tv Washington Journal CSPAN April 12, 2010 7:00am-10:00am EDT
>> by critical federal aid. but with stimulus money set to run out soon. a report from conservative economists another one would worsen states official reckoning. designated hundreds of dollars to states. the aid peaks this year. states say they're still hurting and congress is trying figure how much aid to benefit and for how long. we'll read you more of the article in a moment and what's ahead in congress. first though from san antonio and john, on our republican
line. caller: good morning.. how you doing today? this is just a stinky way of raising taxes for the populat n population. i don't know people say government is going to give somebody something they don't have. they have people get it and they have to take it from you and i, the taxpayers. if a private business couldn't make it on what they either cut jobs or go out of business. let the state does the same thing. take california, they had an article the other day on california, where a retired teacher making 100,000 dollars. his retirement paid at $54,000. cut all this junk out. your going to be okay if you don't, go by the way of the dinosaur. >> there's a story this morning about - not about teachers but college professors that says study fund as 1 point 2 percent
increase. walter, independent? caller: good morning.i have the opinion that's probably a bit unusual in this situation. that is to say, the governors who are going to reject the money told washington to keep their money and all that. last time around on the stimulus, they aught to just stay true to that word and not have any given to them this time. the people who were willing to help the residents of those states and accept the federal stimulus money, should get credit for that from the last time around and receive it again. those people that rejected it last time should have to hold that promise. host: what if they want it this time? caller: let's put it this way if they didn't want it last time
but took credit for getting it any way, then - then they can't have it both ways. host: melvin, republican. virginia. caller: good morning.. we aught to look at the first stimulus and what it supposed to do and what it ended up doing. we're not the first obama stimulus. we were supposed to have no more than 8% unemployment. i think we should be worried about that and only use money for emergency purposes so, the thing is it's unnecessary to have stimulus every time something goes on or wrong. for anybody that agrees with the democrat side, could you keep race out of the equation for a change. thank you. host: melvin called. the richmond times has a front
page article courtesy of the jobless benefit fund is depleted and the state is expected to borrow 1 point 2 billion to pay claims. ferdinando, democratic caller? just make sure you turn down your radio or television. caller: my name is doctor ferdinando and i'm calling, the reason is, we got so many people losing jobs and they're talking about that's not the place for it. we've been in this mess before and everybody blamed the president. i just want to make my comment and let people know it's not obama fault all people losing jobs. he's got a lot of work to do. just got in the office. host: question for you this morning, is more federal money needed for state? a story in the
washington times writes that jonathan williams, director of the tax and fiscal policy task force at the american legislation exchange councils sacred will it only feed the, do something disease in washington where the federal government decides taxpayer money can help. fiscal stability. mr. williams and other conservative economists say it amounts to a p get out of jail free and they were reluctant to make cuts during times needed. massachusetts, lynn? iris what state are you? caller: d.c. host: go ahead. caller: really sad day in america. the federal government is broke. most of the states in this nation are broke. - and for the federal
government to continue using this as a vehicle to print dollars - to further extend the debt of this nation is a tragedy. this nation has turned into a debt free system with the common americans getting crewed more and more as days go by. thank you. host: south lion, michigan. iris? caller: hi. there. i feel the government keeps taking, taking, taking. spending, spending, spending. they have yearmarks and highway remaimed for political people. they borrow money when they charge you taxes on your salary. and maybe they could add another 50-60, $200 back from what they don't use. we're giving them in trust and
they give us back - let them eat cake kind of stuff. obama could travel less and do a lot of his stuff by telephone and spend more time in the united states where he's elected to be president of the united states. work on maybe, half salary until he proves himself and that goes for every other president. they should stop depending on our generosity for the 47 percent of the population that do pay taxes and start instituteing a flat tax. maybe we can finally become physically sound and everybody get as fair share. host: should the federal government provide more aid to states and congress? congress comes back today. senate is in first and then the house. hill reports that battle weary house democrats, short weeks. easy vote as head of the election. house leader have scheduled a number of four day weeks in
relatively easy agenda items to give members plenty of room to maneuver for the upcoming races. the house will consider nearly 2 dozen suspension bills and the only one scheduled is a reauthorize of the national program. the water pollution control act. democrats will waste no time. shifting towards jobs legislation. democrats are ready to shine that light on with unemployment a top concern of voters. here is a front page story on the baltimore sun this morning. long-term joblessness surges to record high. 20% of the unemployed have been out of work for over six months. milton, washington. michael, democrat? caller: think they should stop giving states money. everybody needs to cut back. the states need to do the same.
here in the state of washington, they're getting - well they're trying start taxing soda and bottled water. it's just getting worse and worse. host: they're taxing you on bottled water? caller: legislation is talking about it right now. host: how much would they charge on a bottle of water. caller: like 2 cent per can of soda and five cent for bottle. raises the cost for everybody else. host: republican view from scott in oklahoma city. caller: yes, sir i appreciate your show very much. keep up the great work getting our voices heard in oklahoma, referring back to one of the callers you had. there's no such thing as federal money except it comes from the hear states. that's an illusion that people
seem to have, that if we get federal money we're doing great. it comes for testimony states. federal government takes out a whole bunch and they're administrative costs before they ever give anything back to us in oklahoma we have a great solution to this. we had a house bill. 2810 put out by charles key, one of our patriot legislators here that would have put our federal excise money in theest skroe account and not be passed on to the federal government except at the pleasure of the legislature. this bill was obstructed by guy lehman the committee head supposed to let it be heard and never did. i think he was the traitor to the cause, but that would have ensured our tax money that comes from state and doesn't come from the federal government. only from the state, would only
be used for constitutional purposes and we could with hold the tax money from the federal government if they have had sinister mans for it. host: scott, you used term sinister. what would that include in this oklahoma legislation? you used the term sinister, so what sort of purposes would this legislation allow people to with hold money for? caller: it doesn't give the reasons for holding, it only gives the mechanism. the legislature after this was decided would decide what's constitution apple and unconstitutional in article one section 8 are all the unsinister uses because it's all their 18 different things the congress can do with our money. host: scott, lido beach, new
york. independent line. caller: good morning.. the reason china doesn't need stum list packages is because they have jobs. there are jobs. the jobs that went over there after signing nafta and gat and those treaties. cheap label. i get that the people on wall street wanted cheap labor and got politicians to sign the treaties. our jobs are now over there and now they're looking for stimulus money? the bank 14 trillion in debt? the people that signed those treaties sending our jobs overseas should be put on the trial for treason. that was the wealth and strength of america and our politicians did this to us. forget about stimulus money. we need jobs. host: lake charles. louisiana. jim, democrat? good morning. you're on.
caller: i'm ken. host: i've got your name wrong but your from lake charles and your good to go. caller: yeah, that guy from oklahoma. the republicans know how to use them little key words. patriot. he said the patriot senator and then the guy that's blasted it - the bill was traitor. they use these little key words. these republicans. like they brainwash everybody into think that republicans are the party that's responsible. they're the ones that got us into the mess we in today. bush spent, spent, spent. they haddock meants up there's an everybody recalls. he borrowed more money than the whole 42 presidents ahead of him. host: ken, back to the issue. you think another stimulus is needed for state? caller: i radio ely really do.
small business is the ones that hurting. host: "new york times" writes about recession. arbiters weary of certifying an upturn. a guest last week. lewis story writing, for the record the recession isn't over yet. a committee certifies the beginning and end of recessions but this time they say the evidence is not to easy to decipher. they cannot declare an end to the recession that began in 2007. such an knowledge meant is rare in the history of setting dates to business cycle as and could effect behavior to consumers and investors. winston, salem. caller: i'm a democrat. two brief statements.
i think federal money would increase amounts and focus though on green energy, on training people for green energy. on instituting more holistic directives and training people for that. secondly, i'd like to say - you know under 30, i've been watching c-span for years and an among many things i'm a rap artist. my space.com. united we stand. i want to make a brief philosophical submission to my conservative friends. infrastructure and everything you rely on is based on reliable may tufrment our politics should at well and the most reliable principle is evolution and conservatives maybe need to give up the conservatism because they don't seem to be evolving with the times. we need you to come back into the fold instead of retreating to the madness and rhetoric.
and you know, love c-span and everybody that calls- the regardless of the position. host: president obama picked the make before congress goes on recess most like late. couple of key members of the judiciary committee. senator leahy and sessions. here's the reporter from congressional quarter. late confirmed by august. from spl"politico". gop caution on court fight. we have comments from meet the press yesterday. >> a nominee, if republicans and democrats want to stop listening to the single issue groups of either the far right or the far left, they can. remember, john paul stephens was nominateed by a republican president who is facing
election. he was a conservative republican and a democratic controlled senate. confirmed him in 2 1/2 weeks overwhelmingly. what's happened? host: back in 2005 on this program after sandra day retired this was your advice to president bush. >> that's why we're going to meet with the president in the week. going to urge, put somebody that would unite the country, not divide the country. >> yes or no? that same standard applies now? >> right but also requires people not taking a knee-jerk reaction. fill buster - he doesn't know who else it's going to be. >> i promise affair hearing, and i promise that the nominee will have a chance to explain any criticism are raised but if
if nominee is one that's so activist like the one just nominated that written that the constitution requires welfare and health care to individuals. if it's somebody like that, clearly outside the mainstream, then i think every power should be utilized to protect the constitution. >> senator sessions you're on record as in the past as saying fill busters should not be used against judges and i want to be clear. you're not taking a fill buster off the table in this particular case? >> we had a big fight over that debate, and senator leahy and his side won and they set a standard that says if you have a nominee that under extraordinary circumstances a fill buster is appropriate to use against them. >> senator sessions and leahy on meet the press.
pick ahead for president obama. "politico" rights obama's aids narrow the list down to ten names. no names appear to be as controversial of good win lou for the ninth circuit. the goal was to tap someone who was quote confirmable. our question for you this morning is about congress and should congress provide more aid to states. here's the headline in the washington times. economists warn against it's a congress considers the extension of the stimulus. los angeles and erik, independent. hi. there. mute your television or radio and go ahead with your comments. >> thank you for taking my call. if you want to give money to the states, i believe that we should pass it down to the districts before it gets to the top of the food chain. it doesn't seem like the money
is allocated down to the districts where the districts have their finger on the pulse of stimulating jobs and getting done what needs to be done. thank you. host: virginia beach, this is or ron. call all thanks for taking my call. good morning.. i wanted to quickly say that piggy-backing a couple of your previous callers, i agree some of the stimulus needs to be more thoroughly directed toward green energy but i feel that's slightly amiss gnomer. the last caller made a wonderful point too. having the districts have more control over money that is allocated from the federal government. unfortunately, the system doesn't for that. we're in a catch-22. the federal dpovpt is going to
have to continue to provide stimulus for the states. i kind of believe that's the point of the federal government really. that's kind of why all the states are joined together. but also i say it's a catch-22, because if we refer to the latest working papers from bank of "inteliigence2 debate" settlements in basil, switzerland march of this year, we have a serious problem. by 2040 our nation will be at 400 percent debt to,gt s ratio. host: europe bank rolls greece is the pledge. potential loans of 40 billion dollars to extend the debt crisis. sundays was more again rouse in both the amount and rate of interest doesn't mean greece has
ready access to the funds. all 16 eurozones must agree to activate the editorial. grease is debt lessons. while greece has woes that are mainly europe's problem it should be a warning to america as well. the 2009 washington stimulus helped those days postpone the day of reckoning but that runs out this year. u.s. economy recovers but the u.s. states need to have affordable in the long-term. for washington. greece's debt share is 113%. america is about of 3 percent a post-war record but it is also growing fast and the congressional budget office forecasts that it'll reach 90% by 2020 under mr. obamas latest
budget proposal. caller: good morning.. i wanted to say something from a conservative midwest type person. our federal government is broke. it's in bankruptcy and the overwhelming reason we can stay ahead of major crisis is because we keep borrowing money from the chinese government. i think it's time the american people say, hey, congress, you got to quit spending our money and let us, we'll go through the tough times. this countries been through tough times before and we can't keep trying pass this down from generation to generation just to keep a bunch of politicians in office. thanks for you time. host: tom, independent. welcome. caller: good morning.. thank you for c-span. i would just like to make the comment. i think civil servants are over
paid. 40,000 to 60,000 is reasonable for someone that claims to be serving the local community or the state or the federal government. so i don't think it would help for the federal government to bail-out states or other entities. host: tweeter writing does obama not pay attention to the needs of his country. seems more focused on his self. latest gallop pole. obama at new low. job approval has reached a new low. 45 percent approval and 48 percent disapproval. the one point different from the previous isn't very significant. statistically speaking. on the democrats line. susan li, w good morning.. caller: i feel federal government should cyst the
states in whatever isness or needed. we're the government and we need to support our states and we need some municipality. as far as president and the congress reduces expenditures i don't believe the government problems are that simplistic. there's a lot of services we forget that we receive and take advantage of and by simply cutting state employees or civil servants with balance of the books of the states is not the simple answer. maybe part of the answer, but not the total answer. so yes, we should cyst the states so that we don't decrease the number of unemployed persons. host: massachusetts. brook line, massachusetts. jim on republican line. caller: listen. the federal government can do a couple of things. first of all we can stop the unfunded mandates.
they are going to stop and resend a few unfunded mandate and that would be wonderful. next thing, instead of spending money, obama bucks to the states. white they can do is encourage the states to go after welfare, fraud and cheats grand every dollar that they uncover and save, the feds should send them another 50 cents so in other words, if we can entice states to go after welfare, cheats and frauds the fed will match it at the rate of 50%. that would work everywhere. host: what's the state budget situation like there? caller: reasonable until we passed health care bill and now we're really down the tubes and dol dabb doctors are leaving state. host: what's the big reason? whys the health care bill in
massachusetts driving up state budget? caller: because they had no idea people were doing to go to doctors in the amount of - let me see. frequency of doctors visit has - i don't have any facts to back up what i'm saying. host: just wanted your input. thanks for your call. about 15 more minutes of your calls on the topic of whether the federal government needs to provide more federal aid to states. the money investing session of the "wall street journal". bail-out looking much less pryy and she write as year ago, the congressional budget office estimated that over all bail-out cost. this is the tarp fund would cost more than 250 billion. last month timothy geithner said rescues amount to less than one percent of gross domestic product. it's less than the savings and loan in the 19 '80s and 90's
which totals as much as 3.2 percent of g.d.p. pennsylvania on the independent line. mike? caller: how you doing? host: very well. caller: okay. before the great recession came along, all of the but was about how bad the infrastructure was in the united states. what we have now is a perfect time for the government to send money to the states to rebuild the infrastructure which causes people to go to work and help us come out of the recession. like they're killing two birds with one stone. money that had to be spent any way. i see it's a win/win for everybody. thank you. host: dallas, texas and this is kathy on our democrats line. caller: yes, good morning. i think shouldn't send any money to the states and let me tell
you why. i feel like sarah palin and the tea party cans raise so much money, rick perry and so forth, they don't want to accept no stimulus and i'm really ashamed of america. because they say this is obama's thing when obama was running for president, it was the republicans. it was the democrats and the independents and remember when john mccain was going to stop his debate to go and pass the money for the stimulus money and you know, people say and the states say they want to be free and cheer to run their own budget. let them run it. i don't - i think that everybody that don't want any services and people call in saying about welfare. it's more white woman here in texas on welfare than anybody i known. don't send them anything.
make them pull themselves up as best they can. host: article in the washington times writes about conservative economists skeptical of another round of stimulus spending writing the recession should have been a wake-up call. pull back on spending. unfortunately the stimulus money is interfering with a corrective state to get states currently back on a sustainable spending paths. they quote in the report. louisville kentucky. donna is a republican. sh shut off your television please and go ahead with your thoughts. caller: okay. let me get this. okay. yes, i'd like to say that, yes, the states need to help badly. but if they want to cut some money, cut their pay in congress.
pelosi? a million dollars? please. give me a break. host: is that how much you think nancy pelosi - as a member of congress. caller: yes, sir. on t.v. constantly and when they send money out don't send it to a town with three people in hit. it's ridiculous to send that amount of money to a town with three people in it. if there's just three people in the town, let them move to a bigger town. host: myrtle beach. drew on the independent line? caller: unusual calls today. first of all, yes, the states are employ battled. some more than others but most, that's for sure. certainly the federal government should assist the states right now. my feeling is that the federal reserve and goldman sachs which has really been going on strong
for the better part of 20 years now, actually print on demand from the new york fed. it's well, well, known. no wing theory that new york calls it up and printed as needed. that's sound policy. i'm not against the feds but noting 2-3 million dollars in the latter part of 2008. well certainly you can print more. people liberal and progressive looking at the world banking situation are not worried about printing money at this time and moving things that way. one other thing i'll add on the supreme court nomination if any liberal senators like sheldon white house are listening at this time, brooks lee born who is serving on the commission right now would be an excellent choice, however i have a feeling she really is retired and might not want to take it on but she's a wonderful choice she would be.
host: she's serving on the financial crisis inquiry board. you can find those inquiries at the video archivess at the c-span video library and search that as well. here's what might be ahead for financial regulations. democrats eager to take on wall street is the headline. a group of democrats is written are planning an aggressive string of fences to keep the reform bill. democrats to vote against them. illinois, bill, democrat. caller: he hoe? good morning. i think that the big picture is being missed here. just like they missed the number one priority should have been jobs at the begin of has year. the only way america is going to pull itself out of what's going on right now is putting tariffs on imported goods to energy up factorys to produce our own
products instead of importing everything. we're losing factories overseas and tele marketing overseas if you put tariffs on goods it would open up all the small factories that closed. host: bill, how's that going to work with administrations man's and goal of expanding exports. won't other nations reall right. yates? caller: well look at the other countries that import? it didn't hurt them. they just doing gangbusters. if you look at all of the industries and factories. we even lost levis to foreign. we're producing 90% of sneakers and clothing overseas and we've lost all that american trade. americans don't produce anything right now. the half of the companies that do produce america they're located information remember countries. caterpillar. one of the top 500 countries.
before they had the recession hit, they had more people working overseas than they did in the united states. you know, that's like a first that it was kept under wraps. host: stephen dine's article about possible war. concludes with this. the house in december passed bill that included 23 billion for state teachers but the senate has not followed suit. david of wisconsin said the federal government should not squander by cutting off federal money now. more than one have signed on to support the local jobs for america's act. plus, 75 billion that states and localities would use for hiring. quote local community have to choose between raising taxes to sustain essential services or fire more workers said george miller of california, chairman of the house education and labor committee that wrote the bill.
north carolina. todd on the republican line? caller: lady was right about pelosi. these 535 bums back in sessions. how much did they spend going around the world on easter vacation. the 7 counties outside ofdc where all the government workers live are the richest part of the country? these people should stay at home and stay among they're constituents and clean up government. thank you. host: lee on the independent line in - i don't think that's you, lee. arkansas. hi. caller: yeah, that's me. i don't think the federal government has any money. every penny that all these people call in and want them to spend is money they're just printing or money that they're borrowing.
it appears the american public is completely devoid of morals altogether. we are willing - in this day and age - to have our children and our grandchildren subsidize our living expenses. i thought we were a better country than that. host: san francisco. democrat. linda? caller: yeah i think we'll have to probably give the states back some of the money that comes from the states, but i also wanted to point out that - it's not only because our government is spending money now, that we are in bad financial shape. we lost a lot of money. 401k, pension money. people's money to the bad decisions on wall street. and that money just went out the
window on bad investments and we have things like road, and we need to implicate our workforce for tomorrow. we need to have things working in this country and those things have been neglected a long time. and - you know, if families borrow and send kids to college. we have to borrow now if we'll repair some of the things we've been neglected while giving our money, you know to the mutual funds for them to invest for us in wall street and they didn't - you know - not too much productive use came out of that. yeah, we have to go over budget now or we're not going to get, you know to be competitive again. you know in the future. host: here's suggestion. emma right writes. states should cut off corporate
contractors. florida, david on our republican line. morning. caller: wondering when the federal government got any money. they don't have jobs to produce or are actually productive to earn any money. this idea that we're the richest nation in the world and 12 trillion dollars in debt just don't add up. thank you. host: story from roll call around the hill section about a former reporter who was a guest on this program and cover and the c-span networks and several networks too. write that with a combination of luck and fair measure of risk taking she's blazed her on trip to capitol hill with little manifestation that would lead her to washington in mare mch. bringing nearly two decades of experience as a journalist recently as an intelligent correspondence for the
associated press. john, independent line? caller: yeah, i really - i agree with that point. where does federal government - they don't have the money to give back to states and trickle down what's left. the bigger i too is j issue is . jobs shift to japan and then i'm coming here doing construction but the illegals come in and took my job. i can't get a tele mark tele ma job because they're not or going to all the india. if they're made to invoke in this country. go over to invest in china, move there and be a chinese company don't depend on our tax breaks and freedom to make your money and then run and hide in the corner with it that's all i have
to say. >> talking about the nuclear security summit in washington. "new york times". agenda leaves out a new threat. growing arms race in pakistan and india showed limits of negotiations in the article by david sanger. they write that the summit meeting the largest gathering called by a president since franklin roosevelt creating the united nations. secretary of state clinton and a visor. rom emmanuel headed over to bhar house for meetings yesterday. one more call on the money to states. jacksonville, florida, howard? democrats line, are you there? caller: yes. i'm here. i believe they aught to distribute that money to the states. we're going to have a second wave of massive lay-off's.
police officers, teachers, nurses, doctors from state hospitals. libraries. quite a few states around here are in an awful mess and i believe they need some help. they need it now. my state, florida the butt idge mess. host: howard, who would you support. i know it's on the republican side. in the senate race all the news as been about governor chris. who would you is important? caller: whoever the democrats put up against them. host: appreciate you weighing in more coming. we'll be joined by foreign policy rider josh rogin and your
calls to all on the way as "washington journal" continues. first a news update from c-span radio. >> it's 7:45 in washington. the two day nuclear summit opens today in downtown washington as president plays host to leader of more than 40 countries looking for ways to control the country's nuclear stockpiles today talks to jordan, china and ukraine. federal investigators look for the cause of the last that killed 29 miners. efforts continue to recover the bodies of four miners still in the upper branch mine. plane crash killed the president of poe and and 95 others. readings from the night recorders indicated there were no technical problems with the plane.
investigators told russian prime minister the pilot was warned of bad weather approaching the airport in west russia on saturday. a new survey says in 2009 airlines, reduced night schedules and all kinds of extra fees. passengers complained less. the latest annual report also says fewer people flew last year and plane where is more likely to land on time and bags less likely to get lost. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. >> my philosophy is to ask questions when i think the answer might give me hell decideing the case. >> after 34 years top supreme court. john paul stephens will step down when it finishing it's work for the summer. new c span video library with more than 80 appearances dating back to 1985, search it, watch
it, clip it, share it. c-span video library. cable's latest gift to america. >> all this month see the winners of c-span's documentary contest. one of the countries greatest strengths or a challenge the country is facing. watch the top winning videos every morning on c-span just before "washington journal". at 8:30 during the program, meet the student that made them. for a preview of all the winners visit studentcam dot org. "washington journal" continues. >> josh rogin writes for the cable blog at foreign policy.com. what's the duration want to get out this week? >> largely determined well in advance, we'll see at the end is a statement of president obama's
plan to secure all loose nuclear materials in four years. the language has been negotiated and we'll ceo ris of you any lateral negotiations to secure their own nuclear materials. we'll see a lot of little announcements and there won't be any big agreements or findings any any sense. best opportunity to discuss the nature of the threat and what we can do individually and collectively. >> if these things agreed to in advance why do country assemble in one place? >> most countries, action is determined a from the top down. you need senior leadership on attention to really get it moving. it's also the best opportunity to get all the leaders in one place. to have all sorts of other meetings on issues when 46 world
leaders come to town they come with 46 agendas and the obama administration has that many of it's own. you can be sear there will be a lot of issues on the table. >> started an article david wrote about pakistan and india. the president yesterday meeting with india. that is an issue. the india, pakistan nuclear situation that's off the table here. >> that's true. they're both nuclear countries but they're also both outside of the boundaries of the non-proliferation treaty and both have special statuses. this will be dealt within may at the nontreaty significance. the u.s. has been making an effort to increase the profile in the pakistan leader ship. both countries are tentatively moving closer after years of
tension and the u.s. is playing a role in that. both countries are insecure about their relationship with the united states. the fact he's meeting with both countries is significant. host: our phone calls are on the screen. calls for josh rogin. outside of indian, pakistan, you said there's a lot of things agreed to in advance. i want to say outside of i ran and north korea what countries cause administration the most concern? guest: look at the former soviet states first. most of sit - it's not a coincidence president obama when senator was part of an initiative to do that. it used to be called the nonlieuinger f initiative. the president met with the president of kazakhstan
yesterday. they have a pretty atrocious human rights record but that did not come up in the meeting. this shows the interaction of the issues on the table. host: show our viewers the president yesterday commented on what's a head in the summit and then we'll get to calls. >> we have a situation in which there's a lot of loose nuclear material around the world, and so the central focus goal of this summit is getting internet community on a path in which we're locking down that nuclear material in the specific timeframe with a specific work plan. one of the things i'm very pleased about is countries have great control and they're come together the summit, not just talking about general statements of support but rather, very specific approaches to how we can solve this profound "inteliigence2 debate" problem.
host: josh rogin, you talked about loose nukes and the "washington post" yesterday wrote about the size of material. they wrote 5.25% pounds of highly enriched uranium is needed to make a small nuclear device. there's estimated 3.5 million pounds of the material and 40 country's and 1 point 1 million pounds. there's enough weapons usable nuclear materials to build more than 125,000 nuclear bombs. talking that much material, how can they ever get control of this? guest: that's fair question. what we're seeinging is the focus on the material. the focus on the technologies to make the material is much more difficult. iran and north korea developing enrichment capabilities. it's very low bash entry for for
these types. the only strategy is to go after the material. the national security council. said if we can secure all the material, we can essentially solve the problem of nuclear terrorism. whether or not you believe this is the goal. the closer we get the lore the risk of the material falling in the wrong hands. >> is there more material today than the height of the cold war? host: yes. there's countries that continue to publish it. there's no good way to say for sure how much is here or there. the bottom line is this material is largely a legacy of the cold war. this dove-tails into what the president is doing with russia to lower the amount of nuclear warheads and the signing of the star treaty in prague and with president obama's promise to work toward as world with no nuclear weapons and dove tails
with the national posture review that the redefining of america and how we think of nuclear weapons. all goals are to get these things out of the hands of people that might use them or accidentally set them off. host: callers. aberdeen, washington. don? caller: yes. the whole idea of them reducing nuclear arms. russia ain't going to do it. they're going to stockpile them where they can't be found. that's all nation's guarantee that have nuclear weapons. it's a joke and a waste of taxpayer money to have this going on. host: how's it verifiable? guest: i think there's a good point in the callers remarks. even the treaties. and what we're doing with russia don't approach the thousands of
nuclear and tactical nuclear weapons the united states has. as for is there a benefit for reducing the weapons in the treaty? i think there is. one of the biggest risks is accidental launch. miss call cue haitian. some sort of mistake and having thousand of weapons on hair trigger alert makes that accident more probable. the more you can reduce those on that hair trig another letter, the better it for everybody. i do agree sit just the beginning and the tip of the iceberg. host: "inteliigence2 debate" line. ken, brown lake, illinois? caller: i'm basically understanding. i did a study in the great depression and really all of it if you guy don't get the job search going, you know, we had a job back then to restart ourselves. host: we've moved on to talking
about the nuclear energy summit. bill in saint charles missouri. caller: thank you. i hear all this. north korea nuclear weapons and iran. when are you going to do a show on israel's illegal weapons? are the people here afraid. you sit on t.v. and talk about iran that doesn't have one and you hide like cowers about israel's nuclear arsenal. guest: i think it's a fair question and i'm not scared to talk about that. israel has 80 to a 100. they have a no confirmation and denial. they're one of the three nuclear countries that's nart of the proliferation. this sha concern to the region but i rail's policy is not likely to be changed soon.
as it relates to this summit, israel actually declined to send it's prime minister and the way that they gave is because they believe that egypt and turkey would raise the issue at the summit and divert the focus from the real cause of the summit to israel's program and they didn't want to become the center of attention and distract from president's agenda. it's pretty unclear. host: they're not avoiding the summit. they're sending the deputy prime minister? guest: right. he's more in charge too. this will be something that will come up in may in new york at the nonproliferation treaty review conference. host: is that under the office of the united states? guest: that's right. every five years the treaty comes up for review. when it came up last time, the united states under the bush administration was accused of
not promoting reform or implementing the reforms it's claimed to promote. president obama has a much different perspective. host: douglas on the "inteliigence2 debate" line? >> i wanted to say two major points about the nuclear summit and issue. i wonder how much credibility it has from powers around the world. both nuclear powers and nonnuclear powers when benjamin thumbs his nose at the summit at the obama administration like the settles withed byn landed over there up the last part. after the aggression of the bush regime in invading countries, you know, like in a situation like when they invaded iraq. don't you think countries want a
mutual level of reconstruction in case we get another cowboy policy like the bush regime to political striking of people to part trait against that country. the very last thing i'd like to say. i'm a history buff. i've never seen i ran attack anybody. it's enough to make israel put us on the brink of war with iran but if israel doesn't have to come to the table, i think it's a joke and until we real in israel we shouldn't have summits hike this. last time we did and the united states didn't go, saying people will pick on israel, we had 9/11. host: got your point, douglas. let me let josh rogin respond. guest: this summit has 47 countries represented at the deputy prime minister or state of government or head of
government level. are you sharks why narcs you name it. this is ability as much credibility you can give to the process. goals are narrowed as such be commonality. it's a relatively noncontroversial thing. on mutual destruction. no matter what the new treaties s say they'll still have enough to mo' the world up five points over. several years in the future when we talk about getting to hutch lower levels of weapons we can talk about how that gets other people not to enter that. on iran, i think it's widely known they support extremist groups all over the world. they're the number one according to the states department do. they attack anybody? maybe not in open for a pretty
long-time but they're responsible for all sorts of mischief around the world and that's cheer and that's why they acquiring a nuclear weapon is a dangerous situation. from i ran's leader use heard typical dismissal of president obama's policies. iran will hold it's own nuclear summit later this week as a counter to the u.s. summit. china is considering attending to give it a level of credibility the obama administration would be comfortable about. comfortable about. .no carrierringconnect 12
that report was delayed over speculation that there was a quid quo pro. my sources say there was no quid quo pro, the u.s.-china relationship is very complex. there could have been any number of reasons why the president did not rsvp. host: do you think the report will be the least today or tuesday? guest: no, i do not believe it will be released soon. that does not mean there is a lot of work going on behind the
scenes to challenge them another currency. their argument is their economic stability would be upset by them really winning their currency. that is true. in the u.s. argument is that u.s. jobs suffer. what i predict it is -- predicted is a slow but definite announcement from china that there will be progress, not as much as people want, but the administration prefers to work on these things behind the scenes. host: "the christian science monitor" looks at a nucleathe nr arsenal are round the world. next phone call. burke on the democratic line.
caller: having been a military brat my whole life, what is the cost and savings to remove these weapons? i have lived in kansas, at mcconnell air force base, and those weapons are in dangea dan. if he were to take them out of kansas, you would not need airbase anymore. they are so expensive, i would think this country would love to get rid of them. what does it cost to cover countries and towns who have these basis? guest: the real question, the cost issue, goes both ways. for russia, the cost of maintaining their arsenal is
pretty small. a lot of conservatives, especially in congress, said that russia was acting in its own interest by reducing their nuclear weapons. they could not afford to keep them. as you point out, for the u.s., it is a different situation. in the end, the cost to the u.s. government is not much of an issue, because we know the defense budget is over $700 billion, and the country has no problem taking on debt. host: michael. republican line. staten island. caller: first of all, these nuclear weapons have kept us
safe. the money we are wasting in this country should be spent keeping these things up to par. the chinese are updating their nukes every day. as far as an act of war, and has not happened yet. as they say in the service, if it ain't broke, do not fix it. guest: on the cost issue, you are right, that is not the issue. on the issue of china possible nuclear arsenal, somewhere around 150 weapons -- the u.s. has 1500 deployed after this agreement goes into effect. it will be decades before china gets to a point where we feel they are any nuclear competitor.
as for whether it is necessary to keep a nuclear arsenal for our safety or whether it is a risk, it is both. nuclear deterrence has a strategy, but it is a limited role. host: how important was bid for the president to have that new start treaty stunnesigned befors nuclear summit? guest: very good. these sorts of agreements take a long time. the fact is, this allows them to get both documents done. this is crucial for the obama administration who has been trying to show off their foreign policy strategy. host: stockton, california.
the less -- phyliss. caller: how are they going to get rid of these things? they cannot destroy these nuclear weapons. they cannot sell them. how are they going to dismantle them and do it at a reasonable cost and not tell them to another country? -- sell them to another country? it may sound weird, but i remember president johnson the mantling a lot of these things. they would sell a lot of them on tv it would be like a job fair, but it would be something to buy these missiles. they have to understand, we want
to know what they are going to do with these things. guest: you can destroy, dismantled them. the goal here is to control them. simple as that. the stories of lives and a clear material are just shocking. there is a lot we can do, even if we do not destroy all weapons. also, the administration is compiling a robust plan to modernize the nuclear weapons that we do have to make them more reliable, safe, and make sure everything is up to date. the administration will have to come up with a plan to make sure that our nuclear arsenal is in top shape. host: just to be clear, this is
the first time since fall of the soviet union that the world has gotten together to address this issue in one single conference, correct? guest: yes, it is remarkable, actually. the goal is not to build some sort of international organization, but it is a very focused google, to look to themselves about this in the clear material issue, and to look to you and, if they need assistance. we are not talking about international assistance to get. host: in the "was a treat interna wall street journal" --
how long did it take them to get this piece done? guest: that is part of an agreement with four former soviet republics and nato. it works on two levels. it allows the countries to build their relationship with the u.s., the west, and it goes towards securing nuclear materials. a lot of thithe former soviet states have been good. if they want to press these countries on other issues like human rights, they could, but in
terms of this one agreement, that is a success story. host: dayton, ohio. doyle, a democrat. caller: it is an honor to talk to you. these nuclear weapons have been around for the last 50 years. we are about ready to enter a new era of a different type of weapon, satellite weapons, lasers. that is what we will be emphasizing most of our technology on. the idea of getting rid of these nuclear weapons now is a good idea there will be a new threat to the world in the next 50 years anyway.
my question is, if the obama administration has done anything about this new kind of weaponry? guest: as you point out, missile defense, currently the best thing that we have to combat against some of the nuclear- weapons, is moving toward a laser-based system. those are still not of the technological law will where it could be useful. that will be another few years. but yes, that will change the nature of warfare. what is interesting about lasers and is that they are also now being used for enrichment of nuclear materials. instead of setting up thousands of centrifuges, in a few years,
countries will be able to have lasers separate the good here radium from now that he rhenium with less of a footprint. -- uranium from the bad uranium with less of efforand a footpri. host: about 15 more minutes of your phone calls. secretary gates and hillary clinton were on the "meet the press" over the weekend. >> we still have a powerful nuclear arsenal. the nuclear posture review said for the process by which we will be able to modernize our nuclear stockpile to make it more liable, safer, more secure,
effective. we have, in addition to the nuclear deterrent the day, a couple of things that we did not have in the soviet days. missile defense is growing by leaps and bounds. both regional and ground-based interceptors. we have some conventional alternatives on long-range missiles that we did not have before. believe me, the joint chiefs of staff and i would not have wholeheartedly embraced, not only the nuclear posture review, but the start agreement, if we did not agree that this makes the country stronger. host: secretary gates sounding pretty reassuring there. guest: what is interesting about what he said it is he is connecting these issues together -- the start agreement, nuclear posture review, missile defense. this is a look at how the
administration is talking at these issues. what is ironic here it is the bush administration deployed missile defense in order to set up a fait accompli. now this administration is embracing it. they took out the missile interceptors in poland and the czech republic, but they are replacing it with something even more efficient. host: it will still be part of the equation, even though the russians are not crazy about it? guest: this was the big sticking point with the russians. what they negotiated was that we wouldn't acknowledge the relationship between offensive and defensive weapons in the start agreement. whether or not that makes senate republicans so angry that they
oppose the treaty is yet to be seen. on the other hand, that connection between offensive and defense of weapons it is obvious. whether or not the obama administration is prepared to defend that is a question. host: they have also been holding this olive branch, talking about developing a new nuclear defense program with the russians. is that just talk? guest: hard to say. there have been planned to put radars on line near russia, in russian territory. i doubt that we would ever want to, at this point, move forward with that type of project. who knows? it could happen. host: patrick from arizona. independent line.
callerpatrick, on a going to puu on hold. just a reminder. turn your television down. elizabethtown, north carolina. caller: yes, my question is, do you think russia will support sanctions against iran? do you think the u.s. will never attack iran if they break this treaty? guest: those are fantastic questions. iran is the 800 pound gorilla in the room at this nuclear summit. my sources tell me that the p5
members + 1 are approaching a solution to slow down the nuclear program. whether or not those program will bhave any attraction is unclear. but russia will sign on eventually. china, we will have to see. as far as an attack, that option exists, but the administration has made it clear that that is a last case scenario.host: next p. brooklyn. caller: i agree with two people. iran never attacked anybody. israel attacks everyone in the middle east.
host: let us hear from fort lauderdale, democratic call. caller: good morning. i was thinking this is a good idea from the obama administration trying to focus on these nuclear weapons. they are designed to kill us all. i think that if everybody started having them, it would be dangerous to everyone. so this is a good start. all this negative talk is not necessary. we need to start some place and be optimistic. host: what do we know about how capable of al qaeda is to
produce a dirty bomb? guest: a radioactive bomb is a relatively easy thing to construct, one to have the materials in hand. we do not have any information that al qaeda has obtained any of these materials. radioactive, and dirty bombs is a tanker problem from -- dirty bombs is a problem separate from other international issues. host: david drucker has a story today about politics of moving this through the senate. he writes --
you talked about that earlier in the program. guest: up until the start treaty was signed, said republicans were critical of how the negotiations were going and threatened to oppose the treaty. now that the treaty is out, they are thinking about it. some will, some will not. richard lugar will support it. senator jon kyl -- that is an important one. another one to watch is senator mccain and joe lieberman. senator lieberman was lying down
in negotiation initiative. he was pretty bold in saying that he did not then and there were 67 boats, but he is not -- votes, but he is not the vote- counter. host: kansas city, missouri. robert. caller: yes, sir. i hear a lot of talk about north korea but nobody says anything about south korea. i want to know if your guest has any information on what they have in those top-secret mountains in south korea? guest: good question. south korea was discovered to
have been running a clandestine nuclear program for many years. there was international condemnation, and as far as we now, that program is no longer going on. they have tested as many as two weapons. so we know that they are a defective nuclear country. there are an example of a country that is no longer pursuing nuclear weapons. that could be seen as excess -- as a success. other countries participating in that program would be libya. host: next phone call. caller: this is an important issue. thank you for pointing out the finer parts of this. i am a veteran.
seconthere seemed to be a somewt anti-israeli sentiment on your show. i want to remind everyone, if it was not for them in 1980's, with saddam hussein, things would be different. lindsey graham spoke up at a meeting a few weeks ago, and he said president obama is my president. although we disagree on health care, i support him in our relationship with israel. i wanted to commend him for his courage. despite what the republican party of no says, he supported the president. host: do you see republicans supporting this? guest: senator graham is one of
the few republicans left willing to work with the administration on foreign policy issues. by doing so, he seems to be distancing himself from others in his party. it is unclear how much he will be doing that in november, but he is an important republican to watch. as for the color's point that israel -- caller's point that israel has not had the best of your track record, that is correct. as a few years ago, israel attacked a syrian reactor developing nuclear weapons with help from north korea. so there is an argument that israel has played a role. there is also the argument that israel is not the only state in the region with a nuclear arsenal. host: it is syria a member of the summit?
yes, no, they could not be invited. there is a lot of regional representation. -- guest: no, they could not be invited. there is a lot of regional representation. host: here is something from this weekend. >> it is enough to make the world safer? >> it certainly is. i know this is a very important issue that i want to thank you for discussing. the president's position is very clear. we will always protect the united states, partners and allies are on the world, our nuclear deterrent will remain safe and effective in doing so, but we also think we will be all to build a safer if we can introduce the idea that the u.s. is willing to enter into a arms
treaties with russia to reduce our perspective nuclear arsenal, and that we will stand against proliferation that will perhaps deter others from acquiring nuclear weapons. so you have to look at the entire package. host: your thoughts? guest: i think it is sort of an unanswerable question. it reminds me about the early days of live global war on terror, whether or not we were more or less safe. it is impossible to determine. the point that she did make, that she believes this is a constructive thing to do -- i think that is pretty much unassailable. host: one more phone call. new orleans. paul. caller: good morning.
i want you to address what kind of credibility we could have at a nuclear summit when testimony before congress, under oath exposed that porter goss, undersecretary of state to secretary rice, was selling nuclear weapons secrets on the open black market. there was no investigation on this man. in fact, they punish someone else. guest: in the u.s. activities with nuclear weapons, and the clandestine level, is another issue that we could take another show to enter. no doubt, the u.s. has made some mistakes in its handling of the nuclear issue. there is also no doubt that the
u.s. holds one of the largest nuclear arsenals in the world. there is also no question that they have helped countries become nuclear countries, while not helping others. we live in a world where there is too much loose material. however, that was thoroughly addressed the topic. host: you will be covering the issue this week? guest: all week. host: they can read all of your work on line. josh rogin, thank you. coming up, and historical look at the u.s. and russian treaties. "great negotiations: agreements that changed the modern world" with fredrick stanton. that is his new book. >> let's meet another student
winner in the student can competition. we asked about one of the country's greatest strengths are challenges. today we speak to a ninth grader in bloomington, indiana. matthew, thank you for talking to us. the title of your documentary is "breaking news: the end of civility." how did you come up with a name? >> my friend thought of it, and i liked it. it was sort of like a breaking news story, like on the news channels. the topic was about the end of civil discourse and news media. we thought that was a big problem, and that contributed, so we put the two together. >> do you think cable news has contributed to the end of civility?
>> yes, that is why we picked it. we saw so many news channels, they were concentrated on getting ratings, getting people to tune in, that they were getting rid of civil discourse, saying things that were outrageous just to get ratings. >> how do you think cable news has changed in the past few years? >> i think it started just trying to relay the news, but now it has come to more of the competition for ratings, more entertainment. trying to entertain people, get them to watch more, so that they can make more money. >> how did you arrange your interviews in your documentary? >> being near indiana
university, we asked for some contribution, explaining our situation. we talked about this competition and we got some help back. >> what have you learned about talking to everyone at the journalism school? >> we learned about how they thought about the problem, how they thought about some of these questions that you are asking. it allowed us to get a better understanding of the news. >> has america benefited from having more news of that? >> that is one of the main factors on while cable news has contributed to the end of civility. with so many new trends, you have more competition, and how
they feel they have a bigger need to get more viewers to know that they can compete with their arrival news channels, which gives them more attentive to yell, scream. >> you mentioned public trust in the media. what is your opinion of public trust in the media right now? >> i think more people trust it. as we showed, it has gone down, but i think people still trust it pretty well because they do not know much about what goes on. we did not know much about it until we started researching it, seeing how they compete for ratings -- i do not think people understand much about that. >> what are your plans after high school? >> might now, just go to college.
-- right now, just go to college. i guess i will cross that bridge when i come to it. >> congratulations on your wind. -- win. >> the decline of civil discourse has become an obstacle in news. mass media informs our political decisions. media bias is not simply a problem of partisanship, it is a problem of peace or war, of solving our problems or descending into confusion. >> you can watch the entire video at studentcam.org. host: author fredrick stanton making his first visit to "washington journal" with his new book "great negotiations: agreements that changed the modern world."
when was the first time that the u.s. negotiated a nuclear treaty with the soviet union? guest: the history of u.s. nuclear relations with the soviet union goes back to the cold war. the turning point was the cuban missile crisis where both countries came close to the brink of nuclear holocaust and they realized they did not want to do that again. the realization of that prompted negotiations that resulted to the test ban treaty in 1963, which prohibited testing in the atmosphere, under water, or in space. that was the first step to contain and ultimately roll back nuclear weapons in the cold war. that led to further treaties, strategic arms limitation treaties, which restricted further growth of nuclear weapons and platforms. that ultimately led to
negotiations between president reagan and gorbachev and their breakthrough meeting in iceland which led to the intermediate nuclear forces treaty, which eliminated an entire class of weapons, and eventually, the start treaty which reduced the number of weapons. host: when you saw the signing between the president and president medvedev, what sort of common themes horgan that signing that go back to -- in that signing then go back to the days of reagan and gorbachev? there were similar issues of verification, missile defense, and of course, things to be cut back. guest: russians, and then, as
now, were worried about a system not would erode the value of their system. those issues were pretty much the same, and labor handled in a similar fashion. host: fredrick stanton is here to talk about his new book, "great negotiations: agreements that changed the modern world." republicans, 202-737-0001. democrats, 202-737-0002. independents, 202-628-0205. i want to look at the opening page of the book, and this fellow from the united nations. why did you choose this photograph, who is that man in the center? >> he is a mediator with the united nations who helped negotiate one of the early peace
treaties in the middle east. it was the arab-israeli armistice print after the 1948 war -- just after the 1948 war. he was able to bring the two sides together to reach an accord that lasted for a number of years. it was, really, the 1st durable peace of negotiation between israel and its neighbors. host: you talk about the issue of the strategic defense initiative, the so-called nuclear shield. it has echoes with the missile defense system that we are talking about now. what was the end result of the streeters -- treaties in make of it? -- record, polanin poland?
guest: things were left on a fairly sour note. however, the brokers that were tabled at the time were not withdrawn. within months, talks were resumed on intermediate forces which resulted in a treaty abolishing forces. the framework for the start agreement, which was signed years later, came out along the same line of what was laid down earlier. in retrospect, and was a great success. the strategic defense initiative played a role in affecting russian thinking at that time. it also showed a difference in perspective from president reagan and gorbachev. both wanted to get to know nuclear weapons. president reagan wanted to do so under a defensive shield.
but gorbachev wanted to do so under mutual reductions. host: the first chapter is about men from glen and the revolutionary war with the french. -- ben franklin and the revolutionary war with the french. what did future negotiators learn from him which remained a common theme? was there a common theme in negotiations? guest: ben franklin was a good negotiator. it was pretty lucky memories and him anywhere. -- when we send him anywhere. in many respects, he must america's first texas told diplomats. -- key was america paused first successful diplomat. host: the next phone call. caller: what are the democrats
pushing for drawdowns when the republicans are asking for an increase in nuclear deterrence, such as missile defense? wouldn't it be wise to have everyone at the table, get away from politics, and all try to draw down at the same time? every nation need to protect themselves, but at the same time, stop focusing on role nation's and make sure that the nuclear deterrent we have is not getting to them. guest: that is a good question. the answer is, the differences represent two competing views of national security. one is that by providing an example, we can reduce our
weapons and others will follow suit, and because of that, the world will be safer in general. the other perspective is it remains a dangerous world, that there are figures in it who cannot abide by international norms. at the end of the day, the greatest defense is having an effective deterrent. i think you have the two different visions of security. host: good morning to ohio. nola on the democratic line. caller: i wanted to thank you for mentioning that part about mr. bentsen. i want to thank our military also for putting this summit together. this is big. we have all these tweeters from all over the world.
my son is in the air force. we want to thank andrews air force base. this is a big thing for america. thank you. host: we know about the dayton accords. some of these treaties are note -- negotiated in unexpected places. talk about that. >> frequently, negotiators choose an isolated environment where they can conference without distraction. we see that with the reagan and gorbachev in iceland. we also see this with the israelis and egyptians in 1949, and with teddy roosevelt in the
treaty of portsmouth. it can be useful to have world leaders gather in a major world capital, but in different types of negotiations, you want to isolate the negotiators, so that they can sit down with each other and in an atmosphere of calm. host: were you surprised that president reagan and gorbachev had such a hands on experience, that they were negotiating with each other? >> it was one of the more negotiating things about those negotiations and was not designed to be as dramatic as it was. it was originally a quick pre- conference before a summit in washington, but because of the informality, low expectations, they were able to talk with each other and that led to these breakthroughs. it was a surprise success.
host: st. cloud, minnesota. david. caller: the question i have, but i am appalled with is the number of nuclear weapons we have and the number of weapons [unintelligible] i would like to know what those numbers are and why it is necessary to have so many. guest: obviously, the american nuclear stockpile is largely a legacy from the cold war. we have cut down to levels that we were at in the 1960's, slightly before. in the cold war, weaver is engaged in this life and death struggle, so we've accumulated this enormous supply of nuclear weapons, partly for redundancy to protect against the first strike, partly to have enough on hand.
what we see both the u.s. and russia doing at this point is dialing back their forces on a recognition that there is not necessarily the need for all these weapons that we have. host: perhaps we can get a view on the graph that we have created looking at some of the nuclear stockpiles from around the world. james in roanoke, virginia. caller: ina fame -- former air force general. we had a tactical weapons as well as strategic weapons. tactical weapons, apart from -- are they a part of the start treaty? guest: that is a good question. they are not part of the treaty. however, tactical weapons are a potential area of negotiation that president obama has expressed an interest in exploring. one of the thing that could come
on of the meetings is a greater interest in addressing other types of nuclear weapons. in the cold war, the greatest concern was the large strategic form that was the greatest threat to us. now with the emergence of nuclear terrorism, there is a greater concern for security across the board, including looking at things like traffic on a clear weapons, which are numerous. there are over 500 over the world, and they are small. so it is a very important piece of the puzzle that remains to be addressed. host: birmingham, alabama. clinton on the democratic line. caller: all i would like to know the relationship between iran
and -- excuse me. i want to know about the relationship between iran and north korea. shouldn't we be dealing with both countries simultaneously? guest: that is a good question. both are obviously countries of concern because of their interest in proliferation. the reason they are being treated differently is their history. iran is in the middle east. it is not as far along in its program as north korea, which has already detonated several weapons. of course, north korea as the history of the korean war. they are two different situations, but what they have
in common is potential proliferation. we take that seriously. both of them i believe have parallels to the cuban missile crisis. when president kennedy was confronted with the choice of an emerging nuclear threat, in terms of them placing missiles in cuba, at the same time that he raised pressure on the soviet union, he made it clear that he could open up channels of negotiations to allow for a grateful -- graceful exit for them, taking into account the interest of both sides. host: you start with a map looking at the u.s. and cuba with concentric rings around it. what does that mean? yes, those are the target ranges of the various muscles in cuba. one of the things that chairman
khrushchev did when he intended to install the missiles in cuba was to increase the soviet strike force against the u.s. and reduce the morning time from 20 minutes, to less than three. it was an existential threat to the u.s., and that is my president kennedy treated it as seriously as he did. that was one of the catalysts which led to the modern world of arms agreement, having seen how close the world came. host: on hava lot has been writn about the cuban missile crisis. what did you learn that you did not know before? guest: i was interested in and telling a great story in context
of other stories. one thing that i was able to benefit from was recently the classified information on the soviet side. it must information to put those into a side-by-side so that you could tell what both sides were doing, how they were thinking, and how they were interpreting the action, as it was unfolding. host: there was an obituary over the weekend for a former soviet ambassador to the u.s. what role did he have in the cuban missile crisis? guest: he played a crucial role. one of the document i was referring to earlier was a report from him, back to the kremlin regarding a meeting that he had with president kennedy's brother bobby kennedy, which was one of the most crucial meetings.
he was a focal point of some of the secret talks with the kennedy administration. host: national, -- nashville, alan. guescaller: it does not make see to me that we are getting weaker when we should be getting stronger. we need to maintain the ability to strike unpredictably. we need to be irrational and frightening for them to leave us alone. with the chinese have been 225 million men between ages of 18 and 22, how are we going to face potentially china and any other nuclear power? we cannot even hold down afghanistan and iraq. this makes no sense to me.
guest: i think the obama administration would probably argue that we have 1500, after the new treaty is fully implemented, we would still have 1500 deployed strategic weapons. in addition to that, we have thousands of weapons that are not deployed but are in storage, in reserve, or are awaiting to be dismantled. the total sum of our stockpile is affected to a much smaller degree that people would expect by this decree with russia. host: michael on the republican line. caller: 20 you think the executive branch -- want to rethink the executive branch but to our security in question? is it part of the fundamental
change that was telegraphed in the election last year? do you think this could be weakening us? guest: it is the responsibility of every administration to decide how it is going to deal with defense, the role that a nuclear weapons will have in its national security policy, and the purpose of elections is to elect people who are in a position to make those decisions. that is what we are seeing unfolding. president obama promised if he was elected, he would reduce the role that nuclear-weapons played in american security, and that is what we are seeing. he gave a speech a year ago in prague where he outlined his vision for the future and the
steps he has taken so far. that has followed pretty consistently with his vision. host: writing about the louisiana purchase, you're right that the issue is one of the biggest foreign policy challenges for the u.s.. you write -- guest: that is right. now we've been purchased is seen as a successful purchase. what is lesser-known it is that in proof of an existential crisis that the u.s. was confronted with.
the boy in's possession of louisiana in which almost led to civil war, war with france, and was a real crisis. it was an example of an unexpected benefits of negotiation. we went in negotiating for the port of new orleans and we came up with half the continent. host: more recently, seeing what worked for franklin, roosevelt, what do you see in today's negotiations? guest: when president carter hosted the camp david accords, he had his staffers look at the portsmouth negotiations, the previous example of the president meeting a conflict they studied that closely and learn some lessons from it. host: topeka, kansas. bruce on the democrat line.
caller: good morning. in any of the past negotiations that we have had with the u.s.s. r, have we ever taken into account that there should be accountability for all the weapons number in the former ussr > i am thinking in those weapons are now lost and there are probably being spread throughout the world. guest: i think that the closest thing to what you describe is the start agreement, the strategic arms reduction treaty. that was signed shortly before the union fell apart.
as a follow-up addendum, former satellite states of the soviet union which had nuclear weapons on their territory at the time that the soviet union fell apart, agreed to sell those weapons back to russia. the weapons of the soviet union in places like ukraine, the stans, other countries, were returned in that manner. host: is this the first treaty between the u.s. and russia? the first nuclear treaty? guest: there was another treaty which was signed with president bush and i believe president clinton. however, the verification provisions are very weak, so i would say this is the most substantive and important treaty with russia.
host: providence, rhode island. redfred, good morning. caller: someone said something about the more nuclear weapons you have, the more colorful you are. there was a movie talking about the end of the world where they blew up a bomb and destroy everything, so if a couple of the clear bonds could destroy the world, we should be concerned. we go into other countries, but nobody comes into us to watch our nuclear program. lots of people come here to go to college. a lot of these people are coming here to go to college and then
the threat of accidental discharge, in terms of verification with the u.s., the answer is yes. the u.s. subjects itself to are provisions with the new treaty for russia and provisions for the u.s. as well. and as a party to international organizations and treaties as the international atomic agency. host: our guest is greg stanton, a few more questions about your calls. about former soviet scientists, are they able to track as on the leading edge of some nuclear discovery?
guest: i think they try, it's not possible to track all of them, because the soviet weapon's mission waskqk so high secretive in the soviet union soviet union. they focus on the weapons, the machinery rather than the people. it's easier to track than the people. but the scientists remain a certain. host: abdul on our independent line, welcome. caller: thank you for my call. my question the united states is the only one country that will drop atom bomb in japan, you know. and we had only two at that time, and we said if you don't (inaudible) we will drop the
bomb. we don't have israel on the table. and how many you have to have? we don't know. could you please make a comment of this? guest: well, i think president obama has mentioned that as the only country that has imployed nuclear weapon on anger and this will date to world war ii. the fact that the u.s. has the largest stock piles of nuclear weapons and has been a pioneer in the nuclear era and remains a power. host: how can we test the nuclear weapons we do have? and ocean is banned, how do they
get tested? guest: since the signing of the test ban treaty has been treft test tested undergrow ground. president obama has looked at a treat to ban all testing, as we cut back on the number of weapons we want to be sure that the ones we have work, and they degrade over time. that's an issue that will come up yet senate ratification start process. host: do you know the last time we tested a weapon in the u.s.? guest: it's been a while ago,
over a decade or more. host: we have john. caller: good morning, i have a comment and perhaps you respond to the comment. it's about the extent to which republicans now view everything almost as if it's a football game. i remember reagan, we had someone talk about the question about how weakness makes us stronger. i remember how reagan in his vision of removing nuclear weapons, went much than this treaty. moved an entire category of missiles from our arsenal and he did not make us weaker. the problem is not so much ideology. i have always agreed with republican ideology, i vote
democrat, i don't think democrats understand freedom as the founders meant it. because of the kind of leaders they put in place, and the way they look at politics. right now i will try to keep this on foreign policy. now they look at it as if the democrats fail, they win. they do not look at it as the united states wins. as this moved us forward, the say way that ronald reagan moved it forward, as weakness that will destroy america. i wonder what would george washington and thomas jefferson and these people, what would they think of what current republicans doing to the
discourse of the decisions like this be made that are not hyper bolized. guest: i will speak to president reagan's book and mikhail gorbachev. and reagan believed if there was missile defense shield that could protect against nuclear weapons, it would degrade their value. and allow for ultimately total disarmament. but he felt it was important to have a mental side of the equation. and he believed that in order to get the>,÷ soviet's attention i
was first necessary to negotiate from a position of strength. and that's what he did. and as you correctly pointed out after the negotiation, he was able to work with the soviets in an entire class of weapons that's not been before or since. and it's fairly fair to say he wouldn't accomplish that without that force of the weapons at that time. host: you brought that the arms race was bankrupting the system. gorbachev wrote, it was already
obvious that there was something wrong in this country, doomed to serve ideology. forced to stop hard currency payments. the soviet union soviet union had fallen to the 50th in the world in infant mortality rates. this abyss had to end. and the president knew that the u.s. military spending would continue to go. guest: yes. this race was a burden to both sides. and that's one reason that reagan looked to reduce nuclear weapons and worked with gorbachev to cut back nuclear weapons. and it was clear from reading internal soviet declassified materials, before chairman gorbachev went to iceland, he
told the bureau if the u.s. imposes another arms race on us, we will lose. so he was put in a position to force to change track and to look at the nuclear equation from a different perspective. and i think it was that creative break that allowed them to move forward. host: new brunswick, new jersey, john, welcome. caller: what would thomas jefferson have to say about all of this. here is one piece out of the living constitution, and finally where peace is at best preserved by giving information to the government and the information to the people. this lasted most certain and to government, educate the mass of the people and enable them to see it as their interest to preserve peace and order. and they will preserve it.
it does not require a key of quote education is key to this. and this is what president obama has tried to use in the united states. the forefathers didn't believe that the population was smart enough to participate in its government. and my second question to america, stop dogging obama, listen to what other leaders around the world have to say about this man. this morning geor there was an interview with the president of russia and the man cares. and the bottom line, educate yourself and know what is going on in your own personal
interest. host: john, you made your point. any thoughts? guest: transparency in arms control is a major issue and closely tied to verification, but that's a more technical issue. host: not everything in the book is about this and here is a picture of woodrow wilson at the peace conference, what were the lessons learned? guest: i think the big lesson learned at the paris peace conference, while negotiation capacity for great benefits, it can cause to problems. that's what happened in world war ii, and also the problems we are dealing with in the middle east. it was a grand scale and also an example of what not to do.
host: tulsa, oklahoma, jesse, independent caller. caller: hi, thanks, i have a quick question. it seems to me that people towards the right end of the spectrum can criticize this president for anything he does, basically. no matter how sane or rationale it may be. basically they are sore losers. to anyone who understands the paradigm of this seems that reducing the amount of holocaust making weapons, would be a good thing. but it demonstrated to me with the republican gentleman that called in earlier -- host: all right jesse, this says
you were an election monitor. and the meeting in the republic of georgia, what was that like? guest: it was interesting, we have a system that monitors elections abroad. and the u.s. sends a part of monitoring of elections overseas. it's a wonderful opportunity to see democracy in progress. especially for some countries that it's a new and fresh experience, it's a wonderful thing to see. >> fredrick stanton's book, thank you for being with us. guest: my pleasure. host: up next we will talk to dennis quaid and dr. denham.
first radio. >> the national bureau of economic research though most show improvement in the economy it would be immature. the start date of this recession is december, 2007. how many many private economists believe that the recession ended in june or july of last year. in afghanistan troops open fire. four people were killed and anti-american protests are taking place. this is in the city where coalition forces hope to rally
against the taliban. two kidnapped in december, the taliban says that if french officials don't respond quickly, the lives of the two hostages will be endanger. today is 49 years since the first russian person rocketed into space. and 49 years since the first space shuttle launch. the shuttle launch gets down time today and carry out their mission tomorrow. those are some headlines on c-span radio. >> here are a couple of events we are covering today on c-span
network. this morning on the obama administration and the middle east, the woodrow wilson center is the host of this event, live at 9:30 on c-span 3. discussion about medical errors with actor dennis quaid whose newborn twins received accidental medical overdose, this is at 1 p.m. eastern on c-span 2. >> myggp philosophy is to ask questions when i think that the answer might give me a little help in deciding the case. >> after 34 years on the supreme court, justice stevens will step down and his best place to explore his life and legacy, is the c-span library, dating back
to 1985. watch it, scan it. >> all this winter middle and high school students from 49 states submitted videos, watch the top winning videos every morning on c-span just before "washington journal." and at 8:30 meet the students who made them. and for a preview watch studentcam.org. host: we are joined by actor and patient activist dennis quaid and dr. charles denham. dennis quaid a lot of people saw
your story, but why don't you start us at that point and what got you interested in the issue of patient safety. guest: my can have, kimberly and i had 2-1/2-year-old twins that are great. but they had to go in the hospital for an infection they had to require a round of antibiotics. and during their stay they were ingested twice with a blood thinner called heparin, unfortunately they received twoy were to receive. and it almost killed them. basically turned their blood into water. host: heparin is a common drug. guest: it's a commonly used drug used in the hospital to remove clotting. host: they are ok and doing
well, but at what point did you and your wife discover this issue? guest: at the first time they were administered the overdose, we were in the room, and no one in the hospital noticed until the second one was administered and that was on a blood strip. host: when it all played out, who was at fault? guest: it was a chain of events of errors from the pharmacy to the point of manufacturer of the heparin, to the pharmacy and the nurses station to the body side of the twins. the checks were missed twice along the way. it's totally preventible. that's the sad part about it. host: how long after the
incident and your twins got better, how did it come to make this a personal issue? guest: pretty much instantly, in the hospital after their ordeal, that these babies of 10 days old and will change the world in some way. and it started kimberly and i doing our research and started the quaid foundation. to try to make sure this doesn't happen to someone else's kids or loved ones. come to work with the quaids and tell us about your organizations and what are you looking to do? guest: i have the honor to work with wonderful teams all over the country that developed the standards for safe standards for u.s. hospitals. and in that work we are focused
not on the bad people but the bad systems that predispos these things. and this is like swiss cheese and things can get through. and i wrote an article to use their story as an example. and through dennis's father-in-law we got connected. dennis is an insider bringing awareness to this. host: how does this make you an insider? guest: it's a continuing education, i will say that. i never expected i would read as many medical journals about medical safety before the incident of our twins. i figured out really my role in
this is to really raise awareness because i am a public person. and i am glad to play that role. host: and part of that, you will be at the press club today to talk about this and take questions as well. we have phone calls waiting. just to remind folks of the numbers for the republicans, democrats and independents and others. before we get to calls, the number of problems, medical errors, compare that to other industries. are they higher? guest: staggering. in 1999 when the medical institute report came out in washington, there is 100,000 deaths. and then the cdc reported that almost 100 people die from
preve preventible and that's 20, 747 jet lines going down every week. and it spreads over all hospitals. host: how many people every year die from medical errors? guest: it's got to be over 200,000. and that's why the documentary we are releasing, is choosing zero, not just the harm, that's the story. but the biggest story are the winners all over the country saving lives with ordinary things. and we are excited about having dennis and his awareness. host: that's on discovery? guest: april 24 it will air.
host: what is driving the increase in medical errors? guest: we are treating sicker and sicker patients, faster and faster with more complex illnesses. they can't keep up with it. we have good people with bad systems. we believe an msd approach to medical harm could be magnificent to bring this number to zero. zero is the number and now we can do this. host: this book, you unveiling the practices? guest: there is a standard for federal government and all organizations can use. dennis will announce this year's version of this report and synchronized across the country.
and they are basic things you can do to save lives. we are helpful to him to put the wind in the sails of this. host: we have callers waiting. on democratic lines go ahead. caller: my primary question is how do we address the fact that physicians do not regulate their own profession to protect patient. and my experience, i had minor symptoms and went for testing =: severe c conditions. and after other doctors did the testing and a washingtonian top doctor, that had been good but over the years was erratic in his performance and the testing he had done was totally
insisteinsis insistent for muscle spasms and i now have medicine that i probably have to be on the rest of my life. and they knew this man's reputation. guest: this is why dennis and i believe that this standard is good to be met. the system is a guild system and it's more complex than aviation. but the scenario that was described is one that is not uncommon. we need transparency and regulation and new standards. host: are those scenarios more common than sudden emergency incident as what happened to your twins? guest: over 100 accidents, minor
or major, happen in every hospital in this country everyday. they go unnoticed and as chuck said, they spread out over the entire country. so the public never hears about them. and there needs to be a call-to-action for more transparency and for hospitals to share about their mistakes. like the aviation industry, when an airplane goes down it makes national news. and the same thing needs to happen in the medical industry. host: how willing was the hospital, i assume this was in los angeles, how willing were they to work with you to resolve the problem? guest: at the time that it happened, we requested the records immediately. and they were reluctant to give
them to us. we got them on the last day of our stay there. and really as a patient we felt like we were dealing more with risk management, more with lawyers and liabilities issues that be we were with medical personnel in the care of our twins. and that was very frustrating for us. i will say in the end that cedar's stepped up to the plate and installed safety equipment that improved safety at cedar's sinai. host: we have stan, good morning. caller: mr. quaid, i have watched you for many a years, you and your father. and i greatly appreciate the movies you have been in and what you stand for. i have some problems up here in
regards to the operations of the hospitals. i my fiance used to be on a very addictive drug, with opium base, she's weaned herself off of this, she's got a disk problem. she explained to them that she had weaned herself off of this addictive drug. he was complimented by the drug and then given an instruction to take this drug with opium base. that was an incident unnerving. when she went back a second time she was told there was not that
problem with the back. i find that hospitals pretty much do what they want to do and they will supersede what the primary caregiver has explained to the patient. giving this type of drug to a person what has weaned themselves off, that i find to be very destructive in a person's health. host: bee got your point, hear from dr. denham. guest: you bring up an excellent issue, and pain management is going to be a major concern, it's the reason why most go to see doctors, it's a huge problem in america. and the issue that you bring up is that these are highly complex issues. and we need standards and a
transparent system to weigh the choices. a lot of times it's a miscommunication between all the players. host: rosewood, oregon. caller: good morning, it's a privilege to speak to you. hello. i am sorry, my story gentlemen, my mother passed away january 20 of last year and passed away because she was administered drug thinner and she swelled up like a balloon. and i later found out, my younger brother called and told me she was administered the amount of this stuff, whatever it may be, for a person of about 250 pounds. she weighed 102. and i also found out something that you mentioned that the
third highest rate of mortality in this country, if you combine infectious disease along with this diagnosis, you come up with the third highest rate. it's incredible and i find it ironic that she passed away the day that president obama became president. it's a little too late in health care. i don't know what to do. the guy that administered was a nurse at the hospital. and he administered this stuff to her, and still grieve to this day. host: mike, we are sorry for your loss. guest: we are very sorry for your loss. we started the crane foundati q
foundation, we heard from so many people around this country that don't have a voice to express their pain. and that's part of what is wrong with this system, if there is a way for us to ban together for those who are advocates and victims and have family members, to get something done. host: i don't know if you mentioned heparin. a blood thinner. there was a story on cnn that there was a pharmacist in boston, the problem is the viles and the units per millimeter they all look-a-like. that seems like a common problem. guest: because specifically i believe because of the quaid event and dennis's championship
of this, those packages have been changed which is really important. but the caller brings up a key issue, in our hospitals today some cause harm. and that's when using technologies of order entry and systems like in aviation could prevent those. guest: the bottles may have been changed but the problem is not solved. we have had several incidents since then, two in corpus christi, and a week ago an infant child in nebraska died over the same confusion. and the quaid foundation as we tried to do, we advocate the advent of new technologies that are already available, like
bedside bar coding that is used in every grocery store and gas station that can scan the medication and the patient's bracelet and the nurse scans her i.d. as well. if there is an error, it will sound an alarm. host: here is boston, good morning from mark. caller: good morning, thanks for taking my call. first this goes beyond politics and the fact that it's independent or republican or democratic. host: mark, we just use that to separate the lines, but are right. caller: my grandmother passed away because of overdose of cumadin that put her in the hospital. and while in the hospital --
excuse me there say train passing by. but while in the hospital she couldn't chew. and the nurse was force feeding the chewables and to help make her take the medication. but she didn't make sure she swallowed the medication and aspirated some medicine and it ended up causing pneumonia and passed away because she was weak. and i want to pass on that high figures are out there in the community to help raise awareness of medical advocates. we really need them because the demand is so high and to have people by your side to be sure that things go well.
host: all right, mark, drive safely. guest: i am glad to hear people's stories today. because we do need to raise awareness in this country. even leading health care, people are really not aware of how big the problem is. and raising awareness, it's more than just knowing. statistics will hit the head, but they don't stay with you. it's about really hitting people's hearts and touching their hearts. because that gets the hands to act really. host: new orleans is next hello. caller: yes, i am calling from new orleans, louisiana and i am a registered nurse. i have a couple of comments, and i am thankful that your children are doing well. i have a few points and after the incident with your children occurred, my hospital was very
quick to respond to that. and they were very careful in the labeling of the heparin that we use on my unit. i work on a very busy 49-bed post-operative service unit. in the last year in the last four months we gave 145,000 units of medicine. and in nursing school we learned in the program that we have the five rights before giving medication. the right patient. the right drug. the right dosage. the right route of medication and the right time. and that's the most important thing to remember before giving medication. and so many errors would be prevented if the systems were in place, and not
constantly juggling five to six patients in a shift. host: it sounds like it's in place in your hospital. caller: very much. my question to mr. quaid, was this medication prescribed by the physician? guest: yes it was. to my knowledge it was routine because of the point of entry of the i.v., they were given heparin to prevent clotting. and since then in the pediatric ward at cedar's they are using saline as well. let me say we are not here to degrade caregivers, i revere them and believe that they are overworked and underappreciated. and working without a safety net most of the time. and you are right of the five rights, that are a check list,
if it's used, it will catch the problem. and it doesn't cost any money, it's the cheapest thing we have. host: she talked about the rights. guest: the right patient, the right drug, the right route and the right time. and what is important as a nurse a typical nurse goes to a medication cabinet 100 times and interrupted 80% of the time. the greatest nurse can't do everything right without the systems to support them. and that's why the documentary we are releagsing and nurses hae a check route for patients and safety. guest: caregivers are like all of us, we make mistakes.
if i make a mistake in my job, it's called take-2. if a caregiver makes a mistake it's a human life. and that's why we are talking about what they use in aviation. my wife and i e? in dallas where they introduced the bedside bar coding. and talking to the nurses, how do you feel like using it. and she said first i didn't like it, until it caught me in a mistake. and then very grateful we have it. host: here is pittsburgh with a question for mi question. caller: yes, (inaudible) marijuana what are the true side
effects? host: mike, we are having trouble hearing you, call back and make a better connection. virginia you are on. caller: good morning, i advocate the utilization of bedside bar coding. about five years ago i was taken to a hospital in the district. and after receiving surgery, i remember waking up in the morning and feeling very light headed. and i had been administered heparin and i recall lifting up my bed sheets and in a pool of blood. i had lost 75% of my blood because someone forgot to do a
blood count. i don't know if i was given too much heparin or just based on human error. i spoke to the doctor that was supposed to do the blood count. regardless i feel that i haven't discovered the courses of action or viewed my options. because after losing so much blood it did affect my body. guest: you know after an event like that, which we call an adverse event, we don't know yet what the reason is. but both the hospital and the patient should establish lines of communication immediately. and part of the safe practices that are be released that dennis is announcing today and one of the safe practice is disclosure.
and the first step in the first 24 hours is to establish the lines of communication. it's critically important to establish lines of communication and reach out. so it doesn't just go a legal route and others don't learn from it. host: the national equality forum is releasing this today, for medical hospitals and private practices. guest: we are fortunate to have webinars and we run 1,000 hospitals and 3-4,000 people. but we need people like dennis to build awareness. because these standards are established but unless mandatory, they are voluntary. we don't get them adopted fast enough. host: because you are near
capitol hill and pol tibitics p in it. what did the health care bill have to say about patient safety? guest: pretty impressive, we don't know how what is going in the bill, but there are things called hospital acquired conditions. that are safety events that shouldn't happen and should be prevented. and those will be tied into disincentives and incentives. and we think that's great. but however we need to be sure this really happens. guest: to tie performance, funding. it's like a report card for reports for hospitals, they have come up to certain standards and keep raising the bar. host: let's hear from los angeles, robby, hi, there.
l.a., you are on air. then from nebraska, elizabeth. nebraska make sure you mute your tv or radio. and go ahead with your question and comment. caller: yes, i had a mother in 2005 that had stent surgery done and prior to that she was taken off of her heparin. and she planned on retiring here in nebraska. and prior to leaving california she was never put back on her blood thinner and she was here a week and a day and had a stroke and blood clot. and why i am calling this morning, i have a husband i have been dealing with for the last five years, through seven leg surgeries and blood thinners. it's so important if you are a
caregiver or hospital employee, that you obtainwsr medical reco, those are available to you. you need to have a records check with your hospital, surgery and doctors. you would not believe the conflicts i have found over the years of regarding these incidents. i mean life-threatening. and i urge everyone obtain your medical records and keep a close watch and read over them. guest: after all, those are your medical records, they belong to you. and the heospitals sometimes it seems like they belong to them. and it's really important to be aware of your medical record. i advocate having our medical records put on a card that we can carry with us at all times. no matter where we are in the
world, they can scan a card. host: a few more minutes with dennis quaid and dr. denham. next up we have lauren. caller: i have been a trauma nurse for the past 30 years, and the best safety net i can suggest is to stay with the patient. when the nurse comes in the room, ask what the patient is being given. that family member is the best patient advocate ever. and it's only what they canái÷ until they find a better method of preventing these errors. and if the nurse has an attitude, then you need to stand your ground. i don't have a problem with any family member with a patient,
it's a great idea. guest: i think that's the most important thing. with our twins the first overdose they received happened while we were in the room. and i asked the nurse what she was giving the kids and she explained it to me. and at the same time the error was made while we were there in the room. so it forces you to ask every question and to keep asking those questions. host: have you addressed these issues with the american medical association? guest: we have wonderful contributors, we have over 500 contributors that are top experts that belong to the a.m.a., and we have synchronized them in 2006 with the members of leading involved in that. so we did really tried to get them harmonized across the
greatest number of organizations. and the release today are the most evidence-based and harmonized standards. host: we have new castle, good morning. caller: i am glad you have this on, this is very important. and i often talk about this to different people. my husband had to go in for open heart surgery in a hospital in pittsburgh. this hospital has some of the best, best doctors in the world. i know if from here you are life-flighted for any reason, you usually go to this hospital. he was ready for surgery and had to get out of bed to go to the bathroom. and he walked across the floor and realized there was dried blood on the floor. and i reported it and a lady
came in with a bottle of some spray and going to wipe it. and i said oh, my goodness, you really need some hot, soapy water with bleach. and i told her, if you get me the bucket i would do it for you. i was so upset about that. but nonetheless he came home with an infection and had to go to the hospital in new castle. and they were giving him five differe different antibiotics at a time. and this went on for a week before that infection was undercontrol. it's so important, you can have the best doctors in the world and if you don't have good housekeeping and cleaning. guest: i would like her to stay with me. guest: it's kind of exciting that the documentary that will be released.
dennis and i wanted to be sure it didn't just have the doom and gloom of hazards. we have stories in the documentary, one is a cleaning lady at the mayo clinic, and their outsourced product to measure the surfaces like remote control. and found out there was more bacteria on the remote control than other areas. and they developed a flight check list that we have in the cockpit that the cleaning people use. and we have a cleaning lady in the movie. guest: the documentary is april 24 it will premiered on television. we will premier in france at a medical health care summit. guest: dennis is the keynote speaker and will talk to hospital leaders, entitled don't
be the last action hero. guest: you are going overseas and what about what you have learned from hospital practices, are they different from the u.s.? guest: absolutely, same problem, good people, bad systems and we need to focus on the sweet spot of leadership, safe practices and technologies. if you have those together, you have a winning combination. and if you don't, you have one in 10 patients with adverse problems. guest: health care is stuck in the 1920's and this is as good as it gets in technology. host: omaha, nebraska, richard, welcome. caller: thank you for taking my call and i would like to thank dr. denham and mr. quaid for this subject. as you look at preventive medicine in the private sector
have you taken a look at awareness of the v.a. sector? host: did you say v.a. hospital? caller: yes. guest: in the last years the v.a. has been the superstar and dr. ajin leads that sector. they are doing a good job and all have the challenge of getting these systems up-to-speed. and this a federal approach, we have a great air traffic control system and aviation system, and this is why dennis and i believe that these practices are ready. guest: the aviation is a great
model, because they understand that they will be out of business if the public doesn't have confidence. host: in the times it talks about hospitals get busier as they are taxed with more patients. guest: that's why the opening summit where dennis will be the keynote and there are leaders from all over the world and we have don wright from washington and a number of leaders focused on this dynamics with huge demand. and a caller brought up intervention and we have a
masterful leader of prevention. and they understand the magnitude of the problem, but without awareness like from people like dennis, we can't get the word out on how much we can reduce. host: we have one more caller. caller: yes, thanks to c-span. for a person in a hospital setting or nursing home setting is a caregiver, the child taking care of their parents. i have two points, this generation leaving us, i lost my mother in january, she was 79. they are a secretive bunch, they don't want to give lose of the reins and they need to be more
forthcoming with information. and in the last stage for caring for my mother in the nursing home, i started to ask myself what is the definition of a nursing home. and i came up with the conclusion that it's a bare-minimum health care. and that the children need to be actively involved on a daily basis. and those are my two points. guest: one of the honored guests at dennis's speech today, there are 300 press and folks from government, is thomas hamilton and he leads for health care and the nursing homes and the dedication of the team to focus on nursing homes. and this is