wrote some of us were working very hard to collect. i will guarantee to thousand $500 per family. will this happen? some of us are not clear that this will happen. . >> we have a tax on cadillac

health care plans. everybody knows what they mean. there is the medicare commission. these are favored the congressional budget office and peter orszag. >> i don't have a philosophical problem. there is a lot of room to improve medicare and medicaid through efficiencies. i am surprised the cbo did not give us credit for this. the reason they gave us for such little savings was that unless you make it much tougher, congress will keep ignored the recommendations.

there is a structural problem with imac. they have a structural problem with people in big cities. they don't seem could know what public hospitals are. as a tool, i would like to use it. when single payer bill medicare for all becomes law, medicare as a funding problem. gjit is a weird mechanism that buys into a premises that the only way to provide health care is through plans without complete variability from one employer to an of. my concern is the way these cadillac plans have been structured. you have heard that one person's cadillac is another person's yugo.

the problem is the way it has been structured, we have talked to labor unions and companies and said do the best you can and get your employers better -- employees better health care. they have done it and many of these plans as being determines generous are really not that generous. i'll open to have a conversation about how you get people less expensive health care. i think we're missing a much bigger opportunity. >> what is your answer to that? >> i have been baffled why

progressives would not look at this as an opportunity to provide a significant tax cut to millions of working-class people who care the most about. the math is consistently coming in upwards of two with $50 billion. -- supports a cut to under $50 billion. a typical family -- $250 billion. when that provide aid to a progressive deduction or credit of $19,000 to all those families. then you could reward them for shopping. so when they shop for their health coverage, depending on their tax bracket under the approach that congressman cooper

and i have advocated, you would have millions of working class people walking away with a tax cut of probably six under dollars for shopping health care to tamp down the cost of health care. there be billions left over for the uninsured. the debate has not focused yet on the idea of giving a tax cut or tax credit. most of the people that dennis represents would actually get a tax cut, a significant tax cut for shopping while we put pressure, down more pressure, and health care costs. >> halwhen you hear the discussn

and someone says they are paying 20% of their medical bills. you were saying it is not necessarily the case we should not spend so much money under health care. do you have a percentage in mind attacks what trade-offs are fair to ask people to make in order to pay? >> gelles or injuries is usually will be on wood and a human being can pay. -- bill this or injuries are usually beyond what a human being competitive -- bill mess -- illness or injuries are usually beyond what a human being can pay.

the deficit is already 34 trillion dollars and the holder of -- in whole. -- the hole. bill we have to get our promises in line with the ability to pay. some people are worried that the u.s. treasury bond itself could be at risk. they project that by 2012 and that was made two years ago before the recession. we need to pass health care reform this year because we need to address some of these fundamental issues that have been ignored by past administrations. president obama inherited a

terrible mess and we have to fix this. the treatment options will be much more obvious. i think we can work our way of this but it takes an acknowledgement first. -d÷there are many people love wanted to abolish this. >> the bills are converging. we're looking a $900 billion over 12 years. projections show that we will munsee the effectiveness for several years. the out of pocket limits are not as low as people would like. it looks like there will not be that much money to play with. you are in the room with the

president who says we have $50 billion to play with. where do you put it? >> i would say to help those who do that have health care coverage. if you are able to get health care to as many people as possible, you will drop the health-care costs to everybody in the country. >> if you were to add $50 billion, is what i am saying, would you try to speed up the benefits? what would you do with that money?

>> the american public will be shocked when we find out this plan starts in 2013. they have the expectation that this is a round the corner. some of the bills start in 2014. the further away you put it, then you can pay for it. i would say there would be some measure of disappointment by people who thinks this will happen next year. >> i don't think there is enough subsidy money on the planet to get people the affordability they need with going that route. you will have to go the cost containment route.

we saw in the senate last week that there will be difficulty paying for reform in many members months because you wouldn't -- they couldn't figure out where you getu $250 billion on the doctor's side. you have to confess -- inflect more cost containment on the system. i don't think there are enough subsidies out there anywhere to get people the affordability they want. >> if we do not reform health care, it will go up. if we don't go to a preventive system and make the system more efficient, we will not achieve anything.

>> let me take a question or two from the audience. almost everybody agrees that we -- the bills in congress do not ask enough of health care system. name me in the industry -- may make an industry that we can ask -- ask them to put more on the table. >> the pharmaceutical industry, doctors -- one of the arguments that congressman cooper is correct that there are structural problems with medicare -- one of the reasons it is the federal this government decided we would

cover the underprivileged and the elderly. if you want to get control and figure out things that work, get control. wal-mart offers for dollar for decibels for their customers. they do that generics and go to the pharmaceutical companies and said they have a lot of customers. nobody is better that wal-mart. one group is bigger than wal- mart. we are bigger than wal-mart but we do -- go to this type of things. the more people to come under a government plan, the greater our ability to do things that make sense without being concerned about profit. weekend tried to get better medical outcomes and save money. -- weekend tried to get -- we can try to get better medical outcomes and save money.

what is the market incentive getting this? it does not get us more efficiencies. it doesn't get us better quality of care. i guess the health insurance industry would have to explain to us what they are doing to justify that level of efficiency and profit taking. >> bill nelson of the finance committee offered an amendment to force more competition in the pharmaceutical sector. he lost by two votes that would have saved more than $100 billion. there are places where you can look for additional savings by using cost containment. i consider this the big challenge -- you have got what amounts to a status quo caucus in this country made up of all of these industries, all of

these lobbyists, who say they are for change but then they go out and hire a lobbyist to keep their franchise. the keep the status quo. in order to squeeze out more savings, we will have to look all the sectors. i consider myself a progressive democrat and i think we should look at legal reform. i am for insurance reform. no more cherry picking. i want to change the way insurance does business. i think we need legal reform as well and go to the status quo colchis and tell them they will all have to accept changes. >> if we do this right, we can

pay for all of health reform without a tax increase. with an estimated $700 billion per year in a waste, we can capture 10% or 15% of the waste. blue cross plans receive over $1 billion per year, every year. ahip, the health insurance trade association, commissioned a white paper about health insurance that they said they're wasting an estimate of 14% of medicare spending each year. in the senate finance committee,

we have the medical commission. it has jurisdiction over everybody except for hospitals. how do you explain that? i love hospitals. no one should get a best for 10 years. you cannot favor one group over others. >> we need an incredible opportunity in the spring. we had meetings with the american medical association, the insurance industry and other sectors. we made a commitment to identify $2 trillion over 10 years in health care savings. i believe what happened was as we were having the conversation, people wanted to retreat back to their places of comfort. how do reorganize the way you

provide your product and services ta? we are excited that we will have some legislation for the first time in this century. i think there will be a health care fatigue out there. we cannot lose sight of reform the way we buy our services and provide the services. if we do not do that, we could have another problem down the road. >> time for a question or two? >> [unintelligible]

what you think is affordable coverage? was affordable for the individual? >> the question is should everyone get health care? what level of health care should some people relegated to decget the t? this could turn into a payroll tax. you will have some added tax at

the top bracket. you take the $2.70 trillion that we pay each and every year and you have more than enough money to fund health care. if we keep looking at it through this lens of what the policy should be -- for order% of the policy level in new york, $70,300. i looked up what they housing in taxes would be. it left that family with a net pay of $11,000. the average health insurance plan that they would get would essentially leave them-about $2,000 every year. that is before anything. the idea that you comply with those numbers and how much your insurance policy would be -- we

should take a step back and ask why how much money we will give to bluecross to give this money in their care. what we just collect their taxes, take 1% off the top for administration and give them health care. why do we ask such a strange question to individuals? we don't negotiate with the fire company to put out a fire in their house. we are buying into the premise that health insurance companies are essential to providing health care. >> under the legislation that i wrote and congress when cooper spot is, everybody in the country can get coverage that is at least as good as a member of congress gets for the amount of money we are spending within two

years with the cost curve for society starting to go down the third year in terms of how it would affect individuals independent of supplements. that would mean that everybody making $150,000 per year or less would pay no more than they do today or see their rates go down. that is my definition of affordability. i think what americans look at the kind of charts that i described, the final chart after the senate finance committee acted where a couple making $66,000, 19% of. go ha of their income, brings io question what they will exist on.

>> you will discover that individual health care costs was over $3,600. we have a low threshold of affordability out there in america. health care is not treated like other things. health care is a public good. can all benefit. we should be focusing on public health and of food, safety, and things like that. the congressional debate is focused on health insurance reform.

it is not as much on delivery as it should be. the affdability issue for the individual -- americans have a low tolerance for health care costs. >> the important thing is having economic security and peace of mind that you will love and a bankrupt or losing your home because of health care. if you are the most disadvantaged in our society, you should pay less for health care and society will assist you in taking care of you. if you are well off of our society, you will available more for it. >> insurance exchanges would be

helpful. has anybody given thought to have the exchanges would operate and whether they would have independence to avoid the cherry picking? many of us still want to see that happen. >> the way the senate finance committee structured it with 50 different exchanges is a mistake. i think it is a mistake administratively and creates no oversight. what was contemplated in the federal transplant is that you have a single oversight and single structure. i think it is being oversold. it will be helpful to have the

minimum standards. even those are not nearly as extensive as people characterize them. to the greatest extent, you have some singular place that citizens can go. , to have the competition going on, i think that is better. >> it is a great question and pervert way to wrap up the meeting. i think the exchanges are the balking. if you are serious about health reform and transforming things, you have to go there to create a marketplace rather than this dysfunctional mess that we have america today. there is an exchange that works. congress people can look at their paychecks and seek out they are part of it. the federal employee health benefit plan assures that we

have a large pool. no insurer can discriminate. you can't clobber somebody with pre-existing conditions. we have so many people in a pool, you also saw age discrimination. the finance committee has been wrestling with rating bands and old people spending four times as much of their coverage as a younger person. you don't have that problem with the federal employee health benefit plan because the pool is so big that you could spread the costs and risks and drive out administrative costs. there is a way to run an exchange in the united states of america that all congress people have to do is look at their pay check. they are part of it. that is the way to ensure that you can set up a competitive model. it's a janitor at the federal bureau of engraving feels the

insurance company is ripping them off in october 2003, come january, 2010, they can go to an exchange and get more than a dozen good quality affordable choices like a member of congress does. that is how you hold insurance companies down. >> let's wrap up with a lightning round. one word answers, gentlemen. when will we get a healthcare bill? >> thanksgiving. >> end of the year, christmas eve. >> december, 2009. >> public option? >> why my first all the time? [laughter] >> probably an opt in. >> public option, some of mix of

all the iterations on the table. do with the people get to be part of this so we can start pulling the insurance company accountable? >> one word and the senators go on. [laughter] >> ike leggett will be -- $900 billion ta? >> 900 + tomorrow 30. -- plus 230. >> i hope so. >> did so. >> if there is a god. [laughter]

[no audio] >> one of the speakers at the " new republic" conference with nancy-ann deparle. >> i have the honor of introducing nancy-ann deparle.

she is now the counselor to the president and director of the new white house office of health reform. [applause] >> thank you for inviting me. the subject of the panel today is simple, will health care reform work? i am proud to say i have an answer for you. yes. i am tempted to leave it at that. i suspect you are looking for more details. i want to talk about where health reform is going and where we stand. first, i think we should take a step back and remember how far we have come. president obama began the drive for health reform in march, since then, people did not think we would get this far. the naysayers were out in full force and they brought out a

long list of presidents who tried health care reform but failed. fdr pronounced health care too much of a challenge and offered to do social security instead. today, we're closer than ever to reform. legislation built upon this blueprint has been approved by five congressional committees and is now moving forward to the floor of each house. the president expects to sign a bill this year that will bring stability and security to those who do not have insurance and affordable coverage to those who do not. it will help families, businesses, and government. it will not add a done to the deficit in the short term and we believe it will bring down the unsustainable growth in health care in the long run. many of you have been following this progress over the last several some of you sitting here today right on it every day.

thousands of force have been written about the roller coaster ride and the prospect of a public plan and exchange. negotiated rates, medicare, opt in, opt out, state managed, co- ops, traders, it could be your portfolio for last year. the list goes on and on. that is an important debate, no question, but there is more to health care reform that one component which is occupied so much air time. i thought today i would talk about some of the other things that are likely to be in the legislation that congress puts forward. significant improvements to the way americans access health care that didn't get media attention. but it took about seven things you may not know about health care reform legislation. small business is number one.

one of the primary goals that president barack obama set out to do is to relieve the burden of rising health-care costs on small businesses. nearly 1/3 of the uninsured work for firms with fewer than 1 ordered workers. because they lack bargaining leverage, they pay more for health insurance. over the past few months, i talked with many small-business owners who struggled to provide insurance for their workers and hoping that they will let get sick. in april, i spoke with the owner of a specialty dog shop. she said she was ready to hire another worker and business was going well. she could not because she was paying so much to cover the four employees she already had. in late march, i spoke with the publisher of a small african american newspaper in north carolina who had been hit hard by the recession.

he said the premiums for is 15 employees went up 15%. that is wrong. the president wants to reduce burdens on small business. regardless of the employer responsibility provisions is structured in the final bill, we estimate that some 95% of small businesses would be exempt from any new requirements to cover their workers. they will be able to find affordable choices. by joining with others in that exchange, they will increase their purchasing power. small-business employees will the choices they do that have today. small businesses that want to buy coverage for their employees will get tax credits to make it more affordable. the bill is still being developed but the congressional budget office estimated that

small businesses would receive more than $50 billion in tax credit for the health bill. these tax credits should result in lower costs. that will result in higher wages for workers and larger profits for small businesses. number 2 on my list is acceptability for young adults. health insurance will provide crucial assistance for young adults who are just getting started in the economy. helping young adults afford health insurance does not get enough attention. right now one in three young adults that do have health insurance or one else was away from bankruptcy. nearly half of these young people have trouble paying their medical bills. more than half of americans under the age of 31 without health insurance at some point over the last decade.

there is another policy. all in all the bills, young people whose parents have health insurance could say on their parents' health insurance plans until they are 26 years old. if these young people are not on those policies, and additional id on the table is to create what has been called a plan that will make sure young people do not suffer if they get seriously ill. number 3 is out health insurance reform will transform the health insurance industry through accountability. this is a system that we all agree is at best opaque and often downright shrouded in secrecy. all the bills include

provisions babel let consumers know how insurance companies are spending their money. that comparison is called the medical loss ratio. making it public will hold insurance companies accountable. yet mr. costs in the market today are especially high. the congressional budget office estimates that an average of 23% of the premiums for policies go to the administrative costs and overhead. that includes advertising and profit. one insurance companies will have to publish these medical cost ratios. there is strong evidence that insurance companies will modify their rates if they know that customers are watching.

insurance companies have said that cost will rise under reform. they cherry pick information that will support their own agenda. premium subsidies for young adults and other plants wes. health insurance reform will lower costs. john gruber concluded that the changes in the insurance market and tax credits and delivery system reform will result in

substantial savings. a bipartisan group of people at brookings confirmed this. the fifth component of health reform that deserves more attention involve delivery system reform that is aimed at how care is delivered and help patients experienced doctor care. the president's plan will promote integrated payments systems. this encourages comprehensive care and follow-through and encourages inefficiency. -- he efficiency. -- and efficiency. -- efficiency.

this is a simple concept that mr. deployed widely. some have dismissed these policies as experimental. i disagree. a pilot is used widely for policy makers who want to perfect a system that already works. you can take it to scale and that is what we intend to do. we want to transform the delivery system. the president's plan will improve care for patients discharged from hospitals and encourage hospitals to help

patients make the transition period that will reduce unnecessary and preventable re- admission and lowering costs. our plan will also build upon the administration's efforts to reduce health care-associated infections. they will public report when those affections occur and prohibiting federal payments for medicaid services related to these infections. high-quality care will be awarded. it will standardize high-quality care. we are doing everything that we

and the experts that we in congress have consulted know how to do to reform the delivery system to make sure patients are getting lower-cost and higher quality care consumers and providers spend hours fighting their way through the byzantine red tape of insurance companies. the sixth reform is administrative simplification. physicians are required to fill a different reforms for -- different forms for each insurance company. patients get confusing summaries. the redundancy and duplication s significant cost to each physician and patient interaction. it costs $7.50 to process a simple insurance claim compared to pennies for transactions in other sections of the economy.

physicians spend about one under 40 hours and $58,000 per year in interaction with insurance companies. these blissful costs do not provide better care and diminished quality by taking nurses and doctors away from the care of patients to maneuver through the insurance company bureaucracy. it is very compelling. this is something the insurance companies brought to the table -- it will happen these bills -- it will standardize the insurance transaction process. this means forms will be uniform, the process will be streamlined, and transactions can be done quicker it will free up doctors and nurses. number 7 is a provision that would let consumers know what is in their plan. what a concept

! we will establish web portals to provide knowledge is power. president obama wants to give in charentes -- was to give patients power. i originally had 10 or 15 but i

was told i could only say 7. [laughter] to me this felt like jumping on a moving train back in march. it has moved quickly. it is worth taking a step back and looking at what we have gotten along the way. when i started this job last march, 130 leaders from around the country, democrats and republicans, discussed the urgency for health care reform. thousands more were able to watch the discussions live online. over the past several months, more than 250 people have participated in round-table discussions at the white house. among them were doctors, nurses,

consumers, pharmacists, hophospl officials, trade associations, small businesses and others. 53 meetings of the finance committee and a lotus markup in 22 years. 47 hearings in the health committee and a 13-state markup, long as they ever had. if any of you wonder how you have been spending your time, i guess you know. we have been trying to reform the health-care system since harry truman was president. i shake my head when i hear people say we are rushing. i think we finally are at a critical point. it has taken leadership from the president and the leaders in congress to bring us here. i want to especially thank

speaker nancy pelosi and majority leader harry reid. the work that you, jonm, and the other journalists who have helped us understand health care reform have helped as bring us to this point. the american people want to know that health care can't wait. inaction is not an option and we will have to get this done this year. thank you for your time today. thank you. [applause] >> thank you for the kind words. there is much more in the debate on the public plan. there has been a sense among progressives for a public plan.

senator harry reid put this option in progress on the table. what do you say about this not getting? >> the president always talks about this when he talks about health care reform. he has said it is a critical tool to encourage competition. he put it on the table. did you think three weeks ago that we would be talking about a public plan? >> no, i did not. >> this has been an interesting debate to watch. as a student of politics, it has been fascinating to watch members of congress study the

context and think about how it could work. does it strike the right balance? as a citizen, i think it is great. i think what they have done is great. >> i know you get the human side of this. many people are concerned about a level of benefits. do you feel levels are adequate? what is your definition of what affordable health care is? >> i don't know if i have a definition but i know that members of congress have worked

really hard to strike the right balance between making sure that it is affordable for families. we will be asking families to participate and to be required to have health insurance. that is not something we have had before. we have to help them to afford it. there are two dimensions to affordability. there is the cbo scoring end the rest of it. it is something of a struggle with and i think they have done a good job. each term they move forward to protect what is out there. it is no secret that many people, including the president, would like to see more progress on affordability.

many senators standout in the debate. at the end of the day, health care will be affordable. >> we have talked about insurance exchanges. many people think that will work well. there are many different things -- ways to run an insurance exchange. it can be very passive or national -- what are two or three things you are looking for in an exchange? >> the public has been thinking about this.

both houses of congress have been debating this as well. i think the exchange will pull people together. the problem today is that one person has insurance and if they are in a group, it takes the insurance company less money to sell it. we have to make the pool the biggest possible one. the house is looking at a national exchange and the senate is looking at a state exchange. >> there is concern about medicare cuts.

congress is trying to fight the efficiencies. seniors may feel losses in services. >> i ran medicare and medicaid during the time where it was insolvent. the medicare cuts had bigger cuts proposed before. we studied the area of choices very closely in terms of medicare reductions. what the policies is about re- admissions.

if people are re-admitted to hospital within 30 days of checking out, if it is not for a good reason, it is not good for them or their families. it is a cost that is incurred and will incur as taxpayers. we should do everything we can to incentivize more rational care. that is what we're talking about. with medicare advantage -- those plans -- 40% -- -- 14% -- there are areas of the country where it is up to 40% for service. that is just not right. it does not have to result in losses to benefits.

we believe these plans can withstand the level of reduction talked about without harming the recipients. >> there is a choice idea that is getting media attention. where does the administration's stand on that? >> what is being debated is what is the right balance. if we get these exchanges up and running, they need to be big enough to be stable but not so big at the beginning to be overwhelming.

that is part of the concern. all those ideas are being talked around. the idea is to give more people choice. you have to incentivize employers to stay in the game. >> is there a way to thread the needle? >> i think over time there is. >> thank you very much for coming. thank you all for coming. [applause]

[no audio] >> as we continue to cover events related to health care debate, we can be a key resource. you can fight congressional hearings and events, speeches by the president, town hall meetings, links and your health care comments. huge can just go to c-span.org/ healthcare.

prime minister questions from the british house of commons will be live this morning one hour later than usual at 8:00 eastern on c-span 2. in a few moments, two days of headlines and your comments, live on "washington journal." the house is in session at 10:00 eastern. the agenda includes the small business administration reauthorization bill. .

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] host: on capitol hill, the senate takes up an extension of unemployment benefits while the house looks at an expansion for loans for small businesses. we are covering hearings on climate change, distracted driving, executive pay and football head injuries. the latest on health care is the house leadership made officially unveil its bill tomorrow with the debate as early as next week. meantime at the white house, word is michelle obama is heading up to new york for the first game of the world series.

the president signs hate crime legislation today. the president is said to have nearly finished gathering information now on what to do with afghanistan. he will have a meeting friday with the joint chiefs of staff. we have a 3 hour " washington journal" today. the front page of " the new york times." the brother of the president hamid karzai at a campaign event here in august. the headline says this --

host: lots of reaction coming in already. it happened last night, "the new york times" first put it out on the website and published today. a lot of other folks jumping on. we want to get your reaction this morning. afghan leader's brother on the cia payroll, according to "the new york times." host: we will get to your calls and the moment. from the ap just coming in, the brother of the afghan president is denying reports that he has

been on the cia payroll for years, citing the piece. he calls the report ridiculous. he told the ap and afghanistan today that he works "with the americans, the canadiens, the british, anyone who asked for my help." he says the cia does its own recruitment. that is the initial reaction. we will read a little bit more from the "the new york times" piece. they write the ties to mr. karzai created deep divisions within the obama administration. critics say it complicates america's increasingly tense relationship with president tom karzai, who struggled to build sustained popularity among afghans and has long been portrayed by the taliban as an american public. the practice is also suggest the u.s. is not doing everything in its power to stamp out but lucrative afghan drug trade, a major source of revenue for the taliban. some american officials argue

that reliance on the most powerful figure in a large area of southern afghanistan with a taliban insurgency is strongest, undermined the american push to develop an effective central government that can maintain law and order and eventually allow the u.s. to withdraw. the first call on this -- lafayette, indiana. larry on the independent line. caller: it is kind of a given. after all, politicians are generally crooked and always on the lookout for another " good person to help them with their agenda. -- another crooked person. host: what does this mean for u.s. involvement in afghanistan? caller: to me it seems pretty much business as usual for most politicians. host: detroit, your reaction. caller: i am not surprised. we had to lobby in iraq on the

payroll -- talabi on the payroll. for what? and the united states we have not clean up new orleans, we have people homeless, we are fighting against medical care for low-income folks and it is just a shame that america seems to not like americans and we will do for other countries and other places where they won't do for america. we have no business paying these guys all this money. what they are doing is keeping it for themselves. host: the headline again. brother of afghan leader said to be paid by that cia. a baltimore, republican caller, david. caller: i think that i would like to know who these resources are that have made this report.

"the new york times" has more than once been stung because its reporters fabricated reports out of whole cloth. and i don't think the public ought to just sit back and by this as truth until there is some real, serious verification dared -- verification. i think the political climate is to cloud the already and there are too many reasons to get some anti-american, anti- conservative, anti, anti, anti sentiments blowing up in the wind. host: got the point, baltimore. moving to the jump on the piece. he said in an interview he cooperated with american and

civilian officials and did not -- but did not engage in the drug trade nor got payments by the cia. host: port st. lucie, florida. scott, back on the independent line. caller: i am trying to see the

big picture. they have been doing it since iraq started. they would hand some money to some of the villagers, the taliban and surgeons, the ones who would not be the big guys, to find out what is going on. they want us to believe we're working with the drug trade, and that is it. and seems like all we are getting out of it, paying this guy who works with the drug trade. somebody's gonna be there -- there's got to be an image of iraq. but it is nothing new that they pay individuals because there are certain entities of different groups -- taliban, al qaeda. it is no big thing that they put him on the payroll.

host: mr. karzai possible role as a go-between between the americans and the taliban is now regarded as invaluable by those is a poor working with mr. karzai as the obama administration is placing a greater focus on encouraging taliban leaders to change sides. a cia spokesman declined to comment for this article. no an intelligence organization were the name would ever entertain these kinds of allegations, says the spokesman. some american officials said allegations of mr. karzai possible role in the drug trade were not conclusive. there is no proof of ahmed karzai's involvement in drug trafficking, certainly nothing that would stand up in court, said one american official familiar but the intelligence, and you can't ignore what the afghan government has done for american counterterrorism efforts. new mexico, bill, on the democratic line. caller: our troops are in big

peril. they will come back as druggies. the headline should be drug lord, the brother of afghanistan president. host:, karzai's brother is: this report ridiculous. south carolina. robert on the republican line. are you there? let's move on to tommy, independent line, tennessee.

caller: i just want to say leon panetta the cia director would probably resign before the end of 2010 because he will not be able to deal with this burden, this pressure of all these different cia illegal activity is going on and he will be forced to resign before the end of 2010. host: california. gloria, you are on the democrats' line. caller: the last i heard, this group has been behind the overthrow of 40 democratic leaders. tyrants to clear out opponents. we have here so-called detention camps in every state for something in the future. why are we giving a trillion dollars then? sorry --

host: jerry, back to the republican line. what do you make of the headline? caller: again, saying that their reporting -- cia paying for karzai, saying it need to be verified to people who report this. but it is impossible getting a verification on the cia from anybody, and as far as that goes, anytime you check into any government, you can't get any verification from anybody. it is very, very hard to do. host: here is a message via twitter.

several newspapers have this photo this morning, "the wall street journal." fallen comrade. the remains of an army comrades -- private killed by a roadside bomb on friday. this private, one of 55 americans to die in afghanistan this month as the white house decides whether to augment the troops there. if you move to "the washington post" this morning, this headline -- that made the point of this is the deadliest month in the war. this is a quote -- taliban arch patrolling and walking freely.

senior military official said the higher fatality rates would not have an impact on the strategy debate. they said casualty's, which often spike is to push into enemy controlled areas, generally were a poor measure of how things are going and afghanistan. florida, back on the karzai story. daniel. caller: pertaining to afghanistan -- and may god comfort all the people -- all the americans that have lost their family members over there. or had there and -- or had them maimed or wherever, or infect anywhere in the middle east, it is just ongoing tragedy.

but it shall be the source of our ruined. a lot of people think reagan destroyed the soviet russia. it was of the afghan days. they will never quit. -- it was the afghanis. they have their children's hands blown off with the russians dropping mines disguised as toys. they remember, they resented it -- and i'm just too emotional about it. we need to be out of there. host: appreciate your controversial. back to myrtle beach where i think we have robert on the republican line. glad we got you this time. caller: are we on tv? what channel? host: we are on c-span.

have you been listening? caller: i think it is a bunch of sh-- host: charles you are on the line for democrats. caller: 13 years in the united states marine corps. and i know -- i am not trusting on of the government, democrats or republicans. it is all about money. they are all crooks and i am tired of them. that is all i have to say. host: an update on afghanistan war deaths, bessin "the washington post." total number since 2001 and names of u.s. troops killed recently -- a typically publish this -- 886 fatalities, hostile, six runs and 36, not hostile, 250 and they go on to

list some of the names of the recent troops killed. we take this call from indiana where gale is on the independent-minded what do you make of this story about mr. karzai's brother? caller: i would say it is not surprising at all. the twitter you had about bush, sr.. if you recall during the bush administration when they first went into afghanistan, the drug trade was allowed to escalate, and jack ever more off -- abramoff and all those, they thought when they were buying the son cruise ships to maybe hall drugs and, bluenose? the other thing, someone commented about the washington

times. i noticed the republicans and rush limbaugh are on the ""washington times" dad every -- ever since the exposed the walter reed fiasco. the government, cia, paying karzai's brother. i am saying maybe it is a necessity in the -- there is no way of knowing. but the fact they are doing it, it is bad. all i've got to say. host: front page of "the baltimore sun." the talk about october becoming the military's deadliest month in the afghan war. the president is said to of nearly finished gathering of the mission on whether to send tens of thousands of more u.s.

forces to quell the deepening uncertainty. rising american deaths likely will fuel the debate. a meeting friday with the joint chiefs will be among the last events and the decision making process, this from white house press secretary robert gibbs. manchester, new jersey. margaret on the democrats' line. caller: first of all, it wouldn't surprise me of the cia was involved with karzai's brother. they have been involved with other notorious figures in the past. secondly, i think it complicates the problem we find ourselves in in the afghanistan war. i think it is more of a mess than we have been led to believe. thirdly, and the story is true, i wonder why the taliban has let this man exist this length of time. host: you may be interested in this additional piece -- u.s. waves -- ways afghan strategy of

protecting population hubs. host: a sidebar piece. laurel, maryland. caller: i think it is another divisive tactic to distract from everything else happening in the country. set one agency against the next. it might have well been a "new york post" had loren. just an attempt to sell papers, if you will. who knows?

if it is coming from the liberal paper it is more likely just a fabrication and that is all i am going to say. host: more headlines from that part of the world. government officials say the death toll in a market bombing in northwestern pakistan has risen to at least 80 people. it coincided with a trip to pakistan by the secretary of state hillary rodham clinton. she was three hours drive away from the capital islamabad when the blast took place. several of the papers reporting on the secretary's visit to pakistan. this is "the wall street journal" this morning. clinton aims to bolster ties with pakistan. she will use our first official trip there to smooth relations strained by terms of american aid package for a key south asian ally. she was scheduled to arrive wednesday morning. she is there for a three-day visit in which she will also seek to show solidarity with pakistan bought similar to reparations against taliban and al qaeda forces based in the tribal reason south waziristan that borders afghanistan.

a call from manassas, virginia. charles, independent. go ahead, please. caller: it should be investigated a little bit. but i think everybody wants to blame everything on the cme. i thing we are the good guys and we're doing the best thing we can. i know it is kind of a crazy situation -- saying the cia is doing this and doing that. like the bush administration blamed a lot of things and the cia when they got wrong. just get behind our government -- we are the good guys and trying to do the best we can. thank you. host: let us hear from venice, democrat from philadelphia. caller: this is nothing new. the cia had a history of dealing drugs -- angola, haiti.

phil agee, a former cia agent, has written about this. vietnam veteran stated they helped load planes, cia planes destined for the united states with drugs. this is nothing new. it is sad -- americans like to believe these things about other countries but when it comes to their own now right away we are the good guys and everybody else is the bad guys. this is really nothing new if you study the history of the cia and hear former cia agent state what they have done for the agency. host: more reaction. austin, texas -- caller: is a vivian? yes, it is.

to believe in the newspapers, well, ok, it is a toss up. but the cia -- introduced drugs into los angeles and the guy who wrote a book about that supposedly committed suicide by sitting himself and the head twice. i have always believed that cheney, he pays a lot of trips to turkestan -- they are the broker for error when paired -- broker for heroin. i always believed that. but the cia -- the guys from colombia, she was carried in

from colombia. they use drugs to subdue. i never thought there hands were clean. i really do believe that by cheney, by the way, that money is nothing to him, it is all the same, money and he once said. host: 1 warm when cit -- warm whentwittedr -- one of more message from twitter. "usa today" ask this question. most are taking a wait and see approach. susan page rights as the anniversary of the election approaches, the tidal wave of hope that's what the bomb into office, and some perceptions of the president have changed.

host: omaha, nebraska. then on the republican line. -- ben. caller: i have troop of -- concerns that we have troops in afghanistan and now going into pakistan. india -- they seem not to get along with pakistan. could that possibly be that america could be in conflict with india? i know they were part of the british empire at one time. i don't know what our british allies -- out a common to play there. it seems like we are all killing each other and china is just

sitting back watching everything. our empire is strong out in 150 countries with 300,000 troops. host: brother of afghan leader said to be paid by the cia. "the new york times" need story. it's as ahmed karzai, brother of afghan president and suspected player in the country's booming opium trade gets regular payments from the cia and has for much of the past eight years. the pay him for a variety of services, including helping recruit an afghan paramilitary force that operates at the cia boss a direction in and around can the heart, mr. karzai's home. the president's brother called this report ridiculous. he says he does work with the americans, the canadians, the british, anyone asks, nobody says the cia does its own recruitment.

-- but he says the cia does its own recruitment. last call. if you could turn down the sound on your set, we can hear you much better. go ahead, please. caller: help. i'm from pittsburgh. i was watching msnbc and fox news, they took them off the television when you were talking about the cia program, they are completely off the air. the today show is off. they took all the news stations of the channels the sense you have been talking about the cia investigation. host: los angeles, last call, independent line. caller: i hope people don't believe "the new york times." remember judith miller scooter libby fiasco? just remember that.

don't believe "the new york times." host: we will take a short time out, switching gears and talk about economics, particulate finances and the banks that are known as possibly risky banks. the guest will be sudeep reddy of "the wall street journal." be right back. >> sunday on "book tv" join our discussion with autism activist and author on "in depth." diagnosed in 1950, professor

grandin discusses how this has taught her about animal behavior and develop humane ways to handle livestock and processing plants. sunday at noon eastern on c-span to's -- c-span2's "book tv." >> the interrogation techniques used by the cia with david cole, author of "the torture memos." on "after words," the anti- communist manifesto. >> best-selling author on the rise of global, its two private founders and obstacles that lie ahead, sunday night on q&a. >> "washington journal" continues. host: at the table, sudeep reddy, economic reporter from " -- "the wall street journal."

too big to fail. what is going on? guest: it refers to the problem of having financial institution so large and interconnected that their failure would threaten the overall financial system and thereby the economy of the u.s. and the world. there has been a debate perform for several years as to whether firms have become too large. we saw the starting in early 2008 with the federal rescue of bear stearns, $30 million from the government -- $30 billion to prevent their stearns from the -- in a disorderly fashion. a debate about whether firms have become too big to fail and what should be done. and six months later we saw with the failure of aig that the government had to step and initially with $85 billion to rescue aig. host: what that definition, you folks at "the journal" and elsewhere talking about the arrangement. we will hear from the treasury secretary tomorrow.

on page a2 -- deal reached on bank crack down. what will they be looking at? guest: this is proposed legislation from the treasury department and barney frank, chairman of the house financial- services committee, to address three of the big questions around this problem. one is, how you identify these firms and the problems festering that create the two big to fail -- that make the too big to fail problem, prepared what you do about it and who pays for it. this creates a council of regulators that includes the federal reserve, treasury. fdic, several other bank regulators. it empowers them to identify these firms, to monitor the firm's, looking for problems that are rising up and giving them the power to act to try to restrict the growth of some of these firms, how the firms are developing, and ultimately it gives the government the power

to see some of the banks and financial institutions. really the idea is to unwind it in an earlier way. bankruptcy is a disorderly process, that is why aig was not allowed to go into bankruptcy and bear stearns was not allowed to go into bankruptcy because a disorderly bankruptcy freezes trading contracts, create all sorts of problems. , and what the market around it you don't want to do that anyway that would cause panic. this gives the power to this -- ultimately to the federal reserve and fdic to take over a financial institution and wind it down. as far as to pays for it, it would spread the cost around two institutions that have assets of more than $10 billion. exactly how it would do that would be unclear. host: i would like to invite the viewers to call in with questions and comments. the house considering

legislation on what is known as a risky banks, the idea of too big to fail. the treasury secretary will be on the hill to talk about this. our guest is economics reporter for "the wall street journal" and previously at dallas morning news, educated at brown university. who pays for this? there is a significant shift that the viewers ought to know about. what else can you tell us? guest: the analogy is how the fdic works. when you put money into the bank, the pact -- bank is paying into the federal deposit insurance fund and that is protecting bank deposits in the case of a failure. previously up to $100,000, now up to $250,000. in the same way the idea was to create a fund that would pay for the bank bailout. in the case of aig, the one people are familiar with, the federal reserve just printed the money, $85 billion and decided

they would figure it out later. that has been a big debate in this case. do you create another fund? . you start delivering these on the 8000 banks? who is set -- paying for it? the smaller community banks have resisted this. they are not the ones who have to be rescued in a case like this, so why did they have to pay into it? about 120 financial institutions in the u.s. that would fit in that category. and when and how they pay for it is still unclear. the fdic would be borrowing money from treasury to save a firm, and this is what is going to create -- some of attention, is why will you wait after the fact to recoup this money? host: what has the reaction been so far? guest: it is very likely to move it through the house and a form similar to this.

resolution authority, specifically how to break down a firm, something the house and the senate agreed. in the senate in particular, more reticence putting so much power into the hands of the federal reserve. whether it did enough to prevent the crisis and even some of the actions during the crisis, so there is debate on the senate side. you will probably see a lot of the fighting going on. host: first call on this new legislation. reston, virginia. democrat. caller: are they trying to anything with the glass- steagall act? and i know why aig got into the banking business -- but shouldn't have a lot more money in reserve? host: remind:glass-steagall is.

guest: it put walls between investment banking and commercial banking, and about a decade ago the walls were taking down and people blame it for creating the large financial supermarkets that were involved in some ways. but it should be reminded several of the firms that got into trouble didn't grow as a result of these walls being removed. the proposal would actually put some new capital and liquidity requirements -- could potentially put new capital and liquidity requirements on these firms. it means they would be required to hold more money and not be able to borrow against their assets as much as they have been doing. it would raise the restriction on bank activity to some extent. as far as aig, the idea is not to just limited to the banks that are traditionally regulated but to expand its portfolio.

a company like aig would have fallen under this group involved in some any financial activities that it would become a firm monitored by this council. host: toms river. chad, republican. are you there? i think we lost him. a call here from d.c., independent caller. i think we lost them as well. two in a row. sacramento, sylvia, are you there? toby -- you're on the democrats' line. caller: i want to make a statement briefly. as soon as the people who don't have jobs get jobs, the economy can change. you can't put the money where the money already is, at the top. why can't play by figure it out, we need the money down here and it will take it to the top. what is so hard about that? host: the caller has raised a question that has,, why are you

bailing out the banks. what lawmakers are hearing. a question they will face a lot more as they are debating this legislation more, having the front money to save big banks that are failing. you may actually see the debate restarted on other ways to help individuals are struggling in the economy. there is obviously the stimulus package earlier this year that added jobless benefits, other forms of aid, to people who are in tough positions and it is very likely you will see this debate. host: as we read that a special fund gets created, creating a special fund, you mention 10 billion a more, on top of hill reaction, what has been the reaction on wall street? guest: wall street seems generally accepted having the idea -- they don't want

companies to go into bankruptcy. a clear case is lehman brothers, where do in part to political pressure, decided not to rescue lehman brothers in december of 2008 and many pointed this to a match that brought down the economy for the last year or so and took us to a new level of the recession. the banks are generally supportive of the idea that there is still a little friction about how the banks are going to be levied. decision at least in the draft legislation to not require up- front payments, seems to have removed some of the friction. but that will of course create a little more debate on capitol hill. host: pennsylvania. tom is on the republican line. caller: thank you. i'm from york, pennsylvania. i think you said brooke.

host: my screen says brooke -- caller: she probably didn't understand it. that's ok. how is the government going to manage all of these things they're trying to manage when they don't seem to be the to manage themselves. you know what i am talking about -- the massive debt of the country is building up and all of this printing of money and selling of bonds, some of these countries buying our bonds would want to catch them and at one time, it would create one heck of a mess. and i was just wondering -- this is one thing that really amazes me. with most of the fundamentals and the economy on the negative side or stagnant or a few may be in a positive territory, why is the stock market been going up so much in the last couple of months? host: take the first one about

organizational management. hill is going to run the new program? guest: that has been one of the big debates. be put power in the hands of a single regulator let the federal reserve or did you spread it across government, the federal agencies? that really is what has created some of the struggle on the senate side because they're all lawmakers who believe that putting the power in the hands of just the federal reserve isn't appropriate. part of it is the issue of, if you spread out power -- the idea is to create a council and via the council you have regulatory agencies overseeing the financial system and trying to figure out whether there is a problem, so you are not going to of this kind of fall by the wayside in an individual agency. but that also creates a drawback that you are now spreading the responsibility and authority across a number of areas. the fed is set up essentially as a backup regulator to step in

the when the council -- step in when the council was not acting. the belief in the treasury is the federal reserve, being an independent agency with terms of the governors of 14 years, subject to the least political pressure in an environment like this and can act when it needs to. obviously there is quite a bit of criticism whether it did act when it needed to early on as head of the crisis. but that is the belief the treasury secretary tim geithner, of course a former fed official. host: he wants to know what is up of the stock market, too? guest: a lot of it is an expectation the economy will recover. we had such a deep collapse in economic activity or the last year or so that we saw the dow go below 7000, and there is at least a sense we are recovering, moving back up. so it is important to note we

are probably around the point where we were when the financial collapse started in september 2008. so we've kind of come back to what is considered a milder recession. of course considering unemployment -- we will see the job market plate -- way a lot more in the stock market. host: the senate takes up unemployment benefits. attached to this is an extension of homebuyer credit. while you are here, give us a quick understanding of the issues. guest: of the unemployment benefits -- this is an extension for people who have run out of their benefits. there are officially 15 million people who are unemployed, one- third of them have been unemployed for more than 27 weeks, more than six months or so. you are seeing a lot of people who have been unemployed start to lose benefits. they are just running out. there are various provisions in

existing law that can get benefits up to 79 weeks but you see people stretching that out. the job market is so weak, you hear about some openings for companies and their are 500 or 600 people applying for a single job, that it is not like the folks unemployed just sitting around not wanting to work. there are a lot of people who want to work and can't get jobs. this is kind of an extension of the safety net to make sure people who are struggling can get additional benefits to hold them over hopefully until the job market starts recovering. though it is probably going to be a year from now before you see the unemployment rate coming down. some of the best case scenario, seeing it down significantly. the home buyer tax credit is a debate about the extension of the $8,000 credit for first- time homebuyers to by house and close on a by november 30, you get a thousand dollars from the government through your taxes. that is generally attributed for pushing up home sales over the

last four months. there was a debate, just like cash for clunkers, leading people to buy homes to what otherwise or just giving people a handout to buy a home they would have already bought. that is the debate. generally there is a sense in the senate they want to figure out a way to extend its a little further, because there is so much interest from the realtors and the home buyer groups. costing a billion dollars, some estimates, $15 billion to extend it. there is some concern. you can't keep borrowing money forever. there is concern from certain people from the senate. host: a lot of economic stories. sudeep reddy is from "the wall street journal." economics reporter. active issue of too big to fail, the legislation chairman frank put out. we have that caller back from washington, d.c..

independent. what is your name? ahead, please. caller: i wish he would come forth and be a patriot and tell the american people that the federal reserve is a for-profit entity. it is not federal. it does not have a reserve. it is a privately-owned bank like what " we given through the fund will reserve act of 1913. -- like what columbia -- wachovia. give me the power to break -- regular occurrence 8 and i write a lot of the land. this private interests have been and just keeping america in debt. they only make money when there is a deficit. they make deficits by making more through the media they control. host: what do you think? guest: a couple of points. the federal reserve first of all

is not entirely private institution. the fund reserve system is a mix of public and private -- federal reserve board in washington, seven governors are appointed by the president are government officials and the employees of the but what reserve board and government officials. there are regional private banks across the country are private institutions verses the washington governors are public officials. an important distinction. ultimately the federal reserve presidents of the 12 banks or private reports to the private agents -- public agency. the broader point, the caller is reason something that has become a flash point about the federal reserve. as a central bank has the power to print money and has done a fair amount of it with the economy still weak to try to provide liquidity and lending to financial institutions.

it has come under a lot of criticism. people don't believe the federal reserve should have the authority. that is certainly something we have seen criticism -- whether such power should be in the institution. the monetary policies are creating a fair amount of the date on the other parts of the fed, including bank supervision and consumer protection. people who are critical of the monetary policy role are also been critical in bank supervision and consumer protection. people have all sorts of reasons to be critical of the fed given all the things it does and has done over the years. host: ohio. sarah, democrat. caller: does the best find it an easy or i'd that some of the folks who created these problems like summer and geithner and paulson -- i don't think rubin

is involved -- that the obama administration brought them on to their team? i could not figure what it did not bring people like krugman and stiglitz, people didn't create the problem. will american taxpayers get interest? have any of the top executives who allegedly will get compensation, have they received any of these executive compensation, especially linked to the banks and institutions that have already received money? host: let me hold you there. three distinct points. this issue of the leadership and the white house. obama did bring in tim geithner, but reserve bank of new york and larry summers, former treasury secretary. that raises an interesting point

about the proposals that are being pushed by secretary geithner and mr. larry summers, because it is leading to some questioning on the hill in particular about whether these two officials are trying to push something that fits into their previously held notion of the economy and the financial system. i think both have acknowledged to some extent some of the flaws that were instituted when they were in leadership positions during the clinton administration and even with the case of secretary geithner, when he was head of the federal reserve bank of new york, eat at knowledge there were things that could have and should of been done. on the issue of interest -- yes, in the case of the federal reserve, the banks' borrowing from the fed are paying interest to the fed. that ultimately does offset some of the expenses the fed is cut

-- incurring responding to the financial crisis. treasury is also getting dividend payments through tarp to the banks. on executives at some of these firms, they are receiving compensation in some form. the idea of what with the paymaster of the treasury department who pushed the plan, is to shift some of this compensation from kind of the easier quick payments to longer- term payments based on performance so that given the government owns shares in many of these companies, that if the performance of the company improves, the government would ultimately make some of its money back and the executives get compensation host: of the issue of too big to fail, this commentary. the headline -- too big to fail is too dumb to keep.

he claimed the crime is due to the indolence of the police -- the clinton regulators caused the crisis is as ludicrous as the claim that crime is due to the indolence of the police. will taxpayers be on the hook? or as we talked about, the burden has shifted to companies through a fund. tried to -- for folks who don't entirely understand. guest: the idea is to shift the burden of taxpayers having to rescue these financial institutions when they are in a crisis. the easiest case again is aig. there are shareholders of aig and creditors, the people who own aig debt, who should have been the first to take a hit. obviously the shareholders have lost a lot. but creditors as well.

in any bank or financial institution, the people who invested in the financial institutions are the ones who should be taking the first hit in a crisis and not the taxpayer stepping up to bail them out. that is really part of the big debate. who should be funding this bailout of firms? the idea of shifting it back to the banks by creating a fund and levying these fees is one that makes a lot of sense in principle but in practice the federal government, the taxpayers would essentials front the money. under this plan would have to go back and assess the fees to make up for the bailout cost. the idea is to ship across the way but initially it does not necessarily do that because it would be required the treasury department to put up the money. host: here is a twitter question --

guest: in the house, the financial legislation moving forward will likely include some type of audit. barney frank, the chairman, has been working with congressman ron paul who has been leading the effort to create a larger audit of the fed. the fed is audited in some ways but not in monetary policy function. so he is working with ron paul to come up with language that would audit more of the fed that is what it now, what would still limit how much the auditors, in this case, government accountability office, would get into the fed monetary policy decision making. host: national -- nashville, tennessee. caller: thank you for c-span and

the major insight you did. one thing i really think needs to be addressed prior to all the others, the derivatives market continues to drive without any type of regulation. the chair person for the cftc in 1998 sat there and called greenspan, summers, and rubin, and those of three discredited her point on capitol hill totally, and she warned even in 1993 -- excuse me, 1998, that there was over $298 trillion of derivatives of the market that the government did not even know how to regulate. host: let us hear from the guest. guest: there has been an important debate about derivatives and trading

contracts that are being done, and the shadows of the financial system. the caller makes an important point about what happened 10 years ago in legislation to really prevent the commodities futures trading commission from taking a bigger role in monitoring the derivatives market. brooxie borne was mentioned, chair of the cftc at the time, and some of the players were involved in that debate. we have seen ins -- to some extent more discussion about the role of derivatives and the crisis and the federal reserve bank of new york is trying to work on this problem to try to pull these contracts and trading out of the shadows and put a little bit light on it. but it certainly has not been the level of discussion that one would expect given the severity of this crisis tied in part to derivatives. host: just one more call left.

but on too big to fail, what will the discussion be like the for financial services tomorrow? guest: you will see a lot of debate about two points in the tickler. one is how it is structured with this council of regulators and what the unreserve that given so much authority. there are a lot in the house and senate who want the authority to be spread out or place perhaps with the fdic. in this case, timothy geithner strongly believes when you have everybody in charge, nobody is in charge. you want to make sure you push that point and that is a flash point. the other is the cost in particular on who is going to fund -- who is going to pay for the bailout. there are some members of the house will want payments to be made up front. host: denver, mark, democrat. good morning.

caller: i'm pretty much in agreement with the last caller. there needs to be regulation. i believe there needs to be a lot more regulation host: what kind? caller: regulation of the companies and the amount of profit you can get, because it makes no sense to me that you can fail in the business and then the chief executives can still continue to give bonuses even though you are not performing. i always thought bonuses depended on a performance. host: a final thought. guest: the entire purpose of this debate is to increase the amount of regulation on companies, but of course it is coming down to how much regulation is enough. in this case it has been cleared from the crisis that pulling back entirely and letting a lot of the firms operate the way they have is a little to lose of oversight. the debate now is where to draw

the line in overseeing the financial system, companies brought it, and how large they should be allowed to grow. host: sudeep reddy, thank you so much for the set up on too big to fail in the house later. we have a couple of hours left in the program. coming up a few minutes, representative and doctor, phil gingrey, republican of georgia will talk about legislation. and we will talk to senator ron wyden, democrat from oregon, on senate happenings for health care. in the final segment, daniel ellsberg, the man who leaked the pentagon papers. he will talk about his experiences. he is the subject in a new documentary that is out. he will take your calls as well on his experiences and bringing that to present day. .

>> one of the six un dead was an american. the taliban is claiming

responsibility. as the war continues in pack tan, the war continues. no one is claiming responsibility for a car bombing. the blast happened as secretary -- those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio.

>> tremendous cost that may be number one. i don't think we can afford $1.5 trillion. that's a conservative amount. there's a lot of slight of haend r hand in that budget window. when you look at the plan, i am

convinced from hearing the words of my democratic colleagues particularly on the energy and commerce. respect fully, this is just host: you mentioned what you are opposed to. what are youp for? >> i'm for what we can afford. as you know, there are a number of republican plans. i'm co-sponsor of most of them.

i have a number of tort reform. i absolutely believe it would save time, lives and money. it is something at this point in time. getting this unemployment rate. waiting to see what kind of public option out there our guest. an obgyn, a republican from

georgia. we have lines for republicans, democrats and independents. what is the purpose of this meeting? >> it's a mock hearing. we have a right and ability to do that. we have called witnesses just like a regular meeting on the hill. one of the witnesses. he and i number of state societies i think about 18 across the country. a lot of the specialty societies have come together to push back against what the ama says is an overwhelming support.

>> another member of our gop caucus. in addition to those positions. the former director is going to be one of our witnesses. good morning. caller: the healthcare, we haven't even solved problems from a long time ago. people have come into our country like an invasion since 9/11. in north carolina, i know people

that work in factories. you don't want to get bigger. they don't hire americans. they say there's no work and they hire someone from a different country. henry waxman chairs that committee. the provision and the bill says no disease would be available for this program then we go on and weaken the system.

it's a backdoor way to say with a wink of the eye, your tax dollars and mine will give subcities to illegals. georgia, marrieta, rome. we'll take a call now from chicago. on the independent line. thank you. caller: just by thinking outside the pharmaceutical box, we could save $3 million a year on the war on terror, war on drugs and war on disease. let's not destroy their herbal medicine farm land and trade

forcing them to buy pharmaceuticals. would you support the marijuana bill and the wellness approach? host: a couple of other different angels there? caller: in a word, caller, no. i would not. >> you are on with representative phil gingrig. good morning. caller: don't you think the american citizens receive the same health benefits you

receive? guest: i absolutely do. i inter reduced that very same amendment. i said let's let every one of our constituents let them, if they want to. they want to drop medicare, medicaid, their employer coverage or policies and sign up for the federal employee health benefit plan, which you allude we are members of. it's payroll deduction. it's not a great deal but it is a good deal. i agree with you completely

>> all of this business about the public option to say about what speaker pelosi has. we have this option what they are saying to providers through the exchanges. the medicare alike payment would be the set amount plus 5%. figses are losing money. nothing is said about the fact that you have fewer and fewer of the best and the brightest going to medical school and chouting primary care.

their providers will be mid level practitioners. they are notfully trained physicians. in some cases, they are nursing assistants. some people need to understand that, when you sign up all these people you have gate keepers other than doctors. >> welcome to the program.

medicare manages to run on less thanek] 3% overhead. they are a middleman. they don't deny claims so much i'd like to know why republicans want us to pay more? guest: we want to bend that curve in the right direction. if there's an increase, that increase should be less than the year before. that's our goal. unfortunately in this bill, both the two bills that came through in the senate and the house.

the budget office. you know that it is an independent operation they have repeatedly said they fail to accomplish that goal. i often say to folks you figure out a way to pay for something you sut here and there. that's frightening us. you come up with a number that you can pay for. what do you get. what do you really accomplish? it really doesn't make any sense ifully concur with you, we need to bring down the cost. liberals rule down.

a version of the public conversion option. a lot about the strategy. best friends might be moderate. what is the strategy at this point. guest: in the minority, of course, our strategy is to make sure we get this right. it makes sense to say why doesn't the federal government they are not bringing down

prices or tickets enough. this is just not the way our constitution is written or what the american people spoke pretty cloud and clear. i thought they were listening, now i'm beginning to wonder. taking a shot at your side, it's hypocritical to say the gops amendments are not committed by them. the party of no we are hearing so much about. what's your take on all that guest: we are the party of know, i'll spell it for you know.

we have the support of the budget office. when we were in the majority, we did pass. we did bring down the cost. it was anticipated by the minority at the time. the premium should be set at about $38 or so a month. the average prescription drug price by competition in the private market with no government heavy hand came in at $24 a month.

serves on the georgia state senate for a couple of terms. we hear you delivered 5200 babies? >> yes, including my grandson. i have to say as an independent, there are a few questions. i note your body language you represent a state old policy. in your goal for road kill helper here. you have no extension. why no hospital school

increases. are you afraid of doctors during for tuition or things like that that are just a natural increase. there is no advancement here at all. it's just road kill helper. >> i don't know about body language. i'm glad you are keeping up with c-span coverage with markups and hearings. i commend you with that. some of your questions. i didn't quite here clearly. look, as paul asked a few minutes ago. we are the party of know.

we have so many bill that's have been inter reduced, every year i have been a member in the house of representative. i'm a strong advocate for a medical records system. i believe it could save lives and money. it could save as much as $150 billion a year. a meaningful fair and balanced reform could save $43 billion. i personally think you could save a whole lot more get something that fits the nodes of

their family. i could go on and on. certain equalized tax treatment for individuals who buy policies and get them through a small employer. they need to get the same tax break. >> wanted to get your sense of doings on the congress side. host: what i wanted to ask you specifically is about snarlt read's plan to opt out. could decide to opt out of any federal program. >> that doesn't do much for me. it makes it very difficult. then, the state sleg slate yours

and both chambers would have to vote to opt out. the concern is the perception of their public that thiz their elected leaders are taking something away from them. harry reid has been around a long time. he's nothing if he's not true. i'm sure he knew that. clearly, the senator from main who is up for reelection in 2010 re what she hears. also a thoughtful long-term member they are saying, look, we don't need the public option. it's not just the one that's

come to mind and everyone thinks of. there are plenty of people out there offering health insurance. the competition will bring down the price just as it to did without government interference. i am inclined to let others know. she was bitterly disappointed with this decision. >> question, where is maryville, georgia? >> i don't know. i should know that, marrieta. >> we have a call from maryville, georgia. republican caller. caller: we are right outside of

gainsville. guest: i'm glad to know it is not in my district. host: caller, police. caller: why if somebody is under 65 and supplemental insurance, why are we paying three or four times more. we pay social security all of our lives. we get disabled and we are paying 3-4 times as much. our thing in georgia is humana, blue cross and blue shield. they have so much in there it costs us $3,000 a month just to pay for it. guest: let me respond to that. thank you for your call. most of our viewers understand that medicare is not just a

program for the elderly. there are probably 6 million who are disabled. under the disability of the program, the coverage is the same. people go on and get in stage renal disease and go on die al sis program after 36 months. medicare pick up this coverage. maybe what the caller is referring to is a situation where the disability is notos complete and they have these preexisting conditions. they are partially disabled. they have to buy their own health insurance.

that's why we republicans feel creating high-risk tools in every state. these would be such that insurance companies would have to participate. they have to agree that the premiums would be no more than one half, at the best two times the standard rate. they could get government subsidies. >> next on the line, go ahead. how are you? >> go ahead. i was wandering about your health insurance premium. i heard this they are $503 a year and you have excellent coverage. i was wandering i thought it

would be a good idea to suspend your healthcare coverage until something is figured out for us. my colleagues vote it had down. we followed with another amendment and said, look, if

this public option ends up in the bill. and it did. we finally did pass strictly on party lines it did have that public option. it is so good. the best thing since sliced bread. let's have president and mrs. obama and their family drop their plan, what they have now and sign up for this public option government public insurance plan kind of like that you mentioned -- if i was a proponent of public school system in georgia, i wouldn't dare send my children to any other school to show my e3wsupp.

more about your strategy and what you might be anticipating. guest: i can tell you in the house of representatives under the leadership of this current majority in the fall of 2006, a pledge of openness and everything sunshine, the light of day on legislation, members having plenty of time to read bills 72 hours before they would come to the floor for a vote. open rules. give those other members an opportunity to schmidt their

amendment and have an open up or down vote on them. i have seen none of that in the 21/2, throw years speaker pelosi has been in charge. closing down the system that way. final response to your question. i don't anticipate we'll get plenty of input off the bill. >> we would be non-germane or out of order. >> the co-chair of the gop caucus. senator ron widen from oregon will be here. plus more of your calls.

>> talking now with senator ron widen from oregon. even though it did not include a public option. this week, harry reid said there will be a public option. what kind -- what are you hearing from your leadership? guest: the situation was fluid. what harry reid did was to set up a step and made it clear that

the american people deserve is a different option. the vast majority of americans can't benefit from that system. they don't have choice. a member of the congress here, they can choose from more than a dozen, good quality, affordable plans i'm going to be offering changes for more choice. host: how would it work? guest: it's simple. if your employer is already offering choices, then you are going to be able to continue what you have. if you don't get choices, you could get a voucher tax-free for the amount that your employer is spending on your healthcare to go to the exchange. the key now is to make sure we open up more competition. there's not enough subsidy money

on the planet. you are going to have to have more choice and more competition in every part of this debate is going to come back to that issue. the majority made the right decision. giving the insurance companies a big break from the trust. if people can't choose it and under the legislation, if you have employer coverage you can be tejered in your work place to some coverage you hate. if you don't like what you have, you ought to be able to have other choices. >> here's a photo of joe leeberman saying he will join the republicans to try to block

the plan if it isn't changed. what's your zreaction. guest: senators are saying no until about 5 minutes before they say yet. we have looking at a strong bill built around more choice. a moderate opt out of reid plan. the headline is change the whole thing if you want my vote. the story next to it says, they have some casting about for plan

b. i mention that particular headline for plan b. there's a lot of different options out there. u.s.a. today talks about various proposals. is there one that you particularly prefer? guest: you have to have a very large risk pool in order to spread cost. one of the concerns i have is that they could be set up to fail those are going to be poorer people. people who are sicker, who won't have had check ups and

preventive care in effect, some of these public options, you will have a risk pool. you have to have a large risk pool. host: first call from atlanta. hi there. you there? caller: yes. host: go ahead. caller: i'm calling in regards to -- i always hear the g. o. p. say 85% of american people are happy with the insurance that we

now have. i can assure you that's not true. many times we are denied medication or healthcare7ç coverage the cost that the employee has to pay, it continues to rise. most people are struggling with that. >> it is extremely important

point you are making and that i view. the projections for 2010 is that like something like 40% of company plans are expected to shift higher expenses on to the worker. it's one of the reasons why i feel so strongly that you and others ought to have additional choices people do want to be able to have the option of keeping what they have but they also want to be able to say, look, i'm getting a raw deal say an insurance company is simply mouthing you around. you have to reach into your own pocket and pay it.

so your coverage is going to be less affordable. let's make sure by the time congress is done, we complete the thought differently. keep what you have, yes. if you hate what you have, you ought to be able to have other choices. >> there was a question posed. a lady asked if he pays like $500 a year. is this true? host: do you know the answer? guest: i do. that's not correct. members of congress, if they buy the conventional package, they

pay about 30% of the package. it's around $14,000. united states snartz pay well over $3,000 a year. caller: that cost comes out of what you are paid by the taxpayers, you are in effect getting socialized medicine? guest: members of congress are the same health package that the janitor of the federal engravers are in. l! i found somewhere around 100 people belong to my pool. i've introduced legislation to give the choices to you and

everyone else. the budget office that scored the legislation. this is an area appropriate. i've been trying to exporter the options moving across the floor. caller: i believe it is time that the public option supporters node to stand up and ask -- i'm going to email all blue dog democrats saying i will financially support their opponent if they don't give us a choice of a public option. i'm not only going to solicit donations, i'm going to hold

fundraisers to suppose as many opponents as they can. mary lanbeau. anybody else watching c-span who supports public option should dot same thing guest: i want to make sure folks have the facts. you said that the polls show 72% of americans support public optio options. the question is, would you support public option if all people in america could get it.

it comes to less than 10% of americans that would actually have a choice the case i've been prosecuti prosecuting. that's how they are going to hold the insurance companies accountable. i don't think for the bottom line that the public option can hold private insurance companies accountable if you only have 10% of the folks in america getting it and they are disproportionnally folks that have good healthcare paid for with premiums. host: explain the funding of lp &hc% a lot has been made with how it will work.

guest: of course the bills are being considered. there is a finance committee bill. there are a number of areas where you are going to have a lot of debate about the funding. they want the additional cost to come in under $9 billion. there are areas i still hope for change. under this approach, there really are no winners. you have a health package where you would pay a tax on it. there are really no winners. this will raise a substantial amount of money.

over $200 billion. i would like to give a generous reduction of benefits. the average cost at about 14,000. what that would mean, under my approach, most hard working americans would receive a tax cut they would perhaps get a tax cut for shopping wisely. on financing all of this. why not raise a $0.05 tax to pay for healthcare? >> i believe we are spending

enough on healthcare today. they set the amount of money we are spending today, all americans could get good quality affordable coverage. before everybody in congress runs around talking about raising taxes,c5ñ let's do a ber

job of spending that $2.5 trillion that will be spent this year. >> i have two questions. the first question is my own senator sat right in your seat about a month ago and stated for the camera that the senators voted to exempt themselves from any type of publication option or any health insurance coming out of the senate. i wanted to know how you voted. the second question, you stated you wanted everybody to have the facts. the cbo said that the bill in the senate right now is neutral. that's not exactly the says, sir, the cbo state that had the

bill is neutral if you front load the payments. if you put them out through the rest, the whole time it is there, it lully adds $1.2 trillion to the deficit. this is the same report you got your information from. my question is why didn't you give the whole point? guest: my bill is s 391. at my website, you will see the official analysis from the congressional budget office which does say my legislation is budget neutral. that means it doesn't add to the federal deficit in the third year, it would start bending the cost curve downward. that analysis is dated may 1, 2008 signed by the cbo and joint

tax commission. with respect to the vote on coverage, i believe shery brown, my colleague from ohio, good man, was talking about a vote in the health committee. i personally, strongly support the idea that anything that is done would have to require that the member of congress be part of the exchange. host: more of the headlines. senator reid plans splits democrats to block public option. this is the washington times. reid decision yields no unity on public option. so the first step if we understand is to vote.

when might that happen? guest: the start of these procedures is sort of like a root canal. if you don't get this passed, you can't bring up the authorization. my understanding about the comments yesterday as he indicated, he would support what is called the motion to proceed on the bill. my sense is once you actually get on the bill, you are going to have a host of alternatives coming up.

i have already mentioned several if you say yes to taking this to the floor, that image yik number is out there to get it to the floor. are there 60 points at this point? >> i was on a program where the senator made the point. he felt senator reid made this agreement where there would be lots of alternative that's he could see a number of republicans saying, fine, let's go on with the bill. >> good morning senator. you live in a beautiful state. guest: we love it.

come and visit. caller: i pretty much agree with everything you've said. i wanted to comment on the last viewer. he hadn't stated that he had introduced bills. all his bills were to protect doctors. i wanted to talk about tort reform and insurance companies competing across state lines. i know enough to know that if insurance companies wanted to compete across state lines, tort reform, i live in california and i know a lot about texas. texas has one of the strictest tort reform laws in the nation.

it's apples and oranges. it has nothing to do with what the citizen pays for private insurance sort reform is a little bit of a red herring. i'm 50 years old. [uñ i've been go together same obgyn. he's delivered my children and grandchildren. he's raised four kids, lives in a manson, drives a really nice car, sends all his kids to college. it's time to think about america. thank you c-span. host: anything on tort reform. guest: thanks so much for the kind words. my view is that we ought to do

everything we can. that's what i've tried to do with senator bennett. i hope we can exporter some of the principals. all of these powerful groups are going to accept some changes they have resisted in the past. the insurance model today is fundamentally flawed. insurance companies go out and pick. i want to up end that entire way of doing busy think insurance companies should compete not on the basis picking out the hjy

people. that is in the legislation at the senate floor. if you look at the legal aspect of healthcare, defensive medicine is a very real problem. if democrats say the heart of the problem is insurance companies and others say the heart of the problem is trial lawyers. i've described some of the dramatic changes that have to be applied to the insurance industry. ed med i gap law that is so

crucial. why not take a backseat to anybody to show how important it is to stop the insurance rip offs. another minute or two for the senator in houston. thank you for waiting. guest: i have a comment andqn9 question. congress has done a terrible job of managing our money. the question is is it true this congress passed a special law that health insurance companies did not have to compete across state lines? if so, why hasn't that law been repealed with a public out cry? guest: there is the karen

fergeson law. one insurance company controls about 80% of the market. right away. i am willing to look at both sides of the aisle at this interstate competition model. you have to do it carefully. if you don't, you could have a race to the bottom. certain areas could end up with just sick people. i'm in favor of the maximum amount of competition. that's why i'm advancing the free choice proposal. i want to make sure when we talk about various options as we indicated at the top of the show this is going to be a vig rowsly debated issue. i want to make sure all americans have access to those choices. i am open as long as there are

strong protection principals built in. host: pressure time this morning. guest: thank you. host: another short time out and one more hour of the journal on this wednesday. some news headlines from c-span radio now. it's 9:00 a.m. eastern time. . .

>> in economic news, the commerce department says the orders for durable goods increased 1% last month, matching economists' expectations. it is the second advance in three months for items expected to last at least three months. sales of new homes are expected to post their sixth consecutive monthly gain, the result of a tax credit for first-time owners that expires in the next month could the report is expected to show a 2.6% increase. finally, in written testimony to the house judiciary committee, and if the commissioner roger goodell says that the nfl will offer free follow-up medical work to players who report dementia or alzheimer's disease or other medical problems. this follows a recent study showing that retired pro football players may have a higher rate than normal of the afflictions. the hearing begins in one hour and hear it live on c-span

radio. those are the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we are covering the hearing, and also hearings on the distracted driving, executive compensation, various other issues. the senate comes added it to cover the unemployment benefits. we will do some open phones for about 10 or 15 minutes. at 9:15, daniel ellsberg will join us, the man who leaked the pentagon papers. he is the subject of a new documentary on the chapter in our history. missouri come up first for open phones. carroll, a democrat. caller: i actually wanted to talk to the senator, to let him know that my daughter was one of those caught in the layoffs, and she did get a job, she is getting over $10,000 less than

what she was making, and she has to pay $3,000 before insurance. she is lucky because she did get a job, but she has to pay $3,000 before insurance kicks in. i have two grandchildren, and that is going to affect terribly -- host: what kind of build the one to see come out of congress? caller: a public option where everybody can opt in. that is the best way to go. senior citizens -- our copays for doctors one from $5 to $25, hospital stays when from five to seven days. everything went up on our policies. it is just -- host: go ahead and finish up, caller.

caller: i think we ought to have a public option for everybody. host: thanks for your thoughts. here is a chart in "usa today" as they talk about the public option. the idea of a robust includes being available nationally for people except workers of large companies, and doctors and hospitals with patients under the plan would be paid at the medicare rates. there is also something called opt-out, as we've heard about. it would allow individual states to opt out by 2014, meaning residents in those states could not enrolled. the program would negotiate how much to pay doctors and hospitals for procedures, just as private insurers to. there is the concept of opt in, they write in "usa today." "some moderate democrats like senator ben nelson of nebraska, say they prefer a public option that would not take effect unless individual states choose to opt in."

then there is something called the trigger. "a public option would be triggered on a state-by-state basis only if certain conditions are met. the idea is backed by senator olympia snowe of maine, the only republican who voted for the democratic health care plan,." caller: the representative said he would not vote for ron paul's bill -- barney frank, the marijuana built with this proves that he is a reagan democrat. ferc is that there is a prohibition that we cannot use -- fdr said that there was a prohibition that we cannot use marijuana in any more, and wendell willkie wanted to repeal that, but he lost the election bi. the national commission of been

reduced added by former pennsylvania gov. that said that marijuana to not only to crimes and that you cannot create intrusions by criminal law and private behavior. this law between conservative republicans and conservatives -- we don't respect democrats and independents don't stand for nothing. host: next, an independent caller. what is on your mind today? caller: good morning. i would like to say thank you, and i would like to appeal to the american people to consider the fact that the government runs the government ---run health care bill is providing a board -- that the government-run health care bill is providing abortions across the board, from conception to nine months, and in this bill could representative bart stupak, a democrat, said that yesterday he is try to get a prohibition

in this bill that would prohibit government-funded abortions, and so far he has been unable to get the democrats or republicans or anybody to include that in this bill. i think it is absolutely going against the conscience of the 50% of the american people to include abortions paid for by our tax dollars. host: from the editorial page of "the wall street journal," "lieberman steps up. 'we are trying to do too much at once,' mr. lieberman said. 'i don't think we need it now.' bravo, joby it is a relief to see at least some understanding of to the washington rushed to rearrange 18% of the u.s. economy without carefully inspecting the cost and the consequences."

that is "the wall street journal." "whatever the approach, long- term care deserves as much attention as the public option or other flashpoints. more than 10 million people need long-term care and that number is expected to soar as the baby boom generation ages and lifespans increase." just below is the opposing view on this by the president and ceo of the american council of life insurers. "included in health care reform on the hill is the committee living assistance services and supports class act, a little more proposal that purports to help americans with their long- term care costs. it is little more than an unfunded in tenement program that would add to our to visit and do little to address the long-term care needs -- add to our deficit and do little to address long-term care needs."

caller: i have several ideas about the health care. i am 85 years old and i've been on medicare for 12 years and it has worked just fine for me. i think what is schering the older people -- sorry, are you there? host: we can hear you, we are listening. caller: what is schering older people is the medicare evanish that insurance companies -- scaring all the people is the medicare advantage that insurance companies put in there has taken away from medicare funds. they try to make you think that it offers more than medicare does. i have never fallen for it. but a lot of people have fallen for it. they are telling his people they will lose their insurance. -- telling those people they will lose their insurance. i don't think these representatives up there and understand how angry the people of the united states are about this whole thing.

people are dying without medical care and these people stand up and argue about it. joe lieberman should just go back and the republican, because he is anyway. -- and be a republican, because he is anyway. host: next caller from las vegas. caller: hi, how are you? i've been listening to senator wiyden. i am so fed up with this whole situation. i have medicare advantage, a plan that allows me to pay $3 a prescription for my prescription. under the president's plan, i would lose this and my prescription costs would go from about $47 a month, because i'm a diabetic and some of the cost is for diabetic testing supplies -- my costs will go from $47 a month to around $300 a month for my prescriptions. if i lose the medicare

advantage, even though most of my prescriptions are generic, the testing supplies for my diabetes costs me about $80 -- i pay $10. with no cost-of-living -- [unintelligible] i cannot understand why people are being hoodwinked by the government. host: thanks. connection not the best there, but we got the point. governor of california speaking up on medicaid. "wall street journal" -- "also expressing concerns about the legislation's potential impact on the state budget. in a letter sent to congressional leaders, the governor, one of the few

prominent republicans supporting the initiative in washington, said he opposed the proposal to expand medicaid to provide health care coverage to the uninsured. such extensions, which other governors are also protesting, could cost california more than $1 billion a year." climate change is getting big treatment on the hill this week senator boxer is holding a series of hearings. but max baucus is balking at climate change legislation. (even as president obama praised the legislation and democrats moved to move it to the committee, senator max baucus said that he had serious reservations about the climate change bill's target of a 20% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2020." minnesota, darlene, independent color. -- caller.

caller: i think the government is doing the wrong thing at the wrong time. they should be doing illegal immigration. the admission -- then we would not have so many people in this country taking rights away from people that are already -- we don't need them. that is always the excuse, that we need them. we don't need them. they always want to our hospitals that is my medical is so high. -- they always went to our hospitals free. that is white medical is so high. -- why medical is so high. temporary services do not offer medical insurance. the companies like it because they did not have to offer medical insurance, and they had their work force. i think if we got rid of the

illegals, we would have more jobs for americans. we need to get our people working and get rid of temporary services so that people can go to work full time. host: wanted to squeeze and a couple of stories about sudan. "usa today" -- "president, has renewed sanctions against sudan." in "the new york times" today -- "a former state department official who is now a lobbyist is charged with earning hundreds of thousands of dollars representing the sudanese government in violation of sanctions. he worked on african issues in the state department during the 1980's and 1990's, charged with

illegally acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign country." republican line. good morning. caller: i like your tie very much. host: thanks. why don't you tell us what you're thinking this morning. caller: a business called universal american owns about 45 different insurance companies and they put out the exact figures of what the insurance, is make a profit-wise for every $1 that is collected by insurance companies, 99 cents is spent for doctors and hospitals and health-care providers. they only make a penny. insurance companies for the last few years have been looking for health care reform. that is something people don't realize. the other part is that out of 160 million americans who rely on their employer to provide the health insurance, a public

option, 140 million of them would end up in the public option. that would destroy the health insurance programs we have today. host: appreciate your thoughts. we will spend the next 40 minutes or so talking to daniel ellsberg of pentagon papers fame. he is the subject and does a lot of the narration for a new documentary, something called "the most dangerous man in america." we will have him at the table. he was a minute and half of the trailer. >> october 1, 1969, when i first swindled several pages of top- secret documents on the secrets of the rand corp. the study contained 47 volumes, 7000 pages. my plan was to xerox the study,

the secret history of the vietnam war, to the american people. >> we are trying to find out who gave "the new york times" the copy of the pentagon secret study. >> how you get "the new york times" publishing the pentagon papers, and the country is panicking. >> it can be stolen and made available to the press, then you cannot have legitimate government any more. >> it was just staggering. >> i think it is time in this country to quit making national heroes out of those who steal secrets and publish them in a newspaper. >> we are talking about him going to prison. >> [unintelligible] >> we felt so strongly that we

were dealing with a national security crisis. henry kissinger said that dr. daniel ellsberg was the most dangerous man in america, and he had to be stopped. host: daniel ellsberg, connect your leak of the pentagon papers, almost 40 years ago now, to the more recent link -- more recently of the general mcchrystal report on truth. what are the benefits of leaks? guest: the leak of joe wilson's wife's name, valerie plame, which came out of the white house -- those words settle a score. verisimilar will -- if every similar to what was supposed to be done to me to shut me up. the mcchrystal one is the standard one of the agency in afghanistan lobbying for their position, trying to preempt the

president's decision, or to carry out in some cases, the decision. in this case, the generals seem to be trying to box the president in to convince the public that anything less than doing what mcchrystal asked for would be weakness, but manley, turning his back on a terrorism. the same kind of pressure that was put internally by the generals to president johnson when i was working for him, that if he did not send hundreds of thousands of troops to vietnam, he would have lost the war. in that case, they kept their own descent quiet. i think the generals learned a lesson from that. they do learn lessons from vietnam -- not always very good ones. in this case, their duty should have called them to defy the president publicly. i think they determined that next time they would make sure it was done our way. host: i want to put up phone numbers on the screen and get

the calls for daniel ellsberg. separate lines for republicans, democrats, independents. we are talking about -- guest: separate lines? that is interesting. host: for quite some time. the documentary is called "the most dangerous man in america." remind our audience what that phrase means and who put it out there. guest: most people don't know what kissinger would have called me that. when i put out the documents, they were mainly the pentagon papers to "the new york times," nixon was doing that not because -- it was the leak where he actually liked the contents. but he was afraid that i information on the nuclear threats and threats of exploration, which he had yet to carry out. -- threats of escalation, which he had yet to carry out permit

by the kingdom, the public might -- which he had yet to carry out. by beating them, the public might stop him from doing that. there were other documents related to him and he did not know what they were entirely, and in order to stop me, he hired people to stop me by getting information from my former psychiatrist's office to incapacitate me totally. host: that is the title, "the most dangerous man in america." is preparing in new york and d.c. this week. why this and why now? guest: they finally made the film, and i put out a memoir of the secrets and the pentagon papers. i did that just a few years ago. it turns out to be timely in a way that they had not anticipated -- and happily, really, that we are doing the same experience -- unhappily,

really, that we are doing the same experience with an escalation in afghanistan. thomas friedman today in "the new york times," to my surprise, is calling for the president to move downward in troop levels, as well as george will earlier. i think this film could get some people to put out pentagon papers for afghanistan. if it were seen in the pentagon or the cia, they would see a film about somebody whose background they recognized, and who did something that they thought was right that they could do to. i would like to see it happen this week. host: it is not only your story, but your first-person account, your voice on a lot of disparate you take this back to your very first day at the pentagon -- your voice on a lot of this. you take this back to your very

first day at the pentagon. here is a short piece were you and thomas oliphant talked-about persuading the president of the bombing. -- to start bombing. >> that is the most shameful incident, that i and one. persuaded robert mcnamara that he should -- that i at one point persuaded robert mcnamara that he should embark on a campaign of bombing. >> he felt everything with intensity, but nothing more so than his own sense of culpability for everything done in the early years of the war. he had an important role in what became the most ridiculously disproportional bombing campaign in the history of the world.

host: daniel ellsberg, remind us of your early involvement working for defense and the rand corp., and explain your thought transition to be so fervently against the war. what happened? guest: tom oliphant's comment there was very much exaggerated about my role. it was not important. anybody could have done or would have done in position what i did. but it was not the right thing to do. i was one of many people who felt that the bombing of north vietnam would not succeed until a lot of people to know end at all and should not happen. -- no end at all and should not happen. both of us kept our mouths shut to the public about this. i expressed my views to my boss and to his boss, robert mcnamara. we kept our mouths shut to the public and the congress, which did not know the planning for this.

and we carried out was necessary for us to do. however unimportant by role, it was on the wrong side of a policy matter in a way that i knew was very important years later, but does the bidding in that year -- are participating in the war as a deputy assistant to the ambassador, looking at pacification, a process pushing on us now, counterinsurgency -- that was my job to work on that. i became aware of the same feeling that many people have about afghanistan now -- no success lay ahead for us, no victory. people were being killed on both sides, americans and vietnamese, to know end that could be justified. -- no end that to be justified. that to me was murder. it had to be stopped, even at

risk to my own career. that was an example that i like people to see in this movie, that not only can someone make that choice, with a background -- i was a marine lieutenant, i was in the government, worked on pacification, and can have an effect. it did play a role in a chain of events that led to shortening the war. i am very impressed by the example i read about just yesterday of matthew hoh in "the washington post." very struck the there was no story about it in "the times" to date i like it when i sh -- i like it when i see a marine showing courage that come from my roots as a marine. refused high posts from -- he refused to high posts from ambassador holbrooke.

he is the highest patriotism hitter, and could have every big effect. -- he is the highest patriotism here, and it could have ever big effect i would like to see him sitting down with president obama talking about the province he just came from. he knows much more about the situation than any of them. and to testify in public. he does not have documents, as far as i know, but he has the authority of his own presence. that is the kind of example that i think this film could stimulate, more matthew hohs. host: you have access to classified material, and it goes way back. you decide to beat it to "the new york times." i want you to explain, before a good cause, what happened after that but we first have a short piece with president nixon, henry kissinger, attorney general john mitchell, 1971, as

they start talking about all this. >> rustout called on behalf of johnson, and he said that it is johnson posted strong view that this is an attack on the whole integrity of government that if a whole file cabinets -- if whole file cabinets can be stolen and made available to the press, you cannot have the government anymore. if the president defends the integrity of any action we take will be back publicly. >> i think we should do some undercover investigation and open it up -- we have information we have developed as to where these copies are and who they are likely to have leaked to them, and the prime suspect, your friend, a gentleman with mr. ellsberg, a fellow at the rand corp.

host: there is your name, ellsberg, a left wing brad ra -- left-winger at rand. guest: in his view i am a left winger, defined as a democrat. i was a cold war democrat. there were not many left wingers at the rand corp. there is an endless supply of wonderful quotations like that. fallstaff said to them that no good democrat would have released these -- rostow said to them that no good democrat would have released these papers. i was not even a good democrat to him. i was always sort of a self hating democrat up to that moment. but i did not put party above

all my other loyalties, my oath of office. he was not a democratic party or any other party. my oath of office as a marine lieutenant and a leader in the state department and defense department was solely to defend the constitution of the united states. i have been violating that what i saw congress being light into this war, as did all those other german -- lied into this war, as did all these other gentlemen. i will come to the fact, as did matthew hoh, that the constitution superseded all of those other loyalties, and that is what i told the truth. i get the documents, tiff them first to senator fulbright's -- gave them first to senator fulbright. he did not put them out, because he was afraid of political retaliation from the

administration. after two more innovations, cambodia and -- two more innovations, cambodia and laos, the effort was widening. as it is widening now. someone in my position my advice is don't wait until the war has started. if you have the documents and notes that we have gone in the wrong direction, consider going to congress, but also to the press. in the beginning, that is what i should have done but i should not have -- that is what i should have done. i should not have waited a year and a half before going to "the new york times." i say to people to do what i wish i had done in 1964 and 1965. another quotation that you just missed there was present --

was mitchell asking for an injunction. the president asks, "how we done that before?" john mitchell said, "lots of times." it was really never, so when you put your campaign manager as your attorney general, you do not get good advice. host: our first caller. caller: it is a privilege of speaking with you, mr. ellsberg. because of you, i was on peace marches in washington. is it true that when the french left the court she meant -- that ho chi minh at the kennedy asked for some kind of agreement with him? and how much will it nelson rockefeller have in the war? guest: slightly garbled. ho chi minh did go immediately

when it declared independence in the summer of 1945 and wrote a series of letters to president truman asking to be recognized as an independent country and a country which at that time had an election probably as there is there ever was in vietnam, recognizing him as the leader of vietnam, and there was another election in the letter recognizing him as president. truman never answered those letters. he wanted french help in supporting german rearmament, believe it or not. he wanted to align himself with the french who were determined to fight themselves backed into a country that had just declared independence. not really a very noble cause from the point of view of the u.s. it was reading the history of how we have been involved from the very beginning supporting

the french effort that i read late in the game, as late as 1969, which convinced me that because i'd been 24 had never been legitimate, from the very -- i had been fighting for had never been legitimate, from the very beginning. nelson rockefeller did not have a major role. he came in as vice president after spiro agnew, who was nixon's impeachment insurance. what i had to send information about nixon's crimes to my judge, nixon saw himself facing impeachment and the quotation on the tape there was, "how about agnew? how would they like that?" spiro agnew was his impeachment insurance. nelson rockefeller was brought in. but that was late in the game. host: new jersey, larry, independent caller.

caller: good morning, and yes, it is a privilege to speak to you. what i am curious of -- let me preface this with something i read in the constitution annotated, that the constitution has been transformed from a constitution of rights into a constitution of powers -- specifically, war powers. this kind of goes back to the time that you had leaked this information. i want to know if you hadn't known anything of operations northwood, which came out in 1962 from the joint chiefs of staff recommends a black out the operation in cuba. one of the things was to shoot down a plane full of students, etc.

if you could comment, i would appreciate it. guest: that is a very good question. i conceivably could have learned about it later. the men involved in that planning was working at the scia, and he retired, and when i worked for him, he was retired and there were other people on the team. he could conceivably told me something about that. if i did learn eventually, -- what i did learn eventually, i was shocked. james stamford uncovered that. there are documents about that in the national security archives. that was the most shocking project i ever saw on paper, which the joint chiefs had approved, of possibly telling americans to get us into a war with cuba -- possibly killing americans to get us into a war

with cuba. with operation mongoose, many acts of aggression against to but, before the cuban missile crisis. i realize that there was levels of secrecy that even i, with a dozen special department insurance -- i thought i knew this secrecy system good but when i realized that he had been in charge of these operations against cuba and that i never heard the word cuba from his lips in many long evenings of derring-do and tells about the past, and never heard bobby kennedy, for whom he worked -- i realized the other types of secrecy that went beyond what i had realized. tony blair heard from torched of the bush proposal to send -- from george w. bush, a proposal to send you tu-2s disguised as .

plans to get saddam hussein to shoot at them, giving us a better excuse to attack iraq. tony blair did not think that was a good idea. but there is a long pattern of provocation in government to get us into wars, which the public but not otherwise approved. host: here is it the to the book cover. -- here is a look at the book cover. and a new documentary called "the most dangerous man in america," just out this week. our next call is california, william, republican. caller: good morning. mr. ellsberg, i am calling to ask you how you feel the massacres that occurred in vietnam, laos, and cambodia following are pullout and abandonment of those countries to their eventual fate did you

have any numbers of how many people were killed? guest: the massacres by the pol pot regime in cambodia were horrendous, up to 1 million. the numbers were horrendous, a very large, genocidal racist. -- genocidal basis. there were not major massacres come to my knowledge, in north vietnam, of the kind we had been warned of -- namely, a catholic bloodbath. that did not occur, for example. at the oppression of the dictatorial, stalinist-type regime on vietnam did leave the chinese, great numbers, many of them died on the way out.

laos -- i am not aware of any particular massacres at that time di. the enemy was cruel and in many cases efficient. there were widespread -- there were waves involving thousands or more. in the case of the vietnam, we were against a revolutionary and nationalist movement that was almost sure to take over vietnam whenever we did leave. when we did, 10 years later, five years later, whenever that was in store -- we feared a massacre in vietnam and that did not happen. but many people, including friends of mine that i ever could, were in a re-education camps -- friends of mine that i worked with, were in re- education camps. one was in prison are there

because he was exposing corruption. we are dealing there as with now in afghanistan with people who threaten the welfare of other people in their country. the question of what our policy should be is not thdetermined by that but it is a consideration. host: new york city, on with daniel ellsberg. caller: is this daniel ellsberg? host: yes, go ahead. caller: i am a loyal viewers, and i wanted to to ask if there was any involvement from the people of new haven bridge is that mentioned in your book? -- people of new haven. is that mentioned in your book? guest: i am not sure what you are refering to bre. caller: were there any people from new haven, connecticut, in the book?

guest: my only connection is that my father is from new haven. i cannot help you otherwise. host: we will hear from john dean, the white house counsel to the president, on the leak of the pentagon papers. >> i think that there is probably some good justification for the strong feelings nixon had. he would make a decision in the national security council and the next day we did on the front page of "the new york times -- and on the next day read it on the front page of "the new york times." this makes it impossible to govern. >> we cannot get into a position of allowing them to get away with this wholesaled the free. we have -- this wholesale thievery. we have got to get the son of a bitch. >> the leak of the pentagon papers really changed the white house. it was the beginning of a dark

period. it is really a defining event for the nixon presidency. >> anything to add their? >> i cannot help thinking that there are certain phrases from president nixon that would be bleeped out if i said them, but if the president says it, it is not obscene. the comment from a john dean, from his old perspective as counsel to the president -- he is a friend of mine now. he showed the same kind of courage of telling truths that the president did not want told. it is always a dangerous process. he was one of the people who may have shortened the war by meeting to president nixon's impeachment. there was no other way to shorten the war other than

president nixon out of office. host: caller: i basically just have a comment. i am ex-military. i missed vietnam but a few years. i have a son and law currently in afghanistan. everyone here it says we have to get out of the situation pretty granted, we do the best way -- get out of the situation. granted, we do. the best way to stop aiding the enemy is to stop saying that we have to get out at a certain date. you just fueling their fire. you have to strike were you have to strike and do what you have to do to bring them to their knees. otherwise, you are going to repeat in vietnam. when this ends, just like mr. ellsberg said moments ago, and what people tortured, murdered, said to the camps, however you want to put it if you want off free discussion, fine print we

until it is over, and then we look at it and go back and say, "these are our mistakes, we do not want to relive them again." guest: i certainly don't think i made light of the aggressiveness of the regimes that followed hours. -- oppressiveness of the regimes that followed ours. they practiced torture on a very large scale. the civilians being killed there were being killed from the air, as is happening in afghanistan and iraq right now. it is not a question of protecting them with some kind of shield, but rather of a very bloody conflict. and what to do about that is not obvious by any means. but i think that when you say you missed vietnam, i think i can understand that you do have the experience of confronting

nationalist -- not have the experience of confronting nationalist opponents who draw strength from our presence. that is what frontline participant matthew hoh reports, that the conflict there is a conflict against american presence. the more troops use and, the stronger the taliban will be -- the more troops you descend, the start of the taliban will be go. i see the situation as a vietnamistan, rightly or wrongly. if we send more troops in, that taliban will be stronger next year. we recruit as we kill, as we put troops in and support a corrupt, dope-killing government exposed on the front page of "the new york times" today.

the brother of karzai -- intelligence figures believe that he is a major figure in the drug trade. the government is a drug dealing regime. that is easily perceptible but the people of afghanistan. it was true in vietnam. there is no way of our making the karzai government, with the 16th election, look like a legitimate government that cares about the people of afghanistan. it does not at all, and it never will. it is impossible for foreign troops -- i make this proposition and you can disagree with it, but the proposition is that no foreign power has successfully carried out a counterinsurgency campaign in the sense of winning the hearts and minds of the local people. that has never happened and will not happen now. you can use the drones, you

could get intelligence to carry out drone attacks, and stayed there as long as you are willing to flood the place with a foreign troops. but when you leave, you will not find that your departure is regretted. host: republican line, for worth, texas. would you like to ask mr. ellsberg -- would you like to ask mr. ellsberg? james, are you there? chicago, are you there? you are on the line for democrats. caller: mr. ellsberg, you were cited in a book called "moral clarity." you spoke with a woman who worked in gandhi's movement who had no concept of enemies. no concept of enemies?

how about a concept of the sun and moon and water. the culture of marine corp., a u.s. marine corps, international and domestic politics, game theory in bargaining. , trying to operate in the world of men and nations -- nearly inconceivable doing arithmetic like the romans without 0. what you say about that? guest: i remember hearing that phrase that you just quot4ed -- quoted. what she meant was that of course there are adversaries, people acted out policies that are evil. but she said that the gandhian approach is that they're not to be regarded as enemies, people that you have a right to kill that you learn nothing from, or

evil in essence that are not really human, but rather as adversaries who can be confronted and must be confronted when they are doing wrong, at the cost of your own risk. the idea to really oppose somebody that you can be prepared to take actions that will obstruct what they're doing and confront and challenge and avert an change what they're doing -- our government has many, but not only our government. around the world, states that deserves opposition at various times. the opposition in the gandhian sense is people who can risk their own security and welfare to oppose. host: we touched on this as a little bit in little more flavor from -- little bit. a little more flavor from the

documentary, the suspicion that you had access to more recent war plans. we will take a short look . >> i was summoned to the oval office by the president. john ehrlichman and i met with him. there was some suspicion that daniel ellsberg had access to the more recent work plans and would be able to release those documents. i came from that meeting feeling strongly that i was dealing with a national security crisis and i was to take any means necessary to respond to it. >> the president had decided to set up a special investigations unit in the white house.

host: daniel ellsberg, elaborate a little bit more. guest: that does corroborate what i was saying earlier, that there was concern that i would release information of plans of there's which they were pursuing which depended for their implementation on being secret from the american public. in many cases, the secrecy was not from the vietnamese could they were directly threatening the enemies with nuclear weapons, for example. it was a secret from the american public, who would not think that was a prudent or right course of action. he talks about the possible use of nuclear weapons. i don't know if you have that clip. to keep them from knowing that prematurely, it was essential to shut me up. he did want to try meet in the press as far as the prosecution went good but more seriously --

went. but more seriously litter, to silence become he had people in the psychiatrist's office to block me into silence, "we will put this out if you don't --" they almost had to do it. unfortunately -- it did not make much difference in the end -- i did not know the documents he had. a deputy for henry kissinger, who resigned over cambodia, did know of the nuclear threats and the other matters. he did not give them to me nor did he give them to the press when he was released the letter said that there was the most shameful action of his life -- he later said that that was the most shameful action of his life, not releasing them.

host: missouri, tom, independent caller. caller: yes. hello? host: yes, tom, you are on the airpor. caller: i would like to ask the gentleman a question about his book, the vietnam my lai incident, or the captain was ordered by the higher-ups to give a larger party town, -- larger body count, to have a big hole with this company surrounding and put 300 vietnamese, and their children, women holding the children, started to murdering them.

helicopter pilots from the u.s. landed to stop that, and they got reprimanded, until they had the film, a 60 mm film. -- 16 mm film. guest: you are talking about one of the shameful as those of the vietnam war, of which there were many smaller scale. -- many on a smaller scale your details are a little bit botched, but the basic -- the pilot of the helicopter crew landed was try to rescue women and children from a ditch where they were being menaced by american troops. he had his helicopter gunner turned his guns on the streets and say that if they try to stop us -- on of those troops and said if they try to stop us from a string -- and rescuing those

people, shoot them. it did not help his career, but he did rescue those people. a war like that is an atrocity- producing situation. atrocities on both sides to occur all the time with i -- occur all the time. i'm proud of some like matthew hoh, what i see someone like general anthony zinni, i occasionally hear -- occasionally feel some incidents of shame with the marine massacre in haditha, and i'm disgusted by them and it can of command for trying to cover that up. -- and the chain of command for trying to cover that up.

i hope the marines recognize that as a terrible operation and a cover-up. -- terrible aberration and a cover-up. this can of thing is happening in afghanistan day-by-day. the drone attacks on wedding parties and federal parties of people who were at the wedding party. people say, "well, that happens in war." it does mean that we have to look very hard at what are the reasons, the excuses that supposedly justified his action just -- a fight this action on our -- that justify this action on our part. the afghan war does not stand up to that. hostcaller: i have a question at the post-withdrawal period, if dr. ellsberg knows anything about the covert operations we

might have taken to minimize the atrocities, or if there are lessons that he could point to in any similar situation that we might draw from that. host: anything there? guest: yes, the idea of all foreign troops -- americans are for rent to afghanistan, and that might seem self-evident, -- are formed to afghanistan, and that might seem self- evident, but it is very hard for americans to think of themselves as foreigners. the idea that people can think of us as occupiers when we are occupiers is very hard for smart people like my colleagues and myself to grasp when they are there. but that is the nature of the opposition we are facing. it is our very own presence that is inflaming the war. that is the exact words of the

remarkable by the keep quoting here, matthew -- marblremarkable guy that i keep quoting here, matthew hoh. at general mcchrystal, for example -- you mentioned covert operations -- his job was covert operations, to a large extent. so far as i understand about his career, his major combat involvement was in iraq for five years. for all we know about it, apparently, it was mainly being engaged in targeted assassinations, the management of death squads. that is his background. i feel pretty confident that it is the dark side of the counterinsurgency doctrine that he has in