>> can you say whether or not this was originated with the local or the top? >> some of these cases have been originated from the local, others come from the community, directly with the joint terrorism task force. the one thing that you said in terms of resources is important. the budgets problems, that they have, there is a squeeze on manpower. it is important to have the participation of the law enforcement. it is increasingly more difficult for police chief to a sign that officer. >> they are laying off everyone. >> if there is one thing that could be helpful, is if the money is allocated to improve

this through congress, to be allocated to encourage the task force. . of justice be allocated to encourage task forces, to encourage state and local law enforcement and participate in the task forces despite the budget concerns the individual department might have. >> senator, if i may on the coordination point i think both secretary and director mueller rx ackley blight the coordination over the past month, two months is markedly improved over just three years ago. the second point i would make is in terms of sharing information with officials so that they know what they should be looking for although the press just picked although the press just picked up over the weeks some of the information passed to state and local officials about some of the improvised explosives that might be involved in current threats roughly those same products for state and local officials were

provided more than a year ago not based on what we are seeing here now today but based on the integration of foreign intelligence see what terrorists were doing overseas, taking those lessons learned and providing them to state and local officials here >> thank you mr. chairman. my time is expired. >> thank you mr. burris. it makes the point we talked about in this committee in the springfield case that when you are dealing with homegrown terrorism every part of america is vulnerable. there is a higher probability great metropolitan centers like new york, washington, los angeles, chicago may be higher priority targets for the terrorists but here you go in these cases springfield, illinois and dallas, texas -- collis a big city but wouldn't be on anybody's top ten list for

terrorism so this brings to the great importance of the national coverage the joint terrorism task forces and fusion centers and all the work that you're doing it is us. senator burris, excuse me, senator tester. >> thank you. >> senator burris is on my mind. >> it can have that effect on you. >> it does. i don't mean to disagree with your analysis on senator kirk's difference but my recommendation would be to get the chance to jump ahead, do it. [laughter] i want to thank secretary napolitano and director mueller and leiter for being here. i apologize for being late. i very much appreciate the work you do in helping make this country more secure, as a torres i think it can be. madam secretary, good to see you again. i want to get something you sit in your testimony. you state dhs is reinvigorating

collaboration with state and local and tribal law enforcement. i think to be bluntly honest i don't know if we need to be yet. at least in montana i think there is a way to go yet. there is no doubt the northern border areas many times law enforcement up there are first responders because reality is bord patrol can't be everywhere even though they try to be. last year the sheriff of toole county up on the northern border right at the swerass in fact told authorities border jumpers on the sevi and force it is critical. i think you know that that means local folks need to know what to look for. the need to know about drug smuggling. they need to know if the director's office issue adviser that relates to the northern

border. mynderstanding of that information isn't well shared between the cp and local communities. there is a fusion center in montana unfortunately 200 miles from the border in helpless it is difficult for local law enforcement folks to g to a infusion center when it is a four to six hour drive our round trip and sometim longe if youose an officer in some of the small countie phillips county for a day that takes a chunk out of law enforcement duties. the garden grants hp alleviate the equipment. weike those. but how can we actually improve intelligence sharing among local law enforcement areas when there are frankly as much a part in my opinion of border security or could be as the border patrol itself. >> thank you, sator. and i totally agree with you that this is an evil thing issue and we do not rest on where we are but we continueo wor

sparsely populated rural areas are some of the most difficult to cover because of long distances. and you are right, sparsely populated areas typically have small economic basis. small law enforcement departments. they don't have a plethora of federal agents said everybody has to work together. several things. one is increasing use of technology is going to help us bridge these gaps. for example, secure video telecoerencing capacity so people don't have to drive to meetings, as something we are improving and enlarging. secondly, making sure hour own agents as they are deployed in these border areas have their own training and understanding this culture of sharing that we must have and are having our own outreach to local law

enforcement. the third thing is to recognize -- and i think it is good to exain the difference between a jttf and an infusion center. jttf is focus on terrorism and terrorism related investigations. fusion centers or almost everything else. some fusion centers a very good, very mature. others are not the ccept of a fusion center is a relatively new concept. our plan is over the next yr to work with those fusion centers, concentrate funding on the fusion centers recognizing differencebetween one in a rural area, one in an urban area and how it makes outreach to small towns. >> thank you. i want to get to the modernization which i knew you were going to get to. eight years ago in montana before 9/11 ports were secured

in the most loosest term by putting down the orange cone. we have since -- that was september 10th. since that time we have dates we are somewhat better off. but those have their holes also as you well know. a lot of folks and putting myself have been asking for port modernization and how much that is going to cost. frankly we are looking forward to the answers of those questions on how that money is to be used by the cdp and, you know, quite frankly some general oversight we still need questions on. you know that, we have questions yet to be answered. on this border is critically important there has been a lot of reports and there's a lot of folks that know we need to spend some money on the sports. they are not doing the suitable b under the threats we have

asbestos commanded the contaminated wel. one of the ports you probably know detain the bad guys by locking them up in the bathroom. it doesn't meet 21st century threats. i guess the question is we are in the middle of a 30 day reassessment of the dollar's. i have been told those costs are going to come back lower than they were as in april. i just think it is important we spend the money to get the threat, spend the money to match the threat. a cookie cutter approach can't used. i think you have the people in your office to deterne what the threat is and how to deal with it. i just want to know how that assessment is changing cbp ports and when you think will come out of that 30 day assessment. >> yes, because questions were raised on a 30-day assessment

and to give taxpayers confidence these moneys were not being aracterizevisa as were $15 millionor 5-card deorts. these are not cookie cutter ports and have threats they have what i hope comes out of this is and the contractsorts now with a f pencil and feel very nfent that this review will overall show tse ports match >> i look forward to those reports and hopefull we can get deil how the money is to be

spent, but ito be utilized for d quite fraly to hot n' classified information, we know what the teats are. i apologize.stion if iight and when i first got he the inp we got,irector mueller, is the threat of the northern borr alt drs and terrorism main the drugs and the fact you talked about 16 terristsoing to do someamage to thei rliament. i guess the question i have has that assessmenhanged at l ov the lt two and a half ars as far as at the threats ornd what we've really need to s as far as those borders? >> [inaudible] --n my mind that ret has always been there. you look o ram from

montr w caughat the border coming into washingto on his way to loanges airport to blow up a l anges airrt and with brthin life into al qaeda and magrheb and se of the communitiesotnly europe but also represented in ca and experience before wh rosam means in my mind we have to be aware of the threats from the hern bordeas peopled to put st on the southern bo we have to be equally are as the threatsn the northn border >> thank you. i appreciate that. ve always said the border is only astrong asts wst at we secure it in a way tt country's national securi b also the tax payers of the country. i apprecie that very much. kou, mr. chairman.

>> tha you,enator tester. natoeckert it's an honor to ll on uor the first time. >> thank you. i want to as melf w wh hn a wellervede commiee sates to the p here this morning for l of the work they have been doing and proving this ocess goi forward. onof the questions tt me up in the case entertand some informationpeculation about his associates having in mind densely populated governme entitiesike fashion week or sports stadiums and so forth i was wondering as we head into the amonship sers and naal fall under ways thersome coordination conversati wit leagu officers or individual franchisee with th difculty or even if there are not secur

asures are takenn the nspopulad than use? >> whenever we get information reting ta possible threat it can be colgial football, national football ague or other venues, baseball, thats ed on toecurity directors of the various leagues d isoordated. i said there is nomminent threat we see at thi juncture. butin, as stated before we don't want to bomeplact but ere coordination with e officers when weo get a reat. >> thank y very much. questn on the fusio cenrs in the testimonyhere's populated urban areasike bostonr its state massacses offices d so rth andeference to sometimes

e fedel judicial districts. as the fusion center in just a coordination of those >> senator kirk, fusio cte ke many different appearanc. the asc for of infusio federal, state, local, tribal, or territorial facility whe not only you have oicers to databes a certaineoplou he as ven information. some fusion cente mee that. others are q fraly very small andery isolat as indicated by the senator, n

as ae receiving aetting the kind iortionhat we need. ly recent deonhat fusionenters will cus a ae maor portal for which we share informati, icularly nonifand fr and now we will wor through grant processes and otherwio make sure allhem reach a ceaiictand of them r a certain bas standd. >> the other question i is inerms of the outreach to communitie in bo we ve a significt somali american community. without getting of the infoatiohat shodn'te dilod, is this my understand a sof pro-active outreach?

is it more to courage the members those cnities to fuy understand their rights d responsibilitie as ameri citizens? ouch o it basicallynrmative intecehering o mbion of t t? >> when we talk aut outreach, we talk t spial agen in charge. we have 56 of them in the country. eyre n coextensive with the judicial districts fortunately,r fortunaly. there are 56 fieldffes and each of thspecl agent in arge handa to educa meetdes aboutecom friends wh th mbers of th musl community, so at the commitie understand what w do and w we dot and the

efwe spe protecting vil rties and civil rights we have a class on citizen' academy ieach of our office where will brg members of the cty for seval weeks course where oight aeek we will explain variousectsf in t week of sething of arningbout theral to somali participate in the s herweould make a specific concedac to tha communihrough specialists a that is different an deving ces. this is an et toducate, exn, and have them unrstand ouronrns in a w th makm atner in adessing the teat. >> senorifay i tnk it th noting o the moran

000 americans of somal dissent in thef ed stas we are talking aut literally minute perceages that h been dra to theight in somalia and al qaeda as meage and the thousandst most 20 or important this outreh is very much desdot to devel source but instexplain to them theigsf ameca citizens and ensure th undersnd the immigration system and the dangers of their soeing aociateth oups like al ch and what n eno th so iis n met toevelopntligence it is mmo to eurth n'tecome a group like in u.k. ilated from th larger u.s. siety >> tnk you. veryelpful. appre tha >> tha your. kirk.

senar levin? >> kirk, t whit to sehim d welcome him on the armed services committee. moreropriately since i am chai there i a sure the airm here already ne secretary nolitano, firstet me raise questith about the fio cente u ready teified about them. hav i think two t n in michigan and the question is the fuing d think y we are goi to make sure wey reach a basic standa for t oc tms o final support forhe nters and the pblems the an process does not grantee ateadeam fng th fusn centers becausehere is a lot ofpetition for ose gnts so the qstn is a sess on the fuonenter w

ha whis the one i am the st famil with which michiganelligeepeon nterhich is michig fusion senter we ha state, feral represent their. bu in rms of funding there is real problemsn terms of future fuing. how a you going eure the ray and process fusion centsarey fuediven t compeonor dollars? >>enator, obviously we cannot provide guarantee buwhat we can do andre doing is eering the dos we have discrion over in the current procs to findhathks winkhould re priority. with respecto fion cents let me put on my rmer vernors hafor a moment. er o eveudt

unr stress and michigais rore stress than perhaps any other state. but they are a gd dealroa law enforcement eenditure perspective in tms o the basicallyid per oicer in terms of what u get rticularly froe prention andpoint we will ha aer acve outreachgram w gornors and mayors and part that is ming sure t know what the fusio centers do and how they from dgetary standpnt o a gd expenditure the limited dollars they have. >> iope that you tak ak at that. it suld be a priority. coorditiont has been lackg over the years i kno eryone is makingn efforto improve coordination, integration of information, and that is where it is done in stat and lal lev so iope

that you will really p se atn that issue. on the opetional side, wre r operations coordinated? d here i will look t mr. eller. we he task forces. is tt whererations are coordinated? >> [inaudible] -- i t 106oint tersm task fce is represe on the agci in that a the state federal d local eorcement, any that iorti com and is immediatel investigated so it is a combinaon o intelligence gathering a then thimmedie ieson to owhaver leads there about a pottialhreat an th is where it is coordinated. >> looking at the rmn si o this is there one place l informationbout potential law eorcement pson ca onec a

nu a say,here do hear the boer or we ha justrrest somebody. o we have on him? there one place this couny whe ctoms and easury and fbi andomeland security and stateice d formatn goes?allhe >> yea i wld say my friend to the left, nional tertsm centewho has acss to all of our datas is -- nott accesso -- ithere one databe seby can copy he local levels is we'veot - >> thenswe is yes. a cop aa lal ln maachuse consuhigan or officialchki visa in protection agent, theyied into get iormaon auttll pers wer ono ty are ciated with ts and if they have aueiothey llick up the pho --

>> a tha informaon comes wihe nc? >> the nc anit icreened by t f there'one place it all comes toer at nctc. >> wan number the person gs all the information aut the dividual from sourc? 30 msing piece there any sources of in pug their infmation io th single computer? >> there are no sources informiohe u.s. governntolds autwn or suecd terrorists tsn't there. >> okay. secry, did you want to add sothing? >>o, i would echo >> oow director, youave commente on thisng t the - it w ovelown, that ere was any kind of disnnect between i guess theocal police inheas andhe fbi; is tt corr >> i believeo. >> was there a problem putting

ase wheer i was orblown was there a problem? ully aasvinginvesgationnd investn there are s taken that mayr may not wk out. th n difrent than any other veigation- >> is the y produl, ructural failure at all >> i donelieveheres a procedural sucturallure. an iesgation never goes the way you want i understand that but m question is their something somebody suld have done or haveot done? 's always things you uld want to do differently -- e want to arho listens m just asking, inow things orblown at doe'tean there's nothg e. is there a lessono learned?

>> on this 1i don't think s >> that is all i needed to hear. >> thank you. if you can put up with it w shld be quickecausehere are fewer of us here. let me go back tth question of infiltratn fm terrist abroado come from the u.s. al chabad case. have had testimony andou are in the state of, well, combinat of outrage and anger and fear that this has happened. bu tisn unusual case because they also s toe recruited toe part of the conflict in somalia, but naturally we are conrned that

once theare there and involved in a terrorist group, which all chabad does he es we have testimony to al qaeda and others, that beuse they are american citizens or of legal status they will be able to return to carry out attac against us. doou share tha concern, director mueller? >> absolely. and not just with ose who travel to somalia, but those who travel to, s yemen and maybe a trador those that travel to pakistan, fatah. we had an indidual from ne york trained in the cam -- >> in pakistan? >> in an but the participated in operation as you or others pointed out i afghantan and then returned -- tualas returned to the united states, but the concern would be theame. >> is there any evidence there is any intention from elbout to send these recruits back to the s. for this purpose? >> i tnk at this jure i would defer to mike on this, but

i think that we have seen some formatnhat saw leaders uld le to undertake operatns outside of somalia but no hard information or eviden that has been effectively pursued. i would dever -- >> dyou nt to add anythin mr. leiter? >> i think that bald is right. there is l. chabad a the leadership is early associate with al qaeda elements in somalia and it is those outside elements we fee will push our chabad members -- to change theiroc. >> we are watching that to th best oour ability. >> let me ask different question, secretary napolitano, related to t case, homeland security advisory council as you know completed its review of the color coded threat level system.

i guess i would ask what your retion to the recommendations are or where you ar in deciding what to doith that but in regard to the zazi case inrest in knowing whether you consid raising the threat level in response to what we are learning about zazi ploch i'm interestein the extent to which theolor-ced system was in your mind as you were learning about this unprecedented ploto attack the u.s.? >> two partso youruestion. first, we have been -- i appointed a task for t revie the carter accorded systcolor-c. they have given me eir recommendations. i am in therocess of reviewi those. then iill submit those to the

interancyrocess a ultimately tohe president. that review is ongoing. th is whe it is right now. about and rejected it,ght because we did not have in t zazi investigation any kind of specificocation, time threat thatould, in our view, juy raising the color-ded. it was contelated and rejected given the natef vestigation andheincee had. >> goo eugh. t mesk t peluestions abouhoso of peop in th -- ithe cases be when we figured o o oried to in t case of zi,re is no evidcehahe was radicized when he ce hereo s ago

or that enhe on missn. >> i dont bve there' any evidencef tha >> he ca radicalized yeahere. uchs family des pa. may have hapneover tt it hat ma b so. >> itay be a someat unie case bauseeas trang on hy became ricedosw or >> iou heo go into understantigaecausef the cf fintoin ilnoeveve

is therevidenc zedn is? time w w wll tove thaatis a arrs that arererere a a cgggggggggggl tooosohatt senat trdeatat a >> i i i i i i i i i i i i i i i aoooooooooooooraanet t ononon i

isoul l l l l l l l l l l l l ln

ffyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy ce k k k cal

oper.notg g g g g g g g g g g gh

t i i i i i i i i tty @ououououbebebebebebebebebebebi

bobobobobobo fiess

vid q q q q q hra. the wthththththne anpositiongaatl blt on eks.s.s.ekomplplplplplplpl w

tion o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o . is ao o o ho: ng israe and its concernsn ir.rrrrrr anananacen e gion ve lite about

ctctctctctct another would cripple eirty totrougg of tnsuranananur r the b chi l rt t w need a instrumt, that notk ealy. st: at what timeould a a aldldla thrule o iran guesmaever thrulershevere wondtst o et. y. ho:avid hfmanasasas been filiated with the paper since 1982. he serddd as foreign editod

was the mos bureau chi from 19 until to s s s s. heas the jerusalen prrrrat. th the right of reagan and he has a o o oll.dcies. is a grievowrtiin in ts. here in the paper,hisay fer a window into t nuclear efforts -- what caught your attention? gut: the store repor that a iranians sd it would like to talk about aimetable of the inspection for this facility as just been revealed. and a timableor the other facility. this got a lotf ople's attention -- what the facities are wealng about? theeelear fuel cycle, the

thing you need to enric uranium from, a a lament for something to make a weapon requires multiple states. each of these industrial factories it works at a different stage. in addition to this and there might be others that make different levels of enrichment or even possibly different kinds of weapons. host: we welcome your calls with questions or comments about u.s. policy towards iran as this meeting is underway in geneva. it involves the u.s. and european powers. this group has been working on iranian policy for a long time. let's begin with a call from warren, mich., on the independent line. caller: here we go again with more media destruction. what we talk about the main issue here -- jobs. it is the economy, stupid.

host: is this policy of destruction? guest: not when we realize that the globe is awash with unrest for the u.s. we need to keep our eyes not only on the economy but what is happening around the world. host: the line for democrats -- caller: good morning, with everything going on it seems like it has come to a point of everything coming to an end. i'm not understanding how things keep going on. but i'm ready for everything to come to an end, but how is it with everything going on over there -- i would like to know for this the best idea for us to keep looking for this sacred place? or would it be best to give it up? guest: one of the lessons of the

cold war for more than four decades is that it is worthwhile to be persistent, keep looking. you remember what president reagan said to president gorbachev --"trust, but verify." host: also, a person named in a number of these stores, under secretary of state william byrnes. a diplomat who joined in major talks over the past five years with the bush administration but was barely permitted to speak under rules set by the white house. the story by the ap and mcclatchy newspapers -- the u.s. undersecretary of state will be at the table during the bush administration -- he attended a largely fruitless round of talks with jalili, but was largely a silent

participant. this time the white house has approved his full participation in today's schedule of meetings. guest: the policy of the u.s. has changed. bush tried to isolate iran, put stiff limits on what we have talked about. obama came in with the idea to talk to them, and gauge them at a certain level. remember, we had similar discussions with vietnam, and we talked to the soviet union at the peak of the cold war. i think that obama is thinking is, what is wrong with talking, engaging, as long as we represent our values strongly? william burns is a very experienced diplomat. host: good morning. caller: can you do find warhead for me? i read in the article we should worry about them developing a warhead, but they also have

nuclear capabilities. is there a difference? guest: yes, there's a big difference. iran says it has been working on developing the fuel for nuclear power reactors. it is permitted by the rules and, around the world. the problem is if you keep in reaching the uranium higher, you can create the right kind of metal to create a nuclear bomb or warhead which is not permitted and is threatening host: tenn., on the democrats' line. caller: yes, i have a comment than question. does anyone actually believe that iran would use a nuclear weapon? they would be assuring their total destruction. my question is, don't you think it is a total waste of time trying to negotiate with these people? myself, i think there ought to

give them a nuclear weapon, say there is -- use it and see what happens. i think the u.s. should sell israel, refueling tankers -- i think that the u.s. should sell israel refueling tankers and let whatever happens happen. guest: with all due respect to this idea that there is some military solution, there is not a good one here short of war which could cost hundreds of thousands of innocent people the lives. when you talk about nuclear weapons during the whole period of the cold war there were never used in combat. there were and always are a threat. now, if iran gets them, how is

that challenge the peace in the middle east? host: there is an overview piece here which brings it in a series of questions. let me ask a couple of them. the first is, what does the u.s. want out of guest: this we have been struggling for years to try to freeze the process of iran making nuclear materials and like to get them to least stop where they are and not expand further. and while trying to engage them more. host: what is at stake? guest: we could have a new arms race in the region. another nuclear power. host: another question, who has the upper hand? guest: i do not think it is quite clear that anyone does. these are difficult negotiations. we do not have strong tools. host: atlanta, joe on the republican line. caller: welcome of the leftist

talking on circles. they tell us we need to talk to enemies and understand them better, meanwhile the enemies try to make our lives more difficult. their return to have an undue negotiating hand in the future that would be impressive. we're told not to disable their nuclear facilities, not like israel did in 1983 -- even obama just three months ago said he could work and talk with them, negotiate with evil, and then look what happens behind his and the europeans back? they have built a whole new facility. they do not care about people. don't you see the way that these mullahs treat their own people?

the longer you prevent us from just hitting was some kind of strike, maybe not take them out altogether, the disabled the process and facility -- you said that it will start a war, but what will happen if you do not do it and keep delaying this? they keep getting closer. i do not understand your point of view. guest: do you remember the cold war when we had nuclear weapons on hair-trigger readiness? we agreed to reduce the amount of weapons many tons. i do not think military action is always the right approach when you have a lot at stake with the possibility of a war in the middle east between israel and iran. it would be horrific. are you willing to take the risk in exchange for the unknown of what impact that could have?

maybe delayed iran for a couple of years to have them returned in a couple of years with a nuclear weapon? people underestimate the catastrophe original war would bring. military action makes you feel better when you talk about it, but it does not happen that way. host: this is another article -- what is your thesis on this book. guest: this is the story of people with a lot of personal experience to realized that the arms race was of control during the cold war. after the soviet union collapsed the evil empire as a country went away, but the weapons did not. we had to do a lot of hard work still ongoing today to find those weapons. there were also biological, chemical weapons spread over a huge amount of territory. oftentimes they were behind doors with rusty old clocks on

them. the book tells the story of those who went in to try to do this work. host: what is guest: it lots of new information about the huge secret biological weapons program. i tell the story of how they built it and we could not find it. after the soviet union collapsed people pushed into these laboratories and found dangerous passages greeted by scientists in this program. host: what is the lesson for our times? guest: the threats we face today are not nearly as clearly defined as in the cold war. it is not just one country like the soviet union. they are much more diffuse. biological weapons can be done in small laboratories today. they are spreading. we had a congressional report warning us that you do not need superpower confrontations anymore. there is a lot of relevance. host: back to calls as we talked

about the meeting in geneva. the next phone call is from boston on the independent line. caller: thank you. i want to discuss a series of events that have led up to this latest controversy. it is similar to getting everyone on board one of to the war in a iraq. it seems similar. i'm looking at the series of events as far as when the information was released from iran, saying they were coming on line within six months. not able to make nuclear bombs, just enriched uranium. that announcement was made by

iran, and then this crumplincrig sanctions -- keeping secrets from us -- it seems very fishy. doesn't anyone else see this? guest: i think you raise a good point, but i would put this way -- the experience of iraq where the evidence did not exist for weapons of mass destruction made everyone even more careful this time. i think that the iranians have repeatedly been caught doing things they have said they were not. there is a lot of suspicion because of their past. you're right that all this intelligence needs to be scrubbed. who told us this and how can we

be sure? host: the next call is from tallahassee. becomes on the line for democrats. caller: i have two questions and comment. if we do have behind closed doors to promise to talk, doesn't that allow the same thing we do not want to say in public? to use more of a power play behind closed doors? if israel does go in without talking to us first what are the implications towards us? this comment -- it puzzles me why it is we're so divided when it comes to politics in this country? guest: we are an ally of israel. any military action that creates a threat to israel threatens us. we have wars going on on both

sides in iran today, iraq, and afghanistan. the military action should only be taken as a last resort. host: our last caller comes from michigan on the republican line. caller: thank you. one, i love my country and have been a patriot all my life. i come from a military family. from a military standpoint if they continue to enrich the uranium to weapons grade and do what's about israel off the face of the map it will affect palestinians, not to mention the countries in the region. he set off a nuke in chicago and it will affect grand rapids, michigan. let's be honest -- we have madmen out there playing with nukes.

they're acting like a kid who found his daddy's gun. this is a serious situation. it should be taken seriously. secondly, love you, palin. guest: that is what you have seen now and that is why toxic going forward. imagine how difficult it is to have the negotiation was someone determined to do something. how do that the matter of doing something they have invested a lot in? host: by twitter we are asked by mr. johnson -- was obama's focus at the un and indirect an unspoken redline morning for ahmadinejad? guest: i do not think so. it is important to get this test ban passed by the senate. we have to see how much muscle the president puts behind. it is a global issue. worker redlines review more

clear lines will be drawn in geneva this morning. host: good morning. caller: i am about to express a sentiment although it might be an axiom. i believe it is not futile to reiterate the point -- the first caller and two previous callers brought it up. the gentleman you have on today says you must be sure this time. it is disturbing that if one things clearly those in the position to initiate this war considering all the past wars -- they are sure. they did not make more in the state from the economic perspective. -- they did not make one mistake. how about rumsfeld? people know that jobs, health care, education, and housing are

most important. it is disturbing that they have not made one mistake get. host: comment? guest: i don't completely understand except that -- as i said before, in the cold war when ronald reagan said to gorbachev, "trust, but verify" -- those are wise words for today. before we take any action, check, and check again. host: there is a story here concerning allies. the u.s. and its allies are at odds over talks about iran today. the u.s. is adopting a more costly approach them london or paris. france toughens the stance of iran.

guest: the europeans have put more time and effort into talking with the iranians. when this new the silly was discovered they feel burned. they are much more ambitious. obama has just come into office. he has a new policy. he possibly has lower expectations. if they could just freeze iran where it is. but the europeans want to roll it back. host: here is another question by twitter. guest: it is difficult to buy one on the market. the nuclear powers have them locked up. certainly, the whole idea that the most difficult part of building the bomb is obtaining the fissile material that makes the bomb work. one of the concerns when the cold war ended was that there was an enormous amount of this material laying around.

people well looking for it. that is what this book is about. we are still looking for it. host: danny, on the independent line. caller: with all the fear being whipped up by a few governments in the world, i would say we must remember that though iaea was correct when they assessed that iraq did not have the weapons they were accused of having. and the iaea, although they said iran broke the law, also said there is no evidence they are pursuing such weapons. it is relief fervor being worked up. just thinking logically, or i

should say there is a probability for iran to have the ambition to fire rockets anywhere -- israel or europe, would mean that they are suicidal and want to be invaded and destroyed as a country. so, what is the probability they will pursue such a suicidal path and that is the obvious outcome? guest: it is true that one of the first things that could happen in a war -- we saw this in the gulf war, would be a war of missiles. the main not being clear, but would still terrified. there would be tens of thousands of people in those cities to would be targeted. host: we're us by twitter, if mutually assured destruction was good enough for the u.s. and russia, i why russiaran seek to use the same strategy in their sphere of influence?

guest: it implies a hair-trigger alert. each side has missiles aimed at each other -- that is not a stable situation. it was dangerous in the cold war. why would we want another arms race from the middle east? host: the line for democrats. caller: i'm listening the other day to bill ritter. i wish that c-span would get him on dorebutt a lot that has been said. iran is not in violation. -- i wish he would get him onto rebutt. the treaty that everyone says they're violating has not been ratified. as long as the west, europe, and

israel are saber-rattling against them we will never get this treaty ratified through them. why would they? we have overthrown a regime, supported the dictatorship through the shah -- and then we invaded their neighbor even after we helped them with chemical weapons to fight against the iranians. guest: you know, this business of trudy's is very difficult. iran did agree to give us notice if they did such a facility like the one we found. then they pulled out. finally, they notified us iaea just on the eve when france and britain were about to make the announcement -- bill looks very suspicious that they have

something to hide. iran has repeatedly misled the rest of the world about what is enriching uranium and where. this facility was only disclosed when dissidents pointed it out. it is time to remember the list of ronald reagan and gorbachev -- trust, but verify. host: this reporter writes that the obama administration like the bush one has also supported a lot of concepts for a freeze. a six-week period for a preliminary talks that blurs the line be tween -- between suspension and discussion. can you tell us what all of that means?

guest: the u.s. is basically trying to stop the game, call a timeout. iran is still playing. the one facility has 8000 centrifuges already up and going. originally we were trying to get them not to build any. how many more? the bush people were trying to stop. obama's is saying instead of maybe trying to rollback we could have a freeze, a timeout in the game to have some negotiation. but you see how difficult it is to negotiate in the middle of the game. host: here by twitter, from an arab perspective do think we could have a more stable middle east with an armed iran? guest: no, it will simply provoke other nations in the region like saudi arabia and others to consider their own programs. we could have a new arms race in

the region which we do not have to do. host: stratford, conn., the last question -- on the line for republicans. caller: good morning, the natural gas that iran has -- a bevy of it -- the prime minister of iraq said there's a lot of oil. that was with reference to our u.s. intrusion. would our interest in afghanistan favor european interest in natural gas for them to overtake iran? if you go to work for us you could get beyond this bill should. host: i'm not sure what that last question was about. guest: i'm not sure either. but iran's huge supplies are reality and i don't think anyone is talking about overtaking. host: that is it for our

discussion today. there are a lot of news reports coming out about the talks as they get under way about iran's nuclear ambitions. there are representatives from all governments. david hoffman has published this book, published by doubleday. it is widely available in any of your favorite book stores. guest: my pleasure. host: our next guest is congressman joe sestak, a member of the u.s. arms committee. ♪

>> supreme court week starts sunday with c-span original documentary. >> the real intimacy comes in the relationship between the lawyer who is arguing at the podium and the court he is arguing to. if you stop to think of it when you go in, you will see that if one of those fleeing over the bench as far as we could and the lawyer arguing at the podium leaned toward us we could almost shake hands. that is a very important thing. it means when the arguments take place you are physically and psychologically close enough to each other so that there is a possibility for real engagement. >> get an insider's view and hear from all the justices about

its role, traditions, and history. it premieres sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern. and for a behind the scenes look, connect through twitter, facebook, and youtube. this weekend, "empire of delusion" -- from this author who argues that we now live in two societies. one based in reality, the other set in fantasy. it is part of book tv weekend. >> "washington journal" continues. host: we're pleased to welcome joe sestak. there's a hearing on the european missile defense plan at 9:00 a.m. eastern. many of you are regular watchers. let me tell you a couple things about his biography. he has spent 31 years in the

u.s. navy and was retired as a three-star admiral during the clinton administration was a foreign policy adviser in the white house, ph.d. in political economy and government from harvard, and also a candidate for the u.s. senate in pennsylvania. there is much in the newspapers about afghanistan including some reporting out of the three-hour strategy session from the white house yesterday with president obama and top advisers trying to figure out his next move. from the reading there are two camps. the ones who support general stemming the crystal -- stanley mcchrystal's report, and the to but in camp. guest: i lean more towards the former. i was on the ground early in that war when i headed the anti-

terrorism unit in the navy. 18 months later returned to see how it had spiralled downwards so drastically because we had gone through the misadventure of iraq. therefore, i am supportive of the original reason we went in which was to eradicate al qaeda. there is no more al qaeda in afghanistan. they are present in what the cia said two years ago is a safe haven. from there they can plan quietly against us if they're not disturbed over in pakistan. i will accept what the general wants to do if the goal is to eradicate that save haven in pakistan by supporting pakistan and doing it from the base. that base is afghanistan. second, there is a very well- defined as a strategy. not with the date that a certain for withdrawal, but with

benchmarks of success and failure to ofhow this treasure we're pouring in is getting as results we can see. to leave behind a probability, not a certainty, that al qaeda will not move once they are eradicated back to afghanistan as we ready deploy. put myself five years from now. if we left al qaeda in and sit given to play against us, what would we say if they did strike us again 9/11-dial? with the proper exit strategy, not trying to do nation- building, but leaving certain conditions to support troop increase slightly. host: let's go to phone calls.

again, from the reading of papers this morning, there is emphasis from senator carl levin saying that we need a much larger afghan army much quicker. he says that is the bottom line winning strategy. guest: it might be a few years from now, but the afghan army will take years to bring up to the level they would ever have an opportunity to do with the damage already done. only u.s. troops can provide the immediate template of security where we win the trust of the population towards us. to rely on afghan military to do it now we will never get there. we have to bring it up as we train them and then let them take over as we ready deployed. all we did not have in iraq and this administration has not yet provided is a requirement for an exit strategy.

so we know the results. hell do they know if this strategy will be successful? that is my caveat that they must provide. host: there are host of stories. many major newspapers have done some reporting. one of the more interesting is is this in "the wall street journal" -- gates out afghan strategy. -- gates and doubts the u.s.'s afghan strategy. guest: when i had to go in fairly early for that short mission and met with the head of the national security agency, eavesdropping with a satellite. the general told me before i went in, joe, general franks running the army there keeps telling me to give some actionable intelligence. the joke haden city kid telling

general franks to give him some intelligence -- joe haden said he kept telling general franks to give him some actionable intelligence. if not, you cannot find al qaeda and eradicate them. so, some troop movements are necessary, but not theheft that we had in iraq. host: there are a number of articles tried to understand the impact of the afghan vote. and what kind of stability we can find from leadership there. guest: you will find minimum leadership from the capital. at one time we told the taliban, remove al qaeda and we will not invade afghanistan. now we can accept that some of the taliban might remain and warlords and provincial leaders probably provide some stability. this is not like when the

russians went into afghanistan. they murdered, often drunk, 1 million afghan people. the dislocated four million from their homes. at most there are probably 20,000 taliban. 70% are really there for a job, a wage. 36,000 are the very radical ones. we can deal with this as long as we know with measurement how will we are progressing. otherwise planned b is a containment strategy that may not work host: as well rep sestak, do agree with your colleague hastings that congress is not educated on the language and factions in afghaafghanistan order to make an assessment? guest: congressional people do have a tough job, but the most

important duty to support troops, declares war -- we should be a bit more imbued with some terminology. i was surprised that times were certain individuals would say that we can be out of iraq in four months. the redeployment plan, one of the most difficulty things to do is to redeploy. it can take about 18 months. do have a better sense of what the military can do would serve our nation well. host: we begin with calls, this one from michael republican line in pittsburgh. caller: 10 our goals be achieved without eradication of the taliban? can we defeat the taliban without counter insurgency and creation of a stable afghani army and police structure, and three, does this not require a very long term and comprehensive approach to the problem?

guest: thanks for the questions. it can be accomplished without eradication of the taliban. but it cannot be accomplished without a goal if it is to eradicate al qaeda which is totally separate. although some of the taliban have been al qaeda-ized, but that is the true goal. the issue with the taliban is to try to make sure that those who would give haven are isolated and removed. that is roughly about 6000. the other taliban we can live with -- the treasure to put into afghanistan to give up to level is too much to cost. we need their army to have some semblance of being able to

provide stability. it will rely on warlords, tribal chiefs, and others to give local control. i believe that is the right strategy. host: the next question comes from exeter, new hampshire on the line for democrats. caller: good morning, rep. how damaging was the first eight years of this conflict being under-resources? second, if you are trying to deny al qaeda the training camp, you could take a football field- size and put 15 guys and a broken airplane there and can have your training facility. how impossible is a to patrol every square mile of afghanistan so handful of tourists will not together to train? guest: absolutely.

to your first question, one of the more daunting statements made it is where the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff said in afghanistan we do what we must -- in iraq would do what we must, in afghanistan we do all we can. i was commanding and aircraft doing retaliatory strikes and we were doing that war in the right way. we diverted our attention and resources to iraq. there we did" we must. we took psychological operations. civil affairs, special operation forces -- those who knew how to fight, but have the society developed. because of that attention, that is why the chairman also said two years ago that afghanistan is spiraling downward. we're having to pull it up to

the second level to redeploy. i understand when i speak about safe havens that they could be in somalia and other places. this is different. this terrain is unique in the well. second, the demographics -- this except tribal leaders particularly in pakistan is different. there is an acceptance of radicalism there. it is the leaders of al qaeda who are there. they have to communicate. knowing they are there and removing them before they disburse and reconvene somewhere else -- which i doubt that they will because that is such a good place to hide. that is why this place is unit. we do need sophisticated uav's,

but boots on the ground makes some difference. host: 4 when, indiana. caller: hi, i just want to say that throughout the summer and town halls -- fort wayne -- caller: i just want to say that i think you are a good guy. on the afghanistan issue, how much of this about going to war or not, the game plan, is being used as a political platform? if this a lot, what is in your power to make sure does not become the issue? guest: my issue is that everyone

must recognize that the president and congress' most sacred duty is to provide for the security of this nation. it can be provided by health and other means, but the most prominent one in this case is defense sector. this issue should not be delayed as long because it is very hard over there for our troops. if we are going to have a change in strategy we need to do is send. now let it get caught up in political calculations with the healthcare debate. this president will do the right thing to whatever he decides, but politics should not be interpreted. my being here today is part of trying to lay out from my outhow i see this conflict developing. i may be right or wrong. i think getting more

politicians to debate details -- they are making important decisions. do they truly understand what is going on on the ground? it is our duty. host: david ignatius, the longtime columnist for security is on the ground in waziristan. guest: it is a tribal area to the southwest. the reason we're very concerned about these areas is we have often seen these become and govern the region's -- ungoverned regions. there is no central control over there. that is true for both pakistan and afghanistan. the problem is the two central governments tend to want to focus on each other rather than

asserting control in the tribal lands. they let were large and others have power. that has led to mischief like al qaeda and other radicals, radical islamic elements. he is there trying to make an assessment of how will this new counter insurgency effort both by the pakistani government and our efforts will help to win over warlords and others said they don't hide these elements. host: he says that these workers have defied the pakistani army and lately also the high-tech americans. sends it to does someone they have offered haven to al qaeda and the taliban. they have made this one of the most difficult spots on the earth. the new battle is coming as the pakistani military prepares a ground offensive in the mehsud

areas. guest: the challenge for us is this -- but until recently pakistan's army has been focused almost exclusively upon india. now that their forces are turning towards counterinsurgency efforts there now will turn. we might have just had only 30 or 40 troops tried to train them how not to destroy the village with their f-16's or tanks, but to save it by eradicating those elements in a door-to-door effort. how would change their strategy? to be effective and not lose the hearts and minds of the populace? host: this is the question of what happens if they are successful militarily.

he might apply this to all of afghanistan. the pakistani strategy might be termed "back to the future" -- once the taliban sold is broken the army will work with the maliks to restore the old tribal power structure. guest: exactly, that is the strategy. we're not trying to have an iraq-like strategy for the central government has coopted to control some what. then it has the sons of the awakening. this is having the local power structures on our side. it will be small economic development. take literacy. 2% of the women in afghanistan can sign their name.

small efforts they might have is the way to go to wean them away from poppies and other ways of getting their income. host: providence, rhode island. caller: thank you both. i'm curious if you can name one al qaeda member who is not also a member of the cia? guest: wow -- i cannot think of any al qaeda member who is a member of the cia. caller: how about a some of the modern who work for the cia until 2001. guest: i would imagine that as the years and decades ago on there are efforts to purchase information. for example, when i flew into afghanistan for a short mission at the beginning of the war, sitting beside me was a fellow with the cia who had a suitcase

with millions of dollars because there were going to buy loyalty in there. i imagine we may have purchased information from someone in al qaeda, but that does not mean at all -- at all that there's ever meant to be a cooption of them with their loyalties for this wonderful intelligence agency. host: good morning. caller: first of all, thank you for your service. i appreciated even more now that i'm married to military. now that i'm married to marine, my concern is whether we are definitely deploying our not. my husband got news yesterday to inform me that they might be deploying him this october. i was wondering what was going on over there.

is it going over there for security purposes or fighting for the war? are there some returning and more been deployed? guest: think you for your service. when i was in the navy people used to say that the hardest job is being nab spouse. so, thanks for what you do. second, after 9/11 our whole security change. -- the hardest job is being a navy spouse. after 9/11 we had a home game where terrorism from there could affect us here with catastrophic results. i was stationed at the pentagon when 9/11 happened.

yes, we will continue deployments because men and women go over there for a short time and we need to rotate them. there might be a slight increase in trips. they are doing what they signed up to. thank goodness there are those who say "here am i, send me." the decision made by our commander in chief is, do we have the right strategy? is it more troops or more intelligence-gathering apparatus that can help to stop al qaeda from planning against us? that is the decision being made this week. i think it is a combination of both. this president must provide us -- these are the benchmarks' i can demonstrate to show at the strategy is working. we have not had that up until

now. that should be provided along with any request for change in strategy or troops. host: how can you promote economic development if you crush the only method of making a living in afghanistan -- that is from guest: twitter it is interesting. can it be done? yes. we have had the wrong counter- drug strategy. we brought over our ambassador from colombia and put him in there. we eradicated poppies growing. the taliban and al qaeda are like the mafia. they will give you a loan to put the seeds in, and then when crops are destroyed by the u.s. they say they do not care -- now come to join my army because you can repay me. these farmers only want to earn a living.

it could be through a program of micro loans. they could start their own gardens. but these people -- the difference between here and places in iraq -- they want stability. they did not like taliban. they have lost confidence because of the corruption from kabul. we need to win enough of their trust along with the warlords to show there can be some economic development -- not equivalent to us -- that they do not have to provide a p.m. 2 al qaeda. it is tough, i grant you. but it is necessary. host: the last question comes from michigan on the republican line. caller: good morning, can i call you "joe" -- where both the same age and i served during vietnam. guest: sure. caller: just some thoughts.

have you ever seen the movie "kelly's heroes" -- this is an overall view of things? my father was an ex-marine, wise historian, and just a very wise person. these laws do not all connect. but the securing of the ammo dumps -- we did not do that in iraq. it seemed convenient to me. since 9/11, not only has the economy become globalized, but so has terrorism. we cannot defeat, we will never win in afghanistan. we have to negotiate this. stabilization in pakistan seems to be the central plan. guest: how do you define a win? to me it is that al qaeda does

not have a safe haven. however, you have hit upon the second important point -- economics. admiral blair, our head intelligence officer, said about one year ago that the greatest danger to america's security is the economic challenges around the world. take tajikistan. hundreds of thousands of these young men worked in the oilfields of russia. it was booming, but russia with them all off because of this globalized recession. they have returned home with no money in cannot even get married. they are attracted to a warlord who might be connected to the taliban. approximately 70% are there for a wage. not because they're believers in the ideology. some negotiation on some means,

minimal as it is of some economic livelihood is probably" we have to work out. this is a different type of conflict then if we had stayed on course in 2001-2003 and finished the job. . . congressman mac thornberry of texas, member of armed services but also member of intelligence committee and he will bring -- bring both to the discussion.

[captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009]

>> this is congressman mac thornberry from texas, member of the intelligent and arms services committee. front-page coverage in "the washington times" today talked about the meeting the president had yesterday with his top national security team, including vice president joe biden, a key cabinet secretaries, top generals, which link and army general mcchrystal from afghanistan. mr. obama had seen two camps -- one envisions adding troops for have a presence on afghan soil that could execute a prolonged counterinsurgency strategy that, if successful, would leave the country's government stable enough to ward off al qaeda. the other believes a lighter force aided by john aircraft would be sufficient to hold the

taliban and day and keep al qaeda from regrouping. is your position reflected? guest: my position is to trust the generals. the folks saying you don't need to have books on the ground, you can stand off and hit them from afar, do not reflect the military folks who have the responsibility. the president has been clear when he was running an earlier in march about how important this was and what was required to win. he picked, i think, the best general and the united states military to command the force is -- i think you either support or replace him. i don't think you drag this out because of their our young men whose lives are on the line every day who are watching the white house to see if what they have been asked to do will be supported by the commander in chief. host: i see two different ways

to get to it stability describe here. you say, carry out the mission, but the question is, what is the mission. in the counter insurgency, it sounds like the description is a stable government and the country, stable on its own to ward off al qaeda. the other suggests holding the taliban at bay to prevent al qaeda leadership from regrouping, which is different from a stable government. guest: that is what i say. i don't believe any military person believes that what we should do. that is what we did before 9/11, no troops on the ground, occasionally a missile in the desert and obviously it didn't work. to get the intelligence you need, to keep al qaeda and the taliban and day, you have to have boots on the ground. secretary gates said that this past sunday and just about every military commander i know of agrees. to be successful in preventing al qaeda from adding a

sanctuary, and shoring up pakistan, and denying al qaeda another victory, we have to have, i think, people on the ground, and i think a counter insurgency strategy. if we are not willing to do that -- because it will be costly -- if we're not willing to do that, we should not be there. host: which showed a column showing the pakistani army about to launch an assault in the waziristan region. there have been questions raised in this country and the west about how much of an ally pakistan is. would you add your perspective, please? guest: i think this offensive tells us a lot. we saw pakistan sending in troops to the swat valley, one of the few times they sent in significant numbers of troops to

accomplish a mission into that on government territory between afghanistan and pakistan. if they follow through by sending troops into waziristan, it will be one of the first time they have never done that and show significant progress in pakistan's ability to help us on the ground, which is where we needed. we cannot just sit up in the air and send a missile back -- now and then. we need boots on the ground to know where to strike and to put pressure on al qaeda and taliban leadership. host: a critic of the policy -- guest: well, i guess there are always ways to look at war cynically, but what we do know is that small groups of people who are very determined can kill lots of americans. we saw that on 9/11.

we do know that al qaeda wants to get chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons and if they can destabilize pakistan, they might get a chance to get their hands on one. it is not just about trying to stabilize a country with a standard of living that is not up to our own, but it is also that our security, preventing al qaeda from having a safe haven, stabilizing pakistan, and preventing terrorism from having another victory. when they have had some success -- whether knocking us out of somalia or the russians out of action as magic afghanistan, it encourages them to be even more aggressive -- or the russians out of afghanistan, it encourages them to be even more aggressive. caller: we just look the situation how we governor own house, we know how to govern our

own house. we know when we bring people and our house, -- how in the world can we govern another country when we cannot govern our own home? guest: i agree we have lots of cleaning up to do what home. but the point is not to govern afghanistan but to help keep them stable one of so they can govern themselves and provide for their own security. this is where we have been and where we are going in iraq. we are withdrawing our troops as they take over more and more of a security mission. that is where we want to go with afghanistan, too. get their army and police force of two where they can have stability in the country. more importantly, that al qaeda does not return to use it as a training base, like they did before, and allowed afghanistan to be stable enough so that they

don't threaten pakistan, which is obviously a very important country. host: west palm, florida. matthew, republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. mr. thornberry -- rep thornberry, my question was intended for rep sestak, but he is gone. maybe you could help frame it. my studies that i have done, it seems to me -- it may be wrong -- that the democrats are not really big fans of the military. carter slashed the military and clinton did and reagan had to build up when carter/did. and then bush built the backup. i want to know about the 25%

that president obama once. one in to know if he was going to stand by the president on the big cut. navy, lowest point in a military ships -- canceling claims. i want to know if the democrats realize how dangerous this world is and are they going to continue with this dangerous cut in the military? guest: i agree that the first time of the federal government is to defend the country and we need to put any resources we need to an order to accomplish the mission. that is especially important when you send men and women -- women out there to a place like afghanistan. we need to make sure they have everything they need to fulfill

that mission. i think in many ways of the worst thing that we can do is send them out there and tie their hands behind their back. that is one of the reasons i worry about some of the things that are being discussed with this afghan policy review. we don't need somebody in the white house changing the strategy or saying we will let you go this far but not this far. we need to fully support, i think, the commanders, in what they want to do, how they want to do it, and make sure they have all of the equipment and weapons that they need. host: next question is from minneapolis. this is bill. caller: this is not an american war in afghanistan, this is nato, is it? guest: there are no forces, but some of which that operate in a very limited fashion.

that have been one of the frustrations, as i am sure you know, for the past years. auditcaller: even if nato forces pull out i would support american going unilaterally because anybody -- if you pull out completely, al qaeda is going to return -- returned to afghanistan. obama is sitting on the fence. we've got men and women dying. he has got to make a decision any has to make pdq. we can't have a half-hearted commander and chief sitting in the white house. i said before, if you elect a bomb, you are electing another jimmy carter. we need to get those troops on the ground and keep them there

until al qaeda and the taliban are defeated. guest: i think it is true, the president when he was running for office was very strong in talking about the importance of afghanistan. he was very strong in march of this year talking about his policy where afghanistan was the war of necessity. and it is disconcerting that now he seems to have a need to rethink all of that and to take so long, seems to be rethinking his basic assumptions. i know he has some popularity issues brought on by health care and so forth, but in national security, the president cannot worry about the polls. he has to do what is right to protect the country's security. like you, i hope he makes the decision quickly because our faults in the field deserve it. host: let us talk about the politics going back to the " "washington times" story.

group of 57 house members, mostly democrats, sent a president a letter demanding it to reject an increased u.s. for strength in afghanistan particularly in the absence of an exit strategy. signed by 50 -- seven republicans and 50 democrats. this followed warnings early this month from house speaker nancy pelosi who said there was little appetite in congress or the country for an escalation of the conflict. guest: there clearly people and congress over in the far left who want us to leave afghanistan, they are not in favor of military action just about anywhere. and that is why i say that the president has to ignore the politics, ignore the polls, and tried to just focus on what is in the national security interest of the country. he seemed very clear when he was running for office, back in march, and i just think it is

concerning that he would rethink the basic assumptions that he said all of this time when his popularity -- host: massachusetts. democratic wind. caller: hello, rep. i want to point out the basic flaw in the war in afghanistan. it differs from iraq because afghanistan is composed of tribes. that is the basic unit of individuals, tribes. unless you have the tribes on your side, you will never succeed in afghanistan. they should have a house of representatives and their government from the tribes. that is all i have to say on that. thank you. guest: i think you make a very good point. afghanistan is not iraq. it is a different place. there are lessons we can learn

from iraq, and our successful counterinsurgency strategy but you cannot just carbon copy from one to another. and there have been a number of suggestions about the government structure in afghanistan could be more effective if you had to tribal representatives come together in some representative body rather than some of the things that have going on there. but that is something for the afghanis to work out themselves. but in the meantime, he cannot walk away and let al qaeda return with the taliban. at the same time giving out credit based operate and destabilize pakistan. that is why we have to keep an eye on those two things. caller: how are you doing, congressman thornberry.

the real problem in the middle east is iran. the united states is meeting with them today when al qaeda and iran have the same vision -- they want to destroy the middle east, the peace process. look at human right now, killing 2000 to 3000 people and the north of the game and it did look at lebanon, iraq. -- in yemen. guest: iran is troublesome, calling to -- causing trouble in various places around the region as well as the nuclear program, the missiles, and so forth. i agree with you and looking bridge working with our allies, we need to not only tried to change iran but change the sort of government have there. there is clearly domestic opposition inside iran.

so as we have these talks that began today and as we focus on the nuclear and missile issues, i think it is important to keep in mind the nature of that regime because they may upgrade to delay this program or that program, but fundamentally it is the nature of the regime that is expansionist, very aggressive and does have some similarities with the velocity of al qaeda and aggressiveness and expansion. host: springfield, georgia. mike on the independent line. caller: basically this is more warmongering and pimping out of our military. in the invasion of iraq was a war crime. of the intelligence we have indicates there are no nuclear weapons program, there is no nuclear weapons program in iran. they are in compliance with the treaty.

we should have technicians on the ground assisting in nuclear- powered, and we would know exactly what was there if we did. guest: i think major focus of the discussions today is, ok, let inspectors in, let them go to see what -- for themselves and we will see whether iran does that. and another question is, is this all? we know about two nuclear sites. are there other hidden installations that may not have been revealed publicly? that will be top a on the discussion. they can add confidence if they would just let the inspectors and. host: we spent half an hour on this at the beginning but since we have questions about iran, one of the cards of the table that the west has is an increase ascension program. the debate whether or not it

hurts the population and has any leverage at all on the leaders. guest: i think it is both. you have to say it does affect the population but you also have to recognize that national guard folks there get a cut of all the national guard sales, they are the ones that distribute gasoline a rahm country. they are in charge of the ports. so if you can have meaningful sanctions, it does affect the regime and particularly the part of a regime that keeps the people oppressed. and the people will be affected, but it may be the most effective way we have short of military action of changing your behavior. host: pittsburgh. go ahead. caller: thank you there are much for that opportunity. i would like to ask the congressman, what do you think,

how could we be at war if there is no money to give the necessary things for the soldiers? taxation -- you and everybody else in the country, however does not involve the military because the military is suffering for years and years and years, just ruining the family and everybody else makes money and they don't have to pay tax. the few should be the first one to be taxed and me, too, and everyone else be -- and good tax because it is not fair to run the military families and do nothing. thank you very much. guest: as i mentioned, i think the first job of the federal government is to defend the country. that ought to come first. the first tax dollars the government collects ought to go for defense purposes --

military, intelligence organizations, and others to keep us safe. it and it is true over the past number of years that parts of our military has been stretched very, very thin. not all parts of the military. and so i am one that pushes for some military reform to even out the bird and a little bit more. but i think it is a question of priorities. we put the first dollars to the military and less -- a lesser priorities need to be reduced. unfortunately we have been getting it backwards. i'm afraid we spent a whole lot more money on wasteful things, bigger government and military spending at best has just been level. host: this and your asks a question -- guest: a couple of things. number one is, we are not trying

to take over afghanistan. we are trying to help the afghan is stabilize the country so they can govern themselves and be strong enough to keep the taliban and al qaeda out. if you look at the poll numbers, very few afghanis want the taliban to come back. it is down and a single digits, generally. most of them have a positive impression of the united states and way over 80% have a positive impression of the afghan army. we are on the side of the people. those poll numbers are not the same in iraq. they did not have nearly as favorable view of the united states as the afghans do. so we are on the side of the people. we need a people-focused strategy, which is what general mcchrystal put out there. if we do that, i think there is a good chance of success.

if we don't do that, if we tie one hand behind the back of our soldiers, then as general mcchrystal's support says we will have very little success. host: next question for rep mac thornberry. vicksburg, mississippi. franklin on the republican line. caller: thank you for your service. i want you to seriously think about what i'm about to say. i hate agreeing with my democratic friends but i really -- and i understand what you are saying about the people being on our side and the poll numbers, and it is the job of the president, number one, to protect the american people but i really would like you to think about what i am about to say. given the history of afghanistan and history -- you know, the greeks, but persians, soviets, the british, and i'm

probably for getting a bunch of folks in between, but i think considering our long-term national interest i believe we need to drop leaflets over the entire northwest province of pakistan and afghanistan and explain to the afghan government that we need to pull our troops out of afghanistan and the only way we will return is in the form of unmanned missiles, and we reserve the right to put nukes on those if we need to. please think about that. guest: i do not think we will ever put nuclear-weapons on such weapons, and remember, you know, we have had tremendous success in both the bush administration and obama administration with a strategy of trying to take out the top al qaeda leadership from the air.

we have to have folks on the ground who know where they are. what kind of have a romantic idea and -- that we can stand up in the air and take care of national security needs from there and cannot get on the ground in the hands dirty. it does not work that way. every military person who looks at this confirms you have to have people on the ground in order to make any campaign from the air is effective. and if you remove your troops from the ground, you might as well be hitting cruise missiles in a tent, as we did during the clinton administration. that just can't work. we need to be open-eyed and realistic about it. it sounds more like a political solution than a military solution. host: tampa. steve on the independent mind. caller: thank you for taking my call.

rep thornberry, thank you. did you serve in the military? guest: i have not. caller: i don't know what that means that think it is important we about military stuff. i think we have to understand how complicated it is. there generally are not either/or or black-and-white answers. there are lots of gray areas, competing interests and politics always plays a role. you said earlier about the taliban and al qaeda and you put your hands together and said they are like this. this certainly work together but they are not the same thing. it is important know that and to do the research and understand they are completely separate entities. someone said earlier we need to stay until we win, but what does victory look like? all willing to say a thousand years?

it's an idea, not the people. people talk about its philosophy, fundamentalist, and it could be anywhere -- not jobs. if we kill them, there is just going to be more. so it is nation-building. although the answer is certainly important, it is about building afghanistan but also taking into account pakistan which is probably more than half of the problem. while the pakistani government is our supposed ally, are they really? they give financial support but what did the people want? i suspect most of them want us out of there. but i think look into the military and i will hang up, we should consider a draft. if we are going to talk about long-term military presence in other countries, but the risk of

that should be spread across the country across all socio- economic lines and not just generally the fall to end of the military appeared guest: of -- guest: i think these issues are complex. there have been adjusting studies showing how al qaeda lives off of other tribes and groups, and they are not the same as the taliban but they have integrated into the taliban going back to before 9/11, so that the taliban would not give up osama bin laden. they were that closely aligned. so while they are different, they are very close allies so if the taliban, back, al qaeda comes back. that is the key point to be made. i agree with you about the

importance of pakistan. their nuclear-weapons add a whole new dimension to the importance of this problem. and then think you are exactly right that this is in large measure -- at least partly, and ideological struggle. military alone will not win. that is why development aid in afghanistan and pakistan is important. that is why i think strategic communications is important. so we can convey what we are trying to do with the people there. so we have to do this across the government. not just a military problem. but again, my view is if we send the military out to do a mission, we give them full rein to the mission, not tight hand behind their back. this is what this review smacks of. host: base city, michigan. last caller.

-- base city. caller: my first statement is we created the taliban. the next thing is he said -- one person releasing dropping leaflets and stuff like that. yes, that is what we should do. just like we did over in japan. there were no votes on the ground in japan and each country dropped the big one -- forget it, get rid of them over there. have all the oil with one, never have another war over there and don't have to worry about. that's it. thank you very much. guest: it would be nice if the world were that simple. i don't think it is. i do not think we are going to use nuclear weapons. but we do have a chance at victory. very few of us would think iraq

would have gone as well as it has, but we had a counter insurgency strategy that was fully backed. if we do that in afghanistan, commanders say we have a chance for victory and i think we ought to be given that chance. host: thank you for talking with our audience. our next segment will turn to health care. at 9:00 eastern time we will introduce you to dr. toby cost growth from the cleveland clinic. he has been at the table before but he has been very involved. and before that, a focus on the house floor about congressman grayson and a sign he used to talk about health care. we will open up the phone lines. here is "usa today" story. we will take your telephone calls and a couple of minutes. i would like to have you indulge

me for a shout out to a special friend of c-span's. the washingtonian arrived, we opened it up and saw a story about two very long time friends of c-span, journalist jack nelson and barbara -- husband and wife and both journalists. jack nelson was the longtime bureau chief of "the los angeles times." he is retired now. for 30 years this gentleman and his open "the los angeles times" role has been very important. his bureau broke the very first story about c-span at a time it was critically important to this network, when it was really just an idea in the early 1980's and follow this in 1994 and later on -- and also very important over the years and jack nelson always open up the "los angeles" * bureau and reporters for c-

span cameras and microphones so we can help explain the decision making process. jack nelson throughout the 30 years of c-span's existence has been an enormous friend of this network and an important advocate for openness among journalists as we ask others in this society to be opened. the reason we are talking about him this morning is that the story and the magazine is that he is very ill with pancreatic cancer, and like the good journalists he is, he used this opportunity with barbara to report about it. this story is about a program at nih, a research hospital that has programs where you can go in and get care as part of experimental studies. they talked all about that, including about how any of you around the country might be considered for the experimental care at no cost. the talk about how it all works as jack nelson goes through that himself. we want to play one of his many

contributions to journalism. extent -- extensive coverage of the civil rights era. here is a little of his reflection. >> there has been a curious lack of interest looking back how the press covered the civil rights movement. anyone who does will find the presence of the very little, almost nothing, to cover its own role, not even the height of the story. the press was portrayed more as a passive bystander then a moving force. that is probably because in the 1950's and the 1960's, reporting on the news media's coverage of any story was considered irrelevant, almost and proper, even though the press was a major player in the unfolding civil-rights drama, editors and news directors told reporters people and not interested in the press, problems, or impact. host: some of jack nelson's reflections of the role of the media. traffic journalist -- we just want you to know we are thinking about him -- terrific

journalist. congressman grayson has been on the news dissever sense he went on the floor with the sign -- republican health care plan, die quickly. there has been debate whether he should be apologizing or sanctions. let us listen to his comments from yesterday. >> last night here in this chamber i made the speech. i will not recount every single thing i said but i will point out immediately after the speech several republicans asked me to apologize but i would like to apologize. i would like to apologize to the dead. here is what. according to this study, health insurance and mortality in u.s. adults which was published two weeks ago, 44,789 americans die every year because they have no health insurance. that is right. 44,789 americans die every year because -- according to this harvard study called health insurance and mortality in u.s. adults, you can see it by going

to our website. that is more than 10 times the number of americans died in the war in iraq, when a 10 times the number of americans to die in 9/11, but that was just once. this is every single year. that is right. every single year. take a look at this, read it and weep, and i mean that, read it and weep because of all these americans who are dying because they don't have health insurance. now, i think we should do something about that and the democratic health care plan does this something about that, it makes health care affordable for those who can't afford insurance and it saves these people's lives. let us remember that we should care about people even after they are born. so i call upon the democratic members of the house, i call upon the republican members of the house and call upon all of us to do our jobs for the sake of america, for the sake of those dying people and their families. i apologize to the dead and

their families that we have not voted sooner to end his holocaust in america. host: his remarks on the house floor. "usa today" reports that the resolution of disapproval -- sang the conduct was a breach of decorum and degraded the integrity and proceedings of the house, the language in price possible solution is similar to those of the democrats to review jillson. the communications director for price says the congressman plans to move forward on the resolution but he did not say whether it would be introduced. grayson says he read the resolution and has supported his leadership and is not plan to apologize. we wanted to turn to you and ask what do you think, should representative grayson be sanctions? let us begin with a call from wisconsin.

dawn on the democrats' line. -- don. caller: no, he shouldn't. but show at least the 10 clips of republicans saying that the democrats were going to cause death with the medical situation. host: yes, they have been aired on the news. but the question is really to jump into the debate. you are saying no? thank you government. louisiana. assam, independent line. caller: a couple of things about mr. grayson, rep grayson. yes, no, he should not be sanctioned but beyond that this is payback for him grilling of the fed lawyer the other day asking him whether the fed had ever manipulated the stock market.

because they don't want anybody to touch of the fed. as far as of the health-care issue goes, there is hardly a brand yet that is not taking care -- it ought to be called insurance care. and the obama plan totally stinks'. it gets into our bank accounts, it gets into our lives, put us into debt, it will put a tax on everybody, the poor mostly. and just to hearken back quickly to the last guy, we are tired of the lies. the same memo they used with iraq, the same crap with the fake wmd's, that nuclear plant -- host: i'm going to jump in. thank you very much. we are moving off to other topics. reno, spot on the republican line. caller: how are you doing?

congress has enough to be embarrassed about. this guy, he does not help their cause. their approval rating is down in the dumps. he needs to go back to florida and drink his orange juice. host: 8 twitter -- >> is new jersey. barber, democrats line. good morning. caller: i don't think he's so it -- should be sanctions but he should be honored for having the courage to speak the truth. something as serious as the lack of affordable and accessible health care in this nation, and the discussion not being a discussion in a but from of the other side what they are trying to do is what they have always tried, get their point across with the use of ignorance and fear mongering instead of being concerned about the best

interest of the people, sincerely -- citizenry. they are interested in scoring political points and throwing darts at the president and trying to cause more distress. after 30 years of being told that the government is the problem, we finally have a president who wants to be a solution to this issue and we desperately need help. we've got problems on both sides with lobbyists and big money -- and the interest of health insurance company should not be our main objective but the interest in having a healthy and whole nation and having the government do what it should do, work for the better good of its people. host: @ thank you, barbara. >> -- the next caller is from port

richey, florida. this is from robert, independent mind. caller: good morning. i think president obama ought to channel rep grayson's energy and honesty. as a matter of fact, i think he would probably be deserving of the medal of freedom for talking truth and open honesty about the whole health care situation. my representative bill iraq as, i'm ashamed of him because he is a republican foot dragon -- bilirakis, just as he described all the republicans in the congress and the senate. and i was terribly disappointed yesterday when senator bill nelson voted against the max baucus bill. i hope he has a good reason for its because i'm very

disappointed with it. then when i saw representative grayson and what he said and then i saw what he did on cnn, he actually went to cnn and stood up to all of the talking heads of about their mudlinger the health care reform bill. i am really proud to see there is somebody who has got the guts to tell the truth about health care. host: thank you. david, columbia, south carolina. republican line. caller: yes. i was agreeing with the gentleman earlier, i'm a die- hard republican but this -- he is really trying to improve the country. we are actually paying for everyone's health care right now. a lot of emergency rooms are having to close and i'm in the health-care field.

some people are irresponsible and do not have health insurance. so this country needs a basic health insurance for everybody. car insurance or homeowners insurance. host: board valley, ga., a gene on the democrats' line. caller: thank you for c-span. i do not think representative grayson should be censured or reprimanded or any of the other things they are trying to do to him. i truly admired the way he came back and did his apology. he did not say i said anything wrong. he said i apologize to those people we have not truly represented during our time here in congress. if -- senator wilson who actually in my opinion this

respected not only the president but all of america for what he did and they can make him a hero how can this man just not cut through the crack and say what needs to be said and get people off the dime and start to do something? how can they think something should be done adverse to him? he should not be reprimanded. and i wish that all americans would read for themselves and think for themselves and not just do what the talking heads a to do. host: of the senate finance committee begins a seven of its mark up of their health-care bill, live coverage beginning at 9:30 p.m. eastern time on c- span.org and on c-span3. from " the washington post" the senate finance panel says it has the votes to pass of the house bill, according to senator baucus. here is the " t. we are coming to closure. it is clear to me we will get it

passed. next telephone call as we discussed health care through the comments of congressman grayson is smith's field, mass., independent line. caller: thank you for c-span. i think mr. grayson should apologize. i think any senator who behaves badly should apologize. we pay these people to be professionals. they are there to solve problems and not to be like children. host: what did he say about his behavior was behaving badly? caller: i think the ridiculous remarks -- for people to die quickly. this does not solve anything. these people getting up saying ridiculous remarks. get on with business. solve the problems of this country. professionally. these ridiculous remark on either side -- i don't care what party you are from. host: dr. john on twitter --

the next call is from mississippi, grady on the republican line. caller: this is a first-time call. i, from the deep south. this man is truly a hero. these republicans want some much in the south, it is a crying shame. what george bush had gone to america, i'm glad we finally got somebody speaking up like the man did. he is a true hero to me. thank you. host: gary duncan writes -- what do you think? next telephone call is from dallas, catherine, democrats line. caller: i don't think -- should be sanctioned. let me say this. the republicans have been going around and the town hall

meetings, representatives -- wish we had somebody here to get rid of the crap we have -- go around and call obama hitler and same old people will lose their stuff and then the man is speaking the truth so why could she be sanctioned? i think he should have said what he said. thank you for listening. host: this twitter -- the next phone call is from league city, texas. back on the independent line. caller: @ thank you for taking my call. i want to also thank representative grayson. i wish i lived in florida so i could vote for him. this is indeed the most barbaric state in the union. we have more uninsured children

than any other state. i have called the offices of my two senators and they are all too busy stacking up to corporate contributors to care that people are dying when texas and all over the country and this is a national emergency, instead giving up campaign of lies and racial hatred to protect and shippers. i think they should apologize and i again thank representative grayson for his passion and honesty. thank you. host: of the next call is from indianapolis, ryan on the republican line. caller: i think his comments were outrageous. i am kind of mad they got aired a second time. host: they got erred a lot of * -- caller: i know. the interesting thing is how easy it is to put a study out -- who verified that fact?

who fact check it? if i went out and presented some bogus study on the house floor and acted as though it was a fact, i think you would be laughed at. i do not even know what should happen to him. i mean, it is outrageous. and the last caller, there are tons of insured care -- kids -- what they think schip is? they just debated this on c-span two months ago. i don't know. i am outraged about it. host: memphis, democrats line. hello? good morning. fine, thank you. what are your thoughts? you are on the air, what are your thoughts? caller: i think he should not be punished. here i am 35 years old and i

have -- host: you are having problems because you have the volume of on your tv. ok, what is your comments. caller: i'm 35 years old and i have been working since 16 and i never understood of -- the purpose of medicare taken out of payroll. therefore i cannot get health care -- no job offers it. my mom had three strokes last month, and guess what? she can't get any more medication. so i think the democrats and republicans need to get everything they have going and help us in need. host: pennsylvania. shinglehouse, pennsylvania. independent line. caller: thank you for c-span.

i'm in it immigrant from american. very proud -- too much politics. not enough looking out for people. basically we have a social welfare system, medical and private and they were on the side by side and it runs very well and i don't know what the whole plot is about and it is more politics than looking out for people. i think doctors swear an oath to look out for people medically because they are doctors and they are letting the pharmaceutical companies and the politics -- thank you there much. host: the politics page of "the washington times." obama for going gop input on health care. president obama has cut off communications with republican

leaders, going where the four months without hosting the bipartisan congressional leadership at the white house to discuss his health care proposal, according to the no. 2 republican. no matter what the president claims, they have not engaged with us, says mr. cantor. the next phone call, seattle, pauline, republican line. caller: thank you so much. i have a couple of comments and these certainly would not be reported on any other network so i really appreciate c-span. i do feel that mr. grayson's attempt is strictly to hold on to his desire to increase our taxes, just like all the other democrats, and if he is going to have a sign up as a democratic plan for 45 -- 44,000 people, death, in is to have a sign right beside it that says democratic plan to millions and

millions of infants, die quickly. there are some many infants in this country whose lives are ripped from them as a result of the liberal policies in existence, the weak liberal policies better still supported to this day, and i work in the health-care industry and i have to say that many of our uninsured patients -- we support patients that have access to state insurance, etc., many of our uninsured patients are not compliant with the medical instructions that they are given. there are many, many factors besides the fact that somebody is uninsured, that they might die, besides just the fact that they are uninsured. host: baltimore sun has a big story in the front page about some of the stimulus money coming out of the national institutes of health and going into grants to states. among those, the national institutes of health -- just talked about that with jack nelson earlier -- the grants distributed to more than 12,000 projects around country are

funded under the 787 dempf -- $787 billion in federal stennis program and about $100 billion going to science and technology projects according to the administration. talking about congressman grayson. south carolina. angie on the democrats' line. caller: i don't feel he should be sanctioned. i'm one of the 47 million without health care. i'm trying to get it. i can afford the monthly premium but i cannot afford a $10,000 deductible. i feel i very well could be one of the 122 people who die every day because they don't have health insurance. so, i applaud what rep grayson says. host: angie and south carolina. -- in south carolina.

the next caller is from chicago, andrew, independent line. caller: i was excited to see this this morning. i was in d.c. last night and just got home, i wasn't the doctors rally in lafayette park and i'm really -- i was at the doctor's rally in lafayette park. i don't think he should be sanctioned. if he is, it does not really matter. this is a moral issue and we have to decide that everyone needs to be covered in this country and everybody deserves health care. the last phone comments, columbia, tenn., will on the republican line. caller: thank you so much for allowing me to speak to you this morning. i want you to realize a bad

senator grayson said it honestly to the american people as well as to all the senators there, democrat and republican. what i want the people to realize, too, is i made my goal this last week to call all the senators in the united states and tell them they are responsible for this citizen's, to provide a health care plan that would be reasonably affordable and that would take care of every american citizen. this is what happened to me. i was all -- calling all the senators. i got about 85% or 90%. most of them, the republicans, did not agree with what i was saying obviously. but i watched the other day might senator, lamar alexander,

along with senator grassley, both republicans, debating over why -- the american people should not go ahead and take status quo as is and let the insurance companies go ahead and work this out for the american citizens. it is sad that the american citizens. here we have the senators coming in their chambers every morning, they open up, just like the house with a prayer to god and they are saying let us go represent our people in a christian manner and here we still see evidence there is nothing going on for the american people. host: gotta go, to government. we will continue our discussion, the ceo of the cleveland clinic will be our guest and a couple of minutes the first what else is happening in the world. .

in hopes of helping chicago win the bid for the 2016 summer olympic games. chicago is up against rio, madrid, and tokyo. the president will be alert -- heading home before the decision is announced. harry reid said in a floor debate on the old care legislation could begin the week of columbus day, october 12. even though lawmakers may be on vacation of the time. the house may also take it up in mid october.

live coverage begins on c-span radio end c-span3 at that hour. and, with daily reports it is the first day of the fiscal year, but congress is to last year's business. the senate sent a bill to the from the president that would approve a $4.8 billion 2010 funding bill. it is the first fiscal year 2010 spending bill to be sent to the president. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> "washington journal" continues. host: and has promised, dr. toby cosgrove, who is the president and ceo of the cleveland clinic. he is himself a physician, is arrested and cardiovascular surgeon. he has been president of the clinic since 2004. president obama visited the clinic to learn more about what you do. what was your take away as you

got to move to the questions that he asked? >> he was very intrigued -- guest: he was very intrigued by the model that we use and engaged in learning. host: you have been involved in the debate over health care, and what are your observations s it has been unfolding in washington in the last few months? guest: i see a change in what health care is being called and what is actually trying to do. one of the things that we start one of the things that we start arefy@no carrierringconnect 1200

of health care.ñno carrierringc0

host: we're seeing commercials all the time about putting taxes

on sugary treats and drinks. does that work as a way to change behavior? guest: i cannot tell you, but the studies suggest that it raises money and reduces consumption, and there is little question about the fact that that does work. host: our next question or comment comes from murfreesboro, tennessee. what is your question for dr. cosgrove? caller: i am all for health care reform. i have a medical condition called crones disease, and it is a chronic condition that goes into remission that causes other problems. i just went to the doctor, and to get a prescription to take care of the skin eruptions i get costs $800. i could not get them because i could not afford it. what are the medical providers and health care system going to

do to ease the prescription problem and the cost of prescriptions for americans? hosti think that --guest: i thin that goes to the medicare medicaid policy for prescription drugs, and i think that is clearly when the copays get to be that high, that is a burden for almost everybody. host: this to your rights, -- this is your rights, "a single payer system can be medicare for all -- guest: i think doctors are going to be increasingly pay less. they are going to have to learn to be more efficient to know what they do, and a single payer i think is really off the table in terms of just what president obama said, that is just not going to go there. host: if people could hear from the doctors at the cleveland

clinic and their salary structure, what do they think of doctors? guest: i might just explain to you how the salary structure works. first of all, not all doctors get paid the same amount of money. doctors who get paid a salary for the year -- i as a heart surgeon, it does not matter whether i do three heart operations in a day or two, i take home the same amount of money at the end of the year. but heart surgeons get paid what the rate of heart surgeons is around the country, and pediatricians get paid what pediatricians get paid around the country, and there is a salary scale for academic medical centers, and we pay within that salary scale. so no one is leaving the cleveland clinic because they are not getting paid enough. we have a 4% turnover in our doctors, so it is something that has kept the doctors happy and

focused on doing dr. work, and not trying to drive volume because driving volume is going to help them personally. host: you also talk about grouping people into coordinated specialties. guest: right. we were interested in trying to figure out how we could make hospitals essentially patient- centric that not doctored- centric. most hospitals are organized around department of surgery and medicine, and patients come in saying they have a problem. so we organized it around organ systems. if you have a neurological problem, you go to the neurologic institute. within that is a psychiatrist, neurologist, and neurosurgeon, so all of the specialties are there. in one place, working as a group. similarly, for heart and vascular, there is heart surgeons, cardiologists, the

vascular surgeons, and vascular madison guys all in one place -- and vascular medicine guys all in one place. you have the advantage of, when you are sick, you bring in a multi disciplinary group to your problem. it does not make any difference whether or not you have a catheter or you get a heart operation for your coronary's pick it does not make any financial difference. everybody is simply what is best for the patient. host: stempel statistic about the not simple statistic about the cleveland clinic. 54,000 hospital admissions, 59,000 surgical procedures, and 1700 physicians on staff. obviously you have an economy of scale. how can your lessons be implemented by small institutions? guest: when i joined the cleveland clinic 30 years ago there were only 150 of us, so we

have grown. so irresponsible to start small and grow larger, and we will be over 2000 physicians by the end of the year. i think that it is possible to do these sort of things not just physically but even virtually. we now have the opportunity to collect dust to connect everybody by electronic record, and connecting doctors in a way that they work in a clever fashion. host: here is a local person from ohio who is skeptical about the approach to writing "hasn't the clinic become too big to fail as you have swallowed up community hospitals in northeast ohio? guest: some of the hospitals would not be in existence if they had not been part of our system. we know, for example, some hospitals are running at 25%

deficits and they would not be there had it not been brought into our system. host: kathy, independent line. caller: we have a global epidemic of the obesity, and i think it has to do with diet. they did a study on rats with msg, and to fatten them up, they fed them msg. we have msg in almost all of our foods. can you address that? guest: i do not know anything about msg, but we lead the world in obesity in this country. it is one of those things that has grown disproportionately to the rest of the world right now we are at one-third of the united states that is obese. if you look at projections, 20%,

30%, 50% are obese. we are headed in a bad direction, but we are -- host: this viewer wants to know whether doctors on your staff drinks liquor. guest: i do not know i have not taken a census of our doctors at the hospital and whether they drink or do not drink actually, obesity is a bigger public health problem then is cirrhosis and alcohol, just by national data. guesthost: your on with doctoreo because grove of the cleveland clinic in -- you are on with dr. toby cosgrove of the cleveland

clinic. guestcaller: what is capitalisml about? is it about competition and choice? that is the one question. there are lining their pockets with the present system. the thing is, you know, people should wake up and vote them out of office next time around. the other point is cost. right now the government is spending -- it will cost less on obama -- it will cost so much on obama's plan because all those people are uninsured. why doesn't somebody study great britain and studied their plan. it is the best in the world.

i lived in great britain for 25 years. it is the best system. there are other countries that have better planned than america. so i just wonder, why doesn't somebody study the plan and accept obama's plan? guest: first of all, the public option. it is a plan to have competitions for the insurance companies, and i think that is the main reason the public plan currently being discussed. secondly, cost is a major factor in the united states. i am concerned about this in any way the health bill comes out, it is going to raise the total bill in the united states. finally, i did have the experience, the same as you did. i worked for the national health service in london myself, and,

you know, there are many things to commend the national health service, however i am afraid that the national health service would not work in the united states because i do not think people in the united states would tolerate it. there are long waiting lines, facilities that have been under invested ever since the end of world war ii. i was working in a building that was built almost 100 years previously, and i do not think that you would see much tolerance for that type of care in the united states. host: was the cleveland clinic part of the hospital announcement on medicare payments that was made about six weeks ago, that they would initiate a process in which there would be less in medicare payments? guest: i do not know. host: i wanted to know what the public was getting out of that agreement? explain to people why you are in

washington this week. guest: i am speaking this afternoon at the atlantic, which is having a major meeting of people trying to look at what is going on this year and how it is going to be looked at 25 years from now. host: do you think it is important to do something quickly? guest: i think it is important to do something right, and that we address the situation. regardless of what happens in the legislation in the next year, it is not going to happen quickly. first of all, it has to be interpreted, what the bill means. second, many things are not mandated to come until 2013, 2015, so we're not going to see a sudden change in health care regardless of what happens. and many of them are demonstration projects, so many are there -- many are going to be tried.

i do not think it is going to be a very fast process. host: charles, republican line, from cleveland. guescaller: thank you, dr. cosgrove, your hospital save the mother's life with a procedure a number of years ago. the discussion was around insurance companies making people take a lot of different tests. i do not think it was more than malpractice costs and fear of getting litigated. the other problem of course, i would imagine testing is a profitable part of the cleveland clinic revenue strain. i was wondering if you could comment a little bit on how to get control of unnecessary or deceptive testing. guest: that is a good question. there has been a lot of discussion around what is called defensive medicine, in other words, doing tests to cover

yourself so you do not miss something. if you look at the total cost of health care in the united states, malpractice accounts for 1.5% of the total cost. defensive medicine may be maximum, stretched out, $75 billion a year could be a tribute to that end to extra testing that is not warranted, that is done simply for defensive purposes. that is not the major driver. it certainly is a contributor but not the major driver. we think that we have limited to the amount of an additional testing that is done simply because doctors at the clinic are eager self insured as far as malpractice is concerned, so that is not something that we spend a lot of time thinking about on an individual basis secons.

secondly, we do not have any real reason for enhancement of our incomes to order extra tests. we think most of the incentive is to do additional testing. . caller: i would like to know if

dr. cosgrove would like to talk about gunshot wounds. prevention and his opinion on helping with that and the cost and i would like to let him talk. guest: one of the reasons that the united states does not have a better record in terms of its longevity is because of things like violence and car accidents and near own -- lack of neonatal care. those are things that bring down the life expectancy in the united states. gunshot wounds is a major part of that. we are a very violent country. that is relative to, say, england. this is something that we have to begin to look at. it is a national disgrace, i

think. host: last question for you -- as we move into legislative debate this fall, what is your biggest concern that policymakers could get want? --xd could get along? -- could get along? -- could getwrong? guest: there are many bills and they are not necessarily headed in the right direction. my concern is that we look at this as a onetime fix. that is the biggest mistake we could make. we would go in and fixed payments and bring insurance reform but we will have to come back to it and begin to deal with the delivery reform. we will begin to make our health care more efficient. i don't think that will happen this time in a major way. i think this is a step in getting our healthcare system

reformed in the united states prison. host:sc thank you for being wih us. he is the ceo of the cleveland clinic. we will be right back we will talk to you about the end of the federal fiscal year and how the country stands with the deficit and debt. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2009] >> supreme court week starts sunday with the original documentary "the supreme court, home to america's highest court." >> the real intimacy comes in the relationship between the lawyer who was arguing that the

podium and the court he is arguing to. if you stop to think of it when you go in there, you will see that if one of us lead over the bench as far as we could lean, and the lawyer arguing at the podium leaned toward us, we could almost shaken. that is a very important thing. when the arguments take place, you are physically and psychologically close enough to each other so there is a possibility for real engagement. >> get an insider's view and hear from all the justices about its role, traditions, and history. the supreme court, home to america's highest court premieres sunday at 9:00 p.m. eastern on c-span. for a behind-the-scenes sneak peek, connect to cspan through twitter, facebook, and youtube. >> this saturday, a meeting of

matthew, my son's murder in laramie and the world transformed. the mother of matthew shepard will take your calls live in the studio. sunday, three hours in debt with talk radio host and town hall blogger,tom hewitt. that is live this weekend on c- span 2, book tv. >> "washington journal"continue as -- caller: yesterday was the final day of the federal government's fiscal year. the committee for a responsible federal budget put an end of the report out yesterday. she is on the phone with us to give us some of the numbers that the committee reported about how the federal fiscal year stance. good morning. guest: morning.

host: give us some of the numbers. guest: we added to the national debt $1.65 trillion this year alone and that is way out of the ballpark. it added to with the economic downturn but it is staggering in terms of the debt load that the country is carried. we track all the government involvement in the different areas of the economy and helping with stimulus and that the oil reserves balance sheet. looking at all these things, the fdic has taken over 99 banks this year. many of those you don't see in the newspaper. the federal reserve balance sheet, because the fed has done so much to help with economic recovery as well as what has

gone through congress and the treasury, it has expanded by $663 billion. those are the kind of things that normal taxpayers are aware of that are going on. money does not come from nowhere. there are a lot of liabilities that taxpayers have to realize that are out there. most of this was brought about by the economic downturn. many of these things were important to get on top of. what we don't have is any deficit reduction plan put in place. what we would have liked to see, while we are spending and borrowing this money to help with what -- with the economy, congress is working to figure out when the economy is strong enough, how to put in a plan to pay down this debt. maybe policies kick in four years from now. we have seen none of those.

host: we will open up our phone lines and talk to you about the state of the federal budget and the debt and deficit, recognizing the state of the economy over the past year, how important is the process of beginning to pay down this a debt? what are the pluses and minuses for the comte tree. -- for the country? another statistic released to a tree was a calculation of the deficit as a protest edge of a country's gdp. we talk about that? guest: the deficit as a share of gdp which the overall size of the economy in 2009 was 11.2%. that is an eye-popping number for anybody who follows the deficit numbers you normally see. it is a postwar record. last year, it was 3.2% of gdp. at that time, we thought that was too high because it is higher than the amount that is a

sustainable level of borrowing. you don't want to borrow so much that your interest payments start to grow faster than the economy. if you borrow on your credit card more than your income, you cannot keep up with those payments. 3.2% concerned us. this year, 11.2% is the number is so far from sustainable that it is a warning sign that you have to take action about thinking through what a deficit reduction plan would look like. host: did the gdp growth this year? did actually decline of the past year? guest: the gdp has gone down. it looks like it is now starting to grow. host: that percentage was affected by both directions. the gdp declined and the devil went up. guest: that is a good point.

that happens in cyclical times. it is not what you would expect to see. it is the massive size of that is so sudden. when you look over the year, we think we are in uncharted territory. this is a greater squall them with a picture. -- this is a greater scale than we could have pictured. host: the u.s. national debt is an even worse mess and eventually we will all pay. what does it mean to a country when your ddeficit is at 11.2% of the gdp? what the consequences? guest: we had to borrow to

help the economy grow but if you are borrowing too much, you have a lot of risk you put the economy through. it starts to push up interest rates. interest rates are low at the moment. there is fear about the shape of the global economy and there has been a sense that people want to finance the u.s. economy. we don't turn things around, all the folks who are lending us the money starts to get worried. you are hearing warnings from countries around the world. china has been wagging his finger at the u.s. saying they have to get your fiscal house in order. the markets in china are concerned as are other nations were lending us money. it puts a risk that interest rates will go up. that happens right when the economy starts to recover, that is the kind of thing that chokes off the recovery. if interest rates go up too quickly, that is a real problem. another problem is in the budget

itself that your interest payments start to grow as a share of what your budget is doing. we already have an incredible strain on our budget where we are spending much more than we are actually bringing in in revenues. even outside of economic downturns, we have not been willing to pay for what we spend for it if you spend more money in interest payments, which is what will happen from borrowing more and interest rates go up, you have less money for anything that you want whether it is health care, education, or tax cuts. paying your budget and interest payments is a full party way to go unless you are financing the huge investments that help grow the economy. we have not seen much of that. much of our budget goes to consumption. it is unfair to the next generation of taxpayers. they will get hit with a huge amount of debt that they will have to respect it they are not the ones who spent it. we need to make some plans to

getting control of the out of control debt situation. the bottom line is, we are not saying to balance the budget this rear. -- this year. responsible policy-making comes down to being willing to pay for what you spend for . policy makers have to put partisan differences aside and come up with a reasonable plan to reduce the deficit over the medium term. the need to help free in the fiscal health of the economy as we get stronger. the fiscal component will be a big part of that. host: thank you very much for setting the stage with our discussion for our audience. guest: thank you for having me. host: let me turn it over to you about how concerned you are.

is there a message you would like to send to policy makers about how important this is? let's hear from you. let's begin with a call from saginaw, michigan. this is from the democrats' line. caller: good morning. i wanted to know if she knew the difference between $1,000,000.999999999 dollars. -- $1 million and $1 billion. i could sit here and give you a dollar bill every second for 12 days and that is $1 million. i could sit here and give you a dollar bill every second for 32 years and that is $1 billion. i could sit here and give you a dollar bill every second for 3200 years and that is $1 trillion. there is a whole lot of difference between $1,000,000.999999999 dollars.

-- a new-line1 millionnd -- $1 million and $1 billion. host: next up is texas on the republican line. caller: good morning. every bank in the country that i have ever been in as a sign out front that says their deposits are insured up to $100,000 per account. host: it is now $250,000. caller: i am well aware of that. that brings me to the question of -- the first thing i heard was that it was raised to $250,000. regardless of that, that is more

than 2.5 times the established amount. that seemed a rabbit -- rather profligate. you mentioned that they closed 99 more banks this year. could you tell me why we had to do that? host: i will let your comment stand. the bank closure number by the fdic is 99 but as to the reasons, that is a subject for another program. one writer says it is a huge and growing problem, the deficit. it is diminishing the range of the obama policy future options. next call is knoxville, tenn. on the independent line. caller: i am very concerned about the deficit. i have a couple of ideas that i rwill throw out on comments on

how we can start heading in the right direction. i want to remind everybody that bill clinton balanced the last four budgets in 1997-2000 and handed bush jr. a surplus and we started all these tax cuts and were spending and the deficit ballooned and the economy tanks and now obama has been handed this horrendous situation. that said, i want to give a couple of ideas where we can save money. the first idea would be in afghanistan and iraq. progress was made in iraq through negotiations. we have not really tried negotiations with the taliban. they are tribal and all we talk about is using more force.

that is recruiting more angry people for them. i would recommend to the administration that they try negotiation. that will not be easy but it is worth a try. if we could get a better resolution over there, that would save us billions. my biggest way to save money would be on the health-care debate. we spend more money on health care than any other nation. 75% of our money is spent on cancer, heart attack, stroke, and diabetes. all those are preventable through better diet and lifestyle changes and exercise. that is where the health care debate should be going is to prevention. $1 for prevention saves $5 in health-care costs. host: thank you very much. you are echoing some of the sentiments from dr. cosgrove.

yesterday, the supreme court class photo was taken. this includes the new justice sonia sotomayor. the new session opens next monday. they have decided to hear a case that was part to on the gun rights question. the last weather a guarantee applies beyond the safe -- beyond d.c. this could be a term to watch and there is a list of some of the major cases that have been announced that will be heard during the 2010 term including the u.s. purses stevens witches -- which prohibits pictures of animal torture. there's also a case of separation of church and state.

there is a case of whether it imprisoning two balls of life without parole for other crimes than murder is cruel and unusual punishment. there are more cases. this sunday at 9:00, the supreme court documentary gets under way. it is an 85-minute documentary and we have interviews in their entirety during the week with court watchers and people have argued before the court and 11 living does judges -- a living -- 11 living justices, former and present. caller: there are so many things that are not being done. the gentleman earlier mentioned that the bush administration. he did and the illegal spending

activities ruins the financial system and the government. there is a lack of public out there. you need to start calling your representative in congress. you need to monitor their judgment. you need to call them. you need to put fire under their chairs in congress. they need to do the right thing. i am a federal employee. there are many ways to save money in the federal government. one way is to cut out a lot of the payouts on eeo lawsuit that add up to hundreds of thousands of dollars. the eeo cases have risen within the last eight years tremendously.

due to obama's government efforts, people are beginning to look at no fear as no fear. they are finally taking care of their health. many federal employees are exercising. they are trying to make change. nothing will happen until the public tells congress that they have to do what they are hired to do. they're working for us. they are our public servants. i don't care if you are digging a ditch, you are a federal employe and you are a public servant. you are here to serve what is best for the government. that has been lost in the hierarchy within the federal agencies. they plan their activities and a court date their activities like they are in the private sector.

i recommend that there be more control, not control for negative things, but quality controls to make sure that federal agencies are spending. host: we have to run. thank you for sharing your perspective as a federal employee. we have about seven minutes left until the house of representatives. "i would like to know what the percentage breakdown is on the $1.60 trillion deficit. i think that would tell an interesting story." the next call is from pennsylvania. caller: good to see you today. this whole situation with the last guest who was saying -- we

don't want any more money taken out of our paychecks. they take out for social security, medicare, medicaid. they take all their money out. they need to be talking about transportation funding. are they waiting for another bridge to fall down? they talk about health care and put these doctors on who talk about msg. when msg was exposed and obesity and people get real bad headaches. that's what doctors do. they prescribe drugs. the natural health community is concerned about this. i hope they will call their congressman and support ron paul's hr 2629.

this whole movement -- the last german said there were no mandates. -- the last caller said there were no mandates. host: we have many complex points on the deficit this morning. what are your thoughts on the size of the federal deficit and how important it is to begin to work on the federal debt, overall? independent line, go ahead. caller: the big thing everyone misses with deficit spending is what goes into monetary policy, inflation. the more money that is printed

up or loaning bank's money whether it be a bridge or permanent loans, every time they do this, the value of the dollar versus other currencies goes down. it might temporarily give us advantage where foreigners will buy our products but in the long run it is bad because it discourages people from buying bonds because it is a losing venture. if i buy $100 million in u.s. bonds from the treasury and it goes down in value, the dollar continued to drop, it is not very good and other nations will put pressure on us. it is bad for the nation. every time they print money, it's still money out of your

pocket. taxes go up because of inflation because a lot of these federal programs and taxes have inflation adjustments. the amount of revenue coming in is essentially the same because it is adjusted for inflation. host: another viewer has a similar view. next call is from pittsburgh, democrats line. caller: what the effect as the wars and the taxes we pay for rebuilding germany, japan, and now rebuilding iraq and the wars we have now. what affect is that having on the deficit? since we have turned from an

industrial economy to a service economy, but what -- i think that has a lot to do with the deficit. what happened to our tax money that is going to rebuild countries, other countries? host: next is black mountain, north carolina on the republican line. caller: 24 cspan. when i hear this debate between republicans and democrats, they seem to look at the policies of the other party and say that is the problem rather than understanding that there are two kinds of spending and debt for deficit spending. in my opinion, when you pay for a war vs. bay for another social program that will never end, they should not be considered the same kind of deficit spending.

to translated into simpler terms, if you decide you need to buy a car or a house but you do not have that much money in your bank account, you will go to spend in deficit for that. you will eventually be done