i don't know when it began, but it happened under the clinton administration. i think what may be the -- maybe the general public doesn't understand is that i think maybe 99% to 100% of those shipments go to the north korean military. i just would like your opinion on the current administration, the bush administration, the future administrations in a position to where they can't cut off those shipments because it would be perceived in the international community as being too harsh but yet make the american public aware that we're actually fueling the north koreans' military machine k. i have your comment on that? guest: sure. that is correct. in large part. i think the two countries that i think are most responsible for propping the north carolinians up because it is a failed state -- the north koreans up, because it is a failed state. they don't produce anything besides things -- narcotics and ballistic missiles and w.m.d. that they sell on the market. but china has been i think number one in terms of investment and aid to north korea. south korea has been a

should ministrations was and the clinton administration was prior to that. to me, the real fight about transparency in our administration, the claims of executive privilege, when it was putting the executive congress against the presidency, you don't normally see that when those fights with both parties told congress and the white house. if, i hope, the control of the congress and the presidency come to differ over the next few years, you will see those classes, and you will see the extent to which president obama is committed to transparency. i happen to think there's an enormous value to be able to shield some of your highest -- you are bested 5 not to splash your best advice on the front pages. i don't think many members of congress would want to make public the internal e-mail between them and their staff over whether to vote for a certain bill and what considerations they take in voting for a certain bill. that is the type of non transparency that we were really advocating in the bush should ministration, that if you want the president to get unvarnishe

more transparent than the bush administration was and the clinton administration was prior to that. to make, the real fight is about transparency. the fight was over executive privilege when it was putting congress against the presidency. you do not normally see that when both parties told the congress and the white house. if i hope at some point that the control of the congress and the presidency come to differ over the next two years, i think you are going to see this clashes and that is when you will see whether -- with the extent to which president obama is committed to transparency. i happen to think there is an enormous value with being able to shield some of your highest advise from public scrutiny. if you want the unvarnished honest advice of your visors, you are best off not splashing what advice they give you on to the front pages. i will use a congressional example. i do not think many members of congress would want to have made public the internal e-mail between them and their staff over what to vote on a certain bill and what considerations they take. that is the type o

the 1977 carter administration and the 1993 clinton administration. the reagan movie is a remarkable portrait of the contrast between idealistic realism and idealistic eutopianism. let me remind you. ronald reagan and his idealistic belief in democracy announced firmly that our goal in the cold war was we win and they lose, that our opponents were an evil empire. and 1 years after his administration the soviet union disappeared -- 11 years. jimmy carter who was a sincere idealist was totally out of touch with reality. he lived in a world of fantasies. the result was a catastrophic failure. the clinton erra failures are similar. their passion for mistreating terrorism not as an act of war but as an act of criminal justice, their refusal to accept the threats to america, meant that they couldn't cope with the world trade center in 1993 which was in part plotted by a prison ica prison. -- in attica prison. or deal with the bombing in saudi arabia that they blocked the fbi from going and finding out what happened. they couldn't take charge of the two emba

this power grab was set in motion in the very first days of the clinton administration in 1993. when the clinton administration took over, one of the first actions that the administration was to do was to fire dr. william happener -- happer, a man who dare challenge vice president gore. yes, the doctor believed in science, not in the junk science of radicals, and he was skeptical, although not an advocate of either side in the global warming debate. >> he didn't fit in so out he went -- he didn't fit in so out he went. from there on the pattern was very clear and it's very clear in order to receive even one penny of federal research money, a scientist would have to toe the line on the manmade global warming alarmist theory. any dissident would be quickly cut off from any federal research funding. that went on for eight years. so when approaching this concept of manmade global warming we must examine the science behind it. so let's state right off. the unconscionable intimidation of the science community during the clinton years has ensured that bad science permeates the entire a

just as the bush administration continues the clinton administration's work in 2001, so, too, the obama administration will carry on this fight. it is not a republican and democratic issue, it is an issue of these victims, these people being held in modern slavery. the second thing that the report this year does is our theme is coercion in a time of economic crisis. what we have seen and what secretary clinton pointed out is this notion of global economic crisis is impacting the slavery problem in many different ways. it makes people more vulnerable to the traffickers. they're more likely to have to immigrate for work. they're more likely to take risks they wouldn't have. a woman that thinks she has to travel from moldova to western europe to take a modeling job is less likely to do the due diligence if she needs benefit for her sick parents or get a new roof on the house. so too, the countries that are being hurt by the financial crisis, the nongovernmental organizations that are seeing their endowments or donor base dry up, those are the people that should be helping to rescue the vic

it was the clinton administration over here. he chose to work with the republicans on the hill in an attempt to sideline what he saw as pressure coming from the white house. however when he was here in washington last month, i think he encountered a different reality, after hearing clear statements from the white house regarding some of the activity. he went to capitol hill and was surprised, according to his aides to find out at the hill and the white house they're speaking with one house and can't lean back on supporters in congress to do the work for him on the hill in washington. so i think, having said that, i think he understands now that there is no daylight between congress and white house and he will not be able to use lawmakers to insight any attempts by that administration to free settlements. host: david, on our line for republicans reporting from white lake new york. good morning. caller: good morning, and thank you for c-span. i would like to discuss with you american-jewish voting behavior and how it harms israel.

immediately that was one of the first actions taken when the clinton administration took power. out the door with dr. happer. well, this man, this prominent and very well respected ph.d., his dismissal in that way was a message to the science community. if you want a grant, you tow the line and what followed was, a one-sided drum beat, one-sided promotions, one-sided research grants and one-sided thinking. those were the order of the day for the eight years of the clinton presidency. the media bies, which of course went along with that and played hand in glove, has never let up with that bias. we just had a major conference here in washington with hundreds of prominent individuals, many of whom were great scientists, ph.d.'s and heads of major university science departments, yet that conference which was skeptical of global warming, of man made global warming, didn't get any pub blissity. very, very -- publicity. very, very few news articles came out of this. yet these were very prominent and important people. in this kind of repressive atmosphere where the press doesn't report

back during the clinton administration when the dornan amendment was relaxed, specifically prohibiting any money both directly and indirectly into the district of columbia that was federal money for the purpose of abortions, when that was relaxed, not only did the number of abortions go up, but they used an alternate funding to actually pay for those abortions and that's really the focus of what we're talking about tonight. before i go back through my history of this new administration since taking office in january, i do want to turn it over to my good colleague from minnesota, congresswoman bachmann. mrs. bachmann: i want to thank the gentlelady from ohio, congresswoman schmidt. she's the head of the women's pro-life caucus and she's done such a remarkable job for us. there aren't that many women who are pro-life women here in the united states congress and jean has done a wonderful job taking that effort forward. thank you, jean, for hosting this hour this evening. and i appreciate the honor of being with you and ms. foxx and with my colleagues this evening to be able to address thi

administration. the first lady hillary clinton and that time worked very hard on it. it was something the bush administration was very committed to working on once they came in. the same is true of the obama administration. today's president of the secretary seining information both here and abroad is a marker as far as a continuation of the commitment of the persian ministration to fighting human trafficking in modern slavery but shows continued efforts by in hillary clinton and the obama administration. people like myself 11 federal prosecutors, how we are investigating the cases, we are seeing a lot of positive responses to its. elk we will see an improvement in the coming year as far as the counter trafficking response. there is a notion that because we are in a time of economic crisis, and foreign debt workers a very vulnerable because of the way in which recruitment is done, we see a problem in our presence abroad and in the united states. many are affected by country's seven large programs tha

and the obama administration. that is something that those of us who worked in the field, whether in the state department, people like myself who have been federal prosecutors investigating the cases working with the ngos, that is something we have seen a lot of response to world wide. we will hopefully see an improvement in the coming year as far as the countertrafficking response. 2 things i would like to leave you with, one of which is the notion that because we are in a time of economic crisis, especially workers, foreign guest workers are particularly vulnerable, it is too often done, we see a problem in programs. a number of rankings are affected by countries having large guest worker program is who did not have any safeguards built into them. in the united states in territorial possession, which had its own guest worker, it has been overturned by congress last year ballooning it replicates itself in too many countries around the world which is the notion that the first step the boss has when dealing with la

gr and the department of commerce during the clinton administration. david goode joins the tata sons group in 2005. after a 34 year career at the state department. at state, david was the director of the office of india, nepal, sri lanka and multi-affairs. following a three-year stint as american council judgment in mumbai. arvind panagariya, professor of indian political economy at columbia university. as well as a nonresident senior fellow working institution. he has also worked for the asian development bank, world bank, imf, injuries capacities. he has also published extensively including a recent book i-india, the emerging giant. my colleague claude barfield is a resident scholar here at aei. is the author or editor of a number of books on trade and science policy. and has also served as an advisor to the office of the u.s. trade representative. our format will follow the one of the prior panel. each panelist will present eight to 10 minute remarks. we will then open up the floor for questions. so with that, i will turn the discussion over to susa

he then served in the clinton administration as assistant secretary of state, was unanimously confirmed by the senate, served there from 1998-2001, when he returned to the yale law school, becoming its dean some five years ago. he comes from a very distinguished family. his father was the first korean lawyer to study in the united states. he attended harvard law in 1949. he was then counsel for -- father, that is, for the first korean democratic government. and when a military coup occurred, left that position. he was the first korean to teach at the yale law school in 1969. dean koh has really an extraordinary record. his curriculum vitae fills eight pages of very small print. he has a long list of honorary degrees. he received a number of medals. his list of honors and awards goes on virtually indefinitely. his publications, books and monographs occupy one, two, three, four, five, six and a half pages. his select legal activities, another half page. he can tiewrs that h lectures t, many. teaching activities, voluminous. boards of editors, professional affiliations, presentations, and

in president clinton's administration, his last four budgets were either in balance or in surplus. we want to return to that. we are nearly finished with our energy bill. we will bring it to the floor as soon as it is ready. we are making good progress as well in the house. i am very proud of our three chairman. they are working together in unison to bring that legislation to the floor and make a very significant difference in the lives of the american people. any questions? >> [unintelligible] there is a mixed review. there is some concern. what changes would you like to see in the legislation? >> first of all, i commend the president for his announcement yesterday. it represents real change. barney frank is taking the lead. he was there when the president signed the order yesterday. i spoke with him this morning. we will be meeting with in the next 24 hours to continue the conversation about how we go forward legislatively to employment, if it needs -- to implement, if it needs further assistance. people in our country who are in jeopardy of losing their jobs and losing their hom

in the first year of the clinton administration, we spent an enormous amount of time debating what order in which to attack different problems. long meetings about welfare. for health care, nafta before this. we spend more time fighting over the order in which we were going to approach problems than we did in getting the problems solved. sometimes we out-thought ourselves in this sequencing game to our detriment. both out of necessity and out of a sense that it is possible and in some ways, more effective. the president is attacking these problems simultaneously. we will have success on all of them were majority of them in bringing about change in these areas. >> where do you see the biggest potential, biggest pitfall for stalling in the tremendous agenda he is putting forward? >he had a rough week on health care. >> through all these things, there is a certain quality of perils of pauline. the ominous music playing in the background and finally a happy ending. we will get to a happy ending on health care and energy. regulatory reform also will come out good. these are problems the count

approach for india verses the bush administration or the clinton administration before that. is there a new priority? what would the problems because of those priorities? >> that is a great question. number one, i think now, because of the prominence in capacity and organization of the indian american community, there is the very narrow band with win which the administration would move -- within which the administration would move. you can't ignore india, you have to pay attention, to the great credit of the americans, that is one thing. secondly, the bush administration, the nuclear deal was such a big deal in terms of the amount of effort it took to change the congress and the legal system and the international framework, that is like giving birth to an elephant. i am going to mess up the metaphor because we have a new mother now. to follow up on that, there's not going to be anything that big you can do for a long time. that needs to get sorted out because it hasn't been implemented. there is going to be dismayed that india hasn't passed a liability law to enable u.s. comp

administration, they think a week burned 80 people live and that americans are extremists. they fixate on this minor incident that may or may not have related actions taken by the attorney general. there is some evidence that somebody in that compound set the fire themselves. that was brought up by a few of my friends in the middle east, and here it is in the news. this is the kind of stuff where we need to book movies to get to the middle east. the people in iran are very sophisticated. they're afraid to the united states government will invade and burn the home town. it has been used by propaganda all over the middle east. host: thank you for the call. we also will take your twitter messages here on c-span. later this morning, our discussion with two veteran opinion makers and reporters. for this piece in the outlook section of "the washington post," "quitter in iran." "green flags and a brown shirts," from "the national review." "this is an islamic version of oppression like nazi germany hi. not so powerful, of course, but equally assertive pure " jerry, independent line

lady hillary clinton worked really hard on. it was a bipartisan law with bipartisan facts. it was something that the bush administration was very committed to working on when they came in. the same is true of the obama administration. the cable that the secretary ascending to diplomatic corps is here in the united states, it is a marker as not just a continuation of the commitment of the bush administration to fighting in the trafficking in modern slavery, but in anticipation -- but an intensification of the obama administration. i think it's something that those of us who work in the field whether it is here in the state department, people like myself web and federal prosecutors and investigators working with the ngo's, that is something we're seeing a positive response to. as far as the counter trafficking response, i would like to leave you with two things. one of which is the notion that because we are in a time of economic crisis, guest workers are particularly vulnerable because of the way in which recruitment is often do

in the clinton administration, a post for which he was unanimously confirmed by the senate in 1998. he left government to teach at yale law school and went on to serve as dean until his nomination to serve in the current administration. as a renowned scholar and a leading expert on international law, he has published or co-authored eight books over 150 articles. an throughout his career, dean koh has been a fierce defender of the rule of law and human rights. he understands that the united states benefits as much, if not more than any other country, from an international system of law where we are governed by the rule of law. at the same time his personal commitment to america's security and to the defense of our constitution are indisputable. accusations that his views on international or foreign law would somehow undermine the constitution are simply unjustified, unfounded, completely and totally. as dean koh explained in response to a question from senator lugar, who supports his nomination. he said: my family settled here in part to escape from oppressive law. and it was america

the clinton administration says it's the over ambition of their plan to cause the demise. should obama consider things that shift is system away and look for things like life insurance or the car insurance system. and then the follow-up is what would be costs be of a failed system? guest: i would say a failed system is unacceptable. people are sick and want to stay healthy. this is an essential industry, so to speak. it is a big and complicated one. i do not see it failing. i see it moved back and forth. it will not happen. the first question was -- host: i guess treating the insurance like how we pay for auto insurance. guest: what is brought up in that question is, is there another way to do insurance reform-that conversation has not been held. there is a legitimate concern by the president. we must get these health care costs in line. virtually all that goes to the private insurers or the government insurers. they hold the dollars. we have to look at other models, whether it is through the car industry. we do have some small programs like that. about 5 million people ar

administration, convincing and talking with them about fiscal discipline, to embrace a version of pay go. it is interesting to think about bernanke, -- i actually watched the testimony of congress, and this was not the great depression which was a problem. the fed supported this in the beginning of the crisis. but now they are calling on congress to think about this longer-term. does this put the fed in the position of being more outspoken about the economic functions of washington, with the people who have to pick up the pieces at the other end? >> this is central to the mission of the federal reserve. we have to look at the government's spending and how this position -- how this is positioned for the pathway of sustainable growth. it is the standard fare to talk about the effect of the fiscal programming, so that we understand whether or not more accommodations or less accommodations will be put in place, this is normal. you are talking about over and above -- these kinds of issues. these are not the issues i am embarking on. but the chairman of the federal reserve is a very importa

administration on perhaps driving a wedge between the government and the populist, on one hand, and the los angeles- based -- where would yobroadcasd you draw the line in your response on the ethnic divisions? >> i will not dodge your question by pleading ignorance, but i really don't know what our official broadcasts say to the iranians, whether it's news or more political-oriented analysis. i have no idea what the people in los angeles are doing. one simple thing, we cannot do anything but restrict our freedom of expression. i'm not quite sure whether that freedom of expression can be limited when american citizens decide to address issues in the country of origin or country of special interest. there wili don't think our freef speech could be subject of negotiation with a foreign government unless there is absolutely clear evidence that it is not freedom of expression that is involved but advocacy of some sort of violence, in which case there may be legitimate foreign objections. i imagine that someone or broadcasting to the united states from a country from which we had diplomat

talking with the clinton administration about fiscal discipline. i think it is interesting to see ben bernanke talking about fiscal discipline. that is appropriate within the context of what we were talking about. i watched the testimony to congress. it was not the fiscal stimulus of the great depression that was a problem but it was that it was not big enough. that is what he said. the fiscal stimulus along with monetary -- is causing people to think longer-term. how much more doesn't put the fed in a position of being more outspoken? you are the ones that have to pick up the pieces that the other end of it. >> we have to understand the ramifications of fiscal policy and government spending and how it will affect the workings of the u.s. economy. we have to understand where we are on that trajectory. it is standard fare for us to be paying attention to the confectionary effects of fiscal programs as well as other programs in the international environment. we have to understand it more or less accommodation should be put in place to keep inflation

it developed during the clinton administration. it has largely been abandoned. what we currently have is a very fractured said of disconnected policies that don't really hang together very well. we have something, but we don't pay very much attention to it. >> is it a good thing, in your view? >> absolutely. and particularly of the policy allows enough flexibility for considerable variation. >> excuse me. so, yes, we should have policies that are brought. enough to encompass all acres. there also has to be enough latitude there. >> what are the benefits and the negative signs of fire breaking out in the source? >> sure. the benefits include advantages upset a number of species that evolved in the presence. and foremost because systems in the western united states fire was not prevalent and frequent occurrence. all the species in fire prone systems evolve in the presence of periodically this catastrophe as we like to call it these days. so without a fire they just go extinct at some point. the fire is great if we are interested in maintaining biological diversity

julius genachowski work during the clinton administration. it also includes testimony from robert mcdowell, a republican appointed by president bush. his term expires june 30. this hearing is two hours. >> in welcoming you, i want to set a communications technology is sort of the vibrating, pulsing driver of our nation. it has been let to lapse a bit. for our nation to meet any kind of challenges, no matter what you look at, if communications aren't perfect, between different strata, different parts of the country aren't perfect. we are in lots and lots of trouble if we are not already. because the communication is policy -- because good communications policy will lay the foundation for achievable goals, we need real expertise. that means people who really know what they're talking about. i have said before, being an fcc commissioner is one of the most daunting awesome, fearsome, time consuming, sleep depriving jobs in washington d.c.. and i think it is also one of the most underappreciated. it is one of the very most important. the powers of

administration. this includes the very important condition stating that the treaty is not self-executing. it has no domestic legal effect absent an act of congress. our rules here are that the president can sign a treaty, but it has to be ratified here in the senate before it is executed. and to insist that once this is agreed to by the administration that it become self-acting violates those principles. mr. koh also claims that allegations by those who oppose the treaty due to its promotion of abortion, the legalizeation of prostitution and the abolishment of mothers day are untrue. however, one only needs to look at the policies issued by the committee, the united nations body charged with monitoring country's compliance with their legal obligations under the treaty, to know that mr. koh's claims are untrue. for example, on may 14, 1998, the committee interpreted the treaty to require that all states of mexico should review their legislation so that where necessary women are granted access to rapid

however, these toxic assets were given -- started in the clinton administration. were it managed by the house and senate, both of them seem to be -- seemed to be democrats at the time. even though bush was president he did not seem to know what was going on. some of these democrats were making money in the house by lobbying. a synopsis of the holding -- it was needed, but it seems much too late and may have damaged the economy. host: in some international news of a story concerning the iraqi parliament, planning on voting and national referendum as far as the u.s. security agreement is concerned. under the security plan agreed to buy the two governments last year, american combat troops must withdraw from the cities by the end of this month. passage was contingent on approval of several other measures including legislation requiring a referendum on the agreement. if the iraqi people vote down a secret pact, the american military would have to withdraw as early as this summer. good morning to our caller. caller: i agree that bush and obama have freak out and pushed

i served in the clinton administration as assistant chairman and vice-chairman of the joint chiefs of staff. this is not administration pacific -- specific, the government is not perfect organized to bring all power to bear on our problem. the one element of power that is more resources, that will do exactly what the president and commander-in-chief says to do is the department of defense and the military. the other departments are not as well -- in terms of either money or manpower. so less able to focus these instruments, some of which diplomacy rests primarily with the state department. we are not organized. if somebody said who is in charge of the global war on terror? you might say the president. but the president can't be in charge. somebody cabinet rank is in charge and below him is hard to put a finger on it. he is responsible, has the authority and hold accountable. we are not perfect, we haven't been for a long time. national security act of 1947, perfectly organized for recent experience, we are perfectly organized. those conflicts are not the security challenges we face. >

proposals were exactly contrary to the deregulatory rage that was then being carried forward by the clinton administration under the leadership of those who obama has now called upon to put band-aids on the disaster that they helped create. in substantial measure, the food crisis plaguing much of the south and the financial crisis of the north have common roots, name namely, the shift toward neoliberalism since the 1970s. that brought to an end the post-war, post-second world war system that was instituted by the united states and britain. i had two architects written, and they anticipated that its core principles, which included capital controls and regulated currencies -- they anticipated that these principles would lead to relatively balanced, economic growth and would also free governments to institute the social democratic programs, welfare state programs, that had enormous public support around the world. and to a large extent they were vindicated on both counts. in fact, many economists called the years that followed, until the 1970s, the golden age of capitalism. that golden age led

administration -- tli

there was vigorous debate in the clinton administration led partly by larry summers about over-the-counter derivatives. the people who argued for more regulation ended up losing. after the crisis we have been through a think everyone on wall street understands we are in a new era and we are looking at a whole new set of rules. that is exactly what they will get. in terms of the stock market, what they are looking there -- the focus now is on other issues like the prospect for recovery. when will the fed started raising interest rates again? the fact that there will be more regulation is a given at this time. host: what is the current health of the credit markets in your opinion? does this new approach by the president deal with executive compensation? guest: there have been signs of improvement in the health of the credit markets. they are watching spreads, the relationship of interest rates, like the rent on a junk bond or mortgages. you see them tightening which shows you that investors are becoming less risk-adverse. rates are coming down. that is a good sign. they are no clear back to

if we press rewind and go back a decade and a half to when the clinton administration was struggling to enact fundamental healthcare reform, we find that the effort was driven largely by what i would call a moral imperative. how could the richest nation in the world leave 40 million people, which was the number at the time, uninsured? and many more millions fearful that they would lose their access to affordable health insurance and access to care if they lost their job or they found themselves sick? especially, in a weak economy which prevailed during those years. of course, financial issues were important back then. but the fiscal challenged really been dealt with through the deficit reduction act of 1993, which was signed into law august 10th of 1993. that piece of legislation raised individual and corporate tax rates and the gas tax and eliminated the tax cap on h.i. payroll taxes and extended the discretionary spending caps and it subjected more of social security to the income tax. supposedly this sort of put the nation on a good path with respect to the deficit, and the order

during the clinton administration justice breyer was perceived to be the runner up and when the next vacancy arose me got it. so there's a precedent for rauner up getting it. but there are a few qualifications. one is that you never know what the political environment will be. you can imagine a situation where years down the road the political dynamic have shifted, and that might effect people the president thought he could confirm. the other variable is whose vacancy he's filling. >> i think the sotomayor nomination is less controversial than it would be because the appointment is to fill sooter's seat. certainly you can imagine a circumstance where justice tomps resigns and the president was filling that spot he might see a different reaction. the appointment would have much greater balance to the court. i think subject to political qualification and the actually vacancy president obama would be filling, we'll see what happens, but i would start with the short list as the pre sumptive short list. thank you for your hospitality. >> up next secretary of state clinton talks about hond

administration's health care plan. this is just over an hour. >> the house will come to order. it's my privilege to introduce dr. nancy h. neilsen, president of the american medical association. [applause] >> thank you. thank you. see, i've watched the president, he goes thank you, thank you, and you sit down. good morning,ern. it's a great, great honor and privilege for us to welcome back home to chicago the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] the president will be coming in in just a second. just a couple of words to him. mr. president, we appreciate that you've taken the time out of a busy schedule to join us and we're grateful for your efforts to make the path toward health system reform as open and inclusive as possible and in particular that we have been included in those efforts. you have said that a test of the american ideal is whether we allow ourselves to be shaped by events and history or whether we act to shape them. america's physicians want to help shape a better future for our patie

then the clinton administration and president bush, who proposed tax breaks to encourage the uninsured to buy coverage. todd is on the phone from lanthorn, pennsylvania. asking you the question, are you satisfied with your current health care coverage? what do you say to that, todd? todd, good morning. are you with us? caller: this is pat. host: where are you phoning from? caller: i am phone from california. i am not really satisfied with my health care. i do have a plan through my job, but i did have an illness and i have to pay a lot of money out of pocket. it took me a while to pay for it, but about six years ago i was laid off at 52. i needed to see a doctor, and i did not have any insurance, i paid insurance all my life. and i think that made my situation worse. so, no, i am not satisfied with my health care plan. host: david drucker has a front- page story, "healthcare storm clouds near. as health care reform takes shape in the house and senate and shows signs of veering decided the left, business lobbyists are considering joining the republican allies and putting the brakes on o

administration, convincing and talking with them about fiscal discipline and having them embrace a version that worked better until we have surpluses. i think it is interesting to finally see ben bernanke finally talking about fiscal discipline, which seems appropriate within the context of what we are talking about. i watched the testimony in congress, and he said it was not a fiscal stimulus and the great depression was the problem. he said it was not big enough. the fed supported, as you noted, the fiscal stimulus, along with monetary stimulus in the beginning of the crisis, but is now calling on congress to think longer-term. thhow much more does it put the fed in a position to be more outspoken in perhaps the economic functions of washington at this stage of the game when you are the ones who have to deal with picking up pieces at the other end? >> the part of that that is central to the federal reserve is to understand the ramifications of fiscal policy and government spending and how it affects the workings of the u.s. economy and how that position as well or not so well the path of

foundage broadcast into iran from the clinton administration to allegedly drive a wedge between the government and the populace on one hand and the los angeles based broadcast as well? could this in any way be a game breaker, game changer if the iranians said we want both of those stopped as well because we don't do that to you and we are trying to to discuss and of diplomatic debates on equal footing. >> you know i am not acquainted dodged the question by pleading ignorance, but i have to plead and gardens. i really don't know the outfits do. i don't know what our official broadcasts say whether they are news or politically oriented analyses or recommendations and i have no idea what the people in l.a. are doing. there is one simple point however, we cannot do anything that restricts our freedom of expression. and i am not quite sure whether that freedom of expression can be limited when american citizens decide to address the issues in the country of origin or country of special-interest. i think there would be a serious problem. so i don't think our freedom of speech can be subject of negot

the supreme court has been involved in this before in the early clinton administration the f.d.a. tried to put in some more curbs on smoking and cigarette products. the supreme court said congress would have to give them that authority. which now appears to be happening. but we have to be clear about what the bill does do and doesn't do. and what this bill doesn't do is ban cigarettes or tobacco products or these new smokeless products. it is giving the f.d.a. new regulatory authority over these products in order to be able to inspect manufacturing facilities, over the warning on the package. and there will be warnings on the front and back. it gives them power over marketing claims. but this does not ban cigarettes or any other tobacco product. people can still buy them. host: the "new york times" says that tobacco will be -- mentsdzle will be studied. guest: mentsdzle is a really controversial issue. it bans a lot of other flavoring in tobacco products, but it did not outright ban men thol. it did give the f.d.a. that power to look and they're going to have a new advisory commit