applaud you and mr. jordan for the work you're doing, and members of this committee, but i want you to know that we have a lot of work to do. because as we look and see in terms of what people are going through, we must reform it and we must reform it in a positive way. on that note, i yield back on the balance of my time. >> the chair recognizes mr. foster who was here even before everybody else. we'll go to mr. cummings, then. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, thank you, again, for holding this hearing. and i want to thank our panelists for being here this afternoon. yesterday we heard chilling

testimony socked into the conscience. after hearing that testimony, it was very difficult for me to sleep, about what insurance companies do to regular, everyday people like the people that i represent. we heard from a mr. potter, wendell potter, and let me just give you some of the words he said. he said for weeks now, and i quote, we've been hearing industry executives say the same things and making the same assurances. i'm sure you will hear the same refrain tomorrow. this time, though, the industry is bigger, richer and stronger. and it has a much tighter grip on our health care system than ever before. in the 15 years since the insurance companies killed the clinton plan, the industry has consolidated to the point that it is now dominated by cartel,

for-profit, large insurers. the average family doesn't even understand how wall street dictates, determine whether they will be offered coverage and whether they can keep it and how much they'll be charged for it. but, in fact, wall street plays, and i continue to quote, a powerful role. the top party of for-profit companies is to drive up the value of their stock. stocks fluctuate based on company's quarterly reports which are discussed every three months in conference calls with invest orz and analysts. continuing the quote, on wall street, investors and analysts look for two key figures: earnings per share and the medical loss ratio or medical dental ratio as some people call it. that is the number between what people pay out for claims and

the difference between costs of providing coverage. what they're saying is too many people are paying loyally year after year after year, but when they want the insurance company to pay, the insurance companies quite often slap nthem in the face. they say, no, we're going to give you a rescision. we are going to fine the preexisting condition so we can save money. but one of the things that was most chilling was the testimony that came when they told us that quite on these panels and these insurance companies get together and they wait out while they're trying to get a decision and quite often they wait so they can die. that's what we heard in here yesterday. and i said to them at that time that if that is the case, then that is fraud and it is criminal. and we, as a country, can do

better than that. i look forward to the testimony, mr. chairman, and with that i yield back. >> thank you, gentlemen. the chair recognizes mr. tierney of massachusetts. >> thank you, mr. chairman, i don't intend to take my full five minutes except to note you've all heard a little about the testimony we've been hearing from individuals, and i hope you take a moment rather than reading any pro forma statements you may have heard to explain that how insurance rates have risen, insurance companies are putting less money into actual medical care and more profits into the executives and underwriting. when it gets to underwriting, i think we'd like to hear why it is that other executives came to congress and said they would not do away with such practice like rescision where somebody is ill and getting treatment only to

find that the company reaches back and tells them to disqualify for some reason. or why it is you won't stop the practice of pre-conditions or why you put the caps on coverage. this leads congress to assume that the only thing we have for consumers is to put a cap on for wall street's self interest. there are new plans coming out, voluntary benefits, limited medical benefits. voluntary usually means employees will pay 100% of the preem jumiums and the employers nothing. maybe some lab work or x-rays, maybe a few doctor visits, but the premiums are paid entirely by the employees. those premiums are usually 50% less than major medical plans and the employees get left holding the bag because they're not really covered in the end.

i know some of you companies are sponsoring a medical conference next month proposing those types of plans. i want you to address how it is that helps small businesses. you say you're doing it because you can't afford it, but you're the ones that set the rates, driving them into poverty, these small business employees. my small business isn't impressed with it, and they don't want to go that direction. they want their employees to have good, solid coverage. i look forward to the testimony and maybe a discussion afterwards that maybe the direction we're going into in private health care industry, and maybe you can convince us that it's not essential we do something in terms of regulation and competition to put a stop to those practices that really haven't shown or reflected well on your industry. i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman. >> if there are no further opening statements, we will

proceed to receive testimony from the witnesses before us today. i want to start by introducing our first panel. mr. richard collins, welcome, mr. collins. mr. collins is the senior vice president of underwriting, pricing and health care economics at united health care group. he also serves as ceo of golden rule insurance company and president of united health one. united health care's individual line of business, he served in his capacity since july 2005. mr. collins also manages the individual business of security company, and pacificcare. next, mr. brian sassy. welcome, thank you for being here. mr. sassy is president and ceo of the consumer business unit for well point, inc.

responsible for the company senior, state-sponsored and individual under 65 businesses. previously, mr. sassy was president of blue cross of california. and chief executive officer of its life and health affiliate. he also served as vice president of operations, and strategic initiatives for blue cross of california. and general manager of small group accounts for the west region for wellpoint, incorporated, the parent company of blue cross of california. thank you. miss patricia a. farrell. welcome, miss farrell. miss farrell is senior vice president of national international business solutions for aetna, incorporated. leading divisions which provide health insurance for the federal government, tricare and state medicaid programs, and other businesses in the u.s. and abroad. previously, she was the senior vice president of aetna specialty products and medicaid.

>>. this included aetna dental, life, disability, long-term care and voluntary products. and aetna's medicaid and children's health insurance program business. miss farrell has also served as senior vice president for strategic planning. mr. james h. bloom. is that the correct pronunciation? bloom. mr. james h. bloom. mr. bloom is senior vice president, chief financial officer and treasurer for humana incorporated. he has primary responsibility to supervise all accounting, actuarial, analytical, financial, tax, risk management, treasury and investor relations activities for that company. thank you for being here. mr. thomas richards. appreciate your attendance here, mr. richards. mr. richards is senior vice president for product management, and new product development for cigna health

care and cigna's choice link subsidiary which provides customer benefits and online enrollment. previously, mr. richards ran cigna's stop loss business, which provides reinsurance to middle market and national segment customers. during his career, mr. richards has held a variety of project managements, including the marketing department where he designed and brought to market@$ >> ms. rietan, [vfis the chief operating officer of health care corporations where she is responsible for its internal operations as well as numerous divisions including subscriber services, government services, information, and financial

services. previously, she was chief operating officer of blue cross and blue shield of minnesota. 20 years of experience in health insurance field. she was also the co-creator of the minnesota adult exchange -- health exchange. i want to thank you for appearing. i want to thank all the witnesses for appearing before the subcommittee today. in these first few minutes, looking out at you and your accomplishments in the insurance ry, stry, this hearing is not in any -- and any of the questions that are asked, this isn't about anything personal. we respect who you are. but the institutions that you represent are here to be questioned today and challenged today. and we're going to need your cooperation and understanding your business model. now, with that, i will proceed to the swearing in.

it's the the policy of the committee on oversight and government reform to swear in all witnesses before they testify. i would ask that you please rise, each of the witnesses, and raise your right hand. do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? let the record reflect that each of the witnesses stood and raised their right hand and answered in the affirmative. you may be seated. >> mr. chairman? >> yes, mr. cummings. >> mr. chairman, just point of information. mr. chairman, you just swore in the witnesses. should a witness fail to be truthful with this committee, is there a penalty connected with that?

>> >> staff attorneys have just handed this to me. this is pretty pro forma for any congressional hearing. where witnesses testify and swear under oath. there's two sections covered. one is 18 us c-section 1001, which relates to knowingly and willfully falsifying any statement. there are provisions in this for penalties that include fine and imprisonment. the -- there's another section. i was given 2 usc section 94 that relates to committee and

congressional procedure if anyone fails to answer any questions pertinent. we would -- we would have to, according to this, certify through the house of representatives the facts as we see them to the united states attorneys office. so, you know, it's a standard operating procedure in this committee, mr. cummings, that, you know, we expect witnesses to tell the truth, but if they don't, there are penalties under law. >> thank you, very much, mr. chairman. >> yeah. let's go to opening statements. mr. collins, you may begin with your opening statement. thank you. and make sure that mike is close, so we can hear what you have to sayment. >> thank you. chairman kucinich, ranking member jordan, and members of

the subcommittee, my name is richard collins, underwriter of pricing and health care economics for united health care, also the ceo of golden rule insurance company, united health group company that provides individual health insurance to individuals and their families. today i'll start with some revant facts about united health group, our industry, and try to demonstrate how we are improving the quality of health care by reducing costs and scream lining the administration. first, united health group provides high-quality health services and products for more than 7 million people, and in partnership with 5,000 doctors, 5,000 hospitals, and 600,000 doctors across all 550 states. >> second, we apply committed men and women. these people work hard to improve the health care and well-being of our health plan members. third, we have prudently managed our finances during these challenging economic times, and

combat the promises that we make to our stakeholders. fourth, our industry is already one of the most highly regulated in the united states. united health group has long advocated for comprehensive, bipartisan health care reform. we have proposed constructive changes that would ensure rates do not vary because of health status and gender, and would guarantee coverage regardless of preexisting conditions. for those that maintain continuous coverage. these reforms would also require that individuals obtain and maintain health insurance coverage so that everyone participates in both the benefits and the costs of the system. discussions of administration processes and health begin with benefits of a strong provider network. our members receive great value from our extensive network, which includes more than 85% of the physicians and hospitals in the united states. we perform periodic credential reviews to make sure that network physicians and hospitals

continue to meet standards of quality. our members receive negotiated savings and discounts when they are cared for by one of our contracted providers. a key element to the success of this network is health information technology that we use to increase the speed and accuracy of claim processing. we pay more than 250 million claims annually, and more than 95 are processed on our primary commercial platform within ten days. in fact, over 80% are processed automatically. across our entire business, we have identified 100,000 physicians through our premium designation program that consistently deliver quality in accordance with evidence-based standards. and they do so at costs 10 to 20% below their peers. these physicians use data, efficient practice management, and evidence-based medicine to guide and consistently improve patient care. this network system extends to doctors and hospitals that are best at managing complex medical conditions, such as organ

transcript plants, cancer, and congenital heart disease. this helps the sickest patients receive the best possible care, often resulting in better outcomes and often at prices at savings as much as 60%. partnerships with physicians and hospitals are critical to streamlining the administrative processes and providing greater value to our members. to that end, we have established two national and numerous local physician advisory committees. they provide us with feedback and help us ensure that we maximize the health care quality, and minimize the administrative burden. we are also introducing innovative and practical tools that allow doctors and nurses and other health care providers to spend more time with their patients and less on paperwork. for instance, our e-sink program synchronizes a person's medical history to help identify gaps in care they should be receiving. electronic medical records and e-prescribing technology help physicians practice better

medicine through clinical decision support, and reduce administrative costs through automation and web-based transactions. in conclusion, united health group provides critical services and support at every point in the health care delivery system. we are privileged to serve our members and take seriously our responsibilities to serve americans in this socially sensitive area of health care. through innovative technology and programs, as well as close collaboration with the provider community, we are successfully improving quality, reducing costs, and making the administration of health care more efficient. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. collins. mr. sasse, you're recognized for five minutes. you may proceed. >> thank you, chairman kucinich, ranking member jordan and members of the subcommittee for allowing me to testify today. i'm brian sassy. well point provides information benefits to 35 million people

across the country, representing almost one in nine americans. we recognize we have the ability to help change health care for the better. and with this ability comes a responsibility to our members and to all americans to advance health care quality, safety and affordability. i look forward to discussing how wellpoint helps create health care value for our customers. at wellpoint, we developed evidence-based medical policy based on the latest clinical research. our nurses and other health care professionals support our members to ensure that care is safe, necessary and timely and looking to the future, we continue to explore new ways to reward value over volume and stress safety, efficiency and patient satisfaction. one of the areas under discussion in the current health care reform debate is health plan and administrative costs. last year, pricewaterhousecoopers conducted analysis of how the typical health insurance premium dollar is spent. my written testimony includes a chart that shows that 87 cents of every premium dollar is paid out to cover the cost of health

care claims. of the remaining 13 cents, 6 cents goes towards taxes, other government payments, claims processing, and other administrative costs. 4 cents go to consumer services, such as care coordination, disease prevention, chronic care management, provider support and marketing. and only 3 cents of premium dollars remains for profit or surplus. i understand the subcommittee is interested in knowing how we determine medical policy, and how our medical policy relates to how we process our members' health care claims. our medical policies reflect input from premier academic institutions, and experts within the medical profession, as well as considering the standards of care within our local communities. these medical policies are available online to all providers, and to the public at large. last year, wellpoint received 380 million claims, and we processed 97% of those in 30

days. the subcommittee's letter asked for some information on deferral of claims. i should note that we do not defer claims. what happens sometimes is that claims are pending as we await additional information or conduct additional reviews. some common reasons for pending claims are that premiums have not been paid, that the claim is incomplete, such as missing diagnosis codes, or when members have health coverage -- other health coverage ma may be primary. the subcommittee's letter also asked about administrative costs. our administrative costs include a variety of initiatives designed to promote the health and well-being of our members. for instance, wellpoint employees, thousands of health professionals, including nurses, dieticians, social workers and pharmacists, among others. these professionals speak with thousands of members each day, encouraging them to learn more about their conditions, and how they can better manage their care. our health professionals help members schedule necessarily follow-up care and specialist

care, remind them to pick up important prescriptions, and serve as a valuable resource to our members 24 hours a day, seven days a week. another example of is our clinical research subsidiary, health corps, which has produced note worthy studies on best practices for treating low back pain, high cholesterol, asthma, to name just a few. we take these recommendations and share them with physicians to help them improve our members' health. health care also works with the fda and cdc to improve drug safety, and helps these agencies monitor emerging drug safety issues in real-time. my written testimony includes more detail of these types of initiatives, which are typically not included in government-run programs. efforts like these funded out our administrative expenses are critical to our ability to follow through on our primary commitment, which is to improve the lives of the people we serve in the health of our

communities. in closing, i would like to assure the subcommittee that wellpoint supports responsible health care reform. but reform must go beyond the insurance marketplace to address systemwide challenges and associated costs. changing how we finance health care without changing how we deliver health care would be incomplete reform at best. i appreciate the opportunity to testify before you today and to respond to your questions. >> thank you, mr. sassi. the chair recognizes miss farrell. you may proceed for five minutes. >> good afternoon. my name is pat farrell, and i'm a senior vice president at aetna. aetna is one of of the nation's leading insurance companies, providing medical, dental, pharmacy, disability, life insurance and other health benefits. we provide those products and services in all 50 states, and we provide those products and services to 37 million americans. i'm proud to have worked at aetna for over 20 years in a variety of capacities.

on behalf of the thousands of employees at aetna, i look forward to talking to you todayg with no exclusions for pre- existing conditions. this, combined with the requirement that everyone have insurance coverage and financial assistance for those who cannot afford it, and who needed, will get and keep everyone covered in our system. i expect that many of the issues we discussed the will of illustrate the need for reform. aetna is committed to health care reform that addresses access, affordability, and quality. we operate in a dynamic and

highly competitive marketplace. our business can only be successful when health care consumers are confident that we can provide the greatest value for their health care dollar in helping them improve or maintain their health care status. status. our employees come to work every day, doctors, nurses, and customer service professionals, with the same commitment to make sure our members get the best health care coverage possible. much of our focus during the health care reform debate has been on building what works well in the employer-sponsored market today, while addressing the problems in the small group market and in the individual marketplace. these solutions, which now seem to be broadly accepted, should go a long way to addressing the problem of access to health insurance. but we strongly believe that for health care reform to be enduring and affordable in a nation, we must address the underlying problem of rising health care costs.

health care costs drive insurance premiums. not the other way around. over the last decade, health care costs have risen about 7.5%. and premiums have risen that very same amount. it's fundamental to our discussion today to understand the value that aetna brings to the health care system. and how our business practices are focused on empowering consumers and health care providers, to make the best decisions possible. we process hundreds of millions of claims every year, and getting them right every single time is our goal. we recognize that even a small percentage of problems represent real issues for our customers. and for our providers. when we do get it wrong, we have processes in in place to help get it back on track, quickly. the aetna is driving innovation to improve the lives and the health of our members. in just the past four years, we have invested over $1.8 billion in health information technology.

for example, some of that investment went to having personal health records that can empower consumers' decisions around their health. finally, we're also leaders in promoting wellness and prevention, and the management of chronic diseases. refocussing our system to prevent disease, and promote wellness can lead to better health for all americans, and is positively impact costs systemwide. i believe the competitive marketplace has played and should continue to play an important role in fostering the innovation that's necessary for our country to achieve true and widespread quality and affordability in our health care system. thank you, and i look forward to continuing to work with congress to pass health care reform this year. >> thank you, miss farrell. the chair recognizes mr. bloom. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> make sure that mic is close. we want to hear you. >> better now? >> go ahead. >> mr. chairman, ranking member jordan, members of the

subcommittee, i'm james h. bloom. i'm a senior vice president, and i'm the chief financial officer and treasurer of humana inc. humana is headquartered in louisville, kentucky, offering health benefit plans for employer groups, government programs and individuals. we have 10.3 million medical members and 6.8 million specialty members. in all 50 states in washington, d.c., and in puerto rico, humana employs 28,000, hundred employees and contracts with nearly 400,000 physicians around the country. we provided extensive or written testimony on today's subject matter, and i will briefly summarize a few key points here. every aspect of humana's operations is governed by federal and/or state laws and regulations. and humana continues to boast support and advocate for responsible health system reform. we believe that doing nothing

somebody -- doing nothing is not an option. we believe that all-americans should have affordable, quality health coverage. it's essential that everyone participate in the health system with subsidies for those who can't afford coverage. and in return, coverage should be guaranteed and not based on preexisting conditions or health status. to ensure affordability, reform must focus on improving health outcomes, reducing variations in care, and reducing costs. humana also supports america's health insurance plans comprehensive reform plan, which provides for universal coverage with insurance rating reforms. these reforms voluntarily offered will obviate the need for business practices put in place because there currently is no requirement that individuals have health insurance coverage. the subcommittee has specifically requested that we comment on our processes for both coverage determination and

processing claims, as well as the physician feedback on these processes. for 2009, humana ranked number one among national payers as the easiest to do business for both doctors and hospitals. specifically, athenna health found humana to have the lowest denial rate among all major payers. in contrast, medicare part b program ranked fifth. humana also ranked as the fastest payer to physicians. with the medicare part b program, again, ranking in fifth place. the subcommittee also asked how we address that humana makes coverage decisions. let me summarize. coverage decisions are based on evidence-based medical criteria, developed and approved by physicians. under our policy, a nurse or a nonclinician can authorize any service that's under review. however, only a licensed board

certified physician medical director can issue a denial based on a medical criterion. to the extent that a practicing physician disagrees with the decision, there are timely, internal appeal processes allowing peer to peer input. these grievance and appeal processes are governed by state and federal regulations. internal appeal decisions can be further appealed to an independent, external review entity whose decision is binding on humana. humana has worked effectively over the past few years to streamline and simplify our administrative practices. we have partnered closely with hospitals and physicians who care for our members, and our members themselves. here's one example. an industry leading multipair, multi-use electronic medical provider information exchange. humana co founded availty with the blues of florida. it fulfills the presidents and

congress's call for a workable health care information technology super highway. it has standardization, speed, accuracy, transparency, and results in significant cost savings. today, across the country, 50,000 physicians, 1,000 hospitals, 100 million members, and 1,000 payers, including public payers, access or connect with availty every year. this results in -- this will result this year in approximately 600 million transactions. availty, what it does is provide seamless provider interactions and improves patient safety, saving money. it it is digitized. most of the nonstandard administrative processes that providers have complained about for years. and for those who use e-prescribing, preventible adverse drug events have been reduced by 61%. and most importantly, there are no charges to providers for

using availty. in closing, mr. chairman, let me say that humana is committed to work closely with the administration and congress to increase the likelihood that measures designed to solve the most significant problems in our health care system become the focal points of responsible and real health reform efforts. i look forward to your questions. thank you, very much. >> thank you, mr. bloem. the chair recognizes mr. richards. you may proceed for five minutes. thank you. >> chairman kucinich, ranking member jordan, and members of the subcommittee, i appreciate the opportunity to address the subcommittee. and to discuss the issues raised in your letter to mr. hemway on august 26th. my name is tom richards, senior vice president of product for cigna corporation, based in philadelphia. at the outset, i want to emphasize, on behalf of the 26,000 cigna employees, that we support health care reform that provides security, affordability and stability for all americans. we believe such a goal is achievable by strengthening the

current system to include both a personal coverage requirement and a helping hand for those who can't afford coverage. we support guaranteed coverage for everyone, and no exclusion for any preexisting condition. we support reforms in the way premiums are calculated, without taking into consideration health status or gender. we support providing subsidies to individuals who have difficulty affording health insurance, including subsidies to small businesses. we support administrative standardization and simplification. we support a focus on health and wellness. further, we support the establishment of exchanges to provide a choice of plan options for all americans. we also support reimbursement reforms to the current fee for service delivery system. it's also important that you understand cigna's role in health care. while we have some in insurance business, nearly 80% is administrative services only. this means we administer the programs for employers in it accordance with their policies and pay claims for them. it is not risk-based, as would

be traditional insurance. these employers are self-insuring and the claim payments come out of their employer funds. there is no financial incentive for our employees to accept or deny claims. at cigna, in 2008, 89 cents of each premium dollar was spent on medical care. our support for reform is aligned with what we stand for as a company. our mission is to improve the health, well-being and sense of security of the customers we serve. our results demonstrate our focus on health improvement. competitive data from the 2008 state of health care quality report shows this difference. against a baseline of standard care provided by doctors and hospitals and a fee for service unmanaged situation, we have better results. if you turn to figure one on page 4 of my rain testimony, you'll see a chart that reflects these results. all of our coverages, be all of our coverage policies follow best practices, and are evidence-based, which means they're based on the most

recently published scientific evidence. we consider safety and effectiveness. it's important to note that cost is not a factor, unless there are multiple items or services with equivalent safety and effectiveness. we are very proud to employ over 3,000 clinicians. these doctors and nurses make decisions about clinical policy, review medical necessity, and advocate for individuals. they make the system easier to understand. they help our customers navigate the health care system when they need help. and they literally save lives. we have included the words of several of these individuals in our written testimony telling you how we have helped them. in 2008, cigna processed approximately 91 million claims for payment. more than 90 million of these claims were paid without question. i call your attention to figure 2 on page 10 of the written testimony. of the approximately 1 million claims that did require prior authorization, all but.08% were aprofd on initial review. what that means, is that cigna,

more than 99.9% of the time, the person received the care that the doctor recommended, and the services were covered. at cigna, all medical coverage decisions are made by doctors and is nurses. and is ultimately, the chief medical officers are responsible for all coverage decisions. we recognize the doctor/patient relationship is critical, and do everything we can to enhance it. let me cite just a few examples. first, cigna is simplifying and reducing administrative complexities from are payment methodologies and claim processing to problem resolution and education. second, cigna's further innovating our payment methodologies. example of this is cigna's patient-centered medical home initiative, such as the one we have with dartmouth hitchcock. we improve continuity, and coordination of care, quality of care for patients and lower medical costs for everyone. at cigna, we focus on helping people improve their health.

we believe the health care is a shared responsibility of the individual, the private sector, the medical community and the government. such a shared responsibility is right for individuals, families and the country as a whole. we look forward to how we can work together to improve the health and wellness and quality of care for all americans. mr. chairman, this concludes my remarks. >> thank you, very much, mr. richards. the chair recognizes miss retin. thank you. please proceed for five minutes. >> good afternoon, mr. chairman. ranking member jordan and members of the sub the in. i'm colleen retan, the executive vice president and chief operating officer of health care service corporation. we are a mutual legal reserve corporation that does business as the bluecross blueshield plans in illinois, new mexico, oklahoma and texas. by way of background, hcsc is the largest customer-owned health insurance company in the na.