passed unanimously. as the reductions, the programs have become more and more expensive, industry really started to push back to much greater extent. >> host: some industry hit harder than others by the act, say the coal industry? get guest oh, sure. that varies from administration to administration. the clean air does give significant discretion to epa. . . would agree that they've been especially aggressive in targeting cold fired power plants and coal mining. so that really wasn't the case under the clinton and bush administration but there's been a very aggressive effort for the last 5-1/2 years. host: as far as industries. what about their ability to push back? do they have cover? guest: i think another interesting fact too think about in the regulatory scheme is the technology forcing

provisions. there are many parts of the act that premise regulation based on the acnims quite quickly quite deeply, best achieveable control neck noling backed. maximum achieveable controlled technology. several others for various kipeds of sources and various kinds of situations. that can be helpful to industry who are typically able to develop some of those sorts of technologies and have a discussion with regulators such as eacha that it's frankly harder for citizens to become involved in because it's such a high technical level often. i think another point to be made about industry is companies often want certaintyty as much as they want

and i think that's a difficulty that has come out in a lot of the environmental laws. >> host: they want to know how does this affect my bottom line. >> guest: and they want to be able to plan and to invest and say, do we need to put $1 million into this scrubber system or do i not? >> guest: it's more like a billion dollars. so it is really quite expensive for some of his programs. >> guest: >> host: a scrubber system is -- >> guest: the uses something to reduce sulfur dioxide. if you're burning a lot of coal, sometimes if you're burning oil that has a high sulfur content. >> host: our guest teaches at george washington university. what do you do? who do you represent? >> guest: our firm represents primarily people in the energy

business. we represent companies that are involved in any kind of energy that you can imagine everything from coal-fired power plants to natural gas, developing exploration to refiners and wind and solar projects. our law firm where i've been now for the last seven years or merely represents the energy industry. >> host: lbj signing the clean air act into law, photograph provided to us about that event. we are talking about the ultimate impact of the clean air act with our guest, linda from texas, republican line. >> caller: i've heard several things about the epa coming afterward -- wood-burning so some people not using wood burning stoves in their homes anymore. is there any truth to that? and how come there's no one on your panel that's opposing the other side? >> guest: well, epa i think it's in the process of updating

regulations for wood burning stoves. >> host: it comes down to personal level. >> guest: it is remarkable the reach of the clean air act. the hairspray people use and the lighter fluid and the cosmetics and paints and coatings as well as vehicles. so the clean air act is extraordinarily broad. it regulates virtually every aspect. look around this room and all of these things here were produced at plants that are subject to the clean air act. >> host: was that result of further revisions of the act? >> guest: yes. it was very generic and no one anticipated you would have these sorts of programs. but over time as this it's become much more aggressive. >> host: what about the scope of who is effected by the clean air act? >> guest: the clean air act is brought. no question about that. i think that's appropriate. another thing that's quite interesting about the clean air act and environmental laws in general is the power of citizen

suits. that's something we've talked about so far. i think we as environmental lawyers tend to forget how unique they are, but the clean air act in 1970 and much of the subsequent environmental legislation as well adopted provisions, often talked about his private attorneys general in which citizens groups, individuals, and our mental groups have the power to enforce provisions of these statutes themselves. you don't have to lobby the epa or another regulator to take action. you have the power to take action yourself and i think that's a significant and powerful provision and tools that our citizens have to use. >> host: oughtn't oklahoma republican line, you're on with our guests. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i've been listening to you for 20 years. this is the second time i've goal. i just wanted to give credit where credit is do during this discussion about lbj.

it was, in fact, richard nixon who created the epa. he did so in 1970 by executive order which was then ratified by the senate and the congress. so let's not leave richard nixon out of this conversation. >> host: nixon's influence. >> guest: the caller is right. nixon created the epa in 1970. 1970 is when jeff and i both talked about some of the very important provisions coming into the clean air act. 1967 provided a starting point, but three years later is when many important things certainly happened. >> host: this is caroline from louisiana, independent line. go ahead. >> caller: yes. you still didn't answer the question as to who was running, was it a house of democrats or republicans under nixon whenever

he signed this act? and if he did it by executive order, was it -- it seems like it was bureaucratic mission creep to make. >> host: when it comes to the clean air act? >> caller: yes. bureaucracy in the enlargement of our government and the epa itself. and the encroachment on the individual or the companies. i just want to know if it was liberal democrats, congress, or if it was a republican congress under nixon since want to give nixon so much credit. >> guest: maybe i can just answer that. the clean air act was not created by executive order. that was done through legislation. and i don't know what the makeup of congress was but is largely uncontroversial back in those days. so the past the clean air act. the present create the epa by executive order. let me address the bigger

question that a couple of callers have raised, just the extent to which epa and other environmental regulators have been hinged on the things that people care about. i think there are a lot of people who believe that that is grown to an extent, and citizen suits, for example. our country is the only country in the world where people have that option. it's often abused in my view. you have well-funded opponents, people who want to stop the project on the particular plant if they're well-funded and well loaded up they can delay the building of a plant for years, and often try to drag it out enough so that the project is not completed. i think there is reason to be concerned and reason to ask, does the clean air act need to be changed? are the ways in which the regulatory apparatus has really gone beyond what is good for society. and i think that's a debate that

people are now having. my own view there are ways it should be changed. >> host: what are chief among them? >> guest: one of them, just the difficulty of citing and building new projects. even if you're using the world's best control technology to minimize emissions, that process can be abused to stop people for years and years. and i think washington is epa should set regulations so people know what they're shooting at. a lot of these decisions are made kind of on a case-by-case basis, and what that's like you as i said as a lot of uncertainty about what you're going to be allowed to build. if we have clear standards and people have certainty going forward, they would want to know if you want to build a plant, standards are stricter penalties they know where they are. >> host: are there any proposed changes you would like to see? >> guest: i think all of us can point to situations where

there's been more gridlock in a development and some of the proponents of the development may have thought was fair or right. i do think that citizen's ability to have a voice is important, and i think citizen suits are an important part of that, even if they are not used. even if they are present as a threat. i think that that has an important regulatory purpose. >> host: last from maryland. thanks for holding on. go ahead. >> caller: good morning. i have two questions and i apologize for my unfamiliarity with the terminology, but the woman on the panel mentioned the band are targeted substance during the period where the regulation was coming from h.e.w. was carbon dioxide. i was under the impression that came along much later.

>> guest: yeah, i did not, i said carbon monoxide, and that was one of the original criteria pollutants as jeff pointed out. we got into the discussion, the criteria pollutants without making the transition clear. those pollutants were articulate under the 1970s act, not the 1967 act. so it's carbon monoxide, and the called is completely correct. carbon dioxide, which is part of the greenhouse gases debate, has been a much more recent issue. >> host: >> guest: if i could address that question. when the clean air act was passed no one thought that carbon dioxide would be regulated. i think people generally agree with that over time. >> host: why so? >> guest: it just wasn't considered to be a pollutant. it was just a byproduct. we exiled carbon dioxide. a lot of the programs were designed to take pollutants and convert them into less harmful

substances, particularly carbon dioxide. and the other thing, it's finally different from any thing else that is regulated in the clean air act, and given just the volumes that are involved. a lot of clean air act programs just don't make any sense if you try to use co2 to deal with them. so until fairly recently no one really thought the clean air act could be used to regulate co2 emissions. and not under the obama administration for the first time after a decision by the supreme court they are trying to use the structure of the clean air act, and we're kind of at the beginning of the process and i think we'll see how that plays out, but that is controversial in particular a recent proposal that's come out which i think goes well beyond what epa can do under the clean air act but that's certainly a very big debate right now. >> host: this just coming on the wire at 11:00 today the epa

administrator gina mccarthy is only a conference to release the second and final urban air toxics report to congress. could you give some background as far as this survey and what does it mean? >> guest: sure. so the air toxics program really existed in a very nation for earlier but got a lot of teeth in 1990 amendments to the clean air act. so this is a set of pollutants that are different from the so-called criteria pollutants that we've been discussing earlier. and address air toxics which can be carcinogens, can be pseudo-toxins, that sort of thing. so this report will be expanding that program and providing further information.

>> host: -- >> guest: if i could point out, if you look at independent analysis of the clean air act, those programs have cost much more than the benefit has been worth. those programs have actually turned out to be very costly and post significant cost not only in business but on consumers. i think epa would say if we had the choice, we would spend less of a resources on those programs and more on other programs. so again in my view that's one of those things that could probably be fixed under the clean air act. >> host: how is it a cost to consumers? >> guest: if it's more costly to produce any type of a good, then that cost in large degree is passed along to the consumer. we are starting to see that in a much more significant way when it comes to power bills. as power bills have gone up significant over time, and that's for a variety of factors, but in recent years is primarily because of new and our mental requirements. that's why you see the cost of

electricity is much, much higher in california, much higher in the northeast and the other parts of the country because of those environmental requirements to post significant costs on consumers. so i can tell you that the paint you use for your house is more expensive because of environmental requirements, and those are passed to the consumer in many different ways. >> host: randy, hello. >> caller: thank you. i was wondering if the entire epa lives in the real world. have a look around and notice that there are no car manufacturing plants, no steel mills anymore? i couldn't even auto my truck in boston at a rest area because it was polluting. but if they just look around and see that we have nothing going on like we used to, mexico city, look at that place. we cannot control them.

i said i guess that stuff is floating over the tray, i don't know but i think the epa is an entity of the government that's really gone wild, you know? it's putting a burden on everybody. all the citizens of the united states. that's my comment. thank you. >> guest: that's certainly a viewpoint. there are others who would disagree and say it's okay if we're spending a little more for our energy. it's okay if we're spending a little more for our products. it's important to me that my kids have clean air to breathe and are able to go outside in a way that may not have been true in some areas in the past. we don't have killer smog's anymore. we have made a lot of progress. just make this point early on. we have made a great deal of progress. in the last 40 years on clean

air. and i think that's something to celebrate. >> host: from columbia, maryland, tom republican line. good morning, yes, good morning. i would like to thank lbj, especially his wife, lady bird. when i grew up in washington when i was a kid, the potomac was a toilet bowl. and not just washington. baltimore, it's berg, these are all places i visited as a kid. charles townes, richmond -- charleston, richmond all these cities that have beautiful areas around their water known. they were toilet bowls back in the '60s. something had to be done, and god bless that they did it. now, a year, that's another story.

-- air. washington doesn't have any industry in the air site other than power and automobile pollution, suffers from dirty air patterns from around the country. and we just have to do what -- and be good stewards of our environment. >> host: thanks, caller. anything from the? >> guest: i think it's true, goes back to our original discussions, that the problems were visible, workload a big issue back in the '60s and that's why there really was a consensus around all these issues. the issue now is, for example, people agree we want clean air. if we use the definition of clean air that was in place for many years, virtually everybody has clean air but that standard has changed.

and so there are debates over how much spending -- how much we should be spending. the other caller issued -- it is true there's been an incentive for especially heavy industry manufacturing as to move overseas. that's a product of a number of things but part of it is environmental regulation. i point out that california's that a significant manufacturing sector and significant industry, and almost and highly that it's been moved out of the state not as they've been subject to more and more stringent requirements. is a place where we have to draw the line because it does have an impact on jobs. it has an impact on cost and consumers. the question is how much more expensive are we going to make things. we've been blessed in this country with an abundant supply of natural gas, which is attracting more industry to certain parts of the country. there's concern that overregulation may basically stop that renaissance in the

manufacturing sector. >> host: are you saying that current epa standards for air or too low as far as the particles and things found in the air, too low and unachievable? >> guest: that's true certainly with ozone. ozone is a pollutant we begin with for 40 years. there are parts of the country that simply cannot meet the ozone standard the matter what they do, because of their local geography, because of natural conditions. i would argue a lease with respect to ozone standard is not achievable in certain parts of the country. states have a legal obligation to meet that standard even when people know it can't be met. that's another troubling part of the clean air act. >> host: what about these current levels? >> guest: it's an interesting political point, truly. it's hard to explain. jeff would say people understand that it can't be met. i'm not sure that the mother to his word about her kid with asthma running around and

playing understands that. and that's part of the political conversation and part of the education process that needs to go on. but we live in a democracy where individual citizens have a right to express their views and to help you decide whether or not an ozone level is too low or not. >> guest: i do agree with that but, unfortunately, as in many parts of our society there's a certain amount of demagoguery that goes on, and people are fond of referring to ozone medic julie. no matter what the bloom is, what impact the scientific issues are much more can't locate it than that. so the debate serve the needs to be had, but it's a difficult one because these are technical issues and people tend to line up on different sides of them. >> host: i'll ask you, we have a viewer off of twitter said if

you could comment on cuba thoughts as well about president bush's clear skies act an impact on the clean air act. >> guest: this action was something that i was involved in in developing back during the bush administration. the basic insights that we had, and it was shared by epa career staff and others, was that it te was a way that we could get greater environmental protection at a lower cost and provide certainty to the industry by setting very stringent standards but giving industry enough time to meet those standards, and to do in those cost effective way possible. unfortunately, we came up one vote short in the senate of getting the past, and begin that was largely because of the debate over co2 and the democrats in the senate said, well, this may be a good idea for those pollutants, but unless you also include co2 we are not going to vote for this act. so again i don't think there's, in my view, it's been clear that

would've been a more cost-effective way to get these reductions. you can argue over whether the capsule in the right place but it was an effort to provide longer-term certainty to the power sector. >> guest: another example of the difficulty of getting consensus on a legislative fix. because i think there were some valuable things of the clear skies initiative. it wasn't able to get through. certainly there can be disagreement. if we were able to have a democratic process in the congress to deal with some of these issues and actually get them passed, i think many of us would think that that was a better regulatory system, but epa is left with a circumstance where they are trying to adapt legislation from 1990 at the earliest by and large to

situations 30 years later, and that's a difficult thing. >> host: one more call for our guests. darrell from washington state. democrat line. >> caller: yeah, i've been listening to your audience. i'm originally from missouri, so tying beach missouri a one time was desolated by toxin. they may go back to the 60s with the bald eagle was decimated by the pollutant from all the other -- stomach so as americans, as we are progressive in our state and our country, we're a bunch of crybabies. we do not need to consume more than we need. and we need to be good stewards. for our children and beyond. so when we talk about jobs and so forth, i'm 57 now. i was in the military. my point is we have to come together to make this happen.

we have to put our differences and say, we can do this. as americans, as democrats and republicans. and the congress needs to come together and look down the road 20 years from now. these jobs are going overseas. now -- >> host: we have to leave it there. and you both talked about the divide these issues usually takes, you talked about coming together. is that a possibility on any front? >> guest: i think it is. i think that are people of good will on both sides of the spectrum. i think congress in particular is a difficult for him to make that happen, but i think a lot of policy can be developed outside that context. and certainly some work and guidance by congressional representatives can contribute

to the process yesterday i'd like to use the example of presidential ? >> guest: george w. bush was republican you took an active role in trying to get consensus through the congress. i'm critical of president obama who really didn't engage in the kind of consensusbuilding when he was trying to promote legislation. the problem we now have in my view is epa is trying to pound a very large square peg into a small round hole, and some people would say is abusing the authority of the clean air act. that will ultimately be decided in court probably, but i think there is an opportunity to come together. i'm still optimistic about that but i think it takes presidential leadership. that's the lesson of the clean air act in 1990, someone who could go out and talk to both

sides and find some common ground. we've not really seen that since 1990. but i'm optimistic that at some point the situation will be repeated. >> host: a discussion about lbj's great society, the clean air act. you heard from jeff holmstead, and robin juni with george washington university, environmental law professor. to both of you think you aspect thank you for having us. >> i'm greta brawner and this week on washington will be focusing on president lyndon johnson's vision for a great society and its impact today. tune in at 78 eastern time and join the conversation like calling us or send us -- singh as any move. you can send us a tweet and join a conversation on facebook.com/cspan. >> earlier today attorney general eric holder announced a $17 billion settlement with bank

of america over that institutions role in the 2008 financial crisis. he discussed the justice department wrote in the investigation looking at the murder of american journalist james foley by the group isis. is a look. >> yesterday as you know i visited ferguson in order to be degrees on the ongoing federal civil rights investigation into the august night shooting death of michael brown. investigation i launched more than a week ago. during the course of my visit i met with law enforcement as well as community leaders. we had i think constructive discussions about the importance of maintaining peace, averting future acts of violence or vandalism, and ensuring public safety as well as the need for outreach and engagement to rebuild a fractured trust between the community and the law enforcement. going forward i will continue to get regular updates and closely monitor the situation as it unfolds. although our investigation will

take time, although i cannot discuss the specifics of this case it in greater detail since remains open and very active, the people of ferguson can have confidence in the federal agents, investigators and prosecutors who are leading this process. our investigation will be fair. it will be thorough and it will be independent. at a personal note i've seen a lot in my time as a dr. angell but few things of effectiveness greatly as my visit to ferguson. i had the chance to meet the family of michael brown. i spoke to them not just as attorney general but as a father of a teenage son, myself. they want answers. in my conversations with dozens of people in ferguson yesterday it was clear that this shooting incident has brought to the surface underlying tensions that have existed for many years. there is a history to these tensions and that history simmers in more communities than

just ferguson. law enforcement has a role to play in reducing tensions as well. as a brother of a retired law enforcement officer i know firsthand that our men and women in uniform perform the duties in the face of tremendous threats and significant personal risk. they put their lives on the line every day and often have to make split-second decisions. a national outcry we've seen speaks to a sense of mistrust and mutual suspicion that can take hold in the relationship between law enforcement and certain communities. i wanted the people of ferguson to know that i personally understood that ms. truss. i wanted them to know that while so much else may be uncertain, this attorney general and this department of justice stands with the people of ferguson. i hope the relative calm we witnessed overnight last night can be enduring. a person yesterday, the people would take great pride in their town and the mistrust that

exists, they reject the violence we've seen over the past couple of weeks. in that sense while i went to ferguson to provide reassurance, in fact they gave me hope. my commitment to them is that long after this tragic story no longer be sees this level of attention, the justice department will continue to stand with ferguson. we will continue the conversation this incident has sparked without the need for trust building between law enforcement officers and the communities that they serve, about the appropriate use of force and the need to ensure fair and equal treatment for everyone who comes in contact with the police. >> a portion of the attorney general's remarks from earlier today. we will have is entire briefing later on a schedule or you can watch it online at c-span.org. >> here's a look at our primetime schedule on c-span networks.

>> and we wrap up today's look at washington or with your phone calls, facebook, spent weeks. this is about 25 minutes. >> host: for the remainder of our time, open phones. again the numbers, (202) 585-3881, republicans. (202) 585-3880 for democrats. and independents, (202) 585-3880 to. this from the "washington times." here's the headline from tom howell junior. tax for most new challenge for obamacare. he writes that --

>> host: you can read more in the "washington times" this morning. if you go to the pages of "usa today," a profile of texas governor rick perry and the headline from the store but ricky gervais.

rick perry comes out fighting. talks about his recent events. he goes on to say -- by the way,k perry >> host: by the way, rick perry scheduled to speak in washington at the topic is on immigration. in the address other concerns as well. you can see that live on c-span starting at 11:00. texas governor rick perry speaking here in washington, d.c. open phones, florida, democrat's line. good morning, hello. >> caller: hello. i wanted to ask a question from the other show that was on just before. mr. hamilton -- hello? >> host: mr. hamilton?

what do you mean? >> caller: well, he was the gentleman who's on the show just before tal talking about the cln air act. >> host: correct. go ahead. >> caller: i can't hear myself speaking. >> host: go ahead. >> caller: well, mr. homestead, i'm sorry. first of all, we are taught that in being a former government employee and representative of the environmental protection agency. but i would like to know his current position. i believe he is representing the coal industry. can you tell us exactly what he's doing right now? >> host: he is gone now but he did say during the course of her conversation that he represents a wide variety of energy industries. >> caller: no, he represents the coal industry very strongly. it's in his bio. >> host: okay. >> caller: okay, and then he talked about profits and how the business cannot exist under the clean air act.

well, the clean air act has been in existence since the first president bush put it in place. i'd like him to answer the question being that he represents the coal industry, the amount of profit the coal industry is making. >> host: well, he's no longer here, so he is not able to answer that question. let's move on to joe, austin, texas, independent line. >> caller: yes, good morning. i wanted to make a comment for the general public. what we are seeing in ferguson, missouri and the militarization of police, i hope that everyone has a chance to look at some of the photos, read some of the articles, things like this are happening more and more across the country i believe, as the government unloads excess surplus equipment. and as they unload, i believe as

much as $5 million across the country so far, i believe it's sending a message to the police that they are more military warriors involved in warfare more so than to serve and protect. i think it's setting a dangerous precedent for the future. i hope everyone takes notice of the pictures and photos and becomes more informed on this subject. thank you. >> host: philip from fairfax, virginia, democrat's line. >> caller: i just had a quick call on an arcane subject of tax policy. if anybody is listening, any republican candidates lately, including the speaker of the house, mr. bennett, the third republicans complain continued about taxes being too high, or taxes being too hot and spending being too high and they want to cut spending and want to cut taxes. if anybody would take the time to actually look at the statistics they will find for the last five years, except for

the first year of the obama administration, three items abound spending and those items are medicar medicare, medicaid,h care, social security, national defense. they add up to 60 boo% of the federal budget. if you throw in interest, we have to pay up to 70%. if they are serious about getting rid of the deficit, republicans need to stand up and say, let's cut social security, let's cut the fed, cut medicare or else they have to stand up and say we will raise taxes. you can't have it both ways. i wish they would be honest about this. that's all i have to say. >> host: national section of the new times. take a look at the 2014 section but in the longer context of the 2016 election -- unlike mr. obama, she is this

>> host: this is pete, district heights maryland. democrat's line. >> caller: yes. i was listening to the guy came on that y'all were talking to isis, people over there in iraq. and i think c-span should really need to actually come out and tell the truth and say that these guys was trained by the united states and the situation in georgia is nothing new. i don't know why you guys don't come out and say that. >> host: carlos, florence new york independent line.

>> caller: i have to comment. wanted you had the lady that was on early from the brookings institute, she talked about the poverty growing up. for to determine in the '90s to talk about urban sprawl. said it cut down on construction, and what she did mitchell is anything but this whole thing about regionalization. i live in nassau county and jeb was county and jeb westchester surrounding manhattan. these are wealthy suburbs of new york city. a lot of these to have wealthy suburbs. i don't think she was the most forthcoming about just type of the poverty growth in all these small towns, which i don't understand why we let it all the illegal immigrants coming to the country when we assume the americans they can't work and we have no manufacturing. i think she could have been a little more up front. the other thing about the two people from the epa, they are talking about like all the resources and everything that people don't mind paying a little bit more. people don't -- the epa is

basically is doing the work for the top 1% come all these people that are democrats and their liberals. all this whole thing about global warming, epa controls these forces. that's all it's about. that's more than enough food, more than enough of everything and they just want to use this whole thing about the global warming and the environment, an environment has improved. i have lived in the city. there was small in the '70s. now the air is fresh. they're taking to an extent i think it's great is on his like no one is watching them what to do. you know they're doing funny this is because why do the e-mails keep disappearing? in 2000 the e-mails disappeared. a couple years ago, all these left wing organizations who back and forth. all this is about controlling the resources and not letting people move in, out in the west. >> host: a fight taking place over a voting map in florida.

>> host: missouri. >> caller: i live in north county. and the issue in ferguson is not

poverty, because ferguson has very strict rules on the property there. the people are concerned about the violence against people that live there and the police -- michael was visiting his grandparents. he did not live there in that complex. and he was shot in broad, open daylight at 12:04 any afternoon and he laid on the ground for five hours before the removed his body. they are concerned about people being killed, nobody is doing anything about it. the black people are targeted. michael and all other people should be, feel like they can walk down the street on a saturday morning and not get shot.

>> host: (202) 585-3881 the line for republicans. (202) 585-3880, democrat's line. and (202) 585-3882. of your mention ferguson, missouri. attorney general eric holder in ferguson, a story that comes from the "washington post" says -- this took place before briefing that took place at fbi headquarters. he addressed the situatio situan ferguson potential of it of him talking with viewers. >> our investigation is different from that which the state is doing. we are looking for violations of federal and criminal civil rights statutes which is different from what the local investigation is. we have brought substantial number of people here, agencies, who denigrate job and if the canvassing been done over the

past week and. they continue to follow leads so that we can do a thorough and a third job in making a determination about what happened on august the ninth. i'm confident that through the ability of these people we will make, be able to make a determination about whether or not any federal statutes have been in fact been violated. >> host: that is attorney general eric holder. marietta, california, francisco up next, democrat's line. >> caller: good morning. yes, i have a question. why is the pashtun to longer offered a federal tax credit for people who want to buy a hybrid vehicle in 2014? and i asked because in 2008, i was commuting a 96-mile round-trip, and i bought a 2008 altima hybrid and received a 2050-dollar tax credit. it was worth it to me to buy a

hybrid vehicle but now there are no longer any federal tax credits. additionally i'm in the market for a new vehicle now and i would like to buy a factory option of having a gasoline and compressed natural gas vehicle. i used to work in the city palm desert planet department. they had a fleet of ford contours that you just flip the switch and it would go from natural gas to gasoline but that option is not being offered as a factory option for any car manufacturer selling cars in the united states of america host mike james, lafayette indiana, independent line. >> caller: in the words of the great communicator from mississippi, and most folks will know who he is, i think most of these people in washington are educated beyond their intelligence. thank you. >> host: reading, pennsylvania, republican line. >> caller: good morning.

i had a question about the situation in ferguson, missouri. our attorney general eric holder has gone down there, yet three days after that, after the shooting in ferguson, in salt lake city, utah, a white man was kneeling on the ground and was told to kneel on the ground and he was shot dead by a black police officer. now, i wonder why there is not the moral outrage of the incident in salt lake city, utah, as there was in ferguson, missouri? i mean, it's just a question i have. you have everything happening in ferguson, and nothing in salt lake city. what's the reason? >> host: what do you think the reason is? >> caller: i haven't the slightest idea. people like jesse jackson and al

sharpton and at times going into ferguson, missouri, are creating a hotspot situation just to stir up emotions. and they are completely ignoring the similar circumstance in salt lake city, utah,. >> host: what you think about the involvement of the attorney general and what's going on in missouri and him being there? >> caller: i don't think it's necessary for him to be their. >> host: why so? >> caller: why so? because that's putting the influence of the president on the situation when it's not putting the influence of the president on the situation in salt lake city, utah,. >> host: stanley from west virginia, democrat's line. >> caller: my name is joe stanley. i'm a retired union coalminer. you just had a segment on air about the clean air act and the environmental protection. people should come to southern west virginia and see what we have left after the extraction of coal. there's been approximately 2 million acres of mountaintop range in all the station, animal

life in goes without because of mountaintop removal. we are at the bottom of every list in america, or tied for every list. we were one of the richest states in america. we have one of the largest natural gas capacities, or the probability for improving natural gas. but our electricity is over 98% coal generated. our environmental laws, if it weren't for the u.s. epa, would not be enforced. the west virginia department environmental protection has constantly, constantly for over the last seven years, had over 250 vacancies in enforcement. if it weren't for the federal government, which runs over 50% of west virginia dep mining

permit -- positions, we wouldn't have any enforcement at all. >> host: anthony from mississippi up next. good morning. >> caller: yes, california. my name is anthony. you know, i think that tax breaks for foreign vehicles are just be done for foreign corporations. i think that if they aren't giving those tax breaks and more i think that's a good thing, along with trying to recover some kind of job situation for america. just a quick note on ferguson. i think that opportunity has to be the priority for cities like ferguson or any other city in this country. stockton, california, is another one where there's a lot of people who are out of work and people get out of jail and they can't get a job. so our situation is just being exacerbated strict because of a few free trade agreements. that's all i have to say.

>> host: the topic of president obama's vacation in the "washington post" this morning, saying -- >> host: memphis, tennessee.

hello. this is brian. >> caller: the guy that called from pennsylvania a few minutes ago, he referenced what was going on in ferguson and tried to parallel that with salt lake city, or utah. the media makes those decisions. that's not a decision that individual news outlets make. i mean, it's a big deal in ferguson. this guy was killed by ed -- by the police department. so just to comment on that, i think it's one. i think it makes no sense. but i think to draw parallel between the two is not, is not adequate. thanks. >> host: from michigan, here is john, independent line. >> caller: good morning. how are