tv Washington Journal CSPAN November 30, 2009 7:00am-10:00am EST
host: wipha joined this morning by david mark. good morning and thank you for being with us. bring us up to speed. what happened over the weekend? guest: we have had about one week off since the last push over health care debates and a rare saturday night session in the u.s. senate that brought the health care bill up for a vote in the first place. it was not clear until the closing hours to live there would be enough support in the first place. but it did pass. host: they write about the tight rope that needs to be walked today by harry reid. "harry reid will attempt to do something that has eluded him all year, negotiate a compromise on the public insurance option
and win over a public still leery of reform. -- reform." what is his mission leading up to christmas break? guest: his challenge is to cobble together those 60 votes into some sort of public option. this is what democrats really want. this is their ideological goal, to have some kind of government finance health care system. right now there does not appear to be that number of votes for some kind of public option. but that is what the back room dealing appears to be about. host: what about the republicans? guest: to block the bill or offer as many amendments as possible to push the bill into 2010, or at the very least
force vulnerable democrats to vote on controversial issues. one of many controversial action said democrats would prefer to avoid. host: "democrats can short circuit the debate by voting cloture on the bill. when asked if he thought the debate would end, ben nelson said when there are 60 votes." how crucial is the public option and where do we have to go on that? guest: it depends on the senators that you talk to. some of the more conservative democrats are simply opposed to the public option. i interviewed a freshman right after the vote. he essentially said that the public option is something that
he is going to look at, but it is not crucial. you have some of the senators on the left of the spectrum, bernie sanders from vermont, cheryl braun, suggesting they might actually vote against the bill if it does not have a public option. host: "usa today close " profiled senators seen as key in that debate -- usa today" profiled senators seen as key in the debate. they talked about senator lincoln, senator mary landrieu. guest: those are certainly some of the more prominent that are very skeptical, if not outright opposed. blanche lincoln said that she would vote to bring it up for a bit -- for debate, but that she
was opposed to a public option. mary landrieu is somewhat similar. she held out for funding for her state. interestingly, there is one republican senator that appears to be in play. olympia snowe, who has suggested that she was open to a public option if it includes some kind of trigger, insurance rates not going down by a certain amount over a certain amount of time. host: you mentioned the senator from alaska. other items on his wish list, what are some of the other things that we might see? abortion funding, what else might come this way? guest: one measure has been pushed by republicans that would allow americans to purchase
insurance across state lines. a free-market approach that senators think have a lot of merit. they want to make sure there are no significant cuts to medicare services at rural hospitals within his state, alaska. with each senator you have these broad national and parochial concerns. it is a balancing act for the leadership to push something through. host: mitch mcconnell was described as the tortoise. what will his role be? guest: the minority leader from kentucky is pretty open about his role, which is to block the health care bill. he has attempted to do that, got pretty close in blocking it for coming up for a vote. at the very least he wants to slow this down.
not just senator mcconnell, but also senator tom coburn. he has suggested that he might force the entire bill to be read or specific amendments to be read aloud. orrin hatch of utah wants to introduce language similar to the restrictions on the house side of the capital. republicans have some leverage where they could peel off a democrat on just one vote. host: do you have any idea which are supporting which amendment? guest: some of the republican ideas are enjoyed on the republican -- democratic side. it really depends on how many votes each amendment brings with it. if democrats can get away without considering any republican amendments.
they will be happy to. if they need to take it, they will do that as well. host: let's take a look at the senate yesterday. >> we really should concentrate on the congress, the war, the overall strategy of our country, the cost of it, and we should be ahead of it. we might wish to break out. we might wish to discuss higher taxes. but we are not going to do that debating health care for three weeks. the war is terribly important. jobs in our economy are terribly important. i would suggest that we put aside the health-care debate until next year and talk now about the essentials. war and the money.
host: of course other things are on the agenda in the senate. what is the prospect of getting anything else done? guest: his sentiment about postponing health care considerations as pretty wide support. not just among some republicans. even a few democrats are suggesting this approach. there is a situation in afghanistan, paying for the ballooning deficit, the jobless situation in the economy. this is an argument that could pick up steam and health-care negotiations get bogged down into 2010. host: let's go to the phones. larry is calling on the independent line. caller: good morning. host: what are your thoughts on health care this week?
caller: first, thank you to your staff for bringing the voice of the people to the forefront. you do a really good job there. i think that with health care we should get what congress is allowed through their health care program. they work for us, do they not? health care for all. whether it is through a public option -- i think we need to get the insurance companies out of health care. we are paying so much for premiums, they have all gone up in the last few years. your co pay and everything else is just mounting of words. we are behind other
industrialized nations when it comes to health care and what we provide to our citizens. host: leery brought up the point of whether or not americans would be -- larry brought up the point of whether or not americans would be covered under the program that the congress has. guest: this is an amendment that tom colburn wants to offer if he is allowed to. that would essentially force members of congress into the public option that they are considering for the rest of the country. this has been tried in various forms on the house side. it is a populist measure that at the very least puts the senators on record that they want a different system for the american people than we want for ourselves. host: robert, good morning. caller: good morning.
i have humana and it is far superior to medicare. i do not even deal with medicare. you should also announce that "politico" is a left-leaning group. it is not fair for you to put them out there as unbiased. host: what do you want to see happen this week with the health care debate? guest: essentially there is a push by democrats to allow, in their rhetoric, american citizens to keep the coverage that they have if they want. this has been a talking point of democrats, reassuring people that if they like the coverage they have now they would not have to give it up. host: taking a look at the other things going on this week,
questions about what will happen with afghanistan, the president is making a big speech tomorrow night at afghanistan -- west point. there is a story from "the wall street journal" about the decisions on the back of the president. "rohm emmanuel added the iranian nuclear program to this week's agenda. in an interview he contended that on each front they were on better positions than when they began. moving towards imposing sanctions, moving forward on health care bill. this is a historic week within a historic year. -- year." democratic line, california.
caller: good morning. i want to talk about this idea that insurance companies are pushing through, that they should be allowed to sell their insurance policy across state lines. remember what happened when banks were allowed to sell credit cards across state lines? they set up shops in states that had the most permissive anti usury laws. finance charges went through the roof, which is why you get your credit card statement from delaware or south dakota. if insurance companies have their way, well, you have heard how bad money drives out the good. thank you, c-span. i will talk to you later.
caller: -- host: our next caller, go ahead. the morning, go ahead. angie? caller: sorry, i did not know it was me. thank you for c-span. first of all, i agree with everyone who is stomping on the public option. hello? host: go ahead. caller: the public option is the one thing that america can do for its citizens. once you pay your premium, that premium is gone. if you do not pay the premium next time for any reason, you are out of luck. the only thing that america can do for its citizens is to make sure that whenever they cannot pay the premium for any reason,
there is one other fact. a war is not more pressing than the health of americans. we are at war because 3000 americans were killed on 9/11. not to take anything away from those events, but health care kills more people in america than anything else. thank you. host: let's take a look at comments that bernie sanders made yesterday. he was talking with george stephanopoulos. >> will you support a filibuster if the public option is not included? >> let me say this -- the reason i am a strong supporter of and enhance public option are twofold. one, the american people do not trust private insurance companies. they understand that the function of a private insurance
company is not to provide health care, it is to make as much money as possible. if we are going to control health-care costs, we need strong containment. one way that you control costs is by providing real competition to the private insurance companies by allowing as many people as possible to be in a strong public option. without a public option you will not have a cost containment that you need. host: david, how significant is that? how much interference can be given? guest: part of what he said is that he might not be supportive of the final bill. that is different from supporting a big republican filibuster. he did not really make a declaration either way.
as a member of the democratic party, were he to filibuster his own party's bill, that would be a big step. i do not know that it will necessarily go that way, not with senator sanders. host: paul, good morning. caller: thank you so much. it is nice to be talking to someone from "politico." i think of "politico" as reasonably independent, unlike the other caller. i have a question that is technical and i hope it does not bog you down too much. we have heard talk of the possibility, as has been done on other issues in the republican congress, of bringing the bill through by reconciliation rather than having to go to 60 votes as
the constitution calls for. cloture. what, exactly, does it mean to bring a bill through under the process of reconciliation? just a reminder, it would not only be sanders -- he is an independent, like joe lieberman, who already said that he would filibuster. it would not be extraordinary for bernie sanders to take that position. guest: an excellent point. something that the senate democrats have not really wanted to talk about publicly very much, essentially the nuclear option for the senate. something that is used rarely, although it has been done,
reconciliation, the maneuver was used to push through the bush tax cuts in 2001, as well as a few other measures, essentially eliminating the filibuster. it would mean that there would only be a majority. 61 senators voting in favor of pushing it through. a couple of types of legislation are immune from filibuster, like budget bills. there are technical problems with trying to push through a health care bill for budget reasons. there are a lot of technicalities involved. they may have to divide the legislation into several parts, and it is not clear that the public option would make it through. for technical reasons it would be very difficult for democrats to do this sort of thing. host: why not do it? guest: it would essentially but
said the senate, saying to republicans that filibusters do not matter, supermajority does not matter. if the democrats are in the minority again and they set this precedent on meaningful legislation passage, they will have to live under the same rules down the line. host: alabama, good morning. caller: thank you for taking my call. i wanted to ask a question and i wanted to have a statement. my statement is i remember that i was watching a show in my class and you know the health care and everything -- sorry for
going off --. host: that is okay. go ahead. caller: what i am saying is that we had a thing where they were showing people with health care and different things. this one lady had signed up with blue cross/blue shield. she went on a trip that the company could not cover. when she got back she got a note saying she was rejected. my question is, how can stuff like this be prevented in the future? god bless c-span and thank you for taking my call. guest: the senate bill, as currently stands, would prohibit insurance companies from not covering pre-existing
conditions, if you know about a certain analysts', the customer cannot be blocked. we will see how far that goes. many health insurance lobbyists are working on this. we will have to look at the final language to see if it stays in and what, exactly, will be prohibited from being covered. host: "the version that passes through the house and the version in the senate, in the house bill all americans overseas and with religious objections would be required to have health insurance to buy 2013 or face a 2.5% income-tax surcharge. under the senate bill that would be fined by 2014 by an
increasing increments. for businesses, companies under the house bill would be required to provide insurance or face a fine. under the senate bill that would be a charge per employee. -- employee." david mark, take us through what those numbers mean. how does this play out and have our businesses feeling about this? guest: this kind of provision proposal was included back in the early 1990's under the clinton health-care plan compelling private citizens and companies to carry health care insurance for themselves or
their employees. health-care companies have actually come around on this idea, because the cost of the uninsured has gone up so much it has hurt the overall system. i am not sure that this provision is a deal breaker. there are esoteric arguments against compulsory health insurance for americans. if this kind of provision becomes a lot, it will be fascinating to see how far they would get. host: abortion in the house bill would prohibit women from having an abortion covered by a private plan or the proposed government- run plan. "the senate bill would allow the abortion to be covered by the private plan." put that into plain language for us. how is the senate bill different?
guest: the house bill would move it beyond the current laws into the hyde amendment, prohibiting the receiving of abortion services. the critics describe the house that passed the amendment would prohibit insurance plans from covering abortion at all. a debatable point, but that is how it has been portrayed. some senators are planning to offer language similar to the house, which would tighten up abortion restrictions. we can fully expect to see this as a flash point over the next few weeks. host: david, from pittsburgh, pennsylvania. good morning. caller: i have not been able to get in since last february.
please allow me just three quick points. i am a 60-year-old uncompensated vietnam veteran. i have multiple problems with my body that might stem from agent orange. i had a hernia, a liver disease, bone spurs, arthritis, and it goes on and on. this is complicated by my blood pressure. i do not have medical coverage and the va will love process might claim. what good would it do me to ask congress to switch their debate on medical coverage to jobs if i am too sick to go get a job? that is number one. no. 2 is this, i adopted a
phrase from rep homes, the tea party minority, a rush limbaugh entity initiative, is only a cover to hold back progress with medical care until they take back the senate. that is all they want to do, take back the senate. like sheep we are being led astray by the republicans. my third point, let's take the money from tarp funds that they guzzled from us and give it back to us on the ground, here on main street, in the form of stimulus checks, like the republicans did before they left office. we need money. thank you very much. host: next caller, kenneth, from
cincinnati. caller: congratulations for all the good work at c-span. two points. with regard to compulsory enrollment, without some form of progress a public option, it seems to me that this would create a windfall for the insurance companies under those components of the legislation, as they are closely linked. without that option we would eventually be delivering an entire new consumer base to the insurance companies. the second point, as a small- business owner that has gone into the marketplace to recruit talent, i know firsthand what it is for small businesses to not have affordable health insurance. it places small businesses at a
competitive disadvantage to recruit talented, because people and families are looking for that kind of care. to the extent that small businesses and micro-businesses cannot have access to it affordable health care insurance for their employees, it does stimulate through the economy and the creation of jobs. this separation of health care from the economy is a false scenario, a red herring. from a small business standpoint they are clearly linked and will create jobs. i wanted to make those points. host: any response? guest: particularly on the first point, that is something we are hearing a lot from the more liberal members of congress. i was interviewing a congresswoman from california,
co-chair of the house progressive caucus, saying that without a robust public option, as she puts it, just by tweaking the insurance companies, you are giving them 30 million new customers and just adding to the role without forcing them to change practices. this could prove to be a big headache for house leadership, both in the senate and in the house. it appears to the voters that the insurance customers -- insurance companies are being given new customers without receiving any restrictions. host: the white house memo, looking at what is going on -- "vital test for obama on mandate for change. congressional hearings on the war will open on capitol hill. health care debate is going to resume, the testing the ability
of the congress and the white house to multitask." we are taking your calls on health care in what you are expecting happen this week, what you are hoping to see. afghanistan, part of the plan this week, "the new york times" reports a potential time frame for winding down involvement. "the president is expected to make the announcement this week according to senior administration officials. an anonymous official said that the president wants to give a clear sense that there is a time frame for action and that the war will wind down. the official would not disclose the time frame, but said that it would not be as firm as the withdrawal from iraq, where mr. obama has committed to withdrawing all forces by 2011.
looking at afghanistan, more than troops, there is an emphasis on skills over numbers. looking not only at the forces and their number, but what they will be doing. jim michaels says it involves more than extra forces, the focus on troop levels misses the point. military commanders will choose which units to sent to afghanistan based on their skills. there is no magic number. quality is more important than quantity. -- quantity." we are also looking at the atlantic web site today. they talk about a last-minute
meaning of afghanistan. "president obama conveyed a last-minute -- convened a last- minute meeting for strategy in afghanistan. it included cabinet officials, including the defense secretary and robert gates. no one has been given a background briefing, suggesting that the meeting was akin to a pregame rally meeting, attempting to get everyone on the same page before his tuesday speech." we will look to see what happens next with that. back to the phones, pete is calling from michigan on the republican line. caller: i would like to make three points. i worked in health insurance
industry for 17 years. my wife was in the health-care industry. for some reason the politicians in the press stopped differentiating between health insurance and health care. the bullet on c-span is that they are talking about health care, but they are talking about health insurance. the high cost of health insurance is directly related to the high cost of health care. it is confusing enough for laypeople. i listen to these confused callers all of the time. i do not know if you can pinpoint when they started calling health care health insurance -- if you have a problem with your car, you do not go to your car insurance place, you go to your mechanic.
these programs that we already have are approaching $45 trillion. we have $45 trillion of unfunded promises that no one is doing a dating thing about. now they are trying to make more giveaway programs. it is just maddening. in the past 20 years, in the insurance industry i saw many large insurers get out of the business completely because there was no profit to be made. looking at the current companies that are left, the profit margin is very low. the problem is the ridiculous cost of health care. a hospital that michelle obama work that, paying her $300,000 to be a marketing person? give me a break. guest: the caller has touched on something that concerns many
americans, differentiating between the insurance aspect and the actual coverage. it is an important distinction, because that is how most people come into contact with the health-care system. unless you are a person of significant means and you go to the hospital, have an operation, and you can just write a check. otherwise you are dealing with insurance companies. even the most ardent supporters of a government-run plan acknowledge that it is not politically feasible. bernie sanders just said that in a clip a few moments ago. for the time being we are going to be talking a lot about the insurance aspects of health care. host: when did we conflagration those terms? did that come from congress? guest: it really goes back a
century, theodore roosevelt was the first president to propose some kind of comprehensive health care program for all americans. it has certainly been a big issue since the clinton administration. in two dozen a president obama made it essential aspect of his campaign, tying it into the fiscal situation. on the campaign trail he never actually favored a certain type of health care plan, he stressed bringing down costs and making health care more accessible and affordable, leaving a lot of room for debate. host: vivian, good morning. caller: i was calling to say that with at the war's going on in afghanistan and iraq, they
should be spending and on all americans. people are out of jobs. what can they do other than go to the emergency room? the right situation is to bring those folks home and use the money so that people can get their own health care. people are dying. host: this is richard on the independent line. good morning, richard? gloria? this morning, gloria. you are on the show. caller: but i am calling about today, in 2005 the legislators in the state of california, as always, debated the health issue. i had an episode with my
sister, she needed a hip replacement and she was denied state compensation with an on- the-job injury. she was told she has to wait until medicare kicks in. she had to be injured for two years. when it finally kicked in she was told by her doctor that now you have to have the surgery, get this taken care of. prior to that, she was offered the surgery for free by the surgeon, he felt so sorry, but the hospital wanted $25,000 in cash. then they backed down to $15,000. when she went on medicare, her doctor had to build $250 because she was on medicare. prior to that he took $50.
taxpayers are on the hook for quite a bit of money because of a cross section. it seems to me that once we get involved in the insurance with the government's, because the people that have to process the paper, they have to be paid to do this. it costs the taxpayers money. host: what is your response to that? are there concerns from republicans about bloated costs that the government is more involved? guest -- guest: this is one of the main arguments from the republicans, that backing this government program would create an entirely new and inefficient bureaucracy. the caller was describing
problems that her family had had with a government run health care. suggesting that these government-backed programs would crowd out private insurers, meaning fewer insurers in the marketplace, driving up costs for everyone. a debatable point against the heart of whether or not to have a public option. the caller has touched upon a report in part of the debate -- an important part of the debate. host: let's listen to senator evan bayh from over the weekend. >> congress in the past, as you know, has not always lived up to its commitments. we need an enforcement mechanism to make sure that the future congress will have the backbone to put these into place. we have not gotten a score from the cbo yet, what does this do
for cost? we do not want to drive up the costs for people already have insurance. i will be looking carefully at what the bean counters have to say. >> if you do not get the changes that you want, are you prepared to be the one democrat the brakes with your party and kill health care reform? >> i am hoping for a good bill. guest: there you have a fairly moderate report -- moderate democrat making some of the arguments that republicans have been making. he questioned the cost and whether a government-backed program would raise premiums for everyone. he also mentioned the overall financial situation and the growing of the deficit. this has a lot of people on both sides of the aisle concerned.
the country is facing a debt, a war in afghanistan, other measures, and can the country afford a new entitlement program right now? host: republicans have requested an analysis that will come out this week -- "one part of the debate is the expected release from the cbo. senate offices were notified last week that a report would be expected it this week. how significant is this -- this week." have significant is this? guest: we are going to hear a lot about it from the republicans. if the congressional budget office essentially says that the plan is cost neutral or will reduce the deficit, it will be the democrats who talk about it.
i think that the democrats are girding themselves for bad news on that front. there are university studies to bolster their claims that their plan would bring down health care premiums. something that we always see with this plan when the official government agencies have their proposals, whoever is on the short end of that is going to downplay it. host: richard, good morning. calling from maryland. caller: hello. my observations on health care issue have evolved from what i thought was a sensible discussion to the point where it seems like neither party really wants to pass the bill, and they are doing everything that they can to make it fail. the other issue is with
president obama. his decision to hold off on deciding whether or not to send troops to afghanistan, it seems that his timing to do that on tuesday is such that he can hopefully maybe, for one reason, hold the congress politically in his grasp in order to have a card to deal with, but to mention passing health care bill or some version of it. it could also probably be that maybe he might even be convinced that the health bill will not be that much good, he
might set afghanistan as a priority over the health care bill. i would appreciate your comments on that. thank you. host: is there any brokering going on? looking at the troop levels in afghanistan and what make -- what might make republicans happy? guest of -- guess what it is interesting, republican lawmakers are the biggest supporters of president obama's sending of more troops to afghanistan. democrats are much more skeptical. the big piece of leverage that democratic lawmakers have over the president is that they control the purse strings. they have the appropriations. they decide how much money, if any, will be doled out. we have seen house leaders, including the committee chairman, suggesting that there
will love be more money for afghanistan, not without significant cuts. a tough political fight, we will see some strange alliances on the health care plan and afghanistan. host: debra, cincinnati. caller: thank you for c-span. the simple question i have, our everyday citizens entitled to health care? -- are the everyday citizens entitled to health care? i had emergency surgery. i lost a job due to time off work. i lost insurance. i could not afford the bills after i lost my job. that led to me having to have a hit on my credit report. it seems that many people are
now in favor of employers checking credit reports in order to get a job. are we entitled to get ourselves out of poverty? it seemed like a double-edged sword. you cannot have health care and you cannot get a job. it does not seem fair to deny the single payer system, which i wholeheartedly support. what i do not like our people like john maynard, who receive money from the health-care industry, basically being a cheerleader against people like me. so, lobbyists have the upper hand and i do not like that.
host: "even if the house bill passes soon, the wait for reform could be long. many things will not kick in for a while." issues like those brought up by the last caller. insurance companies could continue to charge higher premiums based on medical history and other reforms, "taking effect in 2010, permitting significant exceptions. there is no power holding the insurance company accountable. the executive director of the iowa citizens action network said that it is toothless." are people talking about how quickly this would actually go into effect and how much teeth it would have? guest: this is a big political
concern for democrats and there has been talk of moving up the provisions. the concern from democrats is that they will get the worst of all word -- worlds. they delay implementation until 2013 or 2014, yet taxes are raised and the republicans start complaining immediately. this is a concern amongst democrats. there is reason for concern. we have seen this in the credit- card industry, where regulations were put in place to start in 2010, and during the interim time lots of rates were raised and negative aspects came into place for a lot of people. we see what happens when these delays occur. host: westminster, california. good morning.
go ahead. caller: what i have to say is that the single payer public option would work only if the insurance companies, with their credit default swaps and all of that, the only people that are paying are the people that are struggling just to pay their bills. it is ridiculous. that is all that i have to say. host: mel, independent line. calling from new york state. guest: have any journalists actually check to see how many states of the 52 in which blue cross, blue shield, tied to medicare companies, they are all
combined in many ways. i know, i have worked for hospitals and other places. also, young lady, why do you only show the fox statement from that particular senator? thank you for your reply. guest: i could honestly not from -- reflect on the provision referred to by the collar. many of these states have their own health insurance companies. she raises a good point that they are often cross-invested with each other. host: thank you for your comments. we pulled clips from abc, cnn, and fox news this morning. david, good morning. caller: i have no health insurance, i cannot get it, it
is far too expensive for the high deductible. one comment, one question. i cannot afford nothing and i hurt as bad as you can get. every time it comes to small people in the united states they say they do not have enough money. now they are going to allocate 40,000 more troops with $50 billion of cost? the money is catching fire from flying out of the treasury so quickly. why can we not help our own people? the people that pay the taxes? this is a waste, these men dying for stupidity. host: how closely are the american people starting to link
health care legislation with the war in afghanistan? guest: a good question. something that the liberal members are starting to ask about, they are going after this point more precisely, suggesting that the money made in afghanistan, the more made the better. it is a longstanding argument going back to vietnam and even before. i am not sure that there is that much of a direct linkage in the minds of many people. many people still see the afghanistan situation as a response to 9/11, even if it has not been handled particularly well. host: another david is calling, this one is a republican from st. petersburg, florida. caller: the message that needs to be delivered to the senate is
that the bill needs to be killed and they need to go back to the drawing board. if we simply put all of the money into the hands of government and corporations and somehow trust them, the message is that we will somehow get something better. sadly, each analysis of each bill has shown that health insurance costs are going to go up. barack obama and congress do not solve the problem, they make insurance more expensive. the young and healthy will be paying even more for health insurance. i am a doctor from st. petersburg, florida. they get right into the middle of the doctor patient relationship. i will be penalized if i go over budget, they will tell me that i spent too much money on my patient, even though the patient needed it.
what needs that happen is we need to stop this madness and kill these bills. we need to let these senators know that you not only oppose it, but that you will work to defeat them in the next election. host: howard, independent line. good morning. takoma. go right ahead. caller: the entire cotton ticking thing is that these people are without reasoning or anything. all that you have to do, there are 36 other countries with health care. all they have to do is choose the one that works the best and go with it. they have got 2000 pages? nothing has been done about the health care we have now. everyone is trying to figure out what to do next and it is simple. you have 36 different countries with health care, they are doing
great, paying out half of the money that we pay out. the cotton taking thing is ridiculous. they cannot make up their mind on what health care system to use, they need to be done with the darn thing. host: let's go to mark on the democratic line from eureka, california. caller: good morning. my name is eureka -- my name is mark from eureka, california. we have a clinic appeared. -- up here. i cannot get no health care coverage. well, i cannot get good health care coverage in sentences go.
they will not form out anything of feup here unless you need soe kind of a emergency done. personally, i am really happy i am a veteran and that i serve my country, but i still think that single payer health care is the way to go. there are many other countries with better systems and we have. this is just making us poorer and pooer. i see people and it is terrible. thank you. host: any final thoughts? guest: just that it will truly be an open debate over the next few weeks and we could be on
weekends, saturday night, sunday night's, all of the way up to the holidays. as we have been discussing, there are several democratic senators to watch in the middle. i think that there are a couple of others besides mary landrieu and blanche lincoln. mark baggage from alaska, not necessarily ready to vote against the public option, but not ready to vote for it either. the pressure will be on these senators. host: thank you so much for being with us this morning. guest: my pleasure. thank you. . .
says that the country's decision to build 10 new uranium enrichment facilities is necessary after the international atomic energy agency passed a resolution friday demanding iran halt all in richmond activities. the cabinet meeting yesterday, headed by the president of the country, ahmadinejad, approved the plan. the u.s. and allies fear the myths -- facilities can produce nuclear-weapons materials. more on the couple that this city attended last week's state dinner uninvited. republican peter king said the security lapse that allowed a book couple into the white house is unforgivable and must be corrected. head of the house panel that
under -- overseas the secret service, saying we cannot show this type of weakness to terrorists and psychopaths. heat is joining other senators and calling for an investigation of the incident. the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> today, and look at the obama administration's h i v and aids policy. we will hear from secretary of state you'll recall and and health and human services secretary kathleen sibelius, live at 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span -- sebelius. later a free-lance journalist talk about his detainment after the disputed iranian president election. live at 4:00 p.m. eastern. >> on this vote, the yeas are 60 and the nays are 39, 3 fifth of the senators billy chosen and sworn of voting in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to. >> with that vote, the senate
moves its health-care bill to the floor. starting today and through december follow the entire debate and how the bill will affect access to medical care, the public option, taxes, abortion, and medicare, live on our companion network, c-span2, the only network that brings you the senate gavel-to-gavel. >> "washington journal" continues. host: captain john prater is president of airline pilots association international. you are testifying before congress. sellas your message. guest: get the faa reauthorization done. it includes language directing them to update the federal aviation regulations on pilot fatigue. it is the number-one issue before airline pilots today. host: talk to us about pilot fatigue. what would you like to see changed hands -- as far as regulations are things back and help pilots.
guest: a set of regulations that recognize the difficulties of different types of flying. let us start with regional or commuter flying, where the pilot can do eight, nine, 10 legs a day. that needs to be put in restricted duty day so that you can do the landings but not have the 16-hour day. that means the pilot could be making his are heard last landing after being up 18, 19, 20 hours and then only get eight hours in a hotel. let us talk about the long-range flying to europe and asia, crossing eight, 10, even 12 time zones. that requires a different system. we have advocated for a matrix that looks at that and provides pilots with enough rest before, during, and after the trips so they don't have to ever go to work and be in a fatigued state. host: why should that come from the federal government as opposed to regulations the industry it imposes on itself?
guest: the industry is not strong enough to impose regulations on itself. now, there is a responsibility both on pilots and operators, the airlines themselves, but there must be a strong underlying set of federal regulations that govern how we operate airplanes, how we operate our -- scheduling systems. host: talk about pilot pay. sometimes it is surprising how little they make even flying busy schedules. are they paid for the time they're in the air, and what would you like to see happen? guest: most of the pace systems are governed by the air. as if you paid a relief pitcher by the piece -- pitch. roughly our pay is somewhere between 55 or 85 hours a day a month. that is billable hours. it doesn't include the training time, we are not paid for what we are preparing for flights, doing what grounds. the pay has been a casualty of
not only the economy but the war itself. following 9/11 this industry changed. unfortunately we went through bankruptcy's at almost all the major characters. those who did not go through bankruptcies were put under the cost concessions -- wages were cut by 30% to 40%. tensions were lost and then the airlines began to outsource of applying to what they call regional carriers. these regional carriers used to be commuter carriers, flying nine to 19 passengers. now these men and women are flying 50, 70, 90 seats jets and copilots earning as little as $17,000 to 18,000 a year -- gone and the families of the 20 days a month. we have a huge job to correct that. host: the plane crash in buffalo, the fatal crash, there was concern how much rest of the pilot and co-pilot got heading into that. a story and "usa today" look at
could -- concerns on the cold and air flight, how much rest they got into it. one of the copilot's had to identify an overnight before the flight. the pilot may be didn't got -- get a lot of sleep. did you see that as a factor in that crash? guest: i don't think it is as large an issue that has been made out of it. of course we look at every detail of the incident or accident trying to find out where the mistake came from, how do we prevent it. that is our duty. in this case, the fact that a first officer shaw had flown across the country, she could have actually flown that flight across the country all night, been offered during the day and flown that same flight that evening to buffalo. it is a problem but it is a problem we cannot look at in isolation. that is why we are looking at the new set of regulations which i believe is going to see
happen. we have been pushing on the government for over 25 years, the last three years very intensively. it has backstop and some of the legislation that unfortunately the senate is sitting on, and i believe the faa is going to get it done this year. host: let us talk about recent flight, the pilots oversight -- overshot the destination and now we are looking at what may have caused that. the recognition of perhaps they had fallen asleep but now it looks like they were on their laptops? guest: let me preface this, alpa is full member of the national transportation safety board investigation, so therefore i cannot comment directly because as full party status they must be the one to speak about it. but let me speak about it in general, the job of flying airplanes. unfortunately, we understand high-profile incidents make the news. but i think we overlook of the fact that there are 70,000 flights just over north america today being flown by air line
pilots. 70 percent of those are alpa members. we strive every day to deliver safe product. every day on every flight pilots make hundreds of decisions. if those decisions are correct, you don't read about them. you get to your destination and you did not even know. airplanes are mechanical machines. guess what? they break. pilots handle those things. let us talk about when there is an incident or distraction or when pilots make mistakes. what we have developed over the last decade or so are programs called aviation safety action programs. as professionals, what do we do? we don't hide the fact that we made a mistake. we tell our company, which tell the faa -- would tell the authorities and each other so we can identify the mistake. that is the height of being a professional. one who can admit, i'm a human being, and made a mistake, how
can i help iran someone else from making that same error. host: laptops, are the tools that could be used in airplanes? there were concerns about the regulations. guest: laptops are being integrated into the cockpit. basically what all the same type of communication devices that are on a cell phone. we get text messages in the cockpit from the company, the modernization of aircraft -- air-traffic control will come over as text messages. we are already using this over the atlantic. computers themselves, there is a role for them. they detected integrated in a safe manner. they just can't be seen to take away or distract from the job of flying the airplane. host: robert calling on the democrats' line from cincinnati. guest: is that a union that he is in there? -- caller: is that a union?
guest: the largest pilots' union in the world. caller: how long have you been airline pilot? airlines guest: pilot for 32 years and pilot -- airline -- caller: when ronald reagan busted the unions -- guest: i was on strike for continental airlines. i live in those days of the strike, one that was determined to be illegal and we have also seen what happened since, that the profession has recovered. they are represented and have become a strong union in their own right. this country moves forward by recognizing its mistakes, just like my profession does. host: arlene of the democrats' line. good morning.
caller: my statement is physicians have different agencies that report on them as far as safety. and the mistakes that they make, so that the public can be informed about what doctor they are seeing and what kind of medicine. because airline pilots are responsible for so many lives in 1 second, but there is no agency reporting any plan and flight, and the customer can look up that pilot and find out of the one to travel with them. if they had some problems, maybe we choose not to apply what that guy. we can do that with doctors. what makes these guys so different? guest: let me try to explain it in this way. we are the most tested professional world.
we receive at least three check rides a year, two medical every year, we received constant monitoring and we fly with each other. there is always at least two of us in the cockpit. as a profession, if we recognize it efficiency, we address it. maybe my first officer recognizes something going on with me. maybe i'm fighting something. he will come to me. we have trained each other to rely on each other. but guess what? our family's flight in the back of these airplanes as well. so i can guarantee you we take very seriously. but we also go through so much training, so much observation by management pilots, check pilots, faa inspectors that you can get on the airplane with a great deal of confidence that each of the pilots has passed all the required faa check rides. host: mark on independent line
from silver spring. go right ahead. caller: how are you doing? guest: excellent. caller: i'm live in the right now. you guys get paid more money, a tremendous response ability. is it your fault some of the airplane' have doppler systems that detect wind shear? guest: the radar will show areas of wind shear. the doppler has been used but doppler is mostly ground-based. denver comes to mind. they use a doppler system to detect wind shear across the airport. but that equipment is very heavy and we don't have that as standard machine equipment on the airplanes. host: on independent line, and neil from pontiac, michigan.
caller: the qrs-11 chip implanted and some of the boeing aircraft. say that somebody had sabotaged the gyro chip, is impossible to hide graf -- hi jack and aircraft on the ground through a computer system, the meridian satellite? the you know anything about that? guest: i read what is out there on the internet. in fact it is an issue of art is a look at, but to debunk some of the concerns that are out there. fbi, cia, all of agencies have been made aware of allegations. at this point it is more than allegation that a reality. host: republican line.
matt from jim thorpe, pa.. caller: i have a question and wanted to make a quick comments. you were saying that the pilots make $70,000 a year to start. well, you can blame -- $17,000 a year to start. you can blame president reagan busting the unions appeared the other question i have for you, sir, and please forgive me for my ignorance. did you guys and support the pilots carrying firearms? on the plane? guest: our federal flight deck officer program run by homeland security and csa has been an outstanding success. while i am not about to say any certainty how many airline pilots there are, i can guarantee you that many of the
airlines in this country are being protected by airline pilots will have been certified and carrying a weapon to defend the cockpit. i can guarantee you there are over five figures worth of airline pilots in this country armed and ready to defend their cockpits and we fully support that program. host: richmond, virginia. calling on the democrat line. caller: hi, capt., how were you? my question is, do you feel that the increased flight security members after 9/11 had hindered fliers so much that it becomes overly cumbersome for them to actually go to the destination? guest: certainly the hassle factor of the first couple of years of tsa was very disturbing and i think it drove some be back into their cars and back into the trains are canceled their trips.
but i have noticed over the last year or 18 months that it has become quite a bit better. the airport i have been flying out of, waiting has been anywhere from five minutes to 6 minutes, and i noticed the professionalism of the officers who are doing the searching. i think it is just a matter of experience. if you have not flown for a while, i think you will find it is much better. certainly it can always been disproved. we would like to knock down the hassle factor but in the end we guarantee the safety and security of the system, and that is part of the process. host: "the wall street journal" today, faa rejects boeing 777 ice warnings.
what is your reaction? guest: it is a rare occurrence, but once in awhile, injuns fail. double engine failure like the triple 7 in london or the airbus that landed in the hudson, which is a very, very rare event. but pilots, again, are trained to do everything depended engines restarted, flying the airplane the whole time. this specific case -- machines are not perfect. pilots are taught procedures on how to deal with those type of events. in this case, the fix is we add power when we are at a high altitudes, cold altitudes, to try to prevent icing in the fuel line. that is a temporary condition. certainly we are advocating as quickly as possible that any of the suspect parts be replaced, but in the interim, we can do the procedure is not necessary
to keep those flights save. host: let us go to philadelphia, pennsylvania, where john as calling on the independent line. caller: good morning. if pilots -- special commercial pilots are allowed to fly 1000 a year, correct? guest: correct. caller: i was curious, does the long provided up, you have a program and then some in the hours on and off? guest: glad to in some of that. the current rules are approximately 1000 hours per year, calendar year, about 30 hours to 32 hours depending on airplane or type per week and about 100 hours per month. we are required to keep a logbook showing our times from the time the airplane first move until the time the airplane stops. what we are looking for is much tighter control of how long the
duty days a month -- may be pared earlier i said some of the duty days are 16 hours and that actually show up at the airport. that is how we keep track of the law books, computer programs and airlines required to monitor key to the flight times as well. host: the caller from louisiana. al is a retired air traffic controller. caller: good morning. captain, the morning to you. nice to see you and c-span. national -- i was in naca obviously, and we were interested in getting the faa bill through. it was delayed for quite some time. and i know what went on with the bankruptcy is an act -- and the way they paid with their pay a few years back. i wonder in what you think about that. we had a similar spirit but the
impose work rules. guest: it is an unfortunate fact that on 9/11, 8 + years ago, war was declared on our country. at that time, our government and our companies declared war on airline labor contracts. they used bankruptcy to take away over 30 or 40 years board of collective bargaining. they took away pension plans. and they took away something more. in some cases, some of our work rules that were actually increased on the federal regulation -- aviation regulations. we had an pro-gun the maximum duty days. that was taken away during bankruptcy. for the last couple of years we have been trying to negotiate some of those things back. you don't lose 25 years of pension and make it up over night. you don't get back a 30% to 40%
pay cut overnight. we are working on it, but i tell you morale and our profession has been very low for all of those reasons. we are going to want to work with the congress to change the bankruptcy laws. labor contracts should not be thrown away that easily. pension plans should not be thrown away that easily. they are actually taking a huge swipe at being a professional called an airline pilot. host: cameron on the republican line from seattle. caller: good morning, an good morning to your guest. i want to comment on the union thing. it sounds like a good thing at face value, but if you tear it down you think people expecting pensions -- for instance, gm, guys work for eight years and then they are entitled to $80,000 after eight years of working for a company. for instance, the state pensions nationally are 272 trillion
dollars in debt. i think the unions, which i equate to the bolsheviks these days, are a problem. my question, do you comment on how the unions have bled the vampire host here in seattle -- some to -- have gone on strike 18 times in six years and bawling through in the towel, moving to south carolina and the union is so good, what now for all of your union thugs? any comment on that? guest: i would not comment on union of, sir, but i would tell you right now you would not be as safe on the back of an airplane if it were not for this union. we fight against people only want to make money and said, no, we want it safely. we were formed in 1931 and almost 60% of the founders lost their lives. our members pay a huge amount of
do so we can make airline flying safer. that is what unions do for you. you may have a different take, but you know what, i think if you work for 30 years you ought to have a right to a decent pension plan, i think it ought to have a right to a decent collectively bargained health care. those are things the unions have brought to you, sir, whether you know it or not. host: talk about the differences between regional carriers and major airlines in terms of the hours pilots work and their lifestyles and also how they are compensated. guest: right now the regional industry is undergoing a large change. most are controlled by one of the large named airlines. either they owned them or control them. regional airlines are not airlines. they are airplanes, pilots, some flight attendants and mechanics and the operate as a subsidiary. a contractor to the major airline to put its name a side
of it. caylee have with the contract calls for one of the name-brand airlines. the regional airlines grew tremendously after 9/11. the airline industry itself tried to protect its home turf but try to reduce the number of seats in the market, so it went to smaller airplanes. at the same time, they subcontracted, we call an outsourced, from the main line to the regional carriers. we are starting to see a little bit of reduction in that our reenah beard but the rate in -- in that arena. of the regional airlines, unfortunately too many carriers act like it is a training ground for the next job. airline pilot for 50-seater, 90- seater, is not a training ground that is why we are growing for h.r. 3371, airline safety bill, we are moebius senate will act
on this. this will increase the amount of training airline pilots have been for the ever fly you or your family. host: walter on the independent line. gulf breeze, florida. caller: however you this morning? i am a retired crewmember. i have been out for about 15 years. i was wondering with this new bill they are talking about, but 24/7 role -- the 24/7 rule, that crewmembers have to have 24 at the home base. guest: sir, that is one of the things that is being looked at. the fda -- f a a will release an of this year or early next year a note of proposed rulemaking. at this point they completed aviation rule making committee and they are writing the rules but we have not seen it yet. we have advocated for certainly more time, more recuperative
rest time at home than just 24 hours every seven days. but again, more of the complex matrix. but we believe those rest periods have to be protected and certainly expanded in this case. host: is the stronger regulations regarding the number of hours pilots work and fast turnaround? is there concern about reduction in pay? they are paid by air time. guest: it is something we will probably have to address. but we expect the pay hours will be roughly the same as they are today. i think certain operations may reduce some of their monthly flying. one of the things we're asking for is there are a lot of different types of flying. while we were talking mostly about airline passenger flying -- major's and regionals -- there is a huge section of the industry flying cargo, scheduled
cargo, on schedule, flying through the department of defense. right now i guarantee you probably on approach to afghanistan, approach to iraq, flying our troops in and hopefully bringing them home. those are the things that we do. what we ask the government, what we are going to demand is that one size fits all. one set of regulations. it doesn't matter whether i have 300 passengers behind me or 30 tons of cargo, i am still a human being, still an airline pilot and they need to be treated in that same manner under those regulations. host: thank you so much for being here this morning. capt. john prater, president of airline pilots association international. up next we'll talk to national journal correspondent gene harris and we will hear about cyber and wars.
>> today on c-span, a look at the obama administration's hiv and aids policy. we will hear from secretary of state lyrically and health and human services secretary kathleen's a bilious. that is live at 2:30 p.m. eastern here on c-span. it freelance journalist talks about his detainment in an iranian prison following his reporting on the disputed iranian presidential election, live at 4:00 p.m. eastern. regulating the internet, one of the topics tonight with meredith attwell baker, the newest
republican commissioner at the federal communications commission on "the communicators" on c-span2. >> american icons, three original documentaries on c-span now available in dvd, a unique journey through the iconic homes of the three branches of american government. see the exquisite detail of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices, go beyond the velvet ropes of public tours, and to the rarely seen spaces in the white house. america's most famous home. and explore the history, art, and architecture of the capital, one of america's most symbolic structures. a three-disk to bbb said, $24.95 plus shipping and handling -- three-disc dvd set. >> "washington journal" continues. host: i joined by shane harris, correspondent with the national journal.
your november 14, 20009 cover story. what is a cyber war? we can imagine, but what is it really? guest: imagines that of a conventional war that would take place on the battlefield or the air or sea, what you are talking about and the context of cyber war would be two nations, or a group on behalf of nations, battling it out over the network, cyberspace, trying to assert dominance over computer systems were using their computers to attack the network for critical infrastructure like electricity, power plants. duking it out of line to try to have real world consequence. host: talk about how it was used during the iraq war. guest: it started essentially in may of 2007 when the surge was just fighting to ramp up in iraq and the major troop surge, we are all familiar with.
the director of national intelligence, mike mcconnell, former director of the national security agency, the largest intelligence agency, had a meeting with president bush and white house where he asked authorization for the president to use what he called information warfare against insurgents in iraq and the war fighters who were scoring dramatic victories with the improvised explosive devices. the key here is manning were using cell phones and computers to coordinate and plan their attacks and in many cases have been posting video of the attacks did internet which they could use as a recruitment vehicle, which has a demoralizing fact, i think even at home as well. what he wanted to do is get the president's fourth organization that allowed his old agency to launch what is called a computer network attack on the devices being used by those insurgents and a fighter groups in iraq. according people i talked to about this, including people in the room when he made the request, and allow our intelligence agencies to get
inside the system and have given them the capabilities of the when some important things, tracking people using them, locating them, and potentially sending false and formation under the guise of posing as one of their own which could have led them into harm's way or into the sites of our troops with some people did tell me in fact occurred. host: you wrote former officials and knowledge the computer attack, all of them requesting anonymity be on techniques, saying it helped turn the tide of the war. even more than the thousands of additional ground troops but was ordered to iraq, the credit the cyber attacks with allowing military planners to track and kill some of the most influential insurgents. the cyber intelligence augmented inflation coming in from aerial drones as well as expanding network of human spies. guest: one of the more extraordinary things about this particular attack. it did have the effect of being able to give more what the military and intelligence community it said was actionable intelligence.
when you augmented it with the information coming in from the drums with a better human intelligence, that the military commanders in the theater were getting, it's sort of combined to create -- it sort of combined to create a real-time situational awareness. people like talked to said this is something that really was not held at the time i think partly because it was classified in nature but and therefore -- there few did a lot turning the tide. remember, a lot of these networks of and surgeons and born fighters so vexing u.s. forces were dependent on his communication or but -- networks. if you could compromise that it created a serious strategic advantage we could exploit and apparently we did. host: cyber warriors already deployed of around the world and like other our arenas the u.s. does not have been made and the damage that can be inflicted is so great that restraint is the
first rule. tell us where the u.s. stance in terms of being competitive? guest: people say it is a three- way tie for first. there are really three nations that have the capability and xbox -- expertise to be a formidable and credible force and the cyber war context. united states, china, and russia. none of the countries are admitting secrets about how they are pursuing cyber warfare as part of the legitimate strategy for component part. the reason we are falling behind is because cyberspace is a battlefield that could easily be contested. there are no borders to it, but armies are not deployed at that are in land and sea and air. not -- much more difficult if not impossible to control that space the way you would a terrestrial space. i think all three of those nations, and others, have seen how critically important this is going to be to military strategy, both because military
communications depend upon cyber, civilian, and if you could really cripple a nation's ability to see and to communicate, it is an extraordinary strategic advantage. we have known that for centuries in warfare. we know the internet, the web is so integrated in everything that i think a lot of nations estimations it would be foolish not to pursue this as a strategy. but obviously clearly the u.s. is out there leading that charge and we have used the techniques before but we have not gone as far as some nations have in warfare, and i think clearly there is no guarantee we will take the lead in that space, either. host: restraint. talk about some of the danger. and give as examples you mentioned about when it could of been used. there was a recognition it could essentially go out of control. host: in the spring -- guest: in the spring of to thous and three military leaders look at using cyber attacks to knock
out or cripple the banking system in iraq. the idea was if you could disable financial networks that saddam hussein and ed ba'ath party would find it difficult to move around the lead the country, like freezing assets. the reason why it was called off was because when you launch a computer network attack or a cent to do something like release a computer virus, something people are more familiar with, there is always a risk that it may affect one system, but when you are trying to target, but it could quickly extend to the network to affect other systems you did not mean to target. in this case the planners determine the networks that controlled the banking system in iraq were connected to networks that controlled banking systems in france as well and that the risk was deemed too great. that if you attack the banking system in iraq -- iraq you could of a spillover or collateral damage to an allied country. that is always a big risk living
in the background when planners are talking about and all outside attack, is how can you guarantee you gun-control its effects and how can you know it will not get out of control and potentially harm an ally or come back at you. why the u.n. does military in particular has shown a lot of restraint and hesitation deploying these things without really a lot of clear thinking into what the effect is you want to achieve and without giving high level authorization. in the case of 2007 in iraq, that authorization came from the present itself. host: dennis on the independent line from massachusetts. caller: thank you for having me on. i am truly baffled about this cyber attack that happened here in the united states. there was an electronic ron on the bank. -- run of the bank. u.s. treasury, september 11,
2008, the morning of september 11, 2008, there was a run on our treasury and record amounts of money was withdrawn from the treasury and by the afternoon the united states economy was going to come to its knees if this electronic system did not kick in and prevent more withdrawals appeared -- with the dr. oz. no one is saying this and the new media but this is backed up by ben bernanke, timothy geithner -- they will not say september 11, but they all said that this run of the treasury happened the morning of september 11. our nation was attacked. this is two attacks. one in the first year of the last presidency and one in the last year of the last presidency, both on september 11. the media has not reported what
happened. guest: sorry i don't have the specifics what you are referring to. i will say as a general matter, the issue you are raising, the potential for a cyber attack on the nation's financial system is quite real and i think treasury officials and intelligence officials taken very seriously. an interesting anecdote that kind of illustrates that that goes to some of the people you were mentioning in positions of authority at the time. in the may, 2007, meeting, when mike mcconnell got present a bus -- bush to sign off to do his that attack -- cyber attack and iraq, he made a point how dangerous is cyber attacks on our financial system could be, and the analogy was if the 9/11 terrorists, rather than hijacking airplanes and crashing them into buildings and the financial system in new york, if they had gained access to a major bank and financials institution and corrupted the
data so they could not do business, that the economic consequences of that cyber attack would have been greater than the economic consequences of the actual attack which we all know where rather severe. the president seemed a little incredulous and agile return to henry paulson, treasury secretary of the time, and said it is true, and henry paulson said it was any said in his former role as ceo of goldman sachs, a major financial institution, his number one security fairwood bay that someone does exactly what mitch mcconnell describes -- mcconnell described, which could lead to the very scenario talked about. we saw in the financial crisis when banks were deemed by the market as being potentially on solvent and holding these toxic acids, that people were interested in withdrawing money from the banks. host: we are talking about cyber wars. related to a recent story he did
this month in "national journal." you can give us a call -- we are also on line and you confined us at twitter @ c- spanwj, or e-mail us at firstname.lastname@example.org. over four for july, as. -- cyber attacks hit websites. was this a trial run? >> it is unclear precisely what the nature of these attacks were, but sort of the teller -- telling aspect was the presumption -- because these were attacks on u.s. website and sites in south korea, what is potentially from north korea? north koreans have been pretty vocal, as the chinese, that they have been interested in pursuing
cyber wars. what made me a little skeptical about this is that north korea doesn't really have much internet the nativity, much less electricity in some cases, so it leads to some questions on how they were able to do something like this. but i think the key underlying fact, what people suspected north koreans, and no one could be absolutely sure and certainly not with enough certainty that we could at formulative response. when this is one of the deviling aspects of the cyber war, is an ability to have attribution -- knowing precisely. if someone launches a missile at the united states they will know what the missile comes from an they concede that the satellite. not the same thing with a cyber attack. it makes responding to a difficult and legally problematic as well. host: massachusetts. democrat 9. caller: two questions.
i cannot concerned as much about cyber attacks, but what would happen in general terms of the chinese not doubt our satellites? the ethics -- i heard you say america's military decided to launch a cyber attacks but only after they examine the consequences -- not to our enemies, but we just did not want to ruffle the feathers of the french. if we would decided to do it to someone, why wouldn't we expect someone to decide do it to us? that kind of thing. guest: you get -- you get on a good point. the question is why should someone do it to us -- and is going back to then.
it has -- where people see nations not using restraint, two key examples of the past few years, the cyber attacks launched against estonia after a dispute that estonia was having with officials in russia over the soviet-era war memorial. that was a very large attack that knocked the government off line for a while. that was a chip it to russia, there has been no proof. and russia is believed to have used cyber warfare techniques in advance of their conventional invasion of georgia a few years ago. i think when that happened, probably a lot of people in the military and intelligence committee or asking questions you just raised. presumably operating under the principle of restraint, is anyone going to be bold enough -- something reckless enough -- to try this. what happens -- when it happened and estonia and russia,
i think people in the military got the answer. i did not think it made the question clear of when we would strike. i think this is the question of ethics. that may be a fairly decent way of looking at the question -- when a case by case basis, what is the effect going to be, what exactly going to do? obviously in 2003 we decided not to do an attack on the banking system. in 2007, things changed and will look after a different target. the military has the capability to decide to strike first but it is always case by case. i think the united states will be continually reluctant to use the kind of large-scale attack that has been attributed to russia, and the cases of hostility and aggression. the question of the chinese knocking out satellite, it is an interesting question. about two years ago, and interviewed the official, head of counter intelligence of the government and ask what would
constitute an act of cyber war in the united states. he says there may be some debate about whether or not the cyber attacks, and network attack qualifies as an act of war but knocking out the satellite would more clearly be in the room of an act of war. how people make this the tip -- distinctions can be an arcane matter. but clearly there is this lingering question about what is a cyber attacks, what constitutes cyber war. that question has not been answered at all yet. host: a comment from twitter. guest: this has been a real hot issue lately. i am sure your listeners and viewers saw the open " 60 minutes" piece the tubing the cause of two black out in brazil in the recent past -- as attributing the cause of two black outs in brazil in recent past to it. president obama has said cyber
intruders have done that. there is debate of how much damage they have caused. i think this is really the hottest of hot button issues. protecting the power grid. the grid, are many parts, are run by control systems that go by the acronym skada, devices that are kind of the brain or pension in modules that tell the power grids -- this is very good for the power industry because you can run power systems very efficiently over the network. the problem if those devices are sitting on a network the of all the people will try to commandeer them and it is believed it happened in brazil. i think going forward in interest -- the interest of congress is seen potentially much tighter regulation on the security standards and the power industry. representatives from rhode island has been publicly condemning the power companies for not being honest with congress about the steps they
are taking or supposed to take to try to shore up the security in their all systems. i think over the next few years are so we thought were thinking that was a focus -- which is sectors you tried to protect first. there is a difference between the very inconvenient and hassle you or i experienced getting viruses and spam on computers versus somebody being able to commandeer a power grid or a piece of critical infrastructure. i think people in homeland security and government looking to what to protect first, you go to those areas and protect them first. host: marshall on the republican line. caller: i have a question, because i forwarded some material to mr. harris maybe a year or so ago or earlier in the year. the president-elect, when he was and how what a, was subjected to these massive black out, this was in oahu, and supposedly both
generators were struck. i arrived on the island after the electricity had kicked back on. i was curious if you track anything down relating to that because it seems to me in a lightning would not really strike in two places because they had two generators in the oahu. guest: i have not been able to attract anything down about that so i cannot comment on that this morning. what i can say in terms of cyber attacks and then president-elect and now president obama, and this is public record, is his campaign site was packed, as was the mccain campaign. so he has had some firsthand experience with this. i think that is one of the reasons why you have seen president obama so keen on developing a more comprehensive national cyber security strategy. people in washington have been waiting for several months to name a "sibears art," a official
who will be a coordinating -- " cyber czar." but he has elevated this to a level in public discussion as no one. president bush in the last two years has certainly made it more of an issue of urgent policy, most was classified at the time. but both deserve credit, if you are looking at someone to point to, who says this is a leader understands -- the severity of the problem. they seem to have grasped it more than their predecessors have. but what may or may not have happened in hawaii, i just don't know. host: state organs, beach, florida. john on the independent line. caller: the scenario where the person was in bush's office talking about an attack on an individual bank. having worked in the banking
industry, every bank i worked for always had a backup plan for their data and the back of offsite should there be a problem. so i don't think that is really a problem. i would be very surprised if the federal reserve did not have a similar back up plan b, plan c, plan b as well. i don't think there is that much to worry about what the banks, is there? guest: i have heard many people reporting on cyber security, that the financial sector is probably the best protected of any of the critical infrastructure. you point out the issue of back up databases and redundant systems. it while i think it is probably the case, don't you think that if the treasury secretary and former ceo of goldman sachs were so afraid of this is that they raised the issue personally to the president, that there might in fact be some vulnerabilities in the financial system that can't be compensated for. i am not saying it is completely believable or not
well protected -- i am sure it is quite well protected. if you have been a victim of online fraud you could see how your bank can recover your animation and did you back to normal. but it is a real concern and i don't think people like paulson are not informed about the security redundancies of the banks. host: you write in a section -- general and alexander was asked what the united states need a cyber equivalent to the monroe doctrine. guest: many people believe he will become the new commanding officer of sideburn command, the defense department's latest response of, what will we do with all the components and the military services -- cyber war and cyber defense policy. alexander has really been at the forefront and he has been
quietly at the same time in the background. he is not much in front of the camera type of person. but he was asked a pretty pointed question. condi we need some kind of -- whether treaty, principal or doctrine -- that spells out how we operate in the space and what constitutes warfare. host: the republican line. louisville, ky. caller: i would ask about a fourth of july cyber attacks attributed to north korea. it's a sovereign government is doing a sovereign attack on us, at what point does it become an act of war? guest: is a great question and i think it is one people are wrestling with right now. looking over it in the past few months in a focused way, i think question comes down to, one, first of what can you attribute
it to the nation who did the attack. it really was the north koreans, how do we know that and how we make the case publicly? if we are going to take presumably military action, we will have to offer up to the international community or at least the american public some explanation of how we know the north koreans did it or any nation. host: you have written he can use computers all over the world. guest: and could be based in brazil make it look like it came from north korea. that is a huge issue. let us just say you could if she did with near certainty where the attack came from -- i think you would have to look at what was the damage done. i believe if a foreign nation took out a power grid in the united states, having most people in the military, and i dare say, the president himself, given what he said in the past, would consider it an act of war.
the unprovoked attack against a major critical and the structure that would affect civilians. to say nothing of the fact that we would be at war. the question is how you respond. there is debate whether you respond with a cyber attack or with a conventional attack question of there is a lot of merit to both. you might solve the problem more swiftly with one or the other. but there is really no easy answer. it goes back to the issue of not being able to -- you with absolute certainty where the attack came from and that is what made cyber were very different from conventional warfare. host: sarah from arizona on the democrats' line. gcaller: i have listened minutes times to the special order speeches by roscoe bartlett, a representative. he seems to be motion -- one of
the most vocal regarding the power grid, cyber war and communication and the satellites. he talks about the tax, which my question is today. he said russia has already said if we mess with them and any of these sort of ways that they threatened with an emp attack that would wipe out all of the things that you are talking about this morning and all communications would stop. i would really be interested in your view on that, thank you. guest: emp is electromagnetic pulse. it is not something i have looked at specifically in the realm of cyber, because then i think your talking about delivering of polls in the terrestrial world. but you are correct that it is something that members of congress, particularly those and arms services committee, have
raised questions about. what i think it gets to, what this has uncommon with cyber warfare is other dependency in the united states and many nations on the information network and electronic communications systems to literally run our daily lives. the thinking back to 10 or 50 years ago before the internet and kick -- 10 or 15 years ago before the internet and what we take for granted. i did that is why you're seeing people coming forward about emt or cyber attacks because policy makers understand now what the consequences could be in using some of the -- losing some of the assets. host: talk about nation to nation, but what about independent operators, hackers? guest: one thing interesting about the evolution of the hacking community, it has gone from the image of the kind of social disaffected but brilliant teenagers sitting in his
basement playing around with computers seeing what he can break into just of the thrill, to really organized criminal groups. uc particularly in eastern europe and russia, security experts will tell you there are potentially hackers for hire who will rent out services to whoever wants them. we don't necessarily know what code they operate by but there is a network of these people who will sell their ability to act or gather affect it computers into something used to attack on other systems. it is essentially an organized criminal record. from the military's perspective, they are greatly concerned some of these people could farm out their services to nations who wanted is something more than just steel bank account numbers or hacked into e-mail accounts, which is a lot of the business so far. .
countries. the u.n. secretary general ban ki moon in a statement earlier is asking for over $7 billion to pay for its humanitarian workers on the world next year. the money willw3 go toward providing 48 million penrle in countries with urgent aid water, and medicines. the global recession has raised and have a concern such humanitarian funding may decline in 2010 and urged member states and private donors to keep that from happening. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> regulating the internet, one of the topic tonight with meredith out well baker, the newest republican commissioner at the federal communications commission on of an " the communicator's" on c-span2. host: our guest is jay williams,
mayor of youngstown, ohio. guest: we're hopeful that a company will invest upwards of $1 billion in the cities -- in the city of youngstown to create several kinds of jobs. our concerns are that the chinese are dumping and oil and other goods on the american market that are disproportionately affecting this company but to give her as well as other competitors. the we are encouraging duties and tariffs to protect this industry. host: the total population of youngstownw3 ohio is 17 -- 73,00 people. xdunemployment is up a 14% and foreclosures 14.7%. çóqñiguest: we have received ñiapproximately --ñr approximaty $27 million and i am very pleased with how productive we
have been to use that stimulus money to help jobc creation with an unemployment rate that exceeds the rañ1s of the nationl ñirate and the state ofw3 ohio. ñrit is something we have decades since the collapse of d and hopefully we are well on our way to reestablish in our economy. ñi+host: mayorqñi is your taker calls. xdlpñr-- the mayor is here toñie your call. talk to us about what you are hearing from the members of your community. guest: lee damany to diversify the economy. youngstown was for a number of decades it primarily steal towels -- was a primarily steele xdtownxnand i think we have dona tremendous job in making progress. but what we're hearing is that
we still need high-qualityu jo. there are emerging -- there is an emerging high-techt( corrido, jfbutçó retraining is going to e criticallyñi important to provie businesses, small business loans, access to capital. it will be3w extremelyñmç impo. çów3+gwe have several aggressive in. i have been hearing personally xdfromg,ú our small business entrepreneurs that theyxd need e capital. they're willing to invest and to hire, but they do not at this point have the access to capital and we have been unable to assist them as we have been over the last two or three years. 6lyhimal told that this message will transcend young sound -- i am hopeful that this message will transcend youngstown and come here to washington to create access to capital in the youngstownñr hosmys a. çóñiq7ó seeing thisko intxq
ownershvzz theñi people you're talking are right now? guest: somewhat. w3we of the programs in youngstn that are absolutely and xdposi!ively able to facilitate job creation. we have not seen the stimulus money be directed there. xdi know there is afá growingfáe on capitol hill aboutçó possibly having t]f= communities. that wouldi] be a significant benefit. we would make surexduxd would gt to the people that need it most. host: let's go to open the door from florida. jfw3ñicaller: excuse me? é@qhost: your5/ on with the maf youngstown, ohio. television so we can hear you. xdfáñicaller: ok, thank you. the operator the operator on the phone about
stimulusñi money and stuff like that. what about stimulus jobs? guest:t(ñr we're using this in s money to create jobs. the concern is that small businesses up to this point that % of[z the jobs in this country have not had a -- 25% of the jobs in this country have not have access to the moneyñi that they need. ñrwe're working with the small- business administration to generate hundreds and hundreds of jobs. but we have a track record of creating thousands of jobs. xdthe concern is that this to me this needs to be directed through %u1:ujuááuju to get into the hands and to the businesses that are going to be the job creation engines that we desperately need. in youngstown. she now livesi] out of the area. ñrçócaller:çóñr good morning, in in youngstown and i moved away when i was about 16.
i went back to visit my ñ and it sings like you have donefá someqñrñrçóñiqçó diw housing. i reallyñi hope and pray that te public-private partnershipñi people were soñi nice there, the çówere so many things to do. xdñii had a good education growg lpup tue. i wish you the best, all of the lead in the world to do it. and i hope the stimulus dollars really comeu in. maybe i could even come back to help to do some things with my family. ñixdguest: would certainly loveo have you back. aqñi probably great point. the city is working with over the past 8 to 10 years. içótheyxd have done a wonderfulb p'd cementing the urban city mark -- the organ citye/q par)ship. ?;you also highlightedñi>j/+ñe
private-ñiñi." public partnership. thexd stimulusxd dollars if thes a secondì(lc@&c+ill be dire towardñi programs that are provn to work. ñrñiñqhost: these public-private partnerships, what do they need guest: often times, and economic environment like this, it is important that the government stepsg the banks cannot be required to lend. they need to be incentivized to lend. to come up -- step up and take a bit of the risk out for entrepreneurs. there are two doors in round -- in ohio that are willing to put there -- they're entrepreneurs in our ohio that are willing to put their capital at risk. we need to create a port of 1000 to 2000 jobs.
-- we need to create somewhere of youngstown on the line to make sure thatxd we create jobs. we're so confident that these did -- that that isñi where thee ñiçérw3ç9,s7ymrt÷ruocaller:s for ohio,joj@çó but allçó of wen europe andñi most of america. i think the chinese are practicing a mercantile system stuff onñi american consumers. ymxdjfthere is a company in massachusetts a t(a ac "123 baty technology." i was reading a lot of stuff about the iran beingñi lower thn
the dollar -- about theçó yuanñq being lowerñi than the dollar artificially. guest: you are correct. first, theçó manipulation of the chinese currency,çó that is something that congressman tim ryan from the 17th district, who ?;representsxd the youngstownç, has been counting on for the pastañáeuju(s months. w3buty%u're alsoñi correct, ther ability to dump product on this. are lessw6i than the raw materil of some of the companies based here in theñi u.s. xdthese companies, and the compy in particular that i am talking "odyñiz7, has theçó ability to compete globally. they can complete and -- can ñicompete onw3 açó level playing field. ñihowever, if the chinese garmet is continued to allow to dump -- government is continued tolp"n allow to dump withñi our
protection, theseq jobs will contw.+e toçó be lost and will cannot get out of. fáñicaller: i wanted toñrçó mene comments thatçó i've heard a so far this morning. and this is my first time getting through. what i would like to mention is that i thinkxdçó that the citied states shouldxd pressure the government and the fed to create green micro banks throughout theñi nationçó. businesses for those who want to expand. it would not have to deal with of the -- the mess of the
regularñi banks. the banking system is done for. w3jfwe're going to have to break them apart. but we will have to break up all of these institutions that have been too big to fail. they have failed. in regard to some of the comments of other people have made, i think we will have to negotiate trade agreementsñi. press for something like a microwave or a green bank to i]create green jobs andxd innove jobs so we can get started here. guest: i could not agree with youi]ñi more in terms of the necessity and the importance of makingxd sure that those entrepreneurs get the capital and their hands. ñii talked about earlierc that - about the fact that young son was still very proficient in a steel manufacturing. but now we havexd manufacturerso manufacturingñrñi componento bring industry sectors, whether
it is not windmill's or solar farms -- whether it is when mills or solar farms. we have those industries in our industrial parks are now who if they have cut -- if they have the capital, have orders lined up. their people they would hire within the next 30, 60, 90 days. ñiwe have become very proficient at working with our local banks. many of them are part of our lendingxd consortiumxd.
there are other areas of the city that require significant demolition. we're also doing that. foreclosure is something that has plagued us probably more so than some of the other cities. if you could see a fortunate side of it, it is because an economic hit some years ago. and we have become somewhat accustomed an adroit at navigating these waters. i'm encouraged that we will continue to curtail this with some of the initiatives being talked got in washington. host: ken is joining us from naples republicans line in phoenix. >> a question for you this
morning is this, many of these cities with serious problems have been very heavy into unions and supporting the labor movement i would ask you, what are your thoughts on that and are you a major supporter of the labor unions. guest: northeast ohio has a a lot of blue-collar and labor union activity, but i cannot see that as a negative thing. there are people in youngstown that understood -- that have understood that they need to change the way they did business 5 for 10 years ago and that is not the way to do business now. 30 years ago, the gm plant had a very difficult reputation in terms of management labor
relationship. most recently, they have been awarded the general motors' chevrolet cruz. and that meant that they needed to step up conditions that would allow the plant to be competitive there is a local hospital that we are trying to use the stimulus dollars to preserve 4000 jobs at local hospitals. the groups have been stepping ñrcertainly there are still unis that do not get it, but i can tell you that most of the union's have stepped up and understood that they need to be a partner with management and with the businesses to remain competitive. barista were to be done, but i want to speak very highly for those unions. host: bill is calling from new jersey. caller: thank you for taking my
call. although, i do not support fascist c-span television. mayor williams, i am just doing the math here. you want $1 billion to employ several hundred people? guest: not at all, i do not know where you get that figure. caller: that is what the host said guest: no -- caller: but me finish my question, your honor. youngstown, ohio. a 33 million people at 3 $3,000 per year. guest: this gives me an opportunity to correct the record. we said we would be willing to invest $1 billion of private money into youngstown, ohio to
create up to 700 top -- and jobs. we have an economic rate that is more economical than anywhere in the country. we had a stimulus funds that created 500 jobs at a cost of $700 per job. there are $20 million worth of stimulus money on the line to grade 650 jobs. that is $31,000 per job. the current estimates i am hearing are aiding the a -- $8,000 to 90,000 -- $80,000 to $90,000 per job is an acceptable rate. the bill that was talked about his private investment that will come as a result of $10 or $15 worth of stimulus money. the other 500 jobs that i talked about, not only did we use
$350,000 to create 500 jobs, that company invested $4 million of its own money. you will not find any city in the country that is able to facilitate job creation at a more economically and youngstown, ohio. host: jim is on the democrats' line in brooklyn, new york. caller: would like to say that one thing that has not been proposed by the democrats is a direct redistribution of income put on a bank credit card that can only buy american. if we were to take this tax on individuals and americans and redistributive it to buy american goods, three to four people will buy american. they will not spend $20 on the chinese sitting fan -- a ceiling
fan. it will spend $60 on the american one. guest: the fact of the matter is that we are in a global marketplace. there are companies we are talking about that we are hopeful will invest the dollars. if we were going to focus on only buying american, i think that could have a detrimental effect. in a global marketplace, if we decided to isolate ourselves from the rest of the economy, the rest of the world economy, i do not know how long we could sustain that. i do believe that if american companies are able to compete on a relatively low plainfield, and american consumers do not have access to equal quality, i think we will be just fine. but to ignore the rest of the global marketplace sets a dangerous precedent that we are now too entrenched in to see the ultimate long-term benefit.
host: we have a comment from twitter. guest: not necessarily. the cost of consuming the -- the consumer price index in youngstown has been relatively low for a number of years. we do not necessarily suffer from the effects of inflation as the economy begins to rebound. the downside to that÷zñ is that when the economy is high, it is not as high. but overall, we have seen a very economical climb in doing business. caller: i would like to say that the guy who said that c-span was fascist does not know how to read or has had too much right wing and radio. my overall view is that economists the run our country is -- are developed -- are
running on a model that was to vote in the 1700's. -- i was developed in the 1700's. iñallison hampton from mit prove that the comparative advantage bkthat our economists are runnig on is absolutely flawed. we need to look at the new deal and get a new type economy with economists that understand the comparative average does not work. it does not include india and the rest of the pacific rim. we will not have one single job left if we do not have a change in these policies. hopefully, you can look up the new view and to the model that was put together in the 1700's, it does not work. it is not a factual in comparing third world countries to first world countries.
guest: i am not familiar with that, but it is something that may have relevance. when you talk about the work force in china or the work force in india, as the all know, the quality of life and standard of living here verses other countries, there is a significant difference. you also have to take into account things such as the epa and other things that impact the cost of doing business here. i am not a lawyer with the model that you talked about, but it may have relevance as to continue these discussions. host: in dayton, ohio, and one on the democrats' line. caller: i grew up in youngstown, ohio. i went to high school there for two years. i remember youngstown as being a beautiful, environmental city. i used to go fishing in the
kelly lake. were they doing with the old steel mill plants? are there retrofitting them? are you paying attention to the environment? guest: as we have talked about the youngstown 2010 plan, part of the tagline is a cleaner and bring your city. youngstown is blessed with one of the best urban park districts end, probably only second to central park in new york city. we are working with the park trusties very diligently to hultgreen the city in terms of making use of some of -- to help clean the city in terms of making use of some of the land. the majority of the steel mill sites have been acquired and mediator -- ever mediated. -- kurram mediated.
her -- have been acquired and watched remediated. many of them are industrial parks that if you were to walk through them you would never know that there was a boating industry there on that side 40 or 50 years ago. -- a polluting industry there on that site 40 or 50 years ago. that is a strong part of ours did oddity, making sure that we are conscious as we evolve and -- part of our strategy, making sure that we are conscious as we evolve and develop industry. the green industries will also be economically viable, but it also be a benefit to the environment as well. host: mayor j. williams is the youngest mayor of young town -- youngstown ohio. you talked about some of the changes that have happened in your community over your lifetime. how are you keeping pot -- people positive in the face of
these concerns about the unemployment rates, foreclosures? how are you working on community morale? guest: people are46@eptionally resilience, having been through the collapse of the steel industry and some difficult times. what we're doing has been inspiring not just to me, but to thousands of others. we have been in creating a new vision for the city of youngstown. it was exceptional because when we went through this process, it was an emotional and painful process, recognizing that would no longer be a city this -- a city defined by steel. that was our history. several years ago, about 1300 people came together in one of the historic been used to start establishing a new plan envisioned for the city of youngstown. since then, we have maintained a significant amount of community engagement. at the neighborhood level
calling from block to block at the business level, the university level, the people of youngstown are resilience -- are resilience and inspired. host: cleveland, ohio, rich is on the 0-independent line. caller: thank you for taking my call. these free trade agreements are killing us and the thing that calls me the mostu is that all f these so-called economic experts that said us losing our manufacturing jobs would not hurt a thing, those people have been proven wrong. how are we supposed to compete against the chinese people in the city of -- in the pacific region?
as far as small business goes, if you are working for a small business, you will probably be making a smaller÷9ñ salary witha small benefit package. the purpose of these trade agreements was not for the benefit of mankind. the purpose of these international trade agreements is to dismantle and destroy america's middle class. guest: there is no doubt that the loss of manufacturing jobs is excess -- excessively detrimental. i can testify to that as the mayor of a city that lost tens of thousands of industrial jobs, as have other communities across this country. however, the days of us being the sole power in terms of manufacturing process are over. we are in a global marketplace. but i believe we have the ability to compete in the global marketplace. notwithstanding the fact that you are correct in pointing out that wage indicators and quality of life and standard of work
conditions are significantly lower in other countries, the innovation that does and can occur in this country is still second to none. we have seen industries in youngstown, ohio that are completed -- competing globally. it is not easy. we have to make sure that the trade agreements we are engaged in our fair and that they do -- are fair and that they do protect us from unfair foreign competition, not just from foreign competition. general motors has recognized its failures of the past. they're producing cars now that are world-class and world quality. if those cars are appealing, people across the world will buy them. 11whost: alberta on the democr'' line calling from wingate, north carolina. caller: most of the money is
being spent on grading construction jobs. -- on creating construction jobs. they're not going to put the money back -- back out of there until he comes back in. [unintelligible] these people are sitting on this money. guest: some of the jobs being created in youngstown are indeed, a construction jobs, but the majority of them are permanent jobs. their jobs like the pryke manufacturing plan, those will be permanent jobs. we are seeking a stimulus money to preserve 4000 jobs out of local health care system these are jobs that will be there for the long run.
i am of the mindset -- i think that you are agreeing with this -- of making sure that those employers, those businesses that will be employing people for the long haul, whether it is 8 for health system or some of the other companies we have in our portfolio, that is critical to me. job creation, job retention -- that is the of the thing that i want to focus on ron here in washington, trying to tap into this money that has been there to preserve jobs for the long term. with a moderate of stimulus money, i think we could preserve those jobs. there are a number of things that are at play here. host: mayor j. williams from youngstown, ohio, thank you for being with us this morning.
that begins at 4:00 p.m. eastern. >> and regulating the internet, one of the topics tonight with meredith baker, the newest republican commissioner at the federal communications commission. >> 3 documentary's from c-span are available on dvt, a unique journey through the iconic homes of the american government. see the exquisite detail of the supreme court through the eyes of the justices. go beyond the velvet ropes of public tours into those releasing spaces of the white house, america's most famous home. and explore the history and architecture of the capitol, one of the most -- one of america's most symbolic structures. 83 disk dvt said, 2495 -- 24 -- it is a three-disc dvd set for
$24.95. host: that helme is here from the clean-air policy. thanks for joining us. the legislation looks like it is not going anywhere before the senate before copenhagen. how they do think that will be? guest: i think will give back to the legislative process in the spring. but the key of what happens in copenhagen was this that -- the president's decision last week to set a 17% below 2005 levels as the target. host:: ñ were other countries waiting to hear from the united states? guest: absolutely, turn it came out the day after. they had been clearly waiting. -- china came out the day after. they had been clearly waiting. host: what are the5 sticking points in the negotiation?
guest: there are two things. what is the target that was set last week. the other is the financing. there was an agreement with developing companies that would take actions in return for financing from the wealthier nations. we have taken care of the target. we have stepped up with the target and now we need to step up on the financing side. host: it was stated last week, president obama has set goals to reduce emissions and you were quoted as saying that the president is walking a nice edge. can you expand on that? guest: he is in a very narrow space. on the one hand, he had to take a stand that would encourage india and china that we would, in fact, take a stand. and he also led to do it in a way that would not hurt his chances with congress. for 12 years, congress has been
asking for action from india and china and brazil and korea and so on. we now have that. major developing country has stepped up in the past two weeks and said, here is our target. i think he is in a good position to say, i have met the goal. i've got an the other countries to step up and now we have to step up and do our part. it was a balancing act. host: ned helme here to take your calls. let's go to north carolina, charlotte, where martha is on the democrats' line. go ahead, martha, you are on the air. i think we might have lost martha. let's move on to minneapolis, where patty is on the republicans line. caller: i am wondering if your guest or you yourself are aware of the global warming cycle
where the so-called scientists deleting their records, if it should give out, how they haveie manipulaì+ temperatures for certain years, how is the scientists wrote in a journal disputing and being accurate about it to a and some of their claims, that they would be ostracized. and if they published it, they would discredit the journal that published it. are you being -- are you aware that the whole farce is being exposed to? and you guys had a little bit about it on sunday, but none of the newspapers and the drive by media are talking about it, it is a huge story. it is a farce. there are thousands of scientists who disagree with
this. -- this al gore bologna. his baloney about global warming. guest: and i sought andrew rivkin's story in the times about this. i think this is unfortunate that it goes on. but the key thing is that the scientific issue is behind us. it is clear and decided. i have worked in this field for 40 years and we are at a point where there is more agreement among scientists on this than many and most of the other pollution issues we have talked about over the years. there is always difference of opinion. it is unfortunate, this particular issue. major corporations around the country now support action on climateç)é change. you know, everybody from shel to bridge petroleum and -- from shel to british petroleum.
it is a key issue and we need to address it. i think that issue is behind us and it is now about changing are a strategy on energy and moving forward. i think there is broad support across the country for doing that. >)there is a poll in this paper today and 56% of berber malakand feel the senate republican leadership should engage the democrats and work -- 56% of republicans feel the republican leadership should engage in aircraft and work with them. caller: the hoax is up. e-mails were leaked out about communications between the scientists showing that they were trying to manipulate the data. it is a huge store and nobody is talking about it. if you do not know about these e-mails, then you can go after
the show and google them. it's all over the internet. i watch your viewers to know about how this is all a hoax. guest: as i said to the previous caller, i do not think it is a hoax at all. there is more[é scientific agreement on the issue of climate change than any major in our mental issue in the last 30 years. i simply do not -- than any major environmental issue in the last 30 years. i simply do not accept that. i think is hackers. they need to stay focused on the issue and the fact that most of our corporate leadership and political leadership and world leadership sees this as a major issue that needs to be addressed. host: what do you see as the important factors going into copenhagen and what you see happening there? guest: i think we will settle on the two big issues, what is the target -- a mission started. we have seen each of these countries stepping up together.
-- emissions targets. we have seen each of these countries setting of together. everybody sees the impact on industry. what we are seeing here is all the countries is stepping up together, which makes it safe for everyone to go where we need to go. the other thing is the financing, will we see significant commitment? i'm not talking about bushels of money, but targeted assistance to help countries with energy efficiency and financing and key energy saving opportunities. those two issues are key at copenhagen. host: charles hammaren reports that many could help close the talks in denmark next year.
guest: i agree. i think that is exactly right. the europeans have said that we need to have a fast start on this new operation and mitigation structure. what that means is probably between $6,000,000,000.- 589932685 dollars a year until 2012 -- $6 billion and $8 billion a year until 2012. i think you are right, one of the tests -- it will not be so much the commitments on howxw mh in 2030, but the commitment right now to get started because we need to get this game under way in a big way immediately. host: roseville, mich., republicans line. caller: you are saying, push this through as fast as you6#ì(+ and you are also saying that this is all behind us, the scientists, which are all government, state paid the
scientists, who all happen to agree because the scientists that they use are the ones who are being paid to go ahead with this. al gore and all of these people, united nations, moon, all of these people -- is a big agenda that has been going on for years and years. it is a big joke. this e-mail, these have e-mails tregoning scientists if they -- threatening scientists if they disagree, all of this stuff needs to come out. nobody is covering it like they should be. it is a huge and you want to ram it through as fast as you can because you know it is a farce. guest: i think the scientific work has been funded by a wide variety of governments and foundations and other entities. it is not funded by a single government or a single entity.
it is a very coordinated international process with a careful. view of the results and so on. well supported, nobel prizes awarded for the work that has been done. i think the key here, again, is that we know we face significant impact. we have seen the severity of hurricanes. we have seen the impact already in terms of vast resources its and so on. it is time to get started. we're basically turning around a huge supertanker. we cannot get there very quickly. once you get the ship turned around, then you have to -- then you can move forward. once we got everyone on board and moving, we can pick up speed. host: a peace in washington today, --
marketplace? if you do, it cuts the price to zero and decreases the upper one to have in terms of making progress. -- the effort we want to have in terms of making progress. basically, they did reduce their emissions, although, it was because of an economic collapse. we need to compensate them in another way. in europe, i think that is what they're going to do. is the same issue in other countries. the answer is to provide other kinds of compensation that do not undermine the goal we have of cutting emissions to radically in the future. host: freeport, texas. caller: you think that'll -- do you think that nasa is mostly to blame for this by punching a hole in the atmosphere? i noticed that every time they launch, bad weather follows the
launch. could younç speak on that, plea? guest: i am not aware of a problem in terms of -- i've seen some of this stuff about chemicals being shot into the atmosphere to produce rain and stuff like that, but i do not see that as a major problem with climate change. the only thing i see as atmospheric is this question of airplanes and the exhaust of jet planes, it certainly causes more global warming issues than others. the december we will need to look at in the future. -- that is something we will need to look at in the future. host: let's go to eddie, also in texas, good morning. caller: abide to say that while there is a dispute -- i would like to say that while there is a dispute on human impact on
global warming, it is very real. the science was developed back in at 1904. but scientists came up with the idea of the greenhouse effect -- about scientist came up with the idea of green -- the green house affect as well as many other good ideas. his initial, -- a calculation was at 1000 years and has now been lowered to just 300 years and we can expect it to lower even more as an) our energy production continues to to release the co2. and if there is a dispute about these e-mails, therem$ñ are man, many e-mails and many are taken out of context. you can check them out at angelinae-immails.com.
guest: i agree with the caller. host: how involved are non- governmental groups in the process? qu. we are very active in china, brazil, mexico, indonesia on the ground. we were the delegates in those countries to design the programs that they will be proposing -- we work with the delegates in those countries to design the programs that they will be proposing. we also work in the shadow discussions outside the formal discussions to find work agreement can be reached. we are active in brussels and in the united states. we are one of the groups that is trying to help foster the agreement and move the ball forward. we tried to advise delegates from different countries about ways to come together. host: a caller from cleveland -- cleveland, ohio.
caller: there is a book called "environment overkill. don't i do not know if you have read it already. it is written by scientists at a university. rio climate change is happening, but i think people disagree -- real climate change is happening, but i think people disagree on why. i think we are arrogant to think that we can change or significantly alter any weather patterns. i do not know what you believe. i believe in conserving, but not to the point of advocating population control, which was the number one topic of the firstb-!arth summit in 1992 in brazil. i do not know if you were there or had anything to do with it, but environmentalists were telling us in the '70s that humans were the cause of the common ice age and acid rain
would burn our skin in 10 years. and just never came true. guest: i think she raises some interesting points. with acid rain, we worked a lot on that. it is a case where significant progress was made. we putting a cap and trade program for the first time. we cut emissions and are seeing recovery in our lakes and in other areas and are seeing significant benefits in terms of health effects. you have to think about this in terms of what are the risks and what are the risks of inaction? there was a study done in england and others have done studies showing the kinds of impacts we are talking about from climate change are so substantial that it makes sense not to wait. today's the missions will be in the atmosphere keating the plan at 100 years -- today's e
missions will be in the atmosphere he can the planet 100 years from now. you look at what is being done, china, for example, announced their target on friday and their aggressive energy efficiency program dwarfs the kinds of things we have done in the u.s. line that makes sense from two perspectives. it makes sense from the perspective of dealing with the climate change problem, but also with energy efficiency. it saves them big spending on oil and leads to a much more efficient economy. these are win-win opportunities. these are great opportunities, like for ohio, instead of looking backward at the old steel industry, looking forward at windmill technology and other kinds. we have seen this in the stimulus packages.
20% of the money in the u.s. has been spent on green technology. china spent 50% of their stimulus money on it. in korea, 80%. these countries to seek these technologies and these jobs as the future. they are rushing to compete there. it is not like acid rain where i am putting in a smokestack. in this case, it is making things more competitive and building new jobs and opportunities. it is a win-win opportunity. host: democrats line in reno, california. caller: first of all, i want to thank c-span. i'm really glad that the previous callers who have called in were very informed regarding this issue.
i would like to talk about the fact that as a postgraduate student, i know that most professors would actually do anything to get a grant from the government or from other companies. before the fact that we have this global warming alarmists -- if it were not for the fact that we have this global warming alarmists, all of these climate change scientists would be out of a job. i know the issue of capt. trade, first of all, i see cap and tradeñk has not relieved reducg emissions and it has been proven that it would not really held emissions in that sense. the fact that major corporations are backing this and government are backing this, that should raise an eyebrow even if you are not a scientist. that is all i have to say. guest: i think your little cynical on this.
my sense is that corporations see this as a threat to their futures in terms of what this means to our planet and ac opera -- and they see opportunity in terms of new technologies. this is a win-win for us, but also in larger social altruism. in terms of the account and trade, it is all about the cap. how tough is the cap? &if we set reductions like we do with acid rain and we said 50% reduction and we got those levels, would dramatically reduced those levels. it is all about how tough the regulation is. it is not about the mechanism. if you set a week started, obviously, nothing happens. -- if you set a week targeweak ,
obviously, nothing happens. n is, is it a real cowboy? will is a significantly reduced emissions -- is it a real kappc? pwill add significantly reduced emissions? caller: i thank you for taking this call. i am in full agreement with what you are saying. i lived six years -- 12 years in europe. and global warming is real. the people that call you that do not believe it, the joke is on them. we're the only country in the world that has not signed the kyoto treaty. we're the biggest polluter in the world. i am sorry to hear that these people are not believing. we drive the biggest cars, waste
so much castlgas. we are inefficient. we of coal plants that have not been updated for years. it is getting worse. i believe in clean energy. i have solar power in my home. i tried to recycle. in japan, you go out on a typical day in tokyo and you can has done to the country. you have the power sakkawasaki e industrial power of japan. host: let's get a response from our guest. guest: i agree with you. japan has been a power and we have seen other major countries
-- countries stepping upon. óñ÷we heard from russia, korea, brazil, a major stepping up in their targets. there is a sense that around the world, everybody gets it. they see the need to reduce emissions. i'm very encouraged by the president's announcement and his actions last week. i think we will have success in copenhagen and it will lead to further action next years to -- next year to finalize the treaty. obviously, he is coming because he's going to the nobel prize event, but the first week will be a week when negotiators are really finalizing the details. it is still at a point when the game is still to be settled. i&÷háhink is very useful. there are a number of cabinet secretaries making presentations throughout the week after the president's openi